From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jan 1 02:07:17 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:07:17 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Open Veins of Wales Message-ID: <495C87C5.5070601@ashisuto.co.jp> Dr Beeching helped turn the country I've come to love into an outpost of empire. Now his legacy can be reversed. by George Monbiot The Guardian {December 30 2008} A strange thing has happened to me over the two years since I moved to Wales. I have become susceptible to a novel and disturbing sensation: pride in my adopted country. England, the land of my birth, means nothing to me. The same goes for Britain. I despise nationalism. But I have been overtaken by an irrational impulse. I find myself supporting Wales in rugby, football (someone's got to do it, and we did beat Liechtenstein) and all its competing claims against other nations. This impulse arises from a number of observations, viz: 1. In two years of walking through the valleys and over the hills here, I have never been shouted at. 2. The cafe in the local leisure centre serves smoothies in measures labelled "small" (about a pint) and "regular" (about two pints). 3. When I wrote to a very active councillor, asking his permission to recommend him for a gong, he replied, "I would prefer not to seek such an honour". Through such observations, I have begun to form the impression that Wales is less socially stratified, less grasping, more liberal than the rest of Britain. Though I am an outsider, from the colonial power, with an unerring ability to wind people up, I have never been made to feel unwelcome here. And it seldom rains here, and then only at night. (That's not strictly true, but this is what nationalism does}. In this spirit I have to record that something is missing. Its absence offends my new-found national pride. It mocks our attempt to become a coherent country. It means that the Gogs (of North Wales) and the Hwntws (of South Wales) will forever be at each other's throats. It means that the greenest nation in the UK is locked into unsustainability. It is also bleeding ridiculous. As far as I can discover, this is the only country in Europe which you cannot traverse by rail without spending most of the journey passing through another. The only rail link which allows you to travel from north to south crosses the border near Llangollen and doesn't re-enter Wales until it approaches Abergavenny, 100 miles away. The railway map of Wales is a classic indicator of an extractive economy. The lines extend either towards London or towards the ports. As Eduardo Galeano established in The Open Veins of Latin America, the infrastructure of a country is a guide to the purpose of its development {1}. If the main roads and railways form a network, linking the regions and the settlements within the regions, they are likely to have been developed to enhance internal commerce and mobility. If they resemble a series of drainage basins, flowing towards the ports and borders, they are likely to have been built to empty the nation of its wealth for the benefit of another. Like Latin America, Wales is poor because it was so rich. Its abundant natural resources gave rise to an extractive system, designed to leave as little wealth behind as possible. Just as the railway network was developed largely for the benefit of another economy, it was dismantled for the same purpose. Wales was hit very hard by the Beeching cuts of the 1960s. Before that, one of the lines which could have been used as part of a North-South railway was flooded by Llyn Celyn, a reservoir which drowned the village of Capel Celyn in order to supply water to Liverpool. It was this act of enclosure which inspired RS Thomas's famous poem Reservoirs, in which he mourned ... the smashed faces Of the farms with the stone trickle Of their tears down the hills' side. The dam wall was built across the Bala to Ffestiniog line. Before Beeching, a handful of minor routes existed, which could have enabled a determined passenger who was prepared to make a few changes to travel from north to south, but there was no line either conceived or used as a long distance railway connecting the nation. Could such a railway be built? Thanks to the efforts of a remarkable man, the idea is beginning to seep into the national consciousness. Archimandrite Deiniol is the only Orthodox priest serving in North Wales. Bull-headed, magnificently bearded, he is the spokesman for Yn Ein Blaenau, a group set up to lobby for the regeneration of Blaenau Ffestiniog, one of the country's poorest communities. Unlike many other depressed Welsh towns, Blaenau has a way out: but it is blocked. It is surrounded - hideously - by the waste from its slate workings. The British government has a policy of replacing virgin building stone with mining spoil and rubble. The slate waste around Blaenau would supply Britain with roadstone for years, but it's stuck there until the Conwy Valley railway line is upgraded. Father Deiniol has been negotiating with the byzantine network of railway companies, authorities and regulators, and has so far been frustrated. But in doing so, he has learnt a good deal about how the railways of the United Kingdom work - or don't. He has also discovered that a railway can be critical to a region's regeneration, and that the north-south roads in Wales are close to gridlock. There are plenty of lobbyists calling for new roads, but Father Deiniol's plan is likely to be cheaper and more sustainable. His survey of the disused railway lines of Wales shows that there is one route - from Rhyl through Denbigh, Rhuthun, Corwen, Newtown, Llanidloes, Rhaeadr and Builth Road to Dowlais - which would require only two miles of new formation to link Holyhead to Cardiff {2}. The rest of the way makes use of current and former railways. He proposes that short feeder lines also be built connecting this trunk route to Mold, Llangollen, Oswestry, Bala, Hay-on-Wye and Brecon {3}. The One-Wales Line could not only offer a much faster journey than the current long detour through England, it would also knit the other railways of Wales into a coherent network, as it uses the north coast railway and crosses the Cambrian line and the Shrewsbury to Swansea line. It would help to regenerate a desperately poor region in the south called the Heads of the Valleys. The project would look rather like the Western Railway Corridor in Ireland, which is reopening 184 kilometres of disused lines between Limerick and Sligo {4}. The least the Welsh Assembly Government should do is to commission a feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis of Father Deiniol's plan. His railway would help Wales looks like a country again, rather than a depot for someone else's empire. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Eduardo Galeano, 1971. Originally published as Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina. Siglo XXI Editores. 2. Tad Deiniol, 3rd February 2008. Proposal for a Direct, All-Wales, Holyhead to Cardiff Fast Rail Link. Yn Ein Blaenau. If you would like a copy of this document, I can send it to you. 3. Tad Deiniol, 2008. Map of Proposed North South Rail Link and Feeder Lines. Yn Ein Blaenau. If you would like a copy of this document, I can send it to you. 4. See http://www.westontrack.com/ Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com | site by Tom Dyson http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/30/the-open-veins-of-wales/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 08:22:19 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:22:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza? Message-ID: December 31, 2008 Targeting Islamic University Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza? By NEVE GORDON and JEFF HALPER Not one of the nearly 450 presidents of American colleges and universities who prominently denounced an effort by British academics to boycott Israeli universities in September 2007 have raised their voice in opposition to Israel's bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza earlier this week. Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, who organized the petition, has been silent, as have his co-signatories from Princeton, Northwestern, and Cornell Universities, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most others who signed similar petitions, like the 11,000 professors from nearly 1,000 universities around the world, have also refrained from expressing their outrage at Israel's attack on the leading university in Gaza. The artfully named Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which organized the latter appeal, has said nothing about the assault. While the extent of the damage to the Islamic University, which was hit in six separate airstrikes, is still unknown, recent reports indicate that at least two major buildings were targeted, a science laboratory and the Ladies' Building, where female students attended classes. There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday. Virtually all the commentators agree that the Islamic University was attacked, in part, because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas, the ruling party in the elected Palestinian government, which Israel has targeted in its continuing attacks in Gaza. Mysteriously, hardly any of the news coverage has emphasized the educational significance of the university, which far exceeds its cultural or political symbolism. Established in 1978 by the founder of Hamas ? with the approval of Israeli authorities ? the Islamic University is the first and most important institution of higher education in Gaza, serving more than 20,000 students, 60 percent of whom are women. It comprises 10 faculties ? education, religion, art, commerce, Shariah law, science, engineering, information technology, medicine, and nursing ? and awards a variety of bachelor's and master's degrees. Taking into account that Palestinian universities have been regionalized because Palestinian students from Gaza are barred by Israel from studying either in the West Bank or abroad, the educational significance of the Islamic University becomes even more apparent. Those restrictions became international news last summer when Israel refused to grant exit permits to seven carefully vetted students from Gaza who had been awarded Fulbright fellowships by the State Department to study in the United States. After top State Department officials intervened, the students' scholarships were restored ? though Israel allowed only four of the seven to leave, even after appeals by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "It is a welcome victory ? for the students," opined The New York Times, and "for Israel, which should want to see more of Gaza's young people follow a path of hope and education rather than hopelessness and martyrdom; and for the United States, whose image in the Middle East badly needs burnishing." Notwithstanding the importance of the Islamic University, Israel has tried to justify the bombing. An army spokeswoman told The Chronicle that the targeted buildings were used as "a research and development center for Hamas weapons, including Qassam rockets. ? One of the structures struck housed explosives laboratories that were an inseparable part of Hamas's research-and-development program, as well as places that served as storage facilities for the organization. The development of these weapons took place under the auspices of senior lecturers who are activists in Hamas." Islamic University officials deny the Israeli allegations. Yet even if there is some merit in them, it is common knowledge that practically all major American and Israeli universities are engaged in research and development of military applications and receive money from the Pentagon and defense corporations. Weapon development and even manufacturing have, unfortunately, become major projects at universities worldwide ? a fact that does not justify bombing them. By launching an attack on Gaza, the Israeli government has once again chosen to adopt strategies of violence that are tragically akin to the ones deployed by Hamas ? only the Israeli tactics are much more lethal. How should academics respond to this assault on an institution of higher education? Regardless of one's stand on the proposed boycott of Israeli universities, anyone so concerned about academic freedom as to put one's name on a petition should be no less outraged when Israel bombs a Palestinian university. The question, then, is whether the university presidents and professors who signed the various petitions denouncing efforts to boycott Israel will speak out against the destruction of the Islamic University. Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel's Occupation (University of California Press, 2008). Jeff Halper Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Pluto Press, 2008). He can be reached at jeff at icahd.org. From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 08:41:36 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:41:36 -0500 Subject: [A-List] The Undoing of the Shadow Banking System Message-ID: December 31, 2008 In 2009, Economy Will Depend on Unlocking Credit By ERIC DASH and VIKAS BAJAJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Securitization, which works like a shadow banking system, has radically changed banking and the credit markets in recent years. Three decades ago, banks supplied $3 out of every $4 of credit worldwide. Today, because of securitization, that share has dropped to about $1 in $3. Unless financial companies can securitize debt ? which, in turn, depends on investors' willingness to buy the bundled loans ? credit will remain tight even if banks resume lending. "What started in 2008, and is going on now, is the undoing of that shadow banking system," said Alex Roever, a short-term credit analyst at J. P. Morgan Securities. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 10:43:33 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:43:33 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495D00C5.4090508@gmail.com> Their funding, and therefore their livelihood, is at risk. Read the comments at Feral Scholar in re: Human Terrain Teams http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/12/13/from-wikileaks-stranger-than-fiction/ Especially this (Mine): http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/12/13/from-wikileaks-stranger-than-fiction/#comment-297685 Regarding the CIA's involvement in the most mundane academic research. ...and: http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/12/13/from-wikileaks-stranger-than-fiction/#comment-301330 Robert Reed (2 posts back-to-back) on lame ML aphorisms (Supplied by someone we know), and how education is NOT NECESSARILY linked into the military-industrial complex, but there IS history, and tendency, that is mostly a waste of research time and citizens tax dollars. Leigh Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > December 31, 2008 > Targeting Islamic University > Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza? > > By NEVE GORDON and JEFF HALPER > > Not one of the nearly 450 presidents of American colleges and > universities who prominently denounced an effort by British academics > to boycott Israeli universities in September 2007 have raised their > voice in opposition to Israel's bombardment of the Islamic University > of Gaza earlier this week. Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia > University, who organized the petition, has been silent, as have his > co-signatories from Princeton, Northwestern, and Cornell Universities, > and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most others who signed > similar petitions, like the 11,000 professors from nearly 1,000 > universities around the world, have also refrained from expressing > their outrage at Israel's attack on the leading university in Gaza. > The artfully named Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which > organized the latter appeal, has said nothing about the assault. > > While the extent of the damage to the Islamic University, which was > hit in six separate airstrikes, is still unknown, recent reports > indicate that at least two major buildings were targeted, a science > laboratory and the Ladies' Building, where female students attended > classes. There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated > when the Israeli assault began on Saturday. > > Virtually all the commentators agree that the Islamic University was > attacked, in part, because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas, the > ruling party in the elected Palestinian government, which Israel has > targeted in its continuing attacks in Gaza. Mysteriously, hardly any > of the news coverage has emphasized the educational significance of > the university, which far exceeds its cultural or political symbolism. > > Established in 1978 by the founder of Hamas ? with the approval of > Israeli authorities ? the Islamic University is the first and most > important institution of higher education in Gaza, serving more than > 20,000 students, 60 percent of whom are women. It comprises 10 > faculties ? education, religion, art, commerce, Shariah law, science, > engineering, information technology, medicine, and nursing ? and > awards a variety of bachelor's and master's degrees. Taking into > account that Palestinian universities have been regionalized because > Palestinian students from Gaza are barred by Israel from studying > either in the West Bank or abroad, the educational significance of the > Islamic University becomes even more apparent. > > Those restrictions became international news last summer when Israel > refused to grant exit permits to seven carefully vetted students from > Gaza who had been awarded Fulbright fellowships by the State > Department to study in the United States. After top State Department > officials intervened, the students' scholarships were restored ? > though Israel allowed only four of the seven to leave, even after > appeals by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "It is a welcome > victory ? for the students," opined The New York Times, and "for > Israel, which should want to see more of Gaza's young people follow a > path of hope and education rather than hopelessness and martyrdom; and > for the United States, whose image in the Middle East badly needs > burnishing." > > Notwithstanding the importance of the Islamic University, Israel has > tried to justify the bombing. An army spokeswoman told The Chronicle > that the targeted buildings were used as "a research and development > center for Hamas weapons, including Qassam rockets. ? One of the > structures struck housed explosives laboratories that were an > inseparable part of Hamas's research-and-development program, as well > as places that served as storage facilities for the organization. The > development of these weapons took place under the auspices of senior > lecturers who are activists in Hamas." > > Islamic University officials deny the Israeli allegations. Yet even if > there is some merit in them, it is common knowledge that practically > all major American and Israeli universities are engaged in research > and development of military applications and receive money from the > Pentagon and defense corporations. Weapon development and even > manufacturing have, unfortunately, become major projects at > universities worldwide ? a fact that does not justify bombing them. > > By launching an attack on Gaza, the Israeli government has once again > chosen to adopt strategies of violence that are tragically akin to the > ones deployed by Hamas ? only the Israeli tactics are much more > lethal. How should academics respond to this assault on an institution > of higher education? Regardless of one's stand on the proposed boycott > of Israeli universities, anyone so concerned about academic freedom as > to put one's name on a petition should be no less outraged when Israel > bombs a Palestinian university. The question, then, is whether the > university presidents and professors who signed the various petitions > denouncing efforts to boycott Israel will speak out against the > destruction of the Islamic University. > > Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at > Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel's Occupation > (University of California Press, 2008). > > Jeff Halper Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee > Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of An Israeli in > Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Pluto Press, > 2008). He can be reached at jeff at icahd.org. > > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jan 1 11:47:15 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:47:15 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Russian strategist predicts breakup of the US Message-ID: <6E7D6FCD16AA4AD98E00577A1432E5E0@TonyPC> "At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S." http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123051100709638419-lMyQjAxMDI4MzMwMDUzMTAxWj.html As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010 By ANDREW OSBORN MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media. [Prof. Panarin] Igor Panarin In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger." Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations. But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories. A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire. "There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S. Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control. In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today. Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union." Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water. Mr. Panarin's r?sum? includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia. The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified." In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010. "When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me." At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S. He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in. California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia. "It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin. Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator. Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles." The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter. For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says. The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin. [Igor Panarin] Write to Andrew Osborn at andrew.osborn at wsj.com http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123051100709638419-lMyQjAxMDI4MzMwMDUzMTAxWj.html From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jan 1 11:57:54 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:57:54 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Ukraine: 'Orange' Ukrainian Provocations Disaster For Europe Message-ID: <7FF25B8168034A6D998FD4AB0229DFB7@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:43 AM Subject: [stopnato] New Year: 'Orange' Ukrainian Provocations Disaster For Europe http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=38000&cid=56&p=01.01.2009 Voice of Russia January 1, 2009 UKRAINIAN POLITICS COMPROMISE GAS SUPPLY TO EUROPE Alexei Dyakonov There is no agreement with Ukraine about Russian sales of natural gas to it in the incoming year. President Dmitri Medvedev sees two important aspects to this. He was speaking after a Kremlin meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: First, Ukraine is apparently hostage to partisan politics and its government is close to full paralysis. Second, Ukrainian squabbles compromise the flow of Russian natural gas to Europe. This denies the Ukrainians credit in their attempts to secure a partnership with the European Union. If the required agreements are to be ever signed, common sense must prevail in Kiev. Under standing contracts for the period to 2011, Ukraine must allow the annual transit of at least 110 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas to Europe. In pronouncements on Wednesday, however, it threatened to block this transit. Prime Minister Putin reacted to the threat by warning Ukraine of severe damage to that country's relations with the European Union, as well as the Russian Federation. In 2008, the price of 'Gazprom''s natural gas for Ukraine was 179.5 dollars per thousand cubic metres. Now that 'Gazprom' suppliers Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan ask a realistic 340 dollars, the rate has to go up. Mindful of economic difficulties on the Ukrainian side, 'Gazprom' offers Ukraine a discount price of 250 dollars per thousand cubic metres. Unfortunately, there is no deal in the offing. The bargaining is dragging on, with Ukraine threatening to siphon off Russian gas from transit pipelines. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=38005&cid=56&p=01.01.2009 Voice of Russia January 1, 2009 UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT'S NEW YEAR PRESENT IS BOMB FOR EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY Kontantin Garibov -A lack of a gas agreement with Russia is the result of the current political and, probably, financial default in Ukraine. The Ukrainian's president New Year present for Europe is a bomb for its energy security. Several hours before the New Year the Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko recalled from Moscow a Ukrainian delegation conducting talks with the Russian GAZPROM company on deliveries of Russian gas. Several hours earlier he actually vetoed a short visit to Moscow of Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko who intended to promote success at the gas talks. As a result, the head of the GAZPROM company Alexei Miller had to make a rather grim statement in the New Year night. This is what he said: Talks with Ukraine on gas deliveries in 2009 produced no results. Ukraine did not pay for the Russian gas which was delivered earlier. Despite all oral assurances of the Kiev authorities, GAZPROM has not received any money to its account. The Russian suggestion of continued gas deliveries on privileged terms in 2009 was rejected. This gives the impression that there are political groups in Ukraine which are interested in a continued gas conflict. Since January 1 Russia has stopped gas deliveries to Ukraine because a relevant contract is lacking. The conflict was brewing in recent months, and from the very beginning Moscow warned Europe that there was no certainty that Ukraine would not steal Russian gas from the pipe on its territory which transports gas to Europe. Kiev promised not to steal gas meant for Europe but on New Yearsn Eve gave up its promise. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made a point of this at a special meeting on gas with president Dmitry Medvedev. Here is more from him: Our Ukrainian partners officially informed us that Ukraine would interfere with Russian gas deliveries to consumers in West Europe if no contract on gas deliveries with Ukraine is signed. We see this stance as economically and legally incorrect. Grave political consequences of the move are also clear. Actually, Ukraine confesses that it is not reliable as a transit country. Ukrainian statements that it will confiscate Russian gas meant for Europe is nothing else but blackmail of both Russia and Europe which become hostages of the clashes between political groups in Ukraine: political showdowns between the president and the Prime Minister and their supporters in all echelons of power, including the Defense and related ministries and monetary bodies. A lack of a gas agreement with Russia is the result of the current political and, probably, financial default in Ukraine. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jan 1 11:59:04 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:59:04 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Washington's New Year Present: Proxy Fuel Crisis In Europe Message-ID: <290A92FD744F4631B796E2B72B2D23C6@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 11:28 AM Subject: [stopnato] Washington's New Year Present: Proxy Fuel Crisis In Europe http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3912916,00.html Deutsche Welle January 1, 2009 Russia Says Ukraine Threatening Europe's Gas Supply -Gazprom officials said they had received a letter from Ukraine's state energy firm Naftogaz stating that if Russia turns off the gas, Ukraine could confiscate Russian fuel bound for Western Europe. Gazprom chairman Alexander Medvedev produced a copy of the letter at a news conference in Moscow on Wednesday. Russian gas exporter Gazprom has warned customers in Europe that Ukraine may interrupt supplies by siphoning fuel from transit pipelines should Russia cut deliveries to the country. In the latest chapter in a row over money Ukraine owes Russia for gas deliveries, a Gazprom spokesman accused Ukraine of threatening Europe's gas supply on state television. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials entered last-ditch talks in Moscow to avoid a gas supply cutoff on January 1. Ukraine has already pledged to pay as much as $2 billion in debt for gas supplies delivered in 2008. But disagreements remain over the price Ukraine would pay for Russian gas in 2009 - a major stumbling block to the two sides signing a new contract to replace the current one that expires at the end of this year. The accusation of blackmail is not helping matters. Gazprom officials said they had received a letter from Ukraine's state energy firm Naftogaz stating that if Russia turns off the gas, Ukraine could confiscate Russian fuel bound for Western Europe. Gazprom chairman Alexander Medvedev produced a copy of the letter at a news conference in Moscow on Wednesday. "It is impossible to view the letter as anything less than blackmail," Medvedev told journalists in the televised conference. "This puts us in a situation when transit volumes to western Europe are in danger." He said the move undercut Ukraine's credibility as a gas transit partner and violated its contracts for shipping on gas supplies to Europe. "Frankly speaking, if yesterday we were putting the chances at 50:50, today it is maybe a 70:30 probability of a crisis scenario," spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov told a news conference. Western Europe dependent on Russia Europe receives roughly one-quarter of its natural gas from Russia, over 80 percent of those supplies are exported via Ukrainian pipelines. Ukraine, during a 2006 Russian gas cut-off, siphoned some of the Russian gas destined for Europe, causing price spikes as far away as Paris. In order to avoid a repeat of those events, the government of Ukraine yesterday ordered two state banks to lend Naftogaz $2 billion to settle the debt. An announcement by Naftogaz earlier that it had transferred $1.5 billion to middle-man gas trading firm Rosukrenergo for the settlement of its debt had looked to be a breakthrough in talks. Medvedev confirmed that the money had reached Rosukrenergo, a Russian-Ukrainian intermediary based in Switzerland, adding he hoped it would soon be added to Gazprom's accounts. But Gazprom's allegations of blackmail against Naftogaz have now created an "unprecedented" situation, Kupriyanov said, adding that the chances of reaching a deal now before midnight are highly unlikely. In Kiev, Naftogaz declined to comment on the letter. But President Viktor Yushchenko's First Deputy Chief of Staff, Oleksander Shlapak, said Ukraine guranteed uninterrupted transit of Russian gas to Europe through its territory. Gas cuts to Ukraine would start at 10 a.m. (0700 GMT) January 1, if a new contract for gas supplies to Ukraine was not signed by the end of day, Kupriyanov said. EU calls for negotiated settlement The European Commission called Wednesday for a "negotiated settlement" between Russia and Ukraine over the gas supply row. "We are following developments very closely." said commission spokeswoman Christiane Hohmann. EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs "talked to both sides on Monday, encouraging them to find a negotiated solution." =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jan 1 12:02:35 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:02:35 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs Message-ID: <0AB2A71DB7DD47298EAE782370C0B875@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "grok" To: "undisclosed-recipients:" Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:49 AM Subject: IRAN: Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs > > Here's one 'reality check' on the Bolivarian Revolution: its > relationship with the 'brother revolutionary' r??gime in > Iran: a r??gime with which it has strategic international > relations -- and with which it is becoming more and more > intimately involved economically, if not politically. > > And AFAIC, there are essentially 2 sorts of "bolivarians" > inside (and outside) Venezuela, in regards to this and other > issues: those who will be 'offended/upset/angry/'etc. with > such as this email -- as it 'impugns the honor'[sic], etc. > of "their" Revolution; and those who will be offended/upset/ > angry/etc. that a supposed 'socialist' revolution is now > caught up in strategic relations with such unsavory > characters as the lot running this brutal, rather bourgeois, > anti-worker "revolutionary" islamist r??gime in Iran. > > Point is: it's really time to sh!t -- or get off the pot -- > Hugo, on any number of matters regarding the "Bolivarian > Socialist Revolution; and not just regarding this one > particular (egregious) example. And it is also in situations > like this that real socialists *have quite a lot of de facto > leverage with the bolivarian government* -- thru the threat > of being able to mobilize the venezuelan masses against the > 'Endogenous Right' elite's pet economic and strategic plans > involving foreign pseudo-revolutionary business partners... > Assuming there's even a true revolution going on inside > Venezuela itself, in the first place (an extremely relevant > question to ask, in fact) -- and not just some social- > democratic (i.e. essentially pro-capitalist) dog-and-pony > show. > > > - -- grok. > > > > ><3FEABDD7C2044306B75B11D377975E7F at j8d1b935ebaff4> > > International Labour Solidarity Committee of the > Worker-communist Party of Iran > > 30 December 2008 > > > > Iran: workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs > > > > In the past few days Iran's Islamic authorities have started > a new wave of arrest and detention of worker activists. > > On Saturday Ebrahim Madadi, deputy secretary of the Union of > Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, was arrested by > plain clothes men in the presence of the security forces. He > is believed to have been taken to Tehran's Evin Prison. > > On 22 December, Bijan Amiri, member of the Co-ordinating > Committee to form Workers' Organisations and an employee of > Iran Khodro car company, was detained by the plant's > security office (Herasat) and handed over to the security > forces. > > On the same evening, Mohsen Hakimi, who was visiting Mr > Amiri's residence, was arrested during a raid by the > security forces. Mr Hakimi is a member of Iranian Writers' > Association and also a member of the Co-ordinating Committee > to form Workers' Organisations. According to Mr Hakimi's > lawyers and family, both men are being held in Ward 209 (the > intelligence ministry's interrogation quarter) of Evin > Prison. > > On 23 December, Bakhtiar Rahimi was arrested by security > officers in the Kurdistan province and taken to an unknown > location. Mr Rahimi spent some months in prison last year > and was only recently released. > > On 24 December, Pedram Nasrollahi, member of the > Co-ordinating Committee to form Workers' Organisations, was > arrested during a raid on his home by the intelligence > ministry officers. Some of his personal effects were also > seized. > > Meanwhile, according to Tehran bus workers' union, members > of the union's management board have received phone calls > asking them to contact the authorities, but they have said > they would only respond to written summons, and no summons > have been received. Six members of the union's management > board, namely Yaghoub Salimi, Saeed Torabian, Ata Babakhani, > Ali Zadeh Hussein, Abbas Najand Kouhi and Davood Razavi, are > currently under suspended sentences of from 6 to 14 months, > while the union's president Mansoor Osanlou has been in > prison for one and a half years. Ebrahim Gohari, another > board member, is awaiting a court verdict. > > In another development, on 20 December, five members of the > management board of the newly-formed Union of Haft Tappeh > Sugar Cane Workers, namely Ali Nejati, Fereydoon Nikoofard, > Ghorban Alipour, Jalil Ahmadi and Mohammad Heydari Mehr, > appeared in court in the city of Dezfoul, but no verdicts > have yet been issued. > > The arrests and intimidations come amidst widespread > protests and strikes across the country over unpaid wages, > layoffs and plant closures. In the mean time, several > workers' organisations, including the Free Union of Workers > in Iran, Union of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company > and Union of Haft Tappeh Sugar Cane Workers, have initiated > a national pay campaign, which is attracting increasing > attention among workers around the country (more on this on > www.kargaran.org). > > In an interview with Rooz website yesterday, Saeed Torabian, > Public Relations Officer of Tehran bus workers' union, > said: > > "These pressures have not started today or yesterday. From > the moment workers have become aware of their rights, > regarded independent workers' organisations and genuine > representatives as their certain right and started uniting, > such pressures have increased. At the same time, due to > grievances such as low pay, fall in workers' purchasing > power, rent rises and arbitrary firings, we have witnessed > numerous protests across the country and the turning of > large numbers of workers towards independent workers' > organisations. This too has led to worker activists coming > under increased pressure. However, fortunately, these > incidents have not had any impact on workers and worker > activists, and until they get their rights, they will not > back down an inch". > > > > * * * > > > Please send letters of protest to the ministries of the > Islamic Republic of Iran, calling for the release of all > those arrested and an end to persecution of workers: > > > > Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei > > Office of the Supreme Leader > Islamic Republic Street > Shahid Keshvar Doust Street > Tehran, Iran > Email: info at leader.ir > > > Mahmoud Ahmadinejad > > The Presidency > Palestine Avenue, > Azerbaijan Intersection > Tehran, Iran > Email: dr-ahmadinejad at president.ir > > > > Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi > > Office of the Head of the Judiciary > Pasteur St.,Vali Asr Ave., > South of Serah-e Jomhouri, > Tehran, Iran > Email: info at dadgostary-tehran.ir > > > > > > www.kargaran.org www.rowzane.com www.newchannel.tv > > - ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > > > > > - -- > *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *************************************** > * BOYCOTT BOURGEOIS MASS-MEDIA * RSS/XML newsfeeds from around * > * Use these links in RSS readers * the planet: Who needs CNN/Fox? * > **** Critical endorsement only **** Most sites need donations **** > * http://rss.newstandardnews.net/envirohealth_1.xml Enviro & Health* > * http://cat.radicaldesigns.org/rssfeed.php Stop Caterpillar * > * http://auto_sol.tao.ca/taxonomy/feed/or/135 Autonomy & Solidarity* > * http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/atom.xml CANNONFIRE * > * http://www.indybay.org/syn/newswire.rss SF Bay Area Indymedia * > *** When the banks do well you can be sure the people aren't *** > GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFJXOX4Xo3EtEYbt3ERAnflAKCtcmiCeVoRnfAaMBnMxbCtytRiagCdGXxA > TMj0E22Gph5rlfr1EXv+938= > =dBsM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jan 1 12:04:52 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:04:52 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Russia To Rush Humanitarian Supplies To Gaza Message-ID: <2C6B5424C2C441BCB3DBB94E4FC366C4@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:42 AM Subject: [stopnato] Russia To Rush Humanitarian Supplies To Gaza http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13438992&PageNum=0 Itar-Tass January 1, 2008 Russia to send humanitarian supplies to Gaza Strip soon - Lavrov MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke in favour of rallying the Palestinian forces, the Russian Foreign Ministry said after a telephone conversation between the Russian foreign minister and head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic movement Hamas Khaled Mashaal on Wednesday. The sides discussed in detail a sharply deteriorating situation in the Gaza Strip after Israel had launched a large-scale military operation. "Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for an immediate mutual ceasefire and expressed profound concerns over a dramatic humanitarian situation emerging in the Gaza Strip. Lavrov informed Mashaal about Russia's plans to send humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip soon," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "In reply to an address of the Russian minister Mashaal stated about his readiness to stop the armed confrontation, but along with lifting the blockade from the Gaza Strip. The Hamas leader outlined the movement's position on resuming the dialogue within inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. He also thanked Russia for additional humanitarian supplies and pledged to give the possible assistance in the evacuation of citizens from Russia and CIS states from the Gaza Strip, noting, "the conditions of the Gaza Strip blockade and the Israeli armed attack complicate the situation." =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 12:36:01 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:36:01 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs In-Reply-To: <0AB2A71DB7DD47298EAE782370C0B875@TonyPC> References: <0AB2A71DB7DD47298EAE782370C0B875@TonyPC> Message-ID: The Worker-communist Party of Iran piggybacking itself on labor activists in Iran is detrimental to the cause of labor in Iran. -- Yoshie On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Tony B. wrote: >> <3FEABDD7C2044306B75B11D377975E7F at j8d1b935ebaff4> >> >> International Labour Solidarity Committee of the >> Worker-communist Party of Iran >> >> 30 December 2008 >> >> >> >> Iran: workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs >> >> >> >> In the past few days Iran's Islamic authorities have started >> a new wave of arrest and detention of worker activists. >> >> On Saturday Ebrahim Madadi, deputy secretary of the Union of >> Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, was arrested by >> plain clothes men in the presence of the security forces. He >> is believed to have been taken to Tehran's Evin Prison. >> >> On 22 December, Bijan Amiri, member of the Co-ordinating >> Committee to form Workers' Organisations and an employee of >> Iran Khodro car company, was detained by the plant's >> security office (Herasat) and handed over to the security >> forces. >> >> On the same evening, Mohsen Hakimi, who was visiting Mr >> Amiri's residence, was arrested during a raid by the >> security forces. Mr Hakimi is a member of Iranian Writers' >> Association and also a member of the Co-ordinating Committee >> to form Workers' Organisations. According to Mr Hakimi's >> lawyers and family, both men are being held in Ward 209 (the >> intelligence ministry's interrogation quarter) of Evin >> Prison. >> >> On 23 December, Bakhtiar Rahimi was arrested by security >> officers in the Kurdistan province and taken to an unknown >> location. Mr Rahimi spent some months in prison last year >> and was only recently released. >> >> On 24 December, Pedram Nasrollahi, member of the >> Co-ordinating Committee to form Workers' Organisations, was >> arrested during a raid on his home by the intelligence >> ministry officers. Some of his personal effects were also >> seized. >> >> Meanwhile, according to Tehran bus workers' union, members >> of the union's management board have received phone calls >> asking them to contact the authorities, but they have said >> they would only respond to written summons, and no summons >> have been received. Six members of the union's management >> board, namely Yaghoub Salimi, Saeed Torabian, Ata Babakhani, >> Ali Zadeh Hussein, Abbas Najand Kouhi and Davood Razavi, are >> currently under suspended sentences of from 6 to 14 months, >> while the union's president Mansoor Osanlou has been in >> prison for one and a half years. Ebrahim Gohari, another >> board member, is awaiting a court verdict. >> >> In another development, on 20 December, five members of the >> management board of the newly-formed Union of Haft Tappeh >> Sugar Cane Workers, namely Ali Nejati, Fereydoon Nikoofard, >> Ghorban Alipour, Jalil Ahmadi and Mohammad Heydari Mehr, >> appeared in court in the city of Dezfoul, but no verdicts >> have yet been issued. >> >> The arrests and intimidations come amidst widespread >> protests and strikes across the country over unpaid wages, >> layoffs and plant closures. In the mean time, several >> workers' organisations, including the Free Union of Workers >> in Iran, Union of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company >> and Union of Haft Tappeh Sugar Cane Workers, have initiated >> a national pay campaign, which is attracting increasing >> attention among workers around the country (more on this on >> www.kargaran.org). >> >> In an interview with Rooz website yesterday, Saeed Torabian, >> Public Relations Officer of Tehran bus workers' union, >> said: >> >> "These pressures have not started today or yesterday. From >> the moment workers have become aware of their rights, >> regarded independent workers' organisations and genuine >> representatives as their certain right and started uniting, >> such pressures have increased. At the same time, due to >> grievances such as low pay, fall in workers' purchasing >> power, rent rises and arbitrary firings, we have witnessed >> numerous protests across the country and the turning of >> large numbers of workers towards independent workers' >> organisations. This too has led to worker activists coming >> under increased pressure. However, fortunately, these >> incidents have not had any impact on workers and worker >> activists, and until they get their rights, they will not >> back down an inch". >> >> >> >> * * * >> >> >> Please send letters of protest to the ministries of the >> Islamic Republic of Iran, calling for the release of all >> those arrested and an end to persecution of workers: >> >> >> >> Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei >> >> Office of the Supreme Leader >> Islamic Republic Street >> Shahid Keshvar Doust Street >> Tehran, Iran >> Email: info at leader.ir >> >> >> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad >> >> The Presidency >> Palestine Avenue, >> Azerbaijan Intersection >> Tehran, Iran >> Email: dr-ahmadinejad at president.ir >> >> >> >> Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi >> >> Office of the Head of the Judiciary >> Pasteur St.,Vali Asr Ave., >> South of Serah-e Jomhouri, >> Tehran, Iran >> Email: info at dadgostary-tehran.ir From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 12:58:31 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 14:58:31 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Russia To Rush Humanitarian Supplies To Gaza In-Reply-To: <2C6B5424C2C441BCB3DBB94E4FC366C4@TonyPC> References: <2C6B5424C2C441BCB3DBB94E4FC366C4@TonyPC> Message-ID: "Soon"? Why not now? If anyone can safely break the Israeli siege of Gaza, that's Russians. -- Yoshie On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Tony B. wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff > To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:42 AM > Subject: [stopnato] Russia To Rush Humanitarian Supplies To Gaza > > > http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13438992&PageNum=0 > > Itar-Tass > January 1, 2008 > > Russia to send humanitarian supplies to Gaza Strip > soon - Lavrov > > MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke > in favour of rallying the Palestinian forces, the > Russian Foreign Ministry said after a telephone > conversation between the Russian foreign minister and > head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic movement > Hamas Khaled Mashaal on Wednesday. The sides discussed > in detail a sharply deteriorating situation in the > Gaza Strip after Israel had launched a large-scale > military operation. > > "Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for an immediate > mutual ceasefire and expressed profound concerns over > a dramatic humanitarian situation emerging in the Gaza > Strip. Lavrov informed Mashaal about Russia's plans to > send humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip soon," > the Russian Foreign Ministry said. > > "In reply to an address of the Russian minister > Mashaal stated about his readiness to stop the armed > confrontation, but along with lifting the blockade > from the Gaza Strip. The Hamas leader outlined the > movement's position on resuming the dialogue within > inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts," the Russian > Foreign Ministry said. > > He also thanked Russia for additional humanitarian > supplies and pledged to give the possible assistance > in the evacuation of citizens from Russia and CIS > states from the Gaza Strip, noting, "the conditions of > the Gaza Strip blockade and the Israeli armed attack > complicate the situation." > > > =========================== > Stop NATO > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato > > To subscribe, send an e-mail to: > stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > > Archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages > > http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read > ============================== > > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > Messages | Database | Polls > MARKETPLACE > > > From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format > to Traditional > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity > 1New Members > Visit Your Group > Share Photos > Put your favorite > photos and > more online. > Dog Groups > on Yahoo! Groups > Share pictures & > stories about dogs. > Group Charity > Give a laptop > Get a laptop: One > laptop per child. > __,_._,___ > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 19:48:13 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:48:13 -0500 Subject: [A-List] For Afghans, a Price for Everything, and Anything for a Price Message-ID: January 2, 2009 For Afghans, a Price for Everything, and Anything for a Price By DEXTER FILKINS KABUL, Afghanistan ? When it comes to governing this violent, fractious land, everything, it seems, has its price. Want to be a provincial police chief? It will cost you $100,000. Want to drive a convoy of trucks loaded with fuel across the country? Be prepared to pay $6,000 per truck, so the police will not tip off the Taliban. Need to settle a lawsuit over the ownership of your house? About $25,000, depending on the judge. "It is very shameful, but probably I will pay the bribe," Mohammed Naim, a young English teacher, said as he stood in front of the Secondary Courthouse in Kabul. His brother had been arrested a week before, and the police were demanding $4,000 for his release. "Everything is possible in this country now. Everything." Kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it. A raft of investigations has concluded that people at the highest levels of the Karzai administration, including President Karzai's own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, are cooperating in the country's opium trade, now the world's largest. In the streets and government offices, hardly a public transaction seems to unfold here that does not carry with it the requirement of a bribe, a gift, or, in case you are a beggar, "harchee" ? whatever you have in your pocket. The corruption, publicly acknowledged by President Karzai, is contributing to the collapse of public confidence in his government and to the resurgence of the Taliban, whose fighters have moved to the outskirts of Kabul, the capital. "All the politicians in this country have acquired everything ? money, lots of money," President Karzai said in a speech at a rural development conference here in November. "God knows, it is beyond the limit. The banks of the world are full of the money of our statesmen." The decay of the Afghan government presents President-elect Barack Obama with perhaps his most underappreciated challenge as he tries to reverse the course of the war here. Mr. Obama may be required to save the Afghan government not only from the Taliban insurgency ? committing thousands of additional American soldiers to do so ? but also from itself. "This government has lost the capacity to govern because a shadow government has taken over," said Ashraf Ghani, a former Afghan finance minister. He quit that job in 2004, he said, because the state had been taken over by drug traffickers. "The narco-mafia state is now completely consolidated," he said. On the streets here, tales of corruption are as easy to find as kebab stands. Everything seems to be for sale: public offices, access to government services, even a person's freedom. The examples mentioned above ? $25,000 to settle a lawsuit, $6,000 to bribe the police, $100,000 to secure a job as a provincial police chief ? were offered by people who experienced them directly or witnessed the transaction. People pay bribes for large things, and for small things, too: to get electricity for their homes, to get out of jail, even to enter the airport. Governments in developing countries are often riddled with corruption. But Afghans say the corruption they see now has no precedent, in either its brazenness or in its scale. Transparency International, a German organization that gauges honesty in government, ranked Afghanistan 117 out of 180 countries in 2005. This year, it fell to 176. "Every man in the government is his own king," said Abdul Ghafar, a truck driver. Mr. Ghafar said he routinely paid bribes to the police who threatened to hinder his passage through Kabul, sometimes several in a day. Nowhere is the scent of corruption so strong as in the Kabul neighborhood of Sherpur. Before 2001, it was a vacant patch of hillside that overlooked the stately neighborhood of Wazir Akbar Khan. Today it is the wealthiest enclave in the country, with gaudy, grandiose mansions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Afghans refer to them as "poppy houses." Sherpur itself is often jokingly referred to as "Char-pur," which literally means "City of Loot." Yet what is perhaps most remarkable about Sherpur is that many of the homeowners are government officials, whose annual salaries would not otherwise enable them to live here for more than a few days. One of the mansions ? three stories, several bedrooms, sweeping balconies ? is owned by Abdul Jabbar Sabit, a former attorney general who made a name for himself by declaring a "jihad" against corruption. After he was fired earlier this year by President Karzai, a video began circulating around town showing Mr. Sabit dancing giddily around a room and slurring his words, apparently drunk. Mr. Sabit now lives in Canada, but his house is available to rent for $5,000 a month. An even grander mansion ? ornate faux Greek columns, a towering fountain ? is owned by Kabul's police chief, Mohammed Ayob Salangi. It can be had for $11,000 a month. Mr. Salangi's salary is unknown; that of Mr. Karzai, the president, is about $600 a month. Mr. Ghani, the former finance minister, said the plots of land on which the mansions of Sherpur stand were doled out early in the Karzai administration for prices that were a tiny fraction of what they were worth. (Mr. Ghani said he was offered a plot, too, and refused to accept it.) "The money for these houses was illegal, I think," said Mohammed Yosin Usmani, director general of a newly created anticorruption unit. Often, the corruption here is blatant. On any morning, you can stand on the steps of the Secondary Courthouse in downtown Kabul and listen to the Afghans as they step outside. One of them was Farooq Farani, who has been coming to the court for seven years, trying to resolve a property dispute. His predicament is a common one here: He fled the country in 1990, as the civil war began, and returned after the fall of the Taliban, only to find a stranger occupying his home. Yet seven years later, the title to Mr. Farani's house is still up for grabs. Mr. Farani said he had refused to pay the bribes demanded by the judge in the case, who in turn had refused to settle his case. "You are approached indirectly, by intermediaries ? this is how it works," said Mr. Farani, who spent his exile in Wiesbaden, Germany. "My house is worth about $50,000, and I've been told that I can have the title if I pay $25,000 ? half the value of the home." Tales like Mr. Farani's abound here, so much so that it makes one wonder if an honest man can ever make a difference. Amin Farhang, the minister of commerce, was voted out of Mr. Karzai's cabinet by Parliament earlier last month for failing to bring down the price of oil in Afghanistan as the price declined in international markets. In a long talk in the sitting room of his home, Mr. Farhang recounted a two-year struggle to fire the man in charge of giving out licenses for new businesses. The man, Mr. Farhang said, would grant a license only in exchange for a hefty bribe. But Mr. Farhang found that he was unable to fire the man, who, he said, simply bribed other members of the government to reinstate him. "In a job like this, a man can make 10 or 12 times his salary," Mr. Farhang said. "People do anything to hang on to them." Many Afghans, including Mr. Ghani, the former finance minister, place responsibility for the collapse of the state on Mr. Karzai, who, they say, has failed repeatedly to confront the powerful figures who are behind much of the corruption. In his stint as finance minister, Mr. Ghani said, two moments crystallized his disgust and finally prompted him to quit. The first, Mr. Ghani said, was his attempt to impose order on Kabul's chaotic system of private property rights. The Afghan government had accumulated vast amounts of land during the period of Communist rule in the 1970s and 1980s. And since 2001, the government has given much of it away ? often, Mr. Ghani said, to shady developers at extremely low prices. Much of that land has been sold and developed, rendering much of Kabul's property in the hands of unknown owners. Many of the developers who were given free land, Mr. Ghani said, were also involved in drug trafficking. When he proposed drawing up a set of regulations to govern private property, Mr. Ghani said, he was told by President Karzai to stop. " 'Just back off," he told me,' " Mr. Ghani said. "He said that politically it wasn't feasible." A similar effort to impose regulations at the Ministry of Aviation, which Mr. Ghani described as rife with corruption, was met with a similar response by President Karzai, he said. "Morally the question was, am I becoming the fig leaf to legitimate a system that was deeply corrupt? Or was I there to serve the people?" Mr. Ghani said. "I resigned." Mr. Ghani, who then became chancellor of Kabul University, is today contemplating a run for the presidency. Asked about Mr. Ghani's account on Thursday, Humayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Mr. Karzai, said he could not immediately comment. The corruption may be endemic here, but if there is any hope in the future, it would seem to lie in the revulsion of average Afghans like Mr. Farani, who, after seven years, is still refusing to pay. "I won't do it," Mr. Farani said outside the courthouse. "It's a matter of principle. Never." "But," he said, "I don't have my house, either, and I don't know that I ever will." Abdul Waheed Wafa and Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting. From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 20:16:08 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 22:16:08 -0500 Subject: [A-List] El Al to Operate Direct Flight to Brazil for First Time in a Decade Message-ID: Last update - 17:01 15/12/2008 El Al to operate direct flight to Brazil for first time in a decade By Zohar Blumenkrantz, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: el al, israel news, brazil El Al Airlines will begin operating 9 a direct flight between Tel Aviv to Sao Paolo in spring 2009, for the first time in a decade. The airline will also offer connecting flights to a number of destinations in South America, including Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador and other cities in Brazil. The flight from Tel Aviv to Sao Paolo takes about 14-and-a-half-hours. El Al plans to operate the flight on a Boeing 777, three or four times a week. The airline will finalize its plans - including flight schedules and fares - over the coming month, pending approval from all the necessary networks. El Al CEO Haim Romano said the new operations would boost the already rising phenomenon of Israeli tourism in South America, as well as serve the large Jewish communities on the continent. "Trade between Israel and South America is one the rise, Israeli tourism to South America is blooming and there are large Jewish communities there," he said, but added: "Investing in a flight line like this, for the first time in ten years, undoubtedly presents El Al with a litany of operational, service and marketing challenges." Israel last year signed a free-trade pact with Mercosur, the South American trade bloc. It was the bloc's first such pact with a country outside of Latin America. The deal followed two years of negotiations to bolster trade ties between South American countries and Israel. 15 December 2008 General Assembly GA/PAL/1108 Department of Public Information ? News and Media Division ? New York UN LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN MEETING ON ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS CALLS FOR HALTING SETTLEMENT EXPANSION, DISMANTLING OF WALL IN WEST BANK (Received from a UN Information Officer.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARLENE CLEMESHA, Professor of Arab Culture of the University of S?o Paulo and member of the Institute for Arab Culture in Brazil, stated that Latin America and the Caribbean had been incapable of converting their verbal support to the Palestinian cause in concrete and effective actions. Latin American nations continued to sign free trade agreements with Israel and purchase weapons and advanced technology from Israel, and their universities established cooperation agreements with Israel and were proud of the academic and intellectual exchange with Israel, she remarked. In most cases, she added, none of that was based on the intentions of Governments in the region, but rather under corporate pressure. She said Brazil was importing state-of-the-art technology, communications and security equipment developed by Israel to feed its own war industry against the Palestinian people. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jan 2 02:27:13 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:27:13 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Let the Banks Fail Message-ID: <495DDDF1.9010702@ashisuto.co.jp> Why a Few of the Financial Giants Should Crash The finance industry still owns mountains of bad paper and must absorb these losses - or else we'll face a very long recession. by Joshua Holland AlterNet (December 15 2008) So far, much of Washington's ad hoc, ham-fisted response to the economic crisis has been based on the dictum that the financial institutions must be prevented from taking their losses. That should come as no surprise. Big finance's lobbyists have been all over the "bailout" (it should be bailouts, plural) from the very start, Wall Street pumped piles of cash into the elections - AIG, recipient of tens of billions in taxpayer largesse, ponied up $750,000 for both the Democratic and Republican conventions - and the whole thing's been designed by "free-market" ideologues who came to Washington directly from Wall Street. But the hard reality is that the institutions that created this mess have to take their losses - no doubt huge losses in many cases - if we're to have any chance of avoiding a deep recession that drags on for years. Some will be wiped out in the process, but propping up firms that have massive - and not entirely known - quantities of so-called toxic securities on their books only delays the inevitable day of reckoning. The rot has spread far beyond real estate, but that offers a nice concrete example of the danger of keeping Big Finance from taking its lumps. So far, their lobbyists have fought off attempts to force them to renegotiate mortgages, especially plans that call for writing down the value of the loans to reflect the post-bubble market. This is understandable. But the reality is that there are a lot of homes "under water" - that is, worth less than the value of their mortgages - and a lot of mortgages with "teaser rates" are about to adjust upward. Foreclosures only drive down the value of the whole market further - who wants to pay today's fair value when two other houses on the same street are headed toward foreclosure and might be had for a song in a few months? The justification for creating the big bailout honeypot for Wall Street was that banks are hoarding money, causing a "credit crunch" that's killing the whole economy. But that's only true to a point; while financial institutions are holding cash, including, reportedly, those billions they gouged from the taxpayers, they appear to be doing so to protect their balance sheets, and in some cases, to fund mergers. The bigger problem - one the bailout is hardly touching - is that trillions in home equity and retirement accounts have vanished, and there aren't a lot of people - or firms - looking to borrow money to buy stuff or expand right now. Economist Dean Baker explains the dominance of the "credit crunch" narrative like this: The media "largely ignored the growth of an $8 trillion housing bubble, by far the most important economic phenomenon of the decade. Now that it has burst and sent consumption plummeting, they are blaming the economic collapse on a 'credit crunch' instead of the more obvious problem that consumers just lost $6 trillion of housing wealth and another $8 trillion of stock wealth." We hear a lot about banks not lending to one another these days - another reason we have to buy up shares of their tanking stocks and guarantee their funky securities. But consider that as I write, a benchmark "interbank" lending rate (the LIBOR, if you care) is at its lowest point in history, meaning that banks aren't, in fact, charging each other an arm and a leg for cash. But, at the same time, William Prophet, an analyst at UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank, told Bloomberg News that "the volume of loans apparently is still close to zero, and that hasn't changed". People are just maxed out, and they're not borrowing or buying. Are the Titans of Finance Too Big to Fail? Letting the banks - the ones that went out furthest on the ledge of those newfangled debt-backed securities and indulged in the worst lending practices - take a beating does represent a conundrum. On the one hand, there's an almost visceral satisfaction to the idea of letting high-flying financiers get their comeuppance. It was the titans of Wall Street, after all, who turned a housing bubble into a shaky house of cards worth tens of trillions of dollars based on little more than "irrational exuberance" and a wave of deregulation. But, at the same time, the financial services sector - banking and insurance - employs over six million people. Last month, CitiGroup announced that it would layoff 53,000 employees, the second-largest workforce cut by a single company in American history. That will bring the total number of people out of a finance job to 180,000 this year, and those people will spend less, pay fewer taxes, and many will have trouble paying their mortgages and staying in their homes. The sector's unemployment rate rose from 3.9 percent to 4.6 percent in just four months, between August and November. The assertion that we should do what's necessary to avoid adding to our unemployment and other woes just at the moment would be more persuasive if not for one crucial point: our financial sector has become bloated, swimming in capacity the larger economy doesn't need. That house of cards it built is simply too big to prop up, and spending billions to do so is only throwing good money after bad - saving an industry that has grown out of proportion to the purpose it serves. Here's a fun fact about the finance industry. Historically, it's grown and contracted along with the business cycle. When the economy was going gang-busters and businesses were expanding, it was there to provide capital and insurance and connect investors with entrepreneurs and innovators. Then, when the business cycle took its inevitable turn and the economy slowed down, it would contract. But a funny thing happened on the way to the financial meltdown; as the Associated Press noted, "when the Internet bubble burst in 2000, the sector never stopped growing. Instead, it ballooned over the past eight years to around ten percent of the US economy, puzzling economists." It's not such a puzzle. In large part, the continued growth of the sector was based on the explosion in derivatives - high-value vapor - rather than anything connected to real growth in the "nuts and bolts" economy. (As I explained in more detail here, a derivative is a piece of paper that can be bought and sold for real money but isn't attached to a concrete asset. Its value is simply derived from something tangible - hence the name. It is, in essence, the equivalent of investors making a bet that a company, industry or just about anything else with a tangible value will move up or down.) The recession of 2001 officially started in March, when the financial services sector employed 5.7 million people. At the time, the total value of derivatives held by US commercial banks was estimated to be around $42 trillion. By the third quarter of 2007 - before the crash - the financial sector was employing almost 6.2 million people, and the value of derivatives held by American banks had skyrocketed to almost $170 trillion - almost three times the value of the entire world's economy. During the intervening period, the "real" American economy was in doldrums: between 2000-2007, median household income dropped; the number of families living in poverty grew by almost 11 percent and the economy added jobs at the lowest rate in the post-World War II era. (I should add that those employment numbers look a lot worse when you take out the job growth in government and our uniquely inefficient health sector - between 2001 and 2006, health care added 1.7 million (net) new jobs while the rest of the economy added zero.) As Bloomberg reported, "The bundling of consumer loans and home mortgages into packages of securities - a process known as securitization - was the biggest US export business of the 21st century". So much of the economic output of recent years has been ephemeral, fueled by the ever-growing financial industry and enabled by the deregulation for which it lobbied hard for years. When this "speculation economy" - or at least the big chunk of it built on consumer debt and home mortgages (which I discussed in greater detail here) - began to crash, it drove much of the real economy into the ground with it, and that's where we stand today. But the importance of this analysis goes beyond assigning blame. Today, we have a finance sector that is straining under the weight of a ton of fishy paper - those much-discussed toxic securities - and nobody knows exactly who's holding what. What we do know is that since 2001, $27 trillion worth of bundled, debt-backed securities were issued, and a significant, if equally unknown, portion of those are nearly worthless. This was always the fundamental flaw with the original "Paulson plan" - buying a couple hundred billion worth of crappy paper when there's trillions worth of the stuff on American banks' book is tantamount to trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble. But more important is what these numbers suggest moving ahead. The hard reality is that these financial institutions must take huge losses on that paper or else this recession will likely deepen and drag out for years. Basic economic theory says that when a business is not sustainable and goes belly-up - or a sector has unnecessary capacity and shrinks - its capital, physical plant and other assets, expertise and employees will become integrated into firms that are productive. When the Financial Tail Wags the Corporate Dog The financial sector's size isn't the only thing to consider as we watch our government take a page from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and blow wads of state money purchasing bank stocks and those "troubled assets". The influence of the financial sector on the behavior of the rest of the corporate economy is something that we take for granted - it's business as usual in America - but in a time of crisis, a rethink of the entire financial order is imperative. The modern system of finance developed during the progressive era - from the late 1890s through the 1920s - and its creation was heavily influenced by the prevailing anger at the power of the huge trusts. Dispersed ownership and new forms of finance - through stocks, corporate bonds and other securities - were seen as an antidote to the influence of the robber barons, that handful of dynastic families who controlled key sectors of the American economy. Since then, the original function of the financial markets - to link investors' capital with innovative firms - has been turned on its head. Today, corporate behavior is very much dictated by the markets - quarterly earnings, stock prices and the like - and not the other way around. That's not a good thing. Lawrence Mitchell, a professor of business law at George Washington University, notes in his book, The Speculation Economy (2007), that a recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations revealed that almost eighty percent would have "at least moderately mutilated their businesses in order to meet [financial] analysts' quarterly profit estimates":- Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising and maintenance and delaying hiring and new projects are some of the long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations. Why? Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to meet quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to the corporation's stock price. And corporate managers' own fortunes are tied to their companies' share prices through bonuses, stock options and other incentives. The desire to make the financial sector happy often dwarves other imperatives; Mitchell calls it "short-termism" and suggests that making a company's balance sheet look good quarter to quarter drives CEOs to sacrifice values like worker safety, environmental protection and other social goods. A good example of this financial market-driven short-termism can be seen in a 2004 study of CEO compensation conducted by United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies (PDF). It found, "CEOs at companies that outsource the most US jobs are rewarded with bigger paychecks ... average CEO compensation at the fifty firms outsourcing the most service jobs increased by 46 percent in 2003, compared to a nine percent average increase for all CEOs at the 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week". There's no doubt that offshoring decent jobs that paid living wages was good for those firms' short-term bottom lines, and those corporate managers were rewarded on that basis. But was it good for the economy? With consumer spending in the tank and inequality at levels not seen since the robber barons were tamed, it's hard to argue that such short-term thinking served the nation's economy very well. Let's return a moment to the fact that banks aren't lending money. There are multiple causes for the freeze, including the fact that businesses and individuals aren't in the market to borrow money to purchase goods or expand their operations. Another reason is that, as Bloomberg reported, "With three weeks to go until the end of the year, financial institutions are vying for loans that mature after December 31 to bolster their balance sheets as they prepare to report to investors". As the financial meltdown forces the economic establishment to chart a new course, we should not only let the financial sector contract significantly, but curtail its influence as well. That can be achieved in a number of ways: by banning corporate compensation based on firms' stock values, creating new forms of socially responsible financing or encouraging the expansion of what Bill Gates calls creative capitalism - a nebulous phrase that's been interpreted to mean adding corporate social responsibility to the traditional imperative of maximizing profits over the short term. That won't be easy - and would be politically impossible in a normally functioning economy. But letting a few banking giants sink, and the financial sector as a whole write down massive amounts of the junk it produced during the last decade just might help focus the mind on newer and more creative models of finance. Links: The original version of this article at the URL below contains numerous links to other sources of information. _____ Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. (c) 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/112166/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Fri Jan 2 01:53:06 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:53:06 +1100 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Gaza massacre; economic crisis; French new left party and more Message-ID: <495DD5F1.20606@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Gaza massacre; economic crisis; French new left party; El Salvador; Pakistan; Venezuela; Mexico photos; Zimbabwe debate; Nicaragua; Climate change * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Palestinians, solidarity activists condemn Israel's mass slaughter in Gaza, call for protests and sanctions (updated Dec. 29) [Please check the comments section below these statements for demonstrations in your part of the world.] Occupied Ramallah, Palestine -- December 27, 2008 -- Today, the Israeli occupation army committed a new massacre in Gaza, causing the death and injury of hundreds of Palestinian civilians [latest reports place the death toll at more than 200], including a yet unknown number of schoolchildren who were headed home from school when the first Israeli military strikes started. This latest bloodbath, although far more ruthless than all its predecessors, is not Israel's first. It culminates months of an Israeli siege of Gaza that should be widely condemned and prosecuted as an act of genocide against the 1.5 million Palestinians in the occupied coastal strip. * Read more Two paths in the face of the capitalism's global fracture By Luis Bilbao, translated from the December 2008-January 2009 issue of America XXI by Federico Fuentes, for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal. Luis Bilbao will be a featured international speaker at the World at a Crossroads conference , in Sydney, April 10-13, 2009. * Read more France: New Anti-Capitalist Party `a very exciting initiative' December 22, 2008 -- There's been surprisingly little discussion in the UK on the launching of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste or NPA) over the water in France. I thought I'd take a look at this interesting and significant new development and so I spoke to John Mullen, the editor of Socialisme International, to see if I could find out more. * Read more End of neoliberalism? Sorry, not yet By Patrick Bond December 26, 2008 -- Those who declare that the Great Crash of Late 2008 heralds the end of free market economic philosophy -- "neoliberalism" for short -- are not paying close enough attention. * Read more El Salvador: Video -- Unidos por el cambio (Democracy and the 2009 Salvadorean election By Committee with the People of El Salvador (CISPES)(USA) Recent polls in El Salvador show that the leftist FMLN party is 15% ahead over the right-wing presidential candidate from the ruling party. This only confirms what Salvadorans in the social movement, members of the FMLN, and the general public have been saying all along: El Salvador is the next in line to join the Latin American shift to the left! * Read more Pakistan: Joint left demonstration against India-Pakistan war drive By Javed Ahmad December 20, 2008 -- While the danger of war between India and Pakistan is accelerates, a peace demonstration in Lahore on December 20 demanded no war between the two countries. More than 100 activists of the Labour Party Pakistan and the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party (CMKP) demanded an end of war fanaticism. * Read more Venezuela 2008: Balance sheet of the revolutionary process By Gonzalo Gomez December 17, 2008 -- During 2008, our revolutionary process has had its ebbs and flows. Overall, we had significant progress, especially in the recuperation of sovereignty, with the nationalisations and the electoral victories in the great majority of governorships and mayoralties. The right-wing also had its successes, as it managed to retain and seize several strategic places. The process is not linear, but the revolution needs to move forward in a permanent manner or the hangover of a counterrevolution will raze the achievements obtained, including the crushing of the vanguard. * Read more Photo essay: Oaxaca, Mexico -- `Living Under the Trees' A photo essay by David Bacon December 23, 2008 -- About 30 million Mexicans survive on less than 30 pesos per day -- not quite US$3. The minimum wage is 45 pesos per day. The Mexican federal government estimates that 37.7 per cent of its 106 million citizens -- 40 million people -- live in poverty. Some 25 million, or 23.6 per cent, live in extreme poverty. In rural Mexico, more than 10 million people have a daily income of less than 12 pesos -- a little more than $1. It's no accident the state of Oaxaca is one of the main starting points for the current stream of Mexican migrants coming to the United States. Extreme poverty encompasses 75 per cent of its 3.4 million residents, according to EDUCA, a Mexican education and development organisation. * Read more Lessons of Zimbabwe: An exchange between Patrick Bond and Mahmood Mamdani December 2008 -- Mahmood Mamdani is an inspiring intellectual and political writer, one of Africa's greatest ever. But I think there are a few points raised in his recent London Review of Books article, ``Lessons of Zimbabwe'' (see full text in the appendix at the end of this article; quotes from Mamdani's article are in indented italics) that are worth debating. * Read more A government in pandemonium: The first nine month of Pakistan Peoples Party rule By Farooq Tariq December 22, 2008 -- Instability, price hikes, growing unemployment and rising debts are the hallmarks of the first nine months of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government. There are daily demonstrations across Pakistan around one or another of these issues. There is a real danger of a war between Pakistan and India after the Mumbai terrorist attack on November 26. The statement by Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari about the doubtful Pakistani identity of Ajmal Qasab, the only terrorist captured alive, did not go down very well within the Indian establishment. The joint war-room meeting of all the Indian government's important officials is a very serious matter. * Read more In defence of Nicaragua's sovereignty, in opposition to imperialist destabilisation December 21, 2008 -- This is an appeal in defence of Nicaraguan sovereignty, in opposition to an imperialist destablisation campaign to undermine, and possibly topple, the Sandinista government. The pretext, phoney as usual, is the claim that the municipal elections in November were rigged. But the real aim of this phoney campaign is to blackmail and intimidate the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) government to back down -- and override the will of the majority as expressed in the election and as recognised by the Supreme Electoral Council that includes both FSLN and opposition party supporters. * Read more Spend the trillions on climate! By Martin Khor December 15, 2008 -- The two crises of our times -- economic recession and global warming -- should be tackled together. The trillions of dollars earmarked for economic recovery can be spent to fight climate change. The economic crisis should not stop governments from serious action to combat climate change, but should instead be an opportunity to fund climate-related activities. * Read more * * * /Links/ seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14624 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090102/74ec55cf/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jan 2 09:44:29 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:44:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] No Compromises? Message-ID: <495DFE1D.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> No Compromises? http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the quotation from the Frankfurt pamphlet, we have seen how emphatically the "Lefts" have advanced this slogan. It is sad to see people who no doubt consider themselves Marxists, and want to be Marxists, forget the fundamental truths of Marxism. This is what Engels?who, like Marx, was one of those rarest of authors whose every sentence in every one of their fundamental works contains a remarkably profound content?wrote in 1874, against the manifesto of the thirty-three Blanquist Communards: "?We are Communists? [the Blanquist Communards wrote in their manifesto], ?because we want to attain our goal without stopping at intermediate stations, without any compromises, which only postpone the day of victory and prolong the period of slavery.? "The German Communists are Communists because, through all the intermediate stations and all compromises created, not by them but by the course of historical development, they clearly perceive and constantly pursue the final aim?the abolition of classes and the creation of a society in which there will no longer be private ownership of land or of the means of production. The thirty-three Blanquists are Communists just because they imagine that, merely because they want to skip the intermediate stations and compromises, the matter is settled, and if ?it begins? in the next few days?which they take for granted?and they take over power, ?communism will be introduced? the day after tomorrow. If that is not immediately possible, they are not Communists. "What childish innocence it is to present one?s own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!" Frederick Engels, "Programme of the Blanquist Communards", [30] from the German Social-Democratic newspaper Volksstaat, 1874, No. 73, given in the Russian translation of Articles, 1871-1875, Petrograd, 1919, pp. 52-53). In the same article, Engels expresses his profound esteem for Vaillant, and speaks of the "unquestionable merit" of the latter (who, like Guesde, was one of the most prominent leaders of international socialism until their betrayal of socialism in August 1914). But Engels does not fail to give a detailed analysis of an obvious error. Of course, to very young and inexperienced revolutionaries, as well as to petty-bourgeois revolutionaries of even very respectable age and great experience, it seems extremely "dangerous", incomprehensible and wrong to "permit compromises". Many sophists (being unusually or excessively "experienced" politicians) reason exactly in the same way as the British leaders of opportunism mentioned by Comrade Lansbury: "If the Bolsheviks are permitted a certain compromise, why should we not be permitted any kind of compromise?" However, proletarians schooled in numerous strikes (to take only this manifestation of the class struggle) usually assimilate in admirable fashion the very profound truth (philosophical, historical, political and psychological) expounded by Engels. Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced "compromises" with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian?as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among?sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)?a compromise which in no way minimises the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise?and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into "compromises"!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists. (The history of the British labour movement provides a very large number of instances of such treacherous compromises by British trade union leaders, but, in one form or another, almost all workers in all countries have witnessed the same sort of thing.) Naturally, there are individual cases of exceptional difficulty and complexity, when the greatest efforts are necessary for a proper assessment of the actual character of this or that "compromise", just as there are cases of homicide when it is by no means easy to establish whether the homicide was fully justified and even necessary (as, for example, legitimate self-defence), or due to unpardonable negligence, or even to a cunningly executed perfidious plan. Of course, in politics, where it is sometimes a matter of extremely complex relations?national and international?between classes and parties, very many cases will arise that will be much more difficult than the question of a legitimate "compromise" in a strike or a treacherous "compromise" by a strike-breaker, treacherous leader, etc. It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or general rule ("No compromises!") to suit all cases. One must use one?s own brains and be able to find one?s bearings in each particular instance. It is, in fact, one of the functions of a party organisation and of party leaders worthy of the name, to acquire, through the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts of all thinking representatives of a given class, *6 the knowledge, experience and?in addition to knowledge and experience?the political flair necessary for the speedy and correct solution of complex political problems. [30] Naive and quite inexperienced people imagine that the permissibility of compromise in general is sufficient to obliterate any distinction between opportunism, against which we are waging, and must wage, an unremitting struggle, and revolutionary Marxism., or communism. But if such people do not yet know that in nature and in society all distinctions are fluid and up to a certain point conventional, nothing can help them but lengthy training, education, enlightenment, and political and everyday experience. In the practical questions that arise in the politics of any particular or specific historical moment, it is important to single out those which display the principal type of intolerable and treacherous compromises, such as embody an opportunism that is fatal to the revolutionary class, and to exert all efforts to explain them and combat them. During the 1914-18 imperialist war between two groups of equally predatory countries, social-chauvinism was the principal and fundamental type of opportunism, i.e., support of "defence of country", which in such a war was really equivalent to defence of the predatory interests of one?s "own" bourgeoisie. After the war, defence of the robber League of Nations, [31] defence of direct or indirect alliances with the bourgeoisie of one?s own country against the revolutionary proletariat and the "Soviet" movement, and defence of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois parliamentarianism against "Soviet power" became the principal manifestations of those intolerable and treacherous compromises, whose sum total constituted an opportunism fatal to the revolutionary proletariat and its cause. "...All compromise with other parties ... any policy of manoeuvring and compromise must be emphatically rejected," the German Lefts write in the Frankfurt pamphlet. It is surprising that, with such views, these Lefts do not emphatically condemn Bolshevism! After all, the German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties! To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one?s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)?is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one?s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support?whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter?from some members of the Communist Party of Holland. After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoisie, simply because of the latter?s extensive international links, and also because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration of capitalism and the bourgeoisie by the small commodity producers of the country which has overthrown the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power. Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action, said Marx and Engels. [32] The greatest blunder, the greatest crime, committed by such "out-and-out" Marxists as Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, etc., is that they have not understood this and have been unable to apply it at crucial moments of the proletarian revolution. "Political activity is not like the pavement of Nevsky Prospekt" (the well-kept, broad and level pavement of the perfectly straight principal thoroughfare of St. Petersburg), N. G. Chernyshevsky, the great Russian socialist of the pre-Marxist period, used to say. Since Chernyshevsky?s time, disregard or forgetfulness of this truth has cost Russian revolutionaries countless sacrifices. We must strive at all costs to prevent the Left Communists and West-European and American revolutionaries that are devoted to the working class from paying as dearly as the backward Russians did to learn this truth. Prior to the downfall of tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901-02, even prior to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra (consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich Martov, Potresov and myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism, while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in the working-class movement. The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism, never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second ballots) and never ceasing their relentless ideological and political struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party, exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely described themselves as socialists. During the Duma elections of 1907, the Bolsheviks entered briefly into a formal political bloc with the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Between 1903 and 1912, there were periods of several years in which we were formally united with the Mensheviks in a single Social-Democratic Party, but we never stopped our ideological and political struggle against them as opportunists and vehicles of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. During the war, we concluded certain compromises with the Kautskyites, with the Left Mensheviks (Martov), and with a section of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov and Natanson); we were together with them at Zimmerwald and Kienthal, [33] and issued joint manifestos. However, we never ceased and never relaxed our ideological and political struggle against the Kautskyites, Martov and Chernov (when Natanson died in 1919, a "Revolutionary-Communist" Narodnik, [34] he was very close to and almost in agreement with us). At the very moment of the October Revolution, we entered into an informal but very important (and very successful) political bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian programme in its entirety, without a single alteration?i.e., we effected an undeniable compromise in order to prove to the peasants that we wanted, not to "steam-roller" them but to reach agreement with them. At the same time we proposed (and soon after effected) a formal political bloc, including participation in the government, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who dissolved this bloc after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and then, in July 1918, went to the length of armed rebellion, and subsequently of an armed struggle, against us. It is therefore understandable why the attacks made by the German Lefts against the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany for entertaining the idea of a bloc with the Independents (the Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany?the Kautskyites) are absolutely inane, in our opinion, and clear proof that the "Lefts" are in the wrong. In Russia, too, there were Right Mensheviks (participants in the Kerensky government), who corresponded to the German Scheidemanns, and Left Mensheviks (Martov), corresponding to the German Kautskyites and standing in opposition to the Right Mensheviks. A gradual shift of the worker masses from the Mensheviks over to the Bolsheviks was to be clearly seen in 1917. At the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, held in June 1917, we had only 13 per cent of the votes; the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks had a majority. At the Second Congress of Soviets (October 25, 1917, old style) we had 51 per cent of the votes. Why is it that in Germany the same and absolutely identical shift of the workers from Right to Left did not immediately strengthen the Communists, but first strengthened the midway Independent Party, although the latter never had independent political ideas or an independent policy, but merely wavered between the Scheidemanns and the Communists? One of the evident reasons was the erroneous tactics of the German Communists, who must fearlessly and honestly admit this error and learn to rectify it. The error consisted in their denial of the need to take part in the reactionary bourgeois parliaments and in the reactionary trade unions; the error consisted in numerous manifestations of that "Leftwing" infantile disorder which has now come to the surface and will consequently be cured the more thoroughly, the more rapidly and with greater advantage to the organism. The German Independent Social-Democratic Party is obviously not a homogeneous body. Alongside the old opportunist leaders (Kautsky, Hilferding and apparently, to a considerable extent, Crispien, Ledebour and others)?these have revealed their inability to understand the significance of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and their inability to lead the proletariat?s revolutionary struggle?there has emerged in this party a Left and proletarian wing, which is growing most rapidly. Hundreds of thousands of members of this party (which has, I think, a membership of some three-quarters of a million) are proletarians who are abandoning Scheidemann and are rapidly going over to communism. This proletarian wing has already proposed?at the Leipzig Congress of the Independents (1919) -- immediate and unconditional affiliation to the Third International. To fear a "compromise" with this wing of the party is positively ridiculous. On the contrary, it is the duty of Communists to seek and find a suitable form of compromise with them, a compromise which, on the one hand, will facilitate and accelerate the necessary complete fusion with this wing and, on the other, will in no way hamper the Communists in their ideological and political struggle against the opportunist Right wing of the Independents. It will probably be no easy matter to devise a suitable form of compromise?but only a charlatan could promise the German workers and the German Communists an "easy" road to victory. Capitalism would not be capitalism if the proletariat pur sang were not surrounded by a large number of exceedingly motley types intermediate between the proletarian and the semi-proletarian (who earns his livelihood in part by the sale of his labour-power), between the semi-proletarian and the small peasant (and petty artisan, handicraft worker and small master in general), between the small peasant and the middle peasant, and so on, and if the proletariat itself were not divided into more developed and less developed strata, if it were not divided according to territorial origin, trade, sometimes according to religion, and so on. From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class-conscious section, to resort to changes of tack, to conciliation and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise?not lower?the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win. Incidentally, it should be noted that the Bolsheviks? victory over the Mensheviks called for the application of tactics of changes of tack, conciliation and compromises, not only before but also after the October Revolution of 1917, but the changes of tack and compromises were, of course, such as assisted, boosted and consolidated the Bolsheviks at the expense of the Mensheviks. The petty-bourgeois democrats (including the Mensheviks) inevitably vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeois democracy and the Soviet system, between reformism and revolutionism, between love for the workers and fear of the proletarian dictatorship, etc. The Communists? proper tactics should consist in utilising these vacillations, not ignoring them; utilising them calls for concessions to elements that are turning towards the proletariat?whenever and in the measure that they turn towards the proletariat?in addition to fighting those who turn towards the bourgeoisie. As a result of the application of the correct tactics, Menshevism began to disintegrate, and has been disintegrating more and more in our country; the stubbornly opportunist leaders are being isolated, and the best of the workers and the best elements among the petty-bourgeois democrats are being brought into our camp. This is a lengthy process, and the hasty "decision"?"No compromises, no manoeuvres"?can only prejudice the strengthening of the revolutionary proletariat?s influence and the enlargement of its forces. Lastly, one of the undoubted errors of the German "Lefts" lies in their downright refusal to recognise the Treaty of Versailles. The more "weightily" and "pompously", the more "emphatically" and peremptorily this viewpoint is formulated (by K. Homer, for instance), the less sense it seems to make. It is not enough, under the present conditions of the international proletarian revolution, to repudiate the preposterous absurdities of "National Bolshevism" (Laufenberg and others), which has gone to the length of advocating a bloc with the German bourgeoisie for a war against the Entente. One must realise that it is utterly false tactics to refuse to admit that a Soviet Germany (if a German Soviet republic were soon to arise) would have to recognise the Treaty of Versailles for a time, and to submit to it. From this it does not follow that the Independents?at a time when the Scheidemanns were in the government, when the Soviet government in Hungary had not yet been overthrown, and when it was still possible that a Soviet revolution in Vienna would support Soviet Hungary?were right, under the circumstances, in putting forward the demand that the Treaty of Versailles should be signed. At that time the Independents tacked and manoeuvred very clumsily, for they more or less accepted responsibility for the Scheidemann traitors, and more or less backslid from advocacy of a ruthless (and most calmly conducted) class war against the Scheidemanns, to advocacy of a "classless" or "above-class" standpoint. In the present situation, however, the German Communists should obviously not deprive themselves of freedom of action by giving a positive and categorical promise to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles in the event of communism?s victory. That would be absurd. They should say: the Scheidemanns and the Kautskyites have committed a number of acts of treachery hindering (and in part quite ruining) the chances of an alliance with Soviet Russia and Soviet Hungary. We Communists will do all we can to facilitate and pave the way for such an alliance. However, we are in no way obligated to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles, come what may, or to do so at once. The possibility of its successful repudiation will depend, not only on the German, but also on the international successes of the Soviet movement. The Scheidemanns and the Kautskyites have hampered this movement; we are helping it. That is the gist of the matter; therein lies the fundamental difference. And if our class enemies, the exploiters and their Scheidemann and Kautskyite lackeys, have missed many an opportunity of strengthening both the German and the international Soviet movement, of strengthening both the German and the international Soviet revolution, the blame lies with them. The Soviet revolution in Germany will strengthen the international Soviet movement, which is the strongest bulwark (and the only reliable, invincible and world-wide bulwark) against the Treaty of Versailles and against international imperialism in general. To give absolute, categorical and immediate precedence to liberation from the Treaty of Versailles and to give it precedence over the question of liberating other countries oppressed by imperialism, from the yoke of imperialism, is philistine nationalism (worthy of the Kautskys, the Hilferdings, the Otto Bauers and Co.), not revolutionary internationalism. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie in any of the large European countries, including Germany, would be such a gain for the international revolution that, for its sake, one can, and if necessary should, tolerate a more prolonged existence of the Treaty of Versailles. If Russia, standing alone, could endure the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for several months, to the advantage of the revolution, there is nothing impossible in a Soviet Germany, allied with Soviet Russia, enduring the existence of the Treaty of Versailles for a longer period, to the advantage of the revolution. The imperialists of France, Britain, etc., are trying to provoke and ensnare the German Communists: "Say that you will not sign the Treaty of Versailles!" they urge. Like babes, the Left Communists fall into the trap laid for them, instead of skilfully manoeuvring against the crafty and, at present, stronger enemy, and instead of telling him, "We shall sign the Treaty of Versailles now." It is folly, not revolutionism, to deprive ourselves in advance of any freedom of action, openly to inform an enemy who is at present better armed than we are whether we shall fight him, and when. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy, but not to us, is criminal; political leaders of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are incapable of "changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise" in order to take evasive action in a patently disadvantageous battle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes [30] See Marx / Engels, Werke, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, Bd. 18, S. 533. [31] The League of Nations was an international body which existed between the First and the Second World Wars. It was founded in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference of the victor powers of the First World War. The Covenant of the League of Nations formed part of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, and was signed by 44 nations. The Covenant was designed to produce the impression that this organisation?s aim was to combat aggression, reduce armaments, and consolidate peace and security. In practice, however its leaders shielded the aggressors, fostered the arms race and preparations for the Second World War. Between 1920 and 1934, the League?s activities were hostile towards the Soviet Union. It was one of the centres for the organising of armed intervention against the Soviet state in On September 15, 1934, on French initiative, 34 member states invited the Soviet Union to join the League of Nations which the U.S.S.R. did, with the aim of strengthening peace. However, the Soviet Union?s attempts to form a peace front met with resistance from reactionary circles in the Western powers. With the outbreak of the Second World War the League?s activities came to an end, the formal dissolution taking place in April 1946, according to a decision by the specially summoned Assembly. [32] Lenin is referring to a passage from Frederick Engels?s letter to F. A. Sorge of November 29, 18X6, in which, criticising German Social-Democrat political exiles living in America, Engels wrote that for them the theory was "a credo, not a guide to action" (see Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 395). [33] The reference is to the international socialist conferences in Zimmerwald and Kienthal (Switzerland). The Zimmerwald Conference, the first international socialist conference, was held on September 5-8, 1915. The Kienthal Conference, the second international socialist conference, was held in the small town of Kienthal on April 24-30, 1916. The Zimmerwald and Kienthal conferences contributed to the ideological unity, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, of the Left-wing elements in West-European Social-Democracy, who later played an active part in the formation of Communist parties in their countries and the establishment of the Third Communist International. [34] "Revolutionary Communists"?a Narodnik group which broke away from the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries after the latter?s mutiny in July 1918. In September 1918, they formed the "Party of Revolutionary Communism", which favoured co-operation with the R.C.P.(B.), and pledged support for Soviet power. Their programme which remained on the platform of Narodnik utopianism was muddled and eclectic. While recognising that Soviet rule created preconditions for the establishment of a socialist system, the "revolutionary communists" denied the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship during the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. Throughout the lifetime of the "Party of Revolutionary Communism", certain of its groups broke away from it, some of them joining the R.C.P.(B.) (A. Kolegayev, A. Bitsenko, M. Dobrokhotov and others), and others, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. Two representatives of the "Party of Revolutionary Communism" were allowed to attend the Second Congress of the Comintern, in a deliberative capacity, but with no votes. In September 1920, following the Congress decision that there must be a single Communist Party in each country, the "Party of Revolutionary Communism" decided to join the R.C.P.(B.). In October of the same year, the R.C.P.(B.) Central Committee permitted Party organisations to enrol members of the former "Party of Revolutionary Communism" in the R.C.P.(B.). [*6] Within every class, even in the conditions prevailing in the most enlightened countries, even within the most advanced class, and even when the circumstances of the moment have aroused all its spiritual forces to an exceptional degree, there always are?and inevitably will be as long as classes exist, as long as a classless society has not fully consolidated itself, and has not developed on its own foundations -- representatives of the class who do not think, and are incapable of thinking, for themselves. Capitalism would not be the Oppressor of the masses that it actually is, if things were otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jan 2 11:58:03 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:58:03 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Don't cut back Message-ID: <495E1D6A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> -clip- Sorry for another big long post, please email me if this is getting out of hand and I will cut back, TOdd ^^^ No don't cut back. Keep it up. Charles Brown One of your moderators. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jan 2 12:24:38 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:24:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs Message-ID: <495E23A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> The Worker-communist Party of Iran piggybacking itself on labor activists in Iran is detrimental to the cause of labor in Iran. -- Yoshie ^^^ CB: See _Leftwing Communism_ for concepts useful to analysis of this situation. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 13:23:14 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:23:14 -0800 Subject: [A-List] US Congress Is Getting a Raise Message-ID: <495E77B2.6090304@gmail.com> One Group That Still Is Getting a Raise - Congress from Truthout (McClatchy) Washington - Members of Congress have at least one reason to ring in the new year: They've given themselves a $4,700-a-year pay raise starting Thursday. With the economy in a recession and millions of Americans losing their jobs, however, members are under fire to rescind the pay hike, which will increase their base salaries to $174,000, roughly a 2.8 percent raise. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California will get a larger raise... More: http://www.truthout.org/010109C From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jan 2 13:23:36 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:23:36 -0500 Subject: [A-List] GP entrails [In defense of Harrington and American Menshevism] (1) Message-ID: <495E3178.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: Waistline2 at xxxxxxx Comment "It's not so much a "model" but concepts." Approach means method not model. Lenin's model, according to him was based on the Soviet form. In other words the Russian model is not applicable but Lenin's method of approach - Marxism, is valid. ^^^ CB: No, the main concepts of _imperialism_ are even more applicable today than in Lenin's day. The concentration of wealth is greater than 1916. The finance capital sector dominates the industrial sector more than then. The parisitic financial sector has almost killed some of its main hosts in the industrial sector. That's a change from Lenin's analysis. There is more of a merger of finance and industrial capital. The former has devoured the latter. ^^^^ One cannot build a Soviet. Lenin did not build the Soviet model. It arouse spontaneously, according to Lenin. ^^^ CB: The Soviet model is not critical to the analysis of imperialism in _Imperialism_. As to the organization of revolutionaries, yeah, the Soviet model is not overly pertinent to the US , except that Soviets were just "councils". "Soviet" means "council" in Russian. So, some things are pretty elementary to any organization of workers or people, so there may be some way in which Soviet features would be pertinent to building current workers' organizations. We shouldn't mystify Soviets. ^^^^ The fact - indisputable, of the matter is that Russia was a feudal society with an entirely different class alignment . . ., yes. In this thread I further clarify the word model as form of the revolution. The reason Marxism is valid is because of his method, rather than similarity between America and Russia. Marx method of inquiry and approach is the meaning of Marxism as I understand it. Lenin's doctrine is of course obsolete and was never successfully applied to any advanced industrial country. ^^^ CB: Well, no, Lenin's theories are , of course, not obsolete. See _Imperialism_ , for example. In some ways, fresh as a daisy for analyzing the current financial crisis ( See previous posts). ^^^^ I must be honest and state that Lenin's "Imperialism" has help me none in unraveling the real financial crisis of today. Henry's writings have been of immense value in tracking the unfolding of the crisis. Actually, Henry does provide an analysis of Lenin's "Imperialism." Perhaps you disagree with his analysis and comparison with events of today? ^^^ CB: I don't disagree with Henry. I disagree with you that Lenin's _Imperialism_ isn't critical for understanding today's crisis. You need concepts such as "monopoly" and "financial oligarchy" to understand today's crisis. I don't see a contradictions between the fundamentals that Lenin presented and the details of this phase of imperialism as analyzed by Henry and Michael. Dollar hegemony is only possible with extreme monopoly and financial oligarchism It is the latest tactic of imperialism. ^^ ^^^^ I remember writing several years ago that I did not see the bursting of the housing bubble taking place in real time, because I didn't. Nor do I recall you or anyone else on the Marxist Left or Right charting the financial crisis, as it unfolded in real time. ^^^ CB: There has been a qualitative jump in the crisis since October 2008 demonstrating starkly the concrete pertinence of Lenin's ideas in _Imperialism_. ^^^^ What changed my understanding was not the intensifying of the crisis in the past 12 months but moving to Florida, where I actually ran into the financial melt down roughly 20 months. I went back to some of Henry's witting and began studying them and not just reading them. This material expressed what I was seeing in front of me and what had previously appeared as a form of "economic Greek", now stood out crystal clear. All the illusive and funny sounding financial instruments that came into existence post 1970 - (not fiction capital and coupon clipper of the Lenin era) written about, now leaped from the page. ^^^^ CB: The fancy derivatives of today are not different in principle from the speculation Lenin outlines in _Imperialism_ as far as dominance of the financial oligarchy and monopoly of giant financial corporations. All they mean is that the financial oligarchy is even more dominant today. That's more of the same, or the more things change , the more they stay the same. What difference do those new forms of derivatives make for the tactics and strategy of the working class vis-a-vis the financial oligarchy, the ruling class ? ^^^ Initially, I joking said that Henry must have a new editor, but it was reality slapping me in the face. Henry rather than Lenin coined the term dollar hegemony in its concrete operations going on a decade. Dollar hegemony - which economic writers and thinker agree with world wide, has a historically specific meaning unrelated to Lenin's Imperialism. ^^^ CB: No underlying Leninist imperialist structures, no dollar hegemony. Lenin's imperialism - monopoly and financial oligarchy - are necessary premises for dollar hegemony. Imperialism didn't disappear between 1916 and the time Henry wrote about dollar hegemony or Michael wrote super-imperialism. It got more like itself - more monopoly and more financial oligarchism. Dollar hegemony is the specific form of control that imperialism , as defined fundamentally by Lenin, took at a certain point of its history. ^^^^ Lenin's "concept" is to look at facts and data from the standpoint of Marx method. ^^^ CB: Well , that, but there are specific concepts -monopoly, financial oligarchy, speculation, export of capital, parasitism, et al. in _Imperialism_ that he uses from looking at data from Marx's standpoint. See Marx's chapter on the historical tendency of the capitalist mode of production. Just as it pained Lenin to read his own book, I too suffer from this same pain and accept the document as a historical document. This does not mean that Lenin's method is to be rejected. ^^^ CB: I know. ^^^^ The financial imperialism of today is not distinguished by monopoly but rather its total and absolute separation from the process of value production based on the labor of the workers. ^^^ CB: The events of the last couple of months prove this statement wrong. The $ 8 trillion bailout of the Wall Street banks demonstrates very clearly that they are very much monopolies. They are bigger monopolies than the financial oligarchical corporations of Lenin's day. Monopoly , by this empirical evidence, is still the central characteristic of the financial oligarchy , as in 1916. Workers of the world ,just watch the news. ^^ This was not the case during Lenin's lifetime. This of course does not mean that no where on earth will a financial institution underwrite or loan to a production unit. Absolute separation means the historical bond between labor and capital has been ruptured and can never return to the labor-capital bond of the era of Marx and Lenin. ^^^^ CB: The wage-labor/capital relationship still exists as fundamental today. Even Marx and Engels noted the tendency of the owners of capital to become more and more separated from the production process. GM execs are signficantly separated from the production process. I don't know that Wall Street financiers today are more separated from production than were Wall Street financiers in 1916. ^^^ The historic triumph of Menshevism in America - a clumsy formulation, is bound up with economic and political circumstances of the advanced industrial countries that are very different from what Lenin faced. The reason Lenin and Leninism or the Leninists form of organization, triumphed in Russia and no where else, is not due to "bad" or "wrong thinking" on the part of individuals and groups but because this form - model, of organization prove in real life to be unsuited for an advanced industrial country, that generates a different form of revolution. Nor, could the Leninist form be applied in the colonial world, and no where was it applied with any success. NO WHERE! ^^^^ CB; The Leninist form was applied with great success in China, Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, et al. Lenin's ideas on organization are very useful today in trying to develop a form of our concrete situation. contrary to your claim. ^^^ Russia was not a colony but the colonizer. In the colonial areas the form of organization was strictly military in the main or the army engaging the imperial authority. I have in mind China, Korea and to a degree Cuba. In the Peoples Democracies the Soviet army was victorious. ************* CB: And Lenin's analysis of ultra-leftism, petit bourgeois revolutionism, anarchism, compromise, participation in bourgeois politics , etc. in _Left wing Communism_ is a treasure trove for analyzing the US left today, of course, with appropriate concrete updates and accounting for new and different features from Lenin's concrete situation. Comment If in fact the above is true then one would be able to simply write about how the "ultra leftism" is impacting the spontaneous movement of the workers. Yes? ^^^^ CB: Maybe ^^^^^ It is not enough to say that Lenin is relevant and then not present the concrete manifestations of such. ^^^^ CB: See some previous posts on left attitudes to the Democratic Party ^^^ Why fight straw men and ghost? ^^^ CB: Why indeed ? ^^^^ In looking at the left today its main feature is not "ultra-leftism," but right wing thinking and a historical reliance on the bourgeoisie. ^^^^ CB: Not the left of these email lists. ^^^^ It is my contention that the danger to the communists and their various groupings, (not the spontaneous movement of the workers) is right wing thinking that glorify the trade unions and advocate anti-monopoly strategy which today means a block - alliance with the capitalist. ^^^ CB: Why there's an ultra-left thought from you. Thought you said there was no danger from ultra-left thinking ? Speaking of strawmen, whose glorifying trade unions ? ^^^^ In terms of American society, the anti-monopoly struggle is of the period of 1890's proper. The anti-monopoly strategy of the Roosevelt era had nothing to do with Leninism as a model or organizational form and basically meant blocking with Roosevelt and the Roosevelt Coalition. ^^^ CB; Today, we should block against the Wall Street monopoly financial oligarchy. There's great potential for that all across the working class spectrem since the Oligarchy just stole $8 trillion in broad daylight. ^^^^^ ^^^ I do not condemn the Roosevelt Coalition for reasons outlined in part 3 of this thread. However, it had nothing to do with revolution. ^^^^ CB: Nothing ? Nothing comes from nothing. ^^^^ I am sure, very sure that the danger to the communist and workers, throughout our entire history, is blocking with the bourgeoisie or right wing communism. ^^^^ CB: Reread the concepts of _Leftwing Communism_ *^^^^^^^ Advocating not voting is not an "ultra leftist" error, simply because one say so. ^^^ CB: Depends on the concrete situation. Advocating not voting in the last election would have been ultra-left ; but not just because someone says so, but because of reasonings analogous to those in _Leftwing Communism_ ^^^ What we need is a concrete analysis of today and our history and I see very little being written about today and the classes of today and finance today. ^^^ CB: Your eyes must be closed when you look at this list. ^^^^ It is as if the Marxists refuse to think and speak in real time. ^^^ CB: Speak for yourself ^^^^ The good thing about adhering to the method of Marx it that it allows us to think things out in real time. Waistline This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 13:40:54 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:40:54 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs In-Reply-To: <495E23A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <495E23A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <495E7BD6.4090100@gmail.com> Let's re-word this: "The communist Party of America (CPUSA) piggybacking itself on labor activists in the US is detrimental to the cause of labor in the US." Needed... Left wing communists, anarchists, syndicalists, shit-stirrers... Action talks, bullshit walks. Oh, and YES I know who Grace Lee Boggs is, the Michigan Citizen IS the definition of mainstream media, and like many so-called activist from the sixties, she sat back on her laurels after the civil rights movement wound down, as did many who were active during the Vietnam war (Speaking of "bullshit walks", L Proyect and his ilk comes to mind... I wonder if that hemorrhoid ring I sent him for Xmas fits?). One trick ponies don't impress me. John Kerry was that too with his membership in VVAW (because the 'hippie chicks' REALLY put out!). Two tricks, I MIGHT pay attention to what you have to say. Put every waking moment of your life into GLOBAL justice, and you've earned my respect. She, NOR Lou Proyect, NOR John Kerry, NOR Barack Obama, did that, or anything even close to that. I stand by my statement: "She kids herself... I can't imagine for even a second that this woman and Cynthia McKinney's 'policies' are at all similar." Charles Brown wrote: > The Worker-communist Party of Iran piggybacking itself on labor > activists in Iran is detrimental to the cause of labor in Iran. -- > Yoshie > > ^^^ > CB: See _Leftwing Communism_ for concepts useful to analysis of this situation. > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 14:20:40 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:20:40 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs In-Reply-To: <495E7BD6.4090100@gmail.com> References: <495E23A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <495E7BD6.4090100@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Leighm wrote: > Let's re-word this: > > "The communist Party of America (CPUSA) piggybacking itself on labor > activists in the US is detrimental to the cause of labor in the US." There's no equivalence here. In the case of the USA, both much of US labor and the CPUSA support the Democrats, so they stand for the same thing. In the case of the Worker-communist Party of Iran, there's no evidence that Iranian labor activists on whom the party tries to piggyback itself actually believe in the kind of "communism" espoused by the WCP-Iran. Yoshie From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 14:42:05 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:42:05 -0800 Subject: [A-List] It's ABOUT TIME For The End Of The Petro-Industrial Age: Factories slash output and jobs around the world Message-ID: <495E8A2D.5000201@gmail.com> It's a good thing too, lest we be warring on the Moon , and in OTHER inhospitable (EXPENSIVE LOGISTICALLY) environs: January 2, 2009 Countries in tug-of-war over Arctic resources (CNN) -- One of the planet's most fragile and pristine ecosystems sits atop a bounty of untapped fossil fuels. Melting polar ice is making the Arctic more accessible to shipping and other industry. Melting polar ice is making the Arctic more accessible to shipping and other industry. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are recoverable in the frozen region north of the Arctic Circle. And the fight over who owns those resources may turn out to be the most important territorial dispute of this century. BEIJING/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Factories in China, India and Eastern Europe joined the United States and other developed countries in slashing output and jobs in December, another sign recession is spreading to emerging markets. U.S. factory activity fell to a 28-year low in December, according to a report on Friday from the Institute for Supply Management showing a more severe contraction than expected. The ISM index of U.S. national factory activity fell to the lowest since 1980 amid mounting evidence that demand is collapsing in the Western countries that developing nations rely on as export markets. Economists and policy-makers had seen China, Russia, India and Brazil, with their vast markets and rising wealth, as the engines of growth that could save the world from recession. Those hopes are fading fast and forecasts are getting gloomier. From job losses at Chinese factories to the biggest drop in South Korean house prices in five years, there were signs the export slowdown was rippling through emerging markets. "What is worrying is that the weakness has spread rapidly from the externally-oriented sectors to domestically-oriented sectors too," analysts at OCBC Bank in Singapore said in a note after the country announced gross domestic product data. In contrast to the rapidly darkening economic outlook, the mood in markets has brightened slightly. Having squirreled cash into safe havens for much of the past quarter, investors are eyeing assets pummeled in the financial turmoil of 2008. STOCKS RISE Global stocks as measured by the MSCI world index were up 1.7 percent and U.S. indexes were up more than 1 percent by mid-morning. U.S. Treasuries prices eased, in a sign investors' appetite for risk was growing after a year in which $14 trillion was wiped off world stock markets. "It feels like we've passed through the eye of the storm," Robert Rennie, chief currency strategist at Westpac in Sydney, said of the financial crisis. "That's not to say there isn't another storm on the horizon, but for the moment the intense pessimism of October and November seems to have eased." World governments have pumped more than $1 trillion into their economies to stem the financial crisis and spur growth, and investors are eagerly awaiting more details of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's infrastructure stimulus plan. Obama plans to meet congressional leaders on Monday to discuss their legislative agendas, including how to jump-start the U.S. economy, according to a Democratic congressional aide. Obama officials have been discussing an economic stimulus bill in the range of $675 billion to $775 billion. Oil kicked off the new year feebly, with prices still weighed down by expectations of reduced demand with world economies hobbled by recession. FROM CHINA TO THE EURO ZONE China's manufacturing activity fell for a fifth month, the Purchasing Managers' Index showed. [nPEK336109] Continued... http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B70ME20090102?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews From tal1 at cogeco.ca Fri Jan 2 14:50:29 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:50:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Let the Banks Fail In-Reply-To: <495DDDF1.9010702@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <495DDDF1.9010702@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <3C92141751874DD590323174B1E07838@TonyPC> ...clear analysis...up to a point, and that point is: the author harbours a strangely Panglossian view of capitalism itself. Thus, whilst criticizing 'finance capitalism' he seems immune to the rather transparent fact that the 'short termism' of the latter is built into the very fibre of its parent [and 'corporate social responsibility' is an oxymoron]... More 'reformism'... Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Totten" To: "a-list" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 4:27 AM Subject: [A-List] Let the Banks Fail > > Why a Few of the Financial Giants Should Crash > > The finance industry still owns mountains of bad paper and must absorb > these losses - or else we'll face a very long recession. > > by Joshua Holland > > AlterNet (December 15 2008) > > > So far, much of Washington's ad hoc, ham-fisted response to the economic > crisis has been based on the dictum that the financial institutions must > be prevented from taking their losses. > > That should come as no surprise. Big finance's lobbyists have been all > over the "bailout" (it should be bailouts, plural) from the very start, > Wall Street pumped piles of cash into the elections - AIG, recipient of > tens of billions in taxpayer largesse, ponied up $750,000 for both the > Democratic and Republican conventions - and the whole thing's been > designed by "free-market" ideologues who came to Washington directly > from Wall Street. > > But the hard reality is that the institutions that created this mess > have to take their losses - no doubt huge losses in many cases - if > we're to have any chance of avoiding a deep recession that drags on for > years. > > Some will be wiped out in the process, but propping up firms that have > massive - and not entirely known - quantities of so-called toxic > securities on their books only delays the inevitable day of reckoning. > > The rot has spread far beyond real estate, but that offers a nice > concrete example of the danger of keeping Big Finance from taking its > lumps. So far, their lobbyists have fought off attempts to force them to > renegotiate mortgages, especially plans that call for writing down the > value of the loans to reflect the post-bubble market. This is > understandable. But the reality is that there are a lot of homes "under > water" - that is, worth less than the value of their mortgages - and a > lot of mortgages with "teaser rates" are about to adjust upward. > Foreclosures only drive down the value of the whole market further - who > wants to pay today's fair value when two other houses on the same street > are headed toward foreclosure and might be had for a song in a few months? > > The justification for creating the big bailout honeypot for Wall Street > was that banks are hoarding money, causing a "credit crunch" that's > killing the whole economy. But that's only true to a point; while > financial institutions are holding cash, including, reportedly, those > billions they gouged from the taxpayers, they appear to be doing so to > protect their balance sheets, and in some cases, to fund mergers. The > bigger problem - one the bailout is hardly touching - is that trillions > in home equity and retirement accounts have vanished, and there aren't a > lot of people - or firms - looking to borrow money to buy stuff or > expand right now. > > Economist Dean Baker explains the dominance of the "credit crunch" > narrative like this: > > The media "largely ignored the growth of an $8 trillion housing bubble, > by far the most important economic phenomenon of the decade. Now that it > has burst and sent consumption plummeting, they are blaming the economic > collapse on a 'credit crunch' instead of the more obvious problem that > consumers just lost $6 trillion of housing wealth and another $8 > trillion of stock wealth." > > We hear a lot about banks not lending to one another these days - > another reason we have to buy up shares of their tanking stocks and > guarantee their funky securities. But consider that as I write, a > benchmark "interbank" lending rate (the LIBOR, if you care) is at its > lowest point in history, meaning that banks aren't, in fact, charging > each other an arm and a leg for cash. > > But, at the same time, William Prophet, an analyst at UBS, Switzerland's > biggest bank, told Bloomberg News that "the volume of loans apparently > is still close to zero, and that hasn't changed". > > People are just maxed out, and they're not borrowing or buying. > > Are the Titans of Finance Too Big to Fail? > > Letting the banks - the ones that went out furthest on the ledge of > those newfangled debt-backed securities and indulged in the worst > lending practices - take a beating does represent a conundrum. On the > one hand, there's an almost visceral satisfaction to the idea of letting > high-flying financiers get their comeuppance. It was the titans of Wall > Street, after all, who turned a housing bubble into a shaky house of > cards worth tens of trillions of dollars based on little more than > "irrational exuberance" and a wave of deregulation. > > But, at the same time, the financial services sector - banking and > insurance - employs over six million people. Last month, CitiGroup > announced that it would layoff 53,000 employees, the second-largest > workforce cut by a single company in American history. That will bring > the total number of people out of a finance job to 180,000 this year, > and those people will spend less, pay fewer taxes, and many will have > trouble paying their mortgages and staying in their homes. The sector's > unemployment rate rose from 3.9 percent to 4.6 percent in just four > months, between August and November. > > The assertion that we should do what's necessary to avoid adding to our > unemployment and other woes just at the moment would be more persuasive > if not for one crucial point: our financial sector has become bloated, > swimming in capacity the larger economy doesn't need. That house of > cards it built is simply too big to prop up, and spending billions to do > so is only throwing good money after bad - saving an industry that has > grown out of proportion to the purpose it serves. > > Here's a fun fact about the finance industry. Historically, it's grown > and contracted along with the business cycle. When the economy was going > gang-busters and businesses were expanding, it was there to provide > capital and insurance and connect investors with entrepreneurs and > innovators. Then, when the business cycle took its inevitable turn and > the economy slowed down, it would contract. But a funny thing happened > on the way to the financial meltdown; as the Associated Press noted, > "when the Internet bubble burst in 2000, the sector never stopped > growing. Instead, it ballooned over the past eight years to around ten > percent of the US economy, puzzling economists." > > It's not such a puzzle. In large part, the continued growth of the > sector was based on the explosion in derivatives - high-value vapor - > rather than anything connected to real growth in the "nuts and bolts" > economy. (As I explained in more detail here, a derivative is a piece of > paper that can be bought and sold for real money but isn't attached to a > concrete asset. Its value is simply derived from something tangible - > hence the name. It is, in essence, the equivalent of investors making a > bet that a company, industry or just about anything else with a tangible > value will move up or down.) > > The recession of 2001 officially started in March, when the financial > services sector employed 5.7 million people. At the time, the total > value of derivatives held by US commercial banks was estimated to be > around $42 trillion. By the third quarter of 2007 - before the crash - > the financial sector was employing almost 6.2 million people, and the > value of derivatives held by American banks had skyrocketed to almost > $170 trillion - almost three times the value of the entire world's > economy. > > During the intervening period, the "real" American economy was in > doldrums: between 2000-2007, median household income dropped; the number > of families living in poverty grew by almost 11 percent and the economy > added jobs at the lowest rate in the post-World War II era. (I should > add that those employment numbers look a lot worse when you take out the > job growth in government and our uniquely inefficient health sector - > between 2001 and 2006, health care added 1.7 million (net) new jobs > while the rest of the economy added zero.) > > As Bloomberg reported, "The bundling of consumer loans and home > mortgages into packages of securities - a process known as > securitization - was the biggest US export business of the 21st century". > > So much of the economic output of recent years has been ephemeral, > fueled by the ever-growing financial industry and enabled by the > deregulation for which it lobbied hard for years. When this "speculation > economy" - or at least the big chunk of it built on consumer debt and > home mortgages (which I discussed in greater detail here) - began to > crash, it drove much of the real economy into the ground with it, and > that's where we stand today. > > But the importance of this analysis goes beyond assigning blame. Today, > we have a finance sector that is straining under the weight of a ton of > fishy paper - those much-discussed toxic securities - and nobody knows > exactly who's holding what. What we do know is that since 2001, $27 > trillion worth of bundled, debt-backed securities were issued, and a > significant, if equally unknown, portion of those are nearly worthless. > > This was always the fundamental flaw with the original "Paulson plan" - > buying a couple hundred billion worth of crappy paper when there's > trillions worth of the stuff on American banks' book is tantamount to > trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble. > > But more important is what these numbers suggest moving ahead. The hard > reality is that these financial institutions must take huge losses on > that paper or else this recession will likely deepen and drag out for > years. Basic economic theory says that when a business is not > sustainable and goes belly-up - or a sector has unnecessary capacity and > shrinks - its capital, physical plant and other assets, expertise and > employees will become integrated into firms that are productive. > > When the Financial Tail Wags the Corporate Dog > > The financial sector's size isn't the only thing to consider as we watch > our government take a page from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez and > blow wads of state money purchasing bank stocks and those "troubled > assets". The influence of the financial sector on the behavior of the > rest of the corporate economy is something that we take for granted - > it's business as usual in America - but in a time of crisis, a rethink > of the entire financial order is imperative. > > The modern system of finance developed during the progressive era - from > the late 1890s through the 1920s - and its creation was heavily > influenced by the prevailing anger at the power of the huge trusts. > Dispersed ownership and new forms of finance - through stocks, corporate > bonds and other securities - were seen as an antidote to the influence > of the robber barons, that handful of dynastic families who controlled > key sectors of the American economy. > > Since then, the original function of the financial markets - to link > investors' capital with innovative firms - has been turned on its head. > Today, corporate behavior is very much dictated by the markets - > quarterly earnings, stock prices and the like - and not the other way > around. That's not a good thing. > > Lawrence Mitchell, a professor of business law at George Washington > University, notes in his book, The Speculation Economy (2007), that a > recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations revealed that > almost eighty percent would have "at least moderately mutilated their > businesses in order to meet [financial] analysts' quarterly profit > estimates":- > > Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising and > maintenance and delaying hiring and new projects are some of the > long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations. Why? > Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to meet > quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to the > corporation's stock price. > > And corporate managers' own fortunes are tied to their companies' share > prices through bonuses, stock options and other incentives. The desire > to make the financial sector happy often dwarves other imperatives; > Mitchell calls it "short-termism" and suggests that making a company's > balance sheet look good quarter to quarter drives CEOs to sacrifice > values like worker safety, environmental protection and other social > goods. > > A good example of this financial market-driven short-termism can be seen > in a 2004 study of CEO compensation conducted by United for a Fair > Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies (PDF). It found, "CEOs at > companies that outsource the most US jobs are rewarded with bigger > paychecks ... average CEO compensation at the fifty firms outsourcing > the most service jobs increased by 46 percent in 2003, compared to a > nine percent average increase for all CEOs at the 365 large companies > surveyed by Business Week". > > There's no doubt that offshoring decent jobs that paid living wages was > good for those firms' short-term bottom lines, and those corporate > managers were rewarded on that basis. But was it good for the economy? > With consumer spending in the tank and inequality at levels not seen > since the robber barons were tamed, it's hard to argue that such > short-term thinking served the nation's economy very well. > > Let's return a moment to the fact that banks aren't lending money. There > are multiple causes for the freeze, including the fact that businesses > and individuals aren't in the market to borrow money to purchase goods > or expand their operations. Another reason is that, as Bloomberg > reported, "With three weeks to go until the end of the year, financial > institutions are vying for loans that mature after December 31 to > bolster their balance sheets as they prepare to report to investors". > > As the financial meltdown forces the economic establishment to chart a > new course, we should not only let the financial sector contract > significantly, but curtail its influence as well. That can be achieved > in a number of ways: by banning corporate compensation based on firms' > stock values, creating new forms of socially responsible financing or > encouraging the expansion of what Bill Gates calls creative capitalism - > a nebulous phrase that's been interpreted to mean adding corporate > social responsibility to the traditional imperative of maximizing > profits over the short term. > > That won't be easy - and would be politically impossible in a normally > functioning economy. But letting a few banking giants sink, and the > financial sector as a whole write down massive amounts of the junk it > produced during the last decade just might help focus the mind on newer > and more creative models of finance. > > Links: > > The original version of this article at the URL below contains numerous > links to other sources of information. > _____ > > Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer. > > (c) 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. > > http://www.alternet.org/story/112166/ > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 15:04:17 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:04:17 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs In-Reply-To: References: <495E23A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <495E7BD6.4090100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495E8F61.7020007@gmail.com> There's no evidence that the workers of the US support CPUSA, or any other so-called revolutionary organization, as they do the Democratic Party (Like there's a choice...) They ( the CPUSA) DOES NOT stand for the same thing as Democrats (Unless you'd consider corruption to be something they have in common.), or for that matter have anything in common with the US workforce. That's why morons like Lou Proyect and friends got ejected from or thugged at every factory they ever tried to organize, and when they attempt to cooperate with the US political machine they get co-opted instead. They don't mind being co-opted... Their laurels (and their "legend in their own minds") await to cushion their over-theorized asses. All this WOULD explain Charles perverse support for Barack O, an up-and-comer sprung from the loins of the still-alive-and-utterly-corrupt Daly-Machine that infests the whole state... The current governor of Illinois will have the previous governor, who is already in prison, to chat with when the verdict is handed down over Obama's senate seat-for-sale. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Leighm > wrote: > >> Let's re-word this: >> >> "The communist Party of America (CPUSA) piggybacking itself on labor >> activists in the US is detrimental to the cause of labor in the US." >> > > There's no equivalence here. In the case of the USA, both much of US > labor and the CPUSA support the Democrats, so they stand for the same > thing. In the case of the Worker-communist Party of Iran, there's no > evidence that Iranian labor activists on whom the party tries to > piggyback itself actually believe in the kind of "communism" espoused > by the WCP-Iran. > > Yoshie > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 15:24:44 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:24:44 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs In-Reply-To: <495E8F61.7020007@gmail.com> References: <495E23A5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> <495E7BD6.4090100@gmail.com> <495E8F61.7020007@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Leighm wrote: > There's no evidence that the workers of the US support > CPUSA, or any other so-called revolutionary organization, > as they do the Democratic Party (Like > there's a choice...) Most workers of the USA have never heard of any American communist, including the CPUSA, but the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary organization long ago, has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide. That's not the case with Iranian labor activists. Such evidence as available to the public shows that, far from supporting the Worker-communist Party of Iran, a lot of them, beginning with the most famous labor dissident of Iran Mansour Osanloo, support Khatami and the reformist current, which the WCP-Iran, still wedded to a sectarian variety of ML, rejects as well as all the rest of the IRI politicians. It's not impossible, though highly unlikely, that one day a sizable number of Iranians will take interest in socialism (or something like it under another name) again, as the IRI gradually liberalizes its political economy, but it won't be the kind of dogmatic sectarian socialism espoused by WCP-Iran. Yoshie From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jan 2 15:31:10 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:31:10 +0900 Subject: [A-List] How the Rise of the Speculation Economy Shaped US Corporate Culture Message-ID: <495E95AE.3070802@ashisuto.co.jp> American capitalism is such that a speculative stock market dominates the policies of businesses. by Lawrence E Mitchell AlterNet (December 22 2008) Editor's Note: The following is an edited excerpt from The Speculation Economy: How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (2007), Lawrence Mitchell's definitive history of the rise of American finance and analysis of how it shaped corporate behavior in the modern era. During the rise of the "speculation economy" in the early years of the 20th century, business' focus on production was replaced with business management's focus on stock prices. That goal might be consistent with healthy, sustainable and responsible business practices, but it also might not be. Understanding the complex development of American corporate capitalism can help us better improve and sustain the strength of the American economy. While our current economic crisis is frequently compared to that of the Great Depression, its roots and causes go further back in history - to the development of the modern American stock market at the turn of the 20th century. Contrary to popular belief, the public market for industrial securities didn't finance industrialization - industrialization had already taken place. Instead, it exploded into existence as a result of trust promoters and investment bankers trying to restrain competition through the creation of giant combinations of corporations and at the same time getting rich quick by dumping the overvalued securities of these giant corporate behemoths onto an emerging middle class eager to share the wealth. The first major industrial stock market crash followed fast on the heels of its birth. The formative era of American corporate capitalism took place between 1897 and 1919. The American business landscape of the late 19th century had been characterized by independent factories. No matter what their size, they typically were owned by entrepreneur industrialists, their families and perhaps a few business associates. But in the first decades of the 20th century, American business transformed into a vista of giant combinations of industrial plants owned directly and indirectly by widely dispersed shareholders. Business reasons sometimes justified these combinations. But they might never have come into being if financiers and promoters had not discovered that they could be used to create and sell massive amounts of stock for their own gain. The result is a form of capitalism in which a speculative stock market dominated the policies of American business. The result is the speculation economy. Historians have studied virtually every aspect of the Progressive Era, including the social and philosophical changes that took place in Americans' ways of living and thinking about their world, the dramatic technological and economic developments that occurred, the rise of big business, the growth in importance of the federal government, the fitful creation of American industrial policy, the establishment of the bargain between labor and capital, the changes in political relations between government and big business, the development of new styles of regulation and America's assumption of its turn as the world's dominant economic power. Many have provided rich pictures of different aspects of the dramatic and related economic, social and political transformations that occurred during that period. The story I tell in The Speculation Economy: How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (2007) is the economic equivalent of the political creation of the republic. It is a story that needs to be told for many reasons, not least of which is that the corporate economy that emerged during this era has been beset with problems ranging from short-term management horizons that can damage the long-term health of business to the increasing willingness of corporate managers to "externalize" the costs of production for the benefit of their stockholders. A recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations revealed that almost eighty percent would have at least moderately mutilated their businesses in order to meet financial analysts' quarterly profit estimates. Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising and maintenance, and delaying hiring and new projects are some of the long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations. Why? Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to meet quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to the corporation's stock price. One lesson of the formative period is that meaningful reform can be achieved only by reforming the market, by reforming finance itself to create the incentives for stockholders, and through them the market, to re-learn the lesson that profits come from industrial production, not from the breeze that blows toward tomorrow. It is a lesson that was often forgotten during these early years, and many times since. Finally, the story of the creation of American corporate capitalism illustrates the possibilities of capitalism and the variety of forms it can take. Some of these were present in the American corporate economy of the late 19th century. Closely held industrial capitalism, bank-finance capitalism, capitalism in which publicly held permanent investments like bonds characterized the principal source of corporate finance, even a heavily regulated state-guided capitalism, all were possibilities before the election of Warren Harding. Many of these different forms of capitalism have appeared successfully in different regions, cultures and countries during the 20th century. American corporate capitalism - stock market capitalism - was neither the necessary nor inevitable form of the American economy. The story of the formative period is a story of problems misperceived, transformations not yet understood and misguided regulation. One lesson of this story is that modern American corporate capitalism is the result of human choices. It is a system we maintain out of choice. It is a system that has ramifications beyond the economic that have helped to embed the kind of "hyper-individualism" that interferes with the cooperation necessary for a successful economy and a thriving society. It is within our power either to change it, to modify its rough edges or to accept it as it is. But these choices can only be made with understanding. Several years into my research on the rise of the speculation economy, I began to see in the formation of American corporate capitalism the reasons for a number of contemporary economic and social problems, problems which so many are trying to solve today without grasping some of the important causes that this history helps to identify. Perhaps as important, I started to see the way our speculation economy affects the norms of American society, how it has pushed American social norms from a vision of collective life that achieved some currency during the Progressive Era to a more atomistic form of individualism that has both recalled an earlier American ideal and driven the future. Nowhere in American society is violent, competitive individualism more rampant than in the modern stock market. Finally, the story holds important lessons for citizens of other nations, even as the American form of corporate capitalism has affected the different ways many other countries do business. For somewhat over a decade now, many countries have been at a decision point as to whether they will adopt the American way or pursue their own, or even whether they have much choice in the matter. _____ Lawrence E Mitchell is Theodore Rinehart Professor of Business Law at George Washington University. (c) 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/113385/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 16:40:20 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:40:20 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Antiwar Activism in Israel, Unseen on TV Message-ID: Unfortunately, the video with English subtitles loads a little slowly, but it's worth watching and passing it onto others. -- Yoshie Antiwar Activism in Israel, Unseen on TV by Rela Mazali Absent from Israeli and most other TV networks are the ongoing activism and protest inside Israel against Israel's siege and, now, war on Gaza. Immediately below is a video report on two of many such actions. From Waistline2 at aol.com Fri Jan 2 17:05:51 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:05:51 EST Subject: [A-List] GP entrails [In defense of Harrington/Summary Message-ID: ^^^ CB: No, the main concepts of _imperialism_ are even more applicable today than in Lenin's day. The concentration of wealth is greater than 1916. The finance capital sector dominates the industrial sector more than then. The parisitic financial sector has almost killed some of its main hosts in the industrial sector. That's a change from Lenin's analysis. There is more of a merger of finance and industrial capital. The former has devoured the latter. Comment I. Speculative capital now dominates financial-industrial capital and financial imperialism. There is no such thing existing today called industrial imperialism. Although speculation has remote roots, speculative capital as dominator of finance capital, writing the economic and political agenda is relatively new. Actually, speculative capital could not dominate financial-industrial capital without a new technological regime in the form of the modern communications infrastructure that allows for the flow of trillion of dollars daily through the new financial architecture on the one hand, and renders labor increasingly superfluous to the production of commodities on the other hand. To speak of labor being rendered superfluous is not absurd at all. Words has meaning and there is the meaning of rendering labor superfluous. The new technology is destroying the value relations before our very eyes, and compels capital to seek out profit outside the production of commodities or as it is said by the economic, to seek profit in notional value. Some of the elements of this discussion are; 1. Capital - merchant and manufacturing. 2. Industrial capital 3. Finance capital 4. industrial-finance capital: the domination of industrial capital over the banks. 5. Financial industrial capital: the domination of finance capital over industrial capital 6. Speculative capital as dominator of the world total capital. This issue is not "more of a merger of finance and industrial capital." There is no such thing today as a distinct sector of capital with or without a political life, that is not totally dominated by finance capital or a thing called industrial capital. Having a factory today does not mean industrial capital as a sector of capital. Cerberus ownership of Chrysler and 51% of General Motors is not the further fusion of finance capital with industrial capital but the domination and ownership of speculative capital over industrial production. General Motors is not today a form of industrial capital, simply because they makes cars!!! General Motors is not in business today because it makes cars. It is in business because of finance or GMAC, its financial arm. General Motors makes $143 off of each car, but the real money is made in financing. At some point we have to introduce reality - data and facts, into the discussion. GM makes $143 off of selling a vehicle in the American market. GMAC and outfits like GE like and die off of financing. To speak of speculative capital is to speak of a financial-industrial capital by definition. The reason why is because speculative capital is a sector of finance capital with finance capital long ago dominating industrial capital. To speak of finance capital is to speak of monopoly. What we face today is not monopolist but speculators who dominate capital and write the political program for capital. The call to fight "the monopolist" harkens back to the Populist movement, which was clearly a movement of the petty bourgeoisie. Finance capital and financial imperialism in America emerge 50 years before Lenin wrote "Imperialism." Financial capitalism in America came to dominate industry and all of our society as the result of financing the Civil War which cost $3 billion on the part of the Federal government. American financial imperialism arose through and on the basis of the Civil War. Financing the war meant financing industrial expansion and literally American financial imperialism creating the monopolies. Perhaps, a summary - primer, is need on this matter. Waistline **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 17:10:14 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:10:14 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Antiwar Activism in Israel, Unseen on TV In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495EACE6.9080705@gmail.com> A lot of things 'unseen' right now including what the people who assist the reporters stuck outside Gaza have to do to get the truth out: "...saw the blog. how about a shout out to the print people who have killed this story, with the essential help of our friends stuck inside. my gaza fixer is a 23 year old girl in a hijab, with a new born and she's running and gunning like a special operator. and half the time for naught or too late because she can't get comms to file to me. yet she still wakes up everyday to try. i'm naming my first kid after her. hope it's a girl or my boy 'ameera' will be in a lot of fights. and even if he wins them, he won't be as tough as his godmother." http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/12/from-reporter-friend-outside-gaza.html (This quote is riding the header of my blog right now.) Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > Unfortunately, the video with English subtitles loads a little slowly, > but it's worth watching and passing it onto others. -- Yoshie > > > Antiwar Activism in Israel, Unseen on TV > by Rela Mazali > > Absent from Israeli and most other TV networks are the ongoing > activism and protest inside Israel against Israel's siege and, now, > war on Gaza. Immediately below is a video report on two of many such > actions. > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 17:15:59 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:15:59 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Antiwar Activism in Israel, Unseen on TV In-Reply-To: <495EACE6.9080705@gmail.com> References: <495EACE6.9080705@gmail.com> Message-ID: Those who have Web access have many opportunities to find voices of opposition against the Gaza massacre, coming from many different directions. There have been a lot of protests, too. I collected some protest videos from some countries, including the US, at MRZine. I went to a local protest today (about 100 turned up). The third local protest. This time, unlike the previous two, one TV cameraman showed up. I hope it got onto TV news, even a little bit. Lots of people watch only TV and don't have regular Web access. Yoshie On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Leighm wrote: > A lot of things 'unseen' right now including what the people who assist the > reporters stuck outside Gaza have to do to get the truth out: > > "...saw the blog. > > how about a shout out to the print people who have killed this story, with > the essential help of our friends stuck inside. my gaza fixer is a 23 year > old girl in a hijab, with a new born and she's running and gunning like a > special operator. and half the time for naught or too late because she can't > get comms to file to me. yet she still wakes up everyday to try. i'm naming > my first kid after her. hope it's a girl or my boy 'ameera' will be in a lot > of fights. and even if he wins them, he won't be as tough as his godmother." > > http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/12/from-reporter-friend-outside-gaza.html > > (This quote is riding the header of my blog right now.) > > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, the video with English subtitles loads a little slowly, >> but it's worth watching and passing it onto others. -- Yoshie >> >> >> Antiwar Activism in Israel, Unseen on TV >> by Rela Mazali >> >> Absent from Israeli and most other TV networks are the ongoing >> activism and protest inside Israel against Israel's siege and, now, >> war on Gaza. Immediately below is a video report on two of many such >> actions. >> >> >> > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 17:21:49 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:21:49 -0800 Subject: [A-List] How Obama Lost Control of Iraq Policy Message-ID: <495EAF9D.1090101@gmail.com> Originally in subscriber only Le Monde, billed as: US MILITARY PLANNED TO SUBVERT AGREEMENT ON WITHDRAWAL How Obama lost control of Iraq policy * by Gareth Porter Everyone wondered, when Obama won the election, if he would hold to his pledge to withdraw from Iraq. The Pentagon and its political allies had other plans, and were already seeking to reverse the United States' existing agreement with the Iraqi government Original text in English First Published 2009-01-02 How Obama Lost Control of Iraq Policy http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=29519 [There is a continued military insistence on a conditions-based approach to a US withdrawal from Iraq that is part of a broader plan by Bush administration and military officials to evade key provisions of the SOFA , which has just begun to take effect, says Gareth Porter.] After Barack Obama?s electoral victory in November, one of the major questions was whether he would hold to his pledge during the campaign to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months. The fate of that withdrawal plan was seen as an indicator of Obama?s broader foreign policy orientation and the role he would play in foreign and national security policy. There was conflict between the president-elect and the US military leadership, known to oppose his withdrawal policy. But Obama had unusually strong convictions on Iraq. The struggle reflects a fundamental choice between strategic withdrawal from Iraq and an attempt to prolong the US military presence in the country beyond 2011. Obama?s withdrawal plan was not a mere sop to his anti-war Democratic activist base; it reflected a carefully considered personal strategic analysis. The clearest statement of Obama?s strategic rationale for a speedy withdrawal came on 15 July 2008, when Obama said the US military involvement in Iraq ?distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize.? The Iraq war, he argued, ?diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century.? In a New York Times op-ed on 14 July, Obama said his plan would involve ?tactical adjustments? and vowed to ?consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely.? But at a press conference two days later, he explained that these caveats would not affect the larger 16-month deadline for withdrawal, but related only to the pace of withdrawal ?in certain months? to assure the safety of American troops being withdrawn. Obama insisted that he would not adjust his schedule to bring it into line with the recommendation of General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. ?The president?s job,? said Obama, ?is to tell the generals what their mission is.? And when Obama finally met Petraeus in Baghdad later that month, he rejected his elaborate argument for a ?conditions-based? withdrawal, according to Joe Klein?s account in Time magazine, and insisted that he would make the decision based on his own evaluation of costs of continuing US presence. There was one ambiguity. He suggested that he would keep a ?residual force in Iraq? to perform ?limited missions,? which he defined as including force protection and training of Iraqi security forces, but also ?going after any remnants of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia.? But he had earlier made it clear that the forces targeting al-Qaida would be based elsewhere in the Middle East. The al-Maliki bombshell Obama, like everyone else in Washington, was expecting the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) then under negotiation to allow a long-term US military presence in the country. Even in mid-August, the Bush administration was still insisting that the dates for withdrawal of combat forces would be only ?time targets? and thus dependent on ?conditions.? However, Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki unexpectedly forced Bush to accept the complete withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of 2011, and also the complete withdrawal of all non-combat troops by the same date. He also demanded that US troops withdraw from cities and towns by June 2009 and regroup in bases to be located by agreement with Iraq. The final SOFA agreement accepted by the Bush administration on 6 November requires Washington to turn over a detailed schedule for complete withdrawal and even create ?mechanisms and arrangements? to reduce US forces levels within the specified time period. It forbids US troops from operating in the country without full Iraqi approval and coordination, and from detaining Iraqis without an Iraqi court order. It includes an absolute ban on the use of Iraqi territory or airspace to ?launch attacks against other countries?. The Pentagon plan So by the time Obama had been elected, his 16-month withdrawal timetable was very much in line with the intent of the US-Iraq agreement. But the US military leadership was far from reconciled with his plan -- or with the terms imposed by the SOFA. And it soon became apparent that the military and Pentagon bureaucracy had a plan to roll back the agreement. Within 72 hours of Obama?s election, Time magazine quoted the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno, as saying that the withdrawal of US forces would have to be done ?slowly, in a deliberate way, so we don?t give back the gains we?ve had?. Time reported that ?senior US military officials? were likely to advise Obama to ?adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010.? Three days later the Washington Post reported that Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed Obama?s timeline for withdrawal as ?dangerous? and still held to the military?s insistence that ?reductions must depend on conditions on the ground.? Citing ?defence experts,? the Post reported that conflict between Obama and these military leaders would be ?inevitable? if Obama were to press for the withdrawal of two brigades per month, as he had reaffirmed on his own website after the election. Speaking to reporters on 16 November, Mullen publicly declared his intention to advise Obama to make the pace and scale of withdrawal dependent on events on the ground. That announcement represented an open challenge to the president-elect. The Post reported on 18 November, the day of the signing of the agreement, that Pentagon officials said the time frame envisioned in the agreement gives them adequate time to safely remove all equipment and roughly 150,000 US troops from Iraq, but had ?reiterated that such a withdrawal should take place only if conditions warrant it.? These officials, who understood that the agreement had rejected the conditions-based approach in favour of a firm timetable, were asserting that in effect the United States should not be bound by the deadline for withdrawal in the agreement it had just signed. It soon became clear that the continued military insistence on a conditions-based approach was part of a broader plan by Bush administration and military officials to evade key provisions of the SOFA. McClatchy newspapers reported on 25 November that Bush administration officials had secretly adopted ?interpretations? of the ban on the use of Iraqi bases to launch attacks on other countries and the requirement to notify the Iraqi government in advance of US military operations that would allow the US to ?circumvent? those legal constraints. It planned to use the ?right of self-defence? in the agreement to justify any strike against targets in Syria and Iran, and to argue that it would only have to inform Iraqi officials of plans for operations in a given province during a given month. The Bush administration had kept these ?interpretations? secret from the Iraqi government, which would clearly have rejected them out of hand. In fact, they were not ?interpretations? of the agreement but proposals to subvert it. The provision governing US military operations requires not just notification but ?the approval of the Iraqi government? and ?full coordination with Iraqi authorities.? The prohibition against ?attacks against other countries? in the agreement is absolute and unconditional. An even more serious ploy conceived by Pentagon planners to subvert the intention of the SOFA was revealed by the New York Times, which reported on 4 December that ?Pentagon planners? were proposing ?relabelling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be ?re-missioned?, their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.? The Times suggested, with a straight face, that the proposed ?relabelling? was a method by which ?Mr. Obama?s goal could be accomplished at least in part.? Of course, it was just the opposite. The Times said the Pentagon planners were projecting that as many as 70,000 US troops would be maintained in Iraq ?for a substantial time even beyond 2011?. What the plan for keeping combat troops indefinitely in Iraq under the guise of ?training and support? troops, the insistence by Adm. Mullen and other military leaders on ?conditions-based withdrawal?, and the devising of justifications for ignoring the limitations on US operations all had in common was the intention by the US military and its civilian allies to reverse both the Obama withdrawal plan and the US-Iraq agreement. Why Gates was necessary Obama was confronted with a Pentagon bureaucracy that was signalling its determination to pursue a course in Iraq that was in direct contradiction to his own policy, and to the clear intent of the Iraqi government. The pressure on Obama to keep the secretary of defence Robert M. Gates at the Pentagon should be understood in light of this open challenge to his leadership. The pressure began within 24 hours of Obama?s election; the New York Times said the case for asking Gates to stay on at the Pentagon ?is being made publicly by columnists and commentators, and quietly by leading Congressional voices of Mr. Obama?s own party.? The public rationale for this unprecedented appointment was continuity and stability at a time when the United States was involved in two wars. But according to a source close to the Obama transition team, the reasoning was frankly political: The Democrats were concerned about their presumed political vulnerability on national security and wanted to have Gates, as a Republican, preside over the Iraq policy, to give them political cover. The policy implication of Obama?s choice of Gates is clear. Gates was known to be opposed to Obama?s withdrawal plan, with the military leadership. And it is inconceivable that he was not fully involved in the Pentagon planning for a policy that would seek to reverse the US-Iraq withdrawal agreement and prolong the US military presence indefinitely. Given its broad scope and multilevel character, it is likely that he was at the centre of it. Although Obama may continue to issue statements on Iraq policy, the Gates nomination signalled that control of the issue has already passed from the White House to the Pentagon. If he is displeased with what Gates does on Iraq, Obama cannot threaten to fire him. Based on the evidence that has already come to light, the Pentagon can be expected to continue, under Obama, to use all means available to subvert the agreement -- and the Iraqi regime -- in order to establish a long-term military presence. The story of how Obama came to yield effective control over his Iraq policy is a profound lesson on the nature of power on an issue of particular interest to the military leadership and its civilian allies. It has shown just how weak the democratic system?s defence is against the influence of the US military and its allies when they are determined to have their way. Gareth Porter is a historian and foreign policy analyst and author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, University of California Press, 2005. Copyright ?2009 Le Monde diplomatique (Distributed by Agence Global) http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=29519 From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 18:14:27 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:14:27 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Obama's Deadly Silence Message-ID: Obama's deadly silence Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 2 January 2009 Barack Obama is presented with a t-shirt by Sderot mayor Eli Moyal as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (left) looks on after inspecting homemade Palestinian rockets during his visit to the southern Israeli town last year. (David Silverman/Getty Images) "I would like to ask President-elect Obama to say something please about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced right now by the people of Gaza." Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney made her plea after disembarking from the badly damaged SS Dignity that had limped to the Lebanese port of Tyre while taking on water. The small boat, carrying McKinney, the Green Party's recent presidential candidate, other volunteers, and several tons of donated medical supplies, had been trying to reach the coast of Gaza when it was rammed by an Israeli gunboat in international waters. But as more than 2,400 Palestinians have been killed or injured -- the majority civilians -- since Israel began its savage bombardment of Gaza on 27 December, Obama has maintained his silence. "There is only one president at a time," his spokesmen tell the media. This convenient excuse has not applied, say, to Obama's detailed interventions on the economy, or his condemnation of the "coordinated attacks on innocent civilians" in Mumbai in November. The Mumbai attacks were a clear-cut case of innocent people being slaughtered. The situation in the Middle East however is seen as more "complicated" and so polite opinion accepts Obama's silence not as the approval for Israel's actions that it certainly is, but as responsible statesmanship. It ought not to be difficult to condemn Israel's murder of civilians and bombing of civilian infrastructure including hundreds of private homes, universities, schools, mosques, civil police stations and ministries, and the building housing the only freely-elected Arab parliament. It ought not to be risky or disruptive to US foreign policy to say that Israel has an unconditional obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to lift its lethal, months-old blockade preventing adequate food, fuel, surgical supplies, medications and other basic necessities from reaching Gaza. But in the looking-glass world of American politics, Israel, with its powerful first-world army, is the victim, and Gaza -- the besieged and blockaded home to 1.5 million immiserated people, half of them children and eighty percent refugees -- is the aggressor against whom no cruelty is apparently too extreme. While feigning restraint, Obama has telegraphed where he really stands; senior adviser David Axelrod told CBS on 28 December that Obama understood Israel's urge to "respond" to attacks on its citizens. Axelrod claimed that "this situation has become even more complicated in the last couple of days and weeks as Hamas began its shelling [and] Israel responded." The truce Hamas had meticulously upheld was shattered when Israel attacked Gaza, killing six Palestinians, as The Guardian reported on 5 November. A blatant disregard for the facts, it seems, will not leave the White House with George W. Bush on 20 January. Axelrod also recalled Obama's visit to Israel last July when he ignored Palestinians and visited the Israeli town of Sderot. There, Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This should not surprise anyone. Despite pervasive wishful thinking that Obama would abandon America's pro-Israel bias, his approach has been almost indistinguishable from the Bush administration's. Along with Tony Blair and George W. Bush, Obama staunchly supported Israel's war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, where it used cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing more than 1,000 people. Obama's comments in Sderot echoed what he said in a speech to the powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, in March 2007. He recalled an earlier visit to the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona near the border with Lebanon which he said reminded him of an American suburb. There, he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children at "joyful play just like my own daughters." He saw a home the Israelis told him was damaged by a Hizballah rocket (no one had been hurt in the incident). Obama has identified his daughters repeatedly with Israeli children, while never having uttered a word about the thousands -- thousands -- of Palestinian and Lebanese children killed and permanently maimed by Israeli attacks just since 2006. This allegedly post-racial president appears fully invested in the racist worldview that considers Arab lives to be worth less than those of Israelis and in which Arabs are always "terrorists." The problem is much wider than Obama: American liberals in general see no contradiction in espousing positions supporting Israel that they would deem extremist and racist in any other context. The cream of America's allegedly "progressive" Democratic party vanguard -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman, New York Senator Charles Schumer, among others -- have all offered unequivocal support for Israel's massacres in Gaza, describing them as "self-defense." And then there's Hillary Clinton, the incoming secretary of state and self-styled champion of women and the working classes, who won't let anyone outbid her anti-Palestinian positions. Democrats are not simply indifferent to Palestinians. In the recent presidential election, their efforts to win swing states like Florida often involved espousing positions dehumanizing to Palestinians in particular and Arabs and Muslims in general. Many liberals know this is wrong but tolerate it silently as a price worth paying (though not to be paid by them) to see a Democrat in office. Even those further to the left implicitly accept Israel's logic. Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, criticized Israel's attacks on Gaza as a "reckless" and "disproportionate response" to Hamas rocket attacks that he deemed "immoral." There are many others who do nothing to support nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation and colonization, such as boycott, divestment and sanctions but who are quick to condemn any desperate Palestinian effort -- no matter how ineffectual and symbolic -- to resist Israel's relentless aggression. Similarly, we can expect that the American university professors who have publicly opposed the academic boycott of Israel on grounds of protecting "academic freedom" will remain just as silent about Israel's bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza as they have about Israel's other attacks on Palestinian academic institutions. There is no silver lining to Israel's slaughter in Gaza, but the reactions to it should at least serve as a wake-up call: when it comes to the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine, the American liberal elites who are about to assume power present as formidable an obstacle as the outgoing Bush administration and its neoconservative backers. Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006). This essay was first published in The Guardian's Comment is Free and is republished with the author's permission. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 2 22:52:28 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 00:52:28 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Raul_Castro=B4s_Speech_on_the_50th_Anni?= =?windows-1252?q?versary_of_the_Revolution?= Message-ID: Video: Raul Castro?s Speech on the 50th Anniversary of the Revolution Santiago de Cuba, Jan 1 (Prensa Latina) Prensa Latina is posting below the full text of the speech delivered by President Raul Castro at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. SPEECH MADE BY ARMY GENERAL RAUL CASTRO RUZ, PRESIDENT OF THE STATE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF CUBA, AT THE COMMEMORATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CUBAN REVOLUTION. SANTIAGO DE CUBA, JANUARY 1ST, 2009, "YEAR OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TRUMPH." Men and women from Santiago; People from Oriente; Combatants of the Ej?rcito Rebelde, of the underground struggle and of every combat in defense of the Revolution throughout these 50 years; Compatriots; In a day like this, our first thoughts are for those who fell in this long struggle. They constitute a paradigm and a symbol of the efforts and sacrifices of millions of Cubans. Closely united in the clamor of battle, waging the powerful weapons embodied in Fidel's leadership, his teachings and his example, we have learned how to transform our dreams into a reality; how to keep our heads cool and our confidence in the face of dangers and threats; how to get over the big setbacks; how to turn every challenge into a victory and to overcome adversity, no matter how insurmountable they might have seem. Those of us who have had the privilege to experience the intensity of this stage of our history are well aware of the truth contained in that alert he issued that January 8, 1959, during his first speech after entering the capital: "The tyranny has been overthrown. Our joy is immense. However, much remains to be done. We shall not deceive ourselves believing that in the future everything will be easier, because perhaps everything will be more difficult," he said. For the first time, the Cuban people had attained political power. This time, with Fidel, the mambises entered Santiago de Cuba leaving behind exactly 60 years of absolute domination by the emerging US imperialism, which did not take long to show its real purposes by preventing the Liberation Army from entering this city. The great confusion and above all the enormous frustration caused by the US intervention had been left way behind. But the Mamb? Army, despite its formal dismantling, always preserved its fighting spirit and the ideas that led C?spedes, Agramonte, G?mez, Maceo and so many other heroes and independence combatants to take up arms. For over fifty years our people would endure corrupted governments and new US interventions, the Machado tyranny and the frustrated revolution that overthrew him. Later, in 1952, the coup d'?tat dealt with the support of the US administration, reinstated the dictatorship. This formula was commonly applied in those years to ensure its dominion in Latin America. It was clear to us that the armed struggle was the only way. Again, the revolutionaries would have to face ?as Mart? before us?the dilemma of the necessary war for the independence that was cut short in 1898. Thus, the Ej?rcito Rebelde took up again the weapons of the mambises and after the triumph was forever transformed into the unbeaten Revolutionary Armed Forces. The Centennial Generation, which in 1953 stormed the Moncada's and Carlos Manuel de C?spedes' barracks, was inspired in Marti's important legacy and his humanistic global vision reaching beyond the attainment of national liberation. Speaking in historical terms, a short time would pass from the moment the mambises' dreams were frustrated to the triumph of the War of Liberation. Early in that period, Mella, one of the founding members of our first communist party and of the FEU (University Students Federation), became the legitimate heir and the bridge connecting Marti's thoughts to the most advanced ideas. In those years, the conscience and action of workers and farmers matured and a genuine, valiant and patriotic intelligentsia was formed which has accompanied them to the present. Then, the Cuban school, as a loyal repository of the fighting traditions of its predecessors, planted them in the best of the new generations. Right after the triumph it became evident for every humble man and woman that the Revolution was like a social cataclysm of justice knocking on every door, from the large palaces on the 5th Avenue, in the capital of the country, to the poorest shanty in the remotest mountain or plain field. The revolutionary laws not only fulfilled the program that inspired the Moncada but also went far beyond it in the logical evolution of the process. At the same time, they set a precedent for peoples of Our America, which 200 years back had started the movement for the emancipation from colonialism. But, in Cuba the history of the Americas would take a different turn. Nothing morally valuable has been alien to the turmoil that even before January 1st, 1959, started to sweep away opprobrium and inequity while opening the way to the enormous effort of all the people determined to give itself everything it deserves and that it has built with its own sweat and blood. Millions of Cubans, men and women, have been workers, students or soldiers; sometimes all of these as the circumstances have demanded. Nicolas Guill?n's masterly verses synthesized what the January 1959 triumph brought to our people. "I have what I was meant to have," he said in one of his poems, referring not to material wealth but to being the masters of our own destiny. This victory is twice as worthy for it has been attained despite the unhealthy and vindictive hatred of the powerful neighbor. The promotion and support of sabotage and banditry; the Playa Gir?n [Bay of Pigs] invasion; the blockade and other economic, political and diplomatic aggressions; the permanent slandering campaign aimed at denigrating the Cuban Revolution and its leaders; the October [Missile] Crisis; the hijackings of and attacks on civilian planes and sea crafts; the state terrorism, with its terrible result of 3478 dead and 2099 maimed; the attempts on the life of Fidel and other leaders; the murder of Cuban workers, farmers, fishermen, students, diplomats and combatants; these and many other crimes bear witness to the stubborn insistence on putting out, at any cost, the beacon of justice and honor that January 1st meant to so many. One way or another, with more or less aggressiveness, every US administration has tried to impose a regime change in Cuba. Resistance has been the key word and the explanation of every one of our victories throughout this half century of continued fighting when we have consistently acted on our own and taken our own risks notwithstanding the extensive and decisive solidarity we have received. For many years, Cuban revolutionaries have abided by Mart?'s apothegm: "Freedom is most precious and one must either accept to live without it or be determined to buy it for its price." On the 30th anniversary of the victory, Fidel said at this square: "We are here because we have put up a resistance." Ten years later, in 1999, from this same balcony, he said that the Special Period was "the most extraordinary page of revolutionary and patriotic glory and firmness [?] when we were left absolutely alone in the West, only 90 miles away from the United States, and we decided to continue forward." End of quote. We repeat the same thing today. We have firmly resisted --far from any fanaticism-- based on sound convictions, and on the resolution of all of the people to defend them at any cost. Presently, our glorious Five Heroes are a living example of that unshakable determination. (Applause and exclamations) Today, we are not alone on this side of the ocean facing the empire, as it was the case in the 1960s when in January 1962 the United States of America forced on the OAS the absurd expulsion of Cuba, the country which had shortly before been the victim of an invasion organized by the US administration and escorted to our coasts by its own warships. Actually, as it has been proven, that expulsion was the prelude to a direct military intervention only prevented by the deployment of the Soviet nuclear missiles leading to the October Crisis, known to the world as the Missile Crisis. Today, the Revolution is stronger than ever; it has never failed to stand by its principles, not even in the most difficult circumstances. This truth cannot be changed in the least even if some get tired or even renounce their history as they forget that life is in itself an eternal fight. Does it mean there is less danger? No, it doesn't. Let's not entertain any illusions. As we commemorate this half century of victories, it is time to reflect on the future, on the next fifty years when we shall continue to struggle incessantly. The observation of the current disturbances in the contemporary world tells us that the coming years will not be easier. This is the truth; I am not saying this to scare anyone. We should also keep in mind what Fidel told us all, but especially the youth, at the University of Havana on November 17, 2005: "This country could destroy itself, this Revolution could destroy itself, but they [the enemy] cannot destroy it. We could destroy it ourselves, and it would only be our fault," he argued. In the face of this possibility, I ask myself: What is the guarantee that such a horrible thing would not happen to our people? How could we avoid such a numbing blow that we would need much time to recover from and to attain victory again? I am speaking on behalf of all those who have been fighting from the moment the first shots were fired on the walls of the Moncada barracks 55 years ago and of those who fulfilled heroic internationalist missions. Of course, I am also speaking on behalf of those who fell in the wars of independence and more recently in the War of Liberation. I speak on behalf of them all, and on behalf of Abel and Jose Antonio, of Camilo and Che, when I say that this demands foremost from tomorrow's leaders that they never forget that this is a Revolution of the humble, by the humble and for the humble; (Applause) that they should never be misled by the enemy's siren songs and be aware that, given its very essence, the enemy will never cease to be aggressive, treacherous and dominant; that they should never distance themselves from our workers, our farmers and the people at large; that the party members must prevent the destruction of the Party. Let's learn from history. If they act consistently, they will always have the support of the people, even if they make mistakes which do not breach basic principles. But, if their actions were inconsistent with such principles, they would even lack the strength and the opportunity to rectify, since they would fail to have the moral authority that the masses only grant to those who never back from the struggle. They could end up incapacitated for tackling internal and external dangers and unable to preserve the work that is the fruit of the blood and the sacrifices of many generations of Cubans. Nobody should have any doubt that if that would ever happen our people would put up a fight, and today's mambises would be in the frontline; that they would never be ideologically disarmed nor would they ever let down their sword. (Applause and exclamations) It befits the historical leadership of the Revolution to prepare the new generations to take up the enormous responsibility of continuing to carry forward the revolutionary process. This heroic city of Santiago and all of Cuba witnessed the sacrifices of thousands of compatriots, the rage accumulated for so many lives cut short by crime, the endless pain of our mothers and the sublime courage of its sons and daughters. This was the birthplace of a young revolutionary killed when he was only 22 years old, a man who is a symbol of that willingness to make sacrifices, of that purity, courage and serenity, and of that love for our people: Frank Pa?s Garc?a. This eastern land was the birthplace of the Revolution. It was here that the call of duty was made in La Demajagua and on July 26th; it was here that we landed in the Granma and started the fight on the mountains and the plains, the same that extended later to the entire island. As Fidel said in History Will Absolve Me, "every day here looks like it will be again the day of Yara and Baire." Never again shall poverty, ignominy, abuse and injustice return to our land! Never again shall the heart of our mothers be filled with pain and the soul of every honest Cuban succumb to shame! Such is the firm resolution of a nation on a war footing; a nation that is aware of its duty and proud of its history.(Applause) Our people are well aware of every shortcoming in the work they have built with their own hands and defended with their own lives. We, the revolutionaries are our strongest critics. We have never hesitated to publicly discuss our flaws and mistakes. There are plenty of past and recent examples. Since October 10, 1868, disunity had been the main cause of our defeats. After January 1st, 1959, the unity forged by Fidel has been the guarantee of our victories. Our people have been able to preserve that unity despite all of the ups and downs and the attempts at division, and have rightly placed common aspirations above differences, crushing meanness with the strength of collectivism and generosity. Revolutions can only advance and endure when they are carried forward by the people. The full understanding of this truth and the consistent and unshakable action carried forward have been decisive elements in the victory of the Cuban Revolution over its enemies, and over seemingly insurmountable difficulties and challenges. As we arrive at the first half century of the victorious Revolution, let's pay homage first to our wonderful people and to its exemplary decision, courage, loyalty and internationalist and fraternal vocation; to its extraordinary show of will, its spirit of sacrifice and its confidence in victory, in the Party, in its maximum leader and, above all, in itself. (Applause) I know that I am expressing the feelings of my compatriots and of many revolutionaries in the world, when I pay homage to the Commander in Chief of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz. (Applause and exclamations) We know that a man alone doesn't make history, but some men are indispensable as they can have a decisive influence in the course of events. Fidel is one of them; nobody doubts it, not even his most bitter enemies. Ever since his early youth he adopted as his own one of Mart?'s thoughts: "All of the glory in the world fits in a kernel of corn." This he turned into his shield from everything that is superfluous or transient, into his main weapon to transform praises and honors --even if well-deserved?into greater humility, honesty, fighting spirit and love for truth, which he has invariably placed above all else. He made reference to these ideas 50 years ago in this same square. His words that night are absolutely valid today. At this very special moment when we think of our past journey and particularly of the long way ahead, when we reiterate our commitment to the people and to our martyrs, allow me to conclude by recalling the premonitory alert and the call to combat made by the Commander in Chief in this historic place on January 1st, 1959, as he indicated: "We do not believe that all of the problems can be easily solved; we know that the path is fraught with obstacles, but we are men of faith, we are used to facing great difficulties. Our people can be sure of one thing, and that is that we can make one or many mistakes, but we will never steal and we will never betray you." And he added: "We shall never let ourselves be carried away by vanity or ambition, [?] there can be no greater reward or satisfaction than the fulfillment of our duty," he concluded. On this date full of significance and symbolism, let's reflect on these ideas which constitute a guidance for true revolutionaries; let's do it with the satisfaction of having fulfilled our duty until the present and having behind us a life lived with dignity in the most intense and fruitful half century of our history. Let's do it with the firm commitment that we will always be able to proudly claim in this land: Glory to our heroes and martyrs! (Exclamations) Long live Fidel! (Exclamations) Long live the Revolution! (Exclamations) Long live Free Cuba! (Exclamations) (Ovation). nm PL-2 La Habana, 1 de enero de 2009 ?Jam?s regresar? el dolor al coraz?n de las madres ni la verg?enza al alma de cada cubano honesto! ? Discurso pronunciado por el Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros de la Rep?blica de Cuba, General de Ej?rcito Ra?l Castro Ruz, en el acto por el aniversario 50 del triunfo de la Revoluci?n, efectuado en Santiago de Cuba, el 1ro. de enero de 2009, "A?o del 50 aniversario del triunfo de la Revoluci?n". Santiagueras y santiagueros; Orientales; Combatientes del Ej?rcito Rebelde, la lucha clandestina y de cada combate en defensa de la Revoluci?n durante estos 50 a?os; Compatriotas: Ra?l Castro RuzEl primer pensamiento, un d?a como hoy, para los ca?dos en esta larga lucha. Ellos son paradigma y s?mbolo del esfuerzo y el sacrificio de millones de cubanos. En estrecha uni?n, empu?ando las poderosas armas que han significado la direcci?n, las ense?anzas y el ejemplo de Fidel, aprendimos en el rigor de la lucha a transformar sue?os en realidades; a no perder la calma y la confianza frente a peligros y amenazas; a levantar el ?nimo tras los grandes reveses; a convertir en victoria cada reto y a superar las adversidades, por insuperables que pudieran parecer. Los que hemos tenido el privilegio de vivir con toda intensidad esta etapa de nuestra historia, sabemos bien cu?n cierta ha resultado la alerta que nos hizo aquel 8 de enero de 1959, en su primer discurso al entrar a la capital: "La tiran?a ha sido derrocada. La alegr?a es inmensa. Y sin embargo, queda mucho por hacer todav?a. No nos enga?amos creyendo que en lo adelante todo ser? f?cil; quiz?s en lo adelante todo sea m?s dif?cil", concluy?. Por primera vez el pueblo cubano alcanzaba el poder pol?tico. En esta ocasi?n, junto a Fidel, los mambises s? entraron a Santiago de Cuba. Atr?s quedaban 60 a?os exactos de dominaci?n absoluta del naciente imperialismo norteamericano, que no tardar?a en mostrar sus verdaderos prop?sitos, al impedir la entrada a esta ciudad del Ej?rcito Libertador. Atr?s quedaron tambi?n la gran confusi?n y sobre todo la frustraci?n enorme que gener? la intervenci?n norteamericana. Sin embargo se mantuvo en vilo, m?s all? de su disoluci?n formal, la voluntad de lucha del Ej?rcito Mamb? y el pensamiento que gui? las armas de C?spedes, Agramonte, G?mez, Maceo y tantos otros pr?ceres y combatientes por la independencia. Vivimos algo m?s de cinco d?cadas de gobiernos corruptos, de nuevas intervenciones norteamericanas; la tiran?a machadista y la revoluci?n frustrada que la derroc?. M?s tarde, en 1952, el golpe de Estado, con el apoyo del gobierno norteamericano, instaur? nuevamente la dictadura, f?rmula aplicada en esos a?os para asegurar su dominio en Am?rica Latina. Para nosotros qued? claro que la lucha armada era la ?nica v?a. A los revolucionarios se nos planteaba nuevamente, como a Mart? antes, el dilema de la guerra necesaria por la independencia que qued? trunca en 1898. El Ej?rcito Rebelde retom? las armas mambisas y despu?s del triunfo se transform? para siempre en las invictas Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias. La Generaci?n del Centenario, que en 1953 asalt? los cuarteles Moncada y Carlos Manuel de C?spedes, cont? con el importante legado de Mart?, con su visi?n global human?stica que va m?s all? de la consecuci?n de la liberaci?n nacional. En t?rminos hist?ricos, fue breve el tiempo que medi? entre la frustraci?n del sue?o mamb? y el triunfo en la Guerra de Liberaci?n. A comienzos de este per?odo, Mella, uno de los fundadores de nuestro primer partido comunista y creador de la Federaci?n Estudiantil Universitaria (FEU), se convierte en heredero leg?timo y puente que une el pensamiento martiano y las ideas m?s avanzadas. Fueron a?os de maduraci?n de la conciencia y la acci?n de obreros y campesinos, y de formaci?n de una intelectualidad genuina, valiente y patriota que los ha acompa?ado hasta el presente. El magisterio cubano, fiel depositario de las tradiciones de lucha de sus predecesores, las sembr? en lo mejor de las nuevas generaciones. Desde el mismo momento del triunfo, se hizo evidente para cada hombre y mujer humilde que la Revoluci?n era un justiciero cataclismo social que toc? todas las puertas, desde los palacetes de la Quinta Avenida en la capital, hasta el m?s mis?rrimo y apartado boh?o de nuestros campos y monta?as. Las leyes revolucionarias no s?lo dieron cumplimiento al programa del Moncada, lo superaron con creces en la l?gica evoluci?n del proceso. Adem?s sentaron un precedente para los pueblos de nuestra Am?rica que hace 200 a?os iniciaron el movimiento emancipador del colonialismo. En Cuba, la historia americana tom? rumbos diferentes. Nada moralmente valioso ha sido ajeno al torbellino que aun antes del primero de enero de 1959, comenz? a barrer oprobios e inequidades, a la vez que abri? paso al gigantesco esfuerzo de todo un pueblo, decidido a darse a s? mismo cuanto merece y ha logrado levantar con su sangre y su sudor. Millones de cubanas y cubanos han sido trabajadores, estudiantes, soldados, o simult?neamente las tres cosas, cuantas veces las circunstancias lo han exigido. La s?ntesis magistral de Nicol?s Guill?n resumi? el significado para el pueblo del triunfo de enero de 1959: "Tengo lo que ten?a que tener", dice uno de sus versos, refiri?ndose no a riquezas materiales, sino a ser due?os de nuestro destino. Es una victoria doblemente meritoria, porque ha sido alcanzada a pesar del odio enfermizo y vengativo del poderoso vecino. El fomento y apoyo al sabotaje y el bandidismo; la invasi?n de Playa Gir?n; el bloqueo y dem?s agresiones econ?micas, pol?ticas y diplom?ticas; la permanente campa?a de mentiras dirigida a denigrar a la Revoluci?n y sus l?deres; la Crisis de Octubre, los secuestros y ataques a embarcaciones y aeronaves civiles; el terrorismo de Estado, con su terrible saldo de 3 478 muertos y 2 099 incapacitados; los planes de atentados a Fidel y otros dirigentes; los asesinatos de obreros, campesinos, pescadores, estudiantes, diplom?ticos y combatientes cubanos. Esos y otros muchos cr?menes dan fe del tozudo empe?o de apagar a cualquier precio la luz de justicia y decoro que signific? la alborada del Primero de Enero. Una tras otra, todas las administraciones norteamericanas no han cesado de intentar forzar un cambio de r?gimen en Cuba, empleando una u otra v?a, con mayor o menor agresividad. Resistir ha sido la palabra de orden y la clave de cada una de nuestras victorias, durante este medio siglo de ininterrumpido batallar, en que hemos partido invariablemente de jugarnos nuestra propia piel, sin dejar de reconocer la amplia y decisiva solidaridad recibida. Desde hace muchos a?os, los revolucionarios cubanos nos atenemos a la m?xima martiana: "La libertad cuesta muy cara, y es necesario o resignarse a vivir sin ella, o decidirse a comprarla por su precio". En esta plaza, en el 30 aniversario del triunfo, Fidel nos dijo: "Aqu? estamos porque hemos podido resistir". Una d?cada despu?s, en 1999, desde este mismo balc?n, afirm? que el per?odo especial constitu?a "la m?s extraordinaria p?gina de gloria y firmeza patri?tica y revolucionaria, (?) cuando nos quedamos absolutamente solos en medio de Occidente a 90 millas de Estados Unidos y decidimos seguir adelante". Fin de la cita. As? lo repetimos hoy. Ha sido una resistencia firme, ajena a fanatismos, basada en s?lidas convicciones y en la decisi?n de todo un pueblo de defenderlas al precio que sea necesario. Ejemplo vivo de ello en estos momentos es la inconmovible firmeza de nuestros gloriosos Cinco H?roes (Aplausos y exclamaciones de: "?Viva!") . Hoy no estamos solos frente al imperio en este lado del oc?ano, como ocurri? en los a?os sesenta, cuando los Estados Unidos impusieron el absurdo de expulsar de la OEA, en enero de 1962, a Cuba, el pa?s que poco antes hab?a sido v?ctima de una invasi?n organizada por el gobierno norteamericano y escoltada hasta nuestras costas por sus buques de guerra. Precisamente, como se ha demostrado, esa expulsi?n era el preludio de una intervenci?n militar directa, impedida s?lo por el despliegue de los cohetes nucleares sovi?ticos que desemboc? en la Crisis de Octubre, conocida mundialmente como la crisis de los m?siles. Hoy la Revoluci?n es m?s fuerte que nunca y jam?s ha cedido un mil?metro en sus principios, ni en los momentos m?s dif?ciles. No cambia en lo m?s m?nimo esa verdad que algunos pocos se cansen y hasta renieguen de su historia, olvid?ndose de que la vida es un eterno batallar. ?Significa que han disminuido los peligros? No, no nos hagamos ilusiones. Cuando conmemoramos este medio siglo de victorias, se impone la reflexi?n sobre el futuro, sobre los pr?ximos cincuenta a?os que ser?n tambi?n de permanente lucha. Observando las actuales turbulencias del mundo contempor?neo, no podemos pensar que ser?n m?s f?ciles, lo digo no para asustar a nadie, es la pura realidad. Tambi?n debemos tener muy presente lo que Fidel nos dijo a todos, pero especialmente a los j?venes, en la Universidad de La Habana, el 17 de noviembre del 2005: "Este pa?s puede autodestruirse por s? mismo; esta Revoluci?n puede destruirse, los que no pueden destruirla hoy son ellos; nosotros s?, nosotros podemos destruirla, y ser?a culpa nuestra", sentenci?. Ante esta posibilidad, me pregunto: ?cu?l es la garant?a de que no ocurra algo tan terrible para nuestro pueblo? ?C?mo evitar un golpe tan anonadante que necesitar?amos mucho tiempo para recuperarnos y alcanzar de nuevo la victoria? Hablo en nombre de todos los que hemos luchado, desde los primeros disparos en los muros del Moncada, hace 55 a?os, hasta los que cumplieron heroicas misiones internacionalistas. Hablo, por supuesto, tambi?n en nombre de los que cayeron en las guerras de independencia y m?s recientemente en la Guerra de Liberaci?n. En representaci?n de todos ellos, hablo en nombre de Abel y Jos? Antonio, de Camilo y Che, cuando afirmo, en primer lugar, que ello exige de los dirigentes del ma?ana que no olviden nunca que esta es la Revoluci?n de los humildes, por los humildes y para los humildes (Aplausos); que no se reblandezcan con los cantos de sirena del enemigo y tengan conciencia de que por su esencia, nunca dejar? de ser agresivo, dominante y traicionero; que no se aparten jam?s de nuestros obreros, campesinos y el resto del pueblo; que la militancia impida que destruyan al Partido. Aprendamos de la historia. Si act?an as?, contar?n siempre con el apoyo del pueblo, incluso cuando se equivoquen en cuestiones que no violen principios esenciales. Pero si sus actos no estuvieran en consonancia con esa conducta, no contar?n siquiera con la fuerza necesaria ni la oportunidad para rectificar, pues les faltar? la autoridad moral que s?lo otorgan las masas a quienes no ceden en la lucha. Pudieran terminar siendo impotentes ante los peligros externos e internos, e incapaces de preservar la obra fruto de la sangre y el sacrificio de muchas generaciones de cubanos. Si ello llegara a suceder, nadie lo dude, nuestro pueblo sabr? dar la pelea, y en la primera l?nea estar?n los mambises de hoy, que no se desarmar?n ideol?gicamente ni dejar?n caer la espada (Aplausos y exclamaciones). Corresponde a la direcci?n hist?rica de la Revoluci?n preparar a las nuevas generaciones para asumir la enorme responsabilidad de continuar adelante con el proceso revolucionario. Esta heroica ciudad de Santiago, y Cuba entera, fue testigo del sacrificio de miles de compatriotas; de la ira acumulada ante tanta vida tronchada por el crimen; del dolor infinito de nuestras madres y del valor sublime de sus hijas e hijos. Aqu? naci? un joven revolucionario, de s?lo 22 a?os al caer asesinado, que simboliza esa disposici?n al sacrificio, pureza, valent?a, serenidad y amor a la patria de nuestro pueblo: Frank Pa?s Garc?a. En esta tierra oriental naci? la Revoluci?n. Aqu? fue la clarinada de La Demajagua y el 26 de Julio; aqu? desembarcamos en el Granma e iniciamos el combate en monta?as y llanos, que luego se extendi? a toda la isla. Como dijo Fidel en La Historia me Absolver?, aqu? "cada d?a parece que va a ser otra vez el de Yara o el de Baire". ?Nunca m?s volver?n la miseria, la ignominia, el abuso y la injusticia a nuestra tierra! ?Jam?s regresar? el dolor al coraz?n de las madres ni la verg?enza al alma de cada cubano honesto! Es la firme decisi?n de una naci?n en pie de lucha, consciente de su deber y orgullosa de su historia (Aplausos). Nuestro pueblo conoce cada imperfecci?n de la obra que ?l mismo ha levantado con sus brazos y defendido a riesgo de su vida. Los revolucionarios somos nuestros principales cr?ticos. No hemos dudado en dilucidar deficiencias y errores p?blicamente. Sobran los ejemplos pasados y recientes. Desde el 10 de octubre de 1868, la desuni?n fue causa fundamental de nuestras derrotas. A partir del primero de enero de 1959, la unidad, forjada por Fidel, ha sido garant?a de nuestras victorias. Nuestro pueblo logr? mantenerla frente a todos los avatares e intentos divisionistas y ha sabido situar los anhelos comunes por encima de las diferencias, derrotar mezquindades a fuerza de colectivismo y generosidad. Las revoluciones s?lo avanzan y perduran cuando las lleva adelante el pueblo. Haber comprendido esa verdad y actuado invariablemente en consecuencia con ella, ha sido factor decisivo de la victoria de la Revoluci?n cubana frente a enemigos, dificultades y retos en apariencia invencibles. Al arribar al primer medio siglo de Revoluci?n triunfante, llegue el principal tributo a nuestro maravilloso pueblo; a su ejemplar decisi?n, valor, fidelidad, vocaci?n solidaria e internacionalista; a su extraordinaria demostraci?n de voluntad, esp?ritu de sacrificio y confianza en la victoria, en el Partido, en su m?ximo l?der y sobre todo en s? mismo (Aplausos). S? que expreso el sentir de mis compatriotas y de muchos revolucionarios en el mundo, al rendir homenaje en esta hora al Comandante en Jefe de la Revoluci?n Cubana, Fidel Castro Ruz (Aplausos y exclamaciones). Un individuo no hace la historia, lo sabemos, pero hay hombres imprescindibles capaces de influir en su curso de manera decisiva. Fidel es uno de ellos, nadie lo duda, ni aun sus enemigos m?s ac?rrimos. Desde muy joven hizo suyo un pensamiento martiano: "Toda la gloria del mundo cabe en un grano de ma?z". Lo convirti? en escudo contra lo fatuo y lo pasajero, en su principal arma para transformar halagos y honores, por merecidos que fueran, en mayor modestia, honradez, voluntad de lucha y amor por la verdad, que invariablemente ha situado por encima de todo. A estas ideas se refiri?, en esta misma plaza, hace 50 a?os. Sus palabras de aquella noche mantienen absoluta vigencia. En este especial momento que nos hace meditar en el camino recorrido y sobre todo en el a?n m?s largo que est? por delante, cuando ratificamos nuevamente el compromiso con el pueblo y nuestros m?rtires, perm?tanme concluir repitiendo la alerta premonitoria y el llamado al combate que nos hiciera el Comandante en Jefe en este hist?rico lugar, el primero de enero de 1959, cuando se?al?: "No creemos que todos los problemas se vayan a resolver f?cilmente, sabemos que el camino est? trillado de obst?culos, pero nosotros somos hombres de fe, que nos enfrentamos siempre a las grandes dificultades. Podr? estar seguro el pueblo de una cosa, que es que podemos equivocarnos una y muchas veces, lo ?nico que no podr? decir jam?s de nosotros es que robamos, que traicionamos". Y agreg?: "Nunca nos dejaremos arrastrar por la vanidad ni por la ambici?n, (?) no hay satisfacci?n ni premio m?s grande que cumplir con el deber", concluy?. En una fecha de tanto significado y simbolismo, reflexionemos sobre estas ideas que constituyen gu?a para el revolucionario verdadero. Hag?moslo con la satisfacci?n de haber cumplido el deber hasta el presente; con el aval de haber vivido con dignidad el m?s intenso y fecundo medio siglo de historia patria y con el firme compromiso de que en esta tierra siempre podremos exclamar con orgullo: ?Gloria a nuestros h?roes y m?rtires! (Exclamaciones de: "?Gloria!") ?Viva Fidel! (Exclamaciones de: "?Viva!") ?Viva la Revoluci?n! (Exclamaciones de: "?Viva!") ?Viva Cuba libre! (Exclamaciones de: "?Viva!") (Ovaci?n). From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jan 3 05:08:22 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:08:22 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Understanding Money In-Reply-To: <7A04620C0FA64464AFC6EC9D1B44A6B7@TonyPC> References: <49534A7F.50904@ashisuto.co.jp> <7A04620C0FA64464AFC6EC9D1B44A6B7@TonyPC> Message-ID: <495F5536.4010501@ashisuto.co.jp> Tony, your "The Fleecing of a Nation" is splendid! May I post it on my own blog and on two other lists I post to regularly: Ugly New World and WorldCity? If so, could you also supply me with (1) the name of the local union publication in which it appeared, (2) the date it appeared, and (3) a brief description of yourself? Thanks, Bill Tony B. wrote: > Cool.....and just as a (eerily mirrowing) addendum, here's a piece I > wrote for a local union publication a few years back; this in response > to what at the time was a financial 'scandal' (the misappropriation of > $100 million) occurring in the Canadian polity. > T. > > The Fleecing of a Nation > > > There was no joy in Mudsville that day. The till had been robbed. It was > theft considerably 'over'. And with much gnashing of teeth and writhing > of hands the media pundits had converged hyperbolically on a glaring, if > isolated, new truth. To wit: our honourable leaders, steely-minded > financial wizards one and all, had, indeed, been busy little bees, > bending their wizardry to the tidy task of taking the poor unwashed > multitudes to the cleaners to the tune of a cool hundred million smackers. > > Still, all was not lost. Investigations would be launched. Heads would > roll. Purification and redemption would follow as surely as day follows > night. Peace and trust would be restored. There would be joy in > Mudsville again..... > > * * * * > > The problem with this little fable, of course, is that by centering our > attention on a rather minor peripheral crack in the national financial > landscape - an egregious pothole which, nevertheless, can easily and > conspicuously be 'fixed' - it serves merely to distract from and gloss > over the tectonic fault lines running straight down Main street. > > Much more instructive would be to do a little forensic accounting of our > own. So why don't we take a peek, as it were, at Mudsville's 'books'? > You know, the 'other' books, the real ones? > > Hmm...Where to start....Ah! Here we go...It seems that back in 1950 the > total share of federal income taxes collected in Canada was split > roughly evenly between corporations and individuals. Fifty - fifty. That > sounds fair. Oh, but look...by 1992 an astonishing shift had occurred: > the proportion of such revenue from corporations had dropped to less > than 10% while that from individuals had risen to over 90%. Now let's > see, add to this the GST which transferred billions of dollars of > additional tax burden away from the corporations onto Canadian > citizens.....and.. > > ....yes, the tens of billions of tax dollars that, through corporate tax > deferrals (deferred indefinitely, apparently), tax credits, tax > exemptions etc, are, every year, never collected...and the vast > haemorrhaging accruing from the tax havens outside the country....and, > of course, the various tricky-dicky tax dodges like transfer pricing > (which allow corporations with operations in the US to 'transfer' their > profits south of the border)....Goldarned, it looks like we're talking > perhaps over a hundred billion big ones a year gone AWOL. > > I wonder if that's why 'there is no money' for health care and education > and such? Perhaps an oversimplification. After all, what about our > humungous national debt?. > > Thereby, as they say, hangs an interesting tale. It seems that in the > three decades from 1965 to 1995 our 'excessive social program spending > spree' added $40 billion dollars to the national debt, but the ruinous > interest rates charged by the commercial banks added roughly $490 > billion to that debt. So social spending only accounted for less than 8% > of it......Now this doesn't make sense to me. After all, why would we, > the citizens of Canada, be borrowing money from the private banking > industry at usurious rates of interest when we could be borrowing from > the Bank of Canada at rates as low as 1% with all the interest, in any > case, remitting back to the country itself? Perhaps we better go further > back and get a little more context... > > It appears that the Bank of Canada was started up in 1935 in response to > the pressures of the Great Depression...you know, at a time when all > that the corporate world could do was run around demanding that spending > be cut when, in fact, *more* spending was exactly what was called for. > The idea seems to have worked too. During the 2nd World War the Bank was > able to multiply the monetary base eightfold by financing annual > deficits that amounted to a quarter of the Gross National Product at > interest rates of between 0.4% and 2.5%. Unemployment was virtually > wiped out. The land was awash in credit. The Bank instituted wage and > price controls combined with foreign exchange controls to control > inflation. Following the war the Bank shrewdly started to 'dry up' the > excess liquidity in the economy. > > The Bank of Canada, it seems, was acting as it was designed: i.e. as a > regulator of the national economy. Expanding when necessary, contracting > when necessary. There was peace in Mudsville in those days..... > > But then something strange happened on the way to the modern era. In > 1967 an amendment to the original Bank Act (of 1934) - militated for, > among others, by the commercial banks - effectively cleaved the Bank's > responsibility to and control by the Canadian government...and thereby > the citizens of Canada. The Governor of the Bank of Canada would > thenceforth have almost complete independence from the Minister of > Finance. The reasoning given then (and now) for this about-face in the > control of the Bank was to 'avoid political influence' on the Bank. > > Now you have to understand, the central bank of any country is *always* > a political institution. The only question is: In whose interests are > the bank's policies to serve? Clearly, prior to 1967 the Bank of Canada > was serving, more or less, the interests of the citizens of Canada. > Afterwards it became, unequivocally, a creature serving the interests of > the chartered banks, the wealthy elites and foreign bondholders. It > seems the Bank had been, well, hi-jacked... > > No doubt about the results either. During the 1980's, for instance, real > interest rates in Canada were several points higher than in previous > decades; higher, indeed, than any of our trade competitors and among > the highest in the developed world. These excessively high interest > rates, apart from transferring billions of dollars every year from those > who could not afford to save to those who could, served also to stall > the economy in mid-flight and create massive unemployment..... Such was > part and parcel, it appears, of a new economic creed called 'monetarism' > which became enshrined shortly following the hi-jacking of the Bank. > > Monetarism, in brief, holds to two principal notions: one, that 'free > markets' are self-regulating and two, that the key to determining > economic activity is through the control of the money supply. > > Now the problem with the first notion is that the 'free market', as it > might have been understood, say, in the 12th century, is an economic > fiction. We live in a system of highly regulated markets mediated by > oligopolies and monopolies. As for 'self-regulating', if anything is > clear over the last 800 years or so, it is that markets, when left to > themselves, are entirely unstable causing massive social and economic > upheaval and disruption. > > The problem with the second notion is that much of the so-called money > supply today is, itself, entirely fictional....It's made up. Just > figures tapped into a computer somewhere. Indeed, contrary to the belief > of many, only 5% or so of the money creation in this country comes in > the form of the actual crinkly stuff printed in the government mints. > The vast bulk (95%) of the money is, instead, created virtually out of > thin air within the bowels of the computers of the five major chartered > banks. > > It's not quite that simple, of course. Among other snags there is (or at > least, used to be) a natural break on all this hocus-pocus. These are > the banks' 'reserve requirements', the monies that the banks have > legally had to keep on hand to cover daily transactions. Traditionally > the 'reserves' have equalled 8% or so of total deposits. The banks have > never liked these and not just because it limited how much they could > *lend*, but because, in the magical world of smoke and mirrors that is > the basis of our 'fractional reserve banking system', it limited how > much money they could *create*. > > This it did by limiting their notorious 'money multiplier'. I say > 'notorious' because it is 'official' ideology today that the multiplier > doesn't actually exist. It used to exist in the textbooks of former > days, you understand. Now, under 'monetarism'...it doesn't. > > In truth it does. When the Bank of Canada decides to 'float' money into > circulation, it deposits the money in, say, commercial Bank A which > lends it out to Bank B and so on, such that at each 'lending' the bank > in question merely extends a line of credit *limited only by the legal > reserve requirement*. The eventual cascade through the system results, - > after having 'used up' the initial 'float' in the reserve holdings of > the successive banks - in the creation of a multiple (of credit) of from > 50 to 100 times the original amount. Puff! Seems like magic.... > > But the effect is real. We know it's real because numerous studies have > ascertained that the monies loaned out every year by the banks far > exceed the monies deposited by a considerable factor. Now the upshot of > all this is that when in the 1970's and '80's the chartered banks were > charging us all outrageous interest rates - including on the national > debt - the excuse that they were just 'passing along' the rate of > inflation was just a bunch of hooey. For if the money was, for the most > part, just made up on the premises (i.e. didn't cost them anything) the > 'take' was all gravy. It also, by-the-by, made nonsense of monetarism's > second pillar - the 'control of the money supply - since no one today > can remotely tell what the money supply really is. > > In a final twist, the commercial banks, not happy with the traditional > reserve requirements, were able, in 1991, to slide through, in the dead > of night, a profound amendment to the Bank Act which essentially rid > them of much of the pesky reserve requirements. More precisely this new > 'risk-based capital reserves' regime, apart from releasing the > ('non-existent' you understand) money multiplier genie from its cramped > quarters, also effectively served to induce the private banks to further > load up on government securities, i.e. on the nation's debt. > > So there we have it Mudvillians...well, not entirely....The 'second set > of books' are deep. There's another little item over here about how the > entire provincial and federal sales tax structure could be replaced by a > teensy one quarter of one percent tax on all financial transactions. A > sector of the economy that has hitherto escaped the taxman completely - > whilst we poor yobs are paying 15% through the nose day in and day out. > Then there's...... > > ...Oh, but I hear the bells ringing. Rosy dawn has returned. There is > the clamour of happy voices. Joy has returned to Mudsville...It appears > that... > > ...a pothole has been fixed. > > > Antony Black > tal1 at cogeco.ca > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Totten" > To: "a-list" > Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 3:55 AM > Subject: [A-List] Understanding Money > > >> >> by John H Hotson >> >> PCDForum Article #15 (June 01 1996) >> >> >> An understanding of the true nature of money is essential for those >> seeking economic reforms toward the creation of sustainable societies. >> People today have more erroneous ideas about money than Victorians had >> about sex, so please read the following with care. >> >> Let's begin with the distinction between "legal tender" money which only >> the government or its agency, the Bank of Canada in the case of Canada, >> can create, and the "money" created by private banks - and increasingly >> by "near banks". If you happen to have a Bank of Canada note, on it you >> will read the words "This note is legal tender". >> >> These notes, and checks drawn on the Bank of Canada, are the only legal >> money in Canada. What that means is that if you owe someone $20 and you >> give him a $20 bill he is paid and if he refuses payment in this form >> you are absolved of the debt. By contrast, he does not have to accept >> your check drawn on a private bank, or even a certified check of a >> private bank. Money issued by the Bank of Canada is sometimes called >> "Right of Purchase" money to distinguish it from "Promise to Pay" money >> created by private banks. >> >> While private banks are in effect creating money out of nothing, they >> are providing an important service as their "promise to pay money" is >> for many purposes safer and more convenient to use and store than actual >> cash. Furthermore, it costs the banks billions of dollars to maintain >> the payments system that clears your check back to your account and to >> keep the necessary records. All those nice, or not so nice, people who >> work in those banks, deciding who gets a loan and what happens if they >> can't pay have to be paid their salaries. Banks also have to pay phone >> bills, electricity, heat and so on. What they create is intangible, but >> at the same time very real. Essentially, the bank is substituting its >> promise to pay - which is accepted as money - for your promise to pay, >> which is not. >> >> Today only about four percent of the money in circulation in Canada is >> Bank of Canada legal tender. In other words, 96 percent of our money is >> created by private banks. In 1945 the Bank of Canada accounted for 27 >> percent of our money. At that time the bank rate of interest was only >> 1.5 percent and the Canadian economy boomed. >> >> Some 96 percent of the "money" we are now using is not Bank of Canada >> "legal tender", but rather the promise of private banks to pay the >> bearer Bank of Canada legal tender on demand. This promise is what a >> private bank provides for you when you take out a loan with the promise >> to repay it with interest. The bank knows that mostly you don't want >> legal tender. What you want is a checking account or a bank issued check >> for the amount borrowed so that you can send the bank's promise-to-pay >> to folks you owe money to - folks who also don't want legal tender, but >> do want to deposit your check in their own bank account. >> >> The money supply of Canada increases at the moment a bank issues you a >> loan. As you repay your loan the money supply shrinks. So money is being >> created and destroyed every day. >> >> Banking came into existence as a fraud. The fraud was legalized and >> we've been living with the consequences, both good and bad, ever since. >> Even so it is also a great invention - right up there with fire, the >> wheel, and the steam engine. >> >> In the 16th century as the gold and silver the Spanish had stolen from >> the American Indians poured into Europe, coins grew larger, more >> plentiful and heavy. Merchants needed a safe place to keep them when >> they weren't needed. The goldsmiths had large safes and fierce dogs and >> it became customary to leave coins on "safe deposit" with them. Next >> people saw that a "gold certificate" or warehouse receipt signed by the >> goldsmith was more convenient to circulate than those heavy coins made >> of soft metals that quickly wore out if they passed hand to hand. So the >> smiths printed up receipts in convenient denominations promising payment >> in gold to whomever presented the receipt. Some people took to writing >> notes to the smith ordering him to transfer the ownership of some of >> their coins to someone else. Thus the personal check was born. >> >> Then one day one of the smiths had a brilliant, and wholly dishonest, >> idea. He noticed that people so much preferred his paper money to its >> "gold backing" that the gold in his vault hardly circulated - some of it >> hadn't moved in years. So he thought, "I could print up some extra gold >> certificates and lend them out to gain the interest". The idea was >> irresistible, and thus banking was born! >> >> Just 300 years ago, in 1694, William Patterson talked King William III >> into chartering a private bank with the official sounding title of "The >> Bank of England". The King had another war to fight with France's King >> Louis XIV and not much money to pay for it. Being a Dutchman, he was >> unpopular with the British Parliament and it balked at voting the needed >> taxes. The royal credit was zilch because of his predecessors' >> extravagance. What to do? >> >> He jumped at Patterson's promise to lend him lots of "Bank of England >> Notes" - which had little or no gold "backing" - at a reasonable >> sounding three percent interest. Thus national debt was born. >> >> King William seems never to have asked His Royal Self the obvious >> question, "Why the hell should I pay William Patterson interest to print >> money for me? Why don't I get a printing press and print some money >> myself?" Nor did he notice that his humble subjects in the Massachusetts >> Bay Colony, in what would one day become the United States, had already >> come to just this solution to solve a similar problem. >> >> In 1690, the Massachusetts Bay Colony decided to do its bit in King >> William's War by invading Canada. The soldiers were told, "We can't pay >> you, but the French have lots of silver. So beat them out of it and we >> will pay you with the spoils." But the French won and the soldiers came >> back to Boston sore, mean and unpaid. Necessity being the mother of >> invention, a bright Yankee named Benjamin Franklin thought of printing >> up government "promissory notes", declaring them "legal tender" and >> using them to pay the soldiers. That worked so well that the other >> colonies copied the idea. From that day until the American Revolution >> (1775-1782) there were no banks in the thirteen British North American >> colonies. >> >> By the time of the Revolution, Pennsylvania was the richest place on >> earth. Franklin liked to boast that part of the credit was due to the >> government money he printed. As he pointed out, the government could >> spend the money into circulation for a new bridge or school, then tax >> the cost back over the useful life of the project. It could also lend >> the money to businessmen at five percent interest instead of the ten >> percent the British banks charged. Or it could transfer the money into >> circulation to take care of widows, orphans and other unfortunates. >> Pennsylvania made so much money out of creating money - and selling off >> lands stolen from the Indians - that it hardly had to levy any taxes. >> >> When word of this reached Great Britain, the Bank of England decided to >> destroy the competition of the colonial money. It got Parliament to >> forbid the colonies to produce any more of the stuff and the fat was on >> the fire. The Continental Congress met and defied Parliament and the >> King by issuing its own currency - the Continental. As Franklin saw it, >> the attempt of Britain to restrict the colonies from issuing paper money >> was one of the main causes of the Revolution. >> >> The Continentals paid for most of the cost of the revolution. Since they >> had to be overissued, prices rose greatly. Much of the inflation, >> however, was caused by massive British counterfeiting of the >> Continentals. "You revolting Yankees like paper money? Here! Have lots >> of it!" So Americans still have a saying. "Not worth a Continental". >> After the war banking came to America. >> >> Some historians have much criticized this method of financing the >> American Revolution and held up British practice as a model of "sound >> finance". However, as William Hixson shows in his book, Triumph of the >> Bankers (1993), those historians have it backwards. According to Hixson, >> the total cost of the war to the Americans was about $250 million and >> much of this was financed by the "Continentals" and other paper monies. >> An additional war debt of $56.7 million accumulated some $70 million in >> interest before it was all paid off in 1836. >> >> The direct war costs to the British government came to about $500 >> million. However, the British financed their side of the war almost >> entirely with borrowed money. Since they have never since reduced their >> national debt below $500 million, they still owe this money! Assuming a >> modest average interest rate of four percent, the British taxpayer has >> by this time paid the British bondholder over $4 billion in interest on >> the initial $500 million loan - and is still paying! Sound finance? >> >> What a pity that King William did not have a Benjamin Franklin to advise >> him! What a pity that the wisdom of Franklin was lost and Alexander >> Hamilton was able subsequently to charter the Bank of The United States >> modeled directly on the Bank of England! What a pity that many >> historians, like many non-historians, so badly misunderstand money and >> banking! >> >> The financial system the world has evolved on the Bank of England model >> is not sustainable. It creates nearly all money as debt. Such money only >> exists as long as someone is willing and able to pay interest on it. It >> disappears, wholly or partially, in recurring financial crises. Such a >> system requires that new debt must be created faster than principal and >> interest payments fall due on old debt. >> >> A sustainable financial system would enable the real economy to be >> maintained decade after decade and century after century at its full >> employment potential without recurring inflation and recession. By this >> standard, a financial system that creates money only through the >> creation of debt is inherently unsustainable. >> >> When a bank makes a loan, the principal amount of the loan is added to >> the borrower's bank balance. The borrower, however, has promised to >> repay the loan plus interest even though the loan has created only the >> amount of money required to repay the principal - but not the amount of >> the interest. Therefore unless indebtedness continually grows it is >> impossible for all loans to be repaid as they come due. Furthermore, >> during the life of a loan some of the money will be saved and re-lent by >> individual bond purchasers, by savings banks, insurance companies, et >> cetera. These loans do not create new money, but they do create debt. >> While we use only one mechanism - bank loans - to create money, we use >> several mechanisms to create debt, thus making it inevitable that debt >> will grow faster than the money with which to pay it. Recurring cycles >> of inflation, recession, and depression are a nearly inevitable >> consequence. >> >> If, in the attempt to arrest the price inflation resulting from an >> excessive rate of debt formation, the monetary authorities raise the >> rate of interest, the result is likely to be a financial panic. This in >> turn may result in a sharp cutback in borrowing. Monetary authorities >> respond to bail out the system by increasing bank reserves. Governments >> may also respond by increasing the public debt - risking both inflation >> and growing government deficits. >> >> Governments got into this mess by violating four common sense rules >> regarding their fiscal and monetary policies. These rules are: >> >> 1. No sovereign government should ever, under any circumstances, give >> over democratic control of its money supply to bankers. >> >> 2. No sovereign government should ever, under any circumstances, borrow >> any money from any private bank. >> >> 3. No national, provincial, or local government should borrow foreign >> money to increase purchases abroad when there is excessive domestic >> unemployment. >> >> 4. Governments, like businesses, should distinguish between "capital" >> and "current" expenditures, and when it is prudent to do so, finance >> capital improvements with money the government has created for itself. >> >> A few words about the first three of these rules, as the fourth rule has >> been discussed extensively elsewhere. >> >> 1. There is persistent pressure from central bankers and academic >> economists to free central banks from the obligation to consider the >> effects of their actions upon employment and output levels so that they >> can concentrate on price stability. This is a very bad idea indeed. >> Dominated by bankers and economists, central banks are entirely too >> prone to give exclusive attention to creditor interests to the exclusion >> of worker interests. Amending central bank charters to give them >> independence from democratic oversight, or to set up "price stability" >> as their only goal would complete their subjection to banker interests. >> Canada's own Mackenzie King said it all, "Without Government creation of >> money, talk of sovereignty and democracy is futile". >> >> 2. Anyone who understands that banks create the money they lend can see >> that it makes no sense for a sovereign government, which can create >> money at near zero cost, to borrow money at high cost from a private >> bank. The fact that most governments do borrow from private banks is one >> of the greatest errors of our times. If a government needs money created >> to pay for public spending it should create the money itself through its >> own bank; or spend the money debt and interest free as the United States >> did during the Revolution and again during the Civil War. If a >> government does not wish to "monetize" its deficits during periods of >> unusual need such as wartime, it should either make up the deficit with >> higher taxes or borrow only from the non-bank public - which cannot >> create the money it lends to the government. >> >> 3. One of the most mistaken ideas, with which Canadians especially are >> cursed, is the idea that a country should maintain its interest rates >> higher than those of its main trading partners "to attract foreign >> investment". To begin with, high interest rates inhibit real investment >> spending on new buildings, machinery and equipment by diverting funds to >> finance government deficits. Furthermore, the foreign funds attracted to >> Canada by high interest rates cannot be spent on Canadian employees and >> products. They are only useful for importing foreign goods and making >> payments on foreign debts. Moreover, these funds bid up the value of the >> Canadian dollar in foreign exchange markets, giving foreign goods a >> domestic price advantage over similar goods produced in Canada, while >> making it harder for Canada to export. Thus the inflow of foreign funds >> actually contributes to a "current account deficit" and depresses the >> Canadian economy. Those who argue that Canada must borrow on "capital >> account" because she has a "current account deficit" have cause and >> effect totally reversed. Canada has a current account deficit because >> she is borrowing on capital account. What she needs to do is to stop >> borrowing, lower interest rates until she stops attracting foreign >> funds, and let the Canadian dollar find its own level in the foreign >> currency markets. >> >> When the Bank of Canada encourages the Canadian government, provinces, >> and municipalities to borrow in New York and Tokyo it is a betrayal of >> Canada. Where should they borrow when new money is needed for government >> spending? They should borrow at the government owned Bank of Canada, >> paying near zero interest rates - just sufficient to cover the Bank's >> running expenses. >> >> _____ >> >> John H Hotson was professor emeritus of economics University of Waterloo >> and executive director of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform >> (COMER), a Canadian based network of economists working for economic and >> monetary reform. This article is based on a series he published in the >> October 1994, November 1994, and January 1995 issues of Economic Reform, >> the COMER newsletter, Comer Publications, 3284 Yonge Street, Suite 500, >> Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M7, fax (416) 486-4674. He gave the PCDForum >> permission to use this material only five days before his untimely death >> on January 21 1996 following heart surgery. >> >> People-Centered Development Forum papers may be reprinted, and >> distributed freely with appropriate credits without prior permission. >> >> http://www.pcdf.org/1996/15hotson.htm >> >> >> http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com >> http://www.ashisuto.co.jp >> >> >> >> > > > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 11:31:05 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:31:05 -0800 Subject: [A-List] US National Debt: "There's a time bomb in there somewhere, but we don't know exactly where..." Message-ID: <495FAEE9.70109@gmail.com> Washingtonpost.com U.S. Debt Expected To Soar This Year $2 Trillion Increase May Test Federal Ability to Borrow By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 3, 2009; A01 With President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats considering a massive spending package aimed at pulling the nation out of recession, the national debt is projected to jump by as much as $2 trillion this year, an unprecedented increase that could test the world's appetite for financing U.S. government spending. For now, investors are frantically stuffing money into the relative safety of the U.S. Treasury, which has come to serve as the world's mattress in troubled times. Interest rates on Treasury bills have plummeted to historic lows, with some short-term investors literally giving the government money for free. But about 40 percent of the debt held by private investors will mature in a year or less, according to Treasury officials. When those loans come due, the Treasury will have to borrow more money to repay them, even as it launches perhaps the most aggressive expansion of U.S. debt in modern history. With the government planning to roll over its short-term loans into more stable, long-term securities, experts say investors are likely to demand a greater return on their money, saddling taxpayers with huge new interest payments for years to come. Some analysts also worry that foreign investors, the largest U.S. creditors, may prove unable to absorb the skyrocketing debt, undermining confidence in the United States as the bedrock of the global financial system. While the current market for Treasurys is booming, it's unclear whether demand for debt can be sustained, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, which analyzes Treasury financing trends. "There's a time bomb in there somewhere," Crandall said, "but we don't know exactly where on the calendar it's planted." The government's hunger for cash began growing exponentially as the nation slipped into recession in the wake of a housing foreclosure crisis a year ago. Washington has since approved $168 billion in spending to stimulate economic activity, $700 billion to prevent the collapse of the U.S. financial system, and multibillion-dollar bailouts for a variety of financial institutions, including insurance giant American International Group and mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Despite those actions, the economic outlook has continued to darken. Now, Obama and congressional Democrats are debating as much as $850 billion in new federal spending and tax cuts to create or preserve jobs and slow the grim, upward march of unemployment, which stood in November at 6.7 percent. Congress is not planning to raise taxes or cut spending to cover the cost of those programs, because economists say doing so would further slow economic activity. That means the government has to borrow the money. Some of the borrowing was done during the fiscal year that ended in September, when the Treasury added nearly $720 billion to the national debt. But the big borrowing binge will come during the current fiscal year, when the cost of the bailouts plus another stimulus package combined with slowing tax revenues will force the government to increase the debt by as much as $2 trillion to finance its obligations, according to a Treasury survey of bond dealers and other market analysts. As of yesterday, the debt stood at nearly $10.7 trillion, of which about $4.3 trillion is owed to other government institutions, such as the Social Security trust fund. Debt held by private investors totals nearly $6.4 trillion, or a little over 40 percent of gross domestic product. According to the most recent figures, foreign investors held about $3 trillion in U.S. debt at the end of October. China, which in October replaced Japan as the United States' largest creditor, has increased its holdings by 42 percent over the past year; Britain and the Caribbean banking countries more than doubled their holdings. Economists from across the political spectrum have endorsed the idea of going deeper into debt to combat what many call the most dangerous economic conditions since the Great Depression. The United States is in relatively good financial shape compared with other industrial nations, such as Japan, where the public debt equaled 182 percent of GDP in 2007, or Germany, where the debt was 65 percent of GDP, according to a forthcoming report by Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Even a $2 trillion increase would push the U.S. debt to about 53 percent of the overall economy, "only a few percentage points above where it was in the early 1990s," Lilly writes, noting that plummeting interest rates show that "much of the world seems not only willing but anxious to invest in U.S. Treasurys, which are seen as the safest security that an investor can own in a risky world economy." Still, some analysts are concerned that the deepening global recession will force some of the largest U.S. creditors to divert cash to domestic needs, such as investing in their own banks and economies. Even if demand for U.S. debt keeps pace with supply, investors are likely to demand higher interest rates, these analysts said, driving up debt-service payments, which last year stood at $250 billion. "When you accumulate this amount of debt that we're moving into, it's not a given that our foreign friends are going to continue on the path they've been on," said G. William Hoagland, a longtime Republican budget analyst who now serves as vice president for public policy at the health insurer Cigna. "There's going to come a time when we can't even pay the interest on the money we've borrowed. That's default." Others say those fears are overblown. The market for U.S. Treasurys is by far the largest and most liquid bond market in the world, and big institutional investors have few other places to safely invest large sums of reserve cash. Despite their growing domestic needs, "China and the oil countries are going to continue running large surpluses," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They certainly will be using money elsewhere, but I don't think that means they won't give it to us." As for the specter of default, Steven Hess, lead U.S. analyst for Moody's Investors Service, said even a $2 trillion increase in borrowing would not greatly diminish the U.S. financial condition. "It's not alarmingly high by our AAA standards," he said. "So we don't think there's pressure on the rating yet." But that could change, Hess said. Nearly a year ago, Moody's raised an alarm about the skyrocketing costs of Social Security and Medicare as the baby-boom generation retires, saying the resulting budget deficits could endanger the U.S. bond rating. Even as the nation sinks deeper into debt to finance its own economic recovery, several analysts said it will be critical for Obama to begin to address the looming costs of the entitlement programs and signal that he has no intention of letting the debt spiral out of control. Failure to do so, Bergsten said, would "create dangers . . . in market psychology and continued confidence in the dollar." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202322_pf.html From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 12:12:46 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:12:46 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza Message-ID: Israel confirms its army begins ground operation in Gaza www.chinaview.cn 2009-01-04 02:40:29 JERUSALEM, Jan. 3 (Xinhua) -- The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Saturday evening began its ground operation in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, an IDF spokesman told Xinhua. The Cast Lead operation starting last Saturday is now entering its second stage, said the spokesman, adding that the purpose of operation is to destroy "terror infrastructure of Hamas". IDF troops has now entered Gaza, he said, adding that the operation will last as long as necessary. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 12:32:13 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:32:13 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Is It 5GW Yet? Message-ID: <495FBD3D.1070802@gmail.com> How to Win a 'Fifth-Generation' War By David Axe January 03, 2009 Categories: Mullah Menace, No Tech, Strategery, T is for Terror 5GW is what happens when the world's disaffected direct their desperation at the most obvious symbol of everything they lack, taking advantage of the tactics and battlefields pioneered by more highly organized fourth-gen warriors. The symbol is the United States, the world's sole super-power. And the fifth-gen fighters' weapon of choice is political "stalemate," contends Marine Lt. Col. Stanton Coer, in a new piece in Marine Corps Gazette. "5GW fighters will win by ... point[ing] out the impotence of secular military might. ... These fighters win by not losing, while we lose by not winning." The battlefield will be something strange -- cyberspace, or the Cleveland water supply, or Wall Street's banking systems, or YouTube. The mission will be instilling fear, and it will succeed. http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/how-to-win-a-fi.html From nmgoro at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 13:58:39 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:58:39 -0300 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> Yoshie Furuhashi escribi?: > > Israel confirms its army begins ground operation in Gaza > www.chinaview.cn 2009-01-04 02:40:29 > > JERUSALEM, Jan. 3 (Xinhua) -- The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Saturday > evening began its ground operation in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, an > IDF spokesman told Xinhua. > > The Cast Lead operation starting last Saturday is now entering its > second stage, said the spokesman, adding that the purpose of operation > is to destroy "terror infrastructure of Hamas". > > IDF troops has now entered Gaza, he said, adding that the operation > will last as long as necessary. > > Considering the situation, "as long as necessary" may well mean "forever". Hope I am wrong. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 13:19:45 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:19:45 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > Yoshie Furuhashi escribi?: >> >> >> Israel confirms its army begins ground operation in Gaza >> www.chinaview.cn 2009-01-04 02:40:29 >> >> JERUSALEM, Jan. 3 (Xinhua) -- The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Saturday >> evening began its ground operation in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, an >> IDF spokesman told Xinhua. >> >> The Cast Lead operation starting last Saturday is now entering its >> second stage, said the spokesman, adding that the purpose of operation >> is to destroy "terror infrastructure of Hamas". >> >> IDF troops has now entered Gaza, he said, adding that the operation >> will last as long as necessary. > > Considering the situation, "as long as necessary" may well mean "forever". > Hope I am wrong. Anything is possible at this point, though restoring the full military re-occupation of Gaza can't be all that popular among the Israelis. See the poll here at , and it says that the ground invasion is less popular than negotiation for another ceasefire (presumably after extracting concessions from Hamas and/or getting the UNSC to pass a resolution to disarm Hamas, like a resolution to disarm Hezbollah, which hasn't been enforced to be sure but is nonetheless a useful ideological weapon for Israel). Norman G. Finkelstein says that Israel can't win if it invades Gaza with ground forces and Hamas is to wage a guerrilla war on its own turf, but Hamas is not exactly Hezbollah (read or watch the interview at ), and I'm not so confident. Nonetheless, if we look at what's happening among the whole Arab nation, the situation is not totally hopeless. A huge demo by Palestinians in Sakhnin, Israel was held today. About 100,000-150,000 took part in the demo. This is a single most important sign of hope for the Palestinians, I think. If they can repeat this and develop a full-scale uprising, it can really begin to change the balance of forces for the Palestinians in Gaza. The Arab regimes are beginning to feel the pressures from the streets, too, especially the regime in Egypt. Yoshie From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 13:36:04 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:36:04 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495FCC34.8090003@gmail.com> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > > > The Cast Lead operation starting last Saturday is now entering its > second stage, said the spokesman, adding that the purpose of operation > is to destroy "terror infrastructure of Hamas". > The 'terror infrastructure'... Reuters describes: "Hours before the advance, an Israeli air strike killed 11 Palestinian worshippers, including children, and wounded dozens at a mosque in Beit Lahiya, Hamas officials and medics said. Rescuers pulled civilian victims from the debris and the bodies lay in pools of blood, witnesses said. Israel has targeted mosques previously," http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSLS69391620090103?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sat Jan 3 13:42:24 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:42:24 -0600 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > >> Considering the situation, "as long as necessary" may well mean > "forever". Hope I am wrong. I fear you are correct. It seems to me that Israel is aiming at the cultural and political genocide of the Palestinian people as a people and the complete incorporation of West Bank & Gaza into Israel, scattering the Palestinian people (those who survive) about other "Arab" countries as permanent refugees. But these events in Palestine, combined with the utter inability of scattered leftist forces throughout the world to have appreciable effect on events, reinforce what has been my growing belief for half a decade: that leftists in the U.S. (and probably in Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada) have only one core task, that of creating themselves AS A LEFT. Until we do so our views and responses to the actions of the U.S. and other core capitalist powers are merely a joke. Carrol From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:14:20 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:14:20 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: > But these events in Palestine, combined with the utter inability of > scattered leftist forces throughout the world to have appreciable effect > on events, But for an unlikely emergence of a left in any of the countries at the heart of capitalism today (the USA, the EU, Japan, China, and the Gulf states), the 21st century will be a century in which Islam is the most significant ideology other than liberalism. For all we know, it may have been already that since the seventies, and we just didn't know it. Yoshie From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Sat Jan 3 14:24:28 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:24:28 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: Islam has no fundamental contradiction with either capitalism or US imperialism. To date, Iran is the only country Muslims have been able to seize state power in and none of the Muslim insurgencies have been able to topple a government backed by the US. The Iranian regimes deals with the US and Israel indicate the lack of any fundamental disagreement. It is interesting that the most successful Muslim party, Hezbollah, is modeled as a classic combatant communist party with its general secretary, central committee, armed wing, social services wing, media wing., etc. they are also the only ones pushing for a united front in Lebanon. Islam as a religion and ideology has, with a few limited exceptions (i.e., Hezbollah) been totally incapable of resisting imperialism or providing people with a better life or options. To the extent we see the rise of political islam today I think is more due to the failures of the secular left and their inability to deliver the goods than to any inherent value or achievements by the Islamicists. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 4:14 PM To: The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: > But these events in Palestine, combined with the utter inability of > scattered leftist forces throughout the world to have appreciable effect > on events, But for an unlikely emergence of a left in any of the countries at the heart of capitalism today (the USA, the EU, Japan, China, and the Gulf states), the 21st century will be a century in which Islam is the most significant ideology other than liberalism. For all we know, it may have been already that since the seventies, and we just didn't know it. Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 14:27:32 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:27:32 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Paul Wright wrote: > Islam has no fundamental contradiction with either capitalism or US > imperialism. True enough, but socialism as it's been put into practice, from Russia to Venezuela, has not had any fundamental contradiction with capitalism or US imperialism, objectively speaking, in the sense of really threatening the existence of either, and most of the socialist regimes self-destructed rather than destroyed from outside. Yoshie From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Sat Jan 3 14:49:25 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:49:25 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <7EBA651742494421BC7827BEB078FA75@PrisonLegalNews.local> Revolutionary communist regimes did in fact have serious contradictions with capitalism and imperialism. It was Chinese and Soviet support that helped North Korea and Viet Nam grind the US invasion to a halt; that provided aid to the national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. I wouldn't say the socialist regimes self destructed so much as the their new capitalist class arose and formally claimed political power. with the exception of East Germany and to a lesser extent Czechoslovakia, everyone running the show post USSR and post Mao were all "communist party" members and members of the ruling class pre 1990 and pre 1976. hence no self destruction so much as transition back to formal capitalist property relations. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 4:28 PM To: The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Paul Wright wrote: > Islam has no fundamental contradiction with either capitalism or US > imperialism. True enough, but socialism as it's been put into practice, from Russia to Venezuela, has not had any fundamental contradiction with capitalism or US imperialism, objectively speaking, in the sense of really threatening the existence of either, and most of the socialist regimes self-destructed rather than destroyed from outside. Yoshie From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jan 3 15:06:40 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:06:40 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (interview): The next phase of the global economic crisis. Message-ID: <83D6A73728BC4C64B1F1D5089CF2C1EC@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony B. Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:04 PM Subject: Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (interview): The next phase of the global economic crisis. An hour long interview (but worth it) with the Director of the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin speaking on the next phase of what he calls 'a global meltdown by the summer of 2009'...including 50% drop in standard of living in the US accompanied by 20% unemployment and the total collapse of the dollar reserve system. The latter, he (and the institute) estimate will result in the US defaulting en masse on its international debt obligations. Social and political ramifications are also discussed, i.e. further militarization of US society etc. T. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21467.htm From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 15:50:02 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:50:02 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza In-Reply-To: <7EBA651742494421BC7827BEB078FA75@PrisonLegalNews.local> References: <495FD17F.8060100@gmail.com> <495FCDB0.E8515328@ilstu.edu> <7EBA651742494421BC7827BEB078FA75@PrisonLegalNews.local> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Paul Wright wrote: > Revolutionary communist regimes did in fact have serious contradictions with > capitalism and imperialism. It was Chinese and Soviet support that helped > North Korea and Viet Nam grind the US invasion to a halt; that provided aid > to the national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. > > I wouldn't say the socialist regimes self destructed so much as the their > new capitalist class arose and formally claimed political power. with the > exception of East Germany and to a lesser extent Czechoslovakia, everyone > running the show post USSR and post Mao were all "communist party" members > and members of the ruling class pre 1990 and pre 1976. hence no self > destruction so much as transition back to formal capitalist property > relations. Marxism has been a great ideology to help defeat feudalism, colonialism, and fascism, but, strange as it may seem, it hasn't been very good as an anti-capitalist ideology in practice. Many nations in modern history have overthrown their ancient regimes, some expropriating all or most of the expropriators in the process, but what they have not been able to do very well is to resist the siren calls -- political liberalism for dissident intellectuals, management techniques for the party elite, consumerism for the masses -- of capitalist culture and establish a new socialist way of life. Fidel spoke the truth: "This country could destroy itself, this Revolution could destroy itself, but they [the enemy] cannot destroy it. We could destroy it ourselves, and it would only be our fault." Raul cited this remark on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution (), no doubt as a warning in part to the nation, in part to himself, as Cuba continues its experiment with economic liberalization while seeking to maintain its commitment to sustaining a socialist way of life. Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:06:37 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:06:37 -0500 Subject: [A-List] "The American School North of Gaza Was Directly Hit and Almost Completely Destroyed" Message-ID: This just in from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the OPT today (at ): "The American School north of Gaza was directly hit and almost completely destroyed, with one school guard killed. In addition, at least three to five schools were damaged by Israeli shelling of nearby targets." From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:22:43 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:22:43 -0800 Subject: [A-List] [Fwd: National Day of Emergency Mass Action for Gaza: Saturday, January 10] Message-ID: <495FF343.60408@gmail.com> Tell a friend: http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=PmnAqJI8Ruy4Ph3m4EHhnA.. Subscribe: http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=yKQ6EquUBjrWE0Fs9tla1w.. ********************** Please post this event on your Facebook and MySpace pages, and forward it widely to your friends and family. THE GROUND INVASION OF GAZA HAS BEGUN - TAKE TO THE STREETS! NATIONAL EMERGENCY PLAN OF ACTION After heavy artillery firing by Israel into Gaza neighborhoods, a massive troop invasion has begun. The ANSWER Coalition, Muslim American Society Freedom, Free Palestine Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, and Al-Awda - International Palestine Right to Return Coalition are calling on people across the country and around the world to take to the streets to show solidarity with the Palestinian people in Gaza and to demand an immediate end to the murderous attacks carried out by the U.S.-backed Israeli military against the people of Gaza. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROTESTS There will be demonstrations today (Sat, Jan 3), tomorrow (Sun, Jan 4) and in the early part of next week. Click the link below for a list of protests taking place nationally and internationally (updated frequently): http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=Ic6zqChNIcS2a3Pw_WvJZQ.. Email info at answercoalition.org to add the protest in your city. NATIONAL DAY OF EMERGENCY MASS ACTION: SATURDAY, JANUARY 10 MASS MARCH IN WASHINGTON, D.C. White House (north side) @ 1:00 pm There will be a major regional demonstration on Saturday, January 10. Gather at the White House (north side, Lafayette Park) at 1:00 PM. The protest will be located between the Bush White House and the Hay Adams Hotel, where President-Elect Obama is now residing, which is located on the north side of Lafayette Park. There will be coinciding demonstrations in San Francisco (11am at Civic Center) , Los Angeles (12 noon at Westwood Federal Building), San Diego (details TBA) and in cities around the country. If you are unable to travel to Washington, D.C., organize a protest in your city. Email the details of demonstrations to info at answercoalition.org. Please include your city, state, country, date, time, the exact address of gathering location, contact information if you want it listed on the internet, sponsoring/endorsing/initiating organizations, and any other important information. Demonstrations will be listed at www.AnswerCoalition.org. STATEMENTS FROM THE FREE PALESTINE ALLIANCE The Free Palestine Alliance, a member group of the ANSWER Coalition National Steering Committee, has been writing daily statements about the Gaza Strip Massacre. These are important statements of political orientation from the Palestinian-American community. Click the link below to read seven statements issued by the Free Palestine Alliance between December 27 and January 2: http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=ZJMjZnqiP1IqI0fbeP8x0Q.. SEND A LETTER TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND CONGRESS Send a letter to the State Department and Congress: Join with people around the country and around the world who are demanding an end to U.S. aid to Israel. This is an urgent situation and we must all act now. You can send a letter with our easy click and send system demanding an end to U.S. aid to Israel. Without U.S. aid, the Israeli military attacks, siege and blockade of Gaza could not be continued. Click the link below to send a letter to the State Department and elected officials in Congress: http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=yj7jyKL-UBy0GzYxUKnWgQ.. DONATIONS NEEDED You can help to support this important organizing effort by making a financial contribution today. Click the link below to donate online, where you can also find information on how to contribute by check: http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=CuNLtlq-7pl4xwUMcukzVw.. ********************** A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition www.answercoalition.org info at internationalanswer.org National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389 New York City: 212-694-8720 Los Angeles: 213-251-1025 San Francisco: 415-821-6545 Chicago: 773-463-0311 If this message was forwarded to you and you'd like to receive future ANSWER updates, click: http://answer.pephost.org/site/R?i=HBOztlUqtL-aHXT7LLw1EQ.. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 16:42:35 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:42:35 -0800 Subject: [A-List] In Violation: "The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel" Message-ID: <495FF7EB.5020800@gmail.com> "If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with all others justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless, the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place?then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever."-Jeremiah 7:5-7 OpEdNews Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-State-of-Israel-will-b-by-Eileen-Fleming-090102-375.html January 3, 2009 The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel By Eileen Fleming Israel has no Constitution, but it does have a Declaration: "On the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations." - May 14, 1948. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel "From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught...that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, 'vomit you out' if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]: "When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself' but also 'you shall love the other.'" [1] "Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and sin."-Moses, Exodus 34:9 "Hear O Israel: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you are to be upon your heart."-Deuteronomy 6:4-6 "But if your hearts turn away and you are not obedient?I declare to you this day that you will be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess." Deuteronomy 30:17-18 "My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways my ways declares the Lord."-Isaiah 55:8 "For I the Lord love JUSTICE! I hate robbery and inequity."-Isaiah 62:8 "I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable."-Jeremiah 2:7 "On your clothes men find the blood of the innocent poor."-Isaiah 2:34 "My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil."-Jeremiah 4:22 "Stand at the crossroads and look! Seek the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls?Nations; observe?Hear O earth; I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes because they have NOT listened to my words and have rejected my law."-Jeremiah 6:16-19 "There is terror on every side. O my people?They are hardened rebels."-Jeremiah 6:25, 28 "If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with all others justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless, the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place?then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever."-Jeremiah 7:5-7 "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to make you prosper and not harm you; plans to give you HOPE for a future."-Jeremiah 19:11 And "HOPE has two children. The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine ?In the Holy Land there are many walls and of all kinds?The Walls around us will not fall flat if we all do not pray and work to make the walls within us disappear.?- Dr. Bernard Sabella. This Sunday, January 4, 2008, is an international day of fasting and prayer for Gaza called by the Patriarchs, Bishops and the Heads of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem. They wrote "with deep concern, regret, and shock the war currently raging in the Gaza Strip and the subsequent destruction, murder and bloodshed, especially at a time when we celebrate Christmas, the birth of the King of love and peace. As we express our deep sorrow at the renewed cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians and the continued absence of peace in our Holy Land, we denounce the ongoing hostilities in the Gaza Strip and all forms of violence and killings from all parties. We believe that the continuation of this bloodshed and violence will not lead to peace and justice but breed more hatred and hostility - and thus continued confrontation between the two peoples. "Accordingly, we call upon all officials of both parties to the conflict to return to their senses and refrain from all violent acts, which only bring destruction and tragedy, and urge them instead to work to resolve their differences through peaceful and non-violent means. "We also call upon the international community to fulfill its responsibilities and intervene immediately and actively stop the bloodshed and end all forms of confrontation; to work hard and strong to put an end to the current confrontation and remove the causes of conflict between the two peoples; and to finally resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a just and comprehensive solution based on international resolutions. "To the various Palestinian factions we say: It is time to end your division and settle your differences. We call on all factions at this particular time to put the interests of the Palestinian people above personal and factional interests and to move immediately toward national comprehensive reconciliation and use all non-violent means to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region. "Finally, we raise our prayers to the Child in the manger to inspire the authorities and decision makers on both sides, the Israelis and Palestinians, for immediate action to end the current tragic situation in the Gaza Strip. We pray for the victims, the wounded and the broken-hearted. May the Lord God Almighty grant all those who have lost loved ones consolation and patience. We pray for all those living in panic and fear, that God may bless them with calm, tranquility and true peace. "We call on all to observe next Sunday, January 4, as a day for justice and peace in the land of peace." "Blessed are the Peacemakers: They are the daughters and sons of God."-Jesus, another Hebrew Prophet, Matthew 5:9. Authors Bio: Eileen is the Founder and Editor of wearewideawake.org Producer of "30 Minutes with Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu" Author of "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory" and an e-book; "So, That was 54..." She has been to Israel Palestine six times since June 2005. http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=The-State-of-Israel-will-b-by-Eileen-Fleming-090102-375.html From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jan 4 06:16:44 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:16:44 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Don't fix the economy - change it Message-ID: <4960B6BC.20200@ashisuto.co.jp> Sticking with the model that is driving us toward ecological catastrophe will eventually kill us by Peter G Brown and Geoffrey Garver TheStar.com (December 26 2008) Amid the discordant clash of solutions being served up to address the global financial crisis, a common refrain can be heard: Most global leaders and their economic advisers key their policy prescriptions to "sustained economic growth". The prevailing debate is how to get there most quickly. In Canada, how this debate plays out could bring down the government in a matter of weeks. Unfortunately, it is the wrong debate. Neither the Conservative minority nor the opposition has proposed anything that will set Canada on a long-term path toward the kind of economy that will both provide for the well-being of Canadians and enhance and preserve the ecological community of which people are but one dependent part. All eyes may now be on the kind of fiscal budget the Conservatives might produce next year, but a more essential budget also demands urgent attention: the global ecological budget. The financial crisis has brought into sharp focus the need to fundamentally change, not merely repair or rebuild, our economy. Because, quite simply, sticking with an economic model that is driving toward ecological catastrophe will kill us. So, it is essential to address the financial and ecological crises together. The ecological budget, on which all life and, consequently, the human economy depends, is already in dramatic deficit. Why is this budget ultimately more important than the fiscal budget? September 23 2008, was Earth Overshoot Day. The period after September 23 represents the time the human population causes an ecological deficit, using up the Earth faster than it can regenerate. Every year, Earth Overshoot Day comes earlier. This moving date tells the story of a global environment rapidly losing its ability to support life: accelerating climate change; the loss of species and habitats; declining fisheries; the proliferation of ocean dead zones; diminishing freshwater resources; and more. Ecological overshoot is climate change on steroids. Here are six steps we can take toward a truly balanced budget that will allow Canadians, and all people on Earth, to live fulfilling, healthy, yet more ecologically compatible, lives. * Recognize that the economy is part of the biosphere. A comprehensive economic plan must be based on the scientific fact that the global economy is a subsidiary of the natural order. Economic policies should be attuned to the limited capacity of Earth's biosphere to provide for humans and other life and to assimilate their waste. Photosynthesis and sunlight are as essential to the framework for economic budgets and expenditures as the laws of supply and demand. * Acknowledge that we need new institutions. An economic renewal tailored to the 21st century would establish institutions committed to fitting the human economy to Earth's limited life-support capacity. Canada, with its token efforts to address climate change, is far off the track. We need something like the central reserve banks, but which look after shares of the Earth's ecological capacity, not just interest rates and the money supply. Money should be recognized as a social licence to use part of Earth's life-support capacity. Some functions of governance would have to operate at a global level, through a federation modelled perhaps on the European Union, with enforceable laws designed to assure that individual nations don't overrun Earth's limits. The rules for the developed countries that are responsible for the current ecological crisis should be different from those for developing ones. * Acknowledge that unlimited growth on a finite planet makes no sense. Most people wrongly believe that unlimited growth and wealth accumulation are the "natural laws" of the economy - inviolable, even though together they undermine the Earth's ecological and social systems. We face a moral challenge: bring the global economy into a right relationship with the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants or suffer the increasing destruction of Earth's finite life-support systems and social structures. Growth in consumption is a nonsensical response to the sharp decline in Earth's biophysical systems that is caused by overconsumption. Our new ecological and climate reality demands new ways to live within the means of the Earth. * Fairness matters. A "right" human-Earth relationship would recognize humans as part of an interdependent web of life on a finite planet. The economy must recognize the rights of the human poor and of millions of other species to their place in the sun. In a world awash in money, addressing poverty only with growth reflects a tragic lack of moral imagination. Indeed, in pushing for more "free" trade as it is currently understood, Canada would entrench an ongoing addiction to consumption, pursued in a manner that often ravages the bio-productivity of developing countries. * Expand the discussion. The new knowledge that will forever mark this period in human history is the overwhelming scientific evidence that we are overconsuming the planet and accelerating toward ecological catastrophe. The short-term approaches of most ministers of finance and professional economists don't account for how the planet works, or even that the economy exists on a finite planet. Scientists morally committed to protecting the global commons and researching ecological limits to the global economy need much more funding and influence in policy-making. * Look beyond technological fixes. Bold new leadership is needed that will focus on all four policy "theatres" relevant to human ecological impact and provide the moral footing that will lead people, individually and collectively, to choose lifestyles with radically lower impact. The four policy variables are: technology; population; wealth and consumption; and morals and customs. These factors should together shape Parliament's rethinking of the current economic system. Technology can increase efficiency of energy and resources use, yet it is overemphasized as a solution. Pushing technological solutions like hydrogen cars and genetically modified agriculture is much easier politically than asking people to consume less or have fewer children. Unfortunately, technology alone cannot solve the ecological crisis. For one thing, efficiency gains often lead to greater, not lower, consumption. An example is the squandering of Quebec's underpriced hydroelectric power. Investments in new "green" technology need to be coupled to a regulatory structure that ensures that efficiency does not result in more impact, along with massive investment in creating or restoring natural systems that build bioproductivity. Economic policy must promote not more affluence as currently defined, but more sufficiency for all Canadians - so that all may live with self-respect, without overconsumption. Perhaps most difficult to come to grips with is that Canada is an overpopulated country - if you compare the individual impact of each Canadian with what the Earth can withstand. We should escape from the current treadmill that considers more people necessary for more growth. Lastly, we must greatly increase investment in educational and civic institutions that teach that we are not "consumers", but citizens of the Earth, and guardians of life's prospect on a small, beautiful and finite planet. _____ Peter G Brown is a professor at McGill University. Geoffrey Garver is an environmental consultant and lectures in law at Universite de Montreal and Universite Laval. They are co-authors of Right Relationship: Building a Whole Earth Economy (February 2009). http://www.thestar.com/article/557976 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From hardwin1 at googlemail.com Sat Jan 3 16:11:47 2009 From: hardwin1 at googlemail.com (HMFJ) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:11:47 +0000 Subject: [A-List] Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (interview): The next phase of the global economic crisis. In-Reply-To: <83D6A73728BC4C64B1F1D5089CF2C1EC@TonyPC> References: <83D6A73728BC4C64B1F1D5089CF2C1EC@TonyPC> Message-ID: Should anyone want to download this rather than stream it, the MP3 file is at: http://aud1.kpfa.org//data/20081210-Wed1300.mp3 Paste it into your browser, let it download fully and then "Save As". Does anyone have copies of full GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletins they can share or excerpt? On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Tony B. wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony B. > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:04 PM > Subject: Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (interview): The next phase of > the global economic crisis. > > > An hour long interview (but worth it) with the Director of the Global > Europe Anticipation Bulletin speaking on the next phase of what he calls 'a > global meltdown by the summer of 2009'...including 50% drop in standard of > living in the US accompanied by 20% unemployment and the total collapse of > the dollar reserve system. The latter, he (and the institute) estimate will > result in the US defaulting en masse on its international debt obligations. > Social and political ramifications are also discussed, i.e. further > militarization of US society etc. > > T. > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21467.htm > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1667 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090103/a348c5f1/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Jan 3 18:02:02 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:02:02 -0800 Subject: [A-List] It's ABOUT TIME For The End Of The Petro-Industrial Age: Factories slash output and jobs around the world In-Reply-To: <495E8A2D.5000201@gmail.com> References: <495E8A2D.5000201@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 01:42 PM 1/2/2009, Leighm ran across this: >The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, >44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 1,670 trillion cubic >feet of natural gas are recoverable in the frozen region north of >the Arctic Circle. > >And the fight over who owns those resources may turn out to be the >most important territorial dispute of this century. > Huh? Dispute? What is in dispute? This article is a typical example of American journalism, which is almost invariably intellectually shallow and poorly researched, and doesn't even pursue the viewpoint of the general public. I don't even think they are aware that they end up writing from the perspective of the federal government or the NY business elite. Of course, its not realistic to expect journalists to be deep experts at anything other than basic grammar, and marketing themselves to their boss. How many people in the country ever master *any* technical or academic discipline or industry? Let alone, multiple, special domains of life about which journalists write so confidently. First of all, the economic surplus will stolen by a wealthy elite, unless 100 years of precedent in oil is suddenly upended. There are three questions that don't matter at all: 1. which "nation" "controls" and taxes the drilling, 2. which corporation operates the drilling or distribution, or 3 which nations' workers get the jobs, etc. The only thing that matters is who's going to get the economic surplus, and if anybody thinks it will be somebody other than the same wealth/ elite as in the past, the burden of proof is upon them---most of all, to write a coherent or useful article on the subject. CNN of course did not. --Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2207 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090103/415b4307/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Jan 3 18:35:17 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:35:17 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Let the Banks Fail In-Reply-To: <495DDDF1.9010702@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <495DDDF1.9010702@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: On Jan 2, Bill Totten quoted Joshua Holland, AlterNet, (December 15 2008) >[....] > >Here's a fun fact about the finance industry. Historically, it's grown >and contracted along with the business cycle. When the economy was going >gang-busters and businesses were expanding, it was there to provide >capital and insurance and connect investors with entrepreneurs and >innovators. Then, when the business cycle took its inevitable turn and >the economy slowed down, it would contract. But a funny thing happened >on the way to the financial meltdown; as the Associated Press noted, >"when the Internet bubble burst in 2000, the sector never stopped >growing. Instead, it ballooned over the past eight years to around ten >percent of the US economy, puzzling economists." Translation: when we think about the financial industry, or the year 2000, some anonymous liar hiding behind the Associated Press, wants us to think about the so-called "Internet bubble", which itself was a figment of the media' propagandists' imaginations. He might as well have said, "when Mount St. Helen's blew up, the sector never stopped growing" or "When the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank into the abyss.... " etc. What was happening in 2000 and 2001 was a major handover of power to industries scrum behind Bush (Enron Halliburton etc.) -- a change so epochal it was anticipated by March 2000. The great firehose of money creation was shut off to the tech and internet industries, kept off until the election was decided, then, opened with the greatest flood of money creation, in the direection of the Republicans' donor base (financial industries, builders, energy sector, military sector), the greatest flood of money in history in 2001-2008 having NOTHING to do with the Internet "bubble". The Internet was not a "bubble", folks. We were totally serious about capturing much of the revenue of the telephone companies, the entire music, print and media sector, and the entire wholesale/retail distribution chain, and the *entire* financial sector. Wall Street understood this from the beginning, but, when half their portfolios were going to be wrecked-- including their own jobs-- they pulled the funding for it. And as a result there will never be an Internet. Just another playpen for the incumbent companies to fortress themselves even more. >It's not such a puzzle. In large part, the continued growth of the [financial] >sector was based on the explosion in derivatives - high-value vapor - >rather than anything connected to real growth in the "nuts and bolts" >economy. (As I explained in more detail here, a derivative is a piece of >paper that can be bought and sold for real money but isn't attached to a >concrete asset. Its value is simply derived from something tangible - >hence the name. It is, in essence, the equivalent of investors making a >bet that a company, industry or just about anything else with a tangible >value will move up or down.) Oh jeezzzzz. The continued growth of the "financial sector" is not based on derivatives or any other financial instrument, business practice, etc. I wish it were. Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3661 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090103/7f367b8b/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Jan 3 19:12:32 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:12:32 -0800 Subject: [A-List] How to Win a 'Fifth-Generation' War by David Axe In-Reply-To: <495FBD3D.1070802@gmail.com> References: <495FBD3D.1070802@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Leigh. Further background from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4GW Fourth generation warfare (4GW) is combat characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. The military doctrine was first defined in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind, used to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their monopoly on combat forces, returning in a sense to the uncontrolled combat of pre-modern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent ideological network. While this term is similar to terrorism and asymmetric warfare, it is much narrower. On that page, see "criticism" -- 4GW may be nothing other than traditional insurgency.. I think I agree... and I don't see 5GW either. The thing that HAS really changed, circa 1943 was the emergence of B29s- long range strategic bombers, then B52s, ICBMs etc. and other WMDs. What this means is that no country or empire can ever again secure its core administration or industry, anymore. And the amount of *territory* you control simply does not matter. So, all those WW2 movies like "Why we Fight", showing the maps and the growth of the German or Japanese empire? They don't matter anymore, even if they take over 90% of the planet, if they fail to destroy the air force of the remaining 10%. The old ideas of empires based on territory became vulnerable to complete annihilation by the aerospace industry of other superpowers. There are just too many nukes out there-- too widely dispersed. Ironically the Korean and Vietnam wars were sold as domino theory, preventing territorial growth of supposed enemies' empires. Of course we recognize, now that we're too old to matter, these were about corporate globalization all along. As decades went by, the bureaucracies and industrial cores have become vulnerable to annihilation by WMDs even by quite small states like Israel. What this means, first of all, the nation-state became insufficient as instrument of power for the elites, worldwide. So, they constructed their corporate globalization and financialization and privatization tactics. All this 4GW or other war, isn't really war, it is lowgrade police operations or gang warfare by the US military for some client or other. That is not war. There are no wars except to slaughter the most powerless peoples. Nobody, not anybody! wants any real war between any real military powers. War certainly is obsolete... this was common knowledge among many in the military, by the 1980s, perhaps this has been forgotten. Sorry for another post, Todd At 11:32 AM 1/3/2009, Leighm wrote: >How to Win a 'Fifth-Generation' War >By David Axe >January 03, 2009 > >Categories: Mullah Menace, No Tech, Strategery, T is for Terror > >5GW is what happens when the world's disaffected direct their >desperation at the most obvious symbol of everything they lack, >taking advantage of the tactics and battlefields pioneered by more >highly organized fourth-gen warriors. The symbol is the United >States, the world's sole super-power. And the fifth-gen fighters' >weapon of choice is political "stalemate," contends Marine Lt. Col. >Stanton Coer, in a new piece in Marine Corps Gazette. > >"5GW fighters will win by ... point[ing] out the impotence of >secular military might. ... These fighters win by not losing, while >we lose by not winning." > >The battlefield will be something strange -- cyberspace, or the >Cleveland water supply, or Wall Street's banking systems, or >YouTube. The mission will be instilling fear, and it will succeed. > >http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/how-to-win-a-fi.html > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4690 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090103/0030a36b/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Sat Jan 3 22:23:32 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:23:32 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Speth's three remedies (according to Korten) Message-ID: OK I'll spare you the suspense. Speth's remedies cited below: internalize costs, distribute ownership, and establish accountability. --Todd -- see David Korten http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioGRn6Bxd8Y -- James Gustav Speth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfJq8uW-v8w ------------------------------------------------------------ Economic Redesign for the Twenty-First Century Tikkun mag. nov-dec. http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/tik0811/politics/economic by David Korten Our economic and political system has produced a credit meltdown, a shrinking middle class, stagnant wages, escalating food and energy prices, a dramatic decline in U.S. manufacturing and research capability, billion-dollar pay packages for hedge fund managers, skyrocketing consumer debt, an unstable U.S. dollar, a trillion-dollar bailout for Wall Street, and the spreading collapse of Earth's environmental systems. By any credible measure, our economic system has failed. Meltdown2When economic failure is systemic, temporary fixes, even very expensive ones like the Wall Street bailout, are like putting a Band-Aid on a cancer. They may create a temporary sense of confidence, but the effect is solely cosmetic. Politicians and most pundits are looking only at the tip of the economic iceberg. Pull away the curtain to look behind the headlines, and we find a potentially terminal economic crisis with three defining elements: 1. Excess human consumption, which is accelerating the collapse of Earth's ecosystem. 2. Unconscionable inequality and the related social alienation, which are advancing the social collapse manifest in terrorism, genocide, crime, and growing prison populations. 3. An economic system ruled by financial markets, global corporations, and economic theories devoted to increasing consumption while rolling back real wages and benefits for working people to make money for the richest among us. This is a time for decisive action. The financial meltdown has shaken public confidence in the people and institutions now in charge. The transition to new political leadership creates an opening for bold action. In this article, I frame the choice before us and present my high dream of the economic address to the nation that I hope President Barack Obama might deliver shortly after his inauguration. The Old Economy Economist vs. the New Economy Ecologist The task before us is to replace the culture and institutions of a twentieth-century economy designed and managed to serve financial values with the culture and institutions of a new twenty-first-century economy designed to serve life values. The former undoubtedly leads to environmental, social, and economic collapse. The latter holds promise of leading to the world most humans really want for themselves and their children-a world of healthy, happy children, families, and communities living together in peace in vibrant, healthy, natural environments. It is ours to choose. The choice between the path of failure and the path of possibility is framed with dramatic clarity by two influential authors-one a twentieth-century economist and the other a twenty-first-century ecologist. Jeffery Sachs, in Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), prescribes a Band-Aid. James Gustave Speth, in Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability (2008), prescribes a holistic cure grounded in a cultural and institutional transformation. Sachs, an economist by training and perspective, is known for his work as an economic adviser to national governments and an array of public institutions. New York Times reporter Peter Passell described him as "probably the most important economist in the world" in the article "Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Shock Therapist," which was published June 27, 1993. Speth, who has degrees in law and economics, has a distinguished administrative career as founder and former head of the World Resources Institute, administrator of the United Nations Development Program, and now Dean of the Yale University School of Forestry. Sachs writes from the perspective of a neoclassical economist; Speth from the perspective of a systems ecologist. Sachs: Painless Fine Tuning Sachs opens Common Wealth with a powerful and unequivocal problem statement that raises expectations of a bold break with the economic orthodoxy of what Sachs refers to as "free-market ideologues." The challenges of sustainable development-protecting the environment, stabilizing the world's population, narrowing the gaps between rich and poor, and ending extreme poverty-will take center stage. Global cooperation will have to come to the fore. The very idea of competing nation-states that scramble for markets, power, and resources will become pass?.... The pressures of scarce energy resources, growing environmental stresses, a rising global population, legal and illegal mass migration, shifting economic power, and vast inequalities of income are too great to be left to naked market forces and untrammeled geopolitical competition among nations. This statement would have served equally well as an opening statement for Speth. Beyond the problem statement, Sachs and Speth both agree that there is an essential role for government and for greater cooperation among nations. From there, however, as I will elaborate later, we might wonder whether they live in different worlds. Sachs assures us that we can easily end environmental stress and poverty using existing technologies. By his estimation, with modest new investments we can sequester carbon, develop new energy sources, end population growth, make more efficient use of water and other natural resources, and jump-start economic growth in the world's remaining pockets of persistent poverty. Sachs made clear his belief that there is no need to redistribute wealth, cut back material consumption, or otherwise reorganize the economy, during his 2007 lecture to the Royal Society in London, which was broadcast by the BBC. I do not believe that the solution to this problem is a massive cutback of our consumption levels or our living standards. I think the solution is smarter living. I do believe that technology is absolutely critical, and I do not believe ... that the essence of the problem is that we face a zero sum that must be re-distributed. I'm going to argue that there's a way for us to use the knowledge that we have, the technology that we have, to make broad progress in material conditions, to not require or ask the rich to take sharp cuts of living standards, but rather to live with smarter technologies that are sustainable, and thereby to find a way for the rest of the world, which yearns for it, and deserves it as far as I'm concerned, to raise their own material conditions as well. The costs are much less than people think. Far from calling for a restraint on consumption, Sachs projects global economic expansion from $60 trillion in 2005 to $420 trillion in 2050. Relying on what he calls a "back-of-the-envelope calculation," he estimates that the world's wealthy nations can eliminate extreme poverty and develop and apply the necessary environmentally friendly technologies to address environmental needs with an expenditure of a mere 2.4% of projected mid-century economic output. Problem painlessly solved, at least in Sachs's mind. Sachs gives no indication of why, if we can stabilize population and meet the needs of the poor with modest expenditure, we should need or even want a global economy six times larger than its present size. As is true for most economists, and indeed the general public, Sachs simply assumes that economic growth is both good and necessary. It apparently never occurs to him to question this assumption, which Speth demonstrates to be false, as I will elaborate later. Furthermore, since Sachs maintains that there is no need for more than the very modest redistribution he estimates is required to put the poorest of the poor on the path to economic growth, he seems to assume that consumption will continue to increase across the board. He says nothing, however, about what forms of consumption he believes can continue to multiply without placing yet more pressure on already overstressed natural systems. Unless more people are driving cars, living in big houses, eating higher on the food chain, traveling further with more frequency, and buying more electronic gear, what exactly will we be consuming more of? And from what materials will they be fabricated? Sachs neither raises nor answers such questions. Nor does Sachs mention the realities of political power and resource control-for example, the reality that in most instances poor countries are poor not for want of foreign aid but because we of the rich nations have used our military and economic power to expropriate their resources to consume beyond our own means. It is troubling, although not surprising, that Sachs's reassuring words get an attentive hearing among establishment power holders. Speth: Redirection and Redesign In stark contrast to Sachs, Speth concludes, "The planet cannot sustain capitalism as we know it," calling for nothing less than a complete economic redesign. No simple back-of-the-envelope projections for Speth. He takes a hard look at the research on growth and environmental damage in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) and concludes that despite a slight decline in the amount of environmental damage per increment of growth, growth in GDP always increases environmental damage. The relationship is inherent in the simple fact, which apparently escaped Sachs, that GDP is mostly a measure of growth in consumption, which is the driving cause of environmental decline. Speth is clear that although choosing "green" products may be a positive step, not buying at all beats buying green most every time: To sum up, we live in a world where economic growth is generally seen as both beneficent and necessary-the more, the better; where past growth has brought us to a perilous state environmentally; where we are poised for unprecedented increments in growth; where this growth is proceeding with wildly wrong market signals, including prices that do not incorporate environmental costs or reflect the needs of future generations; where a failed politics has not meaningfully corrected the market's obliviousness to environmental needs; where economies are routinely deploying technology that was created in an environmentally unaware era; where there is no hidden hand or inherent mechanism adequate to correct the destructive tendencies. So, right now, one can only conclude that growth is the enemy of environment. Economy and environment remain in collision. Speth is clear that we are unlikely as a species to implement the measures required to bring ourselves into balance with the environment so long as economic growth remains an overriding policy priority, consumerism defines our cultural values, and the excesses of corporate behavior are unconstrained by fairly enforced rules. To correct our misplaced priorities, he recommends replacing financial indicators of economic performance, such as GDP, with wholly new measures based on nonfinancial indicators of social and environmental health-the things we should be optimizing. Speth quotes psychologist David Myers, whose essay "What Is the Good Life?" claims that Americans have: big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, secured rights and diminished civility. We were excelling at making a living but too often failing at making a life. We celebrated our prosperity but yearned for purpose. We cherished our freedoms but longed for connection. In an age of plenty, we were feeling spiritual hunger. These facts of life lead us to a startling conclusion: Our becoming better off materially has not made us better off psychologically. This is consistent with studies finding that beyond a basic threshold level of about $10,000 per capita per year, equity and community are far more important determinants of health and happiness than income or possessions. Indeed, as Speth documents, economic growth tends to be associated with increases in individualism, social fragmentation, inequality, depression, and even impaired physical health. Speth gives significant attention to social movements grounded in an awakening spiri-tual consciousness that are creating communities of the future from the bottom up, practicing participatory democracy, and demanding changes in the rules of the game: Many of our deepest thinkers and many of those most familiar with the scale of the challenges we face have concluded that the transitions required can be achieved only in the context of what I will call the rise of a new consciousness. For some, it is a spiritual awakening-a transformation of the human heart. For others it is a more intellectual process of coming to see the world anew and deeply embracing the emerging ethic of the environment and the old ethic of what it means to love thy neighbor as thyself. Speth examines the abuses of corporate power and endorses calls to revoke the charters of corporations that grossly violate the public interest, exclude or expel unwanted corporations, roll back limited liability, eliminate corporate personhood, bar corporations from making political contributions, and limit corporate lobbying. He recommends a redesign of "the operating system of capitalism" to support the development of local economies populated with firms that feature worker and community ownership and to charter corporations only to serve a public interest. The contrasting perspectives of Sachs and Speth on the three defining economic issues outlined in the introduction are summarized in Table 1. [graphic at: http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/tik0811/politics/economic ] Table 1: contrasting positions on the essential debate: Marginal Adjustment (Sachs) Economic Growth: Growth in GDP is a valid measure of human progress, prosperity and increased well being. More is generally better. Given a combination of market forces, provision of public incentives, and a proper mix of technology, there is no inherent environmental limit to economic growth. Equity: Poverty, not equity, is the issue. and the proper response is to kick start the growth process wiin the world's remaining pockets of absolute poverty, by introducing foreign aid funded technologies and social services. Governing System: The instutions of capitalism as currently constituted can resolve current environmental and social problems through a combination of voluntary action, modest public expenditure, and fine-tuning at the margin. System Redesign: (Speth) Economic Growth: Economic growth is disrupting the values and living systems essential to human well-being. Beyond a minimal threshhold of consumption, growing community, rather than growing the consumption of stuff, is the key to increasing human health and happiness. Equity: Extreme poverty is the inevitable other side of the coin of extreme wealth and can be resolved only through redistribution from those who have more than they need to those who have less. Governing System: The operating systems of capitalism must be fundamentally redesigned to internalize costs, distribute ownership, and establish accountability for the human and natural consequences of economic decisions. The differences are instructive, because any effort to address the current potentially fatal threats to the human future necessarily begins with deciding whether to focus on adjustments at the margin ? la Sachs, the economist, or deep system redesign ? la Speth, the systems ecologist. By this point in time, given the strength of the evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to take seriously anyone who assumes, without question, that the global economy can expand by six times between now and 2050 without collapsing Earth's life support system. Unfortunately, Sachs demonstrates the intellectual myopia common to many professional economists, whose ideological assumptions trump reality. When we seek guidance on dealing with the complex issues relating to interactions between human economies and the planetary ecosystems in which they are embedded, we are best advised to turn to those, like Speth, who view the world through a larger and less ideologically clouded lens. The Elephant Now in the Spotlight Even Speth, however, does not address what, up until the beginning of the subprime mortgage meltdown that began in the summer of 2007, was the largely unmentioned elephant in the room: a dangerously dysfunctional financial system devoted primarily to generating financial fortunes for its major players. So I've added a third book to the mix: Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism by Kevin Phillips. The author is a journalist and former Republican Party political strategist with a brilliant record of documenting the frightening excesses and distortions of extremist right-wing politics. In Bad Money, Phillips cuts through the usual fog and obfuscation to explain the inner workings, and the larger consequences, of a Wall Street money game in which the players use money to make money for people who have money, without producing anything of value. They prey with impunity on the real economy of Main Street, on which we depend to provide essential goods and services. Through a restructuring of the economy that gained traction during the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, an alliance of Wall Street institutions and their captive regulators?the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department?made finance the dominant and most profitable sector of the economy. In 1950, arguably the peak of U.S. global power, manufacturing accounted for 29.3% of U.S. gross domestic product and financial services for 10.9%. By 2005, manufacturing accounted for only 12% and financial services for 20.4% of GDP. Step by step, restrictions were removed on debt-equity ratios, financial reporting, consumer interest rates and lending practices, and the formation of huge financial conglomerates that merge banking, insurance, securities, and real estate interests in a densely interconnected web of insider deals. Wall Street players used this freedom to capture gains from highly leveraged speculative trading schemes and pass the risks to others using exotic financial instruments and bogus credit ratings. Hedge funds, the high rollers at the leading edge of the speculative frenzy, proliferated from a couple hundred in the early 1990s to some 10,000 in mid-2007, by which time they had more than $1.8 trillion in financial assets under management. "Like digital buccaneers, and hardly more restrained than their seventeenth-century predecessors, they arbitraged the nooks and crannies of global finance, capturing even more return on capital than casino operators made from one-armed bandits and favorable gaming-table odds." Leverage?also known as borrowing?became the name of the Wall Street game. Banks used their power to create money to feed the speculative frenzy by creating a complex pyramid of loans to each other. By Phillips' calculations, in 2006 U.S. financial sector debt, which consists largely of financial institutions lending to other financial institutions to leverage financial speculation, totaled $14 trillion, which was 32% of all U.S. debt and 107% of U.S. GDP. Gambling with borrowed money is highly risky, as is lending to gamblers to feed their habit. At the time of its collapse, Lehman Brothers was leveraged thirty-five to one, which means it financed its gambling in the global financial casino with thirty-five dollars in borrowed money for every dollar of equity. This can be highly profitable in a rising market, but it is disastrous in a falling market. Because they rigged the system to pass the risk to others, the managers who made the losing bets walked away with impressive fees collected during the good times and left to others the messy work of sorting things out when Wall Street's version of a Ponzi scheme collapsed. In 2007, the fifty highest-paid private investment fund managers walked away with an average $588 million in annual compensation?19,000 times as much as average worker pay. Over a period of roughly three decades, the Wall Street alliance used its control of the money supply and its political influence to ensure that the benefits of productivity gains in the Main Street economy were captured by Wall Street players as interest, dividends, and financial services fees. The Wall Street commitment to an upward redistribution of wealth was so successful that from 1980 to 2005, the highest-earning 1% of the U.S. population increased its share of national cash income from 9% to 19%. And most of that gain went to the top tenth of 1%. The measures used to achieve this remarkable outcome included managing monetary policy to maintain a target level of unemployment, managing trade and tax policies to facilitate corporate outsourcing of jobs to low-wage economies, suppressing labor unions, limiting enforcement of laws against hiring undocumented immigrant workers, and using accounting tricks that understate inflation to suppress inflation- indexed wage and social security increases. As wages fell relative to inflation, and as public services were rolled back, the household savings rate fell apace. From the beginning of 1959 to the end of 1993, the monthly U.S. household savings rate never fell below 5% of household income and it often exceeded 10%. Since April 2001 it has never exceeded 5%, and in the most recent years it has commonly been below 1%, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. Desperate to find ways to make ends meet, households turned from saving to borrowing. Eager to capitalize on the opportunity thus created, Wall Street used aggressive marketing and deceptive lending practices to encourage people to run up credit card and mortgage debts far beyond their means to repay. As the borrowers inevitably fell behind in their payments, Wall Street hit the victims with special fees and usurious interest rates, creating a modern version of debt bondage. The faster money poured into the housing market, the greater and faster housing prices inflated. The resulting real estate bubble created an illusion of increasing wealth, at least for homeowners and those who profited from speculation in the housing market. However, contrary to what some of its beneficiaries would have us believe, a real estate bubble does not create wealth. A rise in the market price of a house from $200,000 to $400,000 does not make it more functional or comfortable. The real consequence of a real estate bubble is to increase the financial power of those who own property relative to those who do not. Wall Street encouraged homeowners to monetize their market gains with mortgages, which Wall Street then converted into securities and sold off to the unwary, including to pension funds many of the hapless homeowners counted on for their retirement. When the housing bubble inevitably burst, dazed homeowners walked away, many in financial ruin, from properties on which they owed more than market value. Securities based on these mortgages lost value, and the over-leveraged Wall Street players could not meet their financial commitments. In the face of escalating defaults, the whole system of interlocking credit obligations collapsed, and Wall Street turned to taxpayers for a bailout. Phillips paints a stunning picture of Wall Street's hubris and corruption. Although his analysis underscores Speth's conclusion that we need a sweeping system redesign, he leaves it to others to identify appropriate remedies. The Elephant in the Shadows There is yet another system design issue that bears major responsibility for the credit collapse-an issue that has so far escaped the spotlight. Even Phillips mentions it only in passing. The issue is the privatized money system by which nearly every dollar in circulation has been created by a private bank with a deceptively simple, accounting-related sleight of hand. Most people think of accounting as a rather boring subject, but pay attention here, because this accounting trick is the key to understanding why our current system of debt-created money makes it possible for a few people to acquire obscene amounts of unearned money while sticking the rest of us with the bill. [graphic at: http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/tik0811/politics/economic ] Most people who take out a loan think that another bank customer deposited the money they are borrowing in the bank for safekeeping, i.e., that the bank is simply serving as an intermediary between depositors and borrowers and guaranteeing repayment. That is in fact what my college economics professor taught us many years ago. It isn't true. Unless they are holding a long-term CD, most depositors have immediate access to their money, just as you have immediate access to the money you borrow from the bank. What actually happened when the bank approved your loan is the bank's accountant entered two numbers in the bank's accounting records: Your promise to repay the bank was entered as an asset; the money the bank put into your account was entered as a liability. At first glance it looks like these entries cancel each other out. The key is that neither entry existed previously. By this act, the bank created new money from nothing in the amount of the loan principle and caused the amount of money in the economy as a whole to increase. At the same time you acquired a legal obligation to repay the principle with interest. This, in fact, is how all money (except for coins and some special notes) is created. It should be noted that the bank-created money is electronic. It has no substance. You might say it has no existence outside the human mind. Needless to say, granting banks the power to create money with a computer key stroke and then lend it out at interest makes banking a very profitable business. These profits come at a significant cost to society in the form of economic instability and a growth imperative, concentration of wealth, and a distortion of economic priorities. Let's take them one at a time. * Instability and Growth Imperative: Because the bank that issued the loan created only the principal and not the interest due on that principle, to avoid default and consequent financial collapse, the economy must continuously grow at a sufficient rate to generate a demand for new loans adequate to create the money borrowers need to make the interest payments on their previous loans as they come due. If growth falters, cascading defaults can wipe out the equity of the banks that made the bad loans, push the whole banking system into insolvency, and dry up the money supply as banks are forced to stop lending. For lack of money to facilitate exchange, businesses fall idle, workers lose their jobs, and the daily needs of Main Street families and businesses go unmet-all because banks are no longer making the accounting entries necessary to keep money flowing through the economy. * Inequality: Because banks are essentially renting out the money needed to keep the Main Street economy functioning, Main Street is always in Wall Street's debt. The continuing flow of interest to Wall Street bankers assures a never-ending concentration of wealth. * Distortion of Priorities: In the absence of strict governmental oversight, banks face an irresistible temptation to abuse the power inherent in their ability to create money in ways that distort society's priorities. Wall Street banks are likely to find it more profitable to make very large loans to high-stakes speculators and corporate raiders than to make smaller loans to qualified home buyers and legitimate businesses engaged in producing real goods and services-except at usurious interest rates. Desperate for money to survive, the latter become easy prey to the predatory practices of Wall Street institutions that celebrate a sociopathic culture of greed and material excess. Bank lending at interest isn't the only way to create money, nor is it the most preferred from a public interest perspective. There have long been calls from influential economists, politicians, and even U.S. presidents, most famously Jefferson, to replace the private issuance of credit-money with a system by which a democratically accountable public institution creates debt-free money. The public institution would create this money with its own accounting entry and then spend it into the economy to fulfill a public purpose. For example, it might pay down the federal debt or invest in mass transit infrastructure, solar technology, or public education. Under this method important public needs can be met without either taxation or loan repayment and without the usual expansion and contraction of the economy that results from the expansion and contraction of credit. The issues and options are examined at length in a number of important but lesser known books available only from their publishers, including Joseph Huber and James Robertson's Creating New Money; Ellen Hodgson Brown's The Web of Debt; and Stephen Zarlenga's The Lost Science of Money. The common objection to such proposals is that giving politicians the power to create free money will lead to runaway inflation. This argument is a bit disingenuous given that the rate of inflation under our present private money system, if calculated by the methodologies in place in 1980, is actually running at a rate of between 12% and 14% (See www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data). Yes, the official inflation figures are doctored for political reasons to hide the real extent of current economic mismanagement and the rate at which wages and social security payments are falling behind the increasing cost of living. The risk that government might fuel inflation by abusing its money-creation powers can be largely eliminated by placing the power to decide how much new money to issue in the hands of a government-owned version of the Federal Reserve that might function as an independent fourth branch of government much like the judiciary. The power to decide how to spend the government-created money would continue to reside solely with Congress as part of its overall power to authorize federal spending. This separation would substantially remove the motivation to abuse the money-creation power. The potential to mismanage the money supply is always present, no matter how the system is designed. The advantages of public money issuance include lower taxes, the possibility of eliminating the federal debt, no growth imperative, and a more equitable distribution of wealth. Although such a proposal would elicit deafening screams from bankers, in the current context their credibility is low and there is little public sympathy for their tender sensibilities. Economic Agenda for a New Administration When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009, he will face the imperative to bring forth, within the span of his first term, a new economy equal to the social and environmental challenges of the twenty-first century. Having won the election with a promise of change, it will be a moment of opportunity to set the nation on a new economic course. Here is my suggestion for the announcement he might make to a nation eager to rally around a new leader with a positive vision: My administration has come to office with a mandate for bold action at a time when our most powerful economic institutions have clearly failed us. They have crippled our economy, burdened our governments with debilitating debts, divided us between the profligate and the desperate, corrupted our political institutions, and threatened destruction of the natural environment on which our very lives depend. The failure can be traced directly to an elitist economic ideology that says if government favors the financial interests of the rich to the disregard of all else, everyone will benefit and the nation will prosper. A thirty-year experiment with trickle-down economics that favored the interests of Wall Street speculators over Main Street businesses and working people has proven it doesn't work. We now live with the devastating consequences. It has given us a disappearing American middle class and a crumbling physical infrastructure; weakened our schools; left millions without health care; made us dependent on imported goods, food, and energy; increased our burden on Earth's living systems; and created an often violent competition between the world's peoples and nations for Earth's remaining resources. Wall Street has become so corrupted that its major players no longer trust one another. The result is a credit freeze that is starving legitimate Main Street businesses of the money they need to pay their workers and suppliers. Pouring still more taxpayer money into corrupted institutions won't fix the fundamental problem. Corrective action begins with recognition that our economic crisis is, at its core, a moral crisis. Our economic institutions and rules, even the indicators by which we measure economic performance, consistently place financial values ahead of life values. They are brilliantly effective at making money for rich people. We have tried our experiment with unrestrained greed and individualism. Our children, families, communities, and the natural systems of Earth have paid an intolerable price. We have no more time or resources to devote to fixing a system based on false values and a discredited ideology. We must now come together to create the institutions of a new economy based on a values-based pragmatism that recognizes the simple truth that if the world is to work for any of us, it must work for all of us. We have been measuring economic performance against GDP, or gross domestic product, which essentially measures the rate at which money and resources are flowing through the economy. Let us henceforth measure economic performance by indicators of what we really want: the health and well-being of our children, families, communities, and the natural environment. GDP is actually a measure of the cost of producing a given level of human and natural health and well-being. Any business that sought to maximize its costs, which is in effect how we have managed our economy, would soon go bankrupt. We will henceforth strive to grow the things we really want, while seeking to reduce the cost in money and natural resources. I call on faith, education, and other civic organizations to launch a national conversation to identify the indicators of human and natural health against which we might properly assess our economic performance, taking into account what we know about the essential importance of equity, caring communities, and the vitality, diversity, and resilience of nature to our overall physical and mental health and well-being. No government can resolve the problems facing our nation on its own, but together we can and will resolve them. I call on every American to join with me in rebuilding our nation by acting to strengthen our families, our communities, and our natural environment, to secure the future of our children, and to restore our leadership position and reputation in the community of nations. Like a healthy ecosystem, a healthy twenty-first-century economy has strong local roots and maximizes the beneficial capture, storage, sharing, and use of local energy, water, and mineral resources. That is what we must seek to achieve, community by community, all across this nation, by unleashing the creative energies of our people and our local governments, businesses, and civic organizations. Previous administrations favored Wall Street, but the policies of this administration will favor the people and businesses of Main Street-people who are working to rebuild our local communities, restore the middle class, and bring our natural environment back to health. Together we can actualize the founding ideals of our nation as we restore the health of our nation and its economy. * We will strive for local and national food independence by rebuilding our local food systems based on family farms and environmentally friendly farming methods that rebuild the soil, maximize yields per acre, minimize the use of toxic chemicals, and create opportunities for the many young people who are returning to the land. * We will strive for local and national energy independence by supporting local entrepreneurs who are creating and growing local businesses to retrofit our buildings and develop and apply renewable energy technologies. * It is a basic principle of market theory that trade relations between nations should be balanced. So-called "free trade" agreements based on the misguided ideology of market fundamentalism has hollowed out our national industrial capacity, mortgaged our future to foreign creditors, and created global financial instability. We will take steps to assure that our future trade relations are balanced and fair as we engage in the difficult but essential work of learning to live within our own means. * We will rebuild our national infrastructure around a model of walkable, bicycle-friendly communities with efficient public transportation to conserve energy, nurture the relationships of community, and recover our farm and forest lands. * A strong, middle-class society is an American ideal. Our past embodiment of that ideal made us the envy of the world. We will act to restore that ideal by rebalancing the distribution of wealth. Necessary and appropriate steps will be taken to assure access by every person to quality health care, education, and other essential services, and to restore progressive taxation, as well as progressive wage and benefit rules, to protect working people. These policies are familiar to older Americans because they are the policies that created the middle class, the policies with which many Americans grew up. They were abandoned by ideological extremists to the detriment of all. * We will seek to create a true ownership society in which all people have the opportunity to own their own homes and to have ownership stakes in the enterprises on which their livelihoods depend. Our economic policies will favor responsible local ownership of local enterprises by people who have a stake in the health of their local communities and economies. The possibilities include locally owned family businesses, cooperatives, and the many other forms of community- or worker-owned enterprises. My administration will act at the national level to support your efforts to advance these objectives at the local level by engaging in a fundamental reordering of our national priorities. Because the world can no longer afford war, the foreign policy of this administration will build cooperation among people and nations to eliminate terrorism and its underlying causes; resolve conflicts through peaceful diplomacy; roll back military spending and demilitarize the national economies of all nations; restore environmental health; and increase economic stability. We will work to replace a global system of economic competition with a global system of economic cooperation based on the sharing of beneficial technology and the right of the peoples of each nation to own and control their own economic resources to meet their needs for food, energy, shelter, education, health care, and other basic needs. We will work to protect the rights and health of working people and the environment everywhere. An unprecedented concentration of power in transnational corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation, place, or purpose undermines democracy, distorts economic priorities, and contributes to a socially destructive concentration of wealth. The only legitimate reason for a government to issue a corporate charter giving a group of private investors a legally protected right to aggregate and concentrate economic power under unified management is to serve a well-defined public purpose under strict rules of public accountability. There will be no government bailouts of failed corporations during my administration. Any private corporation that is too big to fail is too big to exist. We will institute vigorous anti-trust enforcement to break up excessive concentrations of economic power and restore market discipline. Because absentee ownership invites irresponsibility, we will create incentives for publicly traded corporations to break themselves up into their component units and convert to responsible ownership by their workers, customers, or small investors in the communities in which they are located. Through a public legal process, we will withdraw the charter and force the dissolution of any corporation that consistently fails to obey the law and fulfill a legitimate public purpose. There is no place in a life-serving twenty-first-century economy for financial speculation, predatory lending, or institutions that exist primarily to engage in these illegitimate practices. We will act to restore integrity to Wall Street by rendering its casino operations unprofitable. We will impose a transactions tax, require responsible capital ratios, and impose a surcharge on short-term capital gains. We will make it illegal for people and corporations to sell or insure assets that they do not own or in which they do not have a direct material interest. The brain power and computing capacity now devoted to trading electronic documents in speculative financial markets will be put to work solving real social and environmental problems and financing life-serving Main Street enterprises that create living-wage green jobs. To meet the financial needs of the new twenty-first-century Main Street economy, we will reverse the process of mergers and acquisitions that created the current concentration of banking power. We will restore the previous system of federally regulated community banks that are locally owned and managed and that fulfill the classic textbook banking function of serving as financial intermediaries between local people looking to secure a modest interest return on their savings and local people who need a loan to buy a home or finance a business. And last, but not least, we will implement an orderly process of monetary reform. Most people believe that our government creates money. That is a fiction. Private banks created virtually all the money currently in circulation when they issued a loan at interest. The money is created by making a simple accounting entry with a few computer keystrokes. That is all money really is, an accounting entry. Many years ago our government gave private banks the exclusive power to create money through the issuance of debt. This means that someone has borrowed and is paying interest to a private bank for virtually every dollar in circulation. The more our economy expands, the greater the debt owed to the bankers who create the money essential to economic exchange. This makes banking a very profitable business, but it creates inherent economic instability as credit expands and contracts. Furthermore, because banks create only the principle loaned, but not the interest, the debt-money system creates an imperative for perpetual economic expansion to generate new loans to create new money at a sufficient rate to allow borrowers to pay the interest due on their loans. This means the economy must grow to keep the money supply from collapsing and assures that as a nation we are mired in ever-growing debt. U.S. household mortgage and credit card debt stood at $13.8 trillion in 2007, roughly the equivalent of the total 2007 GDP, and much of it was subject to usurious interest rates. The federal debt inherited from the previous administration stood at $5.1 trillion in 2007, before the Wall Street bailout was approved, and it cost taxpayers $406 billion a year in interest alone, the third largest item in the federal budget after defense and income transfers like social security. This debt hamstrings the government and places an intolerable burden on American families that undermines physical and mental health and family stability. It also creates a massive ongoing transfer of wealth from the substantial majority of households that are net borrowers to the tiny minority of households that are net lenders. This engenders a form of class warfare that has become a serious threat to the security of America's working families. There is another serious consequence of giving control of our money supply to Wall Street. When Wall Street banks stop making the accounting entries needed to fund Main Street, the real economy collapses, even though nothing has changed in terms of willing workers with needed skills, the needs of our families, physical infrastructure, or natural resources. The economy stops solely because no one is making the necessary accounting entries to allow real businesses to function. We cannot allow the moral corruption of Wall Street to bring down our entire economy, indeed our entire nation. My administration will act immediately to begin an orderly transition from our present system of bank-issued debt-money to a system of public issuance. To this end I have instructed the Treasury Secretary to take immediate action to assume control of the Federal Reserve and begin a process of monetizing the federal debt. He will have a mandate to stabilize the money supply, contain housing and stock market bubbles, discourage speculation, and assure the availability of credit on fair and affordable terms to eligible Main Street borrowers. We will use public issuance to fund economic stimulus projects that build the physical and social infrastructure of a twenty-first-century economy to the extent consistent with our commitment to contain inflation. By recommitting ourselves to the founding ideals of this great nation, focusing on our possibilities, and liberating ourselves from failed ideas and institutions, together we can create a stronger, better nation that secures a fulfilling life for every person and honors the premise of the Declaration of Independence that every individual is endowed with an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a moment more crucial than the situation Franklin Roosevelt faced when he assumed the presidency in 1933. In addition to dealing with an economy in steep decline, President Obama must address a potentially terminal environmental crisis and do it quickly. The solutions he puts forward must restore economic confidence and achieve a dramatic reallocation of resources to reduce our economy's overall environmental burden, while meeting the basic needs and improving the quality of life for every person. It is a daunting challenge, and half-measures will not suffice. He must act boldly to capture the momentum of the mandate of his first hundred days, guided by a vision of hope and possibility. As we consider the need for bold initiatives by visionary leaders, we must also keep in mind the deeper questions that rarely find their way into political debates or public discourse: What is the source of true happiness and well-being? What is the purpose of economic life? What does it mean to be human on a living spaceship with finite resources? What is the human role in the great drama of evolution's continued unfolding? These are deeply spiritual questions that call us to an epic quest of discovery and the great work of redesigning our societies to bring forth the world of our shared human dream. There is a need for people of faith to step forward to make these questions a part of our public conversation through initiatives such as the Network of Spiritual Progressives and through our churches, synagogues, mosques, and our other religious and spiritual institutions. -------------------------------- David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, is co-founder & board chair of YES! Magazine and a board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies. See davidkorten.org. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 50334 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090103/8403666e/attachment.txt From lessonsjx8 at shoresresales.com Sun Jan 4 02:40:46 2009 From: lessonsjx8 at shoresresales.com (Monique Odell) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 06:40:46 -0300 Subject: [A-List] Your golden watch will tick exclusively for you. Message-ID: <000d01c96e48$2335f850$6400a8c0@lessonsjx8> In your perfect future a Submariner SS watch will be with you.   Get in -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 547 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090104/752a33bb/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 13:46:33 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:46:33 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Joseph Massad: "the major political loser in all this will be Abbas and his clique of collaborators" Message-ID: The Gaza Ghetto Uprising Joseph Massad, The Electronic Intifada, 4 January 2009 Nazi troops round up Polish Jews during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in May 1943. (Photographer Unknown) One is often baffled by the ironies of international relations and the alliances they foster. Take for example the Israeli colonial settlement that had declared war on the Palestinian people and several Arab countries since its inception while at the same time it built alliances with many Arab regimes and with Palestinian leaders. While Hashemite-Zionist relations and Maronite Church-Zionist relations have always been known and documented, there has been less documentation of the services that Israel has provided and continues to provide to Arab regimes over the decades. It is now recognized that Israel's 1967 invasion of Egypt aimed successfully to destroy Gamal Abdul-Nasser, the enemy of all US dictatorial allies among the Arab regimes, whom the US and before it Britain and France had tried to topple since the 1950s but failed. Israel thus rendered a great service to Arab monarchies (and a few republics) from "the ocean to the Gulf," whose survival was threatened by Nasser and Nasserism. Israel's subsequent intervention in Jordan in 1970 to help the Jordanian army destroy Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) guerrillas and its final crushing of that organization in its massive invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 were also important services it rendered to these same regimes threatened by the PLO's "revolutionary" potential and its sometimes recalcitrant positions. Israeli intelligence has also provided over the decades crucial information to several Arab regimes enabling them to crush their political opposition and strengthen their dictatorial rule. Prominent examples among recipients of Israeli intelligence largesse include the Moroccan and the Omani dictatorships. Israel's services to Arab regimes continue apace. Its 2006 invasion of Lebanon, engineered to destroy Hizballah, was cheered by Arab regimes and neoliberal Arab intellectuals hostile to Hizballah and employed exclusively by Saudi media outlets. Though the massive Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon and south Beirut and the massacres of more than a thousand Lebanese strengthened Hizballah and weakened Israel's military standing, the invasion was much appreciated by Israel's Arab allies. Indeed since 2006, Israel's Arab regime allies as well as neoliberal Arab intellectuals have been openly calling on it to neutralize the so-called Iranian "threat" for its own sake and at their behest as well. The US has seen this as an opportune moment to fully integrate Israel in the region, so much so that it signaled to its Gulf allies to make proposals for a new regional alliance that includes Israel in its midst. The Bahraini foreign minister suggested a few weeks ago that Israel join the Arab League. Many such proposals have already been made in the past few months welcoming the colonial settlement to the regional alliance against Iran. Since 2006, Arab regimes, neoliberal Arab intellectuals, as well as the Palestinian Collaborationist Authority (PCA) in Ramallah have reached an understanding that only Israel will be able to save them from Hizballah and Hamas, both organizations constituting a threat to the open alliance Arab regimes have with the US and Israel against Iran and all progressive forces in the region. These were not closely guarded secret hopes, but strategies that were openly discussed in private meetings, which often spilled into the public realm. The discussions in the Arab media and the declarations made by Israeli officials in the context of the ongoing Israeli massacres of the one and a half million Palestinians in Gaza in the last 10 days have left little to the imagination. A veritable open alliance now exists between the Palestinian Collaborationist Authority, Arab regimes, and Israel with the support of neoliberal Arab intellectuals, wherein Israel is subcontracted to decimate the Hamas government -- the only democratically elected government in the entire Arab world. Here let us remember that Hamas was democratically elected in free elections and that its elected officials and members of parliament were kidnapped by the Israeli occupation and have been languishing in Israeli jails for years, and that the Palestinian Collaborationist Authority set their offices on fire, staged strikes against them, and signaled the PCA bureaucracy not to follow their orders. It was after all this failed to dislodge Hamas from power that the US, Israel, and the PCA staged a coup to massacre Hamas leaders in Gaza that backfired on them. The carnage unleashed by Israel in the last 10 days is the latest attempt by Israel to ensure that all Arabs and all Palestinians are ruled by dictators and never by democratically elected officials. Many are wondering how the Arab regimes and the PCA can be so brazen in their "treachery" of the Palestinians. "Don't they fear being overthrown by the people?" is an oft-repeated question. The answer of course is a resounding "no." It is true that collaboration with Israel by Arab regimes is not new, and that what is new is merely their openness about it, but there is a perfectly good reason for this. In the 1940s and the 1950s, these regimes could not declare openly their alliance with Israel, as there were popular and international forces that would have removed them from power had they done so. Indeed, some at the time flirted with alliances that unofficially included Israel, like the Baghdad Pact, but they paid a heavy price for such collaboration. The Cold War, Third World revolutionism, Arab nationalism, the Soviet Union, China, Nasser, were all factors to be considered. While a few of these factors had remained when Egypt's Sadat declared his open alliance with the US and Israel in the late 1970s, none of these factors remains today. The US, Israel, and their major Arab allies have neutralized these forces one by one since 1967, opening the way for this brazen alliance between Israel and the Arab dictatorships, all of which are in the service of US interests in the region. These Arab regimes rule by terror and fear and have at their disposal the best secret police and repressive security apparatus that the US can train and equip and which oil money and US aid can buy. When Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was asked point blank by al-Jazeera's anchorman if Israel had an arrangement with Arab regimes to commit the Gaza massacres, she refused to answer and finally denied such an arrangement existed but could not help but affirm that there are those in the Arab world who "think" as Israel does and that Hamas is their enemy as it is the enemy of Israel. This is, incidentally, the same Tzipi Livni, who only a few weeks ago informed Palestinian citizens of Israel that she has slated them for denationalization and deportation to the Palestinian Bantustans once Israel and the international community grants these West Bank prisons the status of an independent Palestinian state enclosed within the apartheid wall. After her war on Palestinians in Gaza started last week, Livni declared that her war against the Palestinian people is not only about security but also about Israel's "values" which non-collaborator Palestinians (unlike the PCA) do not share. Livni is of course right. Unlike Livni and the Israeli leadership, whose ethnic-cleansing ideals and plans are to make Israel a purely Jewish state that is Pal?stinenser-rein, most Palestinians believe that they should remain present on their lands even and especially if this sullies the purity of a Jewish Israel. Livni has also asserted that Israel's values are shared by the "free world" and by unfree Arab regimes that are allies of the "free world." We can add, that her values are also shared by Saudi-funded neoliberal Arab intellectuals and by the leadership of the Palestinian Collaborationist Authority ensconced in the Green Zone of Ramallah. The civilized values of Israel are not unlike those espoused by the US in its ongoing wars against Arabs and Muslims, and are very much like European colonial values during the high age of colonialism and beyond. Livni and the Israeli leadership speak of human rights, democracy, peace, and justice as universal while applying them only to Jews and denying them especially to Palestinians. This is hardly an Israeli ruse. Let us remember the undying words of Frantz Fanon in this regard: "leave this Europe where they never tire of talking of man, yet murder men everywhere they find them, at the corner of every one of their own streets, in all the corners of the globe." On the Palestinian front, the term of chief Palestinian collaborator and coup leader Mahmoud Abbas ends on 9 January. Israel hopes to extend his collaborationist rule as head of the PCA it set up through the Oslo agreement in 1993. As Palestinians are murdered and injured in the thousands, world powers are cheering on. This is hardly a new development. It happens often in the context of other populations being murdered by allies of the US and Europe, and it even happened during World War II as the Nazi genocide was proceeding. On 19 April 1943, Britain and the US met in Bermuda, presumably to discuss the situation of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. That was also the day when the Nazis had launched their war against the remaining Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto but were met with unexpected courageous resistance. Little came out of the Bermuda Conference and the ongoing war against the Warsaw Ghetto proceeded uninterrupted. The Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto executed Jewish collaborators with the Nazis and bravely faced up to the Nazi army with what little weapons it had before being massacred. Their uprising was always inspirational to the Palestinians. In the heyday of the PLO as a symbol of Palestinian liberation, the organization would lay flower wreathes at the Warsaw Ghetto monument to honor these fallen Jewish heroes. Szmul Zygielbojm was the leader of the Jewish socialist party, the Bund, in Poland and was part of the resistance against the Nazi invasion in 1939. He would later become a hostage held by the Nazis but would later be released and made a member of the Jewish council or judenrat, the Nazi equivalent of the Israeli-created Palestinian Collaborationist Authority, and which was charged with building a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. Zygielbojm opposed the Nazi order and fled to Belgium, France, the US, and in 1942 ended up in London where he joined the Polish government in exile. On 12 May 1943, after he received word that the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto was finally crushed and many of its fighters killed, Zygielbojm turned on the gas in his London flat and committed suicide in protest against the indifference and inaction of the Allies to the plight of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. He also felt that he had no right to live after his comrades were killed resisting the Nazis. In his suicide letter, Zygielbojm insisted that while the Nazis were responsible for the murder of the Polish Jews, the Allies, through their inaction, were also guilty: The latest news that has reached us from Poland makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Germans are now murdering the last remnants of the Jews in Poland with unbridled cruelty. Behind the walls of the ghetto the last act of this tragedy is now being played out. The responsibility for the crime of the murder of the whole Jewish nationality in Poland rests first of all on those who are carrying it out, but indirectly it falls also upon the whole of humanity, on the peoples of the Allied nations and on their governments, who up to this day have not taken any real steps to halt this crime. By looking on passively upon this murder of defenseless millions, tortured children, women and men they have become partners to the responsibility ... I cannot continue to live and to be silent while the remnants of Polish Jewry, whose representative I am, are being murdered. My comrades in the Warsaw ghetto fell with arms in their hands in the last heroic battle. I was not permitted to fall like them, together with them, but I belong with them, to their mass grave. By my death, I wish to give expression to my most profound protest against the inaction in which the world watches and permits the destruction of the Jewish people ... The Palestinian Collaborationist Authority that runs the judenrat set up by Oslo has never even attempted to resist Israeli orders. Not one member of the top leadership decided to resign and not serve. Mahmoud Abbas, having provided so many dishonorable services to Israel, lacks Zygielbojm's integrity and noble principles and would never follow in Zygielbojm's footsteps. Meanwhile, the Palestinian people will resist the invading Israelis with all their might and against astronomical odds. The Palestinian people, like Zygielbojm before them, understand very well that Abbas, his clique, the Arab regimes, the US and Europe are all culpable in their slaughter as much as Israel is. In the case of Zygielbojm, he blamed world powers for their indifference and inaction, in the Palestinian case, world and regional powers are co-conspirators and active partners in crime. The crushing of the Gaza Ghetto Uprising and the slaughter of its defenseless population will be relatively an easy task for the giant Israeli military machine and Israel's sadistic political leadership. It is dealing with the aftermath of a strengthened Palestinian determination to continue to resist Israel that will prove much more difficult for Israel and its Arab allies to deal with. While the thousands of dead and injured Palestinians are the main victims of this latest Israeli terrorist war, the major political loser in all this will be Abbas and his clique of collaborators. The test for Palestinian resistance now is to continue to refuse to grant Israel the right to conquer populations, to steal their land, to destroy their livelihoods, to imprison them in ghettos, and to starve them without being resisted. The only constant in Palestinian lives for the last century of Zionist atrocities has been resistance to the Zionist project of erasing them from the face of the earth. While Zionism sought and recruited Arab and Palestinian collaborators since its inception in the hope of crushing Palestinian resistance, neither Israel nor any of its collaborators has been able to stop it. The lesson that Zionism has refused to learn, and still refuses to learn, is that the Palestinian yearning for freedom from the Zionist yoke cannot be extinguished no matter how barbaric Israel's crimes become. The Gaza Ghetto Uprising will mark both the latest chapter in Palestinian resistance to colonialism and the latest Israeli colonial brutality in a region whose peoples will never accept the legitimacy of a racist European colonial settlement in their midst. Joseph Massad is associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York. From michael.hudson at earthlink.net Sun Jan 4 12:15:43 2009 From: michael.hudson at earthlink.net (Michael Hudson) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] How to Win a 'Fifth-Generation' War by David Axe In-Reply-To: <7alt5i$31tjka@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: The important point here is that where wars used to be fought by soldiers against other soldiers, now they are fought by missiles and sanctions against civilians, who respond by informal sabotage at best. The cost of offense is accordingly huge; the cost of defense, much smaller, but also less able to prevent attrition. Michael On 1/3/09 9:12 PM, "Todd Boyle" wrote: > Thank you Leigh. Further background from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4GW > > Fourth generation warfare (4GW) is combat characterized by a > blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and > civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. The > military doctrine was first defined in 1989 by a team of > American analysts, including William S. Lind, used to describe > warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of > generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies > the nation states' loss of their monopoly on combat forces, > returning in a sense to the uncontrolled combat of pre-modern > times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of > the major participants is not a state but rather a violent > ideological network. While this term is similar to terrorism > and asymmetric warfare, it is much narrower. > > On that page, see "criticism" -- 4GW may be nothing other than > traditional insurgency.. I think I agree... and I don't see 5GW either. > > The thing that HAS really changed, circa 1943 was the emergence > of B29s- long range strategic bombers, then B52s, ICBMs etc. > and other WMDs. What this means is that no country or empire > can ever again secure its core administration or industry, anymore. > And the amount of *territory* you control simply does not matter. > So, all those WW2 movies like "Why we Fight", showing the > maps and the growth of the German or Japanese empire? They > don't matter anymore, even if they take over 90% of the planet, > if they fail to destroy the air force of the remaining 10%. > > The old ideas of empires based on territory became vulnerable to > complete annihilation by the aerospace industry of other superpowers. > There are just too many nukes out there-- too widely dispersed. > > Ironically the Korean and Vietnam wars were sold as domino > theory, preventing territorial growth of supposed enemies' > empires. Of course we recognize, now that we're too old to > matter, these were about corporate globalization all along. > > As decades went by, the bureaucracies and industrial cores have > become vulnerable to annihilation by WMDs even by quite > small states like Israel. What this means, first of all, the nation-state > became insufficient as instrument of power for the elites, worldwide. > So, they constructed their corporate globalization and financialization > and privatization tactics. All this 4GW or other war, isn't really war, > it is lowgrade police operations or gang warfare by the US military > for some client or other. That is not war. > > There are no wars except to slaughter the most powerless peoples. > Nobody, not anybody! wants any real war between any real military > powers. War certainly is obsolete... this was common knowledge among > many in the military, by the 1980s, perhaps this has been forgotten. > > Sorry for another post, > Todd > > > At 11:32 AM 1/3/2009, Leighm wrote: >> How to Win a 'Fifth-Generation' War >> By David Axe >> January 03, 2009 >> >> Categories: Mullah Menace, No Tech, Strategery, T is for Terror >> >> 5GW is what happens when the world's disaffected direct their desperation at >> the most obvious symbol of everything they lack, taking advantage of the >> tactics and battlefields pioneered by more highly organized fourth-gen >> warriors. The symbol is the United States, the world's sole super-power. And >> the fifth-gen fighters' weapon of choice is political "stalemate," contends >> Marine Lt. Col. Stanton Coer, in a new piece in Marine Corps Gazette. >> >> "5GW fighters will win by ... point[ing] out the impotence of secular >> military might. ... These fighters win by not losing, while we lose by not >> winning." >> >> The battlefield will be something strange -- cyberspace, or the Cleveland >> water supply, or Wall Street's banking systems, or YouTube. The mission will >> be instilling fear, and it will succeed. >> >> http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/how-to-win-a-fi.html >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5768 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090104/691da182/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 03:48:01 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 05:48:01 -0500 Subject: [A-List] BANGLADESH: Acid Attacks Continue despite New Laws Message-ID: BANGLADESH: Acid attacks continue despite new laws Photo: Contributor/IRIN Workers at the Acid Survivors Foundation express their solidarity with acid victims to raise social awareness against the practice DHAKA, 5 January 2009 (IRIN) - Acid attacks against women and girls are continuing despite legal campaigns to halt their spread. Over 2,600 cases have been reported since 1999, according to the Acid Survivors Foundation (ASF) of Bangladesh. Almost all the attacks have been on women or girls. Many of the victims are under 18, says ASF, which has been working to eliminate acid violence for almost a decade. The main reason for the violence is dowries, refusal of love proposals, or land disputes, ASF said. Bent on revenge, perpetrators throw acid into their victims' faces in an effort to severely disfigure them, often with horrifying results. Nitric or sulphuric acid has a catastrophic effect on human flesh, ASF said, resulting in skin tissue melting, often exposing the bones below the flesh, and even dissolving bone. Scarred for life and badly burned, many survivors also lose their sight in one or both eyes. Others are so psychologically traumatised they never recover. Despite the viciousness of these attacks, many go unreported: "Many incidents are never reported. [The] media covers only those cases that go to court," Rokhsana Akhter, an activist told IRIN in Dhaka, adding: "The poor and powerless do not go to court. Their cases remain unreported." Easy to buy Photo: Shamsuddin Ahmed/IRIN Efforts to raise awareness and push for stronger government measures continue Despite the public outcry, purchasing acid is still not difficult. In Dhaka, sulphuric acid can be readily purchased for just 44 US cents a pound (roughly half a litre), with nitric acid slightly higher at 59 cents a pound. "You just ask the traders for acid. They will provide you with the required quantity," Gopal Das, a goldsmith in the city's Tantibazar area, said. Gopal uses nitric acid to melt gold. Since he only needs a very small amount he has never bothered to obtain the now mandatory license. Like Gopal, many jewellers, especially the small ones, collect and use acid, making effective monitoring of this deadly material all but impossible. "The last time a mobile court raided this area was March 2008," said Kazi Abdul Hamid, a shop owner selling chemicals in Goal Nagar, an acid wholesale market in Dhaka. "We should have a distinct monitoring team to control acid use and sale; the fact is that we do not have one. Normally a mobile court visits specific shops and issues or renews their licenses. I can't tell you when the last visit took place," said Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka Mohammad Zillar Rahman whose office is responsible for controlling and monitoring the acid trade in the city. "Enforcement remains weak. Perpetrators are still able to procure acid on the open market," said ASF executive director Monira Rahman. Legal efforts Efforts to combat the crime have had limited success. In 2002, parliament enacted two laws against acid violence: Under the Acid Control Act of 2002, the unlicensed production, import, transport, storage, sale, and use of acid can result in a prison term of 3-10 years. Those who possess chemicals and equipment for the unlicensed production of acid can get the same prison term. One doctor sounded an optimistic note: "Since then, acid violence has been showing a rapid decline," said Shamanta Lal Sen of the burns and plastic surgery unit at Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH). According to ASF, 221 and 192 people were subjected to acid violence in 2006 and 2007 respectively. In 2000 and 2001 their number was 234 and 349 respectively. Combating the crime A number of organisations are working to combat the crime, or mitigate its effects. ASF and the DMCH burns unit are working to support victims of acid attacks. BRAC (Building Resources Across Communities), Bangladesh's largest NGO, offers survivors logistical assistance with access to health facilities. Legal aid organisations, such as Ain o Salish Kendra, and the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers' Association provide legal aid to acid victims. Prothom Alo, a popular daily, raises funds for the treatment and rehabilitation of victims, as well as campaigning against the crime. According to rights groups, apart from Bangladesh, acid attacks are common in a number of Asian countries, including Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Cambodia. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 05:42:12 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 07:42:12 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israel Rains Fire on Gaza with Phosphorus Shells Message-ID: December 5, 2008 Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells Israel is believed to be using controversial white phosphorus shells to screen its assault on the heavily populated Gaza Strip yesterday. The weapon, used by British and US forces in Iraq, can cause horrific burns but is not illegal if used as a smokescreen. As the Israeli army stormed to the edges of Gaza City and the Palestinian death toll topped 500, the tell-tale shells could be seen spreading tentacles of thick white smoke to cover the troops' advance. "These explosions are fantastic looking, and produce a great deal of smoke that blinds the enemy so that our forces can move in," said one Israeli security expert. Burning blobs of phosphorus would cause severe injuries to anyone caught beneath them and force would-be snipers or operators of remote-controlled booby traps to take cover. Israel admitted using white phosphorus during its 2006 war with Lebanon. The use of the weapon in the Gaza Strip, one of the world's mostly densely population areas, is likely to ignite yet more controversy over Israel's offensive, in which more than 2,300 Palestinians have been wounded. The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: "If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin." The Israeli military last night denied using phosphorus, but refused to say what had been deployed. "Israel uses munitions that are allowed for under international law," said Captain Ishai David, spokesman for the Israel Defence Forces. "We are pressing ahead with the second stage of operations, entering troops in the Gaza Strip to seize areas from which rockets are being launched into Israel." The civilian toll in the first 24 hours of the ground offensive ? launched after a week of bombardment from air, land and sea? was at least 64 dead. Among those killed were five members of a family who died when an Israeli tank shell hit their car and a paramedic who died when a tank blasted his ambulance. Doctors at Gaza City's main hospital said many women and children were among the dead and wounded. The Israeli army also suffered its first fatality of the offensive when one of its soldiers was killed by mortar fire. More than 30 soldiers were wounded by mortars, mines and sniper fire. Israel has brushed aside calls for a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid into the besieged territory, where medical supplies are running short. With increasingly angry anti-Israeli protests spreading around the world, Gordon Brown described the violence in Gaza as "a dangerous moment". White phosphorus: the smoke-screen chemical that can burn to the bone ? White phosphorus bursts into a deep-yellow flame when it is exposed to oxygen, producing a thick white smoke ? It is used as a smokescreen or for incendiary devices, but can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns ? Phosphorus burns are almost always second or third-degree because the particles do not stop burning on contact with skin until they have entirely disappeared ? it is not unknown for them to reach the bone ? Geneva conventions ban the use of phosphorus as an offensive weapon against civilians, but its use as a smokescreen is not prohibited by international law ? Israel previously used white phosphorus during its war with Lebanon in 2006 ? It has been used frequently by British and US forces in recent wars, notably during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Its use was criticised widely ? White phosphorus has the slang name "Willy Pete", which dates from the First World War. It was commonly used in the Vietnam era Source: Times archives From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jan 5 06:47:28 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:47:28 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul Message-ID: <49620F70.4000208@ashisuto.co.jp> The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme called Fractional Reserve Banking by Ellen Brown, webofdebt.com Global Research (January 03 2009) Cartoon in the New Yorker: A gun-toting man with large dark glasses, large hat pulled down, stands in front of a bank teller, who is reading a demand note. It says, "Give me all the money in my account". Bernie Madoff showed us how it was done: you induce many investors to invest their money, promising steady above-market returns; and you deliver - at least on paper. When your clients check their accounts, they see that their investments have indeed increased by the promised amount. Anyone who opts to pull out of the game is paid promptly and in full. You can afford to pay because most players stay in, and new players are constantly coming in to replace those who drop out. The players who drop out are simply paid with the money coming in from new recruits. The scheme works until the market turns and many players want their money back at once. Then it's game over: you have to admit that you don't have the funds, and you are probably looking at jail time. A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which earlier investors are paid with the money of later investors rather than from real profits. The perpetuation of the scheme requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep it going. Charles Ponzi was an engaging Boston ex-convict who defrauded investors out of $6 million in the 1920s by promising them a 400 percent return on redeemed postal reply coupons. When he finally could not pay, the scam earned him ten years in jail; and Bernie Madoff is likely to wind up there as well. Most people are not involved in illegal Ponzi schemes, but we do keep our money in accounts that are tallied on computer screens rather than in stacks of coins or paper bills. How do we know that when we demand our money from our bank or broker that the funds will be there? The fact that banks are subject to "runs" (recall Northern Rock, Indymac and Washington Mutual) suggests that all may not be as it seems on our online screens. Banks themselves are involved in a sort of Ponzi scheme, one that has been perpetuated for hundreds of years. What distinguishes the legal scheme known as "fractional reserve" lending from the illegal schemes of Bernie Madoff and his ilk is that the bankers' scheme is protected by government charter and backstopped with government funds. At last count, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury had committed $8.5 trillion to bailing out the banks from their follies {1}. By comparison, M2, the largest measure of the money supply now reported by the Federal Reserve, was just under $8 trillion in December 2008 {2}. The sheer size of the bailout efforts indicates that the banking scheme has reached its mathematical limits and needs to be superseded by something more sustainable. Penetrating the Bankers' Ponzi Scheme What fractional reserve lending is and how it works is summed up in Wikipedia as follows: "Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other liquid assets) with the choice of lending out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all deposits immediately upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking ... The nature of fractional-reserve banking is that there is only a fraction of cash reserves available at the bank needed to repay all of the demand deposits and banknotes issued ... When Fractional-reserve banking works, it works because: "1. Over any typical period of time, redemption demands are largely or wholly offset by new deposits or issues of notes. The bank thus needs only to satisfy the excess amount of redemptions. "2. Only a minority of people will actually choose to withdraw their demand deposits or present their notes for payment at any given time. "3. People usually keep their funds in the bank for a prolonged period of time. "4. There are usually enough cash reserves in the bank to handle net redemptions. "If the net redemption demands are unusually large, the bank will run low on reserves and will be forced to raise new funds from additional borrowings (eg, by borrowing from the money market or using lines of credit held with other banks), and/or sell assets, to avoid running out of reserves and defaulting on its obligations. If creditors are afraid that the bank is running out of cash, they have an incentive to redeem their deposits as soon as possible, triggering a bank run." Like in other Ponzi schemes, bank runs result because the bank does not actually have the funds necessary to meet all its obligations. Peter's money has been lent to Paul, with the interest income going to the bank. As Elgin Groseclose, Director of the Institute for International Monetary Research, wryly observed in 1934: "A warehouseman, taking goods deposited with him and devoting them to his own profit, either by use or by loan to another, is guilty of a tort, a conversion of goods for which he is liable in civil, if not in criminal, law. By a casuistry which is now elevated into an economic principle, but which has no defenders outside the realm of banking, a warehouseman who deals in money is subject to a diviner law: the banker is free to use for his private interest and profit the money left in trust ... He may even go further. He may create fictitious deposits on his books, which shall rank equally and ratably with actual deposits in any division of assets in case of liquidation." {3} How did the perpetrators of this scheme come to acquire government protection for what might otherwise have landed them in jail? A short history of the evolution of modern-day banking may be instructive. The Evolution of a Government-Sanctioned Ponzi Scheme What came to be known as fractional reserve lending dates back to the seventeenth century, when trade was conducted primarily in gold and silver coins. How it evolved was described by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a revealing booklet called "Modern Money Mechanics" like this: "It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money. "Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment. "Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could 'spend' by writing checks, thereby 'printing' their own money." If a landlord had rented the same house to five people at one time and pocketed the money, he would quickly have been jailed for fraud. But the bankers had devised a system in which they traded, not things of value, but paper receipts for them. It was called "fractional reserve" lending because the gold held in reserve was a mere fraction of the banknotes it supported. The scheme worked as long as only a few people came for their gold at one time; but investors would periodically get suspicious and all demand their gold back at once. There would then be a run on the bank and it would have to close its doors. This cycle of booms and busts went on throughout the nineteenth century, culminating in a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The public became convinced that the country needed a central banking system to stop future panics, overcoming strong congressional opposition to any bill allowing the nation's money to be issued by a private central bank controlled by Wall Street. The Federal Reserve Act creating such a "bankers' bank" was passed in 1913. Robert Owens, a co-author of the Act, later testified before Congress that the banking industry had conspired to create a series of financial panics in order to rouse the people to demand "reforms" that served the interests of the financiers {4}. Despite this powerful official backstop, however, the greatest bank run in history occurred only twenty years later, in 1933. President Roosevelt then took the dollar off the gold standard domestically, and Federal Reserve officials resolved to prevent further bank runs after that by flooding the banking system with "liquidity" (money created as debt to banks) whenever the banking Ponzi scheme came up short. "Too Big to Fail": The Government Provides the Ultimate Backstop When these steps too proved insufficient to keep the banking scheme going, the government itself stepped up to the plate, providing bailout money directly from the taxpayers. The concept that some banks were "too big to fail" came in at the end of the 1980s, when the Savings and Loans collapsed and Citibank lost fifty percent of its share price. Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, and "too big to fail" became standard policy. Bank risk was effectively nationalized: banks were now protected by the government from loss regardless of risk-taking or bad management. There are limits, however, to the amount of support even the government's deep pocket can provide. In the past two decades, the bankers' lending scheme has been kept going by an even more speculative scheme known as "derivatives". This is a complex subject that has been explored in other articles, but the bottom line is that more dollars are now owed in the derivatives casino than exist on the planet. (See Ellen Brown, "It's the Derivatives, Stupid!" and "Credit Default Swaps: Derivative Disaster Du Jour", www.webofdebt.com/articles.) Attempting to fill the derivatives black hole with taxpayer money must inevitably be at the expense of other essential programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. Interestingly, Social Security and Medicare themselves are in some sense Ponzi schemes, since earlier retirees collect their benefits from the contributions of later workers. These programs, too, may soon be facing bankruptcy, in this case because their mathematical models failed to account for a huge wave of Baby Boomers who would linger longer than previous generations and demand expensive drugs and care through their senior years, and because the fund money has have been drawn on by the government for other purposes. The question here is, should the government be backstopping private banks that have mismanaged their investment portfolios at the expense of workers contractually entitled to a decent retirement from a fund they have paid into all their working lives? The answer, of course, is no; but there may be a way that the government could do both. If it were to nationalize the banking system completely - if the government were to assume not just the banks' losses but their profits, oversight and control - it might have the funds both to maintain Social Security and Medicare and to provide a sustainable credit mechanism for the whole economy. Replacing Private with Public Credit Readily available credit has made America "the land of opportunity" ever since the days of the American colonists. What has transformed this credit system into a Ponzi scheme that must continually be propped up with bailout money is that the credit power has been turned over to private parties who always require more money back than they create in the first place. Benjamin Franklin reportedly explained this defect in the eighteenth century. When the directors of the Bank of England asked what was responsible for the booming economy of the young colonies, Franklin explained that the colonial governments issued their own money, which they both lent and spent into the economy: "In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip'. We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury." In an article titled "A Monetary System for the New Millennium", Canadian money reform advocate Roger Langrick explains his concept in contemporary terms. He begins by illustrating the mathematical impossibility inherent in a system of bank-created money lent at interest: "[I]magine the first bank which prints and lends out $100. For its efforts it asks for the borrower to return $110 in one year; that is it asks for ten percent interest. Unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, the bank has created a mathematically impossible situation. The only way in which the borrower can return 110 of the bank's notes is if the bank prints, and lends, $10 more at ten percent interest ... The result of creating 100 and demanding 110 in return, is that the collective borrowers of a nation are forever chasing a phantom which can never be caught; the mythical $10 that were never created. The debt in fact is unrepayable. Each time $100 is created for the nation, the nation's overall indebtedness to the system is increased by $110. The only solution at present is increased borrowing to cover the principal plus the interest of what has been borrowed." The better solution, says Langrick, is to allow the government to issue enough new debt-free dollars to cover the interest charges not created by the banks as loans: "Instead of taxes, government would be empowered to create money for its own expenses up to the balance of the debt shortfall. Thus, if the banking industry created $100 in a year, the government would create $10 which it would use for its own expenses. Abraham Lincoln used this successfully when he created $500 million of 'greenbacks' to fight the Civil War." National Credit from a Truly National Banking System In Langrick's example, a private banking industry pockets the interest, which must be replaced every year by a ten percent issue of new Greenbacks; but there is another possibility. The loans could be advanced by the government itself. The interest would then return to the government and could be spent back into the economy in a circular flow, without the need to continually issue more money to cover the interest shortfall. The fractional reserve Ponzi scheme is bankrupt, and the banks engaged in it, rather than being bailed out by its victims, need to be put into a bankruptcy reorganization under the FDIC. The FDIC then has the recognized option of wiping their books clean and taking the banks' stock in return for getting them up and running again. This would make them truly "national" banks, which could dispense "the full faith and credit of the United States" as a public utility. A truly national banking system could revive the economy with the sort of money only governments can issue - debt-free legal tender. The money would be debt-free to the government, while for the private sector, it would be freely available for borrowing at a modest interest by qualified applicants. A government-owned bank would not need to rob from Peter to advance credit to Paul. "Credit" is just an accounting tool - an advance against future profits, or the "monetization" (turning into cash) of the borrower's promise to repay. As British commentator Ron Morrison observed in a provocative 2004 article titled "Keynes Without Debt": "[Today] bank credit supplies virtually all our everyday means of exchange, and this brings into sharp focus the simple fact that modern money is no longer constrained by outmoded intrinsic values. It is pure fiat [enforced by law] and simply a glorified accounting system ... Modern monetary reform is about displacing the current economic paradigm of 'what can be afforded' with 'what we have the capacity to undertake'." {5} The objection to government-issued money has always been that it would be inflationary, but today some "reflating" of the economy could be a good thing. Just in the last year, more than $7 trillion in purchasing power has disappeared from the money supply, including wealth destruction in real estate, stocks, mutual fund shares, life insurance and pension fund reserves {6}. Money is evaporating because old loans are defaulting and new loans are not being made to replace them. Fortunately, as Martin Wolf noted in the December 16 Financial Times, "Curing deflation is child's play in a 'fiat money' - a man-made money - system". The central banks just need to get money flowing into the economy again. Among other ways they could do this, says Wolf, is that "they might finance the government on any scale they think necessary." {7} Rather than throwing money at a failed private banking system, public credit could be redirected into infrastructure and other projects that would get the wheels of production turning again. The Ponzi scheme in which debt is just shuffled around, borrowing from one player to pay another without actually producing anything of real value, could be replaced by a system in which the national credit card became an engine for true productivity and growth. Increased "demand" (money) would come from earned wages and salaries that would increase "supply" (goods and services) rather than merely servicing a perpetually increasing debt. When supply keeps up with demand, the money supply can be increased without inflating prices. In this way the paradigm of "what we can afford" could indeed be superseded by "what we have the capacity to undertake". _____ Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust". She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from "the money trust". Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature's Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com. Notes 1. Kathleen Pender, "Government Bailout Hits $8.5 Trillion", San Francisco Chronicle (November 26 2008). 2. "Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.6, Money Stock Measures", www.federalreserve.gov (December 18 2008). 3. Robert de Fremery, "Arguments Are Fallacious for World Central Bank", The Commercial and Financial Chronicle (September 26 1963), citing E Groseclose, Money: The Human Conflict, pages 178-79. 4. Robert Owen, The Federal Reserve Act (1919); "Who Was Philander Knox?", www.worldnewsstand.net/history/PhilanderKnox.htm. (1999). 5. Ron Morrison, "Keynes Without Debt", www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/keynes.html (April 2004). 6. Martin Weiss, "Biggest Sea Change of Our Lifetime", Money and Markets (December 22 2008). 7. Martin Wolf, "'Helicopter Ben' Confronts the Challenge of a Lifetime", Financial Times (December 16 2008). Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Ellen Brown, webofdebt.com, 2009 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11600 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 07:42:28 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:42:28 -0800 Subject: [A-List] RNC activist says he's an FBI informer will testify about plot to put LSD in water supply Message-ID: <49621C54.5040807@gmail.com> ST. PAUL, Minn., Jan. 5 (UPI) -- A well-known community activist who worked with protesters at last year's Republican National Convention in St. Paul says he's an FBI informant. Brandon Darby, an organizer from Austin, Tex., who gained prominence as a member of Common Ground Relief, which helped victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, has announced in an open letter that he has been working as an FBI mole and said he will testify at the Minnesota trial of two fellow Texans accused of hurling Molotov cocktails during the RNC, The New York Times reported Monday. In an interview with the Times, Darby defended his decision as "a good moral way to use my time," telling the newspaper he wanted to prevent violence during the convention at the Xcel Energy Center. David McKay and Bradley Crowder, both also from Austin, are scheduled to go on trial in Minnesota on Jan. 26. If convicted on all counts of making and possessing Molotov cocktails, each faces a prison sentence of up to 30 years. "I am well aware that I've stepped outside of accepted behaviors and that I've committed a sin in the eyes of many activists," Darby told the Times. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/05/RNC_activist_says_hes_an_FBI_informer/UPI-79031231161633/ From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 09:18:27 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:18:27 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Worried German bourgeoisie Message-ID: <4961EC82.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Louis Proyect (posted to LBO-talk by SA) [From an interview with Hasso Plattner, co-founder of SAP] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,598945,00.html [...] SPIEGEL: Sometimes it's a nasty game. In 2005, Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackerman announced a 25 percent return for the company while at the same time saying it would lay off more than 6,000 employees. Plattner: Objectively speaking, he was completely right. His bank needed those returns in order to stay globally competitive. He just expressed it badly. It's something that's understood almost everywhere around the world, just not in Germany, where one sometimes comes across a confused social romanticism. SPIEGEL: What's utopian about people wanting a just society? Plattner: Is German society unjust, then? Ever since the economic miracle of Ludwig Erhard, we Germans have been entrenched in a capitalist business system, on top of which we have super-imposed the cloak of a "social market economy" SPIEGEL: which we find reasonable, because it softens the effects of extreme capitalism. Plattner: I completely agree. But there's a feeling in this country that we don't want capitalism any more, and instead want something different, something nicer. But nothing better exists, despite all the system's weaknesses and its dark sides. East Germany showed us where a communist planned economy would lead us. Some people have started talking fondly about those times. SPIEGEL: For example, the actor who played the police detective on the TV crime show Tatort, Peter Sodann, [now running for the largely ceremonial post of German president on behalf of the Left Party in an election next year] said: "I won't let the GDR be taken away from me." Plattner: For me, that's just curious. On the other hand, the man is a candidate for the office of president of the republic. SPIEGEL: In surveys, fewer and fewer Germans say they consider democracy to be the best political system, or capitalism to be the most sensible economic system. Plattner: That really bothers me too. The only thing to do is take a look at the world, Cuba for example. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 10:05:19 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:05:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] American steel industry needs $1 trillion bailout Message-ID: <4961F77E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> NY Times, January 2, 2009 Steel Industry, in Slump, Looks to U.S. Stimulus By LOUIS UCHITELLE The steel industry, having entered the recession in the best of health, is emerging as a leading indicator of what lies ahead. As steel production goes ? and it is now in collapse ? so will go the national economy. That maxim once applied to Detroit?s Big Three car companies, when they dominated American manufacturing. Now they are losing ground in good times and bad, and steel has replaced autos as the industry to watch for an early sign that a severe recession is beginning to lift. The industry itself is turning to government for orders that, until the September collapse, had come from manufacturers and builders. Its executives are waiting anxiously for details of President-elect Barack Obama?s stimulus plan, and adding their voices to pleas for a huge public investment program ? up to $1 trillion over two years ? intended to lift demand for steel to build highways, bridges, electric power grids, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants and rapid transit. ?What we are asking,? said Daniel R. DiMicco, chairman and chief executive of the Nucor Corporation, a giant steel maker, ?is that our government deal with the worst economic slowdown in our lifetime through a recovery program that has in every provision a ?buy America? clause.? Economists in the Obama camp said the president-elect?s proposals to Congress will include significant infrastructure spending that draws on heavy industry. New spending should provide an immediate jolt to the steel business, which has already gone through the painful makeover now demanded of automakers. Steel mills were closed, companies were consolidated, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs and the survivors agreed to concessions. As a result, productivity shot up and so did profits, to record levels in the first nine months of this year. Even as the economy wobbled, steel held its own. But then the recession hit in force. Steel goes into nearly everything made in America, from homes and office buildings to cars, appliances and light bulb sockets, and as construction and manufacturing wound down, so did the output of steel, plunging 50 percent since September. The steel industry?s collapse closely tracks the alarming late-autumn swoon in the national economy, as the housing bust and the credit crisis converted a mild downturn into ?a severe one that has much further to run,? says Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at IHS Global Insight, offering a view increasingly shared by forecasters. Through August, steel production was actually up slightly for the year. The decline came slowly at first, and then with a rush in November and December. By late December, output was down to 1.02 million tons a week from 2.1 million tons on Aug. 30, the American Iron and Steel Institute reported. The price of a ton of steel is also down by half since late summer. ?We are making our steel at four mills instead of six,? said John Armstrong, a spokesman for the United States Steel Corporation, adding that two mills were recently idled and the four still operating are running at less than full capacity. ?The third quarter was one of the best in U.S. Steel?s history,? Mr. Armstrong added. ?And it has been a very precipitous drop from there.? The cutback has been particularly hard on workers at the big integrated mills like those at U.S. Steel and Arcelor Mittal USA, with their blast furnaces and coke ovens converting iron ore and other materials into steel. Operated at less than full capacity, these mills are less efficient than the equally large ?minimills,? like Nucor, whose electric arc furnaces can be operated efficiently at lower speeds. So the plant closings have been mostly at the integrated mills, whose 50,000 workers ? roughly 40 percent of the nation?s steelworkers ? are represented by the United Steelworkers. The union says that early this year it expects 20,000 workers to be on furlough. Ten thousand already have been. Kathleen Loepker, a millwright and mechanic, is among the most recent to join their ranks. She was laid off on Dec. 19 from the U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, Ill., which shut, putting more than 2,000 employees out of work. With nearly 30 years seniority, Ms. Loepker, 48, has worked through bankruptcies, union concessions and consolidations during which her mill was acquired by U.S. Steel in 2003. Her income today is tied more to incentive bonuses than in the past. On layoff, she is collecting $20 an hour, which is 80 percent of her base pay of $25.12 an hour. That base pay, rather than rising significantly, is fattened by incentive bonuses tied to amounts of steel produced and to profits. It had been averaging an additional $7 an hour ? money now gone until the mill reopens. ?No one knows when that will happen,? said Ms. Loepker, who lives by herself in a four-bedroom home she bought in nearby Belleville, three blocks from a married sister. ?The company tells us the end of March, but they don?t know either,? Ms. Loepker said. ?The uncertainty has everyone fearful.? Not since the 1980s has American steel production been as low as it is today. Those were the Rust Belt years when many steel companies were failing and imports of better quality, lower cost steel were rising. Foreign producers no longer have an advantage over the refurbished American companies. Indeed, imports, which represent about 30 percent of all steel sales in the United States, also are hurting as customers disappear. The industry, in response, is lobbying the Obama transition team for infrastructure projects that would require big amounts of steel. Mass transit systems are high on the list, and so is bridge repair. ?We are sharing with the president-elect?s transition team our thoughts in terms of the industry?s policy priorities,? said Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the American Iron and Steel Institute. The Obama team has not yet revealed details of the president-elect?s soon-to-be-announced recovery plan other than to indicate that most of the package will probably go into infrastructure spending rather than tax breaks. ?If the president-elect really follows through, he?ll fund a lot of mass transit projects,? said Wilbur L. Ross Jr., the Wall Street deal maker who put together the steel conglomerate known as Arcelor Mittal USA. ?All the big cities have these projects ready to go.? The sharp slide in steel production has several causes. Construction and auto production have fallen sharply; between them, they account for 57 percent of the steel bought each year in the United States, according to the Iron and Steel Institute. Appliances, machinery and other electrical equipment account for an additional 13 percent, and the fall-off in production of these goods has also reduced steel orders. Then there are the wholesalers, known in the steel industry as service centers. They buy in huge quantities from the mills, building up inventories and selling to customers like a construction company that needs I-beams to build a shopping center, or a manufacturer of auto parts in need of steel tubing. Until recently, the inventories were bought on credit, and the service centers constantly replenished these stockpiles as steel was sold to end users. But now the service centers, unable to borrow money easily and reluctant to borrow anyway in these hard times, have stopped buying from the steel mills. They are selling off their inventories instead, raising cash in the process. It is a tactic that annoys Mr. DiMicco, the Nucor chief, no end. ?They don?t want to be without cash when they go into whatever the black hole is that is being created by the financial crisis,? he said, and faulted the nation?s lenders for collecting billions in government bailout money and then, in his view, refusing to lend it to the service centers on reasonable terms. ?Credit completely dried up,? Mr. DiMicco said, ?and it is still hard to get.? This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 10:17:43 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:17:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] "Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britain Message-ID: <4961FA66.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> "Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britain -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is no Communist Party in Great Britain as yet, but there is a fresh, broad, powerful and rapidly growing communist movement among the workers, which justifies the best hopes. There are several political parties and organisations (the British Socialist Party [35], the Socialist Labour Party, the South Wales Socialist Society, the Workers? Socialist Federation [36]), which desire to form a Communist Party and are already negotiating among themselves to this end. In its issue of February 21, 1920, Vol. VI, No. 48, The Workers? Dreadnought, weekly organ of the last of the organisations mentioned, carried an article by the editor, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, entitled "Towards a Communist Party". The article outlines the progress of the negotiations between the four organisations mentioned, for the formation of a united Communist Party, on the basis of affiliation to the Third International, the recognition of the Soviet system instead of parliamentarianism, and the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It appears that one of the greatest obstacles to the immediate formation of a united Communist Party is presented by the disagreement on the questions of participation in Parliament and on whether the new Communist Party should affiliate to the old, trade-unionist, opportunist and social-chauvinist Labour Party, which is mostly made up of trade unions. The Workers? Socialist Federation and the Socialist Labour Party *7 are opposed to taking part in parliamentary elections and in Parliament, and they are opposed to affiliation to the Labour Party; in this they disagree with all or with most of the members of the British Socialist Party, which they regard as the "Right wing of the Communist parties" in Great Britain. (Page 5, Sylvia Pankhurst?s article.) Thus, the main division is the same as in Germany, notwithstanding the enormous difference in the forms in which the disagreements manifest themselves (in Germany the form is far closer to the "Russian" than it is in Great Britain), and in a number of other things. Let us examine the arguments of the "Lefts". On the question of participation in Parliament, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst refers to an article in the same issue, by Comrade Gallacher, who writes in the name of the Scottish Workers? Council in Glasgow. "The above council," he writes, "is definitely anti-parliamentarian, and has behind it the Left wing of the various political bodies. We represent the revolutionary movement in Scotland, striving continually to build up a revolutionary organisation within the industries [in various branches of production], and a Communist Party, based on social committees, throughout the country. For a considerable time we have been sparring with the official parliamentarians. We have not considered it necessary to declare open warfare on them, and they are afraid to open an attack on us. "But this state of affairs cannot long continue. We are winning all along the line. "The rank and file of the I.L.P. in Scotland is becoming more and more disgusted with the thought of Parliament, and the Soviets [the Russian word transliterated into English is used] or Workers? Councils are being supported by almost every branch. This is very serious, of course, for the gentlemen who look to politics for a profession, and they are using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into the parliamentary fold. Revolutionary comrades must not [all italics are the author?s] give any support to this gang. Our fight here is going to be a difficult one. One of the worst features of it will be the treachery of those whose personal ambition is a more impelling force than their regard for the revolution. Any support given to parliamentarism is simply assisting to put power into the hands of our British Scheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes and Co. are hopelessly reactionary. The official I.L.P. is more and more coming under the control of middle-class Liberals, who ... have found their ?spiritual home? in the camp of Messrs. MacDonald, Snowden and Co. The official I.L.P. is bitterly hostile to the Third International, the rank and file is for it. Any support to the parliamentary opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the former. The B.S.P. doesn?t count at all here.... What is wanted here is a sound revolutionary industrial organisation, and a Communist Party working along clear, well-defined, scientific lines. If our comrades can assist us in building these, we will take their help gladly; if they cannot, for God?s sake let them keep out altogether, lest they betray the revolution by lending their support to the reactionaries, who are so eagerly clamouring for parliamentary ?honours? (?) [the query mark is the author?s] and who are so anxious to prove that they can rule as effectively as the ?boss? class politicians themselves." In my opinion, this letter to the editor expresses excellently the temper and point of view of the young Communists, or of rank-and-file workers who are only just beginning to accept communism. This temper is highly gratifying and valuable; we must learn to appreciate and support it for, in its absence, it would be hopeless to expect the victory of the proletarian revolution in Great Britain, or in any other country for that matter. People who can give expression to this temper of the masses, and are able to evoke such a temper (which is very often dormant, unconscious and latent) among the masses, should be appreciated and given every assistance. At the same time, we must tell them openly and frankly that a state of mind is by itself insufficient for leadership of the masses in a great revolutionary struggle, and that the cause of the revolution may well be harmed by certain errors that people who are most devoted to the cause of the revolution are about to commit, or are committing. Comrade Gallacher?s letter undoubtedly reveals the rudiments of all the mistakes that are being made by the German "Left" Communists and were made by the Russian "Left" Bolsheviks in 1908 and 1918. The writer of the letter is full of a noble and working-class hatred for the bourgeois "class politicians" (a hatred understood and shared, however, not only by proletarians but by all working people, by all Kleinen Leuten to use the German expression). In a representative of the oppressed and exploited masses, this hatred is truly the "beginning of all wisdom", the basis of any socialist and communist movement and of its success. The writer, however, has apparently lost sight of the fact that politics is a science and an art that does not fall from the skies or come gratis, and that, if it wants to overcome the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must train its own proletarian "class politicians", of a kind in no way inferior to bourgeois politicians. The writer of the letter fully realises that only workers? Soviets, not parliament, can be the instrument enabling the proletariat to achieve its aims; those who have failed to understand this are, of course, out-and-out reactionaries, even if they are most highly educated people, most experienced politicians, most sincere socialists, most erudite Marxists, and most honest citizens and fathers of families. But the writer of the letter does not even ask?it does not occur to him to ask?whether it is possible to bring about the Soviets? victory over parliament without getting pro-Soviet politicians into parliament, without disintegrating parliamentarianism from within, without working within parliament for the success of the Soviets in their forthcoming task of dispersing parliament. Yet the writer of the letter expresses the absolutely correct idea that the Communist Party in Great Britain must act on scientific principles. Science demands, first, that the experience of other countries be taken into account especially if these other countries, which are also capitalist, are undergoing, or have recently undergone, a very similar experience; second, it demands that account be taken of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating in a given country, and also that policy should not be determined only by the desires and views, by the degree of class-consciousness and the militancy of one group or party alone. It is true that the Hendersons, the Clyneses, the MacDonalds and the Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary. It is equally true that they want to assume power (though they would prefer a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to "rule" along the old bourgeois lines, and that when they are in power they will certainly behave like the Scheidemanns and Noskes. All that is true. But it does not at all follow that to support them means treachery to the revolution; what does follow is that, in the interests of the revolution, working-class revolutionaries should give these gentlemen a certain amount of parliamentary support. To explain this idea, I shall take two contemporary British political documents: (1) the speech delivered by Prime Minister Lloyd George on March 18, 1920 (as reported in The Manchester Guardian of March 19, 1920), and (2) the arguments of a "Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, in the article mentioned above. In his speech Lloyd George entered into a polemic with Asquith (who had been especially invited to this meeting but declined to attend) and with those Liberals who want, not a coalition with the Conservatives, but closer relations with the Labour Party. (In the above-quoted letter, Comrade Gallacher also points to the fact that Liberals are joining the Independent Labour Party.) Lloyd George argued that a coalition?and a close coalition at that?between the Liberals and the Conservatives was essential, otherwise there might be a victory for the Labour Party, which Lloyd George prefers to call "Socialist" and which is working for the "common ownership" of the means of production. "It is ... known as communism in France," the leader of the British bourgeoisie said, putting it popularly for his audience, Liberal M.P.s who probably never knew it before. In Germany it was called socialism, and in Russia it is called Bolshevism, he went on to say. To Liberals this is unacceptable on principle, Lloyd George explained, because they stand in principle for private property. "Civilisation is in jeopardy," the speaker declared, and consequently Liberals and Conservatives must unite.... "...If you go to the agricultural areas," said Lloyd George, "I agree you have the old party divisions as strong as ever. They are removed from the danger. It does not walk their lanes. But when they see it they will be as strong as some of these industrial constituencies are now. Four-fifths of this country is industrial and commercial; hardly one-fifth is agricultural. It is one of the things I have constantly in my mind when I think of the dangers of the future here. In France the population is agricultural, and you have a solid body of opinion which does not move very rapidly, and which is not very easily excited by revolutionary movements. That is not the case here. This country is more top-heavy than any country in the world, and if it begins to rock, the crash here, for that reason, will be greater than in any land." From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 10:22:15 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:22:15 -0800 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Lo=85_Behold=85_I=92m_A_Hippie!_Like_Th?= =?windows-1252?q?at=92s_Derogatory_Or_Something?= Message-ID: <496241C7.2090405@gmail.com> Somebody should forward this to Dougie boy over at LBO: [January 05 2009] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Respect! That?s What I?m Looking For - Lo? Behold? I?m A Hippie! Like That?s Derogatory Or Something "Ridiculed and derided for the last 30 years by a society which has screwed it's own scene so badly that it's on the verge of economic and social collapse..." Next time you need something socially useful done... call a hippie. If you despised war. If you thought the universities should be shut down until their education was relevant. If you want to know which WHITE people rode the buses in the South during the Civil Rights movement? (Abbie did...) Who ripped Rock and Roll off from a corrupt and exploitative music industry? (Travus did, along with many other... 'Hippies') You DO like organic or less chemicalized food ? Don't you? Who rejected the Ozzie and Harriet hypocrisy of US society? (Unlike the US 'marxists', 'progressives' and 'liberals' of the time, or now...) My site: http://leighm.net/wp/2009/01/05/tth_090105/ ArchiveDOTorg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_090105 In "Other" news: The Israelis send ground forces into Gaza and cut it into North and South Gaza which has the net effect of creating a medical emergency. The EU is trying to negotiate a ceasefire after the UN tries to and the US vetoes it. More. Barack Obama has been keeping his mouth shut on the Gaza issue but will be pandering to the American consumer today with an attempt to monger together an economic bailout bill amongst Democrats. More.... From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 10:25:08 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:25:08 -0800 Subject: [A-List] American steel industry needs $1 trillion bailout In-Reply-To: <4961F77E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4961F77E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <49624274.8080702@gmail.com> To revive a defunct industry to feed another defunct industry. Give it up Charles. Charles Brown wrote: > NY Times, January 2, 2009 > Steel Industry, in Slump, Looks to U.S. Stimulus > By LOUIS UCHITELLE > > The steel industry, having entered the recession in the best of health, > > is emerging as a leading indicator of what lies ahead. As steel > production goes ? and it is now in collapse ? so will go the > national > economy. > > That maxim once applied to Detroit?s Big Three car companies, when > they > dominated American manufacturing. Now they are losing ground in good > times and bad, and steel has replaced autos as the industry to watch > for > an early sign that a severe recession is beginning to lift. > > The industry itself is turning to government for orders that, until the > > September collapse, had come from manufacturers and builders. Its > executives are waiting anxiously for details of President-elect Barack > > Obama?s stimulus plan, and adding their voices to pleas for a huge > public investment program ? up to $1 trillion over two years ? > intended > to lift demand for steel to build highways, bridges, electric power > grids, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants and rapid transit. > > ?What we are asking,? said Daniel R. DiMicco, chairman and chief > executive of the Nucor Corporation, a giant steel maker, ?is that our > > government deal with the worst economic slowdown in our lifetime > through > a recovery program that has in every provision a ?buy America? > clause.? > > Economists in the Obama camp said the president-elect?s proposals to > > Congress will include significant infrastructure spending that draws on > > heavy industry. > > New spending should provide an immediate jolt to the steel business, > which has already gone through the painful makeover now demanded of > automakers. Steel mills were closed, companies were consolidated, > hundreds of thousands lost their jobs and the survivors agreed to > concessions. As a result, productivity shot up and so did profits, to > record levels in the first nine months of this year. Even as the > economy > wobbled, steel held its own. > > But then the recession hit in force. Steel goes into nearly everything > > made in America, from homes and office buildings to cars, appliances > and > light bulb sockets, and as construction and manufacturing wound down, > so > did the output of steel, plunging 50 percent since September. > > The steel industry?s collapse closely tracks the alarming late-autumn > > swoon in the national economy, as the housing bust and the credit > crisis > converted a mild downturn into ?a severe one that has much further to > > run,? says Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at IHS Global > Insight, > offering a view increasingly shared by forecasters. > > Through August, steel production was actually up slightly for the year. > > The decline came slowly at first, and then with a rush in November and > > December. By late December, output was down to 1.02 million tons a week > > from 2.1 million tons on Aug. 30, the American Iron and Steel Institute > > reported. The price of a ton of steel is also down by half since late > summer. > > ?We are making our steel at four mills instead of six,? said John > Armstrong, a spokesman for the United States Steel Corporation, adding > > that two mills were recently idled and the four still operating are > running at less than full capacity. > > ?The third quarter was one of the best in U.S. Steel?s history,? > Mr. > Armstrong added. ?And it has been a very precipitous drop from > there.? > > The cutback has been particularly hard on workers at the big integrated > > mills like those at U.S. Steel and Arcelor Mittal USA, with their blast > > furnaces and coke ovens converting iron ore and other materials into > steel. Operated at less than full capacity, these mills are less > efficient than the equally large ?minimills,? like Nucor, whose > electric > arc furnaces can be operated efficiently at lower speeds. > > So the plant closings have been mostly at the integrated mills, whose > 50,000 workers ? roughly 40 percent of the nation?s steelworkers > ? are > represented by the United Steelworkers. The union says that early this > > year it expects 20,000 workers to be on furlough. > > Ten thousand already have been. Kathleen Loepker, a millwright and > mechanic, is among the most recent to join their ranks. She was laid > off > on Dec. 19 from the U.S. Steel plant in Granite City, Ill., which shut, > > putting more than 2,000 employees out of work. With nearly 30 years > seniority, Ms. Loepker, 48, has worked through bankruptcies, union > concessions and consolidations during which her mill was acquired by > U.S. Steel in 2003. > > Her income today is tied more to incentive bonuses than in the past. On > > layoff, she is collecting $20 an hour, which is 80 percent of her base > > pay of $25.12 an hour. That base pay, rather than rising significantly, > > is fattened by incentive bonuses tied to amounts of steel produced and > > to profits. It had been averaging an additional $7 an hour ? money > now > gone until the mill reopens. > > ?No one knows when that will happen,? said Ms. Loepker, who lives > by > herself in a four-bedroom home she bought in nearby Belleville, three > blocks from a married sister. ?The company tells us the end of March, > > but they don?t know either,? Ms. Loepker said. ?The uncertainty > has > everyone fearful.? > > Not since the 1980s has American steel production been as low as it is > > today. Those were the Rust Belt years when many steel companies were > failing and imports of better quality, lower cost steel were rising. > > Foreign producers no longer have an advantage over the refurbished > American companies. Indeed, imports, which represent about 30 percent > of > all steel sales in the United States, also are hurting as customers > disappear. > > The industry, in response, is lobbying the Obama transition team for > infrastructure projects that would require big amounts of steel. Mass > transit systems are high on the list, and so is bridge repair. > > ?We are sharing with the president-elect?s transition team our > thoughts > in terms of the industry?s policy priorities,? said Nancy Gravatt, > a > spokeswoman for the American Iron and Steel Institute. > > The Obama team has not yet revealed details of the president-elect?s > > soon-to-be-announced recovery plan other than to indicate that most of > > the package will probably go into infrastructure spending rather than > tax breaks. > > ?If the president-elect really follows through, he?ll fund a lot of > mass > transit projects,? said Wilbur L. Ross Jr., the Wall Street deal > maker > who put together the steel conglomerate known as Arcelor Mittal USA. > ?All the big cities have these projects ready to go.? > > The sharp slide in steel production has several causes. Construction > and > auto production have fallen sharply; between them, they account for 57 > > percent of the steel bought each year in the United States, according > to > the Iron and Steel Institute. Appliances, machinery and other > electrical > equipment account for an additional 13 percent, and the fall-off in > production of these goods has also reduced steel orders. > > Then there are the wholesalers, known in the steel industry as service > > centers. They buy in huge quantities from the mills, building up > inventories and selling to customers like a construction company that > needs I-beams to build a shopping center, or a manufacturer of auto > parts in need of steel tubing. > > Until recently, the inventories were bought on credit, and the service > > centers constantly replenished these stockpiles as steel was sold to > end > users. But now the service centers, unable to borrow money easily and > reluctant to borrow anyway in these hard times, have stopped buying > from > the steel mills. They are selling off their inventories instead, > raising > cash in the process. It is a tactic that annoys Mr. DiMicco, the Nucor > > chief, no end. > > ?They don?t want to be without cash when they go into whatever the > black > hole is that is being created by the financial crisis,? he said, and > > faulted the nation?s lenders for collecting billions in government > bailout money and then, in his view, refusing to lend it to the service > > centers on reasonable terms. ?Credit completely dried up,? Mr. > DiMicco > said, ?and it is still hard to get.? > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 10:38:52 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:38:52 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Reflections on the (Unplanned) Death of an Ideology Message-ID: <4961FF5C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Reflections on the (Unplanned) Death of an Ideology By Peter Zerner and Joel Wendland The financial meltdown on Wall Street has provoked a severe ideological crisis. Capitalism itself is under scrutiny. In the corporate media, one can now find regular discussions of Marxism, capitalism and socialism ? not always positively presented to be sure, but at times the discussion has been thoughtful. Even former Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan, long an outspoken champion of free-market fundamentalism, told Congress in late October that he was in the midst of ?an existential crisis.? Greenspan confessed that he had ?made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." Another example of this trend is the recent Reuters analysis by Bernd Debusmann who writes that ?Capitalism as we used to know it is on its deathbed. And those who predicted that the old brand, the unfettered, American-promoted system, was a danger to the world, are being vindicated. They include Karl Marx, whose thinking on banks seems oddly contemporary these days." Additional resources: Podcast #88 - The Prospect for Democracy in China PA Editors Blog World Peace Council statement on Gaza Depression Economics and Fundamental Change Film Review: The Waltz of Bashir Subscribe to this Feed Subscribe to Political Affairs Readers Email: Visit this group On the other end of the spectrum, consider the confused display of logic in this op-ed from the Washington Post in October: "Is this the end of American capitalism?? The answer is that ?we are not witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted markets." In the Post?s opinion, the collapse of the current system is not a capitalist crisis, because we are not living under ?true capitalism.? The Post's editors, however, seemed unable to elaborate a vision of true capitalism. Former World Bank chief economist Joseph E. Stiglitz has offered more thoughtful observations. In a recent article in Vanity Fair entitled ?Reversal of Fortune,? Stiglitz lists the chief characteristics of the ideology of free-market capitalism as practiced in the US: "special interest pressure, populist politics, bad economics, and sheer incompetence," characteristics which he views in turn as the root causes of the current crisis. Stiglitz hammers away at the anti-government ideology behind right-wing economic policy. ?[This] ideology proclaimed that markets were always good and government always bad.... [but] the fact is that key problems facing our society cannot be addressed without effective government." In his criticism of neoliberalism, Stiglitz displays an independent streak and goes much further than most orthodox American economists dare. Like their counterparts among the nation?s CEOs, most US economists have long abandoned any pretense of practicing objective science. Instead, for the past three decades they have preferred to view the American economy through rose-colored glasses. Why shouldn?t they? When things go wrong, there is no price for their academic mistakes. This is perhaps the most distinctive feature of today?s no-fault capitalism. On the one hand ?robbing with a fountain pen? often goes unpunished; on the other, acting as academic cheerleaders for neoliberalism carriers no risk for today?s practitioners of the ?dismal science.? Among those who prophesy about the future of the American economy, there are always far more Pollyannas than Cassandras. Joseph Stiglitz is different. Having seen at close hand the damage wrought by the IMF and its neoliberal policies, especially among the world?s poorer nations, Stiglitz listened to his conscience and resigned his position as chief IMF economist in 1999. Since then he has criticized the neoliberal dogma of free-trade, an ideology which has served as a convenient fig leaf to conceal the multitude of crimes perpetrated by unregulated corporate greed operating on a global scale. In Vanity Fair, Stiglitz points to the unspoken secret of US capitalism. "Our economy,? he wrote, ?rests on public investments in technology, such as the Internet.? Advances in modern technology, he noted, have been the driving force behind the modern American economy and will continue to be so in the future. All these revolutionary developments ? for example, information technology, alternative energy and space technology ? have resulted from publicly-financed cooperative efforts between the US government and university and corporate research centers. Such advances, in turn, are transformed, for good or for ill, into lucrative sources of profit for US corporations and are exported throughout the world. All of these technological breakthroughs, however, resulted from carefully planned, government-backed efforts which harnessed the scientific and managerial talents of large numbers of individuals working together to achieve a common goal. The future of the American economy and the achievement of economic security for the American people lie in precisely this kind of planning and problem-solving. Markets, by themselves, have been decisively proven to be extremely inefficient regulators of economic life. As Stiglitz says, "We learned from the Depression that markets are not self-adjusting," adding that sporadic government interventions in the economy such as interest rate adjustments, are insufficient to prevent recurring economic crises. We are now faced with a wide range of interconnected economic problems, foremost among them the housing and financial crisis. But today?s economic crises are so systemic and widespread that they cannot be solved by simply adjusting interest rates. Because markets aren't self-adjusting and because a healthy, dynamic economy requires public financing and governmental regulation of the financial markets, it is obvious that the US is in dire need of a form of economic therapy far different from the free-market quackery practiced by the Bush administration. In his article, Stiglitz not only rejects the cult of free-market fundamentalism, but he also criticizes more orthodox proponents of limited government intervention by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as sporadic emergency bailouts like the Wall Street rescue package proposed by Bernanke and Paulson. As Stiglitz notes, the so-called ?free market? comes with an enormous hidden price tag, which the American people are now being forced to pay. Part of the reason the costs are so high is that Washington lobbyists and special interests have bought access to the halls of Congress and the regulatory bodies that were originally designed to keep an eye on the criminal activities those who hire the lobbyists and buy the votes in Congress actually engage. They have essentially gamed the system and have, in Stiglitz?s words, ?bent the rules to benefit themselves." This unfettered free-market system ran rampant during the Reagan-era and Republican one-party rule under George W. Bush. Under Bush, the corporate components of Bush?s true base, Halliburton, Blackwater USA, Big Oil, and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have all lined up at the trough for no-bid government contracts, huge tax breaks, exemption from government oversight and a shooting spree in Iraq. It was during this new golden age of political corruption that Donald Diamond, the Arizona real estate tycoon, paid for John McCain?s help in acquiring a lucrative stretch of public land on the California coast, so he could erect McMansions on it. In the 1980s another Arizonan, Charles Keating, received special Senate favors from his ?till-death-do-us-part? friend John McCain, along with four other US senators, enticing them by means of lavish campaign contributions to look the other way as his Lincoln Savings and Loan engaged in massive fraudulent activity. People before profits: An idea whose time has come The economic crisis we face is the direct result of the anarchy of a financial system guided purely by self-interest and profit. advertisement But if the self-interested quest for profits of the corporations and the wealthiest Americans has been proven to be responsible for the current financial chaos, what kinds of policies are needed in its place? Stiglitz calls for carefully-planned government intervention, reinforced oversight of the financial markets, massive investments in basic infrastructure, and new programs and regulations that allow homeowners who are faced with foreclosure to pay off their debts in a reasonable fashion and stay in their homes. Another respected economist, James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas (son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the prominent progressive economist of the Kennedy-Johnson years) recently addressed the crisis of capitalism in an article in Harper's Magazine simply titled "Plan." In it he advocates just that ? a planned economy. Galbraith viewed the present system as a ?mixed economy.? As it now exists, corporate interests dominate this mixed economy. With the rise of free market fundamentalism, corporate interests have totally overwhelmed a formally vital public component of the economy that has lain essentially dormant for decades since the time of FDR (with a brief attempt at resuscitation during the years of LBJ?s Great Society program). Galbraith seems to agree with Stiglitz that rigid adherence to policies based entirely on free market fundamentalism comes with a great price. In his view, those who have wielded power for so many years in US political and economic circles, fervently believe in using "the government to build monopolies, to control resources, to block regulation, to crush unions, [and] to divert as much as possible from taxpayers into private pockets." Obviously the solution to the present economic crisis is not a retreat to some more ?authentic? or ?original? form of capitalism, like the Washington Post op-ed writer dreams about. Nor does it lie in simply beefing up regulation and oversight of the financial markets and banks. Galbraith emphasizes that planning is the best solution. For him, the role of government should be to provide continuous oversight of the American economy and the inevitable excesses of capitalism. Only a democratically-based government that is responsive to the needs of the American people can provide the necessary planning and monetary resources to adequately address the problems that inevitably arise in a capitalist economy. Some of the negative consequences of unrestrained capitalism we are currently seeing are millions of home foreclosures, rising unemployment, plant shutdowns, market chaos, and a dwindling supply of natural resources like oil and water. Government planners, with the interests of the American public, not profits, at heart, should be at work providing real-time solutions to the nation?s economic problems. Galbraith highlights the environmental crisis we face and points to the direct impact of global warming and dependence on foreign oil on the faltering economy. Systematic planning can address the many problems we face as a nation ? social problems such as the lack of good-paying jobs and secure financial futures, environmental problems like global warming and a rotting infrastructure, the abysmal state of our health care system, and the problems of racial, ethnic and sexual discrimination. Each of these problems has grown steadily worse during the past eight years of the Bush administration, which has exhibited a total lack of strategic planning (Iraq/Katrina/the subprime mess) and a haughty disdain for contemplating the needs of any sector of American society apart from the extremely wealthy. And for those who do not subscribe to the official dogma of unfettered free market capitalism, any input into the formulation of economic policy has been effectively blocked. Galbraith also stresses that we need a government where the voices of working people are heard and programs implemented that offer viable ways to revive the American economy. Such new approaches could be harnessed to end our long reliance on non-renewable fossil fuel and provide for massive investment in renewable energy alternatives. The direct result of this planning process would be to strengthen environmentally-friendly industries and create new jobs. Intellectual foresight and planning is also needed to create a universal health care system that ensures equal and complete access to medical care for all the American people. The money we need to revive our economy should come from rescinding the tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of taxpayers, while at the same time providing tax cuts and stimulus packages for the rest of us. We can also free up more federal dollars for domestic needs by ending the war in Iraq, which has become an Augean stable of graft and corruption that is costs $10 billion a month. Preserving the environment, preventing wars, finding ways to reduce the bloated military budget and creating jobs are the intellectual and moral challenges of the 21st century that require more than what the so-called experts have to offer. The task at hand also demands the direct, grassroots input of millions of ?ordinary? Americans, who have first-hand knowledge of the problems we face. A new economy can only be built if it is based on hard work, democracy and careful planning. It can never arise out of a self-interested desire for the acquisition of enormous personal wealth ? the hallmark of free-market capitalism. But planning for American?s economic future should not be the exclusive domain of government bureaucrats or university professors, a 21st century version of Plato?s philosopher kings. Effective planning requires the leadership and active participation of America?s working people. Leadership for a new economy should come particularly from the organized labor movement, whose leaders and rank-and-file members have direct experience with the problems working families face. These dedicated working-class leaders are ready, willing and able to work together with government and business to find ways to protect the economic interests of the essential core of democracy, the American people. To engage and defeat this many-headed economic monster demands a boldly different, multifaceted approach. Succeeding in this Herculean task requires a concerted national effort and careful economic planning. Essential to its success is the adoption of a grassroots strategy, working from the bottom up, a massive effort akin to the mobilization sparked by the Obama campaign, relying on the input of the American people to tell us what our national priorities ought to be. Such an effort will obviously require a massive injection of federal dollars, rationally allocated and carefully planned. There has never been a better or more urgent time to re-evaluate the economic system we live in. With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats firmly in control of Congress, now is the time for us to make the basic changes in the economy that will put an end to the reign of no-fault, free-market capitalism we have suffered under for the last eight chaotic years ? and finally put the interests of the American people before corporate profits. --Peter Zerner is managing editor of Political Affairs. Joel Wendland is editor of Political Affairs. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 11:20:03 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:20:03 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Reflections on the (Unplanned) Death of an Ideology In-Reply-To: <4961FF5C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4961FF5C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <49624F53.8060209@gmail.com> The 'IDEOLOGY' IS NOT 'dead', and the looting/attempted looting continues unabated. Cf. "American steel industry needs $1 trillion bailout" Charles Brown wrote: > Reflections on the (Unplanned) Death of an Ideology > By Peter Zerner and Joel Wendland > > > > > > > > > The financial meltdown on Wall Street has provoked a severe ideological > crisis. Capitalism itself is under scrutiny. In the corporate media, one > can now find regular discussions of Marxism, capitalism and socialism > ? not always positively presented to be sure, but at times the > discussion has been thoughtful. > > Even former Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan, long an > outspoken champion of free-market fundamentalism, told Congress in late > October that he was in the midst of ?an existential crisis.? > Greenspan confessed that he had ?made a mistake in presuming that the > self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were > such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders > and their equity in the firms." > > Another example of this trend is the recent Reuters analysis by Bernd > Debusmann who writes that ?Capitalism as we used to know it is on its > deathbed. And those who predicted that the old brand, the unfettered, > American-promoted system, was a danger to the world, are being > vindicated. They include Karl Marx, whose thinking on banks seems oddly > contemporary these days." > > Additional resources: > Podcast #88 - The Prospect for Democracy in China > > > > > PA Editors Blog > > World Peace Council statement on Gaza > Depression Economics and Fundamental Change > Film Review: The Waltz of Bashir > Subscribe to this Feed > > > > > Subscribe to Political Affairs Readers > Email: > Visit this group > > On the other end of the spectrum, consider the confused display of > logic in this op-ed from the Washington Post in October: "Is this the > end of American capitalism?? The answer is that ?we are not > witnessing a crisis of the free market but a crisis of distorted > markets." In the Post?s opinion, the collapse of the current system is > not a capitalist crisis, because we are not living under ?true > capitalism.? The Post's editors, however, seemed unable to elaborate a > vision of true capitalism. > > Former World Bank chief economist Joseph E. Stiglitz has offered more > thoughtful observations. In a recent article in Vanity Fair entitled > ?Reversal of Fortune,? Stiglitz lists the chief characteristics > of the ideology of free-market capitalism as practiced in the US: > "special interest pressure, populist politics, bad economics, and sheer > incompetence," characteristics which he views in turn as the root causes > of the current crisis. > > Stiglitz hammers away at the anti-government ideology behind right-wing > economic policy. ?[This] ideology proclaimed that markets were always > good and government always bad.... [but] the fact is that key problems > facing our society cannot be addressed without effective government." In > his criticism of neoliberalism, Stiglitz displays an independent streak > and goes much further than most orthodox American economists dare. > > Like their counterparts among the nation?s CEOs, most US economists > have long abandoned any pretense of practicing objective science. > Instead, for the past three decades they have preferred to view the > American economy through rose-colored glasses. Why shouldn?t they? > When things go wrong, there is no price for their academic mistakes. > This is perhaps the most distinctive feature of today?s no-fault > capitalism. On the one hand ?robbing with a fountain pen? often goes > unpunished; on the other, acting as academic cheerleaders for > neoliberalism carriers no risk for today?s practitioners of the > ?dismal science.? Among those who prophesy about the future of > the American economy, there are always far more Pollyannas than > Cassandras. > > Joseph Stiglitz is different. Having seen at close hand the damage > wrought by the IMF and its neoliberal policies, especially among the > world?s poorer nations, Stiglitz listened to his conscience and > resigned his position as chief IMF economist in 1999. Since then he has > criticized the neoliberal dogma of free-trade, an ideology which has > served as a convenient fig leaf to conceal the multitude of crimes > perpetrated by unregulated corporate greed operating on a global scale. > > > In Vanity Fair, Stiglitz points to the unspoken secret of US > capitalism. "Our economy,? he wrote, ?rests on public investments in > technology, such as the Internet.? Advances in modern technology, he > noted, have been the driving force behind the modern American economy > and will continue to be so in the future. All these revolutionary > developments ? for example, information technology, alternative energy > and space technology ? have resulted from publicly-financed > cooperative efforts between the US government and university and > corporate research centers. > > Such advances, in turn, are transformed, for good or for ill, into > lucrative sources of profit for US corporations and are exported > throughout the world. All of these technological breakthroughs, however, > resulted from carefully planned, government-backed efforts which > harnessed the scientific and managerial talents of large numbers of > individuals working together to achieve a common goal. The future of the > American economy and the achievement of economic security for the > American people lie in precisely this kind of planning and > problem-solving. > > Markets, by themselves, have been decisively proven to be extremely > inefficient regulators of economic life. As Stiglitz says, "We learned > from the Depression that markets are not self-adjusting," adding that > sporadic government interventions in the economy such as interest rate > adjustments, are insufficient to prevent recurring economic crises. We > are now faced with a wide range of interconnected economic problems, > foremost among them the housing and financial crisis. But today?s > economic crises are so systemic and widespread that they cannot be > solved by simply adjusting interest rates. > > Because markets aren't self-adjusting and because a healthy, dynamic > economy requires public financing and governmental regulation of the > financial markets, it is obvious that the US is in dire need of a form > of economic therapy far different from the free-market quackery > practiced by the Bush administration. > > In his article, Stiglitz not only rejects the cult of free-market > fundamentalism, but he also criticizes more orthodox proponents of > limited government intervention by the Federal Reserve Board, as well as > sporadic emergency bailouts like the Wall Street rescue package proposed > by Bernanke and Paulson. As Stiglitz notes, the so-called ?free > market? comes with an enormous hidden price tag, which the American > people are now being forced to pay. Part of the reason the costs are so > high is that Washington lobbyists and special interests have bought > access to the halls of Congress and the regulatory bodies that were > originally designed to keep an eye on the criminal activities those who > hire the lobbyists and buy the votes in Congress actually engage. They > have essentially gamed the system and have, in Stiglitz?s words, > ?bent the rules to benefit themselves." > > This unfettered free-market system ran rampant during the Reagan-era > and Republican one-party rule under George W. Bush. Under Bush, the > corporate components of Bush?s true base, Halliburton, Blackwater USA, > Big Oil, and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have all lined > up at the trough for no-bid government contracts, huge tax breaks, > exemption from government oversight and a shooting spree in Iraq. It was > during this new golden age of political corruption that Donald Diamond, > the Arizona real estate tycoon, paid for John McCain?s help in > acquiring a lucrative stretch of public land on the California coast, so > he could erect McMansions on it. In the 1980s another Arizonan, Charles > Keating, received special Senate favors from his > ?till-death-do-us-part? friend John McCain, along with four other > US senators, enticing them by means of lavish campaign contributions to > look the other way as his Lincoln Savings and Loan engaged in massive > fraudulent activity. > > People before profits: An idea whose time has come > > The economic crisis we face is the direct result of the anarchy of a > financial system guided purely by self-interest and profit. > > > > advertisement > But if the self-interested quest for profits of the corporations and > the wealthiest Americans has been proven to be responsible for the > current financial chaos, what kinds of policies are needed in its place? > Stiglitz calls for carefully-planned government intervention, reinforced > oversight of the financial markets, massive investments in basic > infrastructure, and new programs and regulations that allow homeowners > who are faced with foreclosure to pay off their debts in a reasonable > fashion and stay in their homes. > > Another respected economist, James K. Galbraith of the University of > Texas (son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the prominent progressive > economist of the Kennedy-Johnson years) recently addressed the crisis of > capitalism in an article in Harper's Magazine simply titled "Plan." In > it he advocates just that ? a planned economy. Galbraith viewed the > present system as a ?mixed economy.? As it now exists, corporate > interests dominate this mixed economy. With the rise of free market > fundamentalism, corporate interests have totally overwhelmed a formally > vital public component of the economy that has lain essentially dormant > for decades since the time of FDR (with a brief attempt at resuscitation > during the years of LBJ?s Great Society program). > > Galbraith seems to agree with Stiglitz that rigid adherence to policies > based entirely on free market fundamentalism comes with a great price. > In his view, those who have wielded power for so many years in US > political and economic circles, fervently believe in using "the > government to build monopolies, to control resources, to block > regulation, to crush unions, [and] to divert as much as possible from > taxpayers into private pockets." > > Obviously the solution to the present economic crisis is not a retreat > to some more ?authentic? or ?original? form of capitalism, like > the Washington Post op-ed writer dreams about. Nor does it lie in simply > beefing up regulation and oversight of the financial markets and banks. > Galbraith emphasizes that planning is the best solution. For him, the > role of government should be to provide continuous oversight of the > American economy and the inevitable excesses of capitalism. > > Only a democratically-based government that is responsive to the needs > of the American people can provide the necessary planning and monetary > resources to adequately address the problems that inevitably arise in a > capitalist economy. Some of the negative consequences of unrestrained > capitalism we are currently seeing are millions of home foreclosures, > rising unemployment, plant shutdowns, market chaos, and a dwindling > supply of natural resources like oil and water. Government planners, > with the interests of the American public, not profits, at heart, should > be at work providing real-time solutions to the nation?s economic > problems. Galbraith highlights the environmental crisis we face and > points to the direct impact of global warming and dependence on foreign > oil on the faltering economy. > > Systematic planning can address the many problems we face as a nation > ? social problems such as the lack of good-paying jobs and secure > financial futures, environmental problems like global warming and a > rotting infrastructure, the abysmal state of our health care system, and > the problems of racial, ethnic and sexual discrimination. Each of these > problems has grown steadily worse during the past eight years of the > Bush administration, which has exhibited a total lack of strategic > planning (Iraq/Katrina/the subprime mess) and a haughty disdain for > contemplating the needs of any sector of American society apart from the > extremely wealthy. And for those who do not subscribe to the official > dogma of unfettered free market capitalism, any input into the > formulation of economic policy has been effectively blocked. > > Galbraith also stresses that we need a government where the voices of > working people are heard and programs implemented that offer viable ways > to revive the American economy. Such new approaches could be harnessed > to end our long reliance on non-renewable fossil fuel and provide for > massive investment in renewable energy alternatives. The direct result > of this planning process would be to strengthen environmentally-friendly > industries and create new jobs. Intellectual foresight and planning is > also needed to create a universal health care system that ensures equal > and complete access to medical care for all the American people. > > The money we need to revive our economy should come from rescinding the > tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of taxpayers, while at the same > time providing tax cuts and stimulus packages for the rest of us. We can > also free up more federal dollars for domestic needs by ending the war > in Iraq, which has become an Augean stable of graft and corruption that > is costs $10 billion a month. > > Preserving the environment, preventing wars, finding ways to reduce the > bloated military budget and creating jobs are the intellectual and moral > challenges of the 21st century that require more than what the so-called > experts have to offer. The task at hand also demands the direct, > grassroots input of millions of ?ordinary? Americans, who have > first-hand knowledge of the problems we face. > > A new economy can only be built if it is based on hard work, democracy > and careful planning. It can never arise out of a self-interested desire > for the acquisition of enormous personal wealth ? the hallmark of > free-market capitalism. But planning for American?s economic future > should not be the exclusive domain of government bureaucrats or > university professors, a 21st century version of Plato?s philosopher > kings. > > Effective planning requires the leadership and active participation of > America?s working people. Leadership for a new economy should come > particularly from the organized labor movement, whose leaders and > rank-and-file members have direct experience with the problems working > families face. These dedicated working-class leaders are ready, willing > and able to work together with government and business to find ways to > protect the economic interests of the essential core of democracy, the > American people. > > To engage and defeat this many-headed economic monster demands a boldly > different, multifaceted approach. Succeeding in this Herculean task > requires a concerted national effort and careful economic planning. > Essential to its success is the adoption of a grassroots strategy, > working from the bottom up, a massive effort akin to the mobilization > sparked by the Obama campaign, relying on the input of the American > people to tell us what our national priorities ought to be. Such an > effort will obviously require a massive injection of federal dollars, > rationally allocated and carefully planned. > > There has never been a better or more urgent time to re-evaluate the > economic system we live in. With Barack Obama in the White House and the > Democrats firmly in control of Congress, now is the time for us to make > the basic changes in the economy that will put an end to the reign of > no-fault, free-market capitalism we have suffered under for the last > eight chaotic years ? and finally put the interests of the American > people before corporate profits. > > --Peter Zerner is managing editor of Political Affairs. Joel Wendland > is editor of Political Affairs. > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 12:13:05 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:13:05 -0800 Subject: [A-List] The U.S. Army speaks up for Hamas ...and Obama's War (Iraq) - Thomas E. Ricks Message-ID: <49625BC1.3080409@gmail.com> From Foreign Policy... (Also, Abu Aardvark is officially a member of FP's writing staff: Why Aardvark? ) Thomas E. Ricks, formerly WaPo, now Foreign Policy magazine: The Army War College chose this week to release a report that has some surprisingly kind words for Israel's foes in the Gaza Strip: "HAMAS' political and strategic development has been both ignored and misreported in Israeli and Western sources which villainize the group, much as the PLO was once characterized as an anti-Semitic terrorist group," writes Sherifa Zuhur, a research professor at the War College's Strategic Studies Institute. "Negotiating solely with the weaker Palestinian party-Fatah-cannot deliver the security Israel requires. . . . The underlying strategies of Israel and HAMAS appear mutually exclusive . . . . Yet each side is still capable of revising its desired endstate and of necessary concessions to establish and preserve a long-term truce, or even a longer-term peace." Among her timely if impolitic recommendations: "Israel and the United States need to abandon their policies of non-negotiation and non-communication with HAMAS." With linkage to pertinent docs: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/10703 Also notable: Obama's War News flash for the president-elect: All our troops are combat troops. It isn't like some American soldiers stroll around Iraq unarmed. Nor do the insurgents inquire about the troops' MOS (military occupational specialties) before detonating an IED. Indeed, I feel safer in Iraq accompanying an infantry unit on foot patrol than I do while riding in a convoy of transport soldiers, who are much more likely to get popped by a roadside bomb. So his promise to get "combat troops" out of Iraq in the next 16 months is a phrase that means much less than it appears to. At any rate, I bet Obama is wrong: I think we are going to have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq -- mentoring, advising and engaged in combat -- for many years to come. The recent Status of Forces Agreement also means less than it seems. For example... http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14892 From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 12:28:28 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:28:28 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs Message-ID: <4962190C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary organization long ago, ^^^ CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. ^^^ has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide ^^^ CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error of the type , with modifications for some historical and national differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost completely fresh today. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 12:57:30 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:57:30 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs In-Reply-To: <4962190C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4962190C.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4962662A.9010102@gmail.com> What's being described as a 'revolutionary organization' (CPUSA) is more correctly called a co-opted organization (or more succinctly... 'Political Whores'), not a revolutionary anything... A political cipher, an American revolutionary zilch. You're all whoring (while hoping) to inherit the infrastructure of a broken US capitalist system. Lazy and worthless (whores, did I mention that they're whores?) who think their 'sloppy seconds' are better than the first time around with 'the boys'. You won't inherit anything, nor will your children, or your children's children. If 'capitalism ever implodes completely, it will destroy it's own political/social infrastructures first, BEFORE the economic looting is completed. There's less resistance to the looting that way. Charles Brown wrote: > From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" > > > the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary > organization long ago, > > ^^^ > CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. > > ^^^ > > has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic > Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide > > ^^^ > CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error of the type , with modifications for some historical and national differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost completely fresh today. > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 13:00:51 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:51 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Everyone is working hard to increase global trade imbalances Message-ID: <496220A3.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Everyone is working hard to increase global trade imbalances Michael Pettis, Dec 31, 2008 (excerpts) South Korea posted a current-account surplus for a second consecutive month in November, which may help ease pressure on the won, the region's worst-performing currency this year. The surplus was $2.06 billion, compared with $1.67 billion in November 2007, the Bank of Korea said?The nation posted a record $4.75 billion excess in October. Vietnam devalued the dong by 3 per cent on Thursday in its latest attempt to keep its export-dependent economy afloat. The government said that 2008 economic growth had shrunk to 6.23 per cent from 8.5 per cent last year and there were signs it was likely to slow further in 2009. Several analysts have warned of the threats of competitive devaluations among Asia's exporting economies but Hanoi's move comes after spending most of the year trying to maintain the currency's strength to slow spiralling inflation. Several analysts noted that while governments have resisted pressure for protectionist policies, there are fears they might take the short cut of devaluation. Thailand and Taiwan have recently become net purchasers of dollars, provoking the Asian Development Bank to warn against ?unnecessary and excessive interventions in the currency markets, especially to depreciate domestic currencies?. One consequence of the financial crisis will inevitably be capital outflows from developing countries. The necessary corollary of capital outflows is trade surpluses. Without running a trade surplus no country can consistently support capital outflows, and as obvious as this is, it also seems to be a source of tremendous mystery to many experts and policymakers. Keynes for example pointed this out in his fury at the way Germany was required to post war reparations in the 1920s while its ability to generate export surpluses was all but eliminated by the victorious powers. Capital exports by definition require trade surpluses. This is just another way of saying that a lot of developing countries that had been running trade deficits will soon be, if they aren't already, running trade surpluses. Instead of contributing their net demand to the world economy, as they had via their trade deficits, they will now be contributing their net supply. This will not help the world imbalances. The biggest contributors of net demand are the US and non-Germany Europe, and both of these regions are seeing a rapid decline in their net demand contribution (i.e. their trade deficits are expected to shrink). To adjust to this decline the world needs new sources of net demand or else global production must contract sharply via factory closings and rising unemployment. But the largest net supply country, China, is increasing its export of net supply (its trade surplus has been rising) while several trade deficit countries in Asian and elsewhere are switching to trade surplus or otherwise trying to reduce their deficits. This cannot be sustainable. We cannot expect production to rise while consumption declines except if it comes with a dangerous rise in forced investment (also known as inventory). The crisis cannot even begin to be considered in its final stages until this issue is resolved. ... Full item at http://www.rgemonitor.com/asia-monitor/254920/everyone_is_working_hard_to_increase_global_trade_imbalances This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 13:43:38 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:43:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Minneapolis vs. Boston Message-ID: <49622AA9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Julio Huato?s Blog http://juliohuato.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/minneapolis-vs-boston/ Minneapolis vs. Boston In Economics on January 3, 2009 at 2:05 pm In an October 2008 paper, V.V. Chari, Lawrence Christiano, and Patrick J. Kehoe (Fed Minneapolis, CCK) found no evidence of a crunch affecting interbank credit or borrowing by Main Street. They argue that Main Street?s cost of borrowing is not as high as a quick look at spreads would suggest; that we should look at the levels instead. In a November 2008 paper, Ethan Cohen-Cole, Burcu Duygan-Bump, Jose Fillat, and Judit Montoriol-Garriga (Fed Boston, CDFM) replied in detail to the arguments in the CCK paper and concluded that Main Street is indeed being hit by a credit crunch. I am just starting to read the latter, but I didn?t find the CCK view convincing to begin with. I?ll say why below. My sixth sense tells me that the political implications of what CCK are arguing are relevant. What they are really suggesting with their paper is that large public efforts to get the economy moving are not called for, especially those directed to support employment. It?s the old let-the-markets-sort-things-out shibboleth. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 14:39:08 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:39:08 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Good look at crisis in Gaza References: <8fe1d4750901051317wcc97548s89b7bcb1841c6f70@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <496237AB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://pww.org/article/articleview/14219/ Gaza crisis: challenge and opportunity for Obama to turn the page toward peace >Archive - Daily Online Author: Susan Webb People's Weekly World Newspaper, 12/31/08 17:45 The tiny Gaza Strip, with its 1.5 million people crowded into 139 square miles, has been a tinderbox since Israel's unilateral pullout in 2005. Israel has maintained a punitive military and economic grip on Gaza, keeping the population in what is internationally condemned as a deepening humanitarian crisis. Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) seized power there in 2007, and began its "resistance" policy of firing rockets into southern Israel. A tenuous six-month ceasefire ended in early December despite reported behind-the-scenes initiatives to extend it, and now we have the horrible spectacle of a massive aerial bombardment of this densely populated strip by Israel, with the civilian toll mounting daily (currently nearly 500 Gazans dead and approaching 2,000 wounded, including children). Hamas has continued rocket attacks on Israel, killing 4 Israelis as of this week, and is threatening suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel. Israel says its assault is a defensive operation, yet also says it intends to physically wipe out the Hamas leadership. Other objectives appear to be to intimidate the Palestinian people, further weaken Palestinian civil society and promote disunity, and reassert Israeli power. There is growing international condemnation of Israel's disproportionate use of force and collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population, both violations of the Geneva Conventions. It's possible a temporary truce may emerge in the next few days, but, more than ever, the underlying issues will at long last have to be resolved. And the incoming Obama administration will have the challenge, and the opportunity, to lead the way to peace. *Who benefits from the crisis that has erupted in **Gaza**?* The election of Barack Obama brought with it the real possibility for a just solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict based on two states, as long ago envisioned by the United Nations. During his campaign Obama told Jewish leaders on a number of occasions that his support for Israel did not mean he would support the policies of Israel's Likud Party. This was a courageous stand by Obama, but it also reflected the growing awareness in influential U.S. circles that a peaceful two-state solution is in U.S. interests, including the long-term global interests of U.S. capitalism, not to mention the interests of the Israeli and Palestinian people. When he announced his naming of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and other top national security appointments, Obama singled out a lasting solution for Israel and the Palestinians as one of his four top foreign policy priorities. Many believe the current military explosion in Gaza seeks to take advantage of the post-election/pre-inauguration leadership vacuum in Washington and the Bush administration's knee-jerk green-lighting of Israeli military confrontation. Some see it as a challenge to Obama, and an effort to stymie his peace efforts. The Gaza crisis, rather than advancing peace, has the potential to strengthen military extremism in Israel, among the Palestinians, and in the region. *Not everyone wants a political solution* Reactionary forces in Israel, like the fanatical settlers who attacked Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron recently, don't want a political settlement of the conflict. The Israeli far right rejects Palestinian statehood and even the state of Israel within the UN-recognized pre-1967 borders, claiming the entire West Bank as part of "the land of Israel." Other right and center forces in Israel, while in some cases giving lip service to a two-state solution, want to hold onto as much of the occupied West Bank as possible. Noted Israeli historian Avi Shlaim wrote last May, "Sixty years on, Israel is not fighting for its security or survival but to retain some of the territories it conquered in the course of the war of June 1967." The real purpose of Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 (snubbing negotiations with the Palestinian leadership), Shlaim wrote, was not peace, but to concentrate on unilaterally redrawing the borders of "greater Israel" by incorporating Jerusalem and key settlement blocs in the West Bank. "Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term Likud effort to deny the Palestinian people an independent political existence on their land." Since then, Israel, with the help of provocations by Hamas, has continued to use Gaza as a lever to disrupt the overall peace process. *Regional power struggle/failed Cold War strategy* Reactionary Islamic and Arab elements don't want a political settlement either. For them, and thus for the rest of us, this crisis is part of a regional power struggle with global ramifications. Continuing a centuries-old struggle for dominance in the region, Iran's reactionary Islamist regime is contesting for power against the reactionary regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All of them have used the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the suppression of Palestinian national aspirations as an opportunity to claim the mantle of leadership by wielding militant anti-imperialist and/or Arab nationalist rhetoric, while suppressing their own democratic and working class movements. The rise of extremist Islamic movements is due in large part to the bloody repression and even extermination of communist, left, working class and other democratic currents in all these countries (as in others such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Indonesia), promoted and abetted by the U.S. as part of its global Cold War strategy. The U.S. Cold War strategy also included using Israel armed to the teeth as a beachhead in the region, encouraging and supporting Israeli militarists. Israeli government policy, dominated by this approach, has long been to undermine the PLO, in which secular left and democratic forces have played an important role. It is widely known that Israel aided and abetted the formation of Hamas in the early 1980s as a counterweight to the PLO and the secular left/progressive trend within it. Ironically, it is the Palestinian communists and their Israeli counterparts who stood alone in supporting the two-state solution when it was adopted by the United Nations in 1947. Thus Israeli government policy, carrying out the U.S. Cold War policy, has helped created today's crisis. Seeing the real or potential threats to their power from extremist Islamic groups their policies helped to create, the Saudis and other reactionary Arab rulers are caught in something of a dilemma. Their alliance with the U.S. became problematic for them following the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has turned from an opportunity to a major problem for them. At the same time Iran's Ahmadinejad regime is widely seen as backing Hamas as well as Lebanon's Hezbollah as part of its project to assume regional dominance by claiming the mantle of "resistance" to imperialism. Meanwhile, the Israeli right and center forces are in their own crisis. Many commentators tie the current assault on Gaza to the power struggle leading up to Israel's February elections. As in the U.S., Israeli politicians feel they have to show they are "tough" on national security, and that has translated into aggressive military action. But many Israelis and others warn that, as in the Israeli "defensive" attack on Lebanon in 2006, there will be no good outcome. Many fear the Gaza offensive will only lead to a February election victory by the right-wing Likud Party led by Benjamin Netanyahu, which would further impede the prospects for peace. *Militarism a dead end* Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab made relevant points in a Dec. 30 Washington Post op ed: "For different reasons, Hamas and Israel both gave up on the cease-fire, preferring instead to climb over corpses to reach their political goals. One side wants to resuscitate its public support by appearing to be a heroic resister, while the other, on the eve of elections, wants to show toughness to a public unhappy with the nuisance of the Qassam rockets. "The disproportionate and heavy-handed Israeli attacks on Gaza have been a bonanza for Hamas," Kuttab wrote. "The movement has renewed its standing in the Arab world, secured international favor further afield and succeeded in scuttling indirect Israeli-Syrian talks and direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations." He concluded, "By choosing the waning days of the Bush administration to attack Gaza, the Israelis knew they would face no opposition from the leader of the so-called war on terrorism. Just as George W. Bush's misadventure in Iraq played into the hands of radicals and terrorists, this Israeli action will produce nothing less than that in Palestine. Let us hope that the Obama administration will see the consequences of what is not only a crime of war but also a move whose results are exactly the opposite of its publicly proclaimed purposes." Gershon Shafir, an Israeli sociologist who directs the Institute for International, Comparative, and Area Studies at the University of California in San Diego, writes: "At a strategic level, Hamas is not interested in political alternatives to armed confrontation. But whether one wants to call the Hamas strategy resistance or terrorism, the lack of a serious political plan to accompany military strategies is always counterproductive, as it is has been for Hamas and for the people of Gaza. "It will be equally counterproductive for Israel. It appears that Israeli political leaders and military planners labor under the illusion that there is a military 'solution' to Hamas. The extended military operation in Gaza is expected to serve as a pedagogical tool for moderating or eliminating Hamas. But this will not work, and the idea that a ground invasion of Gaza could actually eliminate Hamas as a force in Palestinian politics is delusional. The Israeli approach is every bit as driven by militarism as Hamas' strategy is. Beyond a certain point, it can serve no realistic political goals." *Challenge and opportunity* For the Obama administration to finally achieve the much-needed peaceful solution not only for Gaza but for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will have to break with the disastrous Cold War policies of the past. This means serious diplomacy that promotes the realist, peace-inclined forces in Israel who realize that peace is in their interests, and, on the Palestinian side, furthers rather than hinders re-establishment of unity and advancement of a more realist, peace-oriented approach. It means promoting the realist, peace-oriented forces in U.S. politics as well. It means diplomacy with Iran that recognizes its legitimate role as an important country in the region. It means political, economic and social foreign policies that promote mutual de-nuclearization and demilitarization, labor rights, grassroots economic and social development and culture, and real democracy - not the phony kind trumpeted by Bush and his ilk. ----- Susan Webb (suewebb @ pww.org) is associate editor of the People's Weekly World. Sources: Daoud Kuttab, "Has Israel revived Hamas?" Gershon Shafir, "War without end?" Avi Shlaim, "Israel at 60: the 'iron wall' revisited" This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From Waistline2 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 14:51:38 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:51:38 EST Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) Message-ID: In a message dated 1/5/2009 2:28:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes: From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary organization long ago, ^^^ CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. Comment I seriously doubt if the CPUSA was ever revolutionary, although I have no reason to doubt its commitment to some kind of communism. This equally applies to all the so-called Marxist organizations and "ML's" in America. The groups I was a member of, the Communist Labor Party was not revolutionary, nor was it possible for it to be so. I will go as far as saying that none of the so-called "revolutionary communists-Marxists organizations" were revolutionary except in words and ideology. To be revolutionary in deeds requires the existence of a revolutionary environment. The last period of revolutionary environment in America was the period before and right after the American Civil War. Our working class was not only birthed tied to capital, but also tied to the bourgeoisie politically. We had to operate as communists under conditions where political separation from the bourgeoisie was impossible. This is not to gloss over periods of slavish clinging and whoring to the bourgeoisie. Right wing communism has always dominated American communism and Marxist (groups). But this is a historical thing that could not be overcome on the basis of thinking. Our working class has been tied to capital more fiercely than Prometheus to the rock. Yet, if we did not fight along side the workers in their struggle for reform, a fight generally led by the syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist within and outside the "Communists Parties," then what could we do? Sit on our hands? Former general secretary William Z. Foster was amongst the great working class leaders in our history but he was a syndicalist won over to Marxism and the 3rd International, and he would never shed his syndicalism. It gets more bizarre because during the period of the 1930's and 40's, the workers in heavy industry - steel, auto, rubber, were in motion striving to win the industrial union form of organization. This was not a revolutionary movement or current but a reform movement. And this industrial union surge was on behalf of the better paid workers. After WW II, a period of massive bribery emerged in America and the workers themselves, and industrial union neither had the stomach or mind to help their unorganized brothers and sisters or anyone else. The official slogan of the unionized workers was put forth by that bastard Walter Reuther, "Do not destroy the goose that lays the golden egg." No one could be revolutionary under such conditions. During the hay day of the Civil Rights movement the blacks were fighting for inclusion into the system and the opportunity to feast on golden eggs, unfettered by Jim Crow segregation. I was there and such was the thinking driving the movement. This reform movement at least gave us ideological warriors the opportunity to win individuals over to our vision of communism, which in that period harkened on a vision of an "integrated" industrial monstrosity. It is the sense of our vision or the vision of the communists during this period, that expose us as ideological industrial warriors, prostituting ourselves before the God of industry while trying to fight him. The environmentalist ideologues later kicked our asses good and forced us to modify our vision. The literature of the American communist movement between 1930 - 1980 is virtually absent of an inkling of consciousness of the earth as a metabolic process that is worth fighting and dying for. There is no need to gloss over our history and pretend we are not who we have been. We have lived on the high end of the hog. A new period in our history has opened and we will repeat the exact same mistakes if we are not brutally honest with ourselves and who we have been. Although, I voted for Obama because I wanted to be a living part of electing the first black president and because millions of working people were in motion for the first time in sixty years (outside the blacks) but there is no political basis for supporting or blocking with the Democratic Party. I will tell my children's children that I was a part of that moment and then things got really bad. :-) The CPUSA was not and is not revolutionary and neither are any of the other organizations except in their writings and ideological professions. But then again, we are bounded by the activity of the workers themselves. I hold several former leading members and writers in the CPUSA in the highest of regard, like Claudia Jones (who was deported by the government) and the militant fighting syndicalist. However, the CPUSA has always exhibited a right wing communists ideology. The most bribed workers are always more conscious of their social station in life and fought to preserve their privilege positions. Yes, we did. But revolutionary? One can only be revolutionary in a period of revolution. "But people go from bad to good In the blink of an eye. If they can go from bad to good, Then so can I. It's a matter of time. recording artist Kem. Waistline ^^^ has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide ^^^ CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error of the type , with modifications for some historical and national differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost completely fresh today. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 15:08:42 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:08:42 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Good look at "...a true friend of Israel." In-Reply-To: <496237AB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <8fe1d4750901051317wcc97548s89b7bcb1841c6f70@mail.gmail.com> <496237AB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <496284EA.8060609@gmail.com> Peoples Weakly? ROTFLM MF AO! "As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency." SNIP "Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people." How many Presidents have we heard this from over the last 20 years ? What "quest for Peace" with its neighbours? Every dog and pony show organized by successive occupants of the Whitehouse has been only to give the appearance of progress and has always proposed an impossible choice for the Palestinians in which they would be the ones to give and the Israelis would be the ones to take. Camp David Redux. He goes on to recount a visit to Israel on which he took a joyride on an IDF helicopter, paid for by U.S. taxpayer "aid" he consistently voted for.. "I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children." There was no visit to the very unbeautiful, poverty ridden lunar landscape that is Gaza. There was no mention of the thousands of Palestinian families who had lost sons, daughters, mothers and fathers to F-16's, Apache attack helicopters, Merkava tanks, white phosphorous bombs, nerve gas and M-16 bullets all delivered through his complicity and his commitment to Israel's "security". There was no mention of the thousands of Palestinian homes bulldozed to rubble, the thousands of families these criminal acts made homeless. " This is the 'Libertarian' position at Eyes Wide Open. http://www.nolanchart.com/article5749.html There are links on page, including America's (and apparently Charles Brown's) new 'great WHITE hope' Obama's speech to AIPAC. It's no small wonder that President Elect Barack Obama is keeping silent on the current round of wanton slaughter and destruction in Palestine. After all He had already made his position crystal clear when he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, otherwise known as "The Israeli Lobby", on June 4th of last year. There had been doubts amongst a portion of Jewish voters as to his fealty to Israel but in his opening statement he put those fears to rest. "I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever." The speech, reportedly written by James Steinberg, his newly nominated deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security advisor under Bill Clinton, was the Nadir of Obama's semblance of integrity. His sycophantic, one sided admiration for Israel was as intense as his vilification of anyone who dared to criticize its policies. His choice of words to express the unity between the U.S. and Israel was probably more revealing that he would have liked. "Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security." If by "shared values" he means that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been one of pillage, murder and chaos, then he would be right. If by "shared interests" he means the theft of Arab land, he would also be correct. The same foreign policy pursued by the Bush-Cheney gang, against which he had been railing during his campaign, is acceptable when it comes to protecting a nuclear armed apartheid regime such as Israel. The obligatory nod to a negotiated Peace was briefly addressed in terms that would not have anyone shifting in their seats... "As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency." SNIP "Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people." How many Presidents have we heard this from over the last 20 years ? What "quest for Peace" with its neighbours? Every dog and pony show organized by successive occupants of the Whitehouse has been only to give the appearance of progress and has always proposed an impossible choice for the Palestinians in which they would be the ones to give and the Israelis would be the ones to take. Camp David Redux. He goes on to recount a visit to Israel on which he took a joyride on an IDF helicopter, paid for by U.S. taxpayer "aid" he consistently voted for.. "I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children." There was no visit to the very unbeautiful, poverty ridden lunar landscape that is Gaza. There was no mention of the thousands of Palestinian families who had lost sons, daughters, mothers and fathers to F-16's, Apache attack helicopters, Merkava tanks, white phosphorous bombs, nerve gas and M-16 bullets all delivered through his complicity and his commitment to Israel's "security". There was no mention of the thousands of Palestinian homes bulldozed to rubble, the thousands of families these criminal acts made homeless. There needs to be recognition of the real suffering on both sides of the equation. Israeli families are suffering as a consequence of the actions of their own government and those of the U.S. which have given rise to the actions of a desperate Palestinian people who have been driven to the end of hopelessness and despair. An increasing number of Israeli citizens are beginning to realise this and opposition to the occupation and the enslavement is growing. There are increasing numbers of these same Israeli troops that Obama talked to that are refusing to take part in the destruction of an entire people. "Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis." Ah, "security" again. Does Obama not realize that these same "settlements" represent an abrogation of International Law? Does "security" outweigh this same framework of International Law to which his own country and Israel are signatories? Is he going to continue to add to the very long list of U.S. vetoed resolutions against Israel? The only U.N. resolution that he wants to see enforced is 1701 under which the "security council calls for an end to hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel", never mind that Israel instigated this massacre to try and bring Hizbollah to heel only to have to drag their sorry behinds back home. The precipitating event was"by way of deception", the motto of Mossad, and was quickly sanitized from any media reporting. Obama will continue the vilification of and bellicosity towards Iran and Syria which he insists pose a grave danger to a country that possesses hundreds of Nuclear weapons. The following quotes illustrate the continuity we can expect with regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East. "The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat." No matter that the "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no trace of nuclear material in Syria's Al-Kibar so far, but it would continue sampling in this area to analyze, said Mohammed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, in Vienna Monday" Source. The IAEA has not come back to date with any confirmation. "There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran." SNIP "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." It does not seem to register with Obama that the original translation from Farsi to English had been later corrected to "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world". The original New York Times translation was disingenuous at the very least. With regard to Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, the IAEA has yet to find a single scrap of evidence to support this claim. They didn't come up with any proof with regard to Iraq either but that didn't stop the invasion as the U.S. and it's allies demanded Saddam Hussein prove a negative. His upcoming ultimatum to Iran to either stop it's unproven nuclear weapons program or face the consequences fails to take in to account the strong military and trade agreements between Iran, China and Russia. Would the future President be willing to drop American boots into China and Russia's backyard? Would this increase "the peace and stability of the region"? Russian President Vladimir Putin has already laid the ground rules for this scenario. Source Despite his current silence, the echoes of his betrayal of the Palestinian people are there for everyone to hear. From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Mon Jan 5 15:16:05 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:16:05 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9517C1E3E23D4478844C06A9EA408B0A@PrisonLegalNews.local> What I find interesting is that in the 20th century, the USA, England, Canada and Australia seem to be unique (with the possible exceptions as well of Switzerland and Belgium) f being among the few countries where the left never mounted, or attempted to mount, a credible bid for state power. In the case of the US, it is even more striking in that the US has never even had a national opposition party unless one counts the IWW. At its peak the CPUSA only had 100,000 members and again, never sought state power nor organized to that end, only for some reforms and social justice issues which was good (i.e., end to Jim Crow) but hardly the same as seizing state power. to claim the CPUSA was rendered politically impotent by McCarthy would be to ignore political failures on their part and a revolutionary organization surely anticipates repression. It is not as if efforts were not made to render the Chinese CP or Bolsheviks impotent. The level of repression leveled during the 1950s against the CPUSA was also hardly of the type used against say communists in Argentina, Indonesia, etc. When we say the PKI was smashed they had 500,000 dead. What did the CPUSA have? Two dead, a dozen members in prison and a few hundred black listed for a while? As these things go that is pretty insignificant. Even more interesting is that today nary a group or grouplet among the US left even aspires to seizing state power much less has a plan for doing so. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Waistline2 at aol.com Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:52 PM To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) In a message dated 1/5/2009 2:28:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes: From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary organization long ago, ^^^ CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. Comment I seriously doubt if the CPUSA was ever revolutionary, although I have no reason to doubt its commitment to some kind of communism. This equally applies to all the so-called Marxist organizations and "ML's" in America. The groups I was a member of, the Communist Labor Party was not revolutionary, nor was it possible for it to be so. I will go as far as saying that none of the so-called "revolutionary communists-Marxists organizations" were revolutionary except in words and ideology. To be revolutionary in deeds requires the existence of a revolutionary environment. The last period of revolutionary environment in America was the period before and right after the American Civil War. Our working class was not only birthed tied to capital, but also tied to the bourgeoisie politically. We had to operate as communists under conditions where political separation from the bourgeoisie was impossible. This is not to gloss over periods of slavish clinging and whoring to the bourgeoisie. Right wing communism has always dominated American communism and Marxist (groups). But this is a historical thing that could not be overcome on the basis of thinking. Our working class has been tied to capital more fiercely than Prometheus to the rock. Yet, if we did not fight along side the workers in their struggle for reform, a fight generally led by the syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist within and outside the "Communists Parties," then what could we do? Sit on our hands? Former general secretary William Z. Foster was amongst the great working class leaders in our history but he was a syndicalist won over to Marxism and the 3rd International, and he would never shed his syndicalism. It gets more bizarre because during the period of the 1930's and 40's, the workers in heavy industry - steel, auto, rubber, were in motion striving to win the industrial union form of organization. This was not a revolutionary movement or current but a reform movement. And this industrial union surge was on behalf of the better paid workers. After WW II, a period of massive bribery emerged in America and the workers themselves, and industrial union neither had the stomach or mind to help their unorganized brothers and sisters or anyone else. The official slogan of the unionized workers was put forth by that bastard Walter Reuther, "Do not destroy the goose that lays the golden egg." No one could be revolutionary under such conditions. During the hay day of the Civil Rights movement the blacks were fighting for inclusion into the system and the opportunity to feast on golden eggs, unfettered by Jim Crow segregation. I was there and such was the thinking driving the movement. This reform movement at least gave us ideological warriors the opportunity to win individuals over to our vision of communism, which in that period harkened on a vision of an "integrated" industrial monstrosity. It is the sense of our vision or the vision of the communists during this period, that expose us as ideological industrial warriors, prostituting ourselves before the God of industry while trying to fight him. The environmentalist ideologues later kicked our asses good and forced us to modify our vision. The literature of the American communist movement between 1930 - 1980 is virtually absent of an inkling of consciousness of the earth as a metabolic process that is worth fighting and dying for. There is no need to gloss over our history and pretend we are not who we have been. We have lived on the high end of the hog. A new period in our history has opened and we will repeat the exact same mistakes if we are not brutally honest with ourselves and who we have been. Although, I voted for Obama because I wanted to be a living part of electing the first black president and because millions of working people were in motion for the first time in sixty years (outside the blacks) but there is no political basis for supporting or blocking with the Democratic Party. I will tell my children's children that I was a part of that moment and then things got really bad. :-) The CPUSA was not and is not revolutionary and neither are any of the other organizations except in their writings and ideological professions. But then again, we are bounded by the activity of the workers themselves. I hold several former leading members and writers in the CPUSA in the highest of regard, like Claudia Jones (who was deported by the government) and the militant fighting syndicalist. However, the CPUSA has always exhibited a right wing communists ideology. The most bribed workers are always more conscious of their social station in life and fought to preserve their privilege positions. Yes, we did. But revolutionary? One can only be revolutionary in a period of revolution. "But people go from bad to good In the blink of an eye. If they can go from bad to good, Then so can I. It's a matter of time. recording artist Kem. Waistline ^^^ has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide ^^^ CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error of the type , with modifications for some historical and national differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost completely fresh today. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Mon Jan 5 15:13:27 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:13:27 -0500 Subject: [A-List] More spectre of "socialism" from the right Message-ID: <49623FB6.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Speaking of... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/ Tuesday, December 30, 2008 EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts Ralph Z. Hallow ( Contact ) *EXCLUSIVE:* Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration. Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers. "We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it. "The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed. If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers. The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly. In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead. This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion. "We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision." North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do. "It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it." "If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment. White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy." Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store. Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach. "We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said. The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility." The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill. The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president. The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee. The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that. "For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing." "It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?" Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year." The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine. "In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said. But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials. *Jon Ward contributed to this report.* This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From Waistline2 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 15:57:04 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:57:04 EST Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests over pay and layoffs Message-ID: In a message dated 1/5/2009 2:28:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us writes: > has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide< ^^^ CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error of the type , with modifications for some historical and national differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost completely fresh today. Comment Blocking with the bourgeoisie and its political parties is only revolutionary during a moment in history where the Monarchy is being overthrown or under conditions of a historically specific class alignment. In the case of Russia it was the Czar. In America, blocking with the bourgeois parties, ("going along" with the DP in the US) or entering into alliance with them, is in all instances decidedly non-revolutionary. Period. What Lenin wrote should never blind us to a concrete analysis of our own country. Doing work in the electoral arena - as communists, Marxists, environmentalist, etc. is totally different work and a different concept than blocking with the Democratic Party. The criticism by many is over our inability to break with our own bourgeoisie and it is a correct and proper criticism, which demands that one explain - not justify, their actions. Lenin cannot justify our actions or explain our behavior. The Democratic Party is the enemy of the workers. Did the CPUSA publicly and officially endorse Obama? Most of my old comrades (in organizations) refused to endorse anyone in the Presidential campaign and after the election celebrated the workers crossing a historical boundary and voting for a black to lead America as president. The question is hardly ever "who is wrong" but "what is wrong." The working class or rather that section of voting America, which is not the majority of the workers in our country, have yet to learn about the class nature of the bourgeois parties. The non-voting majority of the workers, do not see the class connection between individuals and parties but simply see no relevance in voting. And those who do not vote or advocate taking part in the national presidential election are not "ultra-leftist." A large section of our workers are reactionary and right wing in their ideology. To simply quote Lenin and not at least try and explain our economic and political landscape is a refusal to think or try to be creative in ones vision. For instance some comrades might be assigned to work not simply in the electoral arena but within the realm of Democratic Party organization and activity. Why? Because many workers who vote are within this realm, especially in small towns where independent activity is impossible. There are decent workers who vote Republican, although from the perspective of the Republican Party's electoral base, these are amongst the most reactionary workers in the country. Bottom line. The Democratic Party is the enemy of the workers and this lesson has yet to be understood by our workers. Until we can field a Labor candidate on the national level - as president, refusing to take part in a national presidential election is not a "political error." Those taking part in the national Presidential election are not necessarily wrong or in error. However to advocate a political block with the Democratic Party, under an anti-monopoly ideology, is a political and ideological error for a communist and communist organization. Lenin's approach would have been to extend his party in all sectors of activity. Waistline **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 15:58:40 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:58:40 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Updating map of the invasion of Gaza Message-ID: <496290A0.30604@gmail.com> An updating interactive SWF (Flash) map, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-israel-map-0901.swf Gleaned from this article: JANUARY 5, 2009 Israel's Ground Assault Marks Shift in Strategy As Forces Move Deeper Into Gaza, Leaders Seek to Avoid the Mistakes Made in Ambitious 2006 Invasion of Lebanon http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123106067991451749.html H/t: http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-so-quiet-along-blue-line.html From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:47:25 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:47:25 -0300 Subject: [A-List] [Spanish] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution Message-ID: <4962AA1D.6090806@gmail.com> {Sorry if I can?t translate. Those who can read Spanish will, certainly, enjoy this short essay on the 50 years of the Cuban Revolution. IMHO, this is a masterpiece of political thinking.] El dilema hist?rico de la Revoluci?n Cubana Por Enrique Lacolla /Desgarrada entre la magnitud de su ambici?n liberadora y la exig?idad de su base geogr?fica, la revoluci?n cubana subsiste como precedente de una ola popular latinoamericana que se apronta a tomar su relevo y que deber?a elevarse a instancias superiores de realismo pol?tico y potencia econ?mica./ El primero de Enero la revoluci?n cubana cumpli? medio siglo de existencia. No es poca cosa, en especial si se toma en cuenta que se ha encontrado bajo asedio desde su nacimiento, y nada menos que por la hiperpotencia del Norte. Es de destacar tambi?n que pocas son las revoluciones ?si es que hay alguna- que hayan conseguido mantener una t?nica radical a la vez que realista durante tanto tiempo. Desde luego que ha habido un anquilosamiento parcial, una burocratizaci?n creciente y que la fortuna del movimiento 26 de Julio sigue estrechamente asociada a la vida de sus fundadores supervivientes; pero existe la posibilidad que el ejemplo de su integridad y el prolongado trabajo de educaci?n que la revoluci?n realiz? sobre el cuerpo de la sociedad cubana, preserve lo esencial de ese esp?ritu cuando el tiempo se tome revancha y las figuras de Fidel y Ra?l Castro desaparezcan. La revoluci?n cubana es un hito en la historia de Am?rica latina. Como se lo ha se?alado en otras ocasiones, naci? de un equ?voco: la presunci?n norteamericana de que los j?venes universitarios que se hab?an subido a la Sierra Maestra eran buenos dem?cratas en la acepci?n formal del t?rmino, y que resultaban por lo tanto asimilables a los reto?os de la peque?a burgues?a siempre dispuesta a oponerse a los reg?menes corruptos, pero presta a asimilarse a las prebendas que da el poder una vez que se lo alcanza. El autoenga?o fue mutuo. Los revolucionarios del Granma cre?an en los valores del democratismo radical y en su posibilidad de cambiar el mundo a partir de ellos. Si no hubiera sido as?, Estados Unidos se hubiera ocupado de apretarles el gaznate, en vez de dejarlos hacer y permitir incluso que desde Florida y Centroam?rica se los abasteciera con armas que servir?an, en opini?n de Washington, para derrocar a un dictador al que su corrupci?n hab?a convertido en un socio inc?modo. El reemplazo de Batista por un grupo de j?venes radicales pod?a ser, en el sentir del Departamento de Estado y tambi?n de la CIA, una peripecia manejable, como lo fuera en otras ocasiones. Pero, al rev?s de lo que suele ocurrir cuando ?los j?venes se suben a un caballo desde la izquierda y se bajan por la derecha?, aqu? sucedi? lo contrario. La experiencia de la guerra civil y la pr?ctica de la reforma agraria sobre el terreno aviv? la convicci?n de esos j?venes, ya muy arraigada entre ellos, de la necesidad de acudir a un cambio dr?stico para solventar los problemas de la sociedad cubana. Esta convicci?n justiciera se ali? a un nacionalismo exasperado por las continuas vejaciones sufridas en el curso de la historia ?independiente? cubana de parte de Estados Unidos y a la evidencia de que s?lo a trav?s de las expropiaciones de las empresas norteamericanas y de una reforma agraria a fondo se pod?an cumplir los objetivos que se hab?an fijado los dos Castro, el Che Guevara y otros. El choque sobrevino de inmediato. El desencadenamiento de la propaganda adversa a la revoluci?n en todos los medios de Estados Unidos y la fuga ?condicionada por la casi certidumbre de que ese grupo de locos no tardar?a en ser eliminado por el socio norteamericano- de la burgues?a terrateniente y empresarial cubana, fueron el anticipo de una seguidilla de intentos de desestabilizaci?n del r?gimen, entre los cuales la voladura de un barco cargado de armamento para la revoluci?n, y el desembarco en Playa Gir?n fueron los momentos culminantes. A partir de all? se abri? un per?odo de incertidumbres y asedios que condicion? todo el trayecto de la revoluci?n y desnud? su dilema, que es lo que nos proponemos examinar aqu?. La ambici?n de los revolucionarios cubanos era grande. Aunque fundada en el deseo de transformar su propia sociedad, la similitud entre las condiciones de ?sta y las de muchas otras de Am?rica latina, implicaba que su ejemplo pod?a ser contagioso. La conciencia de este hecho en los dirigentes cubanos y muy en especial en la del m?dico argentino Ernesto Guevara, que se hab?a transformado en el segundo jefe militar y en la figura m?s inspiradora de la revoluci?n despu?s de Fidel Castro, abr?an un espectro de posibilidades que galvanizaba a muchos j?venes en Am?rica latina y que, paralelamente, determinaba a Washington a liquidar esa amenaza. La expulsi?n de Cuba de la OEA y el total aislamiento en que los gobiernos latinoamericanos la dejaron en ocasi?n del desembarco en bah?a de Cochinos impon?an a los dirigentes cubanos la b?squeda de una salida. La orientaci?n ideol?gica de los dirigentes revolucionarios y la naturaleza del momento internacional (se viv?a en plena guerra fr?a) hicieron que Cuba se decantara hacia el bloque comunista, lo que traer?a aparejadas consecuencias que marcar?an el decurso de la revoluci?n por d?cadas. Esta evoluci?n, sin embargo, se produjo por etapas y estuvo determinada en principio por la inveterada hostilidad de Washington al nuevo r?gimen. Cuando Cuba procedi? a la expropiaci?n de las empresas norteamericanas y a la implantaci?n de la reforma agraria sin que, a entender de Estados Unidos, se suministrara una adecuada compensaci?n, la decisi?n norteamericana en el sentido de eliminar la cuota azucarera desequilibr? la econom?a de la isla. La Uni?n Sovi?tica acudi? en ayuda del r?gimen revolucionario ofreci?ndose a comprar, a precios ventajosos, la misma cantidad de az?car, retribuy?ndola con petr?leo, elemento del que la isla estaba muy necesitada pues hab?an cesado los aportes de combustible que antes proven?an de Estados Unidos y de Venezuela. La determinaci?n norteamericana en estrangular la revoluci?n, atestiguada por las incursiones desde el mar, el sabotaje de las cosechas, el activismo de grupos guerrilleros infiltrados desde Florida y los intentos de asesinato de Fidel, no dejaba otra opci?n que bascular hacia el bloque del Este. Y, puesto que se lo hac?a, ?por qu? no dar ese paso provey?ndose de un escudo misil?stico que disuadiera a Estados Unidos de cualquier intento de agresi?n? En toda operaci?n de este tipo, que requiere de la asistencia de un socio, el inter?s de ?ste debe ser tomado en cuenta. Sobre todo si el socio posee un peso determinante sobre los asuntos mundiales como el que la URSS ten?a a principios de la d?cada del ?60. La crisis de los cohetes de 1962 se produjo no tanto por el deseo cubano de protegerse de su enemigo del Norte, como por el c?lculo de los estrategas sovi?ticos en el sentido de que, con la instalaci?n de los misiles nucleares en Cuba pod?an lograr la remoci?n de las bases norteamericanas, de similares caracter?sticas, que estaban alojadas en Turqu?a. En esta negociaci?n, jugada en el filo del abismo, la voluntad cubana cont? poco. En definitiva, la partida se cerr? con un trueque, en parte p?blico y en parte secreto. El p?blico fue que la URSS retir? sus bases en Cuba a cambio de la renuncia norteamericana a invadir la isla; y el secreto fue el quid pro quo que determin? que, a la vuelta de seis meses m?s o menos, los norteamericanos desmantelaran sus bases en Turqu?a. *Realpolitik y revoluci?n Los dirigentes cubanos no estaban muy felices de tener que acomodarse a las exigencias de la realpolitik. La dirigencia cubana estaba dividida respecto de la t?nica que hab?a tomado la relaci?n con la Uni?n Sovi?tica. Quiz? no en el terreno pr?ctico, pues todos entend?an que no exist?a otra opci?n que consintiera la supervivencia del fen?meno revolucionario que su adhesi?n al bloque socialista, pero hab?a quienes se adecuaban m?s o menos inc?modamente a la situaci?n y otros que deseaban experimentar otras salidas. A estar por los testimonios que se han filtrado, el car?cter fosilizado, burocr?tico y mezquino del r?gimen sovi?tico era rechazado en especial por el Che, quien propugnaba la b?squeda de opciones que garantizasen la pervivencia de la premisa en la cual se hab?a inspirado la revoluci?n: esto es, que el movimiento irradiara hacia el conjunto del continente irredento de Am?rica latina, para generar en ?l un cambio profundo, similar al operado en Cuba. ?Que los Andes sean la Sierra Maestra de Am?rica latina? era el precepto ?enunciado por Fidel Castro en primer t?rmino- de esta corriente. Durante la d?cada de los sesenta y parte de los a?os setenta se intent? poner en pr?ctica este principio. La conciencia de la historia es indispensable a la acci?n pol?tica, cuando esta se encuentra inspirada en algo m?s que en el oportunismo y el af?n cremat?stico. Representarse con claridad lo ocurri? en esos a?os es, por lo tanto, un elemento esencial para evaluar las posibilidades de liberaci?n y los niveles en los que debe acomodarse un accionar transformador en Am?rica latina. Manteniendo en todo caso que, aunque Iberoam?rica es un mismo cuerpo, tiene realidades que ofrecen opciones no necesariamente id?nticas en todo momento. ?La revoluci?n no puede imponerse a punta de bayoneta? dec?a Robespierre, y sab?a bien de lo que hablaba. Desde un principio la revoluci?n cubana afront? un problema esencial: la contradicci?n que se establec?a entre la ambici?n ?o, si se quiere, la esperanza- de quienes la animaban, y la exig?idad del territorio donde se asentaba. Un territorio amenazado, aislado, sujeto al hostigamiento implacable del coloso del Norte. Una isla como Cuba, con escasos recursos, agr?colas en su mayor parte, y con una poblaci?n peque?a, ten?a poca esperanza de expandir su movimiento al resto del continente, enajenado como estaba por el fantasma de la guerra fr?a y por preponderancia de los sectores econ?micos enfeudados al imperialismo. Este dilema no pod?a ser solucionado a trav?s de la alianza con la Uni?n Sovi?tica, que propend?a justamente a mantener todos los movimientos antiimperialistas dentro de una ?rbita que no interfiriese los intereses de la pol?tica exterior rusa. Esa alianza, sin embargo, era indispensable si se quer?a que el r?gimen se encontrara relativamente al reparo de la amenaza norteamericana y contara con los recursos energ?ticos e industriales necesarios para desarrollar en su propio suelo una experiencia de rescate y superaci?n sociales como la que efectivamente ha tenido lugar a lo largo de estas cinco d?cadas, tanto en el campo de la salud como en el de la educaci?n. La necesidad de encontrar las formas de superar este dilema condicion? la experiencia cubana. Tanto Fidel Castro como el Che Guevara nutr?an la esperanza de una revoluci?n iberoamericana que rescatar?a a Cuba de su aislamiento, de la misma manera en que Lenin, Trotsky y los bolcheviques esperaban que Rusia fuera rescatada de su atraso a trav?s de la expansi?n de la revoluci?n de Octubre a Alemania primero, y a los otros pa?ses de Europa despu?s. Ambas expectativas no se cumplieron, aunque hay que convenir que, en el caso cubano, a un costo mucho menor, tanto por las dimensiones del escenario donde la experiencia se llev? a cabo, como por una moderaci?n inducida por la naturaleza en ?ltima instancia abierta de estas sociedades, cuya elasticidad y tumulto han servido para preservarlas en buena medida de la sombr?a ejecutoria de los procesos revolucionarios verificados en potencias informadas por un pasado de opresi?n feudal o bien totalitaria. Como quiera que sea, la comprensi?n de los l?deres del proceso cubano de la necesidad de escapar al encerramiento insular haciendo contacto con la tierra firme del continente, dio prueba de su intrepidez revolucionaria, as? como de su comprensi?n de su propia revoluci?n como parte constitutiva de la revoluci?n iberoamericana. Esta inteligencia estrat?gica, sin embargo, no encontr?, en los a?os de auge del proceso revolucionario, una correspondencia t?ctica que permitiese aplicar en el terreno de los hechos esa creencia. El Che fue el exponente m?s definido tanto de esa comprensi?n estrat?gica como de ese fracaso t?ctico. Este ?ltimo marc?, a un elevado coste, un l?mite al per?odo heroico de esa experiencia. La b?squeda de una salida al encierro que significaban el bloqueo norteamericano y el abrazo de oso de la URSS, llev? a la elucubraci?n de la __teor?a del foco__, con la que los dirigentes cubanos entendieron que pod?an llevar adelante su proyecto. Un escritor franc?s, Regis Debray, que se aproxim? a la isla muy en el talante del intelectual progresista que se compromete en causas ajenas porque no est? muy seguro de tener una propia, fue el encargado de difundir el proyecto. ?ste, sin embargo, nac?a no tanto de la mente de un progresista decidido a encontrar la imagen del ?buen revolucionario? en alg?n lugar para ?l ex?tico, sino de las necesidades objetivas de la experiencia cubana. El problema consist?a en que esas necesidades requer?an, m?s que del voluntarismo que impregnaba a sus dirigentes a partir del ?xito alcanzado en Sierra Maestra -?xito que, como hemos dicho, era en buena medida el resultado de un equ?voco monumental-, sino de pol?ticas capaces de penetrar en las capas medias y bajas de nuestras sociedades atendiendo a sus peculiaridades y a la experiencia proveniente del pasado. No se puede fabricar a una revoluci?n a partir de una f?rmula universal, no se puede reducir ?sta a un militarismo que, por su misma naturaleza, tiende a rechazar o a enfriar a los sectores populares, que perciben la inadecuaci?n de ese m?todo en sus propios pa?ses, si en estos ha florecido el capitalismo industrial, por deformado que su crecimiento haya sido. El cambio por la v?a b?lica s?lo es posible ?y no siempre- en el marco de una sociedad en descomposici?n, que requiera __org?nicamente__ ese tipo de renovaci?n quir?rgica. *La aventura Animado sobre todo por el Che, el experimento se puso en pr?ctica, sin embargo. Consist?a, en teor?a, en instalar un n?cleo guerrillero en alg?n lugar de dif?cil acceso para el ej?rcito regular y, a partir de all?, ir concitando la adhesi?n de la poblaci?n rural hambreada y humillada, sometida al pongaje y a los abusos de los terratenientes. El movimiento no pudo engranar en ning?n lado, fuera de Colombia, donde ya exist?a una guerrilla campesina de poderoso arraigo. Los resultados de la implementaci?n pr?ctica de esta teor?a fueron catastr?ficos. El Che Guevara, que condujo la primera tentativa de crear un foco insurreccional en Bolivia, cay? al poco tiempo abatido por los Rangers bolivianos, con asesor?a de la CIA; el cura Camilo Torres Restrepo, pionero de la teolog?a de la liberaci?n, muri? en Colombia en circunstancias similares y los restantes intentos de fomentar una guerrilla rural fueron reprimidos unos despu?s de otros. La elecci?n de Bolivia como primer objetivo por Ernesto Guevara, y la entrega de ?ste en la empresa, dieron prueba de su hero?smo y de su mirada estrat?gica, pero tambi?n de sus limitaciones como te?rico de la revoluci?n latinoamericana. Bolivia, en efecto, es una zona nuclear de la geopol?tica suramericana, pero? ?ven?a de cumplir su reforma agraria! Con todo lo parcial, timorata y tramposa que ?sta pueda haber sido, no hab?an pasado muchos a?os desde que el gobierno del Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario (MNR) la implementara despu?s de la ?pica sublevaci?n de 1952. Los campesinos no estaban en disposici?n al llamado guerrillero, por lo tanto, y a poco de andar el grupo termin? abandonado y acorralado en medio de la selva, hasta que se produjo el tr?gico desenlace. Muerto Guevara no muri? su teor?a y otros j?venes intentaron trasladar sus principios de las ?reas rurales a las urbanas, donde se puede aprovechar el anonimato de la gran ciudad, la mayor capacidad que en ella existe para disimularse y la probabilidad de acceder a fuentes de dinero, sea por v?a de los asaltos, de los secuestros extorsivos o de las donaciones de un n?mero m?s o menos importante de simpatizantes. Pero el resultado fue el mismo, con la diferencia de que el traslado del eje de la acci?n empeor? los costados m?s violentos de esta, haciendo m?s subrepticias y sangrientas tanto las operaciones de la guerrilla como la represi?n brutal que de ella efectuaron unas fuerzas armadas aut?ctonas, no necesariamente desprovistas de nervio, como en cambio suced?a en el caso de las ?guardias nacionales?, consumidas por la corrupci?n, que Estados Unidos hab?a montado en el Caribe. El ultraizquierdismo de esos n?cleos guerrilleros y sus alas pol?ticas, peg? bien en unas juventudes nutridas por el ejemplo del Mayo franc?s, una especie de sublevaci?n de corte an?rquico y l?dico de las juventudes metropolitanas, que al ser transferido a escenarios donde las relaciones sociales eran mucho m?s problem?ticas que en Europa, se desdobl? en un activismo de corte militar. Al intentar estos movimientos enancarse al ascenso popular que se estaba dando por esos a?os en varios pa?ses suramericanos (Argentina y Chile entre ellos), terminaron minando desde dentro a esas corrientes, al propiciar su divisi?n y suministrar a la reacci?n el pretexto que necesitaba para poner en pr?ctica un proyecto represivo que contaba con el aval del imperialismo y con una superioridad militar abrumadora, no contrabalanceada por un cuestionamiento social que abarcase a capas importantes de la poblaci?n. ?sta m?s bien tendi? a contemplar con indiferencia, pasmo o rechazo al accionar subversivo, abriendo paso as? a las t?cnicas demoledoras de la guerra sucia, necesarias para romper la ya bastante exigua capacidad de resistencia de estos pa?ses a la implantaci?n del capitalismo salvaje, atributo primario de la globalizaci?n neoliberal. La matanza fue generalizada e hicieron falta dos generaciones para que Am?rica latina empezase a intentar librarse de la morsa neoliberal. Hoy la etapa por la que se est? pasando registra diferencias notables respecto de las que primaban en los a?os ?60 y ?70, cuando el intento revolucionario patrocinado por Cuba se aventur? a buscar la Utop?a. El mundo bipolar se ha hundido y, para asombro de muchos, la implosi?n de la URSS no signific? el final de la revoluci?n cubana. M?s bien al contrario: tras el ?per?odo especial? de transici?n a las nuevas circunstancias, el r?gimen de Castro parece haberse reafirmado y, lo que es aun m?s importante, su mensaje parece haber calado profundamente en las masas latinoamericanas. El reclamo de igualdad social y la exigencia de soberan?a preexist?an a la revoluci?n cubana, desde luego, pero la formulaci?n original que le dio esta y el denuedo de sus jefes al ponerlos en pr?ctica son datos que no han ca?do en el vac?o. El escenario actual es complejo, el futuro esconde tantas oportunidades como emboscadas y no ser? Cuba la que ejerza ?ni pretenda ejercer- un rol dirigente en la marcha de los acontecimientos, pero la isla ya no est? sola: ha ingresado al grupo de R?o y de alguna manera es reconocida como precursora por varios gobiernos iberoamericanos. Su esp?ritu, despu?s de tantas batallas, ha escapado de la c?rcel insular y ha tocado la Tierra Firme. (www.enriquelacolla.com) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 17:37:19 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:37:19 -0800 Subject: [A-List] [Spanish] The historic dilemma of the Cuban Revolution In-Reply-To: <4962AA1D.6090806@gmail.com> References: <4962AA1D.6090806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4962A7BF.9040303@gmail.com> A reasonable translation by google: http://74.125.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http://www.enriquelacolla.com/sitio/nota.php%3Fid%3D83&usg=ALkJrhgc0jt0BVPblwAw-4XbzzYe_LCZfA (I'd copy/paste but it pastes in Spanish) Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > {Sorry if I can?t translate. Those who can read Spanish will, > certainly, enjoy this short essay on the 50 years of the Cuban > Revolution. IMHO, this is a masterpiece of political thinking.] > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 18:09:19 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:19 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Norwegian Doctor In Gaza: "Of 2500 wounded, 50% are women and children" Message-ID: <4962AF3F.8000407@gmail.com> Juan Cole: Monday, January 05, 2009 > ?It?s Hell in Here? > ?They are Bombing 1.5 million People in a Cage? > > CBS News broadcasts an interview with a Norwegian physician on the > scene in Gaza. [Video] > He says he has seen one military casualty come into the hospital. Of > 2500 wounded, 50% are women and children. Doing surgery around the > clock. There are injuries you do not want to see? children coming in > with open abdomens, with injured legs, we had to amputate both of > them. This is a war on the civilian population of Gaza. It is a very > young population. They cannot flee. They are fenced in. They are > bombing one and a half million people in a cage. In full: http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/its-hell-in-here-they-are-bombing-15.html From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 18:21:15 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:21:15 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Tragedy in Gaza -- Desperately Seeking Leadership... from Obama Message-ID: <4962B20B.70205@gmail.com> "Unfortunately, Obama is missing in action in this first challenge to his presidency. The Israelis have used his own words to justify their aggression, and Obama has responded with a deafening silence. This does not bode well for the future." Alternet: Tragedy in Gaza -- Desperately Seeking Leadership from Obama By Sunera Thobani, rabble.ca Posted on January 5, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/story/117216/ The new year has begun with Muslims around the world being taught a lesson in the crudity of racial equations: 400 Palestinian lives equal four Israeli lives. Reeling from having learned that over a million Iraqi and Afghan lives equal 3,000 American lives, the logic of this racial mathematics is certainly no new thing. After all, the first U.S. Constitution engaged in just such calculations of human worth, and Katrina demonstrated their ongoing effects. But the lesson has the power to shock every time: the images of Palestinian bodies being pulled out of the rubble in Gaza that flood news reports are unbearable to witness. Surely the lesson cannot be lost on President-elect Barack Obama. That such violence can be waged on so defenseless a population with the support of the Bush administration is unconscionable. That Obama chooses to remain silent is nothing short of cowardice. Why is Israel able to continue its deadly assault on Palestinians in Gaza? Because Western governments (and their Arab quislings) are willing to allow the carnage to carry on into day three, four, five ... After all, these governments enabled the Israeli blockade of Gaza for the last year-and-a-half, they aided and abetted Israel's criminal meting out of collective punishment to the population for daring to vote for Hamas. The mainstream media faithfully reported as true every lie told by the Bush administration about Iraq. Now the media upholds the fiction that Hamas is responsible for the violence waged by the Israelis. Israel probably calculated, and rightly so as has turned out to be the case, that the support it enjoys from these governments could withstand whatever murmurs of regret politicians might be moved to express by anti-Israeli demonstrations in their capitals. The current Israeli attack is being attributed by some commentators to the machinations of Israeli politicians jockeying for power in the upcoming elections in that country. But there is another consideration that is far more important. Of all the Middle Eastern countries, it is Israel that stood to lose the most with the incoming presidency of Obama later this month. Obama promised to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and committed his administration to pursuing diplomatic and political solutions ahead of military ones, not only in Iraq, but also in other conflicts within the region. Iran has been strengthened by the U.S. defeat in Iraq, while Israel was outmaneuvered by Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. The writing has been on the wall for the Israelis. The carte blanche given to that country by past U.S. administrations to destabilize the region and pursue its territorial ambitions could no longer be counted upon. The worldwide enthusiasm for the election of Obama signaled a global desire for change, people around the world are sick of the lies and wars, of the guns and bombs. A return to the rule of law and an end to the Iraq war is what Obama promised, not only to the American electorate, but to the entire world. The election of the first black president was an ecstatic moment for people of color around the world, as it was for those white populations sickened by the racism and violence of American empire-building. People around the world took Obama up on his promise of hope, daring to believe that political change was coming. Whether President-elect Obama will, or can, deliver what he promised is a question people of color passionately debate with eyes wide open. The hope that a black man will stand up to the racial calculations that turn the "native" into a "thing," as Frantz Fanon put it, is palpable among many Muslims. Obama's public comments that he will welcome pressure from movements for social justice won him some time and a measure of credibility. Surely there is no greater cause for social justice than that of the Palestinian people. And Obama is the first U.S. president who seems to understand the nature of the Palestinian crisis prior to his election, as some who know him, including Ali Abunimah, have pointed out. In one fell swoop, the Israelis have destroyed whatever momentum Obama might have mobilized for a peaceful resolution of the blockade of Gaza and the siege that Gazans and Hamas have endured. Israel has pushed Obama into a corner with this attack, intensifying the suffering of the Palestinian people and making it all but inevitable that retribution will follow. A state of war with its neighbors benefits Israel's ambitions in the region, even as it secures support for Zionist lobbies in the Western world. During the U.S. election campaign, Vice President-elect Joe Biden had warned that Obama would be tested early in his presidency. Few expected the challenge to come from a staunch U.S. ally and not from those contesting U.S. power. Obama's silence on the Gaza crisis grows more curious by the day; it has already cost him much political capital. He appears weak and ineffectual even before his inauguration, one more symbol of hope capitulating to the realpolitik of the "special" U.S./Israel relationship. As a community organizer in Chicago, Obama understood the racial calculations that shape the everyday lives of black people in the United States. With a Kenyan father who was a Muslim, Obama surely understands the consequences of such racial calculations at the international level. Palestinians have paid a heavy price for their resistance to Israeli power. As a law professor, Obama most certainly understands the terrible toll of surviving the crimes of an occupying power bent on genocide. Unfortunately, Obama is missing in action in this first challenge to his presidency. The Israelis have used his own words to justify their aggression, and Obama has responded with a deafening silence. This does not bode well for the future. U.S. and Israeli elites have a long history of buying off quislings to further their interests. Obama needs to act quickly to prove he is not one of them. Sunera Thobani teaches women's studies at the University of British Columbia. ? 2009 rabble.ca All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/117216/ From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 18:51:58 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:51:58 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Just another Snowbilly sob story from the far North Message-ID: <4962B93E.7010605@gmail.com> These people give country folk a bad name. Also see: December 29, 2008, 2:30 p.m. Tucson Citizen letters at tucsoncitizen.com Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter's future mother-in-law was arrested for selling OxyContin out of her house. Sherry Johnston's boy will marry Bristol in January. The wedding will take place at Levi's family home, wherever it's parked. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/fromcomments/106297.php ...It's not 'Home' until you take the wheels off kids. PALMER, Alaska, Jan. 5 (UPI) -- The mother of the boyfriend of Alaska first family member Bristol Palin pleaded not guilty to felony drug charges Monday in a Palmer courtroom. Sherry Johnston was indicted Friday on six counts of misconduct involving a controlled substance relating to possession and sale of the prescription painkiller OxyContin. State troopers allege Johnson, 42, admitted to selling OxyContin pills to someone working with investigators. At her first court appearance Monday, Johnston asked for, and received, a public defender, the Anchorage Daily News reported. She told Palmer Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler she is in the midst of a divorce and living on medical disability payments and child support. Johnston is the mother of Levi Johnston, who made headlines in September after Gov. Sarah Palin, the then-Republican vice presidential nominee, announced her teenage daughter Bristol was pregnant and he was the father. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/05/Palin_daughters_boyfriends_mom_pleads/UPI-61701231198501/ From Waistline2 at aol.com Mon Jan 5 19:05:35 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:05:35 EST Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) Message-ID: The Chinese Revolution was a long drawn out process, beginning in 1811 and is compose of much bloodlettings, set backs, retreats and so forth. Years of social chaos , invasions, civil war and economic collapse saw the formation of modern classes and their mutual violent struggle to achieve hegemony over the revolutionary process. The CPC, under the leadership of Mao ( the last individual in Chinese history to inherit the "Mandate of Heaven,") came to power under conditions of the collapse of Japanese imperialism at the hands of American imperialism and the Red Army of the Soviets. None of this environment or the alignment of classes during this period of Chinese history can be said to sound like any development in America in all of our history. I love and admire Chairman Mao as much as the next loyal supporter and have studied all his writings available in English. The Chinese experience and its summation by Chairman Mao is not applicable to American society. The CPC had no choose but to be revolutionary in a very revolutionary environment. British and Japanese imperialist were most brutal and vicious. What the CPC did is important to consider. The Chinese have the oldest continuous culture on earth. Intensely proud and patriotic, they had been humiliated for 150 years. To win the Chinese Communists, rather than behave as narrow minded ideologues, took serious account of this national pride and striving for independence. On this basis they united China. China could not be united on the basis of Marxist or abstract communist ideology. Mao was critical and extremely astute in political matters. Mao put forth the vision of a People's Democracy where the central authority would ensure the well being of the Chinese nation, consistent with their historical culture. When announcing the formation of the Peoples Republic of China, Mao simply stated, "China has Stood Up." The point is that Mao lived and breathed Chinese history and culture and in return the people love him to this day. American history and the history of all historical imperialist centers of powers must be unraveled in the most critical manner. American society is founded on the most vicious murder of the Natives and slavery. Our working class has always blocked with the imperial masters and this remains true to this day. Our communist movement was and to this day remains an appendage of the imperialist class, no matter what one writes or how much one professes their revolutionary credentials. The problem is that very few Marxists will admit this because of the tendency to mistake ideological commitment with reality. The CPUSA was never a revolutionary party; nor the SWP or any of the ideological Marxist groups in America. All these groups without exception were composed of individuals committed to revolutionary change, but if such change is not possible, then the best you can do is conduct a revolutionary struggle for reform. The struggle for reform in America has been the only game in town since the Civil War. How can one fight for state power, if such a fight is not possible? Consequently much effort is put into preserving the "purity" of the Marxist doctrine and educating as many people as possible in the history of the Marxist movement. The idea that the CPUSA and any other groups, have been revolutionary is preposterous. All one has to do is ask, how have your group or any group been revolutionary in American history? Fighting for trade unions is not revolutionary, but a necessary stage in the development of the industrial system. Fighting to overthrow Jim Crow was not revolutionary, but a necessary stage in the development of the America's industrial system. The post WW II expansion of the economic demanded the overthrow of the system of Jim Crow and the masses assumed the same historical class alignment that defeated the Slave Oligarchy in the Civil War. The Chinese did not fight to reform British and Japanese imperialism. They fought to oust the imperialism from their country. The reason no group, and most certainly the CPUSA cannot aspire for state power is because they are tied to the imperialist bourgeoisie by a thousand threads. This included the old communist group I was a member of. What we did not do is advance a program that advocated blocking with our bourgeoisie through its political parties. The clincher is that none of us have figured out or put forth a vision of the form of the revolution in America. When a group or individual put forth a vision of the unfolding American revolution you will know they are serious and so will the workers because the vision will conform with their experience. Comrade CB can simply present the evidence that the CPUSA has been a revolutionary party in the past or in the present. Waistline In a message dated 1/5/2009 5:13:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, pwright at prisonlegalnews.org writes: What I find interesting is that in the 20th century, the USA, England, Canada and Australia seem to be unique (with the possible exceptions as well of Switzerland and Belgium) f being among the few countries where the left never mounted, or attempted to mount, a credible bid for state power. In the case of the US, it is even more striking in that the US has never even had a national opposition party unless one counts the IWW. At its peak the CPUSA only had 100,000 members and again, never sought state power nor organized to that end, only for some reforms and social justice issues which was good (i.e., end to Jim Crow) but hardly the same as seizing state power. to claim the CPUSA was rendered politically impotent by McCarthy would be to ignore political failures on their part and a revolutionary organization surely anticipates repression. It is not as if efforts were not made to render the Chinese CP or Bolsheviks impotent. The level of repression leveled during the 1950s against the CPUSA was also hardly of the type used against say communists in Argentina, Indonesia, etc. When we say the PKI was smashed they had 500,000 dead. What did the CPUSA have? Two dead, a dozen members in prison and a few hundred black listed for a while? As these things go that is pretty insignificant. Even more interesting is that today nary a group or grouplet among the US left even aspires to seizing state power much less has a plan for doing so. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jan 5 19:57:41 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:57:41 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The 1930s Chicago Plan and The American Monetary Act Message-ID: <4962C8A5.2060207@ashisuto.co.jp> by Stephen Zarlenga AMI Monetary Reform Conference, Chicago (October 2005) CP refers to the Chicago Plan, by Nichols EP refers to Economic Policy for a Free Society by Henry Simons Why is monetary reform so critically important? Because the money power has more impact on citizens day to day lives than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. It's really a fourth branch of government - or should be - and leaving it in private hands is dangerous and unacceptable - it negates the balancing of powers principle of our constitution and creates an aristocracy - a plutocracy - the rule by wealth. A privately controlled money system can nullify hard-won reforms in other areas such as the environment, medical care, or peace initiatives because such concentration of wealth and power will eventually overwhelm and be used against the people to unwind whatever other gains we've achieved. Witness the attack on Roosevelt's social security reform. You can't secure real progress, with the private control of society's money system behind your lines. WHAT DOES MONETARY REFORM REALLY MEAN? It means establishing a fair system that doesn't give special privileges to some and disadvantage to others - that doesn't concentrate wealth and power. It means helping the society create values for living well. You received a draft of The American Monetary Act, Version 9. Comments are invited in tomorrow's session and by letter. Your views may help shape this initiative. Specialists will also be asked, and good points will be written into Version 10 which will become public inviting comment. Until then its not for further distribution. If you think someone should see it, please ask me to forward a copy. We're not seeking commitment to this now - we're writing what it would take to legally implement the three-part reform in Chapter 24 of The Lost Science of Money (2002). Its vitally important to be ready with a workable plan - WHEN NOT IF - the next financial meltdown occurs. No one knows when that will be since there's tremendous power in the control over a money system, but warning signs have been there for years. It could be triggered by a couple of bad hurricanes! This American Monetary Act is part of a long reform tradition going back to the Chicago Plan of the Great Depression (and that plan was close to one advanced independently by the great scientist Frederick Soddy in Britain in 1926). Lets start in December 1932. It's been only twenty years since the Federal Reserve was created by Americas banking "elite" (See The Lost Science of Money, Chapter 19). But in those brief twenty years the Fed brought America to its knees: * Farms were wrecked with huge debt and falling land prices; * factories were closed; * exchanges were destroyed; * banks were closing; * the economy collapsed - people couldn't find work and many were hungry. >From 1929 to 1932: * National income dropped 52% * Industrial production fell 47% * Wholesale prices fell 32% * The real value of debt rose 140% * Unemployment rose 329% from 3.5 million to fifteen million people, over a quarter of our workforce was unemployed. All that destruction in less than twenty years! In that horrendous climate many economists were aware that the banking system caused the problem and major changes were needed. One fear of bankers and economists was that all the banks would simply be nationalized, because people were angry. They feared violent revolution might be sparked. In this atmosphere the best economic minds in the country devised a reform plan. Henry Simons from the University of Chicago created the proposal and prominent economists from other universities joined him in what became known as the "Chicago Plan". Economists like Paul Douglas of the Univesity of Chicago; Frank Graham and Charles Whittlesley of Princeton; Irving Fisher of Yale; Earl Hamilton of Duke; and Willford King of New York University, to name a few. One version was sent to all the academic economists - about a thousand total. Of those responding, 235 from 157 universities agreed with the proposal; another forty approved it with reservations and only 45 disapproved. So the plan had broad professional support. Variants of the Chicago Plan usually started by condemning the banking structure as foolish and harmful: "If the purpose of money and credit were to discourage the exchange of goods and services, to destroy periodically the wealth produced, to frustrate and trip those who save, our present monetary system (does that) most effectively!" They dispensed with the gold standard as not a real standard, because the value of gold had changed violently up and down against commodities. >From 1914 to 1917 wholesale prices rose 65% and, then increased another 55% to May 1920, So gold coins lost over 75% of their value against wholesale prices in the Fed's first six years. Then by June 1921 wholesale prices fell 56% against gold. "Hard money" advocates who believe that gold money has been stable should study these facts. One version of the plan quoted Roosevelt's referring to gold as an "old fetish of so-called international bankers". The main features of the Chicago Plan were that: FIRST: Only the government would create money. The Federal Reserve banks would be nationalized, but not the individual member banks. The power to create money was to be removed from private banks by abolishing fractional reserves - the mechanism through which the banking system creates money. So the plan called for 100% reserves on checking accounts which simply meant banks would be warehousing and transferring the money and charging fees for their services. SECOND: The Plan separated the loan-making function, which can belong in private banks, from the money-creation function, which belongs in government. Lending was still to be a private banking function, but lending deposited long-term savings money, not created credits. In this way they'd restrict an unstable practice known as borrowing short and lending long - making long term loans with short term deposits. Some variations proposed this be done through mutual fund-like mechanisms, or by chartering entirely new types of banks. THIRD: The proposal recognized the distinction between money and credit, which had been confused through fractional reserves and what was called the "real bills doctrine". The confusion was seen as one of the causes of the depression, because when businesses reduced their borrowings on commercial bills which occurs during any downturn, parts of the money supply had been automatically liquidated. The Chicago Plan saw the instability of this - that it aggravates a downturn. Simon made this grand observation which still afflicts us today: "The mistake ... lies in fearing money and trusting debt. Money itself is highly amenable to democratic, legislative control, for no community wants a markedly appreciating or depreciating currency ... but money is not easily manageable alongside a mass of private debt and private near-moneys ... or alongside a mountain of public debt". (EP, page 199) Some variations of the plan had the US Government lending banks all or part of newly printed cash needed to achieve 100% reserves. This was a crucial part of the plan, because depositors were going to the banks and withdrawing their accounts, deflating the system. This loaning of reserves feature also elegantly converted all the previously monetized bank credits into real US money on which the banks paid interest to our government. It post facto made them intermediaries, earning some reasonable spread for their loaning work. The best economic minds supported the Chicago Plan: Paul Douglas wrote: "This proposal will of course be opposed by the bankers from whom it takes the lucrative privilege of creating purchasing power. It would however insure the safety of deposits, give large revenues to the government, provide complete social control over monetary matters and prevent abnormal fluctuations in the capital market. At the same time it would permit the allocation of productive resources ... to remain primarily in private hands. All in all it seems the most promising program for the reform of our monetary and credit system ... " (CP, page 141) Frank Graham wrote it was self evident that the right of issuing money belongs in government, and that banks seignorage profits were a kind of tax on the community. "This privilege that the banks enjoy is in no way essential to the lending process". Marinner Eccles who became Fed Chairman under Roosevelt testified that the best course would be for the government to nationalize the Federal Reserve banks. Congressman Jerry Voorhis made the case for 100% reserves and putting money into circulation by paying pensions and disabled persons. As late as 1945 Voorhis introduced legislation for a US Monetary Authority as our sole creator of money. (CP, page 162) James Angell who disagreed with parts of it still wrote that "it would go far toward making economic activity reasonably stable". (CP, page 144) Maurice Allais the great French economist backed the plan and published a book on it in 1948. Irving Fisher of Yale, wrote on it extensively and popularly well into the 1940s. [ John Hotson and COMER advocated it in 1985 (CP, page 174) ] The young Milton Friedman was the best known advocate for the Chicago Plan in the postwar period, writing: "Henry Simons held the view ... which I share - that the creation of fiat currency should be a government monopoly". Friedman testified on this before Congress as late as 1975 and in 1985 wrote: "I have not given up advocacy of one-hundred percent reserves". Friedman thought the transition to 100% reserves would not be difficult - "say 25% a year from now, 50% two years from now, et cetera" (CP pages 173, 181). But turning the Chicago Plan into law proved elusive. When University of Chicago's Chancellor Maynard Hutchins sent a copy of the plan to Senator Bronson Cutting in December 1933, Cutting asked him to draft a bill. Four months later he telegrammed Hutchins asking where it was, and Simons went to present the essentials of the plan to Cutting, who introduced it in the Senate on June 6th 1934 (S. 3744). Wright Patman introduced it in the House (HR9855). The bill required 100% reserves on checking accounts, which it separated from savings accounts which had to keep five percent reserves. It set up a Federal Monetary Authority to control the supply of currency and the buying and selling of government securities. The American Monetary Act, a three part reform to bring our money system under proper public control agrees in its main features with the Chicago Plan {1}: First: It incorporates the Federal Reserve banks into the US Treasury where money will be created by the government as money, not as private interest-bearing debt; and will be spent into circulation to promote the general welfare and monitored to be neither inflationary nor deflationary. Second: It removes the banks' privilege to create purchasing media through the fractional reserve system. Fractional reserves are elegantly ended by the US government initially loaning banks enough money at interest to bring reserves to 100%, converting all the past monetized credit, into US government money. Banks then act as intermediaries accepting deposits and loaning them out to borrowers, what people think they do now. Third: It spends newly created money into circulation on infrastructure, including education and healthcare needed for a growing society, starting with the $1.5 trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers estimate is needed for infrastructure repair; creating good jobs across our nation, re-invigorating local economies and re-funding all levels of government. The false specter of inflation is always raised against such suggestions that our government fulfill its responsibility to furnish the nation's money supply. But that knee jerk reaction is the result of decades, even centuries of propaganda against government. When one actually examines the monetary record, as The Lost Science of Money does, it becomes clear that government has a superior record issuing and controlling money than the bankers have. So both plans envision taking over the Federal Reserve System and regional Federal Reserve banks. Both separate the money creation and money-lending functions, placing the money creation function in government and leaving the lending function in banks. Both set up national monetary authorities to control the money supply. One difference between the plans is their greater awe of the "free market". But the empirical nourishment we've received since they wrote calls for greater care in defining what's meant by "free market" terminology. They strongly supported free markets, but their definition differed from the present conception. For example Henry Simons thought only stiff governmental regulation could create free market conditions: "The presentation of laissez faire as a do nothing policy is misleading ... its an obvious responsibility of the state ... to maintain the legal and institutional framework within which competition can function effectively ... the state (must have) ... heavy responsibilities and large control functions". (EP, pages 42-43) Like the great 19th century reformer Henry George, Simons strongly believed that companies like railroads and utilities should all be government owned: "The state should face the necessity of actually taking over, owning and managing directly both the railroads and the utilities, and all other industries in which it is impossible to maintain effectively competitive conditions". (EP, pages 50-51) Greater attention to defining "free markets" might have avoided their current degeneration into mere forms of kleptocracy falsely promoted under the banner of freedom. Better yet, instead of misusing the term FREE, the word FAIR is what people really have mind. Some groups equated free markets with no governmental regulation - just the opposite of what's needed to have "free markets". Another difference was their preference for an automatic system with little discretion. We are not so worried about that. The American Monetary Act goes beyond the Chicago plan in three important improvements derived from the lessons of history - experience with the Bank of England's nationalization in 1946, and our American experience of the past fifty years: First, the Act proposes that infrastructure expenditures, including education and health and farming parity be used as mechanisms to get newly created money spent into circulation to promote the general welfare. We've observed that the privately controlled money system can't or won't make the necessary infrastructure expenditures. Second the Act introduces considerations of fairness, sustainability, sound environmental practice and social cohesion as values in monetary decision making. In other words moral considerations are explicitly considered. I wish we were the first to do this but Article Two of the treaty protocols establishing the European System of Central Banks and the EURO beat us to it, and it's already operational in the EURO system. The provision is quoted In Chapter 23 of The Lost Science of Money: "To promote throughout the Community a Harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States". (However, it says this is to be done "without prejudice to the objective of price stability", by which they mean less than 2% inflation.) Third the American Monetary Act places more reasonable nationwide legal limits on the charging of interest, with an eight percent cap - about what it was in most state laws until 1980 or 1981. It's obscene that people are being forced to pay 29% a year interest. Friends have told us that economists and bankers will strongly object to that and to other parts of this proposal. But we didn't expect them as allies in this fight - a fight we didn't start, but are involuntary participants in. Remember billionaire speculator Warren Buffet's warning remark "If there is class war in the United States, my class is winning". He was being facetious - Buffet would never describe the purposeful destruction of our most vulnerable fellow citizens and their children, by the most clever, as "winning!" He'd probably join me in calling it cannibalism and agree that indigestion and worse is coming. Finally let's remember that Warren Buffet's role as a speculator is largely negative and not creative. WHY DIDN'T THE CHICAGO PLAN PASS First there was no understanding or support for the proposal among the electorate. Only Irving Fisher seems to have understood the necessity for popularizing the matter. Simons himself got cold feet and shied away from promoting the plan, desiring to remain on a level of professorial discussion. He even threw a wet towel on Fisher who was promoting the reform suggesting that Fisher avoid popularizing the idea! Simon was demanding perfection from his own proposal and was being overly cautious. The proper goal was not perfection, but should have simply been substantial improvement that the Chicago Plan clearly represented. Instead Simons became obsessed with how banks would evade the reforms. Second the Plan was mishandled politically. Cutting appears to have misunderstood his own bill, and incorrectly said in interviews that credit as well as money creation was also to be a sole function of government. Third, the bill suffered a major setback when Senator Cutting died in an airplane crash in May 1935 while being forced to defend his election results in New Mexico by challenges from the Roosevelt Administration which was then held responsible for his death. The last attempt at 100% reserves was when Senator Nye of North Dakota tried to place it in part of the Administration's 1935 banking reform legislation, but his amendment was defeated. The FDR administration had its own banking reform bill and remained ambiguous on the Chicago Plan, never commenting on it even though the political climate and professional support for the plan was sufficient to get it passed, had they made some effort. Instead his Treasury Secretary Morganthau was trying to make minor adjustments without fundamentally challenging the banking system. The brilliant economist Lauchlin Currie had taken up the fight for hundred percent reserves from within the administration. Currie pointed out that economists had not really agreed on the nature of money and focused his attention to defining what is money in our system. But he made two political errors: First he thought he could "sneak" 100% reserves through in the administration's 1935 banking legislation with a provision giving the Fed the power to raise reserves. He thought "we'll just get them raised to 100%". But Senator Carter Glass representing Banker interests easily blocked this by putting in a provision in the conference committee limiting the reserve requirement to double what they were at that time, which was about fifteen percent. Curries other error was to compromise in advance writing: "An advisor in Washington is of limited usefulness unless he acquires some sense of what is feasible and how projects and policies should be presented to have the best chance of being adopted". (CP, page 128) I disagree. Promoting the reform in terms of morality rather than mechanics and economics is the better approach. Perhaps if it had been more clearly stated, in terms of ending that special bankers' privilege rather than solely in terms of technical considerations, there would have been greater public understanding and support. We have to learn from the mistakes these fellows made. Can we learn from what John Maynard Keynes was doing during all this? He was squarely behind the bankers and against such real reform. Yet he knew that he had to break out of orthodox economics or the whole system was in danger of being overturned. Keynesianism was a way to allow banks not government to keep control over the money-creation process, and while the more narrow minded economists fought Roosevelt's attempts to create money and jobs as inflationary, during the nations worst deflation, Keynes knew better. Keynes' approach was direct to the public: The New York Times in December 1933, working with Felix Frankfurter (who wrote a rather poor book called Other People's Money, and later became a Supreme Court Justice), got Keynes to write an open letter to Roosevelt, which they published. Keynes wisely advised Roosevelt that "Only the expenditures of public authority" could turn the tide of depression. Well, that was obvious enough! {2} However, Keynes inappropriately warned Roosevelt not to create the money for this, but only to borrow it, and wrongly advised him that there was already enough money in circulation, and that: "increasing the quantity of money ... is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt". Several times, his letter attempted to influence Roosevelt to drop his program of necessary reforms, and to concentrate on short range actions: " ... even wise and necessary reform may, in some respects impede recovery ... NIRA [National Industrial Recovery Act of June 1933] which is essentially reform and impedes recovery ... " (See The Lost Science of Money, Chapter 20) Keynes was therefore not "revolutionary" except in relation to the utter backwardness of the financial establishment. He didn't come close to a real solution, but essentially protected his class. The real question has always been whether the nation's money should be created under law, by government, or under the private caprice of bankers What were the Austrian economists up to? Frederich Hayek was arguing against national currencies - arguing for in effect an international control over all economies through the gold system, incredibly writing: "There is no rational basis for the separate regulation of the quantity of money in a national area that remains part of a wider economic system"; arguing that independent national currencies cannot insulate a country from foreign shocks; and that fluctuating exchange rates would be bad. Hayek tried to twist hundred percent reserves to covering them 100% with gold. A deflationist. This is the position supporting the creditors and usury and plutocracy; the normal outcome of Austrian Economics. They talk a freedom game, but promote serfdom. Psychologically they remind me of those Middle Ages cults that used to whip their own backs with chains. Always remember, had we followed the ideas of the Austrian School, there would have never been a United States of America. If we follow their ideas now, there will soon not be a United States of America. Unfortunately the present administration has made this seem like a worthy goal to many of the world's oppressed peoples. Roosevelt's 1935 bank legislation, though an improvement over what had existed, wasn't considered the final word in banking reform - additional laws were expected. Over and over we see the better economists calling for an end to fractional reserves - ending the bankers' privilege to create money. Such was the effect of the horrendous experience with banking. Most of the efforts to enact Chicago Plan reforms ended with World War II as the country went onto a war footing. HOW THE AMERICAN MONETARY ACT CAN GET ENACTED INTO LAW >From the experience with the Chicago plan we learn the importance of: First - having an informed body of people among the electorate to promote and intelligently echo such proposals in their own cities, in meetings, with lawmakers and with media. Second - being ready with an intelligently thought out program. Third - staying on message and not shying away from the politics of it. Fourth - not being afraid of not having all the answers. Some of it requires Aristotle's method - we learn by doing - but we learn. Fifth - Not compromising in advance or trying to sneak through important provisions. The great reformer Henry George wrote in the late 1800s that there are many ways to argue the principles of political economy, but his preference was to examine it from a moral viewpoint. This is one reason we are still reading and hearing about Henry George today. This is one of the best ways to proceed today - showing the unfairness - that is the immorality - of granting special privileges within our society. Who is going to dare argue for special treatment in principle? For what justification? There is none. Their position is untenable. Their focus on mechanics and ill-defined, and therefore confusing, concepts can be VIEWED as a diversion. They are happy to argue over those things forever, so long as they are holding the special privilege - the money power - in the meantime. In terms of facts, the under funding of American infrastructure by $1.5 trillion remains an unanswerable indictment of our present money system. It has been unable or unwilling to fulfill this crucial responsibility. It must be cast aside. It is a danger and an insult to our country, and to humanity - even to the planet earth. Back in the thirties there was the thought that the Chicago plan represented an ideal system of control and as such represented a goal for future evolution. Well folks, the AMI is presenting the American Monetary Act as that future evolution. Thank you for your attention. Links: {1} The latest formulation of the The American Monetary Act is viewable at http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf {2} Totten thinks Zarlenga meant Louis D. Brandeis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_People%27s_Money_and_How_the_Bankers_Use_It. _____ American Monetary Institute Dedicated to the independent study of monetary history, theory, and reform Post Office Box 601 Valatie, New York12184 ami at taconic.net http://www.monetary.org Stephen Zarlenga, Director http://www.monetary.org/chicagoplan.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 07:42:50 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:42:50 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> Waistline2 at aol.com wrote: > The problem is that very few Marxists will admit this because of the > tendency to mistake ideological commitment with reality. NOW we're gettin' down to the real nitty gritty... MY question has alway been, in American society, what part of that 'mistake' IS a mistake, and what part is self-involved narcissistic opportunism, as infests the rest of American 'culture'? FWIW, I've noted over the years how everyone wants to pick Herbert Marcuse apart on the basis of his theoretics, but no one can touch his analysis of POLITICS as one of the things needing overthrown. > The Chinese Revolution was a long drawn out process, beginning in 1811 and > is compose of much bloodlettings, set backs, retreats and so forth. Years of > social chaos , invasions, civil war and economic collapse saw the formation of > modern classes and their mutual violent struggle to achieve hegemony over the > revolutionary process. The CPC, under the leadership of Mao ( the last > individual in Chinese history to inherit the "Mandate of Heaven,") came to power > under conditions of the collapse of Japanese imperialism at the hands of > American imperialism and the Red Army of the Soviets. > > None of this environment or the alignment of classes during this period of > Chinese history can be said to sound like any development in America in all of > our history. I love and admire Chairman Mao as much as the next loyal > supporter and have studied all his writings available in English. The Chinese > experience and its summation by Chairman Mao is not applicable to American > society. The CPC had no choose but to be revolutionary in a very revolutionary > environment. British and Japanese imperialist were most brutal and vicious. What > the CPC did is important to consider. > > The Chinese have the oldest continuous culture on earth. Intensely proud and > patriotic, they had been humiliated for 150 years. To win the Chinese > Communists, rather than behave as narrow minded ideologues, > took serious account of this national pride and striving for independence. > On this basis they united China. China could not be united on the basis of > Marxist or abstract communist ideology. Mao was critical and extremely astute in > political matters. Mao put forth the vision of a People's Democracy where > the central authority would ensure the well being of the Chinese nation, > consistent with their historical culture. When announcing the formation of the > Peoples Republic of China, Mao simply stated, "China has Stood Up." The point is > that Mao lived and breathed Chinese history and culture and in return the > people love him to this day. > > American history and the history of all historical imperialist centers of > powers must be unraveled in the most critical manner. American society is > founded on the most vicious murder of the Natives and slavery. Our working class > has always blocked with the imperial masters and this remains true to this > day. Our communist movement was and to this day remains an appendage of the > imperialist class, no matter what one writes or how much one professes their > revolutionary credentials. > > The problem is that very few Marxists will admit this because of the > tendency to mistake ideological commitment with reality. The CPUSA was never a > revolutionary party; nor the SWP or any of the ideological Marxist groups in > America. All these groups without exception were composed of individuals committed > to revolutionary change, but if such change is not possible, then the best > you can do is conduct a revolutionary struggle for reform. The struggle for > reform in America has been the only game in town since the Civil War. How can > one fight for state power, if such a fight is not possible? Consequently much > effort is put into preserving the "purity" of the Marxist doctrine and > educating as many people as possible in the history of the Marxist movement. The > idea that the CPUSA and any other groups, have been revolutionary is > preposterous. > > All one has to do is ask, how have your group or any group been > revolutionary in American history? > > Fighting for trade unions is not revolutionary, but a necessary stage in the > development of the industrial system. > > Fighting to overthrow Jim Crow was not revolutionary, but a necessary stage > in the development of the America's industrial system. The post WW II > expansion of the economic demanded the overthrow of the system of Jim Crow and the > masses assumed the same historical class alignment that defeated the Slave > Oligarchy in the Civil War. The Chinese did not fight to reform British and > Japanese imperialism. They fought to oust the imperialism from their country. > > The reason no group, and most certainly the CPUSA cannot aspire for state > power is because they are tied to the imperialist bourgeoisie by a thousand > threads. This included the old communist group I was a member of. What we did > not do is advance a program that advocated blocking with our bourgeoisie > through its political parties. > > The clincher is that none of us have figured out or put forth a vision of > the form of the revolution in America. When a group or individual put forth a > vision of the unfolding American revolution you will know they are serious and > so will the workers because the vision will conform with their experience. > > Comrade CB can simply present the evidence that the CPUSA has been a > revolutionary party in the past or in the present. > > Waistline > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/5/2009 5:13:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > pwright at prisonlegalnews.org writes: > What I find interesting is that in the 20th century, the USA, England, > Canada and Australia seem to be unique (with the possible exceptions as well > of Switzerland and Belgium) f being among the few countries where the left > never mounted, or attempted to mount, a credible bid for state power. > > In the case of the US, it is even more striking in that the US has never > even had a national opposition party unless one counts the IWW. At its peak > the CPUSA only had 100,000 members and again, never sought state power nor > organized to that end, only for some reforms and social justice issues which > was good (i.e., end to Jim Crow) but hardly the same as seizing state power. > to claim the CPUSA was rendered politically impotent by McCarthy would be to > ignore political failures on their part and a revolutionary organization > surely anticipates repression. It is not as if efforts were not made to > render the Chinese CP or Bolsheviks impotent. The level of repression > leveled during the 1950s against the CPUSA was also hardly of the type used > against say communists in Argentina, Indonesia, etc. When we say the PKI was > smashed they had 500,000 dead. What did the CPUSA have? Two dead, a dozen > members in prison and a few hundred black listed for a while? As these > things go that is pretty insignificant. > > Even more interesting is that today nary a group or grouplet among the US > left even aspires to seizing state power much less has a plan for doing so. > > Paul Wright, Editor > Prison Legal News > P.O. Box 2420 > West Brattleboro, VT 05303 > 802-257-1342 > pwright at prisonlegalnews.org > www.prisonlegalnews.org > > Seattle Office: > 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 > Seattle, WA 98117 > 206-246-1022 > > > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) > > > From chillout at email.it Tue Jan 6 08:23:23 2009 From: chillout at email.it (splatter gore) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:23:23 +0100 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4963776B.8060508@email.it> "...I have long been a fan of James Howard Kunstler, author of ?The Long Emergency.? Up until today, I have recommended it to everyone I know. We have posted a dozen or so of his pieces, with a link to his site. I?m sorry I did, it took a reader to point out to me Kunstler is a racist anti-Semitic whining War Criminal. This is part of what he said, ?Until the last few days of the year, that is. I?m sure the ever-growing cohort of American anti-Semites who send me emails will be tickled when I assert that the Hamas rocket attacks against Israel of recent days guaranteed a sharp response from Israel ? and now, of course, Hamas is playing the crybaby card: ?? what?d we do to deserve this??? Well, you fucking fired a bunch rockets into Israel. Did you ever hear of cause-and-effect?? Well Mr. Kunstler, have you ever heard of cause-and-effect? If the Zionist war criminals running Israel and the American political system stopped stealing land from the original owners, perhaps they would not get rocketed. Read the rest of this entry ? " > -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Innammorarsi ? facile con Meetic, milioni di single si sono iscritti, si sono conosciuti e hanno riscoperto l'amore. Tutto con Meetic, prova anche tu! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8292&d=6-1 From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 10:01:05 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:01:05 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Why Aren't More Americans Dancing to Israel's Tune? Message-ID: We have only one poll to go by, but responses to local protests (measured by the number of cars honking for instance) haven't been poor either. It's possible that the sheer brutality of the latest Israeli attack on Palestinians, as well as the overall costs of US Middle East policy in recent years (driven home by the economic crisis, too), is beginning to cost Israel some American hearts and minds, despite the continuing MSM support for Israel. -- Yoshie Why Aren't More Americans Dancing To Israel's Tune? Max Blumenthal Senior Writer for The Daily Beast Posted January 5, 2009 | 08:17 AM (EST) Almost as soon as the first Israeli missile struck the Gaza Strip, a veteran cheering squad suited up to support the home team. "Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life," Charles Krauthammer claimed in the Washington Post. Echoing Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz called the Israeli attack on Gaza, "Perfectly 'Proportionate.'" And in the New York Times, Israeli historian Benny Morris described his country's airstrikes as "highly efficient." While the cheerleaders testified to the superior moral fiber of their team, the Palestinian civilian death toll mounted. Israeli missiles tore at least fifteen Palestinian police cadets to shreds at a graduation ceremony, blew twelve worshipers to pieces (including six children) while they left evening prayers at a mosque, flattened the elite American International School, killed five sisters while they slept in their beds, and liquidated 9 women and children in order to kill a single Hamas leader. So far, Israeli forces have killed at least 500 Gazans and wounded some two thousand, including hundreds of children. Yesterday, the IDF blanketed parts of Gaza with white phosphorus, a chemical weapon Saddam Hussein once deployed against Kurdish rebels. "It was Israel at its best," Yossi Klein Halevi declared in the New Republic. By New Year's Day, Israel's cheering squad had turned the opinion pages of major American newspapers into their own personal romper room. Of all the editorial contributions published by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times since the Israel's war on Gaza began, to my knowledge only one offered a skeptical view of the assault. But that editorial, by Israeli novelist David Grossman, contained not a single word about the Palestinian casualties of IDF attacks. Even while calling for a cease fire, Grossman promised, "We can always start shooting again." Israeli public relations agents fanned out to broadcast studios from the US to Europe, fulfilling an aggressive strategy conceived after the country's catastrophic 2006 attack on Lebanon. An analysis by Israel's foreign ministry of eight hours of coverage across international broadcast media concluded that Israeli representatives received a whopping 58 minutes of airtime compared to only 19 minutes for Palestinians. "Quite a few outlets are very favorable to Israel, namely by showing [its] suffering. I am sure it is a result of the new co-ordination," said Major Avital Leibovich, an IDF spokesperson who has become a fixture on cable news in the past weeks. But while Israel's PR machine cranked its Mighty Wurlitzer to full blast, drowning out all opposing voices with its droning sound, a surprisingly substantial portion of the American public decided to dance to its own tune. According to a December 31 Rasmussen poll [LINK: ] (so far the only measure of US opinion on the Gaza assault), while Americans remained overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, they were split almost evenly on the question of whether Israel should attack Gaza -- 44% in favor of the assault and 41% against it. The internals are even more remarkable. While Republicans supported the assault on Gaza by a large margin, a predictable finding, only 31% of Democrats did. Members of the Democratic base thus stood in sharp contrast to most of their elected representatives (freshman Rep. Donna Edwards is a notable exception), who backed the latest Israeli assault in lockstep, and seem to support Israel no matter what it does. The rift between the progressive base and the party played out on Barack Obama's Change.gov site, which was deluged in recent days with demands for a statement condemning Israel's assault on Gaza. So what accounts for the surprising trend in American opinion on Gaza? The proliferation of progressive online media and social networking sites could be a factor, but I have another theory: The same pundits who are cheerleading Israel's assault on Gaza once sold the occupation of Iraq to America, and with a nearly identical set of arguments. In their voices and those of the grim Israeli PR agents carted out for cable news, many Americans hear echoes of the Bush administration's most fantastical lies. When they see images of Gazans under withering bombardment, they flash back to Fallujah and the assorted horrors of Iraq. When they look at Israel, they see themselves during the darkest days of the Bush era. Now, an increasing share of Americans know what Israel is doing to Gaza. And they reject it, even when Israel is "at its best." From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 10:35:54 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:35:54 -0800 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963776B.8060508@email.it> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> Message-ID: <4963967A.9070205@gmail.com> The quote you are using, in context, is a statement of fact. If Hamas fired rockets into Israel, for any reason, the Israelis would respond in some fashion or another. Did you ever hear of cause-and-effect SG? His opinion is they are playing "...the crybaby card:" As a political entity, do YOU know beyond a shadow of a doubt Hamas ISN'T doing that? Public Diplomacy is often quite un-diplomatic you know. He's entitled to his opinion and you can agree or disagree with him, but there's nothing here to indicate he's anti-Palestinian, OR even anti-Hamas... he could simply be 'calling their public diplomacy card'. ...and no, I stopped looking at you 'blog' the first time I visited. You have clickthrough links I'm sure there are a number of people on this list who would be pleased to know that one goes to a firearms distributor in the US, and it's prominently displayed on your site with A BIG picture of an American military rifle. Screenshot: http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee241/photobastard/screenshot.jpg Leigh "Geopolitics Well, now, who the hell knows what's in store. Aside from a few bombs here and there, and pirates skulking around the horn of Africa, the world scene was miraculously free of major incidents in 2008 -- perhaps the worst being a toss up between the September Mumbai bombings and the fiasco in Georgia, where the US prompted Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili to send troops into the South Ossetia region and the move was answered by overwhelming force from neighboring Russia, leaving the US looking feckless and retarded for our troubles. But otherwise, there wasn't a whole lot of action out there. Until the last few days of the year, that is. I'm sure the ever-growing cohort of American anti-semites who send me emails will be tickled when I assert that the Hamas rocket attacks against Israel of recent days guaranteed a sharp response from Israel -- and now, of course, Hamas is playing the crybaby card: "... what'd we do to deserve this...?" Well, you fucking fired a bunch rockets into Israel. Did you ever hear of cause-and-effect? This matter requires no further elucidation, except that it seems to suggest a ramping back up of hostilities. I wonder if it is the beginning of a new coordinated offensive by Islamic extremism aimed at taking advantage of the West's current economic plight (and the West's probable aversion to anything that will complicate its desired recovery). We'll know in a month or so, I think, since any coordinated campaign (if such a thing were possible) might well be aimed at confounding the new American president. " splatter gore wrote: > "...I have long been a fan of James Howard Kunstler, author of ?The > Long Emergency.? Up until today, I have recommended it to everyone I > know. We have posted a dozen or so of his pieces, with a link to his > site. > > I?m sorry I did, it took a reader to point out to me Kunstler is a > racist anti-Semitic whining War Criminal. > > This is part of what he said, ?Until the last few days of the year, > that is. I?m sure the ever-growing cohort of American anti-Semites who > send me emails will be tickled when I assert that the Hamas rocket > attacks against Israel of recent days guaranteed a sharp response from > Israel ? and now, of course, Hamas is playing the crybaby card: ?? > what?d we do to deserve this??? Well, you fucking fired a bunch > rockets into Israel. Did you ever hear of cause-and-effect?? > > Well Mr. Kunstler, have you ever heard of cause-and-effect? If the > Zionist war criminals running Israel and the American political system > stopped stealing land from the original owners, perhaps they would not > get rocketed. Read the rest of this entry ? > " > > >> > > > -- > Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e > SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f > > Sponsor: > Innammorarsi ? facile con Meetic, milioni di single si sono iscritti, > si sono conosciuti e hanno riscoperto l'amore. Tutto con Meetic, prova > anche tu! > Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8292&d=6-1 > > From nmgoro at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 11:45:11 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:45:11 -0300 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963776B.8060508@email.it> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> Message-ID: <4963A6B7.7090904@gmail.com> Sorry, can?t help it. > > Sponsor: > Innammorarsi ? facile con Meetic, milioni di single si sono iscritti, si > sono conosciuti e hanno riscoperto l'amore. Tutto con Meetic, prova > anche tu! > Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8292&d=6-1 > So that "Falling in love is easy with Meetic, millons of lonely people have subbed, have met each other and have rediscovered love. All of this with Meetic, why don?t you try!" I guess that a society where such an advertisement displays such a great depth of unhuman loneliness won?t be very interested in the suffering of Gazans... From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 10:57:17 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:57:17 -0500 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963A6B7.7090904@gmail.com> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> <4963A6B7.7090904@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > Sorry, can?t help it. > >> >> Sponsor: >> Innammorarsi ? facile con Meetic, milioni di single si sono iscritti, si >> sono conosciuti e hanno riscoperto l'amore. Tutto con Meetic, prova anche >> tu! >> Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8292&d=6-1 >> > > So that "Falling in love is easy with Meetic, millons of lonely people have > subbed, have met each other and have rediscovered love. All of this with > Meetic, why don?t you try!" > > I guess that a society where such an advertisement displays such a great > depth of unhuman loneliness won?t be very interested in the suffering of > Gazans... But there have been a good number of rather large protests (albeit relative to previous levels of inactivity), some of them very militant (ones in Athens, London, and Paris for instance), in the USA and Europe since the start of the latest Israeli war. Not totally hopeless, I think. As for Kunstler, I never liked his stuff anyway! Yoshie From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jan 6 11:01:53 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:01:53 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Systemic Threat? Message-ID: <49635641.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Re: [PEN-L] Systemic Threat? Eubulides Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:34:29 -0800 On 11/10/05, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Carrol, > > For financial economists, "systemic threat" means a situation where the > regular functioning of the financial markets (i.e. the equity, forex and > the futures markets) is disrupted, e.g. by a liquidity crisis caused by > say the insolvency of a major institution. > > More than any systematic, organized opposition, the major threats to > capitalism today are its own internal contradictions. I disagree that > "crises come and crises go". The last time there was a major capitalist > crisis was arguably during the Great Depression, which did lead to > earth-shaking events. Capital emerged intact perhaps stronger from WW2, > but there is no guarantee that will happen again. A capitalist crisis > e.g. from a derivatives collapse could be a Progressive Opportunity. > > --raghu. > --------------------------------- "Capitalist crisis certainly reflects the contradiction between exchange value and use value on which commodity production systems rest, since it exhibits a simultaneous increase of unfulfilled need and of unused capacity to meet need. Crises are inherent in a system where the proximate motive for production is surplus value, and the meeting of need is achieved as a contingent byproducts of the pursuit of profit. This analysis cannot, however, support the conclusion that the capitalist mode of production is contradictory in the sense of posing logically inconsistent requirements for its own reproduction, of being, in fact impossible. Crisis must be seen as part of the normal pattern of successful reproduction of capitalism. "Finance appears to be a critical mediating channel between changes in underlying parameters of accumulation like the markupp and the ebbing of aggregate demand associated with the realization phases of crises. The disruption of the financial system is itself one of the most dramatic manifestations of such crises. But the circuit of capital analysis tends to confirm the view that financial problems have their origin in systematic effects of capital accumulation. Crises are not primarily financial, and no reform of the financial system alone can eliminate the tendency to crisis. [...] "Furthermore, if the persistence and severity of crises depend on the persistence of financial imbalances, there are presumably strong state measures available to avoid systemic catastrophe. The financial system is a system of promises, and a financial crisis is a situation where a large number of such promises cannot be met consistently. If the state can achieve an orderly dissolution of enough financial promises, it can create a situation where accumulation can proceed, as long as there is a surplus value potentially available in the unpaid labor of productive workers. "This last remark calls into serious question the idea of a final or ultimate crisis of capitalist production arising from purely from the predictable effects of accumulation. Economic crises may become more severe in their social impact as larger parts of the population depend on capitalist production to meet an ever larger part of their need. But if social labor is capable of producing a surplus, it is hard to see why a society that agreed on capitalist principles could not arrange to have that potential surplus take the form of a surplus value." [Duncan Foley "Money, Accumulation and Crisis" 1986]. If you don't hit it it won't fall. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jan 6 11:25:41 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:25:41 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) Message-ID: <49635BD5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: Waistline2 From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary organization long ago, ^^^ CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. Comment I seriously doubt if the CPUSA was ever revolutionary, although I have no reason to doubt its commitment to some kind of communism. ^^^ CB: Why do you doubt that it is now or ever was a revolutionary organization ? If it wasn't, why did the US state suppress it ? Commitment to communism seems to be synomymous with revolutionary organization. ^^^^ This equally applies to all the so-called Marxist organizations and "ML's" in America. The groups I was a member of, the Communist Labor Party was not revolutionary, nor was it possible for it to be so. ^^^ CB: What was it ? Reformist ? ^^^ I will go as far as saying that none of the so-called "revolutionary communists-Marxists organizations" were revolutionary except in words and ideology. To be revolutionary in deeds requires the existence of a revolutionary environment. ^^^ CB: Were the Bolsheviks revolutionary during the non-revolutionary periods ? ^^^ The last period of revolutionary environment in America was the period before and right after the American Civil War. Our working class was not only birthed tied to capital, but also tied to the bourgeoisie politically. We had to operate as communists under conditions where political separation from the bourgeoisie was impossible. This is not to gloss over periods of slavish clinging and whoring to the bourgeoisie. Right wing communism has always dominated American communism and Marxist (groups). But this is a historical thing that could not be overcome on the basis of thinking. Our working class has been tied to capital more fiercely than Prometheus to the rock. ^^^ CB: As argued in _Leftwing Communism_, an organization can be revolutionary even if objective circumstances force it to compromise. ^^^ Yet, if we did not fight along side the workers in their struggle for reform, a fight generally led by the syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist within and outside the "Communists Parties," then what could we do? Sit on our hands? Former general secretary William Z. Foster was amongst the great working class leaders in our history but he was a syndicalist won over to Marxism and the 3rd International, and he would never shed his syndicalism. ^^^ CB: True. But he was a revolutionary too. More later It gets more bizarre because during the period of the 1930's and 40's, the workers in heavy industry - steel, auto, rubber, were in motion striving to win the industrial union form of organization. This was not a revolutionary movement or current but a reform movement. And this industrial union surge was on behalf of the better paid workers. After WW II, a period of massive bribery emerged in America and the workers themselves, and industrial union neither had the stomach or mind to help their unorganized brothers and sisters or anyone else. The official slogan of the unionized workers was put forth by that bastard Walter Reuther, "Do not destroy the goose that lays the golden egg." No one could be revolutionary under such conditions. During the hay day of the Civil Rights movement the blacks were fighting for inclusion into the system and the opportunity to feast on golden eggs, unfettered by Jim Crow segregation. I was there and such was the thinking driving the movement. This reform movement at least gave us ideological warriors the opportunity to win individuals over to our vision of communism, which in that period harkened on a vision of an "integrated" industrial monstrosity. It is the sense of our vision or the vision of the communists during this period, that expose us as ideological industrial warriors, prostituting ourselves before the God of industry while trying to fight him. The environmentalist ideologues later kicked our asses good and forced us to modify our vision. The literature of the American communist movement between 1930 - 1980 is virtually absent of an inkling of consciousness of the earth as a metabolic process that is worth fighting and dying for. There is no need to gloss over our history and pretend we are not who we have been. We have lived on the high end of the hog. A new period in our history has opened and we will repeat the exact same mistakes if we are not brutally honest with ourselves and who we have been. Although, I voted for Obama because I wanted to be a living part of electing the first black president and because millions of working people were in motion for the first time in sixty years (outside the blacks) but there is no political basis for supporting or blocking with the Democratic Party. I will tell my children's children that I was a part of that moment and then things got really bad. :-) The CPUSA was not and is not revolutionary and neither are any of the other organizations except in their writings and ideological professions. But then again, we are bounded by the activity of the workers themselves. I hold several former leading members and writers in the CPUSA in the highest of regard, like Claudia Jones (who was deported by the government) and the militant fighting syndicalist. However, the CPUSA has always exhibited a right wing communists ideology. The most bribed workers are always more conscious of their social station in life and fought to preserve their privilege positions. Yes, we did. But revolutionary? One can only be revolutionary in a period of revolution. "But people go from bad to good In the blink of an eye. If they can go from bad to good, Then so can I. It's a matter of time. recording artist Kem. Waistline ^^^ has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide ^^^ CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error of the type , with modifications for some historical and national differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost completely fresh today. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From chillout at email.it Tue Jan 6 11:38:08 2009 From: chillout at email.it (splatter gore) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:38:08 +0100 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963967A.9070205@gmail.com> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> <4963967A.9070205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4963A510.5040509@email.it> So, what's the matter? Is this list reserved to gun control freaks? About the rest of your arguments, it may suffice to signal this article on global research which demonstrates that the objective of Israel is just an ethnic "cleaning", planned years in advance. All the rest currently spinned is b/s, obvious to whoever has a capability of independent sight. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11606 Sorry for the ads in the end of my msgs, but I don't have any control on them. Its from my provider. Luckily that s.o. find them interesting. Leighm wrote: > > > ...and no, I stopped looking at you 'blog' the first time I visited. > > You have clickthrough links [DOT] com/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=overqualified> > > I'm sure there are a number of people on this list who would be > pleased to know that one goes to a firearms distributor in the US, and > it's prominently displayed on your site with A BIG picture of an > American military rifle. > > Screenshot: > http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee241/photobastard/screenshot.jpg > > -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Meetic: il leader italiano ed europeo per trovare l'anima gemella online. Provalo ora Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8291&d=6-1 From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 11:42:18 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:42:18 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) In-Reply-To: <49635BD5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <49635BD5.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4963A60A.6010808@gmail.com> Charles Brown wrote: If it wasn't, why did the US state suppress it ? Because practice makes perfect police states. ...and they DO practice. http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/oig44.htm > From: Waistline2 > From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" > > the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary > organization long ago, > > ^^^ > CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by > McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. > > > Comment > > I seriously doubt if the CPUSA was ever revolutionary, although I have no > reason to doubt its commitment to some kind of communism. > > ^^^ > CB: Why do you doubt that it is now or ever was a revolutionary organization ? If it wasn't, why did the US state suppress it ? Commitment to communism seems to be synomymous with revolutionary organization. > > ^^^^ > > > > This equally applies to all the so-called Marxist organizations and "ML's" > in America. The groups I was a member of, the Communist Labor Party was not > revolutionary, nor was it possible for it to be so. > > ^^^ > CB: What was it ? Reformist ? > > ^^^ > I will go as far as saying > that none of the so-called "revolutionary communists-Marxists organizations" > were revolutionary except in words and ideology. To be revolutionary in > deeds requires the existence of a revolutionary environment. > > ^^^ > CB: Were the Bolsheviks revolutionary during the non-revolutionary periods ? > > ^^^ > > The last period of revolutionary environment in America was the period > before and right after the American Civil War. > > Our working class was not only birthed tied to capital, but also tied to the > bourgeoisie politically. We had to operate as communists under conditions > where political separation from the bourgeoisie was impossible. This is not to > gloss over periods of slavish clinging and whoring to the bourgeoisie. Right > wing communism has always dominated American communism and Marxist (groups). > But this is a historical thing that could not be overcome on the basis of > thinking. Our working class has been tied to capital more fiercely than > Prometheus to the rock. > > ^^^ > CB: As argued in _Leftwing Communism_, an organization can be revolutionary even if objective circumstances force it to compromise. > > ^^^ > > Yet, if we did not fight along side the workers in their struggle for > reform, a fight generally led by the syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist within and > outside the "Communists Parties," then what could we do? Sit on our hands? > Former general secretary William Z. Foster was amongst the great working > class leaders in our history but he was a syndicalist won over to Marxism and > the 3rd International, and he would never shed his syndicalism. > > ^^^ > CB: True. But he was a revolutionary too. > > More later > > It gets more bizarre because during the period of the 1930's and 40's, the > workers in heavy industry - steel, auto, rubber, were in motion striving to > win the industrial union form of organization. This was not a revolutionary > movement or current but a reform movement. And this industrial union surge was > on behalf of the better paid workers. After WW II, a period of massive bribery > emerged in America and the workers themselves, and industrial union neither > had the stomach or mind to help their unorganized brothers and sisters or > anyone else. The official slogan of the unionized workers was put forth by that > bastard Walter Reuther, "Do not destroy the goose that lays the golden egg." > No one could be revolutionary under such conditions. > > During the hay day of the Civil Rights movement the blacks were fighting for > inclusion into the system and the opportunity to feast on golden eggs, > unfettered by Jim Crow segregation. I was there and such was the thinking driving > the movement. > > This reform movement at least gave us ideological warriors the opportunity > to win individuals over to our vision of communism, which in that period > harkened on a vision of an "integrated" industrial monstrosity. It is the sense of > our vision or the vision of the communists during this period, that expose us > as ideological industrial warriors, prostituting ourselves before the God of > industry while trying to fight him. The environmentalist ideologues later > kicked our asses good and forced us to modify our vision. The literature of > the American communist movement between 1930 - 1980 is virtually absent of an > inkling of consciousness of the earth as a metabolic process that is worth > fighting and dying for. > > There is no need to gloss over our history and pretend we are not who we > have been. We have lived on the high end of the hog. A new period in our history > has opened and we will repeat the exact same mistakes if we are not brutally > honest with ourselves and who we have been. Although, I voted for Obama > because I wanted to be a living part of electing the first black president and > because millions of working people were in motion for the first time in sixty > years (outside the blacks) but there is no political basis for supporting or > blocking with the Democratic Party. I will tell my children's children that I > was a part of that moment and then things got really bad. :-) > > The CPUSA was not and is not revolutionary and neither are any of the other > organizations except in their writings and ideological professions. But then > again, we are bounded by the activity of the workers themselves. I hold > several former leading members and writers in the CPUSA in the highest of regard, > like Claudia Jones (who was deported by the government) and the militant > fighting syndicalist. However, the CPUSA has always exhibited a right wing > communists ideology. The most bribed workers are always more conscious of their > social station in life and fought to preserve their privilege positions. > > Yes, we did. > > But revolutionary? One can only be revolutionary in a period of revolution. > > "But people go from bad to good > In the blink of an eye. > If they can go from bad to good, > Then so can I. > It's a matter of time. > > recording artist Kem. > > Waistline > > > > > > ^^^ > > has steadfastly gone along with the Democratic > Party, on which both it and ordinary US workers coincide > > ^^^ > CB; The notion that "going along" with the DP in the US in some periods is > not revolutionary is the type of error that Lenin criticizes in _Leftwing > Communism_. The groupings or individuals that think of themselves as > revolutionary but absolutely shun _electoral_ work in the US system is ultra-left error > of the type , with modifications for some historical and national > differences, criticized by Lenin in the chapter "Should we work in bourgeois > parliaments ?". This is another example of some of Lenin's thinking being almost > completely fresh today. > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 12:00:04 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:00:04 -0800 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963A510.5040509@email.it> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> <4963967A.9070205@gmail.com> <4963A510.5040509@email.it> Message-ID: <4963AA34.2000808@gmail.com> splatter gore wrote: > > > Sorry for the ads in the end of my msgs, but I don't have any control > on them. Its from my provider. No they aren't: [Code]

[/code] No javascript there... just plain ol' html. Here's the kind of ad placement of which you speak: [Code][/Code] So, tell us another story... From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jan 6 12:19:25 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:19:25 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) Message-ID: <4963686E.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> From: "Paul Wright" What I find interesting is that in the 20th century, the USA, England, Canada and Australia seem to be unique (with the possible exceptions as well of Switzerland and Belgium) f being among the few countries where the left never mounted, or attempted to mount, a credible bid for state power. ^^^ CB: Do you mean electorally ? ^^^^^ In the case of the US, it is even more striking in that the US has never even had a national opposition party unless one counts the IWW. At its peak the CPUSA only had 100,000 members and again, never sought state power nor organized to that end, only for some reforms and social justice issues which was good (i.e., end to Jim Crow) but hardly the same as seizing state power. ^^^ CB: When you say "seize" , do you mean "by force and violence" and extra-electorally ? ^^^^ to claim the CPUSA was rendered politically impotent by McCarthy would be to ignore political failures on their part ^^^ CB: No , it's attributing a significant chunc of the3 failures to being suppressed. What failures are you referring to ? ^^^ ^^^ and a revolutionary organization surely anticipates repression. ^^^ CB: But anticipating it doesn't assure avoiding it , especially , of course, when the party has no means of defending itself. Extreme examples are Indonesia, Iraq and Iran, where the parties were physically annihilated. No doubt they anticipated repression of some sort. ^^^ ^^^ It is not as if efforts were not made to render the Chinese CP or Bolsheviks impotent. ^^^ CB: I'll say. Notice that the International failed , too. Marx and Engels did not achieve what Lenin and the Bolsheviks and the Chinese CP did. ^^^^ ^^^ The level of repression leveled during the 1950s against the CPUSA was also hardly of the type used against say communists in Argentina, Indonesia, etc. When we say the PKI was smashed they had 500,000 dead. What did the CPUSA have? Two dead, a dozen members in prison and a few hundred black listed for a while? As these things go that is pretty insignificant. ^^^ CB: They were significant in the sense that with the other aspects of the US method of repression, they were effective. I don't agree with your implication that the CPUSA could have done something to prevent them from being effective. Have you and your comrades tried to overcome US anti-Communist methods ? You don't seem to have succeeded against such insignificant barriers. ^^ Even more interesting is that today nary a group or grouplet among the US left even aspires to seizing state power much less has a plan for doing so. ^^^ CB: McCarthyism means that US Marxists must hoe the electoral path to socialism. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From chillout at email.it Tue Jan 6 12:42:52 2009 From: chillout at email.it (splatter gore) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:42:52 +0100 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963AA34.2000808@gmail.com> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> <4963967A.9070205@gmail.com> <4963A510.5040509@email.it> <4963AA34.2000808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4963B43C.1080504@email.it> Thanks for showing that you don't understand even the most straightforward msgs. So I won't try again to debate with you. Leighm wrote: > splatter gore wrote: >> >> >> Sorry for the ads in the end of my msgs, but I don't have any control >> on them. Its from my provider. > No they aren't: > > [Code]

class="aligncenter" src="http //www impactguns > com/store/media/banner/impact_fn249_ad.gif" alt="" height="60" > width="468">

[/code] > > No javascript there... just plain ol' html. > > Here's the kind of ad placement of which you speak: > > [Code][/Code] > > > > So, tell us another story... > > > > > > > > -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Incrementa la visibilita' della tua azienda con l'invio di newsletter e campagne email marketing. * Con investimento di soli 250 Euro puoi incrementare la tua visibilita' Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8350&d=6-1 From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jan 6 12:54:15 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:54:15 -0500 Subject: [A-List] New tax policies will help industry after recession Message-ID: <49637097.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> New tax policies will help industry after recession Yang Jian Automotive News | 2009-1-7 SHANGHAI -- After posting annual growth of above 20 percent for years, auto sales in China finally reached a turning point in 2008. In August, the market started to shrink. But the market downturn in 2008 was a blessing in disguise. It is prompting the government to adopt new polices for the sustainable development of the domestic industry. The American auto industry is reeling from the credit crisis and subprime mortgage collapse. And the pain has spread to Europe and Japan. But China is lucky. The car ownership rate, estimated at below 50 units for 1,000 people, is well below the international average, let alone those of developed economies. The demand for cars, though temporarily suppressed, is still healthy. More importantly, the current market downturn has spurred the Chinese government to make some long overdue changes in industry policies. China sources half of its oil supply from overseas, but until quite recently the government subsidized oil prices to keep them below international levels. That fueled exuberant sales of gasoline-guzzling vehicles. In the first half of 2008, SUVs sales nationwide surged 41 percent from a year ago, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. But thanks to the current downturn of the global economy, crude oil prices have dropped to around $50 (340 yuan) per barrel on the international market. That provided the government the opportunity to raise the fuel tax. Effective January 1, the consumption tax of gasoline was lifted to 1 yuan (15 U.S. cents) per liter from previously 0.2 yuan (3 cents) while that of diesel to 0.8 yuan (12 cents) from 0.1 yuan (1.5 cents). Meanwhile, the government has also abolished most of the fixed fees charged on vehicles. These fees mainly include road maintenance fees, which are about 1,440 yuan ($210) a year per vehicle. They also include small surcharges levied on vehicles used for commercial purposes. Shanghai continues to charge license fees, the only city to do so. License plates were auctioned at above 30,000 ($4,400) in December. Eager to boost auto sales, the government is widely expected to soon replace the existing flat 10 percent vehicle purchase tax with one that varies according to engine size. In addition, it is planning to offer incentives to stimulate trading of used cars and to encourage people to abandon old cars for new and energy saving ones. Of course, the government can do more to fix some longstanding problems besetting the domestic auto industry, such as forcing inefficient state-owned automakers to close or merge with healthy companies. But thanks to the policy measures the government has taken since late last year, China's auto industry will be able to grow in a more sustainable way once the economic recession ends. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 13:21:06 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:21:06 -0800 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Changing_The_Democratic_Political_Machi?= =?windows-1252?q?ne=85_Case_In_Point=2C_The_Appointment_Of_Leon_Panetta?= Message-ID: <4963BD32.7030509@gmail.com> [January 06 2009] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: The Obama ?Change Machine? Is Going To Have To Change The Democratic Political Machine? Case In Point, The Appointment Of Leon Panetta, Our New Director Of The CIA From the news segment as well: More Demoncrats? Diane Feinstein is running her mouth about Obama?s choice of Leon Panetta (a local Buffalo around these parts, who almost singlehandedly created the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University Monterey Bay) as CIA director. She wants an old boy from the network. I commented: "I had the opportunity to hear mr. Panetta speak at a local gathering quite a few years ago while he was my congressman. In my opinion, he has more intelligence than the last 8 CIA directors put together and showed a profound interest in the humanitarian aspects of our relations with the Mexican community of the area, and the rest of the world. This man must find our Guantanamo concentration camp, torture and the like abhorrent. I couldn?t imagine for a second that he would ever allow the use of waterboarding or illegal abuse of ANYONE on his watch, and in my opinion IS EXACTLY the kind of ?new blood? with OTHER IDEAS the US government needs to dig ourselves out of the public diplomacy quagmire we?ve allowed to be dug for ourselves by the current war criminals running the US government. And for those who say he lacks ?experience?? From the Wikipedia entry linked above: Panetta was instrumental in creating CSU Monterey by converting Fort Ord, where he was chief of operations and planning of the intelligence section when he was in the army, into the university. " In full @ my site: http://leighm.net/wp/2009/01/06/tth_090106/ Or ArchiveDotOrg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_090106 From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Tue Jan 6 13:29:26 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:29:26 -0500 Subject: [A-List] How Finance Capital Cripples Industrial Capita Message-ID: <496378D7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> How Finance Capital Cripples Industrial Capital: The Role of Fractional Reserve Banking http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh/papers/HowFinanceCapital.htm [Published in Briefing Notes in Economics, Vol. 4, Issue No. 26 (January 1997).] Huge amounts of debt have plagued the economies of the United States and many less-developed countries during the last two decades. Despite the heavy toll that the debt burden is taking on these economies, mainstream economic theories have been pitifully inept in explaining the causes or developments that led to the proliferation of the debts thus accumulated. According to these theories, whether Keynesian or monetarist, the supply of credit is determined by two factors: (a) the savings by households and businesses, and (b) the Federal Reserve policies that determine reserve requirements and the money supply?the so-called fractional reserve banking (FRB), which will be discussed later in this essay. But the huge sums of credit that financial intermediaries extended to a variety of borrowers during the last two decades went far beyond the boundaries set by the amount of savings or Federal Reserve money supply regulations. For example, in the United States alone the amount of domestic lending during the 1982-90 period exceeded the amount of household and corporate savings by 23% (Citicorp Economics Database, as cited in Pollin, 1992:22). Neither do the standard theories explain the demand side of the debt overhang (i.e., the demand for debt financing). For example, neoclassical economists attribute the rise in the debt financing since the mid-1960s to the low cost of borrowing in the 1960s and 1970s?the high inflation rates of those years made the real interest rates very low, sometimes even negative. But this explanation is inadequate in light of the fact that deficit spending continued through the 1980s?indeed, it speeded up during the 1980s?despite the drastic rise in the cost of borrowing during that decade, especially in the first half of the decade. The view of the Post-Keynesian economists of the debt overhang is similarly inadequate. Based on Hyman Minsky's "financial fragility hypothesis" of mature market economies, this view maintains that during long expansionary business cycles both lenders and borrowers tend to base their lending/borrowing decisions more on positive expectations of the upswing of the cycle than on realistic calculations of returns on investment against which they accumulate debt claims, or debt burdens?this tendency to base lending/borrowing decisions on optimisitic expectations of the expansionary of cycle is called "boom psychology." Under the boom psychology even the less secured and less competitive businesses embark on a borrowing binge in an effort to expand their market share. Partly due to this boom psychology, partly due to competitive pressure, banks discard their hesitations to extend loans to less and less-secured borrowers. Eventually as the expansionary cycle reaches its peak and a fall in sales and/or profits occurs, businesses in weaker financial positions fail to meet their payment commitments. The lenders then retreat form extending additional credit. The credit crunch that replaces the prior credit boom will subsequently lead to a crisis of illiquidity and indebtedness (Minsky, 1978 and 1982). Implicit in this theory is that there is a positive correlation between real investment (i.e., capacity buildup), on the one hand, and debt financing, on the other. That is, investment in plant and equipment during the upswing of the business cycle is associated with debt financing, and a decline in real investment on the downside of the cycle is accompanied or followed by credit crunch and a decline in deficit expenditure. This theory is valid as far as it goes (i.e., to the extent that it explains such developments in real world). In other words, it is an empirical explanation, not a scientific theory. For example, it does not explain the rise in U.S. business/corporate debt financing since the mid-1960s as this rise has in fact been accompanied by a relative fall in real investment. Nor does it therefore explain the broader global debt overhang that has tormented the economies of the United States and many less-developed countries during the last two decades. Within these two major views of the debt crisis there are a number of less known explanations of the problem. Despite the fact that these secondary explanations are distinct from one another in many respects, they all tend to be based not so much on scientific theories or factual evidence of the debt or credit crisis as they are on exogenous or psychological hypotheses such as rational expectations, the moral hazard problem, a principal-agent dilemma, uninformed bankers, overborrowing thesis, and so on (see Darity, 1985, pp. 15-49, for example). Thus, orthodox economic theories, whether Monetarist or Keynesian, do not provide adequate explanations of the ongoing crisis of global debt, or credit. Here are a number of brief suggestions and arguments that I hope will go some way to rectify these inadequacies. 1. The credit system in mature market economies is not much constrained by domestic savings or central bank regulation of money supply. The institutional structure of the monetary/financial system which gives the commercial banks the power of creating money many times the amount of their reserves?by virtue of the so-called fractional reserve system?makes the supply of money much more flexible than the domestic savings or formal central bank regulations permit. Commercial banks and other financial intermediaries are quite resourceful in expanding their lending capacity beyond their legal limits. The apparent idea behind these limits is that, based on the amount of their loanable deposits as determined by reserve requirements, the commercial banks first determine their lending capacity and then go around for customers. But the realities are quite the other way around. Half of all new business loans are made to big corporations under credit lines the companies have negotiated with their bankers, legally entitling them to borrow agreed-upon amounts. As one officer of the New York Federal Reserve has put it, "In the real world, banks extend credit. . . and look for reserves later. In one way or another, the Federal Reserve will accommodate them." (as cited in Heilbroner and Galbraith, 1990, p. 383). There are a number of ways through which financial intermediaries find reserves beyond their formal or legal lending capacity?ways that have come to be known as "liability management." One way is the use of unutilized reserves (i.e., unutilized lending capacity) of other financial intermediaries. Within the well developed financial markets of today, funds can easily be moved from financial intermediaries with excess reserves to those with shortages. Another way of expanding their lending capacity is for the financial intermediaries to convince depositors to hold their financial assets in higher yielding forms of deposit which carry lower reserve requirements?certificates of deposit are a good example of this strategy. Financial intermediaries can also draw upon foreign sources in order to expand their lending capacity, either their own offshore branches or other institutions. The increasing use of this practice was in fact a major impetus for the explosive growth of the Eurodollar market since the mid-1960s, and it has become a major source of United States loanable funds. (For a detailed account of the Commercial banks' "liability management" see Pollin, 1987:148-149, for example.) With so much resourcefulness of commercial banks in augmenting their lending capacity and creating money?debt money, to be sure?their drive for speculative loan pushing in order to expand their interest earnings by creating ever more debt money becomes understandable. This explains why, for example, in 1987, out of a total of $3350 billion of national deposits in the United States, only $65 billion (or barely 2 percent) were kept as reserves and the rest were all loaned out, despite the fact that the official required reserves were supposed to be over 20 percent! Equally surprising was the ratio of debt money, money created by commercial banks, to real or legal tender money, money created by government?that ratio was between 12/1 and 13/1 (Hixson, 1991: 246.) 2. Contrary to the standard views, demand for credit is not limited to industrial and/or commercial credit (i.e., to debt financing of real investments and sales). In the era of well developed stock markets, futures markets, real estate markets, and similar markets for speculation, a large part of credit is demanded for speculative debt financing, or speculative investment?investment in buying and selling of existing assets with the expectation of capital gain. This clearly explains the rise in mergers and takeover of the 1980s, along with the corresponding strategies of debt financing such as the so-called "junk bonds." 3. The Keynesian monetary policy, that was largely inspired by the experience of the Great Depression, and the consequent financial arrangements that were institutionalized in many advanced capitalist economies have greatly contributed to the protracted global debt crisis. Prior to Keynes (and/or the Great Depression), the use of debt money (via government deficit expenditure) as a policy tool to avoid periodic crises and depressions was unacceptable. Such financial injections were considered irresponsible as they would lead to a disequilibrium between the productive capacity and the (monetarily) effective demand, and would artificially prop up inefficient enterprises, thereby preventing periodic "cleansing" of inefficiencies that resulted from crises and depressions. Thus, despite their brutality, periodic crises of overproduction usually led to a fresh start, marked by higher productivity of labor and higher rates of profit, through the destruction of a lot of value and a lot of debt during the period of crisis. The experience of the Great Depression and the Keynesian financial prescriptions and policies changed all this. Since then, governments have regularly used deficit expenditure and debt money to prevent high unemployment rates and deep recessions. But while this has prevented cataclysmic crises of the type of the 1929-33, it has created a number of side effects. One such side effect has been the long-term monetary instability and the protracted (and accumulating) global debt. As the Keynesian monetary policy of government deficit spending contributed to the long expansionary cycle of the post-World War II period, it also contributed to the accumulation of huge financial assets in the hands of major commercial banks, both here at home as well as abroad, largely in the form of the so-called Eurodollars. As the low profit rates of the late 1960s and early 1970s replaced the earlier high profits, corporate or industrial demand for investment and expansion declined accordingly. And as the demand for credit by their reliable traditional customers thus softened, commercial banks turned toward Third World countries for investment outlets. By the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s, however, Third World debt exploded into a crisis that threatened the entire global financial system. As a result, the commercial banks recoiled from further lending to the Third World and, instead, reverted back to their home markets, especially those of the United States, largely in pursuit of speculative lending and investment?and hence the tidal waves of mergers and takeovers of the 1980s (Sen, 1991; Pollin, 1992; Mandel, 1972; and MacEwan 1987). 4. A radical restructuring of the financial/monetary/banking system is necessary in order to make the system less susceptible to the crises that result from the dependence of money supply on debt money created by commercial banks, from the speculative credit extension, and from overindebtedness and illiquidity. Perhaps the most important element in such a restructuring would be taking away the power of money creation from commercial banks and making it solely the prerogative of the government. This requires replacing the present fractional reserve system of banking with the 100% reserve system. The 100% reserve system means that when "people make deposits and thus think they have money in the bank," argue William Hixson, "they would actually have legal tender money in the bank, not 94 percent (more or less) of their money loaned by the banker to himself, his relatives, his friends, or others" (1991: 242). Writing in support of the 100% reserve plan, Professor John Hotson at Ontario's University of Waterloo notes: [T]he 100 percent reserve plan . . . would end the debt-money. . . . [G]overnement money [legal tender money] . . . is "Good Money" because it can be spent into circulation interest and debt free, and ever after perform the useful functions of money for the minor cost of replacing worn out bills and coins. . . . [M]oney produced by commercial banks is "Bad Money" because it must be lent into circulation at interest, and it only remains in existence so long as someone is willing to pay interest and the banks are willing to continue to lend (1985:48-50). The 100% reserve plan envisions that the present-day commercial banks would be reorganized so as to have three completely separate departments, or that they would be superseded by three independent financial institutions, none of which would have the power to create money. The first type of such institutions would be "check banks," or the checking deposit departments. Check banks would serve as mere storage or warehouses where the public could continue to make deposits and withdraw cash or pay their bills by check at any time just as they have always done. They would receive no interest on deposits and would pay higher fees for banking services than previously. Since the check banks could no longer serve as financial intermediaries (i.e., make loans of depositors' money), or act as creators of credit money, they would therefore have no outstanding loans that might prove uncollectable. This means that "the check banks would be perfectly safe from the point of view of bankers and depositors alike and no government insurance of checking accounts would be required," (Hixson, 1991, pp. 241-44). The second department or institution would be "mortgage-loan institutions" serving farmers, homeowners, and small unincorporated businesses, similar to savings and loan associations of the era before deregulations in the 1980s. The mortgage-loan institutions or departments would be required to accept only time deposits, deposits that would require a substantial waiting period before a withdrawal can be made. These institutions would be allowed to hold in cash only a fraction of their deposits. With the rest of their deposits, or excess reserves, they would make only secured loans. Thus while these can serve as financial intermediaries, they cannot create deposits or create money. "Perhaps all such institutions would obtain funds solely by issuing noncallable, nontransferable certificates of deposits (CDs) at rates of interest rising with the length of the term of the CDs. The basic idea here is to make savings deposits so illiquid that they cannot be considered a part of the money supply" (Ibid., 243). The third department or institution would be "investment trusts," which would exist for the purpose of assisting in the financing of corporate and large businesses. Investment trusts would obtain funds solely through the sale of equity shares on the open market and would pay dividends on the basis of returns to real investments (by nonfinancial corporations) thus involved. Real investment is key here. It means that the investment trusts would be required to finance primarily the new-issue equities and to make long-term, noncallable loans to businesses that would create jobs. These institutions or departments, would be required "by law to keep most of their assets in equity shares rather than in debt paper" (Ibid.). It is necessary to point out here that the restructuring of the financial/monetary system thus envisioned will mitigate (or do away with) only those financial crises that are due to institutional and/or legal arrangements, such as the fractional reserve banking, or due to policy manipulations of those arrangements, such as debt money creation and speculative loan pushing by the commercial banks and other financial intermediaries. The restructuring will not do away with the financial crises that are due to fundamental or systemic properties of a market economy, such as the discordance between the constantly increasing productive capacity, on the one hand, and limited possibilities of sales and capital valorization (i.e., profitable investment of capital), on the other. REFERENCES Banuri, T. and J.B. Schor, eds., Financial Openness and National Autonomy, Oxford University Press, 1992. Business Week, "Citibank's Pervasive Influence on International Lending", author unidentified, May 16, 1983. Darity, W. "Loan Pushing: Doctrine and Theory", International Finance Discussion Papers, No. 247, Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, 1984. Donaldson, T.H. International Lending By Commercial Banks, New York: Wiley and Sons, 1979. Griffin, K. "The Role of Foreign Capital", In Griffin, K. (ed.), Financing Development in Latin America, London: Macmillan, 1971. Gwynne, S. C. "Adventures in the Loan Trade", Harper's, Vol. 267:1600, September 1983. Heilbroner, R. and J. Galbraith, Understanding Macroeconomics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. Hixson, W. F. A Matter of Interest: Reexamining Money, Debt, and Real Economic Growth, New York: Praeger, 1991. Hossien-zadeh, E. "Global Debt: Causes and Cures", Review of Radical Political Economics, 20(2 & 3):223-234, Summer-Fall 1988. Hotson, J. "Ending the Debt Money System", Challenge, March-April 1985. Kindleberger, C. P. Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, New York: Basic Books, 1978. Lewis, C. America's Stake in International Investments, Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1938. MacEwan, A. "Imperial decline and International Disorder: An Illustration from the Debt Crisis", in Cherry, R. et. al (eds.),The Imperiled Economy (Book I), New York: URPE, 1987. Madrid, R. L. Overexposed: U.S. Banks Confront the Third World Debt Crisis, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1992. McIntyre, R. "A Look at International Credit", Review of Radical Political Economics , Summer 1988. Mandel, E. Late Capitalism , London: New Left Books (Chs. 13 & 14), 1972. Martin, H. "Financial Instability and the U.S. Economy", in Cherry, R. et. al (eds.), The Imperiled Economy (Book I), New York: URPE, 1987. Minsky, H. Can It Happen Again?: Essays on Instability and Finance, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1982. Minsky, H. "The Financial Instability Hypothesis: A Restatement", Thames Papers in Political Economy, Autumn 1978. Naylor, R. T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt, New York: The Linden Press/Simon and Schuster, 1987. Pollin, R. "Destabilizing Finance Worsened This Recession", Challenge, April-March 1992. Pollin, R. "Structural Change and Increasing Fragility in the U.S. Financial System", in Cherry, R. et. al (eds.),The Imperiled Economy (Book I), New York: URPE, 1987. Sen, S. "Swings and Paradoxes in International Capital Markets: A Theoretical Note", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 15(2): 179-198, June 1991. Wallich, H. "The Future of Latin American Dollar Bonds", American Economic Review, 33:2, June 1943. Williams, R. C. et. al. International Capital Markets, IMF Occasional Paper No. 7, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 1981. Winkler, M. foreign Bonds: An Autopsy, Philadelphia: Roland Swain Company, 1933. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 15:16:37 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:16:37 -0800 Subject: [A-List] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... No Exceptions Message-ID: <4963D845.7000102@gmail.com> As I was saying earlier: "According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear. Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock? The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force. We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground. We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.panetta.html From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 15:34:21 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:34:21 -0800 Subject: [A-List] apropos James Howard Kunstler In-Reply-To: <4963B43C.1080504@email.it> References: <49636DEA.1070007@gmail.com> <4963776B.8060508@email.it> <4963967A.9070205@gmail.com> <4963A510.5040509@email.it> <4963AA34.2000808@gmail.com> <4963B43C.1080504@email.it> Message-ID: <4963DC6D.20506@gmail.com> splatter gore wrote: > Thanks for showing that you don't understand even the most > straightforward msgs. > So I won't try again to debate with you. > > Noooo problem but "...so long as the rocket strikes (as opposed to oppression, humanitarian issues, ghettoizing etc) remain the central issue." "It's hard to argue with Israel's perspective. If someone neighboring my country is routinely firing rockets into my cities, I am going to attack those installations and I'm not going to leave until that infrastructure is profoundly disabled. You can cite civilian casualties all you want, but when you fire rockets into my cities, then it's merely a matter of whose civilians die and my military's job is to make sure they're yours instead of mine. Simple as that so long as the rocket strikes remain the central issue." Tom Barnett said that. http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2009/01/what_rockets_wrought.html That's all Kunstler was saying as well, and it's pretty fucking obvious. There IS NO 'debate'. From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Jan 6 16:36:21 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:36:21 EST Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) Message-ID: Comment Why did a sector of the state suppress the Civil Rights Movement? This was no revolutionary movement, although some thought it was. Many - thousands, went to jail, churches were bombed and many lost their employment. Some died in combat. The purpose of the Civil Rights Movement was to reformulate (reform) the relations within and between classes in America, without changing the property relations. Jim Crow as an institution had to go. The Civil Rights Movement challenged entrenched economic interest and institutional privileges of the whites in our history. These interests opposed a reformulation of relations in American society and a section of the state attacked the Civil Rights Movement. A reform movement does not means that the people in it are somehow "soft" or lack the ability to "man up." The reason the state attacked the CPUSA is because of their leading role in the industrial trade union movement as it sought to reformulate the relations between and within the classes in America. This was a very real struggle but there is nothing revolutionary about it. In this period and again in the post war period a section of the bourgeoisie and state needed to isolate the CPUSA as it prepared its ideological offensive against Soviet Power. The CPUSA's defense of Soviet Power was an ideological weapon against the Cold Warriors. Further, the militant bourgeoisie did not want the CPUSA or the left to achieve hegemony over the Negro Peoples Movement of that period. Had communists, radical lefts, anarcho syndicalists, militant environmentalists, militant feminists and/or the CPUSA achieved hegemony over the Negro Peoples Movement in the 1950's and 1960's, or rather African American Liberation, and not been purged from leadership of the industrial trade union movement, the pace of the social advance would has gone much further in America and the Soviets would have not faced catastrophic defeat in the ideological battle with American imperialism. Who knows? The CPUSA, as is the case with all organizations shriving to change America for the better in the 20th century, was decidedly non-revolutionary because revolution has been impossible in America for the entire last century. The communists/Marxist were ideological revolutionaries. Revolutionary in our hearts and mind. Che was a revolutionary. Not because he died at the hands of imperialism and it's lackey's, but because his activity was part of a mass movement to overthrow the colonial and semi-colonial state. An organization of ideological revolutionaries does not translate into a revolutionary organization of insurrection, when the boundary of history makes revolution impossible. History has to place the question of state power on the agenda. Let see what happens in the course of the next decade or two. It's a matter of time. Waistline the CPUSA, which ceased to be a revolutionary organization long ago, ^^^ CB: This is false. The CPUSA was rendered impotent as a political party by McCarthyite illegalization. However, it remains a revolutionary organization. Comment I seriously doubt if the CPUSA was ever revolutionary, although I have no reason to doubt its commitment to some kind of communism. ^^^ CB: Why do you doubt that it is now or ever was a revolutionary organization ? If it wasn't, why did the US state suppress it ? Commitment to communism seems to be synomymous with revolutionary organization. ^^^^ **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 18:15:15 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:15:15 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Venezuela Expels Israeli Ambassador Message-ID: News Americas Venezuela expels Israeli ambassador Venezuela has expelled the Israeli ambassador to protest against the country's assault on Gaza, after the Venezuelan president described it as a "holocaust". The move on Tuesday came hours after 40 Palestinians were killed at a UN school where civilians had taken shelter amid the offensive. "The Holocaust, that is what is happening right now in Gaza," Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, said in televised comments. "The president of Israel at this moment should be taken to the International Criminal Court together with the president of the United States." At least 660 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Israel began its offensive on December 27, in what it says is an attempt to halt Palestinian rocketfire from Gaza. 'State terrorism' Venezuela's foreign ministry said in a statement that Israel's campaign constituted "flagrant violations of international law" and the use of "state terrorism". "For the reasons mentioned above, the government of Venezuela has decided to expel the ambassador of Israel and part of the personnel of the embassy of Israel," the statement said. On Monday, Chavez, a strong critic of Israel and the US, had accused Washington of poisoning Yasser Arafat, the late former Palestinian president, to destabilise the Middle East and justify US-backed Israeli incursions. The United States, which Chavez describes as a decadent empire, firmly backs Israel, its principal ally in the region. On Tuesday, the White House said it would support an "immediate" ceasefire in Gaza but only if it was likely to be "durable". From Waistline2 at aol.com Tue Jan 6 20:23:37 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:23:37 EST Subject: [A-List] Workers arrested amid rising protests (bad to good) Message-ID: In a message dated 1/6/2009 1:42:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com_ (mailto:the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com) writes: WL: I seriously doubt if the CPUSA was ever revolutionary, although I have no reason to doubt its commitment to some kind of communism. This equally applies to all the so-called Marxist organizations and "ML's" in America. The groups I was a member of, the Communist Labor Party was not revolutionary, nor was it possible for it to be so. ^^^ CB: What was it ? Reformist ? Comment An organization united on the basis of ideology. An organization waging an ideology struggle (the struggle for ideas and a new morality) amongst the working class, while trying to lead the workers in their righteous struggle for reform and concessions. This applies to the CPUSA also. The issue is not revolutionary or reformists. If only life was that simple. The rub is that there seems to be no more reforms left in capitalism. Concessions are things won from the capitalists. Reform changes the relationship between and within classes without changing the property relations. WL: I will go as far as saying that none of the so-called "revolutionary communists-Marxists organizations" were revolutionary except in words and ideology. To be revolutionary in deeds requires the existence of a revolutionary environment. ^^^ CB: Were the Bolsheviks revolutionary during the non-revolutionary periods ? Comment A non-revolutionary period in Russian history during the time of Lenin? Such a period never existed during the entire existence of the Bolshevik party, from founding to the seizure of political party. The years of reactions were part of the revolutionary period. The revolution was to overthrow the Czar or political feudalism and seize political power on behalf of the workers and peasant. There was no non-revolutionary period, only ebbs and flows in the revolutionary process. What non-revolutionary years? ^^^ CB: As argued in _Leftwing Communism_, an organization can be revolutionary even if objective circumstances force it to compromise. Comment This issue was never compromises, or concessions or even alliances. Sometime it seems we do not take enough time to think things out as process logic. I do not quite understand why it is so hard to admit the obvious. For a solid one hundred years the American working class has gone in a different direction than the goal of the Communist Party's and all the ML's. The goal of communists is economic communism, on what ever technological basis society allows it to implement its stated goals of "from each according to their ability to each according to their need." The program of the working class has been to reform the system in their favor and expand political liberties, at least a huge section of them. The program of the Bolsheviks begins with the overthrow of the Czar. Not ideological proclamations about communism. The Lenin group were communists but they did what was in front of them. In fact, every single one of us within American communism has had to put our program on the back burner, with no hope of fire and join the workers in their program to reform the system . . . or stay at home, crying over ones historical and practical limitations. Rather than stay at home some of us fought over placing a stop sign at a street crossing or for better books in schools, or lunch programs or a system of community colleges. Plus, ones program does not describe what a group is really doing. The CIO program was to organized the unorganized in the mass industries. Its reality program was to organized the unskilled mass of white labor, and where blacks could not be forced out, isolate them to the worse jobs and lesser pay and no representation in the union organization. Three decades would pass before old man Jim Crow would be defeated and dismantled. Such is who we have been! This is not the case today. Having a revolutionary belief system does not make an organization or individual revolutionary. What it makes one is an ideologist on the side of the proletariat, but an ideologist nevertheless. The issue is not revolutionary or reformists. If only life was that simple. Waistline **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jan 6 21:11:54 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:11:54 -0500 Subject: [A-List] 18 Days After Strategic Pact With US, Ukraine Cuts Gas To Europe Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:14 PM Subject: [stopnato] 18 Days After Strategic Pact With US, Ukraine Cuts Gas To Europe http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13447618&PageNum=0 Itar-Tass January 6, 2009 Russian gas supplies to partners in the European Union have been reduced by seven times LONDON - Ukraine at 02:30 on Tuesday morning shut off three of the four export gas pipelines for gas transit through its territory. As a result, Russian gas supplies to partners in the European Union have been reduced by seven times since Tuesday morning, deputy head of the Gazprom board Alexander Medvedev told an Itar-Tass correspondent here. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13447278&PageNum=0 Itar-Tass January 6, 2009 Ukraine stopped the work of compressor stations working in the direction of the Balkans SOFIA - The Ukrainian side overnight, without notification, stopped the work of the compressor stations working in the direction of the Balkans. The transit gas supply through Ukraine to the region is completely halted. The Ukrainian side stopped the work of the compressor stations at 04:30 Moscow time, the Bulgarian Economy and Energy Ministry's press centre said. Aside from Bulgaria, the gas transit across Ukraine is stopped to Greece, Turkey and Macedonia. A crisis headquarters is set up at the Bulgarian Economy and Energy Ministry. Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev planned to hold a meeting at 11:00 Moscow time in connection with the problem. Heat stations in Bulgaria are ready to use reserve fuel. The gas supply situation in Bulgaria is viewed as critical. The economy and energy minister convened a meeting of the security and crisis council at 08:00 Moscow time. Specialists in the situation must retain the work capability of the country's gas and heat supply system and prevent breakdowns. The gas supply from the Chiren storage facilities is increased to 4.3 million cubic metres to meet minimum needs. The Economy and Energy Ministry has asked all gas consumers to reduce consumption and use other energy sources. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jan 6 21:13:58 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:13:58 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Pentagon Pulling India Further Into Its Orbit Message-ID: <1AE048CB38A14A31A630190D7D0BC2F6@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:14 PM Subject: [stopnato] Pentagon Pulling India Further Into Its Orbit http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=India&month=January2009&file=World_News20090106102732.xml Indo-Asian News Service January 6, 2009 After biggest military deal with US, India eyes pacts New Delhi - After signing its biggest-ever military deal with the US for eight long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy for $2.1bn, New Delhi is now eyeing to fast track three key military pacts with Washington. These include one under which their militaries can refuel ships and aircraft in cashless transactions that are balanced at the end of the year. Apart from the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the other pacts pending are the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement that will enable the two militaries communicate on a common platform, and an end-user agreement governing the sale of US military hardware to India. "The deal for the eight P8I reconnaissance aircraft has been signed directly with the Boeing Company. The terms and the end-user agreement governing the use of sensitive technology is yet to be sorted out with the US government," a senior navy official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. India has so far refused to sign the end user agreement in its present form for being "intrusive" and has asked for modifications. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jan 6 21:16:43 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:16:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israeli Warplanes Expand Flights Over Lebanon Message-ID: <3879002ECDF94069BD12ACD4DD05FA54@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:13 PM Subject: [stopnato] Israeli Warplanes Expand Flights Over Lebanon http://www.iloubnan.info/politics/actualite/id/30945 Agence France-Presse January 6, 2009 Six Israeli military jets violate Lebanese airspace BEIRUT- Six Israeli warplanes on Tuesday flew over several regions of Lebanon in violation of a UN Security Council resolution, the Lebanese army said. "At 9:00 am (0700 GMT) two warplanes violated our airspace in the region of Kfar Kila (in the south) and flew over several other parts of the country before leaving at 11:20 am," a statement said. It added that four other planes later in the morning also carried out flights over various Lebanese regions. A drone meanwhile flew over Lebanon for much of the night Monday to Tuesday, the statement added. Tension has increased in Lebanon since the Israeli offensive in Gaza began on December 27 with some residents fearing a repeat of the 34-day summer war in 2006 between Israel and Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah movement which devastated the south of the country. Israeli flights over Lebanon occur on an almost daily basis and are in breach of UN Security Council resolution 1710, which in August 2006 ended the Israel-Hezbollah war. During the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired around 4,000 rockets towards Israel. More than 1,200 Lebanese people, mostly civilians, died in the war, which killed 160 Israelis, mostly from the military. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jan 6 21:18:30 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:18:30 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Viewpoint: CIA Planning Military Takeover In Greece? Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:13 PM Subject: [stopnato] Viewpoint: CIA Planning Military Takeover In Greece? http://www.baltische-rundschau.eu/?p=3975 Baltische Rundschau (Lithuania) January 7, 2009 CIA Preparing To Install Military Government In Greece by Paul Joseph Watson The increasingly violent riots in Greece could be the curtain raiser for a military coup d'etat and the installation of a new government more friendly to U.S. hegemony as a countermeasure to increasing Russian influence over the Balkan state. It wouldn't be the first time the CIA has assisted in such a venture - they aided the 1967 installation of a U.S. friendly military junta known as the Regime of the Colonels ostensibly to prevent Greece from falling under Soviet control, a fascist cabal which was later overthrown in 1973. The coup was achieved with the active support of such groups as the LOK Special Forces, which was part of Operation Gladio, NATO-controlled black-ops forces that carried out false flag attacks across Europe to eliminate left-wing political organizations. Gladio tactics are again being employed with the current riots following the revelation that police masquerading as anarchists were committing acts of wanton violence to enflame tensions and provide a pretext for a brutal crackdown on legitimate demonstrators protesting against police brutality and the mishandling of the economic crisis. The agenda is again likely to be related to fears over increasing Russian influence in the region. In March 2007, Vladimir Putin struck a deal with Greece and Bulgaria to build a 280-kilometer Russian oil pipeline from Bulgaria's Black Sea port of Burgas to Alexandroupolis, in northern Greece. Construction is scheduled to begin in June. As the Angirfan blog highlights, "The pipeline will be an alternative route for Russian oil bypassing the Bosporus and the Dardanelles." The Greek military has placed its forces at level 2 alert status and begun to position them to be used against civilians with an order that lethal force be authorized should soldiers feel "threatened". Special Operations Units from Germany and Italy are also being readied to act as an occupying army upon declaration of full scale martial law. Details of the plans came to light after hundreds of Greek soldiers expressed their vociferous opposition to being used as "a force of terror and repression". Is the CIA again preparing to assist a military junta in a coup d'etat as a means of ousting a government friendly to Russian geopolitical objectives? The reaction of the lower ranks of the Greek military after they discovered they were being prepared to be used as a standing army against their own people at least offers hope that any such move will be resisted. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jan 6 21:20:08 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:20:08 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Russian Exercise With Greece Establishes Precedent Message-ID: <7B63EBBC60F246768C659181874767FF@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:13 PM Subject: [stopnato] Russian Exercise With Greece Establishes Precedent http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/eu_russia0009_01_06.asp World Tribune (US) January 6, 2009 Russia exercise with Greece sets precedent -Over the last year, the Russian military has expanded its presence to the Mediterranean Sea. The navy has been conducting maneuvers with such allies as Algeria, Libya and Syria. ATHENS - Russia has launched its first military exercise in Greece, regarded as the closest NATO member to Moscow. Greece's military said the Russian Navy began an exercise in the Aegean Sea and within Greece. The military said the air and naval exercise, the first by Russia in the NATO ally, began on Jan. 3 and would end eight days later. "The exercises will take place on Jan. 3 and 4 and on Jan. 8 and 10 southeast of the island of Rhodes, and on Jan. 11 south of Crete," the Greek General Staff said. In a Jan. 3 statement, the Greek military said the Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier would lead the exercise. The statement said the naval maneuvers would be conducted in international waters, but Russian combat aircraft would fly in Greek air space. This was the first time Greece has agreed to host a Russian exercise. Athens has been regarded as close to Moscow, which has sold air defense, armored vehicles and other military systems to Greece. The Greek Defense Ministry said Russia has sent its Su-25 and Su-30 fighter-jets for the air maneuvers. The ministry said Russia also contributed the Ka-50-2 attack helicopter to the exercise. Over the last year, the Russian military has expanded its presence to the Mediterranean Sea. The navy has been conducting maneuvers with such allies as Algeria, Libya and Syria. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Tue Jan 6 22:36:40 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:36:40 -0500 Subject: [A-List] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... NoExceptions In-Reply-To: <4963D845.7000102@gmail.com> References: <4963D845.7000102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <64195C92342F4D2FAB21BF7371838446@PrisonLegalNews.local> When is the mythical time period when the US did not engage in wholesale torture and murder? The nation is founded on genocide. About 20 miles from where I live is Turners Falls in Massachusetts. It is named after William Turner who in the 1600s massacred over 100 naitve Americans and the survivors were thrown over the water falls which bear his name. For an excellent history of the role of the US in training death squads and military regimes in murder and torture see A.J. Languth's book Hidden Terrors. Remember the Central American wars and every couple of years the media would "discover" yet another CIA torture or assassination manual? Need we remember the Phoenix Program and the tiger cages of Viet Nam? Torture is an American institution that is as American as the proverbial apple pie. This is how counterinsurgency wars are fought and won and have been for centuries. Governments use torture because it is surprisingl effective at eliciting information and more importantly, at showing people who is boss and who is running the show. Prison Legal News, the magazine I edit reports in every issue on the torture and brutalization of American prisoners. Nothing has been reported from Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib that I do not report happening here in the US on a regular basis. The difference is that when the victims are social prisoners, or poor criminals, no one cares. If Panetta were to stop the CIA from torturing people he won't keep the job. And what to do with all the torturers on payroll? A mundane point, but torture remains illegal. The only problem is one of impunity, not legality. And nary a bleat from the Obama crew about prosecuting torturers. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Leighm Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 5:17 PM To: The A-List Subject: [A-List] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... NoExceptions As I was saying earlier: "According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear. Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock? The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force. We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground. We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.panetta.html From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 07:38:10 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:38:10 -0800 Subject: [A-List] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... NoExceptions In-Reply-To: <64195C92342F4D2FAB21BF7371838446@PrisonLegalNews.local> References: <4963D845.7000102@gmail.com> <64195C92342F4D2FAB21BF7371838446@PrisonLegalNews.local> Message-ID: <4964BE52.3060509@gmail.com> Paul Wright wrote: "If Panetta were to stop the CIA from torturing people he won't keep the job." That's what's gonna happen.... But it'll be fun to watch, and if the media plays it right (snicker), quite informational for the US public in re THEIR role in all this and the world. Leon Panetta is an anachronism in American politics. The Panetta Institute is NO School of the Americas. ...and in my estimation, speaking of politics as a 'hustle, he's a 'clinker'(Slang, A sour note in a performance... "hit a clinker"), not the 'shill'. Leigh > When is the mythical time period when the US did not engage in wholesale > torture and murder? The nation is founded on genocide. About 20 miles from > where I live is Turners Falls in Massachusetts. It is named after William > Turner who in the 1600s massacred over 100 naitve Americans and the > survivors were thrown over the water falls which bear his name. > > For an excellent history of the role of the US in training death squads and > military regimes in murder and torture see A.J. Languth's book Hidden > Terrors. Remember the Central American wars and every couple of years the > media would "discover" yet another CIA torture or assassination manual? > > Need we remember the Phoenix Program and the tiger cages of Viet Nam? > Torture is an American institution that is as American as the proverbial > apple pie. This is how counterinsurgency wars are fought and won and have > been for centuries. Governments use torture because it is surprisingl > effective at eliciting information and more importantly, at showing people > who is boss and who is running the show. > > Prison Legal News, the magazine I edit reports in every issue on the torture > and brutalization of American prisoners. Nothing has been reported from > Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib that I do not report happening here in the US on a > regular basis. The difference is that when the victims are social prisoners, > or poor criminals, no one cares. > > If Panetta were to stop the CIA from torturing people he won't keep the job. > And what to do with all the torturers on payroll? A mundane point, but > torture remains illegal. The only problem is one of impunity, not legality. > And nary a bleat from the Obama crew about prosecuting torturers. > > Paul Wright, Editor > Prison Legal News > P.O. Box 2420 > West Brattleboro, VT 05303 > 802-257-1342 > pwright at prisonlegalnews.org > www.prisonlegalnews.org > > Seattle Office: > 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 > Seattle, WA 98117 > 206-246-1022 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu > [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Leighm > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 5:17 PM > To: The A-List > Subject: [A-List] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... > NoExceptions > > As I was saying earlier: > > "According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public > believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important > information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform > from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of > armchair torturers? One word: fear. > > Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the > means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the > next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or > electric shock? > > The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules > that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the > world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other > crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than > that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an > inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel > and unusual punishment. > > We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that > there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect the > dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of > office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the > Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from > every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of > law, not by brute force. > > We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. > Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in > certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that > is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the > individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual > punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground. > > We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are > better than that." > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.panetta.html > > > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 07:50:30 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:50:30 -0800 Subject: [A-List] [addendum] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... NoExceptions In-Reply-To: <4964BE06.8050803@gmail.com> References: <4963D845.7000102@gmail.com> <64195C92342F4D2FAB21BF7371838446@PrisonLegalNews.local> <4964BE06.8050803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4964C136.4060406@gmail.com> George W. Bush is a 'Shill', in case it hasn't been noted here yet. Leigh Meyers wrote: > > > Paul Wright wrote: > > "If Panetta were to stop the CIA from torturing people he won't keep > the job." > > That's what's gonna happen.... But it'll be fun to watch, and if the > media plays it right (snicker), quite informational for the US public > in re THEIR role in all this and the world. > > Leon Panetta is an anachronism in American politics. > > The Panetta Institute is NO School of the Americas. ...and in my > estimation, speaking of politics as a 'hustle, he's a 'clinker'(Slang, > A sour note in a performance... "hit a clinker"), not the 'shill'. > > Leigh > > >> When is the mythical time period when the US did not engage in wholesale >> torture and murder? The nation is founded on genocide. About 20 miles >> from >> where I live is Turners Falls in Massachusetts. It is named after >> William >> Turner who in the 1600s massacred over 100 naitve Americans and the >> survivors were thrown over the water falls which bear his name. >> >> For an excellent history of the role of the US in training death >> squads and >> military regimes in murder and torture see A.J. Languth's book Hidden >> Terrors. Remember the Central American wars and every couple of years >> the >> media would "discover" yet another CIA torture or assassination manual? >> >> Need we remember the Phoenix Program and the tiger cages of Viet Nam? >> Torture is an American institution that is as American as the proverbial >> apple pie. This is how counterinsurgency wars are fought and won and >> have >> been for centuries. Governments use torture because it is surprisingl >> effective at eliciting information and more importantly, at showing >> people >> who is boss and who is running the show. >> >> Prison Legal News, the magazine I edit reports in every issue on the >> torture >> and brutalization of American prisoners. Nothing has been reported from >> Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib that I do not report happening here in the >> US on a >> regular basis. The difference is that when the victims are social >> prisoners, >> or poor criminals, no one cares. >> >> If Panetta were to stop the CIA from torturing people he won't keep >> the job. >> And what to do with all the torturers on payroll? A mundane point, but >> torture remains illegal. The only problem is one of impunity, not >> legality. >> And nary a bleat from the Obama crew about prosecuting torturers. >> >> Paul Wright, Editor >> Prison Legal News >> P.O. Box 2420 >> West Brattleboro, VT 05303 >> 802-257-1342 >> pwright at prisonlegalnews.org >> www.prisonlegalnews.org >> >> Seattle Office: >> 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 >> Seattle, WA 98117 >> 206-246-1022 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu >> [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Leighm >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 5:17 PM >> To: The A-List >> Subject: [A-List] CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta: No Torture... >> NoExceptions >> >> As I was saying earlier: >> >> "According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public >> believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important >> information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform >> from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation >> of armchair torturers? One word: fear. >> >> Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the >> means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, >> the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little >> waterboarding or electric shock? >> >> The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the >> rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked >> around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, >> torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America >> could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every >> individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to >> freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. >> >> We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that >> there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect >> the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the >> oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and >> defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders >> different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to >> govern by the rule of law, not by brute force. >> >> We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national >> security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse >> captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our >> values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the >> dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of >> cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground. >> >> We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are >> better than that." >> >> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.panetta.html >> >> >> >> >> > > From noreply at coha.org Tue Jan 6 12:00:38 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:00:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] COHA Open Forum Message-ID: <20090106190029.E07D53E457A@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4873 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090106/628fc433/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Wed Jan 7 08:07:16 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:07:16 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Human Rights Watch Responds Message-ID: <20090107150700.A074F3E4658@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3910 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090107/39e0a2bf/attachment.txt From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jan 7 11:04:38 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:04:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan Message-ID: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Jim Devine wrote: but even FDR's "Bonapartism" was not very good in the early New Deal. The NRA, for example. Needed was mass pressure from the left. Lou Pro: Sad but true. With the left so weak, there is even less incentive for Obama to move boldly. If he has any motivation to create a kind of new New Deal, it will be from a policy wonk perspective. In other words, the kind of thing you get from the U. of Chicago economists he relies on. The screwy thing is that from the long term needs of the capitalist system, it is imperative to address infrastructure, environment, education, etc. but the state is too much a captive of ideological accretions and institutional inertia. When I had a house guest from Uganda in November who had exactly the same ethnic background as Obama, he dismissed Obama with one word: Brezhnev. ^^^^^ CB: Brezhnev was to the left of the Bonaparts , FDR, and Krugman. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 11:17:03 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:17:03 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan In-Reply-To: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <4964A866.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <4964F19F.4030204@gmail.com> Corollary to: > The screwy thing is that from the long term needs of the capitalist system, it is imperative to address infrastructure, environment, education, etc. but the state is too much a captive of ideological accretions and institutional inertia. From my Tweeter : Stephen Walt - 'Was Ike right about the "military-industrial complex"?' (Why the DoD's budget is unlikely to shrink) http://tinyurl.com/7vypb5 Charles Brown wrote: > Jim Devine wrote: > but even FDR's "Bonapartism" was not very good in the early New Deal. > The NRA, for example. Needed was mass pressure from the left. > > Lou Pro: > Sad but true. With the left so weak, there is even less incentive for Obama to move boldly. If he has any motivation to create a kind of new New Deal, it will be from a policy wonk perspective. In other words, the kind of thing you get from the U. of Chicago economists he relies on. The screwy thing is that from the long term needs of the capitalist system, it is imperative to address infrastructure, environment, education, etc. but the state is too much a captive of ideological accretions and institutional inertia. When I had a house guest from Uganda in November who had exactly the same ethnic background as Obama, he dismissed Obama with one word: Brezhnev. > > ^^^^^ > CB: Brezhnev was to the left of the Bonaparts , FDR, and Krugman. > > > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 11:45:17 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:45:17 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Times Tuff? Buy More 'Stuff' Message-ID: <4964F83D.2070703@gmail.com> Meanwhile, everything is going higher and higher... and higher. I go to bed But sleep won't come get up in the night I couldn't stand my feeling no Early in the morning Oh mercy It's just the same situation Deep in the landlord Comes a knocking up on my door He's a knocking up on my door I've got $400/month rent to pay and I can't find a dollar let me, Let me tell you... Time tough (time tough) Everything is out of sight, so hard (so hard) so hard (so hard) Time tough (time tough) Everything is going higher and higher (higher and higher) Time Tough, Toots and The Maytals http://www.lyricszoo.com/toots-the-maytals/time-tough/ "With many Americans struggling to pay bills, find jobs and even avoid foreclosure, it may seem like an extravagance to spend hundreds of dollars on a laptop or a digital camera. But financial fears also are causing consumers to spend more time at home, where they still want to be entertained. Industry observers believe this nesting trend could sustain demand for products -- Blu-ray players, stereos, video games, cheap computers -- that brighten the family room while easing the sting of canceling that Disney World vacation... http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/07/ces.2009.preview/index.html?eref=rss_topstories From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jan 7 12:11:38 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:11:38 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Manufacturing Tumbles Globally Message-ID: <4964B81A.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> (Chart Redacted) a.. JANUARY 3, 2009 Page A-1 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094144619950373.html Manufacturing Tumbles Globally By KELLY EVANS and ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS Manufacturing activity around the world fell sharply in December, suggesting that the U.S. recession will extend well into 2009, if not longer, and that unemployment will rise globally. A broad index of change in U.S. manufacturing activity fell to its lowest level since June 1980, when the economy was on the verge of a severe double-dip recession, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Not one of the 18 industries surveyed reported growth, and some, such as wood products, have been in decline for more than two years. New orders, a gauge of future activity, sank to the lowest index level since records began 60 years ago. Exports and production also sank, and employment levels declined. The downturn in demand for manufactured goods is prompting companies of all sizes to lay off workers, shut down plants and reduce production of machinery, steel, plastics and other basic components. Separate surveys of manufacturing activity around the world released on Friday, the first business day of the new year, were also bleak. Manufacturing is a key component of a country's gross domestic product, and the data often serve as a barometer of future economic growth. Nevertheless, on Friday, stock markets around the world shrugged off the manufacturing numbers, posting gains in Hong Kong, Seoul and Europe on light trading volume. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 258.3 points, or 2.94%, to close at 9034.69. Some analysts say global weakness is already priced into shares, which in the U.S. just closed their worst year since 1931. Manufacturing activity contracted in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, pushing the Markit Economics survey of euro-zone manufacturing last month to the lowest level in its 11-year history. In Russia, the VTB Bank Europe manufacturing index fell to its lowest level since it began in September 1997. The data from Asia also looked grim. A survey by brokerage firm CLSA showed employment and output fell at a record clip in Chinese factories in December. Indian manufacturers cut jobs for the first time in the history of a survey by ABN AMRO Bank. The simultaneous woes of manufacturing in rich countries and poor countries are something new in the global economy. In the past, weaknesses in U.S. and European manufacturing meant a windfall for developing economies, which took up the slack. Hong Kong, which like the euro zone slipped into recession in the third quarter, saw manufacturing activity as surveyed by Markit decline for the sixth straight month. Earlier this week, Japan's Nomura/JMMA index of manufacturing sank to a new low, due to a reduction in overseas demand and the deteriorating global economy. The spreading and deepening manufacturing slump has some experts worried that the global economy in 2009 won't fare much better than last year. J.P. Morgan's global manufacturing index, released Friday and compiled from surveys in 19 countries, reached a new low in December, consistent with a "severe" 17% annualized contraction in global activity. J.P. Morgan estimates global output declined 4% in the last three months of 2008 compared to the previous quarter, reflecting reduced spending and available financing on autos, housing and capital equipment. Manufacturers around the world have already begun layoffs to conserve cash and reduce production, but many more are expected this year. The job cuts are coming across industries and borders. Nickent Golf, a golf-club manufacturer in the Los Angeles area, recently cut assembly workers in China and the U.S. to cope with falling demand. In Elbow Lake, Minn., Cosmos Enterprises Inc., which makes metal and plastic parts for manufacturers including car and farm-equipment makers, has cut capacity, and in October it laid off five machinists and one quality inspector. "What is 2009 going to bring? There's a scary thought," says sales manager Kelly Chandler. The struggles of big steel companies are particularly troubling, because that industry's health is considered an early indicator of how other industries are faring. ArcelorMittal, U.S. Steel Corp. and AK Steel all have announced layoffs in the U.S. or Canada. In the U.S., mills that produce raw steel are working at only about 43% of capacity. Gerdau Macsteel Inc., a specialty-steel maker, said it would eliminate 300 employees by Jan. 16 at its Jackson, Mich., plant, although it is unclear whether the layoffs will be permanent. The steelmaker has been hit especially hard because about 50% of its output goes into automotive applications. The U.S. shed some 1.9 million jobs in 2008, through November, and the unemployment rate, currently 6.7%, is expected to rise when the government reports December figures next Friday. The surveys "underscore the depth of the global recession, which we believe will prove to be the worst in the post-war era," says Nigel Gault, an economist with IHS Global Insight. His firm estimates that U.S. gross domestic product declined at a 5.6% annualized rate in the fourth quarter. "With no evidence that the rate of contraction is moderating, we expect declines almost that large in the first quarter of 2009," he says. "The long-awaited fiscal-stimulus package cannot come soon enough." In Germany, Europe's largest economy, machinery, equipment and auto makers are struggling. Volkswagen AG, Europe's largest car maker, said on Dec. 9 that waning sales may make it harder to reach growth targets for 2010. BMW and Mercedes-Benz both saw about 25% drops in November sales. Unemployment across the euro zone hit 7.7% in October, its highest level in nearly two years. The rate is expected to continue rising this year. In December, European Central Bank staffers forecast the euro-zone economy will contract by about 0.5% in 2009. Many private-sector economists contend that prediction is too optimistic, arguing that the bloc could face its sharpest recession since World War II. Sentiment is similar in Asia. Countries such as India and China, heralded for their rapid growth, are cooling as demand for their goods weakens. Chinese manufacturing activity in December posted its second lowest reading since 2004, when CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets began its survey. Both new orders and employment in China fell for the fifth month in a row. Indian employment and manufacturing activity in December fell to their lowest levels since the survey, jointly produced by ABN AMRO Bank and Markit Economics, began in 2005. The global manufacturing decline could put pressure on governments to pull harder on monetary and fiscal levers. The European Central Bank, in particular, has been criticized for failing to move rapidly enough, despite cutting its key rate by 1.75 percentage points since October, to its current 2.5%. By contrast, the U.S. Federal Reserve has slashed its lending rate to near 0%. Investors are betting the ECB will lower its rate by another half percentage point to 2% at its next meeting on Jan. 15. The International Monetary Fund's campaign to get countries to boost government spending by a total of 2% of global gross domestic product -- more than $1 trillion -- could get a lift as well. In the U.S., President-elect Obama has been talking of a stimulus plan of between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years, largely geared to construction spending. China has talked of greatly increasing spending, although some analysts say the numbers Beijing is using are inflated. European nations, more concerned about budget deficits, have been more reluctant to adopt such tactics. -Joellen Perry, Conor Dougherty, Chester Yung and Paul Hannon contributed to this article. Write to Kelly Evans at kelly.evans at wsj.com and Robert Guy Matthews at robertguy.matthews at wsj.com This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 12:57:09 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:57:09 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Havana Lifts Restrictions on Some Economic Data Message-ID: Havana lifts restrictions on some economic data By Marc Frank in Havana Published: January 6 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 6 2009 02:00 Communist Cuba is slowly lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding its people and economy as demands from a more educated public, the information age and the need to better manage its affairs erode concerns about US snooping and the secretive instincts of bureaucrats. Just a few years ago hardly any Cuban statistics were available online. Land use, sales at agricultural markets and monthly tourism arrivals, among other reports, were restricted. It took months to obtain a few initial printed figures covering the previous year's economic and social performance. A statistical abstract of domestic information on one year was not published until the end of the next. But Ra?l Castro has demanded more accurate information since he stepped in for Fidel Castro, his ailing brother, in July 2006 and officially became president in February last year. In a speech to parliament in 2006 he attacked shoddy data as "preventing us from knowing what has been done and what remains to be done". A relative deluge of readily available information has since appeared, at the centre of which is the website of Cuba's National Statistics Office, www.one.cu, reinforced by graduates of its University of Information Sciences. "Without a doubt the government is looking more at different phenomena, from demographics to social and economic issues," says Oscar Maderos, the young director of the NSO. With celebrations on Thursday marking the 50th anniversary of Fidel's triumphant arrival in Havana during the Cuban revolution, the information on the site is one of the more tangible signs of thawing government control under Ra?l's presidency. Last year the initial data for 2007 were released in January and the statistical abstract made available online in June. October 2008 agricultural market sales and November tourism data are already on the site, along with dozens of previously secret reports, such as a study of internal migration. Mr Maderos says the increasing skill of local webmasters and domestic demand were driving the improvement, rather than outside users. "We were swamped with demands for national, provincial and even municipal information due to the universalisation of higher education," he says. Few students have computers, internet access or even phone lines, but they can view the website using the government-controlled intranet at work, school and state-run computer clubs. Controversy still swirls over the reliability of the information coming to light and important data remain secret: for example, the most recent nickel production figures, debt and some balance of payments information, crime statistics and details of the countries from which overseas health workers - Cuba's most important source of foreign exchange - send back service revenues. Mr Maderos insists the information published by his office is credible and gives a detailed, computer-aided explanation on how thousands of his employees gather it across the land. "We have more offices than anyone else in Cuba except the association of small farmers," he says. Even so, users differ about the usefulness of the information on the website. "I do use the page and find it surprisingly good because it's Cuba and I wouldn't have thought they would make so much information available," says a London-based debt broker, who wished to remain anonymous. Pavel Videl at the University of Havana's Centre for the Study of the Cuban Economy says: "The page has improved a lot. There is more transparency for us to work with. What's strange is that they seem to be alone because you do not see similar progress with other institutions that manage statistics, for example the central bank's page." G.B. Hagelberg, an international agriculture and sugar industry analyst, who often uses the website, says: "Government statistics across the world are not immune to manipulation. The only way to keep them reasonably honest is by creating competition within the system . . . and there is none in Cuba." In a country where the state still dominates economic activity, Mr Maderos admits that his office has two roles: "To serve and control." Information remains restricted because of US sanctions, he says. "Why would the information we do release be false? You can't forget our situation. We are under siege. It would be great if some day that changed, but for now we remain vigilant." From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jan 7 13:38:16 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:38:16 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Unemployment systems crash as jobless numbers hit 26-year high Message-ID: <4964CC69.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Unemployment systems crash as jobless numbers hit 26-year high >Archive - Daily Online Author: John Wojcik People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/07/09 14:53 Jobless benefit filing systems all over the country are crashing this week as an unprecedented wave of tens of thousands of newly unemployed Americans scrambles to survive. The states are saying that their web sites are going down because they are already overloaded with data on the 4.5 million now collecting benefits, the highest number in 26 years. In many states where the systems have not yet crashed the newly unemployed are left to hold on the phone lines for hours or are cut off with ?all lines are busy? messages. On Jan. 6 systems in New York, North Carolina and Ohio were shut down completely. New York?s phone and Internet claims system started to fail on Jan. 5 and was out of service completely on Jan. 6. It was restored a day later but workers there still report waiting hours to get help. ?Regardless of when you call, be prepared to wait and just hang on. Try not to get frustrated,? is the advice offered in a telephone interview with Howard Cosgrove, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. Unemployment statistics that the government will release Jan. 9 are expected to show that 500,000 more people lost their jobs in December, which could push the official national jobless rate over 7 percent. November?s 6.7 percent figure was already the highest in 15 years. For people in the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed the crashing of the systems turns what is already a harrowing experience into a certified nightmare. Tom McAvey, 54, was laid off Jan. 2 from the custodial staff in a Brooklyn, N.Y., elementary school. ?I waited until Monday to file my claim,? he told the World. ?Two of us at the school were laid off. We had no idea it was coming. What a way to start the new Yyar. I?m two week?s salary away from the poorhouse. My wife lost her job at Bear Stearns and is still out. I don?t know how I?m going to pay the bills. One of my daughters is in a Catholic high school ? there?s the tuition.? McAvey has difficulty mustering any sympathy for state officials who say the systems crash because of the unprecedented number of jobless applicants. ?I don?t buy it. The government has computers that handle much more information like the ones that keep track of all the taxes they are owed. If they weren?t laying off their own workers they could maintain better systems and plan for these emergencies. Layoffs and budget cuts are to blame ? it's not the fault of the unemployed.? An unemployed worker in Rhode Island emphasized how, even before the crashes, filing for benefits in her state constituted a virtual nightmare. Her state, along with Michigan, tops the nation with the highest unemployment rates. ?They have eliminated the old unemployment offices," she said. "They have laid off state employees. You can?t go anywhere to talk to a person. If I was lucky I got a recording that told me to call back later. This went on for days.? The woman described for the World how she had to research the location of an actual office where she could find a live person. ?But even there, I was told to fill out a form with a message and that in a few days someone would call me back. I was lucky to be home at the time they did call back. They were helpful ? it was a worker trying to do a good job, but there just aren?t enough of them. ?Between the trips back and forth, the 75-minute waits on hold ? once, out of desperation I held on for two hours ? it?s a struggle. It?s a lot of time lost that could be spent on the Internet or going out to look for a job,? she said. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jan 7 14:53:35 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:53:35 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh; Response Message-ID: <4964DE0F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh By Joel Wendland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- click here for related stories: socialism 1-02-09, 10:14 am The Republican Party is lashing out again. This time at itself. Several media sources recently reported that at an upcoming Republican National Convention meeting a resolution has been submitted that accuses George W. Bush of promoting socialism through the Wall Street bailout. This move is remarkably ironic given that Republicans unabashedly supported Bush until just weeks ago. Many had accused his critics of anti-Americanism and of supporting terrorism. A host of Republican ideologues and right-wing media outlets even took to calling Barack Obama a communist for a variety of reasons, but especially for his plan to give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. Here is what the resolution reportedly said, in part: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism." Now it is tempting to laugh at this nonsense and let it go. But the chance offered by these circumstances to explain a socialistic response to the economic crisis is too tempting to do so. Additional resources: Podcast #89 ? Auto Bailout: Why and What's the Reason For PA Editors Blog Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008 Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation Subscribe to this Feed In a recent article, we here at PoliticalAffairs.net reported recently on a new campaign to halt the bailout because of the lack of oversight in the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. Almost $350 billion in taxpayer money has been given to the world's richest banks without the least bit of curiosity on the part of the Bush administration about what they have done with the cash. According to some accounts the application for taxpayer money is a surprisingly uninquisitive two-page document that can be submitted online. Also, a recent media survey of several major banks who have taken the money revealed that they are flat out refusing to explain what they have done with the cash. A little deeper digging found, however, that many banks have hoarded the money rather trying to stimulate economic activity by loosening credit. Others have used the cash to buy smaller banks or expand their holdings in others. And the most corrupt have simply used the money to pad their profit margins or to pay outrageous executive bonuses, stockholder dividends, and for corporate jets and getaways. It is what Political Affairs contributing editor Norman Markowitz, in a recent article, called "vulture capitalism." This isn't socialism. Those are the fundamentals of the Republican ideology of the free market ? with direct government assistance. Far from being a "dangerous step toward socialism," that's how Republican free market concept works. Privatize benefits and profits; socialize costs and pain. No government oversight. Some actual socialist thinkers have called this type of economic activity the state monopoly stage of capitalism. It is the worst, most exploitative stage. Smaller businesses are gobbled up or eliminated; workers' rights are squashed. Rules and laws designed to reign in the worst excesses are discarded. Monopolies grow increasingly large and powerful. It is also this stage of capitalism that is most vulnerable to change, a stage in which socialist solutions to crises seem most feasible and even necessary. A socialist program for resolving the crisis in the banking industry would possibly have begun by using the TARP funds to gain public ownership and oversight of the banks. It would not have been a handout. Further, the socialist approach would have originated with the interest of working families. If indeed the TARP project had been a socialist one, it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and enacted with working people's interests at its center. The guiding principle would be the socialization of benefits and profit. For example, if TARP were handled in a socialistic way, homeowners who now face the loss of their homes would be a top priority. Mortgages would have been renegotiated with greater urgency than that which the Bush administration rushed to give payouts to the JP Morgans, Citigroups, and Bank of Americas. Credit with good terms for small farmers and small businesses would have been prioritized above the bottom lines of Wall Street. Capitalism is based on a couple of basic building blocks. Wealth is socially created and privately accumulated. Simply put, workers, for example, make all of the value accumulated by the auto companies, but the Ford family (and stockholders who rarely add an significant value to the end product) get the profit. Profit, then, is the difference between the total value created by the workers and what they are paid (minus taxes). Finance capitalism, while it exploits labor in the process of its accumulation of wealth, mainly thrives on speculation, monopolization and wealth accumulated elsewhere. Think about the high prices of oil driven by speculation, which had nothing to do with the actual extraction of petroleum or the production and distribution of gasoline, over this past summer as an example of the central dynamic of finance capitalism. Today's crisis of capitalism was driven primarily by speculation in the housing industry. Rules overseeing this industry were eliminated or ignored. Homeowners were allowed to refinance or purchase new homes with so-called subprime loans that inflated after a short period. Banks became predatory lenders. Many banks specifically targeted African American and Latino families for these predatory practices. Bankers then began to sell investment securities backed by these faulty loans to other banks and investment firms. Capitalist ideologues, like they always do, legitimized these stupid practices by insisting the housing boom would never end. Economists who warned about looming problems were ridiculed and scoffed at. Then the bubble burst, and the rest is history. The economic situation worsened due to a stagnating economy that had been ignored by the Bush administration for several years. Public ownership of the banks would quite probably have prevented predatory lending. Planning for adequate liquidity in credit markets (and sectors like housing, auto, and small businesses) organized by experts with an eye on the common good not private profits would have prevented the actions of Wall Street, not just over the past few months but over the course of the recent economic cycle. A socialistic economic policy would also likely have lessened the impact of the bursting housing bubble (if there would have been one in the first place), because working families and their needs would have been prioritized all along. The growing unemployment problem, which really began in early 2007, would have been addressed sooner. Stagnating wages, which had been hurting working families since the previous recession in 2001, would also have been addressed sooner. Worker protections, such as the right to join or organize unions, would have promoted a stronger standard of living among working families that would have created a basic safety net for working families against the changes in and unpredictability of the markets. Capitalist ideologues rationalized the necessity of the Wall Street bailout by saying that the major banks in the financial services industry were simply too big to let them fail. A socialist viewpoint would argue that there are some industry just too important to allow into the hands of people seeking private profit: basic industries, finance, health care, defense, energy, environment, and education probably top such a list. Some who read this are going to scream, "to hell with socialism" and "what about my freedom?" Fact is, freedom without equality is simply freedom to exploit. Freedom without equality means that big insurance companies can force you to pay higher insurance premiums for fewer health care services whenever they feel like it. Freedom without equality means that JPMorgan can use its TARP funds to fly its CEO around on fancy vacations and make dividend payments to stockholders with taxpayer money and not have to give an accounting for it. Freedom without equality means that predatory lenders get billions in tax dollars while shoplifters go to jail. There must be a proper balance struck between freedom and equality; and capitalism simply isn't the system under which such a balance can be struck. Response: TARP, Full Employment and Other Sticky Details By John Case -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- click here for related stories: socialism 1-05-09, 9:16 am In an otherwise excellent article debunking Bush as a phony socialist [as he is being dubbed on right-wing talk radio], Joel Wendland writes the following theses that I think deserve "a deeper look." "A socialist program for resolving the crisis in the banking industry would possibly have begun by using the TARP funds to gain public ownership and oversight of the banks. It would not have been a handout. Further, the socialist approach would have originated with the interest of working families. If indeed the TARP project had been a socialist one, it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and enacted with working people's interests at its center. The guiding principle would be the socialization of benefits and profit." A lot of virtue, perhaps, but much sin and confusion too, can be masked by the phrase "public ownership and oversight of the banks." In fact the TARP funds have been used to indeed "gain public ownership" of decisive shares of some of the largest US financial corporations. And the right of oversight was indeed given to the US Treasury Department by Congress. But either through inclination, interest, or a simple lack of available human, organizational and technical resources, or a combination of all three, oversight has been far less effective than expected or hoped, or required. Improvements in credit markets have been very slow, and conditions in the real economy are rapidly deteriorating. Additional resources: Podcast #90 - Depression Economics and Fundamental Change PA Editors Blog Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008 Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation Subscribe to this Feed No doubt if a socialist government were to assume power on the 20th, instead of Obama's, the same challenge of resources to manage and direct the TARP public investment in the financial industry would have to be met. How would such a government distinguish itself? Well, if only a class disinclination to nationalization or public control, or demonstrable personal conflict of interest stand in the way, then Wendland's formulation is home free: Wendland says "it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and enacted with working people's interests at its center. The guiding principle would be the socialization of benefits and profit." However, I think there are real institutional and control challenges in restructuring and re-directing investment in ways that serve the broadest and most sustainable recovery. Wendland's expression does not seem at all sufficient and begs more questions, both immediate and profound, than it answers. First of all, who gets excluded from the "center"? What is the "center"? Second, here are the possible interpretations of the sentence: "The guiding principle would be the socialization of benefits and profit" that occur to me, and its likely I have missed the one intended and others as well. 1. Declare public the "benefits" of a TARP investment (what are the benefits?), as well as capture all "profits" to the Treasury Department. (To be used to do what?) 2. Assume the "benefits" of a TARP investment are just narrowly construed to be "jobs" ? Jobs doing what, in an investment bank? In the overall economy? What principle will guide the determination of wages and salaries? What "profit" gets socialized if wages are correct? 3. Assume the benefit of a TARP investment are just narrowly construed to be "financial stability." What useful purposes do finance profits, and thus financial markets, serve, if any? Despite promising "open source" innovation trends, much innovation requires both competition and a means of funding a wide range of risk in its actual deployment, with appropriately high rewards for success. How to make "stability" more profitable than instability? How to reduce risk, but potentially reduce innovation and net growth as well? Can a "slower, more stable" growth prevail in a world without a global "slower growth," or with uneven rates of growth bent toward bringing lower-income countries up relative to the whole? 4. Assume the benefit from a TARP investment to be a public good, like universal, single-payer health care ? does it still need to be profitable? How about a new United States Car and Transportation Company, or network of Companies ? should it be profitable? How profitable? Conversely, If a TARP investment competes with private goods, in either domestic or international trade, what are the terms of trade? 5. Assume all profits on public wealth to be purchasable in shares by the public at discounts calculated to distribute assets proportional to productivity by vocation and avocation, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work ? and ability to navigate risk successfully (the profits). The big change here is in the human composition of capital, considered narrowly in terms of shares of ownership, or broadly incorporating human capital and creativity internationally. I think the socialist guiding principles for minimum demands in this democratic struggle need to be more closely, immediately drawn, and made easily understandable in straightforward language: sponsored ad 1. TARP Investments must be subordinated to the Stimulus Program. The Stimulus Program will set both broad and specific investment targets for public funds and mandates. The "benefits" of TARP investments must be in harmony with the Stimulus Program. 2. The most important objectives of the Stimulus Program are a) restoration of full employment, and b) enactment of universal health coverage, while c) lessening global economic inequality, instability and tendencies towards war. Overall this will mean for some time a smaller investment relative to consumption based economy, more demand, than supply, oriented. It may mean a slower, though more sustainable growth in the US economy. The cheap oil, easy credit, bubble days are gone beyond the horizon. In addition, the values expressed in cleaner, safer, greener, more peaceful environments, the advancement of sports, culture and science, the improvement of cooperation, general health and well-being in communities will have to consume greater space in the standard-of-living indexes alongside standard commodity consumption metrics. 3. Both 2.a) and 2.b) above require grass roots organization and action approaches of a kind communists, socialists and radical social-democrats are justly famous for developing. Neither can be achieved without such approaches. It is here that the distinctions between phony socialists and real ones can be made manifest. The phony socialists not only include Bush, of course, but also the more liberal (than Bush) representatives of the Obama Economic team, who are endorsing socialist-like public interventions in the economy, but whose class interests and training compromise their ability to carry through on the key tasks of recovery. The full employment task compels government to set an absolute floor on poverty, and to become an employer of last resort, even at the expense of private prerogatives. The Obama National Service plans coincide with the immediate foundation for mobilization for full employment. An multi-million agitational sign-up "Application for Employment In National Service," for example, addressed to the Obama Team and the incoming Congress would be a worthy organizing tool, around which American youth and seniors, unemployed and underemployed, and those simply dedicated to public service to their country, could volunteer and help shape the vision of a diverse and many sided national service program. Similar tactics for a serious single-payer national health care campaign can also garner immediate mass support and participation. Both campaigns bear heavily on ways in which the practical impact of socialist leadership on the overall recovery effort can be measured and judged by the public, and especially by working people. 4. 2.c) requires a vigilant peace movement with much broader internationalist ties and coordination that currently exists. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Jan 7 15:25:58 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:25:58 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation Message-ID: <4964E5A7.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation From the National Organization for Women: Two important bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) and the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12), will be among the House of Representatives' first votes of the 111th Congress. Please take time now to call or email your representative and urge her/him to vote for these bills that will help reduce wage discrimination against women. The votes could come as early as Wednesday, Jan. 7, but might possibly be held off until Friday, Jan. 9. Regardless, please send your message -- by sending an email or calling your House member's office. The U.S. Capitol switchboard number is 202-224-3121; just ask to be connected to your representative's office and leave a message of support for these bills. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 00:30:44 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:30:44 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree Spending Message-ID: January 8, 2009 Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree Spending By JEFF ZELENY and JOHN HARWOOD WASHINGTON ? President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs. As the Congressional Budget Office projected a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year even before the costs of the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep the government's finances from deteriorating further. Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month. Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees. Mr. Obama also promised a more intensive effort to weed inefficient and bloated programs out of the federal budget in the short run, creating a White House position to "scour this budget, line by line, eliminating what we don't need, or what doesn't work, and improving the things that do." He named Nancy Killefer to the post, called chief performance officer. "If we do nothing," Mr. Obama said, "then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see." In an interview later in the day with CNBC and The New York Times, Mr. Obama suggested that he would hold his economic stimulus proposal to the low end of the amounts that economists think will be necessary because it was likely to grow in size as it moved through Congress. He said that he intended to propose a broad overhaul of financial regulation by April, and that he was working with Congressional leaders on his promised plan to limit foreclosures in the wake of the mortgage crisis. "We've got to prevent the continuing deterioration of the housing market," he said. Mr. Obama met privately on Wednesday with Mr. Bush, then had lunch at the White House with Mr. Bush and the three living ex-presidents, Jimmy Carter, George Bush and Bill Clinton. In the interview, Mr. Obama said the other presidents had offered him good advice about the job: "How do you make sure that you get good information?" he said. "How do you make sure that people aren't just telling you what you want to hear?" The bad fiscal news underscored how, on his first week in Washington since the election, Mr. Obama is being challenged by a broad array of problems, some inherited and some a result of his own missteps, a departure from a transition that until now had been praised as orderly and swift. The fighting between Israelis and Palestinians will present him with a complex foreign policy challenge immediately upon taking office. The week opened with the first casualty among Mr. Obama's cabinet appointments, as Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico withdrew as his choice for commerce secretary amid questions about whether he had been adequately vetted. Then Mr. Obama had to apologize to Senate leaders for not informing them of his choice to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama backed away from his opposition to seating Roland W. Burris as his successor in the Senate, after initially saying that Mr. Burris was unacceptable because he had been chosen by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, who has been accused of trying to sell the seat. These events are testing the resilience of Mr. Obama's honeymoon, the depth of public support for him and how much people are willing to move beyond the familiar partisan rancor because of the gravity of the crises when he assumes power. "When you hit a bump, it may not be obvious at the time whether it's a mountain or a molehill, but they are rarely mountains," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "There are going to be things that go better than other things. The question is, Are we moving in the right direction? The answer is yes." The dustup over Mr. Obama's selection of Mr. Panetta to lead the C.I.A. appeared to cool Wednesday. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and incoming chairwoman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, dropped her criticism, saying, "I believe all systems are go." Mr. Obama also was poised to name Cass R. Sunstein, an American legal scholar, to an existing White House post as the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. A transition official said late Wednesday that Mr. Sunstein would oversee government regulations and devise new approaches for government efficiencies. For now, Mr. Obama is seeking to keep the spotlight focused on the economic recovery plan he is urging Congress to pass. He is set to offer a campaignlike address explaining the proposal on Thursday at George Mason University in Virginia, his first speech since winning the election. In the interview, he offered some soothing words to Republicans and the financial markets about his ideological approach, saying it was only the scale and urgency of the economic crisis that led him to support a huge stimulus plan. "I'm not out to increase the size of the government long- term," he said. "My preference would be that the private sector was doing this all on their own." On Capitol Hill, some Republicans warned that the deficit would be even larger than the Congressional Budget Office has projected, perhaps as much as $1.8 trillion once additional spending bills are approved. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, and his House counterpart, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said the extensive borrowing by the government could be a disaster if Congressional Democrats and the new Obama administration did not also work on long-term solutions including changes to Social Security and Medicare. From Waistline2 at aol.com Thu Jan 8 01:07:31 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:07:31 EST Subject: [A-List] Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree Spending Message-ID: Unless President elect Obama is talking about taking medical care and unemployment insurance out of Social Security and creating a new expanded agency to cover medical care and the unemployment crisis he is in horrible trouble. Any advocacy of cuts to Social Security means he won't last 6 months. Time to march. Waistline January 8, 2009 Obama Says He Will Seek Overhaul of Retiree Spending By JEFF ZELENY and JOHN HARWOOD WASHINGTON ? President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs. As the Congressional Budget Office projected a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year even before the costs of the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep the government's finances from deteriorating further. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 01:26:11 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:26:11 -0500 Subject: [A-List] China Losing Taste for Debt From the U.S. Message-ID: January 8, 2009 China Losing Taste for Debt From the U.S. By KEITH BRADSHER HONG KONG ? China has bought more than $1 trillion of American debt, but as the global downturn has intensified, Beijing is starting to keep more of its money at home, a move that could have painful effects for American borrowers. The declining Chinese appetite for United States debt, apparent in a series of hints from Chinese policy makers over the last two weeks, with official statistics due for release in the next few days, comes at an inconvenient time. On Tuesday, President-elect Barack Obama predicted the possibility of trillion-dollar deficits "for years to come," even after an $800 billion stimulus package. Normally, China would be the most avid taker of the debt required to pay for those deficits, mainly short-term Treasuries, which are government i.o.u.'s. In the last five years, China has spent as much as one-seventh of its entire economic output buying foreign debt, mostly American. In September, it surpassed Japan as the largest overseas holder of Treasuries. But now Beijing is seeking to pay for its own $600 billion stimulus ? just as tax revenue is falling sharply as the Chinese economy slows. Regulators have ordered banks to lend more money to small and medium-size enterprises, many of which are struggling with lower exports, and to local governments to build new roads and other projects. "All the key drivers of China's Treasury purchases are disappearing ? there's a waning appetite for dollars and a waning appetite for Treasuries, and that complicates the outlook for interest rates," said Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist in the Hong Kong office of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Fitch Ratings, the credit rating agency, forecasts that China's foreign reserves will increase by $177 billion this year ? a large number, but down sharply from an estimated $415 billion last year. China's voracious demand for American bonds has helped keep interest rates low for borrowers ranging from the federal government to home buyers. Reduced Chinese enthusiasm for buying American bonds will reduce this dampening effect. For now, of course, there seems to be no shortage of buyers for Treasury bonds and other debt instruments as investors flee global economic uncertainty for the stability of United States government debt. This is why Treasury yields have plummeted to record lows. (The more investors want notes and bonds, the lower the yield, and short-term rates are close to zero.) The long-term effects of China's using its money to increase its people's standard of living, and the United States' becoming less dependent on one lender, could even be positive. But that rebalancing must happen gradually to not hurt the value of American bonds or of China's huge holdings. Another danger is that investors will demand higher returns for holding Treasury securities, which will put pressure on the United States government to increase the interest rates those securities pay. As those interest rates increase, they will put pressure on the interest rates that other borrowers pay. When and how all that will happen is unknowable. What is clear now is that the impact of the global downturn on China's finances has been striking, and it is having an effect on what the Chinese government does with its money. The central government's tax revenue soared 32 percent in 2007, as factories across China ran at full speed. But by November, government revenue had dropped 3 percent from a year earlier. That prompted Finance Minister Xie Xuren to warn on Monday that 2009 would be "a difficult fiscal year." A senior central bank official, Cai Qiusheng, mentioned just before Christmas that China's $1.9 trillion foreign exchange reserves had actually begun to shrink. The reserves ? mainly bonds issued by the Treasury, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? had for the most part been rising quickly ever since the Asian financial crisis in 1998. The strength of the dollar against the euro in the fourth quarter of last year contributed to slower growth in China's foreign reserves, said Fan Gang, an academic adviser to China's central bank, at a conference in Beijing on Tuesday. The central bank keeps track of the total value of its reserves in dollars, so a weaker euro means that euro-denominated assets are worth less in dollars, decreasing the total value of the reserves. But the pace of China's accumulation of reserves began slowing in the third quarter along with the slowing of the Chinese economy, and appeared to reflect much broader shifts. China manages its reserves with considerable secrecy. But economists believe about 70 percent is denominated in dollars and most of the rest in euros. China has bankrolled its huge reserves by effectively requiring the country's entire banking sector, which is state-controlled, to take nearly one-fifth of its deposits and hand them to the central bank. The central bank, in turn, has used the money to buy foreign bonds. Now the central bank is rapidly reducing this requirement and pushing banks to lend more money in China instead. At the same time, three new trends mean that fewer dollars are pouring into China ? so the government has fewer dollars to buy American bonds. The first, little-noticed trend is that the monthly pace of foreign direct investment in China has fallen by more than a third since the summer. Multinationals are hoarding their cash and cutting back on construction of new factories. The second trend is that the combination of a housing bust and a two-thirds fall in the Chinese stock market over the last year has led many overseas investors ? and even some Chinese ? to begin quietly to move money out of the country, despite stringent currency controls. So much Chinese money has poured into Hong Kong, which has its own internationally convertible currency, that the territory announced Wednesday that it had issued a record $16.6 billion worth of extra currency last month to meet demand. A third trend that may further slow the flow of dollars into China is the reduction of its huge trade surpluses. China's trade surplus set another record in November, $40.1 billion. But because prices of Chinese imports like oil are starting to recover while demand remains weak for Chinese exports like consumer electronics, most economists expect China to run average trade surpluses this year of less than $20 billion a month. That would give China considerably less to spend abroad than the $50 billion a month that it poured into international financial markets ? mainly American bond markets ? during the first half of 2008. "The pace of foreign currency flows into China has to slow," and therefore the pace of China's reinvestment of that foreign currency in overseas bonds will also slow, said Dariusz Kowalczyk, the chief investment officer at SJS Markets Ltd., a Hong Kong securities firm. Two officials of the People's Bank of China, the nation's central bank, said in separate interviews that the government still had enough money available to buy dollars to prevent China's currency, the yuan, from rising. A stronger yuan would make Chinese exports less competitive. For a combination of financial and political reasons, the decline in China's purchases of dollar-denominated assets may be less steep than the overall decline in its purchases of foreign assets. Many Chinese companies are keeping more of their dollar revenue overseas instead of bringing it home and converting it into yuan to deposit in Chinese banks. Treasury data from Washington also suggests the Chinese government might be allocating a higher proportion of its foreign currency reserves to the dollar in recent weeks and less to the euro. The Treasury data suggests China is buying more Treasuries and fewer bonds from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, with a sharp increase in Treasuries in October. But specialists in international money flows caution against relying too heavily on these statistics. The statistics mostly count bonds that the Chinese government has bought directly, and exclude purchases made through banks in London and Hong Kong; with the financial crisis weakening many banks, the Chinese government has a strong incentive to buy more of its bonds directly than in the past. The overall pace of foreign reserve accumulation in China seems to have slowed so much that even if all the remaining purchases were Treasuries, the Chinese government's overall purchases of dollar-denominated assets will have fallen, economists said. China's leadership is likely to avoid any complete halt to purchases of Treasuries for fear of appearing to be torpedoing American chances for an economic recovery at a vulnerable time, said Paul Tang, the chief economist at the Bank of East Asia here. "This is a political decision," he said. "This is not purely an investment decision." Buying Fewer Bonds From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 01:29:29 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:29:29 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Rockets_Fired_From_Lebanon_Into_Israel?= =?windows-1252?q?=92s_North?= Message-ID: January 9, 2009 Rockets Fired From Lebanon Into Israel's North By STEVEN ERLANGER JERUSALEM ? Israel's conflict with Hamas in Gaza threatened to broaden on Thursday as at least three rockets were fired into the north of Israel from Lebanon. The rockets, presumably launched in support of Hamas, could presage the opening of a second front. The Israeli Army, in a brief statement, said it "responded with fire against the source of the rockets," which landed near the town of Nahariya. Two Israelis were slightly wounded, the police said. Lebanese security sources told Reuters that they believed it was unlikely that the rockets were fired under instructions from the militant group Hezbollah. But there was no confirmation or denial from Hezbollah itself. In 2006, after the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier just outside Gaza, a large Israeli operation there was overshadowed by Israeli's massive response to an attack in the north by Hezbollah, which turned into what is known as the Second Lebanon War. On Wednesday, Israel had said that it would send senior officials to talk with Egypt about halting the conflict in Gaza, but there were no immediate signs of a diplomatic breakthrough, and fighting between Israel and Hamas militants continued after a three-hour lull for humanitarian aid to be distributed. International pressure for a negotiated cease-fire intensified after Israeli shells killed some 40 people at a United Nations school in Gaza on Tuesday. Israel said Hamas militants had fired mortar shells from the school compound prior to Israel's shelling. Israel suspended its military operations in Gaza for three hours on Wednesday to allow humanitarian aid and fuel for power generation to reach Gazans, who used the afternoon break to shop. But fighting resumed soon afterward. In the evening, the Israeli Army dropped leaflets warning the citizens of Rafah, next to the border with Egypt, to leave their homes. Israel has been bombing the tunnel networks through which arms and consumer goods are smuggled from Egypt into Gaza. The rockets from Lebanon fell in residential areas. Shimon Koren, head of the northern district police, instructed residents of Nahariya and Kabri to enter bomb shelters and he instructed residents in nearby localities to open their shelters. School was cancelled in Nahariya and nearby Shlomi. The Israeli government said it welcomed the efforts of France and Egypt to work out a durable cease-fire. It said it would end its assault if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel and ended the smuggling of weapons from Egypt. It said that if a durable cease-fire took hold, it would reopen border crossings into Gaza for goods and people. But Israeli and Hamas officials both denied an assertion by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, that a cease-fire had been agreed upon. "There is an agreement on general principles, that Hamas should stop rocket fire and mustn't rearm," a senior Israeli official said Wednesday evening. "But that's like agreeing that motherhood is a good thing. We have to transform those agreed principles into working procedures on the ground, and that's barely begun." The government spokesman, Mark Regev, said that "the challenge now is to get the details to match the principles." There were early signs that a formal diplomatic negotiation could begin after 12 days of fighting. Egypt's chief of intelligence, Omar Suleiman, is expected to serve as a go-between for Israel and Hamas. Two Israeli officials ? a senior aide to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Shalom Turgeman, and a senior defense official, Amos Gilad ? are expected to go to Egypt on Thursday to begin discussions, Israeli officials said. The United States has been involved behind the scenes, senior Israeli and French officials said, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "constantly on the phone" with Mr. Olmert, according to one Israeli official. In Washington, the White House spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, said of talks about a cease-fire: "As I understand, the Israelis are open to the concept, but they want to learn more about the details; so do we." At the United Nations, several Arab delegates said Wednesday night that they thought they now had enough votes to approve a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire. That would likely put the United States and other Western powers, which oppose a binding resolution, in the awkward position of having to veto a cease-fire. A senior French official in Paris said that Mr. Sarkozy's earlier comment about an agreement on a cease-fire was misunderstood: "The plan is not a cease-fire; the plan is a road map toward a cease-fire." One crucial aspect of any deal is how to prevent new smuggling tunnels from being built under Egypt's border with Gaza. The senior Israeli official raised the possibility of reaching "tacit agreements" with Hamas to end rocket fire, while also persuading Egypt to allow American and perhaps European army engineers to help seal its border with Gaza above and below ground. Hamas is insisting that any new arrangement include the reopening of border crossings for trade with Israel and the reopening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt for people. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has said that a 2005 agreement on the Rafah crossing, reached with Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, must be respected. That agreement called for a Palestinian Authority presence at the crossing, supervision by European Union monitors and Israeli video surveillance of who entered and left. Hamas wants to control the crossing itself and is not eager to cooperate with Fatah, its -rival. In Washington, President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that upon taking office he would "engage immediately" in the Middle East crisis and that he was "deeply concerned" about the loss of life on both sides. "I am doing everything that we have to do to make sure that the day I take office we are prepared to engage immediately in trying to deal with the situation there," he said at a news conference. "Not only the short-term situation but building a process whereby we can achieve a more lasting peace in the region." In Gaza, John Ging, the director of Gazan operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, visited the school in the Jabaliya refugee camp where Israeli shells fell Tuesday. He denied that Hamas militants had fired mortar shells from within the school compound and called for an international investigation into the attack, which he said had killed 40 people. Israeli officials said they were continuing to investigate, but reiterated that Hamas had been using the school as a base. Mr. Gilad, the defense official, told Israeli Army radio: "This school served as a base for Hamas men whose identity we know. They fired from inside the school compound, and the army fired back at the source. The time was after school hours, and this school is an example of the cynical and cruel use Hamas does with civilian facilities." Casualty figures are hard to verify, but officials at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and the Gazan Ministry of Health said 683 Palestinians had died since the conflict began Dec. 27, including 218 children and 90 women. They said 3,085 had been wounded. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza said 130 children age 16 or under had died. The United Nations estimated a few days ago that a quarter of the dead were civilians. But Palestinian residents and Israeli officials say that Hamas is tending its own wounded in separate medical centers, not in public hospitals, and that it is difficult to know the number of dead Hamas fighters, many of whom were not wearing uniforms. Israel says it has killed at least 130 Hamas fighters. Ten Israelis have been killed during the offensive, including three civilians. Most of the seven dead Israeli soldiers were killed in so-called friendly fire. From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 01:46:13 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:46:13 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza From a Hilly Vantage Point: They Come With Binoculars and Lawn Chairs; Nurse Znaty: 'I'm Sorry, but I'm Happy' Message-ID: JANUARY 8, 2009 Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza From a Hilly Vantage Point They Come With Binoculars and Lawn Chairs; Nurse Znaty: 'I'm Sorry, but I'm Happy' By CHARLES LEVINSON GAZA BORDER -- Moti Danino sat Monday in a canvas lawn chair on a sandy hilltop on Gaza's border, peering through a pair of binoculars at distant plumes of smoke rising from the besieged territory. An unemployed factory worker, he comes here each morning to watch Israel's assault on Hamas from what has become the war's peanut gallery -- a string of dusty hilltops close to the border that offer panoramic views across northern Gaza. He is one of dozens of Israelis who have arrived from all over Israel, some with sack lunches and portable radios tuned to the latest reports of the battle raging in front of them. Some, like Mr. Danino, are here to egg on friends and family members in the fight. Others have made the trek, they say, to witness firsthand a military operation -- so far, widely popular inside Israel -- against Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. Over the weekend, four teenagers sat on a hill near Mr. Danino's, oohing and aahing at the airstrikes. Nadav Zebari, who studies Torah in Jerusalem, was eating a cheese sandwich and sipping a Diet Coke. "I've never watched a war before," he said. A group of police officers nearby took turns snapping pictures of one another with smoking Gaza as a backdrop. "I want to feel a part of the war," one said, before correcting himself with the official government designation for the assault. "I mean operation. It's not a war." The spectators share hilltop space with an army of camera-toting Israeli and foreign journalists, who have so far been banned by the Israeli military from entering Gaza to report on the conflict. Mr. Danino has a personal link to the fighting. His 20-year-old son, Moshe, is a soldier in an infantry unit fighting somewhere below his hilly perch. From the sidelines, he is here to root for his son the soldier, he says, just as he once sat on the sidelines of soccer fields cheering for his son the high-school athlete. "The army took all the soldiers' cellphones away before the attack, so this is my way of staying in contact," he says. On another hilltop overlooking Gaza, Sandra Koubi, a 43-year-old philosophy student, says seeing the violence up close "is a kind of catharsis for me, to get rid of all the anxiety we have inside us after years of rocket fire" from Hamas. Jocelyn Znaty, a stout 60-year-old nurse for Magen David Adom, the Israeli counterpart of the Red Cross, can hardly contain her glee at the site of exploding mortars below in Gaza. "Look at that," she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery rounds pound the territory in quick succession. "Bravo! Bravo!" Ms. Znaty lives in Sderot, the immigrant community on Gaza's border that has long been a target for rockets fired from Gaza by Palestinian militants. Her daughter lives on Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, an Israeli community even closer to the Gaza Strip. Last year, Gaza-launched rockets struck Ms. Znaty's home twice in a single week. She escaped both attacks unscathed but has a simmering anger for those living on the other side of the Gaza fence. She acknowledges an uncomfortable, self-conscious awareness that she is cheering on a deadly war. Israeli planes, ships and artillery have blasted the small, sealed-off territory for more than a week, killing more than 680 Palestinians and injuring about 3,000. Ten Israelis have been killed, including three civilians, according to U.N. officials. The weekend ground assault has sent civilian casualties climbing, overwhelming hospitals and triggering the International Committee of the Red Cross to declare a humanitarian crisis inside the small, seaside enclave of 1.5 million. On Tuesday, the UN said one of its schools in Gaza was hit by an Israeli strike, killing 43 civilians who had sought refuge from the attacks and injuring about 100. "It's weird that we have to take lives in order to save lives," Ms. Znaty says. "But we were held hostage by Hamas while our government ignored us, and now we fight back. I am sorry, but I am happy." War watching is not a new phenomenon. Up until World War I, when more powerful weapons began to be used on the battlefield, it was common for civilians to perch on grassy lookouts on a battlefield's periphery. Nor is it unique to Israelis in the current conflict. On the Egyptian side of the border, across from southern Gaza, Arabs, too, were coming from miles away to watch the aerial bombardment. But at Gaza's border crossing in the dusty town of Rafah, the mood was of anger and somber resignation amid the punishing Israeli attacks. Egyptians in Rafah, and many of the Arab aid workers who have flocked there to help evacuate Gaza's wounded, share deep ethnic, family and economic ties with the territory. Over the weekend, as ambulances ferried out bloodied Palestinian casualties, plumes of black smoke, accompanied by dull thuds and trembling earth, rose across the border, just a hundred yards across a no man's land marking the border with Egypt. "We feel helpless. We feel like we are so close but we can't do anything," said Rami Ibrahim Shahin, a 20-year-old mechanic, whose family is originally Palestinian. His brother lives on the other side of the border, now under Israeli fire. They talk every day, when phone connections work. Each evening, Mr. Shahin walks several miles to reach the border crossing, where he can get a better view of the attacks. "All day long, it's like this, we see the attacks with our own eyes," shrugs Rafah resident Osama Al-Beyali, a 51-year-old porter in torn gray coveralls. As blasts ring out across the border, onlookers swear at Israel or offer prayers for victims. A father of six, Mr. Al-Beyali says he thinks of the Palestinian children suffering in the cold, with little food or safety, under the barrage. "When I see my children, I feel ashamed and guilty. I feel like I should find a way to go over there and fight the Israelis." "Injustice, injustice," he mumbles. Many Israelis see the Gaza offensive as a welcome change. "I come here because our army is finally doing something, showing the world that we are not weak," says Mr. Danino, the unemployed factory worker. On his hilltop overlooking Gaza, Mr. Danino has taken to quarterbacking the assault from his folding chair. Having sat here for much of the past week, he now fancies himself something of an expert. He says, for example, that Palestinian militants are fond of firing rockets from the cover of a distant block of greenhouses. When a plume of smoke -- the result of an Israeli attack -- rose from what appears to be empty farmland Monday, Mr. Danino shook his head. "No, no, no," he said. "We should be hitting the greenhouses." ?Farnaz Fassihi in Rafah, Egypt and Margaret Coker in Tel Aviv contributed to this article. From gary at wwpublish.com Thu Jan 8 02:29:43 2009 From: gary at wwpublish.com (Gary) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:29:43 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Rockets_Fired_From_Lebanon_Into_Israel?= =?windows-1252?q?=92s_North?= Message-ID: <4965C787.3070103@wwpublish.com> January 9, 2009 Rockets Fired From Lebanon Into Israel's North By STEVEN ERLANGER JERUSALEM ? Israel's conflict with Hamas in Gaza threatened to broaden on Thursday as at least three rockets were fired into the north of Israel from Lebanon. The rockets, presumably launched in support of Hamas, could presage the opening of a second front. The Israeli Army, in a brief statement, said it "responded with fire against the source of the rockets," which landed near the town of Nahariya. Two Israelis were slightly wounded, the police said. Lebanese security sources told Reuters that they believed it was unlikely that the rockets were fired under instructions from the militant group Hezbollah. But there was no confirmation or denial from Hezbollah itself. In 2006, after the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier just outside Gaza, a large Israeli operation there was overshadowed by Israeli's massive response to an attack in the north by Hezbollah, which turned into what is known as the Second Lebanon War. On Wednesday, Israel had said that it would send senior officials to talk with Egypt about halting the conflict in Gaza, but there were no immediate signs of a diplomatic breakthrough, and fighting between Israel and Hamas militants continued after a three-hour lull for humanitarian aid to be distributed. International pressure for a negotiated cease-fire intensified after Israeli shells killed some 40 people at a United Nations school in Gaza on Tuesday. Israel said Hamas militants had fired mortar shells from the school compound prior to Israel's shelling. Israel suspended its military operations in Gaza for three hours on Wednesday to allow humanitarian aid and fuel for power generation to reach Gazans, who used the afternoon break to shop. But fighting resumed soon afterward. In the evening, the Israeli Army dropped leaflets warning the citizens of Rafah, next to the border with Egypt, to leave their homes. Israel has been bombing the tunnel networks through which arms and consumer goods are smuggled from Egypt into Gaza. The rockets from Lebanon fell in residential areas. Shimon Koren, head of the northern district police, instructed residents of Nahariya and Kabri to enter bomb shelters and he instructed residents in nearby localities to open their shelters. School was cancelled in Nahariya and nearby Shlomi. The Israeli government said it welcomed the efforts of France and Egypt to work out a durable cease-fire. It said it would end its assault if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel and ended the smuggling of weapons from Egypt. It said that if a durable cease-fire took hold, it would reopen border crossings into Gaza for goods and people. But Israeli and Hamas officials both denied an assertion by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, that a cease-fire had been agreed upon. "There is an agreement on general principles, that Hamas should stop rocket fire and mustn't rearm," a senior Israeli official said Wednesday evening. "But that's like agreeing that motherhood is a good thing. We have to transform those agreed principles into working procedures on the ground, and that's barely begun." The government spokesman, Mark Regev, said that "the challenge now is to get the details to match the principles." There were early signs that a formal diplomatic negotiation could begin after 12 days of fighting. Egypt's chief of intelligence, Omar Suleiman, is expected to serve as a go-between for Israel and Hamas. Two Israeli officials ? a senior aide to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Shalom Turgeman, and a senior defense official, Amos Gilad ? are expected to go to Egypt on Thursday to begin discussions, Israeli officials said. The United States has been involved behind the scenes, senior Israeli and French officials said, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "constantly on the phone" with Mr. Olmert, according to one Israeli official. In Washington, the White House spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, said of talks about a cease-fire: "As I understand, the Israelis are open to the concept, but they want to learn more about the details; so do we." At the United Nations, several Arab delegates said Wednesday night that they thought they now had enough votes to approve a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire. That would likely put the United States and other Western powers, which oppose a binding resolution, in the awkward position of having to veto a cease-fire. A senior French official in Paris said that Mr. Sarkozy's earlier comment about an agreement on a cease-fire was misunderstood: "The plan is not a cease-fire; the plan is a road map toward a cease-fire." One crucial aspect of any deal is how to prevent new smuggling tunnels from being built under Egypt's border with Gaza. The senior Israeli official raised the possibility of reaching "tacit agreements" with Hamas to end rocket fire, while also persuading Egypt to allow American and perhaps European army engineers to help seal its border with Gaza above and below ground. Hamas is insisting that any new arrangement include the reopening of border crossings for trade with Israel and the reopening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt for people. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has said that a 2005 agreement on the Rafah crossing, reached with Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, must be respected. That agreement called for a Palestinian Authority presence at the crossing, supervision by European Union monitors and Israeli video surveillance of who entered and left. Hamas wants to control the crossing itself and is not eager to cooperate with Fatah, its -rival. In Washington, President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that upon taking office he would "engage immediately" in the Middle East crisis and that he was "deeply concerned" about the loss of life on both sides. "I am doing everything that we have to do to make sure that the day I take office we are prepared to engage immediately in trying to deal with the situation there," he said at a news conference. "Not only the short-term situation but building a process whereby we can achieve a more lasting peace in the region." In Gaza, John Ging, the director of Gazan operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, visited the school in the Jabaliya refugee camp where Israeli shells fell Tuesday. He denied that Hamas militants had fired mortar shells from within the school compound and called for an international investigation into the attack, which he said had killed 40 people. Israeli officials said they were continuing to investigate, but reiterated that Hamas had been using the school as a base. Mr. Gilad, the defense official, told Israeli Army radio: "This school served as a base for Hamas men whose identity we know. They fired from inside the school compound, and the army fired back at the source. The time was after school hours, and this school is an example of the cynical and cruel use Hamas does with civilian facilities." Casualty figures are hard to verify, but officials at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and the Gazan Ministry of Health said 683 Palestinians had died since the conflict began Dec. 27, including 218 children and 90 women. They said 3,085 had been wounded. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza said 130 children age 16 or under had died. The United Nations estimated a few days ago that a quarter of the dead were civilians. But Palestinian residents and Israeli officials say that Hamas is tending its own wounded in separate medical centers, not in public hospitals, and that it is difficult to know the number of dead Hamas fighters, many of whom were not wearing uniforms. Israel says it has killed at least 130 Hamas fighters. Ten Israelis have been killed during the offensive, including three civilians. Most of the seven dead Israeli soldiers were killed in so-called friendly fire. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Jan 7 23:58:54 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:58:54 +1100 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Solidarity with Gaza, Cuba's 50th, French new left party, economic crisis, sport, Russia and feminism, Darfur Message-ID: <4965A42E.30608@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Solidarity with Gaza, Cuba's 50th, French new left party, economic crisis, sport, Russia and feminism, Darfur * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Israel invades Gaza, Palestinians, solidarity activists call for solidarity and resistance Palestinian citizens of Israel held a massive protest on January 3, 2009, in Sakhnin, an Arab city in northern Israel, against Israel's war on the Palestinian people in Gaza. It was attended by up to 150,000 protesters. Crowds waving Palestinian flags and brandishing pro-Palestinian placards chanted "Gaza will not surrender to the tanks and bulldozers!" and "Don't fear, Gaza, we are with you!". * Read more statements from a range of Palestinian and solidarity organisations Cuba, 50 years on ... and the same challenge of making a revolution By L?zaro Barredo Medina Granma International -- October 30, 2008 -- "The dictatorship has been defeated. The joy is immense. And yet, there still remains much to do. We won't deceive ourselves by believing that everything will be much easier from now on; perhaps it will be much more difficult." This is what Commander in Chief Fidel Castro told the people on January 8, 1959, the day of his entry into Havana. Many people could never imagine the immense challenge that they would live to experience. * Read more 1959-2009: 50 years of the Cuban Revolution -- Fidel Castro: the Untold Story To mark the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, which triumphed on January 1, 1959, here is filmmaker Estela Bravo's remarkable portrait of Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution. * Watch more `We are all Palestinians!' -- International left solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine Below Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal publishes a range of statements from left parties and groups around the world. * Read more France: From the Revolutionary Communist League to the New Anti-Capitalist Party This contribution was written as part of preparations for the January 2009 congress of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR). The congress agenda includes the political "self-dissolution" of the LCR, to set the stage for the new challenge of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA). The authors of this piece belong to the generation of activists from the 1960s and 1970s; so while principally addressed to members of the LCR, it may be of interest to many others. * Read more World economic crisis: No room for band-aid solutions in the Third World By Reihana Mohideen December 29, 2008 -- According to recent Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) figures, another 40 million people have been pushed into poverty and hunger so far this year as a result of spiralling food prices, and the total number of people suffering hunger and malnutrition has reached 963 million worldwide. * Read more Capitalism and sport: Sports for a few The competitive frenzy for winning in sports has been fuelled by aggressive marketing. Together they ensure that while a minority is trained with superlative sports facilities, the majority is deprived of even basic amenities to play and breathe fresh air. * Read more Present-day Russia needs a renewal of the feminist movement By Anna Ochkina, translated from Russian for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal by Renfrey Clarke January 1, 2009 -- In the Soviet Union feminism was elevated to the status of official state policy and ultimately was destroyed as an ideology and a social movement. The dominant concept was one of a general, global equality; as a result, a separate movement for the rights of women simply could not exist. The feminist reference points of Soviet social policy took the form of a set of rights for women: employment in the workforce on an equal basis with men; political rights; equality before the law, and so forth. The gaining of formal rights, however, resulted in the restricting of particular, specific rights of women, which in practice proved very difficult to realise. * Read more Talking points and background on Israel's murderous assault on Gaza By the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (Canada) and the Palestine Solidarity Committee (South Africa) * Read more Arabic-language statement from Socialist Alliance (Australia) condemns Israel's Gaza massacre English version below. * Read more Can Washington `save Darfur'? By Kevin Funk and Steven Fake Few humanitarian crises have occasioned as much media and activist attention in the US as the conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Major politicians routinely pay homage to suffering Darfurians in their speeches, well-heeled Darfur advocacy groups take out full-page ads in the New York Times, and commentators regularly fill op-ed ledgers around the country with righteous, indignant calls for the West to act to end the suffering. Yet for all the rhetorical attention and concern afforded to Darfur in the US, what is actually understood about the US role in addressing the conflict? * Read more Venezuela, Cuba condemn Israel's massacres in Gaza Dozens of protesters rallied outside the Israeli embassy in Caracas on December 28, in opposition to what one speaker referred to as "genocide" by the Israeli "occupation forces". The protests will continue in front of the embassy, according to a rally organiser, Hindu Anderi. Anderi, a Palestinian human rights activist, thanked the Venezuelan government for its position on the conflict, but demanded concrete action, saying "solidarity needs to mean taking measures that will affect Israel economically and politically, because otherwise the condition of the Palestinian people will not change". * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5165 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090108/267c569f/attachment.txt From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 07:28:46 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:28:46 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza From a Hilly Vantage Point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49660D9E.6000108@gmail.com> 3 word... Not very bright. But IF they get killed, I'm SURE it'll be blamed on the Gazans or Hamas. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > JANUARY 8, 2009 > > Israelis Watch the Fighting in Gaza From a Hilly Vantage Point > They Come With Binoculars and Lawn Chairs; Nurse Znaty: 'I'm Sorry, > but I'm Happy' > > By CHARLES LEVINSON > > GAZA BORDER -- Moti Danino sat Monday in a canvas lawn chair on a > sandy hilltop on Gaza's border, peering through a pair of binoculars > at distant plumes of smoke rising from the besieged territory. > > An unemployed factory worker, he comes here each morning to watch > Israel's assault on Hamas from what has become the war's peanut > gallery -- a string of dusty hilltops close to the border that offer > panoramic views across northern Gaza. > > He is one of dozens of Israelis who have arrived from all over Israel, > some with sack lunches and portable radios tuned to the latest reports > of the battle raging in front of them. Some, like Mr. Danino, are here > to egg on friends and family members in the fight. > > Others have made the trek, they say, to witness firsthand a military > operation -- so far, widely popular inside Israel -- against Hamas, > the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. > > Over the weekend, four teenagers sat on a hill near Mr. Danino's, > oohing and aahing at the airstrikes. Nadav Zebari, who studies Torah > in Jerusalem, was eating a cheese sandwich and sipping a Diet Coke. > > "I've never watched a war before," he said. A group of police officers > nearby took turns snapping pictures of one another with smoking Gaza > as a backdrop. "I want to feel a part of the war," one said, before > correcting himself with the official government designation for the > assault. "I mean operation. It's not a war." > > The spectators share hilltop space with an army of camera-toting > Israeli and foreign journalists, who have so far been banned by the > Israeli military from entering Gaza to report on the conflict. > > Mr. Danino has a personal link to the fighting. His 20-year-old son, > Moshe, is a soldier in an infantry unit fighting somewhere below his > hilly perch. From the sidelines, he is here to root for his son the > soldier, he says, just as he once sat on the sidelines of soccer > fields cheering for his son the high-school athlete. > > "The army took all the soldiers' cellphones away before the attack, so > this is my way of staying in contact," he says. > > On another hilltop overlooking Gaza, Sandra Koubi, a 43-year-old > philosophy student, says seeing the violence up close "is a kind of > catharsis for me, to get rid of all the anxiety we have inside us > after years of rocket fire" from Hamas. > > Jocelyn Znaty, a stout 60-year-old nurse for Magen David Adom, the > Israeli counterpart of the Red Cross, can hardly contain her glee at > the site of exploding mortars below in Gaza. > > "Look at that," she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery > rounds pound the territory in quick succession. "Bravo! Bravo!" > > Ms. Znaty lives in Sderot, the immigrant community on Gaza's border > that has long been a target for rockets fired from Gaza by Palestinian > militants. Her daughter lives on Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, an Israeli > community even closer to the Gaza Strip. > > Last year, Gaza-launched rockets struck Ms. Znaty's home twice in a > single week. She escaped both attacks unscathed but has a simmering > anger for those living on the other side of the Gaza fence. > > She acknowledges an uncomfortable, self-conscious awareness that she > is cheering on a deadly war. Israeli planes, ships and artillery have > blasted the small, sealed-off territory for more than a week, killing > more than 680 Palestinians and injuring about 3,000. Ten Israelis have > been killed, including three civilians, according to U.N. officials. > > The weekend ground assault has sent civilian casualties climbing, > overwhelming hospitals and triggering the International Committee of > the Red Cross to declare a humanitarian crisis inside the small, > seaside enclave of 1.5 million. > > On Tuesday, the UN said one of its schools in Gaza was hit by an > Israeli strike, killing 43 civilians who had sought refuge from the > attacks and injuring about 100. > > "It's weird that we have to take lives in order to save lives," Ms. > Znaty says. "But we were held hostage by Hamas while our government > ignored us, and now we fight back. I am sorry, but I am happy." > > War watching is not a new phenomenon. Up until World War I, when more > powerful weapons began to be used on the battlefield, it was common > for civilians to perch on grassy lookouts on a battlefield's > periphery. > > Nor is it unique to Israelis in the current conflict. On the Egyptian > side of the border, across from southern Gaza, Arabs, too, were coming > from miles away to watch the aerial bombardment. > > But at Gaza's border crossing in the dusty town of Rafah, the mood was > of anger and somber resignation amid the punishing Israeli attacks. > Egyptians in Rafah, and many of the Arab aid workers who have flocked > there to help evacuate Gaza's wounded, share deep ethnic, family and > economic ties with the territory. > > Over the weekend, as ambulances ferried out bloodied Palestinian > casualties, plumes of black smoke, accompanied by dull thuds and > trembling earth, rose across the border, just a hundred yards across a > no man's land marking the border with Egypt. > > "We feel helpless. We feel like we are so close but we can't do > anything," said Rami Ibrahim Shahin, a 20-year-old mechanic, whose > family is originally Palestinian. His brother lives on the other side > of the border, now under Israeli fire. They talk every day, when phone > connections work. Each evening, Mr. Shahin walks several miles to > reach the border crossing, where he can get a better view of the > attacks. > > "All day long, it's like this, we see the attacks with our own eyes," > shrugs Rafah resident Osama Al-Beyali, a 51-year-old porter in torn > gray coveralls. As blasts ring out across the border, onlookers swear > at Israel or offer prayers for victims. > > A father of six, Mr. Al-Beyali says he thinks of the Palestinian > children suffering in the cold, with little food or safety, under the > barrage. "When I see my children, I feel ashamed and guilty. I feel > like I should find a way to go over there and fight the Israelis." > > "Injustice, injustice," he mumbles. > > Many Israelis see the Gaza offensive as a welcome change. "I come here > because our army is finally doing something, showing the world that we > are not weak," says Mr. Danino, the unemployed factory worker. On his > hilltop overlooking Gaza, Mr. Danino has taken to quarterbacking the > assault from his folding chair. > > Having sat here for much of the past week, he now fancies himself > something of an expert. He says, for example, that Palestinian > militants are fond of firing rockets from the cover of a distant block > of greenhouses. > > When a plume of smoke -- the result of an Israeli attack -- rose from > what appears to be empty farmland Monday, Mr. Danino shook his head. > "No, no, no," he said. "We should be hitting the greenhouses." > > ?Farnaz Fassihi in Rafah, Egypt and Margaret Coker in Tel Aviv > contributed to this article. > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 11:37:25 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:37:25 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Congress to vote on a Gaza resolution that does not call for a ceasefire by both sides Message-ID: <496647E5.6050009@gmail.com> From FCNL: Friends Committee on National Legislation - A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest ABOUT US: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25596/43071/ | HOW TO GIVE: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25597/43071/ | TELL A FRIEND: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25598/43071/ | CONTACT US: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25599/43071/ **Gaza: Stop the Killing** FCNL lobbyists have learned that Congress is about to vote on a one-sided resolution on the crisis in Gaza that does not call on both Israelis and Palestinians to implement an immediate ceasefire. Members of Congress need to hear that their constituents demand a new, bipartisan policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one that includes U.S. diplomatic talks with all of the parties involved: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25600/43071/. Including Hamas in any U.S. initiative is a key to ending the violence. Your messages are particularly important right now because the debate early in this session of Congress could set the tone for policy for the next four years. *Take Action* Urge your members of Congress to speak out publicly in favor of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and inclusive peace talks: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25601/43071/. *Note: The email systems of new members of Congress may not be working yet. If you encounter any problems sending an email, please call your member?s Washington, DC office instead. Find the phone number here: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25602/43071/. *Background* Read the draft resolution: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25603/43071/. Check FCNL's Middle East page for updates on the crisis: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25604/43071/. Read Jim Fine's report on his recent trip to the Middle East: http://action.fcnl.org/r/25605/43071/. From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 12:51:35 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:51:35 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Nasrallah: Arabs Have Much to Learn from Chavez Message-ID: Nasrallah: Arabs have much to learn from Chavez Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:51:55 GMT Hezbollah Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, dubbed as the most popular leader in the Arab world, addressed a crowd of Lebanese supporters in a videoconference on January 07, 2008. The following is part of his speech. The brutal truth, the truth of the brutality and hostility and racism of Israel should be an additional motive to continue our refusal to recognize the Zionist entity. My dear brothers and sisters, Cutting relations with Israel and halting any normalization of ties with Israel and describing the appropriate massacres it has committed in Gaza today is the easiest thing we can do as our duty. This is the easiest thing that the leaders and the people of the region can do. Yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that he would expel the Israeli ambassador in Venezuela. He, of course, did this in order to show his support for the Palestinians. Venezuela is very close to America, it is a neighbor of America. This is Chavez. He did this because of his humanity, his sense of revolution and, in this way, he dealt a severe blow to those who are now hosting the ambassadors of Israel in their capitals and do not have enough courage to even think about telling them to leave. Today, Arab leaders need to take lessons from this Latin American leader. They have to learn how to show support for the people of Palestine. My dear brothers and sisters, This criminal entity must be punished for the murders it is committing and should not be rewarded. This entity must not be given benefits after committing so many crimes in Gaza and after killing so many people, women and children. I assure you that the people of our Ummah will punish this entity and will punish the leaders of this entity because of the crimes they have committed. These people, these leaders have always taken Israeli acts lightly. The people of this region cannot forgive Israel and the responsibility of Arab governments today is to stand side by side with the people and the resistance in Palestine and to refrain from playing a role of mediation between the Palestinians and the occupiers. Arab leaders must help the resistance to achieve its aims, to stop the military campaign and to lift the siege and must not put pressure on the resistance to accept the humiliating Israeli conditions. Yesterday, an Egyptian official said something interesting. He asked 'Does the Security Council need more than 650 martyrs and more than 2,500 wounded to make its decision and act in a responsible manner?' These are nice words to hear and I would like to ask this Egyptian official whether the Egyptian regime needs more than 650 martyrs and more than 2,500 people wounded before it permanently opens the Rafah border crossing to help the people of Gaza stand with perseverance and achieve victory? The same question that you ask from the Security Council, I am asking you. I am here talking to the Egyptian official. What is required from Egypt is only to open the border crossing, not to declare war. I was told by some of my colleagues yesterday that a group of Egyptian lawyers, who are loyal to the Egyptian regime, have actually filed a lawsuit against me personally. They filed a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice because of my speech on the first night of the commemoration of Ashura when I called on the Egyptian leadership to open the Rafah border crossing and called on the Egyptian people and the Egyptian army to pressure the Egyptian regime to take a positive step. They considered what I said as unjust and as a call for a revolution and the toppling of the Egyptian regime. It was only a call to open the Rafah border crossing but, anyway, I am proud of the call I made. I am proud that this lawsuit was filed against me, especially because it came from those who did not take any steps after all these Israeli massacres were committed in Lebanon and in Jabaliya and in Palestine and even when Zionists brought massacres against Egyptian soldiers, those heroic Egyptian soldiers. When a lawsuit is filed against me because a position I took and because I stood side by side with those oppressed and killed in Gaza, this is something that makes me proud. I am proud that these people filed a lawsuit against me because I took this position. I am proud of this now and I will be proud of this in the afterlife. But I would like to tell you very frankly we are not trying to create hostilities. We are not enemies. We will not make hostile ties with those who collaborated against us, the Arabs who collaborated against us during the July 2006 war and with those who accused us and took part in the shedding of our blood. We will not be their enemies but we will be the enemies of those who collaborate against the people of Gaza. I repeat, we will be enemies of those who collaborate against Gaza and against the people of Gaza and against the resistance of Gaza. We will be enemies of those who take part in shedding the blood of the people of Gaza and those who close the doors of life to the people of Gaza. My dear brothers and sisters, We also heard yesterday from John Bolton, a Zionist who was formerly in the American administration and is now frustrated. John Bolton pointed out the real aim of the Americans and the Zionists. The real aim, as he said, was to destroy the Palestinian cause. He spoke about separating the West Bank from Gaza. He spoke about ending the two-state proposal by keeping the state of Israel and giving part of the West Bank to Jordan and giving the Gaza Strip to Egypt. I would like to tell you this is the real American-Zionist plan. All the talk we heard previously about two states is nothing. Such claims are mere lies and trickery because whenever they come down to actually determining the boundaries of a Palestinian state, they do not give the Palestinians any territories with which a country can be established. They then say we can not establish two states and so the solution is to abolish the Palestinian cause. This requires, on the first level, once again a call for unity. Once again, we stress the importance of Palestinian unity in all its forms, all the Palestinian factions, Hamas, Fatah, the Islamic Jihad, all the Palestinian factions must stand unified because the cause has now become the target. They are now making efforts to destroy this cause, but God willing it will not happen. They are not trying to destroy the government of Fatah, of Hamas and other factions. They are now trying to destroy the whole Palestinian cause and so this requires, once again, for us to stress on the necessity of supporting the resistance and perseverance in Gaza. My dear brothers and sisters, The experience of the July 2006 war and the experience of the Palestinian resistance in the Gaza Strip until now have provided clear indication that a proper defense strategy is necessary, whether it be in Palestine or Lebanon. One of the strongest armies in the world, the Israeli army, which has the strongest air force in the region, is incapable of achieving its aims even though it stands against a very very small resistance force that lacks capabilities but has strong will and operates in a very very small geographic area. This shows that the alternative of popular armed resistance based upon faith, determination and popular support is the best way to confront even the strongest armies in the world should such an army occupy the territories of a country. This increases our conviction and influences us on the path we are walking on. Look my dear brothers and sisters, even the Security Council and the decisions it has made and even the international community have proved that they are incapable of protecting the Palestinian people in Gaza and incapable of condemning a massacre which was committed in a school that belongs to one of the committees of the United Nations? How can the Security Council, which is incapable of condemning the massacres committed by the Zionists against women and children, protect people and how can it actually show itself to be just in relation to a specific cause. My dear brothers and sisters, What is happening today concerns us all. I know that in Lebanon the eyes of a region are on you. We are all in a sensitive stage in history. I tell you that we do not yet know the magnitude of the plan, the far-reaching effects of the Zionist-American plan and the magnitude of the collaboration. We must all be vigilant at all times as anything is possible. We must be cautious and watch the developments. Yesterday, as well, Olmert was quoted that today there is war against Hamas and tomorrow there will be war against Hezbollah. I would like to tell Olmert, the person who failed in Lebanon, that you will not be able to destroy Hamas and you will not be able to destroy Hezbollah. A few days ago and even a few weeks ago and even before the offensive into Gaza and after the military offensive into Gaza, during all this time, we have been hearing threats. One person says he wants to destroy us in days and the other person says he wants to destroy us in hours. I tell all these people that we cannot be weakened and we cannot be afraid and we cannot give up and we will not give up. We will not be afraid of your air force and threats. We will not be terrorized by your warplanes. We are here and we are ready for any development, event or any offensive that can be launched. And I will not repeat what I said before. If you come to our territories, if you come to our villages, alleys and houses, I will respond with a simple sentence -- Zionists will discover that if they take the step they did in the July (2006) war, the next war will be a cakewalk compared to that war. We are here and we will not give up our arms. Our resistance will still be the main theme of our sacrifices and the blood of our martyrs and I would have hoped for all those voices which were raised in Lebanon to actually give Israel a sigh of relief. Certain people had said Hezbollah would act against Israel. I would have preferred to hear those Lebanese people responding to the threats of Israel against Lebanon and against the resistance in Lebanon and against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Why is it that when the Zionists take any steps and display aggression, we do not hear any responses, but when some people speak about the chances of war, many intervene hastily and try to relieve Israel and convince Israel that Hezbollah will not take any steps. These voices, these responses are being heard at a time when Lebanon is being threatened and the people in Palestine are being killed. My dear brothers and sisters, On the tenth day of Muharram, in the light of all these challenges, we need the spirit, vision and wisdom of Hussein (PBUH). We also need Hussein and Allah to accept us. We need Hussein to keep our feet firm on the ground. We need to have the spirit of Hussein, his love for martyrdom. As we said during previous decades, we were with Hussein always and we were ready to sacrifice ourselves and our souls just like our brothers sacrifices themselves. We were always ready to endure the hardships of the death of ours sons and loved ones for the sake of the cause which we believe in, for the sake of defending dignified and honorable lives. The passage of these years have proved our firmness and that our direction is the right direction, that our alternative is the right alternative. We once again pay tribute to Imam Hussein's sacrifices and say that the generations of men and women who everyday repeat the known slogan cannot be defeated and cannot be terrorized by any threats as long as their voices always call. We say we will answer to your request Imam Hussein. Israel is our enemy and the enemy of the Ummah and will always be its enemy even if some reconcile with Israel. America created Israel and protects Israel and is therefore the enemy of the Ummah and will always be the enemy even if some reconcile with America. I thank you once again for your faithful participation. We once again would like to raise our voices to the enemy and let the enemy know that the Ummah, and we will always be an Ummah, when asked whether "we will be humiliated or stand against them with dignity?" The answer will always be that our position is to never be humiliated. Peace be upon the Imam Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein, son of the Prophet, peace be upon all those who gave themselves to your cause. Once again, I pay tribute and I shall always pay tribute to you and shed light on your memory. Peace be upon Imam Hussein and Ali, the son of Hussein and all the children and friends of Hussein. From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Thu Jan 8 08:35:48 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:35:48 -0500 Subject: [A-List] MNN Canada's obscene role in Gaza atrocities Message-ID: <011fcff8$39821$0cd84415316667@xnote> THE RULE OF WHAT LAW? CANADA?S OBSCENE ROLE IN GAZA ATROCITIES ? WEAPONS NEED TO BE BURIED MNN. Jan 7, 2008. How many Palestinian infants, toddlers, children and schools have been bombed by the criminals in charge of Israeli forces in the last few days? What law are they following? An eye for an eye! A tooth for a tooth! This is primitive barbarity. The Israelis claim if they kill enough Palestinians, Hamas will stop sending in rockets. Conveniently overlooked is the fact that Israelis have built a wall around Gaza to control every Palestinian and everything that comes in and out of the ghetto to deliberately force the people into desperation. Also forgotten is that parts of the new smart bomb, GBU 39, designed for urban warfare, is made in Canadian facilities with the help of government tax breaks and Canada Pension Plan investments. This is obscene! Gaza is occupied Palestinian territory. The Israelis and Americans toppled the democratically elected Hamas government because it couldn?t control them. The war is being waged on civilians who have no arms nor anywhere to hide. How noble is it for heavily armed Israelis to shoot fish in a rain barrel? The Palestinians have a right to live. They can only lob their homemade rockets into Israel. The Israelis attack them with illegal weapons. All weapons are illegal. Manufacturers should be prosecuted. The weapons collected and buried. The United Nations is looking more like a bogus organization that serves the interests of a handful of war mongers who are trying to profit by setting up a New World Order. This is where the bankers and war mongers are the bosses and we are supposed to be their slaves. We fear the UN is setting up an ?international department of Indian affairs? to control all indigenous peoples and resources worldwide. Obviously the U.S. cannot broker the peace agreement when they are supporting Israel?s attack and supplying the weapons. We Indigenous went through the same plot. To stop the invading Europeans from killing us all off, we were forced to give up our possessions and territories. We resisted. 115 million of our people died in the biggest holocaust in all humanity. The survivors had to live in concentration camps called ?reserves?. Today the Israelis and their backers are carrying out the same sequence of events in the Middle East. The UN, US, Canada and Europe are part of this. The majority of the people in the world are appalled by Israel?s atrocities. They have killed over 500, mostly civilians. Over 2000 have been cruelly injured by illegal weapons made from depleted uranium and phosphorous. Palestinians have reached out to their Arab brothers and sisters whose governments are controlled by the West. Iran could be nuked by the U.S. if they helped their Palestinian family. We know how hard it is to unify. The colonists constantly work at dividing us. We too were starved and abused so they could grab our territories and wreak environmental havoc. Just follow the ?blood money?. Canada helps craft and support this cynical conspiracy. 10% of income tax goes to the military. The Canada Pension Plan contributions are invested in Carlyle Group and such weapons makers as NG [Northrop Grundman], L3Com, BAESystems, Bombardier, Raytheon, DRS Technologies, Boeing and many more. How many people get their pay check directly or indirectly from the military industry? Mineral resources to make these deadly bombs and destroy the world are being stolen from our territories that have been left polluted in the process. We constantly object and are threatened and subjected to impoverishment. Our social programs, health care, education and infra structure are cut back or stopped altogether to shut us up. For example, the dissidents of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake Quebec have moved out of their communities and into the bush. They are unwanted because they are trying to stop deforestation, demineralization and water diversion of their territory. The guys trying to control our territories are finding the biggest obstacles are the sovereign legal resistance of the Indigenous people. A huge intelligence network has been set up to undermine and control our people and put out misinformation to us and about us to the public. Survival is natural. To murder babies, women, men and elders is not natural. The Palestinians are struggling to survive. Those who follow this natural instinct are labeled ?terrorist?. In fact we are defenders of our people, land, nation, very existence and Mother Earth. Every living creature has a right to carry out the natural instinct for self-preservation. Creation put that in us. The war mongers tell us we have no right to self preservation. The Palestinians are being forced to live under the apartheid ?Indian Act? system of Gaza which is being rammed down their throats. The same apartheid system was imposed on us and continues here. They pulled out papers on us. What are these papers? Why does their paper have more authority than human rights and our lives? Is it because they have a big gun and can constantly threaten us? This is thuggery! The idea that peace can be bought at the end of a gun has been proven false time after time. Fanaticism has never solved anything. Truly impartial people must be found to form a body that can broker a true peace. Peace will come if people learn how to stop being greedy. There has to be a real willingness to assert equality and a voice for everybody. There will never be peace of mind on the terms of the war mongers and their cohorts that want control over us, our land, culture and resources. According to the Kaianereh:kowa, the Great law of Peace, the grievances felt by people on both sides has to be acknowledged. We, the Rotinoshonni:onwe [Iroquois] have a ceremony called the ?small condolence? which we perform before any negotiations. It is all symbolic. The eyes are wiped with the softest skin of the deer so that we may see the issue clearly; the ear is cleared with an eagle feather so that we may listen and hear what is being said; and a glass of clear water is drunk to clear our throats so that only those words that have no jagged edges will come forth. Unfortunately, it looks unlikely that these few war mongers will look for methodologies that can bring true peace. They are making too much money. If we choose we can organize an economy so that people can be rich without obscene torture, death and famine. First the arms have to be buried. True peace requires work. These war mongers have to be dealt with. The people have to stop listening to their propaganda. These greedy war mongers don?t have borders and no loyalty to anybody but their bank accounts and their lust for the power of life and death over us. This 3% of the population are multi national corporations, their governments, their military and their agents. They own the banks and try to control everything. They fix the economy to hold us hostage. The Palestinians will not die quietly in the Gaza ghetto from starvation, thirst, bombs or anonymity. Iakoha?ko:wa, Eagle Watch near Sharbot Lake of Haudenosaunee Territory, MNN Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com; iakohakowa at yahoo.ca; katenies20 at yahoo.com; kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com; Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to ?MNN Mohawk Nation News?, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen, thank you very much. Got to MNN ?Canada? category for more stories; New MNN books for sale; purchase T-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; sign up and subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates at http://mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; and sign Women Title Holders petition at http:/www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois; NOTES: GBU stands for Guided Bomb Unit. The GBU 39 is the newest small bomb which weighs 250 lbs. known for its accuracy and huge explosive power built into it. A plane can carry 4 and drop them separately. Used in Iraq and afganistan in urban warfare. The Gaza is really a refugee camp. Northrop Grunman mades instruments for these units, other warheads, bomber planes and helicopters. The Canada Pension Plan contributions are invested in Carlyle group and companies like NG, L3Com, BAESystems, Bombardier, Raytheon, DRS Technologies and many more. GBU-39 are made in the U.S. by Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Harris Corp. with Viasat Inc. with offices in Canada. The #1 bomb for the ?war of terror? because they are small, accurate and very deadly. Excerpts from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htm Photo: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb-pics.htm http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/index.html http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/news/2007/q2/070613b_nr.html http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/news/2001/q4/nr_011003b.html At just 5.9 feet long the bomb increases number of weapons an aircraft can carry, therefore raising the amount of people it can kill in one sortie. Complementing the weapon is a smart miniature munitions carriage system. The munition, with a smart fuze, has been extensively tested against multi-layered targets by Wright Laboratory under the Hard Target Ordnance Program and Miniature Munitions Technology Program. The goal is genocide to wipe out people and make their territory unlivable. Yaakov Katz wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post on December 29th 2008 that the Israeli Air Force is using new U.S. supplied smart bombs. [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?] ?a new bunker-buster missile made by [and 1000 bought from] the U.S. to strike Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip. The GBU-39 missile is a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision and low collateral damage. [They] ? arrived in December 2008. They penetrate underground Kassam launchers during the heavy aerial bombardment of Hamas infrastructure? It was used in Sunday's bombing of tunnels in Rafah [where civilians are taking shelter]. This 113-kg. bomb can penetrate like a normal 900-kg. bomb, although it has only 22.7 kg. of explosives. It is 1.75 meters long. ? It can penetrate at least 90 cm. of steel-reinforced concrete? used in any weather and has a standoff range of more than 110 km. due to pop-out wings?. ?Military Intelligence's Psychological Warfare Department broke into radio broadcasts in Gaza and warned Palestinian civilians not to cooperate with Hamas terrorist activity?. Palestinians received recorded messages on their cell and land phones from the IDF ordering them to immediately leave their homes that IDF purported were next to Hamas infrastructure or being used by the ?terrorist? organization. Defense officials said Israel will not hesitate to target civilian homes who they feel might protect Hamas terrorists. Could this be the reason behind the killing of infants, children and civilians? [www.montrealmuslimnews.net newslist: montrealmuslimnews-subscribe at lists.riseup.net montrealnews at gmail.com] Harris Canada Incorporated [of Harris Corporation], 1710-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K1P 5G4 phone: 613-567-2912 Fax: 613-567-2920 255 Albert Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1P 6A9 Phone: 613-567-2912 Fax: 613-567-2920 Contacts: Pierre Blais, pblais at harris.com, 613-567-2912 http://www.govcomm.harris.com/harris-canada/ Dollard-des-Ormeaux Quebec plant provides wireless, broadcast, government systems, and network support. Calgary, Alberta plant designs, manufactures and distributes microwave radio systems for wireless communications. Home of Consolidated Automatic Test Equipment Facility (CATEF) of Government Communications Systems Canada (GCSC). Provides avionics and logistics support to the Department of National Defence CF-18 Program. GCSC. Also manages the Canadian Forces Contractor Augmentation Program (CANCAP) which is communication hardware and satellite communications services for the Canadian Forces. Harris Canada Inc. has annual sales that exceed $200M. Has business development offices in Ottawa, Ontario representing Government and Defense Communications Systems and RF Communications groups. Calgary Alberta - 6727 - 9th Street N.E. Canada T2E 8R9 Telephone: 403-295-4770 Fax: 403-295-4765 Bob Fehr, rfehr at harris.com, 403-295-4750 From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 15:01:03 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:01:03 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Egypt Bars Doctors from Entering Gaza Strip Message-ID: Isn't it time for Mr. Mubarak to meet his maker? Egypt bars doctors from entering Gaza Strip 01.06.2009 | Haaretz By The Associated Press RAFAH - Frustration is mounting at Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip, where many local and foreign doctors are stuck after Egyptian authorities denied them entry into the coastal area now under an Israeli ground invasion. Anesthesiologist Dimitrios Mognie from Greece idles his time at a cafe near the border, drinking tea and chatting with other doctors, aid workers and curious Egyptians. "This is a shame," said Mognie, who decided to use his vacation time to try help Gazans. He thought entering through Egypt, which has a narrow border with the Hamas-ruled strip, was his best bet. "That in 2009 they have people in need of help from a doctor and we can go to help and they won't let us; this is crazy," he added. Gaza's few hospitals have been swamped by the numbers of injured; health officials there reported more than 550 Palestinians dead and 2,500 wounded, including 200 civilians, since Israel embarked upon its military campaign designed to stop Gaza's Islamic Hamas from launching rockets at Israel on December 27. Mognie and a colleague, both part of the Greek organization Doctors for Peace, came to Rafah four days ago, loaded with instruments and medical supplies. Egyptian border guards turn them back daily. Mognie, who said he has worked in conflict zones such as Iraq, Angola and Somalia, added that he understood worries over security but that he was willing to take the risk to help the people in Gaza. Along with Israel, Egypt has maintained the closure of the Gaza border, imposed after Hamas took control of the area in June 2007. However, the Egyptian closure has been seen by some as abetting Israel's siege of the crowded strip, home to 1.4 million people. Since Israel's offensive, Egypt has taken in a trickle of wounded Palestinians from Gaza through the crossing in the border town of Rafah. Cairo, the main mediator between Israel and Hamas, has said it would only open Rafah if moderate Palestinian forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are in charge of the crossing. Calls to Egypt to ease the border bottleneck - where aid convoys first have to have their cargo unloaded from Egyptian trucks before it's loaded onto Palestinian ones and taken into the strip - have increased, including from Hamas allies such as Iran. Although Egypt allowed two Norwegian doctors into Gaza on Dec. 31, the majority of physicians are frustrated at their inability to get in. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi said Monday the his government submitted a formal request to Egypt to set up a desert hospital on Egyptian territory near the Gaza Strip to receive wounded Gazans. Palestinian doctor Abed el-Qader Lubbad, who works in the intensive care at Shifa Hospital in Gaza, arrived in one of the ambulances transporting patients to Egypt on Monday. Out of the eight patients he ferried, one seriously wounded died on the way to the border, Lubbad said. The Palestinian ambulances are not allowed to continue driving through Egypt. At the crossing, patients are taken out of the often poorly equipped Palestinian ambulances and transferred on gurneys to Egyptian ambulances. On Monday, at least 18 Palestinian patients were brought to Egypt, according to Mohammad Arafat, a Palestinian representative in Rafah. The wounded included a man missing both legs and another who lost his eye and fractured his skull. Another physician at Rafah was obstetrician Jemilah Mahmood from Mercy Malaysia. She said her group worked with the Egyptian Red Crescent to bring around $100,000 worth of medical supplies to the border for transport to Gaza.And while equipment eventually got through, Mahmoud said neither she nor her colleagues are allowed to cross. "Can you imagine how many women are hurt and how few women doctors there are?" she asked. "All of us are sitting at the border." From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 19:52:49 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:52:49 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Peace Groups Lose First Major Gaza Challenge On Capitol Hill Message-ID: Peace Groups Lose First Major Gaza Challenge On Capitol Hill Attempts by Activists To Shape Resolution Come Up Short By Nathan Guttman Thu. Jan 08, 2009 Washington ? As Israel's military campaign in Gaza entered its second week, Capitol Hill became the latest battleground where Jewish hawks and doves are trying to shape the American response to the ongoing violence. Dovish groups bombarded lawmakers with calls and e-mails in an attempt to influence the wording of pro-Israel resolutions being shaped in the House and Senate. The groups' line in the sand on those resolutions was straightforward: Unless the House and Senate included a call for an immediate cease-fire, the dovish groups would call on their supporters to actively oppose them. For the Jewish peace camp, the first Middle East crisis of the new Congress and administration was an opportunity to flex its muscles and show presence on the national scene. But in the end, they lost. On January 7, Senate leaders introduced a resolution that only called for President Bush to "work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, as soon as possible." The resolution issued no call for a lifting of the commercial blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza, which has contributed to widespread poverty, as part of a cease-fire. The crisis demonstrated the difficulties facing the Jewish community's dissenting voices: refusal, even in the moderate sectors of the Jewish community, to criticize Israel at a time of war; large pockets of support for Israel's actions; and limited efficacy when faced with the powerful political clout of establishment Jewish groups. Activists for the four major dovish Jewish groups ? J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the Israel Policy Forum ? had put whatever power they had to sway members of Congress into adopting what they call a "more nuanced approach" toward the conflict, one that would express support for Israel, but at the same time call for an international effort to end military operations. In a January 5 memo to congressional offices, APN even directly took on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's legendary pro-Israel lobby. "Unfortunately," the APN memo stated, Aipac's position "fails to mention any need to work to end the crisis." "This approach is regrettable," APN added. The IPF held meetings with Hill staffers, stressing the need to think beyond the issue of Israel's right of self-defense. "I try to put things in context, to show that it is not black and white," said M.J. Rosenberg, director of the group's Washington Policy Center. "It is very dangerous when members of Congress see the Jewish community speaking in one voice. They are offended by it." Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, which focuses more on grass-roots operations, put out an action alert urging supporters to phone their representatives and ask for their support in an immediate cease-fire. "The U.S. must support conflict resolution, not escalation," the alert read. Diane Balser, executive director of Brit Tzedek, said the calls also served as a reminder to lawmakers "that there is a new administration that has pledged itself to diplomacy." In Los Angeles, a group of liberal Jewish activists wrote a letter to the local Jewish paper, arguing that Israel is practicing its right of self-defense in a manner that is "ill-advised and morally questionable, causing considerable loss of life and grave damage." And J Street, which became a lightning rod for criticism from other pro-Israel activists, alerted its nearly 100,000 online supporters to sign a memo sent to Capitol Hill and to make phone calls to their representatives. The J Street memo states that "military action that is seen to be disproportionate to the threat and escalatory in nature will prove to be counterproductive." The group lists seven members of Congress who issued statements supportive of a quick halt to hostilities ? though not necessarily an immediate cease-fire, as J Street is pressing for. Most were among 41 members and candidates who had received funds from J Street's political action committee during this election cycle. Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak told the Forward he agreed with J Street's broad position that the United States must take a more active role in brokering a halt to hostilities in the region. "The military will stop a problem, but it's not going to fix it," said Sestak, a retired admiral. The "comprehensive diplomatic approach that's needed there is J Street's overarching point ? that at the end of the day, war is not going to give Israel greater security." Still, as the Forward went to press, it was not clear that J Street's financial support was always influential. Many of the other members of the endorsed group remained silent, and at least one, Democratic Florida Rep. Robert Wexler, issued a statement more in line with Aipac's appeal than with J Street's. Aipac has listed on its Web site more than 100 members of Congress and elected officials who came out with statements expressing unconditional support for Israel's actions. The difficulty in getting the dovish message through on Capitol Hill became apparent as the House and Senate moved forward on formulating their pro-Israel resolutions. These resolutions have long been a congressional tradition and are passed, with the support of the pro-Israel lobby, whenever Israel reaches a military or diplomatic crossroad. Attempts to include a direct call for an immediate cease-fire in the House resolution also seemed to be falling short as preparations reached their final stage. California Democrat Howard Berman, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Forward on January 6 that the resolution "supports Israel and the peace process." Berman, whose aides were in charge of writing the resolution, said the important message is that any agreement will ensure that the cease-fire is durable and sustainable. "We don't want to see what happened in Lebanon happening here," Berman said, referring to the 2006 cease-fire that was sponsored by the United Nations and halted combat between Israel and the Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah. It did not succeed in preventing Hezbollah from regrouping and rearming. For dovish Jewish groups, Congress was only one front of the battle. The other, and not less challenging, was the front within the Jewish community itself. Activists with J Street were surprised by the negative reactions to their call for cease-fire, especially that of the Reform movement's leader, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, who argued in a Forward opinion column January 9 that "J Street got it very wrong." Since Yoffie comes from the heart of the liberal-dovish stream in which J Street swims, his criticism seemed more hurtful than that of others. Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director, issued a lengthy response to Yoffie's critique and later said he was "always happy to have a disagreement with my best friends." But anger over J Street's statement did not stop with Yoffie. Though they were unwilling to go on the record, officials from some of the other dovish groups voiced fury with Ben-Ami. "He should have his head handed to him," one said, fuming. In an hour-long conference call January 5, leaders of the Jewish dovish groups tried to coordinate their message and iron out any differences. Attempting to create a broader coalition, the groups were joined by representatives of two non-Jewish organizations that support a two-state solution: the Arab American Institute and Churches for Middle East Peace. These organizations, while critical of Israel's military operation, oppose Hamas rule in Gaza. In contrast to such organizations as StandWithUs, one tactic the dovish groups are not pursuing is street demonstrations. That has been left to anti-war and anti-Zionist groups much further to their left. The Answer Coalition, an organization that was behind many of the demonstrations against the Iraq War and that has campaigned against American intervention in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, leads most of those groups. With reporting by Anthony Weiss. Thu. Jan 08, 2009 From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 20:55:01 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:55:01 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Cuba Says Exports of Services Tops $9 Billion Message-ID: Cuba says exports of services tops $9 billion Thu Jan 8, 2009 8:53pm GMT By Marc Frank HAVANA, Jan 8 (Reuters) - Cuban exports of services grew by 6.2 percent in 2008, topping the $9 billion mark for the first time and consolidating their position as Cuba's most important source of foreign exchange, the government said this week. The mounting services income --officials say more than half comes from leftist ally Venezuela-- has enabled Cuba to more or less balance its external finances in recent years despite a huge trade deficit that soared to $11.6 billion in 2008. The National Statistics Office, in preliminary figures posted on its Web site (http://www.one.cu), reported 2008 service exports at $9.2 billion, up from $8.6 billion in 2007. Cuba does not specify what it includes within the service export category, though officials have said tourism and related revenues, the export of medical and other technical services,and donations fall within it. Cuba said it received $2.5 billion from tourism in 2008. Revenues from pharmaceutical and other joint ventures abroad may also be included, according to local economists, as well as the training of foreign students. Non-tourism related service exports began increasing dramatically after a 2004 accord with Venezuela, under which the oil-rich South American oil-producing country pays Cuba for massive health care assistance and other services. Cuba reported 40,000 of its citizens worked in Venezuela last year, 30,000 of them in the health sector. Before the 2004 agreement with Venezuela, Cuba's service exports totaled less than $4 billion a year, with tourism and related activities accounting for more than half of that. The government reports foreign exchange data in the convertible peso which it pegs at $1.08 U.S. (Editing by Jeff Franks and Anthony Boadle) From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 22:29:39 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:29:39 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Porn Industry Seeks Federal Bailout Message-ID: January 7, 2009 Porn industry seeks federal bailout Posted: 05:27 PM ET From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 22:42:56 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:42:56 -0500 Subject: [A-List] CNN Interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Message-ID: From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 00:08:56 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 02:08:56 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Krugman: The Obama Plan "Nowhere Near Big Enough to Fill" Output Gap Message-ID: January 9, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist The Obama Gap By PAUL KRUGMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But Mr. Obama's prescription doesn't live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he's offering isn't as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what's needed. Bear in mind just how big the U.S. economy is. Given sufficient demand for its output, America would produce more than $30 trillion worth of goods and services over the next two years. But with both consumer spending and business investment plunging, a huge gap is opening up between what the American economy can produce and what it's able to sell. And the Obama plan is nowhere near big enough to fill this "output gap." Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office came out with its latest analysis of the budget and economic outlook. The budget office says that in the absence of a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would rise above 9 percent by early 2010, and stay high for years to come. Grim as this projection is, by the way, it's actually optimistic compared with some independent forecasts. Mr. Obama himself has been saying that without a stimulus plan, the unemployment rate could go into double digits. Even the C.B.O. says, however, that "economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential." This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. "Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity," declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things. To close a gap of more than $2 trillion ? possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic ? Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that's not enough. Now, fiscal stimulus can sometimes have a "multiplier" effect: In addition to the direct effects of, say, investment in infrastructure on demand, there can be a further indirect effect as higher incomes lead to higher consumer spending. Standard estimates suggest that a dollar of public spending raises G.D.P. by around $1.50. But only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts ? and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending. (A number of Senate Democrats apparently share these doubts.) Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center summed it up in the title of a recent blog posting: "lots of buck, not much bang." The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jan 9 04:20:14 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:20:14 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Shell's Game Message-ID: <496732EE.3000000@ashisuto.co.jp> Why good people do bad things by George Monbiot The Guardian (January 06 2009) For a while it seemed that Shell had stopped pretending. The advertisements which filled the newspapers in 2006, featuring technicians with perfect teeth and open-necked shirts explaining how they were saving the world {1, 2, 3}, vanished. After being slated by environmentalists for greenwash, after two adverse rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority {4, 5}, Shell appeared to have accepted the inescapable truth that it was an oil company with a minor sideline in alternative energy, and that there was no point in trying to persuade people otherwise. The interview I conducted with its chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, broadcast on the Guardian's website today {6}, contains what appears to be an interesting admission. I asked him whether Shell had now stopped producing ads extolling its investments in renewable energy. Mr van der Veer does not express himself clearly at this point, but he seems to admit that his company's previous advertising was not honest. "If we are very big in oil and gas and we are so far relatively small in alternative energies, if you then every day only make adverts about your alternative energies and not about ninety per cent of your other activities I don't think that - then I say transparency, honesty to the market, that's nonsense". So, I asked, Shell did not intend to return to that kind of advertising? "Probably not", he told me. "I'm very much keep your feet on the ground, tell them who you are and explain why you are who you are". But since the interview was filmed, Shell's messianic tendencies appear to have resurfaced. In December the company ran a series of ads in the Guardian suggesting again that it had come to save the world. "Tackling climate change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively", one of these advertisements boasts {7}. It features a diagram of a human brain, divided into sections labelled "fuel from algae", "fuel from straw", "fuel from woodchips", "hydrogen fuels", "windfarm", "gas to liquids" and "coal gasification". This suggests progress of a kind, in that the company is acknowledging that it sometimes dabbles in fossil fuels, but its core business - oil - and its massive investments in tar sands are missing from the corporate mind. Could Shell be having a senior moment? The confusion deepens when you watch its latest publicity film. It's called "Clearing the Air", and it does just the opposite {8}. It is supposed to tell an inspirational tale of discovery, but the script and the acting are so gobsmackingly bad that it inspires you only to rip your clothes off and run screaming down the street. The lasting impression it leaves is that Shell's staff are chaotic and incompetent. Perhaps the clean-cut corporate clones featured in the ads of 2006 put people off. Mr van der Veer is neither an incompetent nor an automaton. He is charming, friendly and smart. But he refused to answer some of the questions I had prepared. Reading Shell's reports and publicity material, I kept stumbling on an absence. In 2000, the company boasted that it would be investing $1 billion dollars in renewable energy between 2001 and 2005. But since then it appears to have produced no figures for its renewables budget. The company now claims that "we're investing significantly in wind energy" {9}, but it doesn't say what significantly means. Of the ten wind farms listed on its website, only one appears to be in the planning or development stage: the others are already in operation {10}. Where is the evidence of new money? When Shell pulled out of Britain's biggest windfarm, the London Array, last year, did this represent the end of its major investments? I asked Mr van der Veer a simple question - fifteen times. (Only a few of these attempts feature in the edited film). "What is the value of your annual investments in renewable energy?". He waffled, changed the subject, admitted that he knew the figure, then flatly refused to reveal it. Nor could he give me a convincing explanation of why he wouldn't tell me, claiming only that "those figures are misused and people say it is too small" and it "is not the right message to give to the people". It strikes me that there is only one likely reason for these evasions: that Shell's spending on renewables has fallen sharply from the figure it announced in 2000. It's a fair guess that the current investment would look microscopic by comparison to its spending on the Canadian tar sands, and would make a mockery of its new round of advertising. I challenge Shell - for the sixteenth time - to prove me wrong. Nor would Mr van der Veer give me a straight answer to another straight question: "is there any investment you would not make on ethical grounds?". I asked this six times. He was unable to furnish me with an example. It's not hard to see why. As well as exploiting the tar sands, which means destroying forest and wetlands, polluting great quantities of water and producing more carbon dioxide than conventional petroleum, Shell is still flaring gas in Nigeria, at great cost to both local people and the global climate. It has been fiercely criticised for its secret negotiations with the Iraqi government, which led last year to the first major access for a western company to Iraq's gas reserves {11}. It is prospecting for oil in some of the Arctic's most sensitive habitats. All this makes my question difficult to answer. Aside from the greenwash, it is not easy to spot the practical difference between this civilised, progressive company and the Neanderthals at Exxon. Like all oil companies, Shell simply follows the opportunities. Shut out of the richest fields by state companies, struggling to extract the dregs from its declining reserves, it has been turning to ever more difficult oil, some of which lies beneath rare and fragile ecosystems. When the price of oil was high, it announced massive investments in the tar sands. Now that the price has dropped again, it has cancelled further spending {12}. It has even less of an incentive to invest in renewables. Shell does what the market demands. I don't blame Shell or van der Veer for this: they are discharging their duty to their shareholders. I do blame them for creating the impression that the company has a different agenda, and I blame governments for allowing them to drift into whatever fields they find profitable, regardless of the consequences for people or the environment. On this issue Jeroen van der Veer and I agree. Oil companies, he says, should not seek to determine a country's energy mix: that is for the government to decide. Saving the biosphere, in other words, cannot be left to goodwill and greenwash: the humanity of pleasant men like van der Veer will always be swept aside by the imperative to maximise returns. Good people in these circumstances do terrible things. Companies like Shell will pour big money into alternative energy only when more lucrative or immediate opportunities are blocked. Where is the government that is brave enough to block them? www.monbiot.com References: 1. The three examples I have in my files are: Shell, 30th May 2006. The world wants more energy, the planet wants less pollution. Page 10, Financial Times. 2. Shell, 29th April 2006. One energy company is going further to make hydrogen a reality. New Scientist. 3. Shell, 22nd May 2006. How can we produce more energy but lower carbon emissions? Page 23, New Statesman. 4. ASA, 7th November 2007. Adjudication: Shell Europe Oil Products Ltd. http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=43476 5. ASA, 13th August 2008. Adjudication: Shell International Ltd. http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44828.htm 6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jan/06/george-monbiot-jeroen-van-de-veer 7. Shell, 20th December 2008. In the New Energy Future, if it doesn't exist we'll need to invent it. Page 21, The Guardian. 8. http://realenergy.shell.com/?lang=en&page=homeFlash&access=false&site_version=flash&promo=shellbanner#ClearingTheAir 9. http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/alternative_energy/wind/wind.html 10. http://www.shell.com/home/content/shellgasandpower-en/products_and_services/wind/project_case_studies/dir_case_0605.html 11. eg Terry Macalister, 24th September 2008. Shell's $4bn Iraq breakthrough could boost Britain's natural gas supplies. The Guardian. 12. Kristen Hays, 13th December 2008. Petroleum companies delay expansion, new projects Houston Chronicle. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/01/06/shells-game/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Fri Jan 9 08:57:24 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:57:24 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Shell's Game In-Reply-To: <496732EE.3000000@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <496732EE.3000000@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: This is nothing new. A few years ago it was pointed out that Phillip Morris donated a few million to domestic violence programs and then spent three times as much publicizing their donations. This is simply business as usual. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Totten Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 6:20 AM To: a-list Subject: [A-List] Shell's Game Why good people do bad things by George Monbiot The Guardian (January 06 2009) For a while it seemed that Shell had stopped pretending. The advertisements which filled the newspapers in 2006, featuring technicians with perfect teeth and open-necked shirts explaining how they were saving the world {1, 2, 3}, vanished. After being slated by environmentalists for greenwash, after two adverse rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority {4, 5}, Shell appeared to have accepted the inescapable truth that it was an oil company with a minor sideline in alternative energy, and that there was no point in trying to persuade people otherwise. The interview I conducted with its chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, broadcast on the Guardian's website today {6}, contains what appears to be an interesting admission. I asked him whether Shell had now stopped producing ads extolling its investments in renewable energy. Mr van der Veer does not express himself clearly at this point, but he seems to admit that his company's previous advertising was not honest. "If we are very big in oil and gas and we are so far relatively small in alternative energies, if you then every day only make adverts about your alternative energies and not about ninety per cent of your other activities I don't think that - then I say transparency, honesty to the market, that's nonsense". So, I asked, Shell did not intend to return to that kind of advertising? "Probably not", he told me. "I'm very much keep your feet on the ground, tell them who you are and explain why you are who you are". But since the interview was filmed, Shell's messianic tendencies appear to have resurfaced. In December the company ran a series of ads in the Guardian suggesting again that it had come to save the world. "Tackling climate change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively", one of these advertisements boasts {7}. It features a diagram of a human brain, divided into sections labelled "fuel from algae", "fuel from straw", "fuel from woodchips", "hydrogen fuels", "windfarm", "gas to liquids" and "coal gasification". This suggests progress of a kind, in that the company is acknowledging that it sometimes dabbles in fossil fuels, but its core business - oil - and its massive investments in tar sands are missing from the corporate mind. Could Shell be having a senior moment? The confusion deepens when you watch its latest publicity film. It's called "Clearing the Air", and it does just the opposite {8}. It is supposed to tell an inspirational tale of discovery, but the script and the acting are so gobsmackingly bad that it inspires you only to rip your clothes off and run screaming down the street. The lasting impression it leaves is that Shell's staff are chaotic and incompetent. Perhaps the clean-cut corporate clones featured in the ads of 2006 put people off. Mr van der Veer is neither an incompetent nor an automaton. He is charming, friendly and smart. But he refused to answer some of the questions I had prepared. Reading Shell's reports and publicity material, I kept stumbling on an absence. In 2000, the company boasted that it would be investing $1 billion dollars in renewable energy between 2001 and 2005. But since then it appears to have produced no figures for its renewables budget. The company now claims that "we're investing significantly in wind energy" {9}, but it doesn't say what significantly means. Of the ten wind farms listed on its website, only one appears to be in the planning or development stage: the others are already in operation {10}. Where is the evidence of new money? When Shell pulled out of Britain's biggest windfarm, the London Array, last year, did this represent the end of its major investments? I asked Mr van der Veer a simple question - fifteen times. (Only a few of these attempts feature in the edited film). "What is the value of your annual investments in renewable energy?". He waffled, changed the subject, admitted that he knew the figure, then flatly refused to reveal it. Nor could he give me a convincing explanation of why he wouldn't tell me, claiming only that "those figures are misused and people say it is too small" and it "is not the right message to give to the people". It strikes me that there is only one likely reason for these evasions: that Shell's spending on renewables has fallen sharply from the figure it announced in 2000. It's a fair guess that the current investment would look microscopic by comparison to its spending on the Canadian tar sands, and would make a mockery of its new round of advertising. I challenge Shell - for the sixteenth time - to prove me wrong. Nor would Mr van der Veer give me a straight answer to another straight question: "is there any investment you would not make on ethical grounds?". I asked this six times. He was unable to furnish me with an example. It's not hard to see why. As well as exploiting the tar sands, which means destroying forest and wetlands, polluting great quantities of water and producing more carbon dioxide than conventional petroleum, Shell is still flaring gas in Nigeria, at great cost to both local people and the global climate. It has been fiercely criticised for its secret negotiations with the Iraqi government, which led last year to the first major access for a western company to Iraq's gas reserves {11}. It is prospecting for oil in some of the Arctic's most sensitive habitats. All this makes my question difficult to answer. Aside from the greenwash, it is not easy to spot the practical difference between this civilised, progressive company and the Neanderthals at Exxon. Like all oil companies, Shell simply follows the opportunities. Shut out of the richest fields by state companies, struggling to extract the dregs from its declining reserves, it has been turning to ever more difficult oil, some of which lies beneath rare and fragile ecosystems. When the price of oil was high, it announced massive investments in the tar sands. Now that the price has dropped again, it has cancelled further spending {12}. It has even less of an incentive to invest in renewables. Shell does what the market demands. I don't blame Shell or van der Veer for this: they are discharging their duty to their shareholders. I do blame them for creating the impression that the company has a different agenda, and I blame governments for allowing them to drift into whatever fields they find profitable, regardless of the consequences for people or the environment. On this issue Jeroen van der Veer and I agree. Oil companies, he says, should not seek to determine a country's energy mix: that is for the government to decide. Saving the biosphere, in other words, cannot be left to goodwill and greenwash: the humanity of pleasant men like van der Veer will always be swept aside by the imperative to maximise returns. Good people in these circumstances do terrible things. Companies like Shell will pour big money into alternative energy only when more lucrative or immediate opportunities are blocked. Where is the government that is brave enough to block them? www.monbiot.com References: 1. The three examples I have in my files are: Shell, 30th May 2006. The world wants more energy, the planet wants less pollution. Page 10, Financial Times. 2. Shell, 29th April 2006. One energy company is going further to make hydrogen a reality. New Scientist. 3. Shell, 22nd May 2006. How can we produce more energy but lower carbon emissions? Page 23, New Statesman. 4. ASA, 7th November 2007. Adjudication: Shell Europe Oil Products Ltd. http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.h tm?Adjudication_id=43476 5. ASA, 13th August 2008. Adjudication: Shell International Ltd. http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44828.htm 6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jan/06/george-monbiot-jeroe n-van-de-veer 7. Shell, 20th December 2008. In the New Energy Future, if it doesn't exist we'll need to invent it. Page 21, The Guardian. 8. http://realenergy.shell.com/?lang=en&page=homeFlash&access=false&site_versio n=flash&promo=shellbanner#ClearingTheAir 9. http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/alternative_energy/wind/wind.ht ml 10. http://www.shell.com/home/content/shellgasandpower-en/products_and_services/ wind/project_case_studies/dir_case_0605.html 11. eg Terry Macalister, 24th September 2008. Shell's $4bn Iraq breakthrough could boost Britain's natural gas supplies. The Guardian. 12. Kristen Hays, 13th December 2008. Petroleum companies delay expansion, new projects Houston Chronicle. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/01/06/shells-game/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Fri Jan 9 09:18:26 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:18:26 -0500 Subject: [A-List] On necessity and law in human history Message-ID: <49673281.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Marxism-Thaxis] On necessity and law in human history Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Wed Feb 1 07:41:35 MST 2006 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dennett's Breaking the Spell Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] www.darwin.ws Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do think that with respect to law in human history, necessity in human history, at the stage of the transition to socialism, the issue of the unity of subject and object is to some extent, well vulgar, a street hussle, theatre even. I'd say that Marx and Engels were vulgar enough to realize that they had to _sell_ socialism to the masses , including people from all classes. Historical objective necessity can take the masses of human up to the water of socialism, but it cannot make them drink. The socialist revolution will not occur without working class consciousness and purposeful aim to win it, make it so. However, the workers are more likely to take the tremendous effort involved in making socialism if they think it is "necessary", a historical necessity, in line with the laws of history. A lot of middle strata people are more likely to aim for it if it is an "historical necessity" too. Even many bourgeoisie will go for it if they think , somehow, the "have" to do it, that the "Must" ! To the extent that there are laws, objective laws, of human history , they do tend toward socialism, as a more rational way to organize society. So, in that regard , Marx and Engels are not selling snake oil. But that last , critical, and qualitatively different little/big leap at the end, must take place in the subjective consciousness of each individual human, or the great mass of them. There is no objective factor that _forces_ people, workers and middle strata workers, to want and aim for socialism, ending capitalism. On the other hand, as Chavez says, in this era after Marx and Engels, after Lenin, there are certain objective factors, such as nuclear weapons and capitalisticgenic ecological pollution , which now threaten our species in a qualitatively new way, and begin to constitute objective necessities for ending capitalism everywhere on earth and starting worldwide socialism. There is developing greater objective necessity for socialism now than in the eras Marx or Lenin. Of course, a given individual can respond to these "necessities" with resentment or nihilism or misanthropy, indifference or malice toward the continuation of the human species. Given the many inhumanities of man toward man , there is not guaranteed dissuasion of this any given soul. At any rate, there is a tremendous component of persuasion involved in building revolutionary elan and spirit, even leaving aside those who are in extreme despair about the whole world. Declaring that history's laws require socialism is in an important sense a strategy for persuading ( "selling") those who were thinking in terms of "laws" of science in the 1800's. Within capitalism, not so much in history in the larger sense, Marx did discover certain strong tendencies or patterns of motion, cyclical patterns, given the basic rules that capitalists and workers follow in their relations, that is given the property relations. There will , in a lawlike manner, be a large mass of poor people. The absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. There is a tendency or law of monopolization, one capitalist swallows a few. There is a law or tendency of socialization of labor or production. These laws do not directly derive from meeting physiological requirements. Historical necessity , such as it is, derives from the requirements society puts on individuals to meet their physiological and reproductive requirements. The key realm of modern society which sets the requirements for getting physiological and reproductive requirements met is the economy. The process of getting these physiological and reproductive requirements met is mixed in with getting many other needs or wants met in this economy. But Marx and Engels focus on the economy, and class relations, as the main source of necessity and law in human affairs (objectively determining individual will), because it is where biological necessity impinges. There is a profound historical contradiction here in that a main aim of human progress or accumulation of knowledge has been to _free_ us from this very determining effect of biological necessity ! Culture and tradition of science have had the aim of making us literally "supernatural" . I mean this in a non-religious sense, non-mystical sense. Merely, masters and mistresses of nature. For the mastery of necessity is freedom. This freedom is in a sense above nature. Certainly beyond the limitations that nature put on humans 200,000 years ago at our origin. So, the contradiction is that the advance of science and technology potentially frees us more than ever from the necessity deriving from physiological requirements of which I speak above. Yet, capitalism and all class society substitutes an artificial scarcity or inability to meet physiological requirements for the many in order to control them. It denies most people the immediate and easy access to freedom from the demands of physiological necessity (or easily meeting them) that society is now capable of providing. It denies them . It thereby creates or maintains an artificial "necessity or law"into human affairs by artificially bringing people close to failing to meet their physiological and reproductive requirements. Or allowing them to exist in a state such that they are in jeopardy of not meeting their natural requirements, when everyone could be easily and certainly free from such jeopardy by the level of our technological development. This artificial return to threat or jeopardy of failing to meet natural requirments is in the form of class, wage-labor today. I think this is the sense in which Engels uses "law" in human affairs and history. Peace in ! CB This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 10:17:06 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:17:06 -0800 Subject: [A-List] The Infernal Machine Message-ID: <49678692.9030206@gmail.com> But here is a big intangible: In 1930, the majority of the population in the US was not as utterly dependent and helpless as it is now. Consumerism has created a nation of cyborgs who will go mad when the grid begins to shut down. They are epistemologically disabled; and they are psychologically fragile. They are self-centered and avaricious, with extremely low frustration tolerance levels. Now, with this crisis in mind, how do we think about something as nessesary by one measure and insane by another as propping up the automobile industry? Automobiles are essential to support our existence such as it is? halt them today, and many will literally die. But they are also a key part of our problem with greenhouse gases, habitat destruction for roads and the attendant sprawl, transportation of food, etc. etc. At the same time, they will stop one day, as sure as the sun rises. The Infernal Machine 9th January 2009, 07:01 am by Stan Two years ago, those of us who saw the inevitability of a collapse in the structure of fictional value were dismissed. One year ago, the great unease began. Six months ago, we started seeing what happens when a house is built on the sand. Three months ago, people were still talking about the ?bottom,? when the recession ? a heretofore contested word ? would dissipate and we could start back in on the cornucopia. Now the media are speaking daily of 1930, and the new administration will be spending a trillion to ?prime the pump? in a semi-Keynesian rescue effort run by exactly the same people who oversaw the whole debacle for eight years ? the Clinton presidency?s veterans, who almost crashed the system when they injected the ?flu? into Asia in an attempt to enforce neoliberalism , and when they inflated the last big gasbag of fictional value ? the dotcom boom. Let?s stay honest. Bush built up the war; but Clinton built up the economic crisis ? a process that took off in the Reagan years. People who say, ?Let?s not point fingers now, we have to do something,? are telling us to ignore the etiology of the disease. In keeping with the duties of any good Kassandra, let me say that we are far, far, far worse off than in 1930; so Keynesian pump-priming isn?t going to work. Moreover, there is no World War II Redux in the wings to act as the US deux ex machina to build us up on the corpses of 60 million people? yet. In 1930, there were just over 2 billion souls aboard the planet; now we approach 7 billion. In 1930, the majority of those inhabitants were rural, with some access to direct subsistence; at some point last year ? by many estimates ? the world became more urban than rural, even as arable land is being destroyed by commercial large-scale agriculture used to feed this burgeoning city population. In 1930, there was no atomic bomb; now nine nations have nuclear weapons, one of which is the expansionist rogue state of Israel engaged now in the racialized slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, and two states (Pakistan and India) who are rivals sharing a border. The latter two are being destabilized internally and externally, Pakistanin particular by US military machinations in Southwest Asia. Let?s not discount Muslim resentment for the US supporting Israel?s serial savageries, that plays out in Pakistan, therfore in the South Asian nuclear rivalry. In 1930, the US wasn?t spending more on weapons production and military logistics than the rest of the world combined. In 1930, the US was not propped up economically by a combinatoin of ?securities? scams and dollar hegemony. In 1930, the world was not faced with the accelerating approach of climate destabilization and rapid rises in sea levels. You can go down this list indefinitely? But here is a big intangible: In 1930, the majority of the population in the US was not as utterly dependent and helpless as it is now. Consumerism has created a nation of cyborgs who will go mad when the grid begins to shut down. They are epistemologically disabled; and they are psychologically fragile. They are self-centered and avaricious, with extremely low frustration tolerance levels. Now, with this crisis in mind, how do we think about something as nessesary by one measure and insane by another as propping up the automobile industry? Automobiles are essential to support our existence such as it is? halt them today, and many will literally die. But they are also a key part of our problem with greenhouse gases, habitat destruction for roads and the attendant sprawl, transportation of food, etc. etc. At the same time, they will stop one day, as sure as the sun rises. Cars are (1) dirty, (2) dangerous, and (3) expensive. A brief Wiki clip: In the United States the average passenger car emits 11,450 lbs (5 tonnes) of carbon dioxide, along with smaller amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen. Residents of low-density, residential-only sprawling communities are also more likely to die in car collisions, which kill 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number. Sprawl is more broadly a factor in inactivity and obesity, which in turn can lead to increased risk of a variety of diseases. You can ? with very little imagination ? continue listing the sequelae encylopedically. Very short of time this morning, but there are the outlines on the topic of ?the infernal machine.? I think the preparatory context is necessary to see how deep the crisis is that contextualizes the anecdotal fact of a ?bailout for the auto industry,? because it tells us something important about how silly we look to any eye-in-the-sky with our policy prescriptions, electioneering, and self-limited ?democratic? imagination. If there is any solution (a real question), it will not come with any initiative from above. Re-design and re-localization? from below. To hell with ideologies, and to hell with the government. We are on our own here, and the solution is many solutions. Do it yourself. http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2009/01/09/the-infernal-machine/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 11:58:58 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:58:58 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Iran Bans Daily for Labeling Hamas Terrorist Message-ID: Iran bans daily for labeling Hamas terrorist Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:30:44 GMT An Iranian newspaper has been banned after publishing an article which authorities say has condoned Israel's attacks on the Gaza Strip. The Iranian Culture Ministry banned the publication of the centrist daily Kargozaran, after it published a statement by a radical group blaming pro-resistance factions and countries for the current situation in the Gaza Strip. The newspaper's recent move was in clear violation of Iran's press law, said Mohammad Parvizi of the Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry on Wednesday. He added that Iran's Press Supervisory Board will refer the newspaper's case to court. Parvizi said the statement portrayed Palestinian fighters as terrorists who take shelter in kindergartens and hospitals and provoke Israeli bombardments leading to the death of children and civilians. Kargozaran Managing Director Morteza Sajjadian on Wednesday acknowledged that publishing the statement was a mistake. "In the past week most of the articles and material published by this newspaper had been in support of Gaza's civilians and the publication of this statement was an unintentional mistake," he said. According to Sajjadian, the daily was to publish a public apology in its Thursday issue. Iran shuts down leading reformist newspaper Dec 31, 2008 TEHRAN (AFP) ? The Iranian press watchdog shut down leading reformist newspaper Kargozaran on Wednesday over publication of a piece criticising Palestinian militants, the official IRNA news agency reported. "Kargozaran has been banned over a media offence and the case has been referred to the court," Mohammad Parvizi, who is in charge of domestic media at the culture ministry, told IRNA. He said the ban was ordered over "a piece yesterday which justifies the Zionist regime's crimes against humanity in Gaza and portrays the Palestinian resistance as terrorists who cause the deaths of children and civilians by taking up position in kindergartens and hospitals." Kargozaran's director Morteza Sajadian confirmed the closure and said the piece in question was a statement by a radical pro-reform student group, the Office to Consolidate Unity. "The statement was not supposed to be carried, it was mistakenly printed," he told AFP, hoping the ban would be only temporary. Kargozaran's licence holder is the Executives of Construction, a political party close to former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The paper, which started publication three years ago, has been a frequent target of attack from rival hardline media over its content, which has been perceived as hostile to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Under Ahmadinejad, Iranian newspapers, websites and news agencies of all political persuasions have been hit by a string of closures. Iran is a staunch supporter of the Islamist Hamas movement which controls Gaza and does not recognise its archfoe Israel, which has been pounding the territory with a deadly air blitz for the past five days. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 12:03:14 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:03:14 -0800 Subject: [A-List] A Marine's Eye View Of IDF Actions In Gaza Message-ID: <49679F72.1000903@gmail.com> The comments to this post include rebuttals and requests for correction in re US actions in Iraq. The post is titled: UN: Ceasefire Call Ignored; The Miseries of Settler Colonialism I've just posted a comment (as yet moderated): Professor Cole: "The US never considered flooding Iraq with colonists from Alabama and Mississippi." But WE WOULD consider flooding Iraq with 'Westernized' Iraqis with Western consumer demands. I think they all live in Virginia near CIA HQ right now...(Kidding! But only a little) My 'marxist' (U.S. based, therefore small 'm') friends tell me that this is one of the 'problems' of consumer-based Capitalist economics... The market demand for the industrial output and product MUST keep growing, and Ex-pats, with their newly acquired 'tastes' for Western 'lifestyles' WOULD bring that demand. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I've always thought the neofasc... I mean neocons, were of Jewish faith out of proportion to the expected statistical population within a political grouping, because that 'replacement' of cultures HAS occurred, even as the religious base remains intact, and the Neo-Youknows were somehow looking to duplicate that form of cultural assimilation/re-direction in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps the whole Middle East. It would be the opportunity to sell them back their oil and other extractive resources in the form of 'plastic crap'. My $0.02 http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/un-ceasefire-call-ignored-miseries-of.html A Marine who had recently gotten out the the service and had served in Iraq vehemently agreed with this sentiment: ' I am dismayed by the rhetoric from US politicians and pundits to the effect that ?if the US were under rocket attack from Mexico or Canada, we would respond like the Israelis?. This a gross insult to US servicemen; I can assure you that we would NOT respond like the Israelis... Israel has indeed taken a small number of casualties from Hamas rocket fire (about 20 killed since 2001), but we have taken thousands of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many civilian personnel. Hundreds of American casualties have occurred due to indirect fire, often from mortars. This is particularly true in or near the Green Zone in Baghdad. This fire often originates from densely populated urban areas. Americans do not, I repeat DO NOT, respond to that fire indiscriminately. When I say ?indiscriminately?, I mean that even if we can precisely identify the source of the fire (which can be very difficult), we do not respond if we know we will cause civilian casualties. We always evaluate the threat to civilians before responding, and in an urban area the threat to civilians is extremely high. If US servicemen violate those rules of engagement and harm civilians, I assure you we do our best to investigate -- and mete out punishment if warranted. There are differing opinions on the conflict in Iraq, but I am proud of the conduct of our servicemen there. With that in mind, I find the conduct of the Israeli army in Gaza to be brutal and dishonorable, and it is insulting that they and others claim that the US military would behave in the same way. follow similar rules of engagement rings hollow; I see little evidence for this claim I know the Israelis are operating under difficult circumstances, but their claim that theygiven the huge number of civilian casualties they have caused from indirect fire. ' I think the writer has a point, though he is probably exaggerating the difference between the US military in Iraq and the Israeli military in Gaza. But it is true that in November 2004 before the Marines went into Fallujah after fundamentalist guerrillas, they allowed and even encouraged civilians to leave the city; of 200,000 or so, fewer than 10 percent chose to stay. In contrast, Israel has the Gazans bottled up and would never consider allowing the civilians to come in Israel to stay in tent cities while Gaza was being bombarded. Israel thus insisted that the civilian population remain in the line of fire, in a way that the Marines did not do with regard to Fallujah. Indeed, letting so many people depart was contradictory to the war aim of killing or capturing as many guerrillas as possible, since the smart ones put on civvies and slipped out with the women and children. That was a price the Marine commanders were willing to pay to reduce civilian casualties. Likewise,in August of 2004 when the US military waa battling the Mahdi Army in Najaf, it stopped firing when Grand Ayatollah Sistani sent tens of thousands of civilians walking into the city center. If a Palestinian cleric convinced tens of thousands of civilians to stream into Gaza City and they were in the way of the Israeli war aims, they would likely just be mown down. Note that I am not alleging, and neither is the letter writer, that Israeli troops are deliberately killing civilians. I am alleging that Israeli troops don't care very much if they happen to kill civilians while getting at what they think of as Hamas targets. They are not doing due diligence to avoid civilian deaths and casualties. The difference between Israeli military action in Gaza and most US operations in Iraq is not a matter of national character or some other essentialist attribute. It is the difference between imperial occupation for specific purposes and settler colonialism. The Israelis are both an army and a settler movement. The US never considered flooding Iraq with colonists from Alabama and Mississippi. In Full: http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/un-ceasefire-call-ignored-miseries-of.html From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 13:38:19 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:38:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Egypt Pulls Down the Shutters on Aid Message-ID: Egypt Pulls Down the Shutters on Aid By Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani CAIRO, Jan 8 (IPS) - Egyptian authorities have almost fully sealed the border with Gaza, preventing delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid. "The government has expressly forbidden the entry of aid convoys laden with food into the Gaza Strip," Emmad al-Din Moustafa, member of the Popular Committee for Aiding Gaza told IPS. "The continued border closure -- like the Israeli assault itself -- constitutes a crime against humanity." Israel began a series of devastating air strikes on targets throughout the Gaza Strip Dec. 27, followed by a ground offensive launched Jan. 3. According to Israeli officials, the campaign, which has included thousands of air strikes and naval bombardment, comes in retaliation for rockets fired at Israel by Gaza-based Palestinian resistance factions. Since the campaign began, humanitarian aid -- donated by sympathisers from across the Arab and Islamic world -- has flown into the city of Al-Arish, 40 km west of Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip. But according to local sources, Egyptian authorities are preventing the transportation of food and medicine into the besieged territory. "The crossing has only been opened briefly five or six times to allow the entry of limited amounts of aid," Hatem Al-Bulk, political activist from Al-Arish told IPS. "About 1,000 tonnes of food have been delivered so far, but the population of Gaza needs an estimated 1,500 tonnes per day to survive." Even before the Israeli onslaught, the Gaza Strip had been subject to a crippling, internationally sanctioned 'embargo' that destroyed its economy and brought it to the brink of humanitarian disaster. Since Palestinian resistance movement Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, after winning elections in 2006, Egypt -- like Israel -- has kept its border with the enclave tightly shut. In tandem with the neutralisation of airports and maritime ports, the border closures have deprived Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants of most essential goods, including food, medicine and fuel. Egypt says it cannot reopen the Rafah crossing -- the sole transit point along its roughly 14-kilometre border with the Gaza Strip -- in the absence of Palestinian Authority (PA) officials and EU observers, under a 2005 security agreement. "Egypt doesn't want to sanctify the division (between the Hamas run Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority run West Bank) by opening the Rafah crossing in the absence of the PA and European observers," President Hosni Mubarak said Dec. 30. According to some Egyptian officials, the border has been opened when it has been safe to do so. "The Rafah crossing is open for the entry of humanitarian aid and to receive the injured," North Sinai Governor Gen. Mohamed Abdel Fadil was quoted as saying in the Wednesday (Jan. 7) edition of state daily Al-Gomhouriya. "The crossing is only being closed during heavy Israeli bombardment of the Palestinian side." Fadil added that Egypt had received 130 injured Palestinians for treatment in Egyptian hospitals since the outset of the campaign, and was prepared to receive many more. More than 3,000 people are lying injured in Gaza, besides more than 700 killed. Local sources confirm that the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing has come under frequent Israeli attack since the campaign began. "The Palestinian side has been hit several times with earth-penetrating munitions, " said Al-Bulk. "Egyptian Rafah has become a ghost town because so many residents have left for Al-Arish and other cities in the Sinai Peninsula." Meanwhile, local activists say the situation in the Gaza Strip has become dire. "Many Gazans can't find food," said Moustafa, who is in regular contact by telephone with several families across the border. "If the situation doesn't drastically improve in the next three days, people will starve to death. Meanwhile 50,000 tonnes of food is sitting in Al-Arish, awaiting the authorities' permission to make the crossing. Where are the international humanitarian institutions, like the UN?" Doctors and medical experts have been barred from entering the Gaza Strip. On Tuesday (Jan. 6), a group of 55 Egyptian medical volunteers of varying specialties from universities throughout the country were prevented from crossing into Gaza. "Although we signed a statement saying we were responsible for our own safety, the border authorities at Rafah refused us entry without explanation," Yasser Mohamed, a heart surgery specialist at Cairo University and one of the medical volunteers, told IPS from Al-Arish. "Shortly afterwards, the minister of health -- who happened to be in the area -- told us we couldn't enter Gaza because 'Israel had not given its approval'. "Doctors in Gaza, who are usually trained only in general medicine, are in desperate need of our skills," added Mohamed. "If we were let in, we could save lots of lives." According to Al-Bulk, security forces on the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing are leaving nothing to chance. "Police forces in Rafah and Al-Arish have been beefed up substantially since the Israeli campaign began," he said. "And they have orders to fire on anyone attempting to breach the border." (END/2009) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 13:48:36 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:48:36 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Being Invisible 2.0 - US Diplomacy and Gaza - Marc Lynch (Abu Aardvark) Message-ID: <4967B824.3000500@gmail.com> Woo Hoo! The Aardvark's a bigtime blogger now! http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/node/15024 Fri, 01/09/2009 - 9:49am In a major speech at the beginning of December outlining his vision for "Public Diplomacy 2.0", Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman argued that "in the war of ideas, our core task... is to create an environment hostile to violent extremism." Israel's war on Gaza has done quite the opposite. It has unleashed a tsunami of outrage in the Arab world, with every Arab and Islamist trend jockeying for position in the rapidly reshaping landscape. Al-Jazeera has dominated the media landscape, not just over the satellite TV airwaves but across the new media spectrum. Al-Qaeda has made an aggressive bid to frame the crisis as part of the general war between the West and Islam. The Saudis, Egyptians, and other forces aligned on the anti-Hamas side of Arab politics have struggled with limited success to blame Hamas for the carnage. The center of political gravity in the region has shifted palpably away from so-called "moderates." This is the "war of ideas" at its most intense, its most urgent, and its most visceral. So surely the United States has been fully engaged, since everyone agrees that the "war of ideas" is the "central front" in the "war on terror"? Um, no. To my eye, at least, American public diplomacy has been virtually invisible in this crisis. I suppose that Alhurra [sic], the hugely expensive but little-watched American Arabic-language TV station, is still broadcasting (just as trees continue to fall in empty forests). "DipNote", the State Department's blog, has barely registered: it posed an open question about how to "resume a path toward Israeli-Palestinian peace" on December 29 and on January 7 posted the text of Secretary of State Rice's statement on a ceasefire (ditto for the Twitter feed). There's no evidence of senior officials speaking to the Arab media (I don't recall seeing any on al-Jazeera, and couldn't find any transcripts on al-Arabiya, the usual preference for such appearances, though I could easily have missed something). There are no recorded statements from Glassman's office since December 1. Perhaps there is activity in the much-hyped "Public Diplomacy 2.0" realm -- Facebook pages, engagement with youth groups or whatnot (the sort of stuff Israel and supporters of the Palestinians are doing aggressively)-- but if so it has singularly failed to catch my eye in my daily tracking of Arab media old and new. (UPDATE -- see State Department adviser Jared Cohen's take on the impact of online media on the debate over Gaza... and try to spot the U.S. in his account.) This isn't simply an indictment of public diplomacy -- the problem starts at the top. For all of Barack Obama's repeating the mantra of "one President at a time", in this crisis the U.S. seems to have no President at the worst time. In Full, copiously linked: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/node/15024 From Waistline2 at aol.com Fri Jan 9 18:32:27 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:32:27 EST Subject: [A-List] Communism and Welfare Message-ID: Will the Obama stimulus plan simply concentrate on "Middle America" and create jobs for "them" while ignoring the roughly 40% of the working class that constitutes the poorest workers? I am not against middle America, but they are not the only suffering section of America. The expansion of the food stamp program, housing (section 8) and shelters for the homeless is urgently needed. Most certainly libraries and schools and the public education sector needed to be expanded, rather than shut down. American communism/Marxism remains a middle class movement in my mind, until it becomes one of the most vocal champions of the cause of welfare; or what in front of our eyes is crystallizing as the most poverty stricken sections of American society; the real proletarian in America. The tradition of focusing on the organized sector of the labor movement, specifically those workers in heavy industry - auto, rubber, steel, airplane production, construction, transport including dock workers, etc., reveals American communism as a middle class movement once one compares the wages of these workers to the wages of the majority of America's working class. To be a communist and within Marxism and state the obvious is of course to be charged with all kinds of deviations, anti-Leninism and face all kinds of ideological charges; that one is really hostile to communism and anti-Marxism; doesn't understand that under socialism only "parasites" don't have a 9-5, and so on. At the extreme, one is charged with wanting to give "parasites" a "free ride." Generally any concept of historical accumulation of labor and wealth is tossed out of the window and the worse of bourgeois ideology promoting jobs as a solution, becomes the banner of the middle class communists. As if everyone is to become "workers." But with facts being stubborn things to ignore, to champion the concept of the industrial proletariat in America, or what was in fact not the industrial proletariat as some abstractions but the unionized workers; as the leading edge to be won to the cause of communism and the means to achieve communism in America, has proven itself in real life to be bankrupt. This is not to suggest that any section of the working class should be ignored, but given our history, without the defense of the bottom of the social ladder - (the poorest proletarians), the upper rungs of the ladder cannot be defended. If capital pushes sections of the working class lower and lower then common sense would suggest defense of the bottom rung and fighting for a floor beneath which no group of workers can fall. During the late 1950's and early 1960's, when dad was laid off from Ford Motor Company, our family qualified for welfare and government food - "called commodities." We lived in the Jefferies Project's at the time and also qualified for a housing allowance. One can subscribe to a theory of bribery of the working class as the reason for the passivity and hostility of these formerly bribed workers to communism and the plight of the less paid workers. Subscribing to such an outlook merely proves the obvious; that these workers were in fact not the cutting edge of the social movement to achieve communism. The point is, welfare and the welfare system in America and the reluctance of communists to vocally support this system and its expansion, cannot be justified if one really fights on the side of the poor. What explains American communism/Marxism refusal to be the most vocal champions of welfare is their middle class ideology. Full employment is impossible under capitalism, according to Marxism. The problem is that too much of American Marxism does not support the right of the individual to be lazy or the right of the individual not to aspire to a 9 - 5 job. Although 90% of the real people on welfare and who benefit from it are children, these children are thrown under the ideological bus in favor of ideological prostitution on behave of the middle class and the better paid workers, who felt the solution to welfare was "to get a job." During president elect campaign, I do not recall any comments about welfare one way or another, which might not be a bad thing given the historic attitude towards the most poverty stricken in America. Welfare must be fought for and not simply jobs. In the last period some fought for Jobs or income but defined income as primarily unemployment compensation, while the individual stayed in line for a Job. Full employment should mean employment for those looking for work/jobs. Doctrines of communism generally do not require a specific labor contribution as the basis or precondition for gaining access to socially necessary means of life. The assumption is that people will contribute their labor in millions of different way once society is unfettered by capital and bourgeois ideology. Further, society has evolved to a point of a permanent glut - abundance of labor. Even trying to put everyone to work would be destructive to society. WL **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 18:56:43 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:56:43 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Communism and Welfare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4968005B.1050201@gmail.com> Waistline2 at aol.com wrote: > Will the Obama stimulus plan simply concentrate on "Middle America" and > create jobs for "them" while ignoring the roughly 40% of the working class that > constitutes the poorest workers? I am not against middle America, but they are > not the only suffering section of America. The expansion of the food stamp > 10 percent of Americans currently collect food stamps. > program, housing (section 8) and shelters for the homeless My understanding is there is enough vacant housing in America to provide domicile for every shelter-less person in the US. > > American communism/Marxism remains a middle class movement in my mind, ...and what organizers are up against is the fact that the poor are kept too busy scrambling to survive to show up at city council meetings and the like so it's up to the people WITH the time (and also less exposed to government agency reprisal) to do the speaking for them. Most of the people whom I seen take that role have been opportunists... often good-hearted, but opportunists nonetheless. I was just at a locally organized vigil for Gaza. A few hundred people were/are there on 2 day notice. I'll get pictures up on my site tomorrow, but dusk was rapidly approaching and they're liable to be grainy. Leigh > until > it becomes one of the most vocal champions of the cause of welfare; or what > in front of our eyes is crystallizing as the most poverty stricken sections > of American society; the real proletarian in America. The tradition of focusing > on the organized sector of the labor movement, specifically those workers in > heavy industry - auto, rubber, steel, airplane production, construction, > transport including dock workers, etc., reveals American communism as a middle > class movement once one compares the wages of these workers to the wages of > the majority of America's working class. > > To be a communist and within Marxism and state the obvious is of course to > be charged with all kinds of deviations, anti-Leninism and face all kinds of > ideological charges; that one is really hostile to communism and anti-Marxism; > doesn't understand that under socialism only "parasites" don't have a 9-5, > and so on. At the extreme, one is charged with wanting to give "parasites" a > "free ride." Generally any concept of historical accumulation of labor and > wealth is tossed out of the window and the worse of bourgeois ideology > promoting jobs as a solution, becomes the banner of the middle class communists. As > if everyone is to become "workers." > > But with facts being stubborn things to ignore, to champion the concept of > the industrial proletariat in America, or what was in fact not the industrial > proletariat as some abstractions but the unionized workers; as the leading > edge to be won to the cause of communism and the means to achieve communism in > America, has proven itself in real life to be bankrupt. This is not to > suggest that any section of the working class should be ignored, but given our > history, without the defense of the bottom of the social ladder - (the poorest > proletarians), the upper rungs of the ladder cannot be defended. If capital > pushes sections of the working class lower and lower then common sense would > suggest defense of the bottom rung and fighting for a floor beneath which no > group of workers can fall. > > During the late 1950's and early 1960's, when dad was laid off from Ford > Motor Company, our family qualified for welfare and government food - "called > commodities." We lived in the Jefferies Project's at the time and also > qualified for a housing allowance. > > One can subscribe to a theory of bribery of the working class as the reason > for the passivity and hostility of these formerly bribed workers to communism > and the plight of the less paid workers. Subscribing to such an outlook > merely proves the obvious; that these workers were in fact not the cutting edge > of the social movement to achieve communism. > > The point is, welfare and the welfare system in America and the reluctance > of communists to vocally support this system and its expansion, cannot be > justified if one really fights on the side of the poor. What explains American > communism/Marxism refusal to be the most vocal champions of welfare is their > middle class ideology. Full employment is impossible under capitalism, > according to Marxism. The problem is that too much of American Marxism does not > support the right of the individual to be lazy or the right of the individual not > to aspire to a 9 - 5 job. Although 90% of the real people on welfare and who > benefit from it are children, these children are thrown under the ideological > bus in favor of ideological prostitution on behave of the middle class and > the better paid workers, who felt the solution to welfare was "to get a job." > > During president elect campaign, I do not recall any comments about welfare > one way or another, which might not be a bad thing given the historic > attitude towards the most poverty stricken in America. > > Welfare must be fought for and not simply jobs. In the last period some > fought for Jobs or income but defined income as primarily unemployment > compensation, while the individual stayed in line for a Job. Full employment should > mean employment for those looking for work/jobs. Doctrines of communism > generally do not require a specific labor contribution as the basis or precondition > for gaining access to socially necessary means of life. The assumption is that > people will contribute their labor in millions of different way once society > is unfettered by capital and bourgeois ideology. Further, society has > evolved to a point of a permanent glut - abundance of labor. Even trying to put > everyone to work would be destructive to society. > > > > > WL > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002) > > > From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 03:10:54 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:10:54 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Gaza Strikes Reverberate in Egypt Message-ID: The article makes it sound as if Hamas being an Islamic movement had anything to do with the Mubarak regime's policy, but if Hamas were a revolutionary secular communist movement, the regime's policy would still be the same. -- Yoshie Gaza Strikes Reverberate in Egypt Mubarak Resists Calls at Home, in Region to Admit Palestinians Fleeing Violence By Sudarsan Raghavan Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, January 10, 2009; A01 CAIRO, Jan. 9 -- Rarely has an Arab leader been so widely perceived as backing Israel and the United States against the Palestinians, whose struggle has been a fundamental rallying point for Arabs and Muslims for more than six decades. But Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has rejected popular and regional pressure to open the Gaza-Egypt border and toughen his stance against Israel. In recent days, his government has voiced support for Palestinians in an effort to defuse mounting criticism, but officials continue to suppress anti-Israeli demonstrations. On Friday, as Israeli forces continued a two-week-old offensive against Hamas, the armed Islamist movement that controls Gaza, scores of Egyptian doctors emerged from their union building in downtown Cairo. They clutched posters reading "Gaza Is Dying" and banners demanding the opening of the Rafah border crossing. One demonstrator held a baby doll, symbolizing a Palestinian child, in a white sheet covered with fake blood. Black-clad riot police stood before them, grim-faced in their black helmets. Brandishing clubs, they blocked the protesters from entering the street. "O Hamas, O Hamas, you are for all the people. We are behind you," the protesters chanted. Then they went after Mubarak. "O Mubarak, Mubarak, make a decision. Open the crossing. Remove the siege," they chanted. "O Mubarak, Mubarak. Are you with us or against us?" Egyptian analysts say Mubarak fears Hamas and wants to do everything possible to weaken the movement. Hamas has close ideological and historical ties to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, a banned but tolerated Islamist opposition group. Radical Islamists assassinated Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981. Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for nearly three decades with U.S. backing, also wants to avoid taking sides in the war and to protect the country's tourism-reliant economy, the analysts said. Hamas has turned for support to Iran in recent years, and Mubarak, like other Sunni Muslim leaders, opposes the Shiite republic's widening influence in the region. "It is a very serious crisis. And Egyptian public opinion is divided," said Abdel Raouf El Reedy, a former ambassador to the United States. "The more Israel becomes brutal in Gaza, the more pressure there will be on the Egyptian government. It is a challenge to the government." While many Egyptians celebrate Hamas for fighting Israel in an attempt to achieve Palestinian self-determination, Egypt's secular middle class, including those who oppose Mubarak's autocratic rule, are wary of the movement's ideology and tactics. Many Egyptians are also disillusioned about schisms between Palestinian leaders and worried about the economic and political impact that a huge influx of Palestinians might cause. "This isn't the Palestinian cause," said Hisham Kassem, a human rights activist and critic of Mubarak. "Hamas has taken Gaza hostage. Now, they want to take the Sinai and the rest of Egypt hostage. "Mubarak can't have an Islamic terrorist emirate on his border. And it is not in the best interest of anybody in the region. So he has taken a tough position," Kassem said. Most of the anger toward Mubarak centers on the Rafah crossing, which he has opened only to admit the most serious Palestinian casualties and to allow some aid to enter Gaza. But Egyptians have also demanded that Mubarak's government stop selling natural gas to Israel and expel Israel's ambassador. "He is not opening the crossing because America and Israel are not letting him," said Awad Abdul Salem, 68, an engineer, in a courtyard of the lawyers' syndicate building Thursday. "The regime is a traitor," yelled another man next to him. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Shiite Lebanese movement Hezbollah, has called for Egyptians to rise up against Mubarak. "Can the Egyptian police kill millions of Egyptians? Of course not," Nasrallah declared on the militia's al-Manar satellite television channel Dec. 28. "You, the Egyptian people, go and open the border. I am calling for a revolution in Egypt." Senior Egyptian officials accuse Nasrallah of inciting violence in their country. Editorials have gone further, criticizing Iran's Shiite theocracy for fueling the assaults on Mubarak. Egypt and Jordan are the only Arab states to have signed peace treaties with Israel. And Egypt has always straddled the delicate line between being a staunch American ally, receiving $1.4 billion in U.S. aid annually, and its leadership role in an Arab world resentful of American policies, especially since the 2003 Iraq invasion. Still, Egypt has supported the Palestinian struggle for statehood. During the Palestinian uprising that began in 2000, Egypt withdrew its ambassador from Israel to protest the military tactics used against Palestinians. Today, many Egyptians would like to see similar measures. They view Mubarak's efforts with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas as a temporary remedy that will do little to stop Israeli dominance in Gaza or provide a haven for Palestinians. "These efforts are superficial," said Fatima Ahmed, 17, a commerce student at Cairo University. "The real effort will be to open the crossing." Mubarak's opponents charge that the 80-year-old president is more interested in preserving his grip on power and ensuring that his son, Gamal, succeeds him by shattering any threats, external or internal, to his rule. "He says it's about Arab national security, but it's about protecting his own regime," said Mohammed Habib, the Muslim Brotherhood's first deputy chairman. Before Friday's demonstration, more than 1,000 doctors and medical professionals had gathered inside an auditorium of the medics' syndicate. To enter the hall, they had to walk over a 20-foot-long Israeli flag. Speakers denounced the government for keeping Egyptian doctors and food shipments out of Gaza. "How can we not allow food through? What is the logic of this?" one speaker asked. Some attacked Egypt's state-run media for asserting that Hamas was responsible for the current crisis and for not excoriating Israel. Muslim Brotherhood leaders called for the government to release members it has detained and to broaden the struggle against Mubarak, seeing in the crisis an opportunity to bolster their group's popularity. "We have to act politically, not only in the health sector," Mohammed al-Beltagy, a Muslim Brotherhood official, declared from the lectern. Hossam Zaki, Egypt's chief Foreign Ministry spokesman, described the attacks on Mubarak as the latest manifestation of a rift in the Middle East -- one that has widened since the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon -- between groups that favor violent resistance to solve Arab-Israeli conflicts and those, led by Egypt, who favor political settlement. "They are after Egypt's credibility. They are after Egypt's role as a stabilizer," Zaki said. "They know that if they can undermine us, it would be much easier to go ahead with their agenda. "We don't want the Arab street to identify more and more with issues promoted by the Islamist movements," Zaki said. "This is extremely dangerous, and it has serious consequences." Mubarak's supporters say he is a pragmatist who understands that Israeli-Palestinian tensions cannot be stopped through emotion alone. Many are rallying around Mubarak out of patriotism, angered by the Arab world's attacks on their nation's credentials as a supporter of Palestinian self-determination. Sarah Abd al-Fattah, 24, an accounting student at Cairo University, questioned why Persian Gulf governments have not threatened to withdraw assets from the United States. "Why is all the talk about Hosni Mubarak? We have our own large population to worry about. Our economy is in crisis. Mubarak is under a lot of pressure from outside and inside Egypt," she said. "We need to talk about the Gulf states. Financial power brings real power. They should be supporting us, not standing against us." Her classmate Mahmoud Ahmed, 20, nodded. "I feel Egypt is doing what it can. If we do anything else, Egypt becomes a party to war. Nobody wants that," he said. Ahmed Yousry, another student, said he cared passionately about the Palestinian people. But he has grown disgusted with fractures between Hamas and Fatah, which runs the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. "At the end of the day, they have to rely on themselves," said Yousry, 21. "They have to take their rights with their own hands." The trio said they had no plans to demonstrate for Palestinians. "It won't achieve anything," Yousry said. The three said they didn't want the Rafah crossing opened up, fearing the prospect of tens of thousands of Palestinians flowing into Egypt. "We are already overpopulated," Abd al-Fattah said. "And," Ahmed said, "there will be no one left to fight for Palestine." From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 03:14:46 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:14:46 -0500 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?Rashid_Khalidi=3A_What_You_Don=92t_Know?= =?windows-1252?q?_About_Gaza?= Message-ID: January 8, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor What You Don't Know About Gaza By RASHID KHALIDI NEARLY everything you've been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip. THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948. THE OCCUPATION The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel is still widely considered to be an occupying power, even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. Israel still controls access to the area, imports and exports, and the movement of people in and out. Israel has control over Gaza's air space and sea coast, and its forces enter the area at will. As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. THE BLOCKADE Israel's blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation. The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment ? with the tacit support of the United States ? of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights. THE CEASE-FIRE Lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November; six Hamas operatives were reported killed. WAR CRIMES The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers. Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip. This war on the people of Gaza isn't really about rockets. Nor is it about "restoring Israel's deterrence," as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people." Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia, is the author of the forthcoming "Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East." From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Sat Jan 10 10:03:54 2009 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:03:54 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel Message-ID: <49688EA9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-May/017666.html Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel Jim Farmelant Sat May 11 08:58:49 MDT 2002 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thaxis topic Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, Einstein did call himself a Zionist but his brand of Zionism which was shared with such people like Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, and Hebrew University founder Judah Magnes embraced the notion of a secular bi-national state in which Jews and Arabs would be equals. Einstein feared that if Palestine was partitioned (as the UN proposed in 1948 into separate Jewish and Arab states) then the resulting Jewish state would fall prey to a narrow chauvinist nationalism which would betray fundamental Jewis ideals. I'd dare say that history has vindicated Einstein on these points. Now a days when someone like Noam Chomsky embraces what was essentially the position of Einstein, Arendt, Buber etc., he gets slammed as an "anti-Semite" and a "self-hating Jew". On Fri, 10 May 2002 09:45:09 -0400 "Charles Brown" writes: > Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel > > By William Loren Katz > > At a moment when so much of the world decries the shockingly > senseless, destructive militarism of the Israeli state and > demands protection of the sacred human rights of Palestinian > people, the historic relationship between Jewish people and > Zionism requires re-examination. Even when most popular > immediately after World War II, Zionist ideas never enjoyed > unanimous support from the world Jewish community. In the > United States where he had taken refuge from Hitlers Germany, > the greatest scientific genius of the century and noted world > philosopher, Dr. Albert Einstein, favored not a Zionist state > but one in which Jews and Arabs shared political power. > > As the most admired Jewish American of the day, Einstein did > not hesitate to express his political views. On the > contrary, he tended to be an outspoken foe of fascism and > racial discrimination, and he had struck up a friendship > with Paul Robeson, African American peace and justice > advocate and activist, a foe of fascism and anti-Semitism. > In 1946 Robeson and Einstein served as co-chairs of a > nationwide anti-lynching petition campaign, and Robeson > delivered their collected petitions to President Harry Truman > at the White House. Two years later Einstein and Robeson > united to support Henry Wallace's Progressive party that > opposed US government cold war policies that tolerated > violations of civil liberties and repression of dissenters. > Master of more than a dozen languages, Robesons musical > concerts and records celebrated the gallant contributions of > African Americans and other minorities, the heroism of union > organizers such as Joe Hill, and paid homage to those who > bravely fought fascism -- as in his powerful Yiddish rendition > of the Song of the Warsaw Ghetto. > > In 1948 Einstein publicly announced his political preference > for a socialist over capitalist system in the United States.* > By then Robeson had been the worlds most admired American for > more than ten years, surpassing even President Franklin D. > Roosevelt. But in 1952 though the fanatical anti-Communists > of the McCarthy era hesitated to challenge Einstein, they > waged a war against Robeson. His career was upended by > government-sponsored hysteria: he was blacklisted, denied > concert appearances, his income fell by 90%, the state > department lifted his passport so he could neither leave the > country nor make a living abroad, FBI agents tracked him > and vacuumed his life. > > In a stinging public rebuke to this Cold War era mentality, > in October, 1952 Dr. Albert Einstein asked his old friend to > visit him at Princeton University. Robeson brought along a > young friend, writer Lloyd Brown, who vividly remembers the > meeting.** It was a momentous time for Einstein because he > had been invited to serve as president for the new state of > Israel. The request weighed heavily on his mind when Robeson > and Brown sat down to talk at his home. Einstein told them > that while he had seen some merit in Zionism and wished the > new state good luck, he had long opposed a Zionist state. > > Instead, he had always favored a reasonable agreement > between Palestinians and Jews to share power in any state > carved out of British-controlled Palestine. He brought out > his book, Out of My Later Years [New York: Philosophical > Library, 1950] and read aloud from an article he wrote in 1938 > that asked that power be divided between the two peoples. > Einstein was worried that once in their own state his people, > like others, would abandon their idealism and spirituality, > slavishly follow a narrow nationalism, and capitulate to a > state apparatus concerned with its borders, building an army, > demanding conformity and exerting repressive power. He > could not encourage this course, so Einstein denied the new > state his enormous prestige and declined its presidential > office. > > In the course of the conversation Einstein told Robeson he > would love to attend any concert he gave near Princeton. > Brown pointed out that Robeson was getting few concert > invitations, and the last time he sang in Boston police > officers took down the license plates of attendees. That wont > bother us, Einstein said with a twinkle, We dont have a car. > When Robeson briefly left the room, Brown told Einstein it > was an honor to meet a great man. Einstein sharply fired > back, You came here with a great man. > > Einstein died in 1955 the sage of Princeton, committed to his > people, still skeptical of the state of Israel, and like > Robeson, still an advocate of justice and peace for the > worlds people. Robeson died in 1975, still hounded by the > FBI and other government agencies, and remains known to the > world largely through his recordings, movie roles and a few > books. > > One can only speculate about how Albert Einstein, who feared > an aggressiveness Jewish state, would have reacted to the > Israeli occupation and invasion of Palestinian territories in > violation of United Nations resolutions. One can only > speculate about how Robeson, who sang the praises of anti- > fascist freedom-fighters such as the Jews of the Warsaw > Ghetto, would have reacted to the Israeli armys savagery > against largely unarmed Palestinian civilians seeking > liberty, sovereignty and justice. > ________________________________________________ > Copyright William Loren Katz. His website is: > http://www.williamlkatz.com > > *In 1955 Einstein, in an open letter to a New York City > teacher who refused to kowtow to the House UnAmerican > Activities committee, urged that others ought to refuse to > testify [and] to be prepared for jail. He added that if > enough people are prepared to take this step, such red-hunts > might be cease, and sanity and democracy be restored. > > ** Conversation with Lloyd Brown, April 24 and 26, 2002. > Brown, author of The Young Paul Robeson: On My Journey Now > [Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998] also is novelist > whose books has been translated into many languages, > including Hebrew. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Distributed By: THE PAN-AFRICAN RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION CENTER > 211 SCB BOX 47, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY > DETROIT, MI 48202-- E MAIL: ac6123 at wayne.edu > ====================================================================== > ********* Related Web Sites > ************** > http://www.africahomepage.org/tips.html > http://talkingafrica.szs.net/news/ > http://www.freemumia.org > http://www.afrikan.net > http://www.nalfnationtime.com > http://theherald.mweb.co.zw > http://www.zbc.co.zw > http://www.anc.org.za/index.html > http://www.panafbooks.com > http://www.amebo.com > http://www.wbai.org > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 11:08:07 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:08:07 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Food stamps aid in Oregon hits state record Message-ID: <4968E407.30303@gmail.com> Who gets food stamps?: "Oregon families must have low incomes to qualify for food stamps. The amount is on a sliding scale. For example, benefits range from $14 per month to $426 per month for a family of three. The maximum income for a family of three to qualify would be $2,713 a month." ...and Oregonians have it easy. In many states homeownership, or ownership of an automobile with more that a certain value, disqualifies... Even still, 10% of American households collect food stamps. In this article the Oregonian claims 1 in 7 citizens of the state receives USDA food stamps, a minsnomer really, they are EFT cards, that can be cut off with the touch of a function key on a computer at the local welfare office.. and have funds removed without hearing for ALLEGED malfeasance or current ineligibility. In the days of physical 'stamps', much like 'commodity food' distributions, once you had them, they belonged to you. With the EFT cards in California, which also handle cash grants such as general assistance and AFDC, if you cease to be eligible or remove yourself from the program, your previously existing account balance goes away. Yet the federal government is going to dump BILLIONS of dollars down the financial shithole bailing out dying and dead industries, even the porn industry is lining up for a gang-rape of the US treasury. Leigh Food stamps aid hits state record by Michelle Cole, The Oregonian Wednesday December 17, 2008, 9:47 PM A deepening recession has resulted in an unprecedented half-million Oregonians receiving food stamps, the state reported Wednesday. Portland area food pantries say they are inundated by families seeking help. And 507,039 Oregonians -- or nearly 1 in 7 people -- depended upon food stamps in November. "That's the largest number of people who have ever been on food stamps at one time in Oregon," said Lauri Stewart, a spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services. "Those families include the Benhams, who went on food stamps in October. It's been a year since John Benham, 36, has had steady work in construction, one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy. "There are no construction jobs," said Amber Benham, 32, who is home with their three children, ages 3 months to 4 years. The Hillsboro family receives $530 a month in food stamps. It's not enough to buy all their groceries but being able to spend less on food helps defray their mortgage and other living expenses. "We can put the money towards our house, so hopefully we don't lose it," Benham said. Finances are so tight that the family continues to pay their $918 monthly mortgage payment but has had to move in with relatives because they can no longer afford to pay for heat, garbage and other utilities." "We take our kids over there whenever we can so they can play with their toys," Benham said. "We start a fire in the fireplace to keep us warm." The record number of Oregonians on food stamps comes as the state unemployment rate hit 8.1 percent in November, with mounting job losses expected next year. The state also reported Wednesday that 21,850 families with children received welfare cash payments through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Of those families, the state reports about 54 percent had applied for assistance for the first time. The food stamp and welfare numbers indicate families in southern and central Oregon continue to struggle. Last month's numbers also show Washington and Clackamas counties are now among the hardest hit. More than 39,400 in Washington County and more than 29,500 in Clackamas County received food stamps last month. "We're seeing folks who we have never seen before, folks who have lost jobs or are losing their homes," said Jerry Buzzard, manager of the Human Services' Clackamas district. "It's not unusual to see very nice cars in our parking lot now because folks who have had good jobs and secure incomes are needing services." An individual must have a valid Social Security number and be a legal U.S. resident to qualify for food stamps or cash assistance. That means undocumented workers from another country cannot receive benefits, but their U.S.-born children could because they are citizens. The state is using some additional federal funds to hire 60 people to help process the rising number of food stamp applications. People facing dire financial circumstances are moved to the head of the line. But others may have to wait. Depending upon the location, a family might still wait weeks before they learn whether they qualify for benefits. In total, more than 170,500 people in the Portland area received food stamps last month, a 13 percent increase over November 2007. Local nonprofits say they also saw a jump in the number of people seeking their help last month. Traci White, social services director for Portland Adventist Community Services, says 151 people lined up to get food from the Adventist food pantry in Northeast Portland on the day before Thanksgiving. "One hundred used to be a big number for us," White said. "Now 100 is just normal. We're always looking for volunteers, and our funds are down, too." Heather Thompson, president of the Tualatin Valley Gleaners, says her organization is seeing what she calls the "newly poor." "Many of these people have never received an emergency food box, haven't applied for food stamps or have been denied," she said. Her organization typically gets 20 new applicants each month but had 83 new clients in November. Amber Benham says her family has visited the Gleaners' Beaverton pantry once a week for some time now. "They have this one lady there who brings books every week so that every child leaves with a book," she said. "My children love to read." The Benham children will also receive some presents from Santa next week -- but not what they might have received if times were better. "God is going to provide," Amber Benham said. "Christmas isn't all about presents. That's what we're teaching our kids. It's about love and family." -- Michelle Cole; michellecole at news.oregonian.com From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jan 10 11:16:46 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:16:46 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask Message-ID: <7F4814E765AE4177AC258AAD32910737@TonyPC> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/rss The Independent (London) Wednesday, 7 January 2009 Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask What are these? So once again, Israel has opened the gates of hell to the Palestinians. Forty civilian refugees dead in a United Nations school, three more in another. Not bad for a night's work in Gaza by the army that believes in "purity of arms". But why should we be surprised? Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead -- almost all civilians, most of them children and women -- in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians? What is amazing is that so many Western leaders, so many presidents and prime ministers and, I fear, so many editors and journalists, bought the old lie; that Israelis take such great care to avoid civilian casualties. "Israel makes every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties," yet another Israeli ambassador said only hours before the Gaza massacre. And every president and prime minister who repeated this mendacity as an excuse to avoid a ceasefire has the blood of last night's butchery on their hands. Had George Bush had the courage to demand an immediate ceasefire 48 hours earlier, those 40 civilians, the old and the women and children, would be alive. What happened was not just shameful. It was a disgrace. Would war crime be too strong a description? For that is what we would call this atrocity if it had been committed by Hamas. So a war crime, I'm afraid, it was. After covering so many mass murders by the armies of the Middle East, by Syrian troops, by Iraqi troops, by Iranian troops, by Israeli troops, I suppose cynicism should be my reaction. But Israel claims it is fighting our war against "international terror". The Israelis claim they are fighting in Gaza for us, for our Western ideals, for our security, for our safety, by our standards. And so we are also complicit in the savagery now being visited upon Gaza. I've reported the excuses the Israeli army has served up in the past for these outrages. Since they may well be reheated in the coming hours, here are some of them: that the Palestinians killed their own refugees, that the Palestinians dug up bodies from cemeteries and planted them in the ruins, that ultimately the Palestinians are to blame because they supported an armed faction, or because armed Palestinians deliberately used the innocent refugees as cover. The Sabra and Chatila massacre was committed by Israel's right-wing Lebanese Phalangist allies while Israeli troops, as Israel's own commission of inquiry revealed, watched for 48 hours and did nothing. When Israel was blamed, Menachem Begin's government accused the world of a blood libel. After Israeli artillery had fired shells into the UN base at Qana in 1996, the Israelis claimed that Hizbollah gunmen were also sheltering in the base. It was a lie. The more than 1,000 dead of 2006 -- a war started when Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers on the border -- were simply dismissed as the responsibility of the Hizbollah. Israel claimed the bodies of children killed in a second Qana massacre may have been taken from a graveyard. It was another lie. The Marwahin massacre was never excused. The people of the village were ordered to flee, obeyed Israeli orders and were then attacked by an Israeli gunship. The refugees took their children and stood them around the truck in which they were travelling so that Israeli pilots would see they were innocents. Then the Israeli helicopter mowed them down at close range. Only two survived, by playing dead. Israel didn't even apologise. Twelve years earlier, another Israeli helicopter attacked an ambulance carrying civilians from a neighbouring village -- again after they were ordered to leave by Israel-- and killed three children and two women. The Israelis claimed that a Hizbollah fighter was in the ambulance. It was untrue. I covered all these atrocities, I investigated them all, talked to the survivors. So did a number of my colleagues. Our fate, of course, was that most slanderous of libels: we were accused of being anti-Semitic. And I write the following without the slightest doubt: we'll hear all these scandalous fabrications again. We'll have the Hamas-to-blame lie -- heaven knows, there is enough to blame them for without adding this crime -- and we may well have the bodies-from-the-cemetery lie and we'll almost certainly have the Hamas-was-in-the-UN-school lie and we will very definitely have the anti-Semitism lie. And our leaders will huff and puff and remind the world that Hamas originally broke the ceasefire. It didn't. Israel broke it, first on 4 November when its bombardment killed six Palestinians in Gaza and again on 17 November when another bombardment killed four more Palestinians. Yes, Israelis deserve security. Twenty Israelis dead in 10 years around Gaza is a grim figure indeed. But 600 Palestinians dead in just over a week, thousands over the years since 1948 -- when the Israeli massacre at Deir Yassin helped to kick-start the flight of Palestinians from that part of Palestine that was to become Israel -- is on a quite different scale. This recalls not a normal Middle East bloodletting but an atrocity on the level of the Balkan wars of the 1990s. And of course, when an Arab bestirs himself with unrestrained fury and takes out his incendiary, blind anger on the West, we will say it has nothing to do with us. Why do they hate us, we will ask? But let us not say we do not know the answer. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Sat Jan 10 11:35:45 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:35:45 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel In-Reply-To: <49688EA9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> References: <49688EA9.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Message-ID: <37B465E9DAAE47D5A5F21D4147298E42@PrisonLegalNews.local> This is hardly new or unexpected. Vladimir jabotinsky was one of the leading Zionists of the 1930s and no crime was too vile (including collaboration with the Nazis) if it meant a Zionist homeland. And lets not forget the zionist congress that approved Uganda as the Jewish homeland, Herzl had to fight that one back on his own. When god is your real estate agent you need to nail down the particulars. But other Zionists, like Ben Gurion were socialists. An Israeli friend of mine has Ben Gurion's may day messages to Stalin framed on his office wall. It was soviet guns and support that made Israel a reality. There is a broad ideological range within Zionism. But that is common (i.e., the Irish liberation movement has everything from M-Ls to right wing Catholics). I find it interesting that Israel has gone through 3 patrons to date (USSR, France and now the US) which would seem to prove Benjamin Disraeli's axiom that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. The strategic vision and determination of Zionist leaders over the past 100 years has certainly been impressive as they seized every historic opportunity to make Israel a reality. Getting the Palestinians to pay for atrocities committed by the Germans is simply brilliant. Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 pwright at prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org ? Seattle Office: 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 -----Original Message----- From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 12:04 PM To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu; marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [A-List] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-May/017666.html Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel Jim Farmelant Sat May 11 08:58:49 MDT 2002 Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thaxis topic Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Actually, Einstein did call himself a Zionist but his brand of Zionism which was shared with such people like Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, and Hebrew University founder Judah Magnes embraced the notion of a secular bi-national state in which Jews and Arabs would be equals. Einstein feared that if Palestine was partitioned (as the UN proposed in 1948 into separate Jewish and Arab states) then the resulting Jewish state would fall prey to a narrow chauvinist nationalism which would betray fundamental Jewis ideals. I'd dare say that history has vindicated Einstein on these points. Now a days when someone like Noam Chomsky embraces what was essentially the position of Einstein, Arendt, Buber etc., he gets slammed as an "anti-Semite" and a "self-hating Jew". On Fri, 10 May 2002 09:45:09 -0400 "Charles Brown" writes: > Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel > > By William Loren Katz > > At a moment when so much of the world decries the shockingly > senseless, destructive militarism of the Israeli state and > demands protection of the sacred human rights of Palestinian > people, the historic relationship between Jewish people and > Zionism requires re-examination. Even when most popular > immediately after World War II, Zionist ideas never enjoyed > unanimous support from the world Jewish community. In the > United States where he had taken refuge from Hitlers Germany, > the greatest scientific genius of the century and noted world > philosopher, Dr. Albert Einstein, favored not a Zionist state > but one in which Jews and Arabs shared political power. > > As the most admired Jewish American of the day, Einstein did > not hesitate to express his political views. On the > contrary, he tended to be an outspoken foe of fascism and > racial discrimination, and he had struck up a friendship > with Paul Robeson, African American peace and justice > advocate and activist, a foe of fascism and anti-Semitism. > In 1946 Robeson and Einstein served as co-chairs of a > nationwide anti-lynching petition campaign, and Robeson > delivered their collected petitions to President Harry Truman > at the White House. Two years later Einstein and Robeson > united to support Henry Wallace's Progressive party that > opposed US government cold war policies that tolerated > violations of civil liberties and repression of dissenters. > Master of more than a dozen languages, Robesons musical > concerts and records celebrated the gallant contributions of > African Americans and other minorities, the heroism of union > organizers such as Joe Hill, and paid homage to those who > bravely fought fascism -- as in his powerful Yiddish rendition > of the Song of the Warsaw Ghetto. > > In 1948 Einstein publicly announced his political preference > for a socialist over capitalist system in the United States.* > By then Robeson had been the worlds most admired American for > more than ten years, surpassing even President Franklin D. > Roosevelt. But in 1952 though the fanatical anti-Communists > of the McCarthy era hesitated to challenge Einstein, they > waged a war against Robeson. His career was upended by > government-sponsored hysteria: he was blacklisted, denied > concert appearances, his income fell by 90%, the state > department lifted his passport so he could neither leave the > country nor make a living abroad, FBI agents tracked him > and vacuumed his life. > > In a stinging public rebuke to this Cold War era mentality, > in October, 1952 Dr. Albert Einstein asked his old friend to > visit him at Princeton University. Robeson brought along a > young friend, writer Lloyd Brown, who vividly remembers the > meeting.** It was a momentous time for Einstein because he > had been invited to serve as president for the new state of > Israel. The request weighed heavily on his mind when Robeson > and Brown sat down to talk at his home. Einstein told them > that while he had seen some merit in Zionism and wished the > new state good luck, he had long opposed a Zionist state. > > Instead, he had always favored a reasonable agreement > between Palestinians and Jews to share power in any state > carved out of British-controlled Palestine. He brought out > his book, Out of My Later Years [New York: Philosophical > Library, 1950] and read aloud from an article he wrote in 1938 > that asked that power be divided between the two peoples. > Einstein was worried that once in their own state his people, > like others, would abandon their idealism and spirituality, > slavishly follow a narrow nationalism, and capitulate to a > state apparatus concerned with its borders, building an army, > demanding conformity and exerting repressive power. He > could not encourage this course, so Einstein denied the new > state his enormous prestige and declined its presidential > office. > > In the course of the conversation Einstein told Robeson he > would love to attend any concert he gave near Princeton. > Brown pointed out that Robeson was getting few concert > invitations, and the last time he sang in Boston police > officers took down the license plates of attendees. That wont > bother us, Einstein said with a twinkle, We dont have a car. > When Robeson briefly left the room, Brown told Einstein it > was an honor to meet a great man. Einstein sharply fired > back, You came here with a great man. > > Einstein died in 1955 the sage of Princeton, committed to his > people, still skeptical of the state of Israel, and like > Robeson, still an advocate of justice and peace for the > worlds people. Robeson died in 1975, still hounded by the > FBI and other government agencies, and remains known to the > world largely through his recordings, movie roles and a few > books. > > One can only speculate about how Albert Einstein, who feared > an aggressiveness Jewish state, would have reacted to the > Israeli occupation and invasion of Palestinian territories in > violation of United Nations resolutions. One can only > speculate about how Robeson, who sang the praises of anti- > fascist freedom-fighters such as the Jews of the Warsaw > Ghetto, would have reacted to the Israeli armys savagery > against largely unarmed Palestinian civilians seeking > liberty, sovereignty and justice. > ________________________________________________ > Copyright William Loren Katz. His website is: > http://www.williamlkatz.com > > *In 1955 Einstein, in an open letter to a New York City > teacher who refused to kowtow to the House UnAmerican > Activities committee, urged that others ought to refuse to > testify [and] to be prepared for jail. He added that if > enough people are prepared to take this step, such red-hunts > might be cease, and sanity and democracy be restored. > > ** Conversation with Lloyd Brown, April 24 and 26, 2002. > Brown, author of The Young Paul Robeson: On My Journey Now > [Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998] also is novelist > whose books has been translated into many languages, > including Hebrew. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Distributed By: THE PAN-AFRICAN RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION CENTER > 211 SCB BOX 47, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY > DETROIT, MI 48202-- E MAIL: ac6123 at wayne.edu > ====================================================================== > ********* Related Web Sites > ************** > http://www.africahomepage.org/tips.html > http://talkingafrica.szs.net/news/ > http://www.freemumia.org > http://www.afrikan.net > http://www.nalfnationtime.com > http://theherald.mweb.co.zw > http://www.zbc.co.zw > http://www.anc.org.za/index.html > http://www.panafbooks.com > http://www.amebo.com > http://www.wbai.org > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 11:37:49 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:37:49 -0800 Subject: [A-List] The Infernal Machine In-Reply-To: <49683773.15528c0a.3b9a.6b85SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <49678692.9030206@gmail.com> <49683773.15528c0a.3b9a.6b85SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4968EAFD.20204@gmail.com> Todd Boyle wrote [offlist, speaking of Stan Goff]: > > > What you're doing is analysis of the braying jackasses around us, > whereas, I don't bother. Someone's gotta get their hands dirty... Do the 'wet work'. http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/11/29/doctrine/ He would have gotten along just swimmingly with Ben Morea (UAW/MF ESSO), Murray Bookshin, Steve Gaskin, and Abbie but he was busy being a soldier. Leigh From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jan 10 11:37:19 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:37:19 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Brasscheck TV: The battle for your mind Message-ID: <1BDD4CDF0C7D4FCAB1D08317253F6B72@TonyPC> > > What did the Nazis and 20th century American > captains of industry have in common? > > They employed the same public relations experts. > > Note that I didn't say they employed the same > public relations *techniques*...they employed > and learned from the same exact people. > > Here's the story of Edward Bernays who participated > in bloody coups in Central America for the United Fruit, > marketed all kinds of disastrous habits like smoking > and was Joseph Goebbels' favorite public relations > theorist. > > Details: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/44.html > > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > - Brasscheck > > P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and > videos with friends and colleagues. > > That's how we grow. Thanks. > > ============================== > > > > Brasscheck TV > 2380 California St. > San Francisco, CA 94115 > > To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit: > http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0LEzMLCwcHA== > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 11:54:59 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:54:59 -0800 Subject: [A-List] t's time. Long past time... to boycott Israel - Naomi Klein Message-ID: <4968EF03.7010605@gmail.com> Enough. It's time for a boycott Naomi Klein The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2009 The best way to end the bloody occupation is to target Israel with the kind of movement that ended apartheid in South Africa http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel/print It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era". The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was born. Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause - even among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the anti-apartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves ... This international backing must stop." Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. But they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tool in the non-violent arsenal: surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counter-arguments. Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis. The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement". It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon, and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures - quite the opposite. The weapons and $3bn in annual aid the US sends Israel are only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first country outside Latin America to sign a free-trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45%. A new deal with the EU is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And in December European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel association agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem. It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7%. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed. Israel is not South Africa. Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, backroom lobbying) fail. And there are deeply distressing echoes of apartheid in the occupied territories: the colour-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said the architecture of segregation he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid". That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza. Why single out Israel when the US, Britain and other western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the strategy should be tried is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work. Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less. This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis. Our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, emails and instant messages, stretching between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Paris, Toronto and Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start a boycott strategy, dialogue grows dramatically. The argument that boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at each other across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us. Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of these very hi-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, managing director of a British telecom specialising in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax: "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company." Ramsey says his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients," he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive." It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine. A version of this column was published in the Nation (thenation.com) naomiklein.org From farmelantj at juno.com Sat Jan 10 11:59:22 2009 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:59:22 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Albert Einstein, Paul Robeson and Israel Message-ID: <20090110.135923.3512.1.farmelantj@juno.com> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:35:45 -0500 "Paul Wright" writes: > This is hardly new or unexpected. Vladimir jabotinsky was one of the > leading > Zionists of the 1930s and no crime was too vile (including > collaboration > with the Nazis) if it meant a Zionist homeland. Actually, Jabotinsky never advocated collaboration with Nazi Germany, although he was more than willing to accept assistance from Mussolini, who for a time provided a naval college in Italy where the Betar could do their training. With the outbreak of the Second World War, Jabotinsky called upon the Zionists to support the Allies, including Great Britain. During the war, however, the Revisionist Zionists underwent a split, with the LEHI, founded by Avraham Stern and Yitzhak Shamir, opposing support for the Allies on the grounds that Great Britain was the greatest obstacle to independence for a Jewish state in Palestine. And they indeed, attempted to negotiate an arrangment with the Third Reich. > And lets not forget > the > zionist congress that approved Uganda as the Jewish homeland, Herzl > had to > fight that one back on his own. When god is your real estate agent > you need > to nail down the particulars. > > But other Zionists, like Ben Gurion were socialists. An Israeli > friend of > mine has Ben Gurion's may day messages to Stalin framed on his > office wall. Back during the 1920s and 1930s, Ben-Gurion would often preface his speeches with references to Comrade Lenin and Comrade Stalin. Later on, he and the other Labor Zionists looked mainly towards Great Britain for support for the creation of a Jewish state. > It was soviet guns and support that made Israel a reality. Mostly, indirectly via Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union, however, did much to make the creation of Israel possible. They had backed the 1947 plan for the partition of Palestine. They early on recognized the new state when it was created in 1948. Stalin, I believe, did allow a limited number of Jewish veterans from the Red Army to come to Israel to assist the IDF. > There is > a broad > ideological range within Zionism. But that is common (i.e., the > Irish > liberation movement has everything from M-Ls to right wing > Catholics). I > find it interesting that Israel has gone through 3 patrons to date > (USSR, > France and now the US) which would seem to prove Benjamin Disraeli's > axiom > that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. The > strategic > vision and determination of Zionist leaders over the past 100 years > has > certainly been impressive as they seized every historic opportunity > to make > Israel a reality. Getting the Palestinians to pay for atrocities > committed > by the Germans is simply brilliant. > > > > Paul Wright, Editor > Prison Legal News > P.O. Box 2420 > West Brattleboro, VT 05303 > 802-257-1342 > pwright at prisonlegalnews.org > www.prisonlegalnews.org > > Seattle Office: > 2400 NW 80th St. # 148 > Seattle, WA 98117 > 206-246-1022 ____________________________________________________________ Click for free information on obtaining a second mortgage. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2QcDWctfQQKGVimKygwxtBezIzZl8TE2Pw0eKaLLC5vanf7/ From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 13:40:11 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:40:11 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Obama's new ride ain't no wussy hybrid Message-ID: <496907AB.6090908@gmail.com> Cadillac spokesman David Caldwell promises that the finished product will combine form with function. "It's really a new design," Mr Caldwell told AFP. "It's a fresh, more modern, more expressive, a little bit more vibrant if you will, but it still is faithful to that tradition of presidential vehicles ... it's long and it's black." The interior will include some of the plush detailing offered to regular Cadillac customers and the body has been built to be more "upright" and provide better visibility, Mr Caldwell said. But any of the technical details are top-secret, he said, adding, "we're not even allowed to open the doors". The vehicle is thought to have bulletproof glass, a heavily armoured body, run-flat tyres and a completely sealed interior to protect against a chemical attack. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/10/the_new_presidential_limo_a_ro.html?wprss=the-trail From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 13:52:45 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:52:45 -0800 Subject: [A-List] 'Done deal': Hamas leader says Gaza war has killed the last chance for settlement and negotiations Message-ID: <49690A9D.9000609@gmail.com> GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip ? A top Hamas leader says the Gaza war has killed the last chance for settlement and negotiations with Israel. Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal condemned Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip as a "holocaust" in a fiery speech broadcast on the Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera Mashaal's comments Saturday come as Hamas teams are in Cairo to negotiate over an Egyptian-proposed cease-fire to end Israeli attacks on the militant organization that rules Gaza. Mashaal also called for an end to Israeli attacks, the removal of its forces from Gaza, and a lifting of the Gaza blockade. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 14:10:49 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:10:49 -0800 Subject: [A-List] Sagging economy=Sagging... Umn... Plastic Surgery Profits Message-ID: <49690ED9.5020301@gmail.com> The Great Boob Bust A reallocation of income, from boob jobs to, say, food, might be a return to sanity. Maura Moynihan The sagging economy has triggered a sharp decline in the number of women getting breast implants. Maura Moynihan on why a smaller cup size is good for America. Is there a causal pathway linking the simultaneous collapse of Wall Street, the Republican Party, and the porn boob? Plastic surgery, last year's growth industry, has shrunk as fast as News Corp. stock. The coverage in the downturn of plastic surgery is filled with alarm and concern over falling profits. Doctors speak of turning business around; it's just a temporary drop in consumer confidence; when people get back on their financial feet, they'll be coming in for nips and tucks. I have yet to read an article anywhere that suggests that a reallocation of income, from boob jobs to, say, food, might be a return to sanity. In the Bush years, the plastic surgery bubble seemed a sure sign of madness bound to burst. Parents purchasing breast implants for their teenage daughters, husbands buying surgery gift cards for their wives, actresses and models documenting hospital pilgrimages on TV, boob blogs. Rear ends were lifted while Iraq burned, the deficit soared, and the polar ice caps melted. Americans have the lowest rate of savings of any populace in the developed world, hovering around zero percent. Yet the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported in 2007 that American consumers spent more than $12 billion on cosmetic surgery. But now the society reports a 62 percent overall decrease in cosmetic surgery from 2007 to 2008. Business has plunged in regions with the largest home foreclosures, from Florida to Southern California. Forget about Ohio. Until the financial crisis hit, the theory and practice of cosmetic surgery encountered virtually no impediments from medical or mental health professionals, or media enablers. The most popular cosmetic surgical procedure in the United States is the boob job. It?s as American as a football cheerleader. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reports that the number of breast augmentations in the US increased 657 percent from 1992 to 2003. There is a difference between a padded bra and silicone implants?the padded bra can be safely removed after it has served its purpose; the "porn boob" has rendered the bra meretricious, obsolete. As I recall, it all started in the '80s. In that decade, Ronald Reagan's new conservatives attacked abortion clinics, crushed the Equal Rights Amendment, and sought to restore the traditional subordination of women within the patriarchy. In the 1980s nude models began brazenly to display "porn boobs"?grotesquely swollen, enlarged breasts, instant triggers of pre-Viagra era male lust. Model and talent agencies advised hopeful ing?nues to get implants, to achieve the "Barbie Body." The solution to female physical inadequacy provided by the medical/scientific/engineering establishment, the supreme authority in our industrial society, was achieved by surgical alteration as a means to salvation, by the omnipotent, omniscient man in the white coat wielding a knife, who would to transform the flesh to deliver the soul to safety and power, and, yes, yes, yes, love. I've watched in puzzlement as friends and neighbors, women with advanced degrees, stock portfolios, great legs and hair, women one assumed had transcended much anxiety and fear about sexual appeal and self-esteem, using discretionary income or taking out bank loans to get breast implants, tummy tucks, and eye lifts. After enduring the excruciating pain of surgery and a long and perilous recovery period, the results are often strange and painful, and too often there are complications, illness, and even disfigurement. More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-10/the-great-boob-bust From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jan 10 17:31:38 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:31:38 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The 'Chicago Plan' and New Deal Banking Reform Message-ID: <49693DEA.400@ashisuto.co.jp> by Ronnie J Phillips The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Working Paper No 76 (June 1992) The history of the legislative changes in the financial system which occurred during the 28 months from Franklin D Roosevelt's inauguration in March 1933 until the passage of the Banking Act of 1935 has been well documented [Burns 1974; Kennedy 1973]. This period saw the enactment of the Emergency Banking Act, the Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935, as well as reforms of the stock market and agricultural credit. The existing histories have given us detailed examinations of the political maneuvering involved in the passage of the legislation, but they have neglected the role of the "Chicago Plan" - the 1933 proposal put forward in a series of memoranda by economists at the University of Chicago to abolish the fractional reserve system and impose 100% reserves on demand deposits. The proposal was known to the Roosevelt administration prior to the passage of the Banking Act of 1933 and later led directly to legislation introduced by Senator Bronson Cutting of New Mexico, and other Progressives, as part of the debate over the Banking Act of 1935. The influence of the Chicago Plan was felt even before Irving Fisher's more widely known, and largely unsuccessful, efforts to enlist Roosevelt's support for the 100% reserve plan [Allen 1977, 1991]. The Chicago Plan was a proposal to radically change the structure of our financial system, and as such its best chance of passage was in the period of the early New Deal. The objective of this paper is to document the role of the Chicago Plan in the debates over New Deal banking legislation, and provide an assessment of why the Chicago Plan ultimately lost out to the alternative measures embodied in the Banking Act of 1935. The failure of the Chicago Plan in the 1930s is also of interest in the contemporary debates over banking reform. The Chicago Plan, by restricting bank assets, would not have saddled the taxpayers with an enormous liability from federal deposit insurance. Recently, proposals have been put forward for "narrow" or "core" banks, which restrict bank assets, and embody many of the components of the Chicago Plan [Tobin 1985, 1987; Bryan 1988, 1991]. The Banking Crisis and the March Memorandum The stock market crash of October 1929 was followed one year later by a banking crisis lasting from October to December 1930. As deposits in failed banks rose, a contagion spread to convert demand and time deposits into currency and, to a lesser extent, postal savings deposits [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 308]. In December, the failure of the Bank of United States, though a private commercial bank, furthered damaged confidence in the banking system [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 3113. After a brief respite, this was followed by the second banking crisis in March 1931 which peaked in June with $200 million in deposits of suspended banks [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 314]. In January 1932, President Hoover asked Congress for legislation to reform the banking system. Hoover asked for a strengthening of the Federal Land Bank System, the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the creation of Home Loan Discount Banks, an enlargement of the discount privileges of the Federal Reserve Banks, and a plan to safeguard depositors and a swifter means of paying off those who held deposits in closed banks [Krooss 1969: 2670-2671]. During the same month, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was created and authorized to loan to banks and railroads [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 321]. The Glass-Steagall Act, passed on February 27 1932, allowed the Federal Reserve to hold government securities against Federal Reserve notes and widened the circumstances under which member banks could borrow from the Fed [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 321]. In July 1932, the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, which attempted to respond to the problems of home mortgage financing institutions by allowing advances to be made to those institutions on the basis of first mortgages, was passed [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 321-322]. The only piece of legislation which did not pass was a bill for temporary deposit insurance introduced in May by Congressman Henry Steagall, which was not reported out of committee [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 321]. In January 1933, the RFC made public the list of financial institutions that it had loaned to (Hoover had insisted they not be public). One state (Nevada) had already declared a banking holiday in October 1932, and was followed by Iowa in January, Louisiana and Michigan in February, and by March 3rd, there were bank holidays declared in about half the states. The pressure intensified on the New York banks and on March 4th, a banking holiday was declared in New York state [Friedman and Schwartz 1963: 324-327]. When Roosevelt came into office, he faced a myriad of problems related to the economy. Farmers, workers, bankers, politicians, were all demanding action. On the financial front, there were three critical issues which had to be dealt with: (1) the safety of the medium of exchange; (2) the financing of the capital development of the economy; and (3) the control of money and credit by the Federal Reserve. In response to the widespread bank holidays which had already been declared by many states, Franklin Roosevelt's first act as President was to declare a national bank holiday for the period March 4-9 1933. In his inaugural address, Roosevelt, referring to the financial collapse, stated that "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization" [Schlesinger 1957: 7; Tugwell 1957: 289]. Despite the eloquent rhetoric against bankers, Helen Burns observed, Roosevelt never definitively set forth his own views own banking [Burns 1974: 183]. {1} Roosevelt was against federal deposit insurance, at least when he took office. During his first press conference he was asked to comment on federal deposit insurance and he did so, but asked that his remarks be kept off the record. Roosevelt said of federal deposit insurance: The general underlying thought behind the use of the word 'guarantee' with respect to bank deposits is that you guarantee bad banks as well as good banks. The minute the Government starts to do that the Government runs into a probable loss ... We do not wish to make the United States Government liable for the mistakes and errors of individual banks, and put a premium on unsound banking in the future [Roosevelt 1939: 37]. {1} During the period of the banking holiday, Roosevelt proposed to his advisors a plan for converting all government bonds ($21 billion at the time) directly into cash at par. His advisors thought it would be a disaster, but Roosevelt told them to come up with an alternative. Also discussed was the issuing of script or a direct printing of Federal Reserve Notes to provide the banks with enough cash to meet withdrawal demands. This plans were not needed because at the end of the bank holiday, widespread runs had ended [Burns 1974: 45]. Roosevelt's concern over the plight of debtors, especially farmers, was also evident. Writing a few months later to his Secretary of Treasury William Woodin, Roosevelt blasted the bankers and economists for their neglect of the problem: I wish our banking and economists friends would realize the seriousness of the situation from the point of view of the debtor classes, - ie, ninety per cent of the human beings in this country - and think less from the point of view of the ten per cent who constitute the creditor classes [Roosevelt to Woodin, September 30 1933]. The Emergency Banking Act, which was passed in less than an hour, did not provide any permanent solutions to the problem, it only gave the Congress and the President a breathing spell in which to formulate a plan. During his first fireside chat that Roosevelt explained his reasons for closing the banks and announced their reopening. It is a tribute to Roosevelt's charisma that when the banks reopened on Monday, March 13th, the runs had virtually ended. Walter Lippmann remarked that "In one week, the nation, which had lost confidence in everything and everybody, has regained confidence in the government and in itself" [Schlesinger 1958: 13]. Raymond Moley, one of the original Brain Trusters wrote: "Capitalism was saved in eight days" [Moley 1939: 155]. In is within this historical context that economists at the University of Chicago presented their proposal for reform of the banking system. The six page memorandum on banking reform which was given limited and confidential distribution to about forty individuals on March 16 1933 [Knight 1933]. A copy of the memorandum was sent to Henry A Wallace, then Secretary of Agriculture, with a cover letter signed by Frank Knight. The letter listed the following supporters of the plan: F H Knight, L W Mints, Henry Schultz, H C Simons, G V Cox, Aaron Director, Paul Douglas, and A G Hart.{2} The authors anticipated skepticism about their plan as evidenced by a typed postscript which stated: "We hope you are one of the forty odd who get this who will not think we are quite looney (sic), I think Viner really agrees but doesn't believe it good politics". {2} After the passage of the Glass-Steagall bill in February 1932, there were two other proposals on the legislative agenda intended to stimulate the economy. The first was an amendment by Wright Patman to pay the remaining portion of the veterans' bonus in the form of a direct issue of $2.4 billion in fiat currency. The second was the Goldsborough Bill which would direct the Federal Reserve to take appropriate actions to raise the price level [Barber 1985: 155]. In mid-April, Congressman Samuel B Pettengill solicited responses to the Patman proposal from leading economists. Twelve members of the economics faculty at the University of Chicago responded in a lengthy statement which advocated federal expenditures financed by deficit spending, unless the gold standard could be abandoned and a direct issue of currency could be utilized to increase purchasing power. The document included concerns about the role of credit and price in flexibility in the economy [Barber 1985: 156-157]. A group of eleven Chicago economists signed a memoranda in January 1933 which advocated deficit spending as a way out of the depression [Schlesinger 1960: 237]. The proposal opens with the statement: "It is evident that drastic measures must soon be taken with reference to banking, currency, and federal fiscal policy". The general recommendations were: (a) federal guarantee of deposits; (b) the guarantee only be taken as part of a drastic program of banking reform which will certainly and permanently prevent any possible recurrence of the present banking crisis; and (c) the Administration announce and pursue a policy of bringing about, and maintaining a moderate increase in the level of wholesale prices, not to exceed fifteen per cent [Knight 1933: 1]. The detailed suggestions advocated outright ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks; the guarantee of the deposits of member banks which were open for business March 3rd 1933 but subject to full supervisory control over the management of these banks by the Fed. They advocated the issue of Federal Reserve Notes, which should be declared legal tender, in any amounts which may be necessary to meet demands for payment by depositors. Further, the Federal Reserve Banks should liquidate the assets of all member banks, pay off liabilities, and dissolve all existing banks and new institutions should be created which accepted only demand deposits subject to a 100% reserve requirement in lawful money and/or deposits with the Reserve Banks. Saving deposits would be handled through the incorporation of investment trusts. Present banking institutions would continue deposit and lending functions under Federal Reserve supervision until the new institutions can be put into place. The government should then undertake to raise the price level by fifteen per cent by fiscal and currency means but further inflation (beyond fifteen per cent) be prevented. Finally, there should be suspension of free-coinage of gold, embargo upon gold import, prohibition of private export of gold, call in all gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes, suspension of the gold-clause in all debt contracts, and substantial government sale and export of gold abroad [Knight 1933]. Henry Wallace, then Secretary of Agriculture, gave the Chicago Plan to Roosevelt less than a week after it was distributed. Wallace hoped FDR would give the plan serious consideration, though the plan was a radical break with the past. Wallace wrote to Roosevelt: The memorandum from the Chicago economists which I gave you at [the] Cabinet meeting Tuesday, is really awfully good and I hope that you or Secretary Woodin will have the time and energy to study it. Of course the plan outlined is quite a complete break with our present banking history. It would be an even more decisive break than the founding of the Federal Reserve System [Wallace to Roosevelt, March 23 1933]. Though Roosevelt's views on the Chicago Plan are unknown, the plan addressed his concerns of deposit safety, the separation of investment and commercial banking, and reflation. it also provided an alternative to those who advocated branch banking, which Roosevelt was very much against because he thought it would mean domination of the small banks by the larger banks. The recommendation for deposit insurance was that it only be a temporary measure as part of permanent reform. During the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration, numerous measures were passed to deal with the economic situation, and especially the crisis of the banking system and agricultural. On March 20, the Economy Act was passed; on March 31, the Civilian Conservation Corp was created; and on April 19, the US went off the gold standard. These measures were followed by the sweeping reforms of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) in May which sought to raise agriculture prices through output restrictions. An amendment to the AAA gave the President the power to issue greenbacks and to monetize gold [Schlesinger 1958: 199-200]. Congress also passed the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act in May which provided for the refinancing of farm mortgages. The month of June saw the passage of the Home Owners's Loan Act, providing for the refinancing of home mortgages, the National Industrial Recovery Act (which included a public works program), the Farm Credit Act, the joint resolution by Congress to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause, and perhaps most importantly, the Banking Act of 1933, which separated investment and commercial banking, established temporary federal deposit insurance, and made an official body the previously informal Federal Open Market Committee. Thus by June, many of the proposals contained in the March memoranda had been enacted. Though there was a separation of commercial and investment banking, 100% reserve deposit banks had not been created. Federal Reserve notes had not been declared legal tender, and though liberalized, the Federal Reserve still did not have full use of its policy tools to affect monetary aggregates. The Fed had long had the discount rate, though it could vary regionally, and now as a result of the Thomas Amendment to the AAA, the suspension of the gold standard, and the Banking Act of 1933, it could issue Federal Reserve notes. However, the Fed was not yet totally free to set reserve requirements. Though Roosevelt had opposed deposit insurance, there was strong support for it within Congress and the general public. As Carter Golembe has argued, federal deposit insurance was neither requested nor supported by the Roosevelt administration. Deposit insurance was purely a creation of Congress where for nearly fifty years there had been attempts to introduce it. Its adoption in 1933 was, according to Golembe, due to a uniting of two groups: those that wished to end the destruction of circulating medium due to bank failures and those who sought to preserve the existing bank structure [Golembe 1960: 182]. Deposits up to $2,500 were insured 100%, up to $5,000 insured 75%, and over $10,000, fifty per cent. There was also widespread support for the separation of commercial and investment banking because it was believed that bankers had speculated with depositors' funds in the stock market, and when the stock market speculation spree ended, many banks became insolvent. The separation of investment and commercial banking was supported by prominent bankers such as Winthrop Aldrich [Leuchtenburg 1963: 60]. The two proposals, for federal insurance and separation of commercial and investment banking, were linked in the Banking Act of 1933. The linking of these two reforms is vital in the understanding of the subsequent evolution of the debates and reforms. Though they became identified as administration measures, the crisis nature of 1933, and the support of a new administration, merely facilitated their passage. Deposit insurance made banks "safe" not by direct restrictions on their assets, but rather by the promise that the government would guarantee all banks, both good and bad. The separation of commercial and investment banking removed some abuses resulting from the use of depositors' funds in stock market speculations, but it did not address directly the issue of financing for the capital development of the economy. On passage of the Act, J P Morgan predicted that the separation would have dire effects on his firm's ability to supply capital "for the development of the country" [Schlesinger 1958: 443]. William O Douglas observed that the Act was a nineteenth century piece of legislation which ignored the need the problem of capital structure and the need to manage investment [Schlesinger 1958: 445]. While it is true that the RFC had undertaken the role of providing capital funds for industry, the banking legislation attempted to restore credit availability by restoring confidence in the medium of exchange, and therefore an increase in bank deposits. The Banking Act of 1933 attempted to kill two birds with one stone. Though it succeeded in stopping bank runs, the fractional reserve nature of the banking system, coupled with a lack of power on the part of the Federal Reserve Board, effectively undermined the ability of the financial system to supply adequate investment funds. In 1929, the ratio of loans to total assets for all commercial banks was 58%. By 1934, that ratio had fallen to 38%, as total bank assets began increasing after falling steadily from 1929 to 1933. This was also in spite of the fact that total bank failures went from 4,000 in 1933 to 61 in 1934. Clearly, though bank numbers were increasing and total assets were increasing, bank loans remained at about the same level from 1933 to 1936. The economy was in a credit crunch. In late October 1933, Roosevelt began the gold purchase program, operating through the RFC, in an attempt to raise agricultural prices through the purchase of domestically held gold. According to Arthur Schlesinger, the gold-purchase program set the financial community in an uproar and the result was a national debate over monetary policy that had not been seen since the William Jennings Bryan campaign of 1896 [Schlesinger 1958: 244-245]. With the 73rd Congress meeting for a second session, it was clear that 1934 was to be the decisive year for debate on monetary reform. However, after the introduction of deposit insurance, bank failures dropped from 4,000 in 1933 to 61 in 1934. Federal deposit insurance was a program which had worked to restore to confidence in the banking system and assured little opposition to the establishment of permanent deposit insurance. Though much had been accomplished by November 1933, the central problem which remained was the Federal Reserve's ability to use all means available to it to affect monetary aggregates. In order to do this, changes would have to be made to the Federal Reserve Act which would restrict the power of individual Reserve Banks, especially New York, while strengthening the power of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. This was the focus of the November Chicago memoranda, and it was to become the crucial issue in the Banking Act of 1935. The November 1933 Memoranda During the period March to November, the Chicago economists received comments from a number of individuals on their proposal and in November 1933 another memorandum was prepared. {3} The memorandum was expanded to thirteen pages, there was a supplementary memorandum on "Long-time Objectives of Monetary Management" (seven pages) and an appendix titled "Banking and Business Cycles" (six pages). Though signed by the same group of economists, this document was evidently written by Henry Simons. {4} The proposal began by noting that government had failed in its primary function of controlling currency by allowing banks to usurp this power. Such "free banking" in deposit creation "gives us an unreliable and inhomogeneous medium; and it gives us a regulation or manipulation of currency which is totally perverse". What was necessary was a "complete reorientation of our thinking and a redefinition of the objectives of reform". [Simons 1933:1] The solution was the "outright abolition of deposit banking on the fractional-reserve principle". [Simons 1933: 2] {3} In April Simons circulated a revised version of the last three pages of the March proposal. This material was later expanded and used in the November version. {4} In a letter to Paul Douglas, Simons wrote: The memorandum, as I consider it now, has so many faults that there should be no quarrels over "proprietorship". Actually I did write the thing alone; but it would never have been written except for my conversations with other people, Mr Director especially; and it never would have been circulated without favorable critical reports from yourself and the other members of the group. So, what is uniquely my own is merely the phrasing [Simons to Paul Douglas, October 2 1934]. The proposal included many of the items in March reform: (i) Federal ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks; (ii) exclusive Congressional powers to grant charters for deposit banking; (iii) suspension of all powers of existing corporations to engage in deposit banking within two years; (iv) creation of a new type of deposit bank with 100% reserves in the form of notes and deposits at the Federal Reserve Banks; (v) abolition of reserve requirements for Federal Reserve Banks; (vi) replacement of private-bank credit with Federal Reserve bank credit over a two- year transition period; and restricting currency to only Federal Reserve notes. However, they went on to add: (vii) enacting a simple rule of monetary policy; (viii) and achievement of a price-level specified by Congress. There is no mention of federal deposit insurance which had already gone into effect in June. As before, the plan would displace existing commercial banks by two types of institutions: deposit banks and investment trusts. If private companies failed to provide new deposits, then government through the extension of a postal savings system could offer such deposits. [Simons 1933: 6] Investment trust banks would acquire funds exclusively by sale of their own securities, thereby limiting-their lending capacity to the funds so obtained. Investment trust banks would provide a service by bringing borrowers and lenders together, and could therefor charge for this service. [Simons 1933: 7] The memorandum also evaluated a return to the gold standard (which was rejected unless it was a 100% gold standard) and various rules to guide monetary policy, including price-level stabilization. [Simons 1933: 8-11] The proposal noted that a monetary rule which set money supply growth could be carried out by conversion of interest-bearing federal debt into non-interest bearing debt, open market operations by the Reserve banks, an increase in federal expenditures, or a reduction in federal taxes. [Simons 1933: 12] In summary, the memoranda stated that the Federal Reserve Act had faulty objectives because commercial paper offered no real liquidity, and that the answer lay in the abolition of fractional reserve banking, so that a reconstituted Federal Reserve would have precise power over the money supply. However, monetary management was not to be discretionary, but subject to definite rules laid down by Congress. This version of the proposal which was given to Gardiner C Means, who worked for Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Rexford G Tugwell. Means's responded to the Chicago Plan in a three page, single spaced memo [Means, "Comment", C1933]. Given the Administration's concern over the relationship between farmers and bankers, it is no surprise that the Agriculture Department would be interested in monetary reform. Mean's praised the Chicago memorandum's primary objective of placing control of the monetary medium in the exclusive hands of government, and the method by which the transition would be effected [Means 1933: 1]. He thought the Chicago proposal provided a "relatively simple and direct method of dealing with the deposits aspect of our banking system", though it would likely be opposed by bankers [Means 1933: 2]. Means's only disagreements with the plan was that he would allow the Federal Reserve banks to purchase high grade commercial paper in order to establish 100% reserves, and Means argued that monetary policy should be discretionary, and not subject to a rule [Means 1933: 3]. It is interesting that the Chicago proposal had found greatest favor with Rexford Tugwell (who advocated a similar scheme to expand the postal savings system) and Gardiner Means, both institutional economists and planners. With the onset of severe erosion problems in a number of western states in 1934, Agriculture Department attention focused on the immediate concerns of conservation. As output fell prices of agricultural products rose, thus further easing financial pressures on farmers. Between 1932 and 1936, gross farm income increased fifty per cent, and cash receipts from marketing, including government payments, nearly doubled. The relative price of agricultural products rose as farm debt decreased dramatically. Thus at a time when the economy was still experiencing high unemployment, agriculture was beginning to recover [Schlesinger 1958: 71] In January 1934, Roosevelt sent a message to Congress asking for legislation to organize a sound and adequate currency system. Roosevelt requested that Congress enact legislation to vest in the United States Government sole title to all American owned monetary gold and "other monetary matters [which] would add to the convenience of handling current problems in this field". FDR furthered indicated that the Secretary of the Treasury was prepared to submit information concerning changes to the appropriate committees of the Congress [Krooss 1969: 2791]. It was soon after FDR's address to Congress that there was direct involvement by the Chicago group in the drafting of legislation to enact the Chicago Plan for banking reform. Legislating the Chicago Plan Robert M Hutchins, the President of the University of Chicago, mailed a copy of the November Chicago Plan to Senator Bronson Cutting of New Mexico in December 1933. Cutting was a progressive Republican in the mode