From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jul 1 03:53:56 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:53:56 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Let Them Eat Cash Message-ID: <20090701185356.02c179a0.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Can Bill Gates turn hunger into profit? by Frederick Kaufman Harper's Magazine Report (June 2009) The latter-day emperors arrived in Rome. Presidents, prime ministers, plutocrats, puppets, dictators, and thugs left their limousines across the street from the Circus Maximus and paraded into the High-Level Conference on World Food Security and the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy. That was quite a bit to consider in one conference, but as the number of starving people on earth rose toward one billion, famine pushed aside all other concerns. On the first day, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, echoed the wisdom of Thorstein Veblen as he blamed world hunger on "conspicuous consumptions", which have "put all nations in the world on the verge of destruction". Such practices, declared Ahmadinejad, were satanic. Mahmoud al Habash, the Palestinian minister of agriculture, articulated a different perspective. "The main reason for the world food problem is political", he said, "The rich countries want to control the world". The way to end world hunger, explained al Habash, was to end the occupation of the West Bank. The Pope sent an envoy with blessings from the Almighty, and a few words of advice. "Feed the hungry", said His Eminence Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. During the three days of the hunger summit, more than a thousand reporters filed stories they culled from more than a hundred hunger speeches and hunger news conferences, a vast testament to the involuntary urge of non-hungry people to say something in the face of hunger, to explicate starvation, to offer a solution. The conference in Rome may have inspired the greatest mass recital of famine narratives in human history, and as I downed my espressos in the mornings before the assembly I'd read the latest installments. The stories varied in focus and emphasis but employed the same basic plot points: biofuel production, caterpillar plagues, commodity speculation, crop disease, drought, dwindling stockpiles, fear, flood, hoarding, war, and an increasing world appetite for meat and dairy had bubbled into a nasty poison. Every day, another 25,000 people starved to death or died from hunger-related disease: every four seconds, another corpse. Rising prices for corn, cooking oil, rice, soybeans, and wheat had sparked riots in Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, and nineteen other countries. Not to mention Milwaukee, where a food voucher line of nearly 3,000 people descended into chaos. ("They just went crazy down there", said one witness. "Just totally crazy".) Oddly enough, almost none of the food riots had emerged from a lack of food. There was plenty of food. The riots had been generated by the lack of money to buy food, and therein lay what may have distinguished today's hunger from the hunger of years past. Therein lay the substance of the Rome conference. In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that population growth would ineluctably outpace food production, a prediction yet to be proven correct. For much of the past century, global crop production has actually outpaced global population growth. Even so, people continue to starve to death. In 1971, when starving children from Bangladesh to Biafra became the topic of dinner-table conversation across America, 961 million people in the developing world went hungry. That year, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations had joined forces with the United Nations, the World Bank, and other organizations to fund research in high-yield varieties of rice and wheat; this research, along with expanded use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and irrigation, and subsequent changes in agricultural methodology - collectively dubbed the Green Revolution - more than doubled cereal production in Asia over the next quarter century. Today, there is enough production capacity to feed the planet - enough, in fact, to feed a planet with double the population. The world population has, of course, already nearly doubled since 1971, and the proportion of people who are hungry has fallen considerably. Despite the undeniable magnitude of this achievement, the Green Revolution is far from complete. In fact, just two decades after they launched it, the agrocrats were blindsided by an astonishing reversal: the real number of hungry people in the developing world began to climb again, from 823 million in the early 1990s to 907 million in 2008. And since 2003, the overall proportion of hungry people is also on the rise. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion: Malthus was correct to predict that as time went on, more people would starve to death. He just got the mechanism wrong. Lack of money, not lack of food - that was the new answer, and at the Rome hunger summit, money solutions abounded. Rent support, social security, and subsidized electricity had become part of the debate. One group of delegates advocated price-fixing and tariffs; another argued for free markets and the abolition of tariffs. Decrease exports, demanded some; increase exports, pleaded others. Subsidize the rice trade; tax the rice trade. Purchase more grain from abroad; purchase less grain from abroad. Despite such an abundance of divergent tactics, the general understanding at the summit was that the old model of hunger management no longer worked; that the age of shipping surplus rice and wheat across the oceans was over; that handing out candy bars and sacks of flour was not a long-term solution; that direct food assistance was dead; that now was the time for a new conceptualization of the old problem. Everyone could agree that when the price of your daily bread topped your daily salary, all the agricultural methodology in the world would not make a difference. Money, on the other hand, could help. But how much money? And what, precisely, should we do with it? In his opening address, the director general of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations made it simple. Dressed in flowing blue robes, Jacques Diouf assured the assembly that his organization could take care of the problem for $30 billion a year. At which point Diouf requested donations. Later that afternoon, the president of Senegal put the problem more bluntly. "This concept of assistance is now out of date", declared Abdoulaye Wade. "Don't tell us what to do", he continued. "We know what to do. You will see. We will change everything." Which was how Wade requested $800 million for his own country's use, no questions asked. "Modern agriculture requires capital and technology", noted Uganda's minister for water and the environment. "And for these inputs we need both local and foreign investors". Perhaps the latter-day emperors were right. Nothing improved the human condition like cash. Which meant that the only way to understand world hunger would be to follow the money. Although food and coin made a nice pair, there was a certain irony to the betrothal, considering that years before the debut of shekels and bullion, there were plenty of bananas and coconuts. Indeed, many anthropologists who study pre-industrial societies have asserted that instead of slogging through a short, brutish life of paleolithic poverty, so-called savage hunter-gatherers ate better than we eat, worked less than we work, slept a lot more than we sleep, and spent a great deal of their time hanging out, doing nothing. "The amount of hunger", Marshall Sahlins wrote three decades ago in his book Stone Age Economics (1972), "increases relatively and absolutely with the evolution of culture". Indigent or not, peckish primitives found ready supplies of mollusks, moths, and caterpillars. "Hunters", concluded Sahlins, "keep banker's hours". Perhaps there really was a golden age of plenty, a time and place removed from everything we know of the world, a time without money, a time without hunger: the ever fruiting plains of Avalon and Eden, the big rock-candy mountain, and Cockaigne, where fish and fowl begged to be eaten and the rivers flowed with wine. Explorers who have sought such lands of primal satiation have more often than not found themselves floating around the South Pacific. Here they discovered Tikopia, an island where the natives feast all visitors with roi, upupu, and oka, rich and fragrant dishes concocted from great piles of almonds, cassava, breadfruit, sago, taro, and yams - all pounded together and slow-cooked over hot rocks until the ingredients have coagulated into a thick, sweet pudding. There's plenty for everybody. Tikopia was living, breathing, ethnological proof of prelapsarian satiation. Then, half a century ago, the island hit a spot of bad luck. Back-to-back cyclones laid waste to huts, trees, and tubers. The almonds, cassava, sago, taro, and yams disappeared into the sea, along with every last betelnut and breadfruit. The big rock-candy mountain transformed into a wasteland, and the emaciated natives, once renowned for their generosity and kindness, turned kinsman against kinsman, tribesman against chief. "Nearly everyone was stealing", reported the anthropologist James Spillius, "and nearly everyone was robbed". Indeed, even the most bucolic of the loinclothed set don't always like to share, particularly around dinnertime. "Broil your rat with its fur on", goes the Maori proverb, "lest you be disturbed by someone". And the Bemba have a special name for the person who sits in your house and says: "I expect you are going to cook soon. What a fine lot of meat you have today!" That person is called a witch. Of course, as Stone Age economies progress toward cash economies, warlocks and devils become poor people - which may be a step in the right direction. Perhaps the radical anthropologists of the 1960s had let politics slip into their fieldwork, and had been wrong to vilify modern markets. Perhaps the Congolese Pygmies, the Komu-Konda, and the Wugukani worked harder than we do, for much less. Not to mention the various and sundry other savages of Africa and Melanesia, whose famished gullets drove them to sorcery, senilicide, and cannibalism. But what about all those other golden ages, particularly the ones that featured money? When classical Athens descended into one of its periodic food shortages, long-forgotten celebrities like Xenokles and Archestratos would bestow hundreds of thousands of medimnoi of grain upon the suffering city-state and make things right. Like their modern equivalents, the ancient celebrities were rewarded with prime-time bronze statues, names carved in marble, and front-row seats at the games. Of course, there was plenty of grain hoarding and price gouging, too. A couple thousand years ago, a Greek shipping merchant named Dionysodorus was hauled into court for promising to deliver grain to Athens but instead selling it to Rhodes, where buyers had offered more drachmas. In 323 BC the penalty for breaking grain contracts during a hunger crisis was death, but Dionysodorus, like many an ancient merchant, almost certainly managed to evade his mug of hemlock. The standard reaction of the Roman plebeian in times of food shortage was to rush the Palatine and threaten to burn the grain-rich senators alive. "It is most unjust that the hunger of one's own fellow-citizens should be a source of profiteering for anyone", lamented the Roman consul Antistius Rusticus - but nobody listened to him. When severe food shortages struck during the Middle Ages, merchants set up stalls in the open market and purveyed chops and steaks of human meat. During Eastern Europe's great hunger of 1032, parents sold their children. On the third morning of the Rome hunger summit I sat in the back row of the Iran Room, where the United Nations held its press conferences, and listened to the remarks of Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program. The WFP is the largest humanitarian organization in the world, part of the elite club of NGOs that have spent billions trying to end world hunger. Sheeran had just completed her first year as executive director of the WFP, and already rumor had it she might be next in line for president of the United Nations. "High food prices and increasing demand present a huge, historic opportunity", said Sheeran. The World Food Program had been recycling agricultural surpluses and sending them across the world since 1962. Now, Sheeran declared, the program was facing the biggest challenge in its history, and if her organization and the famine-relief industry in general did not take immediate action, the number of hungry people in the world would soon double. "The bottom billion will become the bottom two billion", said Sheeran. It was the 1970s all over again. By percentages, as bad as it got. By real numbers, beyond the beyond. The press scribbled in their notebooks and tapped their laptops. And Josette Sheeran smiled. An ex-journalist, she had learned the subtleties of media relations at the Washington Times, the conservative daily broadsheet founded and bankrolled by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Sheeran joined the church in 1975 and could boast a classic 1970s de-programming story wherein her father - the former mayor of West Orange, New Jersey - stormed a church-run school and tried to rescue his daughter. The attempt failed, and Sheeran remained a member of the church for more than two decades, even as her spiritual leader declared, "I will conquer and subjugate the world" and, "I am your brain". She reached a pinnacle of sorts as the managing editor of the Times. Then, having exhausted the social, political, and professional possibilities of Moon's church, Sheeran left the paper, converted to Episcopalianism, took a job as an undersecretary of state for the George W Bush Administration - and, finally, decided to feed the hungry. Sheeran was now directing the World Food Program's $6 billion budget. She commanded their vast fleets of barges, camels, donkeys, planes, trains, trucks, and elephants. When Sheeran finished her remarks I followed her out of the Iran Room and asked if she could explain what she had meant when she said, "High food prices and increasing demand present a huge, historic opportunity". Where was room for opportunity in high food prices and increasing demand? Were not high food prices driving riots and famine across the globe? Were not there more hungry people than ever before? "There was a time when we did not know how to produce enough food in the world", Sheeran said, and gave me a dazzling smile. "Now we do". Of course, every hungercrat at the Rome conference understood there was enough food for everyone, even if the fact of food paled before the privilege of purchasing it. As Sheeran began the narrative of how the World Food Program would eradicate world hunger, we were joined by her second in command, Nancy Roman, the WFP's director of communications, who observed Sheeran the way campaign managers monitor their candidate. "This is not your grandmother's food aid", Sheeran quipped as Roman kept watch. In the beginning, most of the contributions to the World Food Program came in the form of food, but as the years went by a growing proportion of the contributions came in the form of cash. Originally, the organization had focused on delivering its rice and beans directly to those who had the bad luck to inhabit the most cursed spots on earth. But as grain surpluses went down and the price of shipping went up, the WFP took the logical step of purchasing food supplies from sources closer to the famine, in many cases even from within the borders of the affected country. Thus did the WFP purchase 18,000 metric tons of corn and beans from Rwanda last year, for $6.3 million, and 210,000 metric tons of food from Uganda, for $55 million. Which made these countries' respective presidents, Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni, happy to cooperate with the WFP's designs for the future. In fact, World Food Program plans called for the presidents of Rwanda and Uganda to travel to New York just a few months after the Rome hunger summit. There, at United Nations world headquarters, presidents Kagame and Museveni would welcome the WFP's newest program. And on that morning, Josette Sheeran revealed, the African presidents would be joined by none other than Bill Gates. Gates, Sheeran explained, was going to help the WFP expand its program of local purchasing to small farmers and grain traders in the farther reaches of their client nations. Such purchases, as logistically difficult as they might be, would increase and support the agricultural efforts of these so-called smallholders. "This is the next wave of the story", said Sheeran. Grain purchases from small farmers and traders would put cash into the hands of hundreds of thousands of people and encourage farmers to plant and harvest more and more food. In addition, the WFP would put these farmers in contact with other groups, who would in turn help them acquire better seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, more advanced irrigation systems, larger warehouse facilities, and improved access to roads. Thus could a poverty-stricken peasant move from being a recipient of food aid one year, to creating a bit of surplus the next, to making a profitable business out of it a few years down the line - and supplying food for others. In order to realize these plans, the World Food Program would guarantee a market where none might now exist. They would do so, in part, by "forward contracting", whereby the WFP would promise to purchase a certain amount of a farmer's output, at a certain price, either one, two, or three years down the line. Such guarantees would give small farmers the incentive to plant more crops, since they could count on an eventual market for their goods. A WFP contract might even help farmers get credit from the local bank, or perhaps a bit of crop insurance. Josette Sheeran told me the acronym for her pilot program: P4P, which stands for Purchase for Progress. The $76 million program would be funded by the Howard G Buffet Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the government of Belgium. In its first year of forward contracting, P4P would commit the World Food Program to purchasing 40,000 tons of food from 350,000 small farmers. "We are studying a proposal with Bill Gates on a way to do the contract", Sheeran said. P4P was designed to mimic sophisticated global markets. Along with its purchase guarantees, P4P included plans to support countrywide commodity exchanges, which the WFP hoped would develop along the lines of the Chicago Board of Trade. (In Ethiopia and Uganda, exchanges have already opened.) In the new paradigm, the smallest farmer can benefit from the biggest market. In some cases, P4P would not purchase a farmer's grain immediately but instead would encourage him to warehouse his product and receive a receipt. More mysterious than rice or millet, this slip of paper presented a number of intriguing possibilities. First of all, the receipt allowed the farmer to register with his countrywide exchange, a place in the capital city where all the grain from all the country's farmers could be bought and sold. Henceforth, the rural farmer could follow fluctuating prices with the technology of his mobile phone. The once indigent peasant could become a commodity trader and peg his sale to any time of the year. In this way, he could forecast, model, and leverage more financing. No matter that commodity speculation and grain hoarding had helped trigger the world food crisis. No matter that the recent Agribusiness Accountability Initiative declared that massive and unregulated commodity-market speculation "has pushed the prices of wheat, maize, rice and other basic foods out of the reach of hundreds of millions of people around the world". Of course, the WFP would take no responsibility for market peaks, valleys, doldrums, and crashes. The happy news was that the solution to world hunger would no longer have to be about the food. It could be about the money. And I imagined the sowers and reapers of Africa, Asia, and South America transformed into a massive cartel of grain dealers - leveraging, diversifying, and cornering markets, driving the price of rice arid beans as high as the market could bear. The peasant-turned-trader could wait as long as he liked to go to market and, while he waited, place bets on which way the market would move. He could hoard in the great tradition of grain dealers, hedge in the great tradition of bankers, and eventually pull in enough profit to render obsolete every guarantee and support of the World Food Program, quit farming, and go into insurance and banking for himself. Thus the new paradigm. Thus the end of world hunger. And thus the end of my conversation with Josette Sheeran, who had to run to her next meeting. Nancy Roman stayed behind, so I asked her about rising food costs and all those riots. Higher wheat and rice prices could conceivably help farmers, higher grocery bills might benefit agribusiness, and speculation in commodity markets might be a boon for investors of all shapes and sizes - but how did such financial fluctuations affect the urban underclass of Nigeria and the rural poor of Guatemala? "Listen", said Nancy Roman, "speculation always drives up the cost of everything. Housing, telecommunications, shoes .." Before she joined the WFP, Roman had been president of the G7 Group. She had made her living explaining Washington policy to hedge-fund managers, and as a result she could situate virtually any political or social phenomenon within easily comprehensible financial constructs, and she could explain why, in the midst of the world food crisis, the Ospraie Special Opportunity Fund and the BlackRock Agricultural Fund had gone on their latest buying sprees, snapping up grain silos, grain elevators, fertilizer-distribution centers, and huge tracts of land. Indeed, as the world's best and brightest focused on food security, the solution to the age-old problem of hunger appeared increasingly to coincide with the age-old techniques that the best and the brightest themselves employed to ensure their own security. The solution to world hunger was more investment all the way up and all the way down the line, and all investments were speculative. "What people are uncomfortable about is when you speculate about food", continued Roman, "something so fundamental to life. When you're speculating on something that is the essence of life, when you're speculating in that space ..." and here she stopped. She gazed across the pressroom and she frowned. "People don't like that", she said. In good times and in bad, it's hard to say no to money - which can foster dependency like nothing else. Of course, the purpose of transforming the international food-aid business into an international-business business is to foster entrepreneurial independence, not subservience. So in order to be truly transformative, the money gift cannot simply be a gift and nothing but a gift. If that money is not to create a perpetual state of subordination, the money gift must create business. As in P4P, the cash might impel small farmers to purchase more loans, more pesticides, more seeds, more land; to buy low and sell high. Of course, when money has been deployed as a spur to action, the deployment becomes entangled in ideology. The money may eventually spark the widest variety of political and economic reactions. For example, Maori warriors believe that all gifts ultimately accrue to the giver, so that if you give a hungry man a fish he may rightfully gut and cook and eat the fish, but the spirit of the fish, its hau, will eventually become restless and return to the giver of the fish. And if the gift happens to be the guaranteed-grain-purchase formulae of the World Food Program, the hau will journey through the spirit land of giftdom until it returns to its nativity, the warm, rich, capitalist womb of Bill Gates. Along the same lines, Claude Levi-Strauss noted that the Nambikwara chieftains of the Brazilian Amazon proved their chieftainship through generosity. By distributing food and other goods, the big man retained and increased his power. Thomas Hobbes made "gratitude" his fourth Law of Nature: "No man giveth, but with intention of good to himself". And the Eskimo have a proverb: "Gifts make slaves as whips make dogs". In Niger, following a spate of local purchases like those promised through P4P, millet prices rose by thirteen percent in local markets, followed by a seven percent uptick in the national average. Guaranteed sales had increased consumer prices, which would eventually send more people into poverty and starvation. The money gift triggered all manner of unforeseen consequences. It may be best not to know the ultimate effect of your gift. Such knowledge might compromise the ideological romance that made the gift possible in the first place. Thus did a frenzy of cash pledges mark the end of the hunger summit in Rome, although no one at the conference really understood what would be done with their money. Ed Schafer, the United States secretary of agriculture, led the flurry with an announcement that the United States Department of Agriculture would donate $5 billion over the next two years. French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that his country would donate one billion euros. "Dying people are not happy people", noted Sarkozy. After Sarkozy, the International Fund for Agricultural Development announced a gift of $200 million. The World Food Program mobilized $750 million, and Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, pledged $1.2 billion. The African Development bank pledged $1 billion; Spain pledged $773 million; the United Kingdom, $590 million; Japan, $150 million; Kuwait, $100 million; Venezuela, $100 million; the Netherlands, $75 million; and New Zealand, $7.5 million. On the last day of the hunger summit, the Islamic Development Bank chipped in $1.5 billion. "For what?" asked one hungercrat I met in the hallway. "It is unclear". As the New York P4P press conference approached, I began to consider a question for Bill Gates. Why, despite our spending more money than had ever been spent to solve the problem of world hunger, and why, despite everybody's best efforts to reconceptualize the problem - why were more and more people going hungry? Perhaps Gates would consider the paradox that our efforts might be exacerbating the problem, that all we were doing was wrong. Obviously, this was not the kind of thing I could vet beforehand with a publicist, or send over to media at gatesfoundation.org expecting a response. The nature of the question seemed to defy reason. Which was why I went to visit Amartya Sen. As a nine-year-old boy, Sen witnessed the Bengal famine of 1943, the last Indian famine, which occurred only four years before the end of the Raj. Between two million and three million people died, and Sen watched them drop in the streets. This was the famine that occasioned Winston Churchill's remark that the famine was of no great account because the Indians would simply "breed like rabbits". When Sen grew up he became a professor of economics and philosophy. His specialties included the economics of poverty and famine, and many of his 26 books and 375 articles deal with these subjects. For much of his career, Sen focused on the fact that during the worst period of the Irish famine of the 1840s, "ship after ship sailed down the Shannon, bound for England, laden with wheat, oats, cattle, hogs, eggs, and butter". Similarly, during the Ethiopian famine of 1973, food moved out of the hardest-hit Wollo province and headed toward more affluent purchasers in Addis Ababa. Such uncanny food "counter-movements" led Sen to the insight that if governments were to intervene in such situations, famines would not be so very difficult to prevent, "The rulers", he wrote, "never starve". Sen had crunched the hunger numbers as no one else had done before, not just for Bengal in 1943 and Ireland in the 1840s but also for Ukraine in the 1930s, China in the 1950s and 1960s, Ethiopia in the 1970s, Bangladesh in 1974, Somalia and Sudan several times over. In 1982 he published a book called Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation that transformed the field. Other books followed, including Inequality Reexamined and Rationality and Freedom. In 1998, Sen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. He lives in one of those quaint shingle-style houses a few blocks from Harvard Square, and on the rainy day I came to visit I found him dressed in an Oxford button-down, a gray sweater vest, a pair of khakis, and baby-blue socks. First we ate, then we talked. His daughter served baked fish in mustard seeds, and after lunch, since Sen was recovering from surgery, we retired to his living room and he reclined on the pink couch, a yellow coverlet tucked under his chin, his head and his knee propped up on an elaborate arrangement of seven pillows. Next to him sat a pitcher of ice water, a bottle of Evian, a box of Kleenex, a pair of crutches, two phones, and two assistants. "When people think they believe in this or that", said Sen, "I'm not sure". He paused for an enormous period of time. He moved the pillows, straightened the coverlet, and glanced at the two watercolors that hung above the fireplace, portraits of Willard Quine and John Rawls. Old friends of his. And it occurred to me that Sen was not an economist so much as a philosopher, and that the solution he had found to world hunger had been the outcome of a purely rational analysis, the same approach Descartes employed to cast a cold eye on the nature of his own existence, and that Socrates used to face death without flinching. "I believe in reason", said Sen. "There are those who want to repress reason. Christian, Muslim, and Hindu fundamentalists, and those who pick a totem market economy, the liberal economic state. These are all anti-reason. He paused again and closed his eyes. I knew that Sen had written the introduction to a book on AIDS in India that had been funded by the Gates Foundation, and I wondered if the affiliation would cloud his perspective, but after a few minutes he began to expound upon the relationship of market-based movements of food to demand and purchasing power, and to explain that none of these forces necessarily have anything to do with who gets enough to eat and who doesn't. In fact, there was no fixed relation of any sort between food and famine. Some famines, like Bangladesh in 1974, occur in years of peak food availability. In the midst of a severe hunger crisis, agricultural subsidies do not make much of a difference. And in the face of famine, a reliance on market economies is as ineffective as a reliance on loaves and fishes or manna from Heaven. Even so, said Sen, famines are not terribly difficult to avoid. Prevention requires the speedy implementation of emergency income-creation and employment programs, in combination with the broader social infrastructure of representative democracy and a free press, which happens to be the best early-warning system. Famine happens when rulers are alienated from those they rule, he explained, and a functioning democracy is a simple way to remove such alienation. Famine happens when there is no free press, because rulers tend to feel embarrassed when photographs of starving children appear on the front page. New formulations of the hunger problem were not necessary. Sen had discovered the solution and he had gone over it many times, in abstruse tables for Econometrica, in articles for the Handbook of Mathematical Economics, and in features for Granta. He had explained the solution in his hundreds of essays and dozens of books in thousands of seminars and public addresses, yet his endlessly rehearsed points had not been enough. The world remained irrational, and people starved. Of course, no other hunger narrative had ever succeeded either. Nor had any institution in the world been able to end world hunger. "No one organization alone can do it", Sen said. "None of the organizations alone can". I asked if the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization was up to the job. "No", he said, and closed his eyes. "That I profoundly doubt". What about Bill Gates and the World Food Program? "It can do a lot of good", he said. "But it's not the way of solving the problem". "Nothing but money is sweeter than honey", Benjamin Franklin famously remarked. The portliest founder understood that market dynamics reflect appetites, and were thus driven more by the irrational gut than the rational mind. Unreason may not seem so unreasonable when you are dying of hunger, but full stomachs also make their demands and possess their involuntary ideologies. Even the most well-intentioned, well-fed capitalist may fail to recognize that his own actions are causing the very problems he most sincerely wants to solve. After all, it is rational to invest in a commodity when its price rises, even if corn costs do happen to push up feed prices. Chickens eat chicken feed made from that corn, so the price of a dozen organic eggs hits $6.39. "All indications are that soaring feed costs are going to force livestock and poultry producers to raise prices", said Joel Brandenberger, president of the National Turkey Federation, "or risk going out of business". Bill Roenigk, chief economist of the National Chicken Council, predicted that "food inflation is poised to begin and continue for many, many months". All of which impelled Iowa Senator Charles Grassley to wax rabid and liken the American grocery lobby to the Nazi Party. "They have to have an excuse for increasing the price of their food", said Grassley. "It's another Adolf Hitler lie". As food prices rise, profit margins recede, and Sara Lee Corporation makes the front page of the Wall Street Journal with a $695 million quarterly loss. Meanwhile, in El Salvador, the government suggests that hungry people simply tighten their belts. Was anyone or anything immune from hunger's plague of unreason? Were academics like Amartya Sen the only ones with the proper analytical tools to withstand the onslaught of hysteria? Was there any evidence, in all of human history, that those who lived the life of the mind might rise above their intestines? From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Jul 1 04:15:26 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:15:26 +1000 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Honduras coup, GLW's 800th, Marta Harnecker, Iran, East Timor, Communism in Australia, Tamils Message-ID: <4A4B373E.2030903@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Honduras coup, GLW's 800th, Marta Harnecker, Iran, East Timor, Communism in Australia, Tamils *** Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism 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/. * * * Honduras: Obama's first coup d'etat? By Eva Golinger [As of 11:15 am, June 28, Caracas time, President Manuel Zelaya is speaking live on Telesur from San Jose, Costa Rica. He has verified the soldiers entered his residence in the early morning hours, firing guns and threatening to kill him and his family if he resisted the coup. He was forced to go with the soldiers who took him to the air base and flew him to Costa Rica. He has requested the US government make a public statement condemning the coup, otherwise, it will indicate their compliance. At 5 pm, Roberto Micheletti, head of Honduras' Congress was sworn in as de facto president. At 7 pm, the Organization of American States condemned the coup. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has formally condemned the coup. For continuing updates, visit Eva Golinger's web site at http://www.chavezcode.com/.] * Read more Australia's Green Left Weekly celebrates its 800th issue Congratulations on reaching the 800th issue. It is not easy these days for independent left journals to sustain themselves, when they are so badly needed. Look forward to hearing about the 1000th. -- Noam Chomsky, radical US activist, writer and intellectual As so much of the corporate media becomes a parody of itself, the agents of power not of people, we need the view from ground more than ever and Green Left Weekly more than ever. -- John Pilger, journalist and documentary maker June 28, 2009 -- The need for a radical green and left alternative to the monopolised corporate media is even greater today than when the first issue of Green Left Weekly came out in February 1991. From the outset we knew this non-profit project could survive only with the dedication and support from those inspired by a vision of democratic and ecologically sustainable socialist change. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #12 -- Don't confuse desires with reality [This is the final article in a 12-part series of articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series .] By Marta Harnecker, translated by Federico Fuentes Unfortunately, there tends to be a lot of subjectivism in our analysis of the political situation. What tends to occur is that leaders, driven by their revolutionary passion, tend to confuse desires with reality. An objective evaluation of the situation is not carried out, the enemy tends to be underestimated and, on the other hand, one's own potential is overestimated. * Read more Socialist Alliance: In solidarity with the people of Iran June 26, 2009 -- The Socialist Alliance of Australia stands in solidarity with the millions of Iranians who are bravely demanding their rights in the streets despite huge state-sanctioned repression. These are the biggest protests in Iran since the 1979 protests in which the US-backed Shah was deposed. Millions of people, old and young, ethnic and religious minorities, have taken to the streets, day in and day out since the disputed election on June 12. They have bravely defied the repressive regime of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to demand the most basic of rights: the right to freely and transparently elect their representatives. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #11 -- Popular consultations: spaces that allow for the convergence of different forces [This is the eleventh in a series of regular articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series .] By Marta Harnecker, translated by Federico Fuentes I have previously argued the case for the need to create a large social bloc against neoliberalism that can unite all those affected by the system. To achieve this, it is fundamental that we create spaces that allow for the convergence of specific anti-neoliberal struggles where, safeguarding the specific characteristics of each political or social actor, common tasks can be taken up that aid in strengthening the struggle. * Read more New Anti-Capitalist Party of France: `With the people and workers of Iran!' Statement by the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA, New Anti-Capitalist Party of France), translated by Carmel McGlinchey, Luke Weyland and Annolies Truman Since June 13, the day after the rigged presidential election, millions of Iranians have gone into the streets with cries of "Down with the dictatorship!". The ferocious repression has already caused tens if not hundreds of deaths. Young people, women and the residents of the poorer areas who comprise the majority of the demonstrators have now been joined by the trade union movement. The union of bus workers declared its solidarity, in asserting: "As long as the principle of free organisation and elections is not applied, all talk of social liberation and the rights of the workers is only a joke". The workers of Iran Khodro, the first car manufacturer in the country (with 60,000 employees), engaged in a strike while adding their demands for salary increases and the right to strike to the demands raised in the streets. * Read more East Timor: Putting self-determination into practice June 19, 2009 -- Mericio Juvinal dos Reis, or Akara as he is commonly known, is the executive director of Luta Hamutuk, a non-government organisation based in Dili, East Timor. Akara was a featured guest at the World at a Crossroads conference, hosted by Green Left Weekly, held in Sydney in April 2009. Vannessa Hearman spoke with Akara about East TImor's ongoing struggle for genuine self-determination and development. East Timor won its independence formally in 2002, after a long and bloody struggle against Indonesian occupation from 1975 to 1999. In 1999, a United Nations-sponsored referendum was held, in which the Timorese people voted to be independent from Indonesia. Luta Hamutuk was set up in 2005 by a group of young activists, including Akara. Akara had been involved in pro-independence activities as a student in Indonesia. He was a member of the Timorese Socialist Party but left in 2003. * Read more Communism in Australia By Dave Holmes [This talk was presented at the A Century of Struggle -- Laborism and the radical alternative: Lessons for today conference, held in Melbourne, Australia, on May 30, 2009. It was organised by Socialist Alliance and sponsored by Green Left Weekly, Australia's leading socialist newspaper. To read other talks presented at the conference, click HERE .] * Read more Troops out of the Tamil homeland, release the prisoners! Statement by Socialist Resistance (Britain) June 21, 2009 -- The massive demonstration in London on June 20 reflected the widespread shock and anger of the Tamil diaspora. The key demands that have to be raised are the right to live in the Tamil homeland, freedom for internees and political prisoners, and immediate withdrawal of the army, which is overwhelmingly Sinhalese. These demands can help refocus a movement focused on the demand for a ceasefire, and provide an antidote to the retreat of the LTTE leadership into building a transnational government committee in exile rather than a real movement. 300,000 children, men and women -- many elderly -- have been interned in concentration camps. Over 50,000 have been killed or disappeared. 10,000 political prisoners have being held, accused of being Tamil Tigers, who have no chance to face trial or otherwise be freed. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #10 -- A strategy for building unity [This is the tenth in a series of regular articles.] By Marta Harnecker I have previously referred to the necessity of building unity among all left forces and actors in order to be able to group a broad anti-neoliberal bloc around them. Nevertheless, I do not think that this objective can be achieved in a voluntarist manner, creating coordinating bodies from above that end up as simple sums of acronyms. I believe that this unity can emerge through concrete struggles for common objectives. And that is why I think that we can help create better conditions for this unity if we put into practice a new strategy of anti-capitalist struggle. * 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 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 15468 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090701/66f0b1d6/attachment.txt From PeterHollings at comcast.net Wed Jul 1 05:32:07 2009 From: PeterHollings at comcast.net (Peter Hollings) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:32:07 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Panama Deception In-Reply-To: <25C07004ABCD481C94C8BC1305030E44@TonyPC> References: <25C07004ABCD481C94C8BC1305030E44@TonyPC> Message-ID: <1246447927.6291.17.camel@phollings-desktop> I lived in Panama for about a year ten years ago. Some of the people there were very resentful of the US invasion. Panama City saw most of the action. Whole city blocks were turned to rubble. Since the surrounding areas were filled with multi-story brick tenement buildings occupied, generally on the ground floor, by small businesses, and, upstairs, by poor families, I assumed that was the nature of those destroyed. My understanding of the death toll from locals is that it likely was around 3 to 4,000. Incidentally, their bodies were bulldozed by the US Army into mass graves. All this to arrest one man, a former CIA asset? Peter Hollings On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 03:22 -0400, Tony B. wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony B." > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:22 AM > Subject: The Panama Deception > > > > For those of you who have never seen this.....time you did. > > > > In memorium of the >4000 victims of the US invasion of Panama, Dec. > > 1989... > > > > T. > > > > > > : > >> > >> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/654.html > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1608 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090701/1a85c397/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Wed Jul 1 14:50:11 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:50:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] COHA Restates its Position on Honduras Message-ID: <20090701204917.381DB3E469E@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6626 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090701/e19afbb4/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 15:43:35 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:43:35 +0200 Subject: [A-List] [R-G] Herbert: No Recovery in Sight In-Reply-To: <1501890803.1120551246482088647.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <1261446425.943821246397758580.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <1501890803.1120551246482088647.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: The silence on the trajedy of milions with no futures unfolding is perhaps one of the reasons it is happening? I think this is an example of a deep cultural leitmotif of United States identity. More real than real. There is no such thing, but an American will give his life to prove it is true? suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/opinion/27herbert.html?th&emc=th > > New York Times June 26, 2009 > > > > Op-Ed > > No Recovery in Sight > > By BOB HERBERT > > > > > How do you put together a consumer economy that works when the consumers > are > out of work? > > One of the great stories you'll be hearing over the next couple of years > will be about the large number of Americans who were forced out of work in > this recession and remained unable to find gainful employment after the > recession ended. We're basically in denial about this. > > There are now more than five unemployed workers for every job opening in > the > United States. The ranks of the poor are growing, welfare rolls are rising > and young American men on a broad front are falling into an abyss of > joblessness. > > Some months ago, the Obama administration and various mainstream economists > forecast a peak unemployment rate of roughly 8 percent this year. It has > already reached 9.4 percent, and most analysts now expect it to hit 10 > percent or higher. Economists are currently spreading the word that the > recession may end sometime this year, but the unemployment rate will > continue to climb. That's not a recovery. That's mumbo jumbo. > > Why this rampant joblessness is not viewed as a crisis and approached with > the sense of urgency and commitment that a crisis warrants, is beyond me. > The Obama administration has committed a great deal of money to keep the > economy from collapsing entirely, but that is not enough to cope with the > scope of the jobless crisis. > > There were roughly seven million people officially counted as unemployed in > November 2007, a month before the recession began. Now there are about 14 > million. If you add to these unemployed individuals those who are working > part time but would like to work full time, and those who want jobs but > have > become discouraged and stopped looking, you get an underutilization rate > that is truly alarming. > > "By May 2009," according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at > Northeastern University in Boston, "the total number of underutilized > workers had increased dramatically from 15.63 million to 29.37 million - a > rise of 13.7 million, or 88 percent. Nearly 30 million working-age > individuals were underutilized in May 2009, the largest number in our > nation's history. The overall labor underutilization rate in May 2009 had > risen to 18.2 percent, its highest value in 26 years." > > If it were true that the recession is approaching its end and that these > startlingly high numbers were about to begin a steady and substantial > decline, there would be much less reason for alarm. But while there is > evidence the recession is easing, hardly anyone believes a big-time > employment turnaround is in the offing. > > Three-quarters of the workers let go over the past year were permanently > displaced, as opposed to temporarily laid off. They won't be going back to > their jobs when economic conditions improve. And many of those who were > permanently displaced were in fields like construction and manufacturing in > which the odds of finding work, even after a recovery takes hold, are not > good. > > Another startling aspect of this economic downturn is the toll it has taken > on men, especially young men. Men accounted for nearly 80 percent of the > loss in employment in this recession. As the labor market center reported, > "The unemployment rate for males in April 2009 was 10 percent, versus only > 7.2 percent for women, the largest absolute and relative gender gap in > unemployment rates in the post-World War II period." > > Workers under 30 have sustained nearly half the net job losses since > November 2007. > > This is not a recipe for a strong economic recovery once the recession > officially ends, or for a healthy society. Young males, especially, are > being clobbered at an age when, typically, they would be thinking about > getting married, setting up new households and starting families. Moreover, > work habits and experience developed in one's 20s often establish the > foundation for decades of employment and earnings. > > We've seen what happens when you rely on debt and inflated assets to keep > the economy afloat. The economy can't be re-established on a sound basis > without aggressive efforts to put people back to work in jobs with decent > wages. > > We also need to consider the suffering that is being endured by these high > levels of joblessness, including the profound negative effect on the > families of the unemployed. Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic > Policy Institute, warned about the consequences for children. "What does it > mean," he asked, "when kids are under stress because there is no money in > the household, or people have to move more, or are combining households, or > lose their health insurance? I believe this is going to leave a permanent > scar on a generation of kids." > > The first step in dealing with a crisis is to recognize that it exists. > This > is not a problem that will evaporate when the gross domestic product > finally > begins to creep into positive territory. > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6657 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090701/636a0aed/attachment.txt From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 16:42:19 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:42:19 -0700 Subject: [A-List] [R-G] Herbert: No Recovery in Sight In-Reply-To: References: <1261446425.943821246397758580.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <1501890803.1120551246482088647.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <4A4BE64B.6030702@gmail.com> Here's an interesing sidebar to the "..deep cultural leitmotif of United States identity." It makes us mentally ill to scramble over all those other people to the top of the s-it heap: America has the highest (psychological) depression rate in the world... Why? "Persistence applied to unrealistic goals" http://trunc.it/l2c0 (The Economist) Suzanne de Kuyper wrote: > The silence on the trajedy of milions with no futures unfolding is > perhaps one of the reasons it is happening? I think this is an > example of a deep cultural leitmotif of United States identity. More > real than real. > > There is no such thing, but an American will give his life to prove it > is true? > > suzannedk at gmail.com > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Sid Shniad > wrote: > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/opinion/27herbert.html?th&emc=th > > > New York Times June 26, 2009 > > > > Op-Ed > > No Recovery in Sight > > By BOB HERBERT > > > > > How do you put together a consumer economy that works when the > consumers are > out of work? > > One of the great stories you'll be hearing over the next couple of > years > will be about the large number of Americans who were forced out of > work in > this recession and remained unable to find gainful employment > after the > recession ended. We're basically in denial about this. > > There are now more than five unemployed workers for every job > opening in the > United States. The ranks of the poor are growing, welfare rolls > are rising > and young American men on a broad front are falling into an abyss of > joblessness. > > Some months ago, the Obama administration and various mainstream > economists > forecast a peak unemployment rate of roughly 8 percent this year. > It has > already reached 9.4 percent, and most analysts now expect it to hit 10 > percent or higher. Economists are currently spreading the word > that the > recession may end sometime this year, but the unemployment rate will > continue to climb. That's not a recovery. That's mumbo jumbo. > > Why this rampant joblessness is not viewed as a crisis and > approached with > the sense of urgency and commitment that a crisis warrants, is > beyond me. > The Obama administration has committed a great deal of money to > keep the > economy from collapsing entirely, but that is not enough to cope > with the > scope of the jobless crisis. > > There were roughly seven million people officially counted as > unemployed in > November 2007, a month before the recession began. Now there are > about 14 > million. If you add to these unemployed individuals those who are > working > part time but would like to work full time, and those who want > jobs but have > become discouraged and stopped looking, you get an > underutilization rate > that is truly alarming. > > "By May 2009," according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at > Northeastern University in Boston, "the total number of underutilized > workers had increased dramatically from 15.63 million to 29.37 > million - a > rise of 13.7 million, or 88 percent. Nearly 30 million working-age > individuals were underutilized in May 2009, the largest number in our > nation's history. The overall labor underutilization rate in May > 2009 had > risen to 18.2 percent, its highest value in 26 years." > > If it were true that the recession is approaching its end and that > these > startlingly high numbers were about to begin a steady and substantial > decline, there would be much less reason for alarm. But while there is > evidence the recession is easing, hardly anyone believes a big-time > employment turnaround is in the offing. > > Three-quarters of the workers let go over the past year were > permanently > displaced, as opposed to temporarily laid off. They won't be going > back to > their jobs when economic conditions improve. And many of those who > were > permanently displaced were in fields like construction and > manufacturing in > which the odds of finding work, even after a recovery takes hold, > are not > good. > > Another startling aspect of this economic downturn is the toll it > has taken > on men, especially young men. Men accounted for nearly 80 percent > of the > loss in employment in this recession. As the labor market center > reported, > "The unemployment rate for males in April 2009 was 10 percent, > versus only > 7.2 percent for women, the largest absolute and relative gender gap in > unemployment rates in the post-World War II period." > > Workers under 30 have sustained nearly half the net job losses since > November 2007. > > This is not a recipe for a strong economic recovery once the recession > officially ends, or for a healthy society. Young males, > especially, are > being clobbered at an age when, typically, they would be thinking > about > getting married, setting up new households and starting families. > Moreover, > work habits and experience developed in one's 20s often establish the > foundation for decades of employment and earnings. > > We've seen what happens when you rely on debt and inflated assets > to keep > the economy afloat. The economy can't be re-established on a sound > basis > without aggressive efforts to put people back to work in jobs with > decent > wages. > > We also need to consider the suffering that is being endured by > these high > levels of joblessness, including the profound negative effect on the > families of the unemployed. Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic > Policy Institute, warned about the consequences for children. > "What does it > mean," he asked, "when kids are under stress because there is no > money in > the household, or people have to move more, or are combining > households, or > lose their health insurance? I believe this is going to leave a > permanent > scar on a generation of kids." > > The first step in dealing with a crisis is to recognize that it > exists. This > is not a problem that will evaporate when the gross domestic > product finally > begins to creep into positive territory. > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > > From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Wed Jul 1 10:06:54 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:06:54 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Akwesasne Womens Fire needs help Message-ID: <01df5b2f$39995$0cff5047879861@xnote> UPDATE/VIDEO: AKWESASNE WOMENS FIRE NEEDS HELP TO STOP GUNS MNN. July 1, 2009. On Monday June 1st 2009 the Canadian Border Service Agency was to take up arms at the border crossing in the middle of Akwesasne of Mohawk Nation Territory. The people protested. At 11:30 pm on May 31st the CBSA guards abandoned their post and left. Since then, we have peacefully camped on the grounds next to the facility. This is the first video on the ongoing events in the camp and the people. http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=cQQNz0FKCKI No band councilors showed up. They have been intimidated by the government, are afraid and caved in. It?s a powerful grassroots Peoples movement with no support from any government. NEEDED: Funds would be greatly appreciated to keep up our tents: Please go to www.akwesasnewomensfire.com and donate online. For donations by check or money order please send to: Akwesasne Womens Fire, 936 Island Rd, Akwesasne ON K6H 5R7 Urgently needed are life jackets for the crossings and fuel for the boats. Your donations are appreciated of food, can goods, general supplies, non-perishable food, flashlights and batteries, lanterns, coal oil lamps, bug spray or zapper, regular toiletries ? toilet paper, paper towels, soap, laundry, etc. For further information please contact: Rosemarie White 613-933-8784; Veronica Cook; 915-886-0210; Neddy Thompson 613-577-4647; and Nona Benedict 613-551-5421 (c) 613-938-8145 (h) nonabena at yahoo.com The caravan was greeted by an emotional welcoming ceremony and social. The people were overwhelmed by the sight of the caravan approaching over the International Bridge onto Kawenoke on Cornwall Island. We will keep it peaceful. The Customs Building is being maintained. Please send your messages of support to nonabena at yahoo.com Please keep supporting us. The Chocktaw Nation of Oklahoma is coming to bring supplies and to meet the people. Two Indigenous men hitchhiked from Vancouver. Jayson Fleury said that we are being eliminated by guns. We came to support our brothers and sisters to stop the genocide of our people. His sister ended up as one of Picton?s victims on the farm where dozens of our women were murdered. We will never accept outsiders carrying guns in their midst. Old videos of gunfire 20 years ago are being used as part of the training of the CBSA that work on the island, completely ignoring the peace that has since prevailed. They probably watch old films where a cowboy shoots one bullet and knocks a whole tribe off their horses. The blue-eyed fat Indians with Brooklyn accents were played by Italians and others. Prejudice is being promoted by showing these kind of old movies to scare the CBSA. Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jul 1 19:49:00 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:49:00 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Like Boiling a Frog Message-ID: <20090702104900.e1036764.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih (2009) by David Runciman London Review of Books (May 28 2009) The best one-volume encyclopedia in the world used to be the Columbia Encyclopedia, first published by Columbia University Press in 1935. In our house we have the fifth edition, from 1993, and we still get it out occasionally to look up kings and queens and old-fashioned stuff like that. It's a lovely book, fat but portable and full of nuggety little entries on most things you can think of. It also has quite a poignant preface, in which the editors talk about the difficulties of updating an encyclopedia in such a fast-changing world: they note how much history, politics, even geography they have had to revise since the collapse of the Soviet Empire just a couple of years earlier. They are clearly proud of their efforts to keep up to speed, but some things inevitably slip through the net. There are for example no entries for 'email', the 'World Wide Web' or the 'internet', all of which were just beginning to attract attention in 1993. The editors think the pace of change at the end of the 20th century means that traditional works of reference are going to have a hard time keeping up. Really they have no idea. 1993 wasn't so long ago; Bill Clinton was president, a fact that the Columbia editors boast about having been able to include at the last moment (the last moment here meaning the weeks or months between the book's being set and its arriving in the shops or in the hands of door-to-door salesmen). Yet in encyclopedia publishing, 1993 is now prehistory. Even 2000, when a sixth - one has to presume final - edition of the Columbia appeared, belongs to another age. Two years later, a one-time market analyst called Jimmy Wales started up an experimental online project called Wikipedia, which allowed volunteers to create their own encyclopedia entries that could then be revised or even entirely rewritten by anyone else who happened to be logged on. Wales, like everyone else involved in the project, didn't know if it would work, but since the technology was available it seemed worth a try. In its first year, Wikipedia generated 20,000 articles, and had acquired 200 regular volunteers working to add more (this compares with the 55,000 articles in the Columbia, all subject to rigorous standards of editing and fact-checking, though this in itself was a small-scale enterprise compared to the behemoths of the industry like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose 1989 edition covered 400,000 different topics). By the end of 2002, the number of entries on Wikipedia had more than doubled. But it was only in 2003, once it became apparent that there was nothing to stop it continuing to double in size (which is what it did), that Wikipedia started to attract attention outside the small tech-community that had noticed its launch. In early 2004, there were 188,000 articles; by 2006, 895,000. In 2007 there were signs that the pace of growth might start to level off, and only in 2008 did it begin to look like the numbers might be stabilising. The English-language version of Wikipedia currently has more than 2,870,000 entries, a number that has increased by 500,000 over the last twelve months. However, the English-language version is only one of more than 250 different versions in other languages. German, French, Italian, Polish, Dutch and Japanese Wikipedia all have more than half a million entries each, with plenty of room to add. Xhosa Wikipedia currently has 110. Meanwhile, the Encyclopaedia Britannica had managed to increase the number of its entries from 400,000 in 1989 to 700,000 by 2007. Part of the reason the astonishing growth of Wikipedia took even its founders by surprise was that this wasn't their first attempt to set up an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia was an offshoot of something called Nupedia, which Wales had established in 2000 with the aim of using online volunteers to produce a new work of reference that would be free to use. The mistake Wales and his Nupedia collaborators made was to assume that any encyclopedia has to go through a formal editing process if it's going to be reliable. Editors were appointed whose job was to decide on appropriate topics, open them up to online editing and then approve final versions once an agreed standard had been met. The editing process had seven stages from 'assignment' to 'mark-up', and was a slow, frustrating and ultimately fruitless business. By the end of the first year about two dozen articles had been completed, while the drafts of a few hundred more were still being fretted over. It looked like the vast additional resources and manpower that the internet had made available for checking reference books was going to overwhelm the capacities of anyone trying to process the information. Hence the Wikipedia solution, stumbled on more by chance than by design: don't try to process the information. It is generally assumed that what is distinctive about Wikipedia is that it is open to anyone to contribute, but that was true of Nupedia too. Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't try to frame the creation of new entries with commissioned beginnings and fixed endpoints. It is open to anyone to initiate an entry on Wikipedia, and no entry is ever formally closed, since it is also open to anyone to keep editing and altering whatever is already there. Wikipedia still uses a large volunteer army of editors and 'janitors' to oversee the whole process, looking out for flagrant abuses and sounding the alarm when disputes get out of hand. But it is not the job of any editor to decide what counts as an entry. If there is any doubt about whether something is too trivial to take up space even in so limitless a space as Wikipedia it is put to the vote of others users (and any vote can always be overturned by another vote further down the line); otherwise, if you don't like an entry it is up to you to change it. The editors are there to try to ensure this is done in as non-abusive a way as possible. But it is not up to anyone to call time on anything. That's how it works. The puzzle is why it works, given that this way of compiling an encyclopedia seems to have a flaw so obvious it is hardly worth stating: if no entry is ever nailed down, how do you know when you are reading an entry that someone hasn't just interfered with it, making it thoroughly unreliable? The early years of Wikipedia were dogged by this suspicion, and many people - including a lot of schoolteachers and university lecturers who could remember the distant days before 2002 when books were books and editors actually edited - were openly derisive of a work of reference that appeared to make no effort to discriminate between good information and bad. It is easy to assume that some version of Gresham's Law, which states that bad money will always drive out good, must apply to the circulation of facts as well. Why would anyone with good information want to put it in a place where bad information could contaminate it at the touch of a button? Wouldn't they choose to keep it to themselves, or at the very least give it to someone who could recognise its true value, leaving open-access encyclopedias to the mercies of all the flakes and grudge-bearers who want to use its veneer of objectivity to force their craziness down other people's throats? Well, the answer is apparently not. One of the remarkable achievements of Wikipedia is to show that on the internet Gresham's Law can work in reverse: Wikipedia has turned into a relatively reliable source of information on the widest possible range of subjects because, on the whole, the good drives out the bad. When someone sabotages or messes with an otherwise sound entry, there are plenty of people out there who see it as their job to undo the damage, often within seconds of its happening. It turns out that the people who believe in truth and objectivity are at least as numerous as all the crazies, pranksters and time-wasters, and they are often considerably more tenacious, ruthless and monomaniacal. On Wikipedia, it's the good guys who will hunt you down. Wales thinks this tells us something surprising and reassuring about human nature. 'Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good', he says. 'It's one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipedia that most people only want to help us and build this free, non-profit, charitable resource'. But in truth it's a bit more complicated than that. Wikipedia works because it is highly distinctive in the way it pulls knowledge together from many different sources. Most internet-based techniques for gathering information are aggregative, in that they try to pool as much information as possible, allowing all the prejudices and random bits of disinformation that attach to individual opinions to cancel each other out. This is true of the many different kinds of polling that take place on the internet, which use the wisdom of crowds to produce answers far more accurate than any individual can give. It's also pretty much what happens at Google, where everybody else's searches are monitored to help filter the information that you might find useful. Aggregative methods minimise personal responsibility for what is produced and place all the emphasis on collective outcomes - after all, who knows, or cares, what their own Google searches are adding to the sum of knowledge (or subtracting from it)? However, Wikipedia's approach to knowledge gathering is not aggregative but cumulative. It builds up information bit by bit, edit by edit, and it never stops. It also leaves a virtual paper trail for every entry, so that it is possible to trace the various steps by which an article has reached its current form. When knowledge is generated by crowds, no single individual has much personal responsibility for what is produced, but nor does any one person have a realistic prospect of shaping the outcome. With Wikipedia, the opposite is true. The fact that there is no final version means that anyone can change anything, but it also means that every given change can be attributed to a particular individual. Though it is possible, and common, to make edits on Wikipedia anonymously (by hiding behind a nickname), it is still true that someone is always responsible for everything that happens, and that someone always knows who they are. So the fact that there are no authoritative versions on Wikipedia is what makes it possible to generate a sense of personal accountability for particular entries, since any entry at any given time is the responsibility of the last person to edit it. This seems to be enough to make most people want to get it right. But it also means that those who don't want to get it right can have their mistakes corrected. The secret to Wikipedia's success lies in the fact that personal responsibility for particular mistakes can't be erased, but the mistakes themselves can be. Still, it takes a lot of policing. Wikipedia has a 'Recent Changes Patrol' whose job is to surf the site picking up on all the endless obscenities and absurdities that are inserted by people who can't believe a website would allow anyone to change any page on it (when they discover that they can, but that changes quickly get corrected, the fun wears off). More serious tinkering requires more concerted oversight. From its outset Wikipedia has aimed to operate according to a code of conduct (of which the centrepiece is the proposition that 'Wikipedia has a neutral point of view'), but to dispense with firm rules. However, in 2004, the three revert rule ('3RR') was introduced in order to prevent tit-for-tat battles, whereby corrections are corrected back to their original form (known as 'reverts'), then corrected back again, and so on, because two contributors cannot agree on a single point of view. The classic case concerned the entry for Gdansk. The name of the town was changed by a German contributor to Danzig, then by a Polish contributor back to Gdansk, then back to Danzig, with no sign of this stopping until the administrators intervened. The 3RR states: 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period'. Just three changes per 24 hours in a work of reference might seem absurdly fluid by traditional standards, but for Wikipedia this was a draconian measure, adopted with deep reluctance by some. Even so, the Gdansk/Danzig wars were only finally settled when the matter was put to a vote of the wider Wikipedia community, and it was agreed that the town could be referred to as Danzig in relation to the period between 1308 and 1945, and in the biographies of 'clearly German persons'; otherwise it was to be Gdansk. It took two years of back and forth to reach this point: a traditional encyclopedia editor could have settled it in ten minutes. Nevertheless, the consensus position on the name appears to have stuck, which given the history of Gdansk/Danzig is no small achievement. That Wikipedia represents a finely calibrated balance between licence and surveillance, and between anonymity and responsibility, is something often missed by those who want to translate its achievements elsewhere. It is not an easy model to replicate. One notorious failure came in 2005, when the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times decided to experiment with a 'wikitorial', which would allow anyone to contribute to the writing of an editorial column using the same techniques as a Wikipedia entry. The aim was to let readers shape the views expressed by the newspaper; the result was a complete mess, as the entire process was hijacked by vandals determined either to skew the political slant of the piece, or to overwhelm the Times editorial page with the sort of shock images in which the internet abounds, and the project was quickly abandoned. The newspaper had made two mistakes. First, its editors seemed to imagine that a wikitorial would edit itself, so they left it alone while they devoted themselves to other things (like editing 'real' columns). But as Wikipedia shows, freedom requires constant vigilance, and a column will write itself only if someone is on hand to fight off all the people who will try to wreck it. Second, a newspaper editorial is actually a much less open-ended form of writing than an encyclopedia entry. Newspaper writing has a shelf-life: it appears and is read at a particular time, often on a particular day. As a result, contributors have an incentive to try to skew the whole process at the moment of maximum impact. The Wikipedia principle that all mistakes can be corrected (so that it is hardly worth trying to introduce them) has much less force in the case of newspapers, because by the time any corrections have been made most readers will have moved on. This is why encyclopedias have been made better by the advent of the internet, but newspapers have been made worse: the cumulative impact of the readers' comments that can now be appended online to almost any article tends to diminish most forms of human understanding. Bias is not cancelled out on the readers' pages of newspaper websites, as might happen if opinion were being aggregated, but nor is it eliminated over time, as in the case of Wikipedia. Instead, each contribution just sits there, glowering back at you, demanding your attention. I recently read through the hundreds of comments that Guardian readers had attached to an article about Julie Myerson, the novelist who wrote about her drug-addicted son and sparked a wave of middle-class outrage and voyeuristic delight. What was striking was not just the anger of all those who wanted to see the Myersons suffer horribly for their crimes, but the equivalent anger of all those who were disgusted by such vindictiveness, and the anger of the people who were appalled by the prissiness of that response, and the anger of the people who couldn't believe anyone would waste their time caring about this rubbish, and on, and on. Everyone was furious with everyone else, and determined not to be shouted down. No one with a reasonable point of view would bother wasting it on a site like this. When tempers are frayed, and time horizons are short, the bad drives out the good. One of the ironic consequences of the open-endedness of the Wikipedia editorial process is that many of its articles are preoccupied with the immediate past. The desire to update the facts about any given subject often means that the facts that remain are the most up-to-date ones. Biographical entries on living individuals tend to concentrate on the most recent things they have done, particularly if these have generated a lot of newsprint that can be used as source material. For an encyclopedia, Wikipedia devotes far too much space to the latest scandals and controversies, whose significance, if any, is impossible to gauge. But this is not a reflection of some desire on the part of the founders of Wikipedia to stir up interest by courting topicality and trivia. Far from it: it reflects an almost touching reverence for properly grounded evidence that underlies the entire Wikipedia project. Although anyone can edit anything in Wikipedia, everything that appears there is supposed to carry a reference to some published source so that it can be checked by other readers. The Wikipedia policy on this is as follows: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. The proliferation of newspaper sources on the internet means that this is often the best place to look for new, verifiable source material (particularly if you are not too bothered about truth). Most of the information out there is recent information, and so therefore is most of what winds up on Wikipedia. The insistence that everything in Wikipedia can be referred to something outside itself stems from an anxiety that the encyclopedia might otherwise become its own source material, and start to generate free-floating facts out of nothing. One of the many fascinating details to emerge from Andrew Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution is that both Jimmy Wales and one of his first collaborators, Larry Sanger, are self-confessed and totally earnest 'objectivists', meaning followers of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Sanger wrote his doctoral thesis at Ohio State University under the title 'Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification'. He and Wales first encountered each other on an internet forum Wales had established in 1992, which offered a 'Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy' and described itself as 'the most scholarly of all Objectivist discussions available on the networks'. Other early contributors to Wikipedia learned about its existence through the community of online objectivists, and it was this bond as much as anything that drove the project forward in its initial stages. What is objectivism? Frankly, I have no idea. I have never read a word by Ayn Rand, and though I know she is an object of veneration in some surprising places (Alan Greenspan, for instance, is a fan), the little bits I have picked up always sounded a bit bonkers to me. {1} So this seemed a good test of Wikipedia's much vaunted NPOV (neutral point of view): I would look her up on Wales and Sanger's encyclopedia to find out what she's all about. Well, it's hard to express in mere words just how dispiriting an experience it is trying to find out about objectivism on Wikipedia. This isn't because the entries seem biased or uncritical. It is just that they are so introverted, boring and just long. The entry on Ayn Rand herself is more than 8000 words long and covers her views on everything from economics to homosexuality in technical and mind-numbing detail. There are separate lengthy entries on objectivist metaphysics, objectivist epistemology, objectivist politics, objectivist ethics, plus entries on all Rand's various books, including the novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and entries on all the characters in these novels, and entries that offer plot summaries of these novels, and even entries on individual chapters. All of it reads as though it has been worked over far too much, and like any form of writing that is overcooked it alienates the reader by appearing to be closed off in its own private world of obsession and anxiety. Compare this with the entry on Rand in the 1993 Columbia Encyclopedia: 1905-82, American writer, born St Petersburg, Russia. She came to the United States in 1926 and worked for many years as a screenwriter. Her novels are romantic and dramatic, and they espouse a philosophy of rational self-interest that opposes the collective of the modern welfare state. Her best-known novels include The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). In The New Intellectual (1961) she summarised her philosophy, which she called 'objectivism'. That's it (with a couple of references appended), and seems admirably clear in seventy words. Also, by allocating her seventy words, the Columbia editors give some indication of what they think she's worth: on the same page she gets more space than the French architect Joseph Jacques Ram?e (1764-1842) and the Swiss novelist Charles Ferdinand Ramuz (1878-1947), but fewer words than the French historian and politician Alfred Nicolas Rambaud (1842-1905), the Spanish histologist Santiago Ramon y Cajal (1852-1934) and the Scottish chemist Sir William Ramsay (1852-1916). That also seems pretty clear. Wikipedia still has its advantages, however. Despairing of discovering anything about Rand that I could make sense of, I looked up the article on Jimmy Wales, to see if that shed any light on his personal philosophy. This article is also long, but more reasonably so, given that Wales is responsible for one of the most significant inventions of the 21st century. It is also admirably even-handed, managing to convey that Wales is both something of a visionary and also something of a creep. The section on his personal life includes this detail, which neither he nor anyone else has seen fit to edit: 'His first wife, Pam, was quoted in a September 2008 W magazine article as saying that Wales, because he believed altruism was evil, discouraged her from pursuing a nursing degree when they were married'. The entry also details the break-up of Wales's second marriage and the claims of a subsequent girlfriend, the Canadian conservative columnist Rachel Marsden, that she only discovered he was ending his relationship with her by reading about it on Wikipedia. I guess that's 'objectivism' for you. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wales has long since fallen out with Sanger, re-editing his Wikipedia entry to remove any reference to him as a co-founder of the project, even though both men were there from the beginning. But it may be Sanger's PhD title that gives the clearest indication of some of the difficulties that lie ahead. 'Epistemic circularity' is a fancy way of saying that Wikipedia could prove too successful for its own good. This is not because entries on the site are likely to start cannibalising each other and end up reducing the whole thing to a relativistic soup: Wikipedia is still very good at distinguishing cross-references within the site from source material outside it. Instead, the problem may come as the source material itself starts to ape the wiki-model. Already, academic publishers are grappling with the problem of open access, which makes increasing numbers of academic articles freely available on the web ('free' here meaning not only free to use but also free to dice, slice and reproduce in another format). Some of the pressure for this move is coming from the people who fund academic research and who want to see it disseminated as widely as possible. But a number of funding bodies (particularly in the sciences) are also questioning whether it makes sense to wait until research is 'completed' before publishing it. Why not put earlier draft versions out there, or even just the initial raw data, and let others see what they can make of it? This opens up the possibility of collaborative editing online: authors might 'publish' draft versions of their books and readers could tinker with them to produce something they are happy with. Of course, the idea of the permanently updatable book raises the prospect of nightmarish copyright issues (or more likely the end of copyright altogether), and it is hardly attractive for academic publishers, since it cuts off their most obvious revenue stream, which has always been to charge for the finished product, properly edited in-house. It also raises difficulties for the idea of verifiability. Wikipedia needs its source material to be relatively stable, so that its entries can have fixed reference points. But if the reference points are themselves subject to endless change, then it becomes much harder to know what counts as verification. Meanwhile, as conventional publishing starts to open up to the Wikipedia way of doing things, the encyclopedia is toying with a revert back to more conventional methods. German Wikipedia has started experimenting with 'flagged' articles, which means articles that have been certified as reliable and free from vandalism, to meet a demand for certainty from German users. (Incidentally, this is not the only international variation in Wikipedia practice that seems to conform to national stereotypes: on Japanese Wikipedia, editors are much more reluctant than their Western counterparts to alter existing pages and prefer to conduct their exchanges on adjoining discussion sites rather than blithely interfering with what someone else has written.) The German experiment has now led to a demand for approved articles to be published separately on a static website protected from editing, in order to give readers the option of something that has been pre-verified. The question of 'flagging' is one of the issues discussed in the afterword of Lih's book, which addresses the most pressing challenges Wikipedia is likely to face in the future. Other concerns include the creation of a fully-paid executive staff, something that may cause serious divisions in an organisation that relies so heavily on voluntary labour; the risk of a major lawsuit by someone who has been libelled in a Wikipedia entry (the fact that anyone can remove the offending information doesn't prevent them from trying to sue, though it isn't clear who would be liable - the person who introduced the libel or the last person to edit the page on which it appears?); and the increasing complexity of the editing software, which is putting off many new contributors. More interesting than any of this, though, is the fact that the afterword was written as a wiki: that is, as a collaborative exercise using software similar to that of the encyclopedia itself, and made available to be freely copied and distributed. It is good of Lih to include it, since it is somewhat better written than the rest of the book, having a tighter style and a sharper focus. The single-authored chapters are full of interest but rather indulgent, containing too much incidental detail about people Lih wants to please. The afterword has none of that - it just gets to the point, and doesn't worry about offending anybody. It helps that this is a book, so space is limited, and this particular wiki can't indulge in the commonest vice of entries on Wikipedia, which is not knowing when to stop. Yet even a piece of writing that has been edited by so many people can't resist the occasional cliche. The multiple authors of the afterword write: 'The Wikipedia community might be like the frog slowly boiling to death - unaware of the building crisis, because it is not aware how much its environment has slowly changed'. When I read this, I thought: is it really true that frogs can be slowly boiled to death without realising what's happening to them? So I looked it up on Wikipedia, confident that there would be an entry. There is: type in 'boiling frog' and you go straight to a page that tells you everything you need to know. It gives you examples of the use of the term, its history and a discussion of the veracity of the central idea, including a description of the late 19th-century experiment in which it was first demonstrated and the more recent experiments that have cast doubt on it. Links at the bottom of the page take you to accounts of these later experiments in scientific journals, which suggest that the whole thing is a myth. So there it is: you won't find any of this in the Columbia, or Encyclopaedia Britannica, or anywhere else for that matter. There is no other way I could have found out about boiling frogs - truly, for all its flaws, Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. Note {1}: Jenny Turner wrote about Ayn Rand in the LRB of 1 December 2005. _____ David Runciman teaches politics at Cambridge. He is the author of Pluralism and the Personality of the State (2005), The Politics of Good Intentions (2006) and Political Hypocrisy (2008). Other articles by this contributor: This Way to the Ruin ? the British Constitution Cricket's Superpowers ? Beyond the Ashes Oh, the curse! ? David Runciman hits a home run The Garden, the Park and the Meadow ? After the Nation State Tax Breaks for Rich Murderers ? Bush and the 'Death Tax' The Precautionary Principle ? Taking a Chance on War The Cattle-Prod Election ? The Point of the Polls Invented Communities ? post-nationalism ISSN 0260-9592 Copyright (c) LRB Ltd., 1997-2009 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/runc01_.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:03:41 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:03:41 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Color Revolutions, Old And New Message-ID: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14168 Global Research July 1, 2009 Color Revolutions, Old and New By Stephen Lendman In his new book, "Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order," F. William Engdahl explained a new form of US covert warfare - first played out in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000. What appeared to be "a spontaneous and genuine political 'movement,' (in fact) was the product of techniques" developed in America over decades. In the 1990s, RAND Corporation strategists developed the concept of "swarming" to explain "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects which they applied to military conflict by other means. More on this below. In Belgrade, key organizations were involved, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute. Posing as independent NGOS, they're, in fact, US-funded organizations charged with disruptively subverting democracy and instigating regime changes through non-violent strikes, mass street protests, major media agitprop, and whatever else it takes short of military conflict. Engdahl cited Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs' first-hand account of how the Clinton administration engineered Slobodan Milosevic's removal after he survived the 1990s Balkan wars, 78 days of NATO bombing in 1999, and major street uprisings against him. A $41 million campaign was run out of American ambassador Richard Miles' office. It involved "US-funded consultants" handling everything, including popularity polls, "training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vi tally important parallel vote count." Thousands of spray paint cans were used "by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia," and throughout the country around 2.5 million stickers featured the slogan "Gotov Je," meaning "He's Finished." Preparations included opposition leader training in nonviolent resistance techniques at a Budapest, Hungary seminar - on matters like "organiz(ing) strike(s), communicat(ing) with symbols....overcom(ing) fear, (and) undermin(ing) the authority of a dictatorial regime." US experts were in charge, incorporating RAND Corporation "swarming" concepts. GPS satellite images were used to direct "spontaneous hit-and-run protests (able to) elude the police or military. Meanwhile, CNN (was) carefully pre-positioned to project images around the world of these youthful non-violent 'protesters.' " Especially new was the use of the Internet, including "chat rooms, instant messaging, and blog sites" as well as cell phone verbal and SMS text-messaging, technologies only available since the mid-1990s. Milosevic was deposed by a successful high-tech coup that became "the hallmark of the US Defense policies under (Rumsfeld) at the Pentagon." It became the civilian counterpart to his "Revolution in Military Affairs" doctrine using "highly mobile, weaponized small groups directed by 'real time' intelligence and communications." Belgrade was the prototype for Washington-instigated color revolutions to follow. Some worked. Others failed. A brief account of several follows below. In 2003, Georgia's bloodless "Rose Revolution" replaced Edouard Shevardnadze with Mikhail Saakashvili, a US-installed stooge whom Engdahl calls a "ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied (not only to) NATO (but also) the Israeli military and intelligence establishment." Shevardnadze became a liability when he began dealing with Russia on energy pipelines and privatizations. Efforts to replace him played out as follows, and note the similarities to events in Iran after claims of electoral fraud. Georgia held parliamentary elections on November 2. Without evidence, pro-western international observers called them unfair. Saakashvili claimed he won. He and the united opposition called for protests and civil disobedience. They began in mid-November in the capital Tbilisi, then spread throughout the country. They peaked on November 22, parliament's scheduled opening day. While it met, Saakashvili-led supporters placed "roses" in the barrels of soldiers' rifles, seized the parliament build ing, interrupted Shevardnadze's speech, and forced him to flee for his safety. Saakashvili declared a state of emergency, mobilized troops and police, met with Sherardnadze and Zurab Zhvania (the former parliament speaker and choice for new prime minister), and apparently convinced the Georgian president to resign. Celebrations erupted. A temporary president was installed. Georgia's Supreme Court annulled the elections, and on January 4, 2004, Saakashvili was elected and inaugurated president on January 25. New parliamentary elections were held on March 28. Saakashvili's supporters used heavy-handed tactics to gain full control with strong US backing in plotting and executing his rise to power. US-funded NGOs were also involved, including George Soros' Open Society Georgia Foundation, Freedom House, NED, others tied to the Washington establishment, and Richard Miles after leaving his Belgrade post to serve first as ambassador to Bulgaria from 1999 - 2002, then Georgia from 2002 - 2005 to perform the same service there as against Milosevic. Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" followed a similar pattern to Georgia and now Iran. After Viktor Yanukovych won the November 21, 2004 run-off election against Viktor Yushchenko, it erupted following unsubstantiated claims of fraud. Yanukovych favored openness to the West but represented a pro-Russian constituency and was cool towards joining NATO. Washington backed Yushchenko, a former governor of Ukraine's Central Bank whose wife was a US citizen and former official in the Reagan and GHW Bush admin istrations. He favored NATO and EU membership and waged a campaign with the color orange prominently featured. The media picked up on it and touted his "Orange Revolution" against the country's Moscow-backed old guard. Mass street protests were organized as well as civil disobedience, sit-ins and general strikes. They succeeded when Ukraine's Supreme Court annulled the run-off result and ordered a new election for December 26, 2004. Yushchenko won and was inaugurated on January 23, 2005. In his book, "Full Spectrum Dominance," Engdahl explained how the process played out. Under the slogan "Pora (It's Time)," people who helped organize Georgia's "Rose Revolution" were brought in to consult "on techniques of non-violent struggle." The Washington-based Rock Creek Creative PR firm was instrumental in branding the "Orange Revolution" around a pro-Yushchenko web site featuring that color theme. The US State Department spent around $20 million doll ars to turn Yanukovych's victory into one for Yushchenko with help from the same NGOs behind Georgia's "Rose Revolution" and others. Myanmar's August - September 2007 "Saffron Revolution" used similar tactics as in Georgia and Ukraine but failed. They began with protests led by students and opposition political activists followed by Engdahl's description of "swarming mobs of monks in saffron, Internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, (and) well-organized (hit-and-run) protest cells which disperse(d) and re-form(ed)." NED and George Soros' Open Society Institute led a campaign for regime change in league with the State Department by its own admission. Engdahl explained that the "State Department....recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar" and ran its "Saffron Revolution" out of the Chaing Mai, Thailand US Consulate. Street protesters were "recruited and trained, in some cases directly in the US, before being sent back to organize inside Myanmar." NED admitted funding opposition media, including the Democratic Voice of Burma radio. Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Washington tried to embarrass and destabilize China with a "Crimson Revolution" in Tibet - an operation dating from when George Bush met the Dalai Lama publicly in Washington for the first time, awarded him the Congressional Gold Medal, and backed Tibetan independence. On March 10, Engdahl reported that Tibetan monks staged "violent protests and documented attacks (against) Han Chinese residents....when several hundred monks marched on Lhasa (Tibet's capital) to demand release of other monks allegedly detained for celebrating the award of the US Congress' Gold Medal" the previous October. Other monks joined in "on the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule." The same instigators were involved as earlier - NED, Freedom House, and others specific to Tibet, including the International Committee for Tibet and the Trace Foundation - all with ties to the State Department and/or CIA. The above examples have a common thread - achieving what the Pentagon calls "full spectrum dominance" that depends largely on controlling Eurasia by neutralizing America's two main rivals - Russia militarily, China economically, and crucially to prevent a strong alliance between the two. Controlling Eurasia is a strategic aim in this resource-rich part of the world that includes the Middle East. Iran's Made-in-the-USA "Green Revolution" After Iran's June 12 election, days of street protests and clashes with Iranian security forces followed. Given Washington's history of stoking tensions and instability in the region, its role in more recent color revolutions, and its years of wanting regime change in Iran, analysts have strong reasons to suspect America is behind post-election turbulence and one-sided Western media reports claiming electoral fraud and calling for a new vote, much like what happened in Georgia and Ukraine. The same elements active earlier are likely involved now with a May 22, 2007 Brian Ross and Richard Esposito ABC News report stating: "The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity....say President Bush has signed a 'nonlethal presidential finding' that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financ ial transactions." Perhaps disruptions as well after the June 12 election to capitalize on a divided ruling elite - specifically political differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader/Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on one side and Mir Hossein Mousavi, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on the other with Iran's Revolutionary Guard so far backing the ruling government. It's too early to know conclusively but evidence suggests US meddling, and none of it should surprise. Kenneth Timmerman provides some. He co-founded the right wing Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI) and serves as its executive director. He's also a member of the hawkish Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and has close ties to the equally hard line American Enterprise Institute, the same organization that spawned the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) for much the same purpose. On the right wing newsmax.com web site, Timmerman wrote that the NED "spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting color revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques." He explained that money also appears to have gone to pro-Mousavi groups, "who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that (NED) funds." Pre-election, he elaborated about a "green revolution in Tehran" with organized protests ready to be unleashed as soon as results were announced because tracking polls and other evidence suggested Ahmadinejad would win. Yet suspiciously, Mousavi declared victory even before the polls closed. It gets worse. Henry Kissinger told BBC news that if Iran's color revolution fails, hard line "regime change (must be) worked for from the outside" - implying the military option if all else fails. In a June 12 Wall Street Journal editorial, John Bolton called for Israeli air strikes whatever the outcome - to "put an end to (Iran's) nuclear threat," despite no evidence one exists. Iran's rulers know the danger and need only cite Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other examples of US aggression, meddling, and destabilization schemes for proof - including in 1953 and 1979 against its own governments. On June 17, AP reported that Iran "directly accused the United States of meddling in the deepening crisis." .... On June 23, Tehran accused western media and the UK government of "fomenting (internal) unrest." In expelling BBC correspondent Jon Leyne, it accused him and the broadcaster of "supporting the rioters and, along with CNN," of setting up a "situation room and a psychological war room." Both organizations are pro-business, pro-government imperial tools, CNN as a private company, BBC as a state-funded broadcaster. On its June 17 web site, BBC was caught publishing deceptive agitprop and had to retract it. It prominently featured a Los Angeles Times photo of a huge pro-Ahmadinejad rally (without showing him waving to the crowd) that it claimed was an anti-government protest for Mousavi. Throughout its history since 1922, BBC compiled a notorious record of this sort of thing because the government appoints its senior managers and won't tolerate them stepping out of line. Early on, its founder, John Reith, wrote the UK establishment: "They know they can trust us not to be impartial," a promise faithfully kept for nearly 87 years and prominently on Iran. With good reason on June 22, Iranian MPs urged that ties with Britain be reassessed while, according to the Fars news agency, members of four student unions planned protests at the UK embassy and warned of a repeat of the 1979 US embassy siege. They said they'd target the "perverted government of Britain for its intervention in Iran's internal affairs, its role in the unrest in Tehran and its support of the riots." Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hassan Ghashghavi, wouldn't confirm if London's ambassador would be expelled. On June 23, however, AP reported that two UK diplomats were sent home on charges of "meddling and spying." State TV also said hard-line students protested outside the UK embassy, burned US, British and Israeli flags, hurled tomatoes at the building and chanted: "Down with Britain!" and "Down with USA!" Around 100 people took part. Britain retaliated by expelling two Iranian diplomats. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanded an immediate end to "arrests, threats and use of force." Iran's official news agency, IRNA, reported that the Iranian Foreign Ministry rejected Ban's remarks and accused him of meddling. On June 23, Obama said the world was "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent attempt to crush dissent and claimed America "is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs." Yet on June 26, USA Today reported that: "The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial" under George Bush. For the past year, USAID has solicited funds to "promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran," according to its web site. On July 11, 2008, Jason Leopold headlined his Countercurrents.org article, "State Department's Iran Democracy Fund Shrouded in Secrecy" and stated: "Since 2006, Congress has poured tens of millions of dollars into a (secret) State Department (Democracy Fund) program aimed at promoting regime change in Iran." Yet Shirin Abadi, Iran's 2003 Nobel Peace prize laureate, said "no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept" US funding for this purpose. In a May 30, 2007 International Herald Tribune column, she wrote: "Iranian reformers believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone." On June 24, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Gerald Ford and GHW Bush, told Al Jazeera television that "of course" Washington "has agents working inside Iran" even though America hasn't had formal relations with the Islamic Republic for 30 years. Another prominent incident is being used against Iran, much like a similar one on October 10, 1990. In the run-up to Operation Desert Storm, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm established the Citizens for a Free Kuwait (CFK) front group to sell war to a reluctant US public. Its most effective stunt involved a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl known only as Nayirah to keep her identity secret. Teary eyed before a congressional committee, she described her eye-witness account of Iraqi soldiers "tak(ing) babies out of incubators and leav(ing) them on the cold floor to die." The dominant media featured her account prominently enough to get one observer to conclude that nothing had greater impact on swaying US public opinion for war, still ongoing after over 18 years. Later it was learned that Nayirah was the daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, a member of Kuwait's royal family and ambassador to the US. Her story was a PR fabrication, but it worked. Neda (meaning "voice" in Farsi) Agha Soltani is today's Nayirah - young, beautiful, slain on a Tehran street by an unknown assassin, she's now the martyred face of opposition protesters and called "The Angel of Iran" by a supportive Facebook group. Close-up video captured her lying on the street in her father's arms. The incident and her image captured world attention. It was transmitted online and repeated round-the-clock by the Western media to blame the government and enlist support t o bring it down. In life, Nayirah was instrumental in Iraq's destruction and occupation. Will Neda's death be as effective against Iran and give America another Middle East conquest? Issues in Iran's Election Despite being militant and anti-Western as Iran's former Prime Minister, Mousavi is portrayed as a reformer. Yet his support comes from Iranian elitist elements, the urban middle class, and students and youths favoring better relations with America. Ahmadinejad, in contrast, is called hardline. Yet he has popular support among the nation's urban and rural poor for providing vitally needed social services even though doing it is harder given the global economic crisis and lower oil prices. Is it surprising then that he won? A Mousavi victory was clearly unexpected, especially as an independent candidate who became politically active again after a 20 year hiatus and campaigned only in Iran's major cities. Ahmadinejad made a concerted effort with over 60 nationwide trips in less than three months. Then, there's the economy under Article 44 of Iran's constitution that says it must consist of three sectors - state-owned, cooperative, and private with "all large-scale and mother industries" entirely state-controlled, including oil and gas that provides the main source of revenue. In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow more privatizations, but how much is a source of contention. During his campaign, Mousavi called for moving away from an "alms-based" economy - meaning Ahmadinejad's policy of providing social services to the poor. He also promised to speed up privatizations without elaborating on if he has oil, gas, and other "mother industries" in mind. If so, drawing support from Washington and the West is hardly surprising. On the other hand, as long as I ran's Guardian Council holds supreme power, an Ahmadinejad victory was needed as a pretext for all the events that followed. At this stage, they suspiciously appear to be US-orchestrated for regime change. Thus far, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Basij militia, and other security forces have prevailed on the streets to prevent it, but it's way too early to declare victory. George Friedman runs the private intelligence agency called Stratfor. On June 23 he wrote: "While street protests in Iran appear to be diminishing, the electoral crisis continues to unfold, with reports of a planned nationwide strike and efforts by the regime's second most powerful cleric (Rafsanjani) to mobilize opposition against (Ahmadinejad) from within the system. In so doing he could stifle (his) ability to effect significant policy changes (in his second term), which would play into the hands of the United States." Ahmadinejad will be sworn in on July 26 to be followed by his cabinet by August 19, but according to Stratfor it doesn't mean the crisis is fading. It sees a Rafsanjani-led "rift within the ruling establishment (that) will continue to haunt the Islamic Republic for the foreseeable future." "What this means is that....Ahmadinejad's second term will see even greater infighting among the rival conservative factions that constitute the political establishment....Iran will find it harder to achieve the internal unity necessary to complicate US policy," and the Obama administration will try to capitalize on it to its advantage. Its efforts to make Iran into another US puppet state are very much ongoing, and for sure, Tehran's ruling government knows it. How it will continue to r eact remains to be seen. "Swarming" to Produce Regime Change In his book, "Full Spectrum Dominance," Engdahl explained the RAND Corporation's groundbreaking research on military conflict by other means. He cited researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt's 1997 "Swarming & The Future of Conflict" document "on exploiting the information revolution for the US military. By taking advantage of network-based organizations linked via email and mobile phones to enhance the potential of swarming, IT techniques could be transformed into key methods of warfare." In 1993, Arquilla and Ronfeldt prepared an earlier document titled "Cyberwar Is Coming!" It suggested that "warfare is no longer primarily a function of who puts the most capital, labor and technology on the battlefield, but of who has the best information about the battlefield" and uses it effectively. They cited an information revolution using advanced "computerized information and communications technologies and related innovations in organization and management theory." They foresaw "the rise of multi-organizational networks" using information technologies "to communicate, consult, coordinate, and operate together across greater distances" and said this ability will affect future conflicts and warfare. They explained that "cyberwar may be to the 21st century what blitzkrieg was to the 20th century" but admitted back then that the concept was too speculative for precise definition. The 1993 document focused on military warfare. In 1996, Arquilla and Ronfeldt studied netwar and cyberwar by examining "irregular modes of conflict, including terror, crime, and militant social activism." Then in 1997, they presented the concept of "swarming" and suggested it might "emerge as a definitive doctrine that will encompass and enliven both cyberwar and netwar" through their vision of "how to prepare for information-age conflict." They called "swarming" a way to strike from all directions, both "close-in as well as from stand-off positions." Effectiveness depends on deploying small units able to interconnect using revolutionary communication technology. As explained above, what works on battlefields has proved successful in achieving non-violent color revolution regime changes, or coup d'etats by other means. The same strategy appears in play in Iran, but it's too early to tell if it will work as so far the government has prevailed. However, for the past 30 years, America has targeted the Islamic Republic for regime change to control the last major country in a part of the world over which it seeks unchallenged dominance. If the current confrontation fails, expect future ones ahead as imperial America never quits. Yet in the end, new political forces within Iran may end up changing the country more than America can achieve from the outside - short of conquest and occupation, that is. A final point. The core issue isn't whether Iran's government is benign or repressive or if its June 12 election was fair or fraudulent. It's that (justifiable criticism aside) no country has a right to meddle in the internal affairs of another unless it commits aggression in violation of international law and the UN Security Council authorizes a response. Washington would never tolerate outside interference nor should it and neither should Iran. Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net . Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls 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 2New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:13:59 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:13:59 -0400 Subject: [A-List] A Lesson in Canadian Imperial Hypocrisy Message-ID: > > Acceptable Versus Unacceptable Repression: > A Lesson in Canadian Imperial Hypocrisy > > > Todd Gordon > > > June has been a difficult month for progressive activists around the > world. > Mass protests in Iran and indigenous blockades in Peru were met with heavy > repression, while a left-of-centre President in Honduras was ousted in a > military coup. What these tragic events do offer us, however, is a very > clear perspective on Canadian foreign policy. > Consider the Canadian response to the events in Iran. Canada issued three > press releases on the events in Iran, all by Foreign Affairs Minister, > Lawrence Cannon. The first was on June 15 after the repression against the > protests challenging electoral fraud began. It called for an investigation > into the allegations of fraud by the Iranian government and condemned the > government's move to ban protests. > On June 21, > after perhaps the worst day of violent repression of protesters in Iran up > to that point by government security forces and the government-aligned > militia, in which more than a dozen people were killed, Canada issued a > sharp condemnation of the Iranian government. In the press release, Cannon > stated that: > > "Canada condemns the decision of the Iranian authorities to use violence > and > force against their own people ... The Iranian people deserve to have > their > voices heard, without fear of intimidation and violence. Canada condemns > the > use of force to stifle dissent, and we continue to call on Iran to fully > respect all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice, > and to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the fraud > allegations." > > A third statement was released on June 25 calling for the release of > political prisoners and personally criticizing the Iranian official put in > charge of the investigation of the detained reformist leaders. > But what did the Canadian government say following the first rumblings of > a > potential military coup against the moderately left wing Honduran > president, > Jose Manuel Zelaya, on June 25? Nothing. As of the evening of June 29, it > had issued one rather tepid press release late on June 28, more than 12 > hours after the coup became known outside Honduras. > And what did the Canadian government say when over 50 indigenous activists > in Peru were gunned down on June 5th by military and police forces for > protesting their government's free trade policies? Nothing. The massacre > of > indigenous protesters in Peru, many of whose bodies were then dumped by > police in a river, didn't rate any mention at all. > So why does Iran rate a sharp rebuke, but a military coup in Honduras and > brutal repression in Peru inspire cautious condemnation and silence > respectively? > > > Canadian Economic Interests versus Human Rights > > > For starters, the Iranian government is a part of the "Axis of Evil" in > the > war on "terror," of which Canada is an eager member. Thus Iran is a fair > target for criticism when it moves to crush dissent, as it should be. > (Though we should be mindful that the interests of Canada, like those of > the > U.S. or U.K., aren't necessarily a democratic Iran but a compliant one; > one > need only look at the history of foreign intervention in Iran in the 20th > century to be skeptical about the intentions of imperial powers.) > But the situation is different when it comes to Honduras and Peru. > > Protest > > Protest outside Goldcorp's annual shareholders meeting. > > In Honduras, Canadian corporations - largely, though not exclusively, in > mining - are major economic players. According to the Economic Commission > for Latin America and the Caribbean, from 1996-2006 Canada was in fact the > second largest foreign investor in the Central American country. Mining > companies like Goldcorp, Yamana and Breakwater Resources benefit from a > mining law passed in the wake of Hurricane Mitch in 1998 that strongly > favours foreign corporations over the rights of local communities. The > mining law and Canadian investments, particularly Goldcorp's San Martin > open > pit mine, have been the target of large demonstrations and blockades over > the last few years by indigenous peoples and small farmers whose lands and > livelihoods are threatened by the expansion of - well documented - > ecologically-disastrous Canadian mining. > In active support of Canadian capital (and foreign capital more generally) > in Honduras, the Canadian government has supported, through the Canadian > International Development Agency (CIDA), structural adjustment (now > described as Poverty Reduction Strategies). Structural adjustment is aimed > at the neoliberalization of the Honduran government and its public > policies. > Among other things, CIDA committed $1.5-million from 2004 to 2010 toward a > program at the Universidad Nacional de Honduras to assist in the > development > and implementation of the country's Poverty Reduction Strategy process. > The > Canadian government has also been pursuing a free trade agreement (FTA) > with > Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. > It should come as no surprise, then, that social movements opposed to > mining > investment and reactionary mining laws are a threat to well-established > Canadian interests in Honduras. President Zelaya was also not on the best > of > terms with the mining industry. In his inaugural address in January 2006 > he > declared a moratorium on the granting of new mining concessions. While by > no > means stopping existing exploration or halting operational mines, this > move > was nevertheless seen as a threat to the security and stability of mining > in > the country, and industry officials responded with lobbying and > advertising > campaigns to push their interests. > Zelaya's tenure also saw the adoption of a minimum wage increase, measures > to nationalize energy generation plants and the telephone system, and > Honduras's entrance into the Venezuelan-initiated Bolivarian Alternative > for > the Americas, a political and economic formation that seeks to counter > imperialist influence in the region. > Against this backdrop Zelaya, supported by trade unions and social > movements, called a vote for June 28 to determine if a majority of > Hondurans > wanted to have a referendum during the upcoming elections in November on > convening a constitutional assembly. If called, the constitutional > assembly > would seek to replace the current constitution, adopted in 1982 by a > brutal > American-backed military regime, with one more inclusive and democratic. > Such a constitution could very well further jeopardize mining interests in > the country. > But the vote - to decide whether or not to have a referendum - was > strongly > opposed by the anti-Zelaya-dominated Congress and Supreme Court and by the > military, all of whom claimed it's illegal. Their efforts to block the > vote > in the days leading up to it brought thousands of Hondurans onto the > streets, as the first concerns about a potential coup were raised. But > early > in the morning of June 28 the military made its move, violently detaining > Zelaya at his house and then deporting him to Costa Rica. Anti-Zelaya > President of the Congress (and fellow member of Zelaya's Liberal Party), > Roberto Michelletti, read a letter of resignation later in the day > allegedly > signed by the ousted President, but Zelaya denies signing the letter. The > military occupied the country, establishing checkpoints at the entrance of > towns, while the national telephone system, cell phone service and the > energy grid has been shut down in a number of areas. > The threat to the interests of the Canadian government and corporations > has > subsided, at least for the time being. > And so the Canadian government is much cagier around the situation in > Honduras than it is with respect to Iran. The Organization of American > States (OAS) did pass a resolution on Friday June, 26, after the first > rumblings of a coup were heard, which called for the maintenance of > democracy and the rule of law. Yet, at the same time, in the special > session > of the OAS Permanent Council on the situation in Honduras held that same > day > the Canadian representative remained silent. Foreign Affairs and > International Trade issued no press release on the 26th or the 27th > condemning the clear threat to Honduran democracy. > A press release was finally issued by Peter Kent, Minister of State for > the > Americas, very late in the evening of June 28. While Kent condemns the > coup > d'?tat, he "calls on all parties to show restraint and to seek a peaceful > resolution" to the crisis, as if all parties, including Zelaya and his > supporters, are responsible for the military-orchestrated coup or are > equally unrestrained in their actions. This position is echoed in the > Canadian representative's statement to the OAS Permanent Council following > the coup on the 28th. Canada has thus far failed, furthermore, to call for > the reinstatement of the Honduran President, placing it politically behind > the United States, which has called for Zelaya's return, in its response > to > the coup. > > > Non-Response to the Massacre in Peru > > > In Peru, meanwhile, Canadian companies have over $2.3-billion in > investments, ranking fourth among foreign investors in general but first > in > mining, according to Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In an effort > to strengthen the rights of Canadian capital in the Andean nation and lock > in its access to Peruvian resources, Canada signed a free trade agreement > with Peru late in 2008. > CIDA has also been busy at work in Peru, spending over $24-million between > 2002 and 2009 on public sector reform (aimed at "improving efficiency"), > developing new institutional and regulatory frameworks in the hydrocarbons > sector (promoting "international private sector investment"), and reform > in > the mineral sector. Export Development Canada (EDC) - a government credit > agency designed to finance Canadian foreign investment - recently posted a > permanent representative for the Andean Region in Lima. EDC President, > Eric > Seigel, proclaimed that "EDC intends to become a permanent member of the > Andean financial community, supporting growth for both Andean and Canadian > companies operating in the region." > And so Canada said nothing when Peruvian President, Alan Garc?a, sent in a > 600 strong police and military force - including armoured personnel > carriers > and helicopter gun-ships - to crush a blockade of a major highway by 5,000 > indigenous activists. The military and police assault led to the deaths of > fifty protesters and the disappearance of many - possibly hundreds - more, > according to indigenous organizations. Nine police officers were also > killed > during the assault when indigenous people fought back in self defense > against the massive government show of brutal force. > While Canada remained silent about the repression in Peru, it couldn't > contain itself when, a mere two weeks later, Stockwell Day, Minister of > International Trade, proudly announced that legislation to implement the > Canada-Peru FTA was passed by parliament. But it was precisely the > neoliberal and Free Trade policies of Garc?a that sparked the blockades in > the first place. Garc?a, who has a long history of violence and political > corruption that led to his exile in the 1990s, has moved to open up large > swathes of indigenous land in the Amazon to foreign resource companies, > sweetening the deal for Canadian and other foreign companies with low tax > and royalty rates and cheap government-subsidized electricity rates. > The result, predictably, has been a steady growth of Canadian and other > foreign resource firms in the Peruvian Amazon, and increasing > confrontations > between them and indigenous communities. Canada's FTA with Peru, along > with > the American FTA, will only intensify the conflicts surrounding resource > development and indigenous land. > > > If it's Good for Canadian Business... > > > It's no accident that the Canadian government quickly and sharply condemns > some instances of repression, such as that in Iran, while it ignores or > tepidly responds to others. If it's good for Canadian business, then it's > okay. This is imperialist Canada in the developing world: exploit people > and > their resources to make a buck, and if some repression is required along > the > way, well so be it. This isn't just an American act; it's a Canadian one > too, and it's becoming all too familiar. > It's also worth noting here that Canadian involvement in Honduras and Peru > (and many more countries besides) extends beyond investment interests and > financing neoliberal reform. Canada has also trained Honduran and Peruvian > military personnel through the Military Training Assistance Programme > (MTAP). The MTAP provides language, officer and "peace support" operations > training to roughly 1,300 military personnel from sixty-three different > developing countries a year. According to its Directorate, the MTAP serves > to "promote Canadian foreign and defence policy interests." It "uses the > mechanism of military training assistance to develop and enhance bilateral > and defence relationships with countries of strategic interest to Canada." > It happens to be the case that many of the participating countries are > ones > with which Canada has, or is hoping to develop, strong economic ties and > which have troubling human rights records, including Peru and Honduras. > The reality of Canadian involvement in the third world is an ugly one, and > deserves greater attention from the Canadian Left. The Honduran and > Peruvian > situations are not the exception to the rule of Canadian foreign policy. > They represent the normal practice of the Canadian government defending > Canadian business interests against the human rights of workers, poor > communities, and indigenous peoples . > > Todd Gordon is the author of Cops, Crime and Capitalism: The Law-and-Order > Agenda in Canada. He's currently writing a book on Canadian imperialism. > His > articles have appeared on Znet, The Bullet, Rabble and in New Socialist > magazine. He teaches political science at York University in Toronto, and > can be reached at tsgordon at yorku.ca. > > > > _____ > > Create a cool, new character for your Windows LiveT Messenger. Check > it out > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:23:44 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:23:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Honduran Junta Sacks UN, OAS Envoys; OAS Gives Ultimatum Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:06 AM Subject: [stopnato] Honduran Junta Sacks UN, OAS Envoys; OAS Gives Ultimatum http://news-en.trend.az/world/wnews/1496693.html Trend News Agency July 1, 2009 Honduras' ambassadors to UN, OAS sacked: Micheletti Honduras' post-coup leader Roberto Micheletti on Tuesday dismissed the country's ambassadors to the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of American States (OAS), Xinhua reported. The interim government decided to sack Jorge Artugo Reina, the ambassador to UN, and Carlos Sosa Coello to OAS, and they will be no longer entitled to make any statement on behalf of the new government, Micheletti told a press conference held in Tegucigalpa. Micheletti said he was considering two new nominations, who will "respect the true facts" and "will comply with the decision of the government." Reina and Coello, both appointed by the ousted president Manuel Zelaya, have strongly denounced the military coup that drove Zelaya from power Sunday. At a UN General Assembly meeting on Monday, Reina urged the world not to accept any "illegitimate government" that took Zelaya's place. ---------------------------------------------------------- http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/01/content_11633037.htm Xinhua News Agency July 1, 2009 OAS gives Honduran coup leaders three days to reinstate deposed president WASHINGTON: The Organization of American States (OAS) gave the coup leaders in Honduras three days to reinstate deposed president Manuel Zelaya, or the country will face suspension. "If within 72 hours the reinstatement doesn't happen, the (OAS)assembly ... will meet again to suspend Honduras," OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza told reporters Wednesday. OAS members held meetings in the Washington headquarters Tuesday and decided to take diplomatic and political steps necessary to restore democracy in Honduras, Insulza said. Zelaya, toppled and exiled by the military Sunday, gained wide international support. The UN General Assembly on Tuesday adopted a resolution condemning the military coup in Honduras and demand an immediate restoration of Zelaya's government. Zelaya said Tuesday that he will return to Honduras Thursday, flanked by the president of the UN General Assembly, the secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS) and presidents of Argentina and Ecuador. Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi said Zelaya would be arrested "as soon as he sets foot on Honduran soil" and he could face 20 years in prison. Rubi said Zelaya's arrest warrant include 18 separate crimes such as abuse of power and treason. "If Zelaya loves Honduras he should not come," said the coup-installed president Roberto Micheletti in a Tuesday interview with local radio station HRN. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls 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 Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:27:08 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:27:08 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Cynthia McKinney, Aid Workers kidnapped by Israeli Occupation Forces Message-ID: From: International Action Center Subject: Sign! Gaza - Cynthia McKinney, Aid Workers kidnapped by Israeli Occupation Forces To: action.news at organizerweb.com Received: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 3:57 PM About the IAC | IAC Books & Resources | Local Actions | Contact Us | Sign the Petition EMERGENCY: Israelis Attack Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Take Action Now - Sign the Online Petition Demand the Release of Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, all aid workers and supplies NOW! Last night, Israeli Occupation Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. The passengers and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel. The seizure of humanitarian supplies and abduction of human rights workers is an act of piracy, a crime under international law. When the boat was attacked, it was not in Israeli waters and was on a human rights mission to Gaza. Israel's deliberate and premeditated attack on an unarmed boat in international waters is a clear violation of international law. The U.S. government and corporate media has largely ignored or buried this story due to racism against Cynthia McKinney and the people of Palestine. It is up to us to get the word out. According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are "trapped in despair." Thousands of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel's December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel's disruption of medical supplies. This act of terrorism by the Israeli Occupation Forces against an unarmed vessel is a clear attempt to scare people away from showing solidarity with the people of Gaza. We must take action now! Here's how you can help: 1) Sign the Online Petition - http://www.iacenter.org/palestine/gazashippetition 2) Get the word out - forward this message to your email lists, post in on Facebook & Myspace, etc. 3) Take to the streets! Organize local emergency protests in solidarity with the people of Gaza and demanding the release of all those who were kidnapped by the Israeli Occupation Forces. In New York City, join us tomorrow, Wednesday July 1, from 4 - 6 pm at the Israeli Mission (43rd St. & 2nd Ave.) 3) Support Aid Caravans to Gaza! In addition to the current project of Free Gaza, another aid caravan, Viva Palestina, will be leaving the U.S. on July 4th headed by British MP George Galloway and Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic and including hundreds of people from the United States. 4) Call the media. The U.S. corporate media has largely ignored or buried this story due to racism against Cynthia McKinney and the people of Palestine. Please call the media - demand that they cover this criminal act by the Israeli Occupation Forces. Start with these numbers: The New York Times 212-556-5272; Los Angeles Times 800-252-9141; Boston Herald 617-426-3000; Chicago Tribune 800-874-2863; and please call your local newspaper, radio station, or television news program. Petition: Sign it online at http://www.iacenter.org/palestine/gazashippetition To: President President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Congressional leaders, U.N. General Assembly President d'Escoto-Brockmann, U.N. Secretary General Ban, members of the U.N. Security Council, U.N. member states, and the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet and Opposition leader of Israel cc: Major media representatives, International Red Cross RELEASE THE SPIRIT OF HUMANITY AND ALL ITS PASSENGERS IMMEDIATELY AND ALLOW ITS HUMANITARIAN MISSION TO GAZA TO PROCEED! END THE SIEGE OF GAZA NOW! I am outraged at the actions of the Israeli military in attacking and boarding the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congreswoman Cynthia McKinney, dragging passengers and crew forcibly toward Israel. I am further outraged that Israel has confiscated tons of medicine from the ship as well as toys and olive trees. I demand that the boat, passengers and crew be released immediately and allowed to proceed with its mission of bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. As former U.S. Congressperson and 2008 Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney said, "This is an outrageous violation of international law. Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza Strip. President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey." According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released on June 29, the Palestinians living in Gaza are "trapped in despair." Thousands of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel's December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel's disruption of medical supplies. "The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza, hope that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught of "Cast Lead". Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that they are not alone" said fellow passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland. Just before being kidnapped by Israel, Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage, stated that: "No one could possibly believe that our small boat constitutes any sort of threat to Israel. We carry medical and reconstruction supplies, and children's toys. Our passengers include a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our boat was searched and received a security clearance by Cypriot Port Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach Israeli waters." Arraf continued, "Israel's deliberate and premeditated attack on our unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand our immediate and unconditional release." I demand that the Obama Administration take immediate action to protest the violation of international law and obtain the release of the ship and those abducted, listed below, assure the access to Gaza of humanitarian aid and missions like that of the Spirit of Humanity and the upcoming humanitarian aid mission Viva Palestina headed by British MP George Galloway and Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic and including hundreds of people from the United States. The Viva Palestina mission is scheduled to leave New York City on July 4, bound for Gaza. I further demand the Obama Adminsitration take action to end immediately the brutal siege, blockade and occupation of Gaza. Release the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY and all of the following human rights workers and crew NOW: Khalad Abdelkader, Bahrain Khalad is an engineer representing the Islamic Charitable Association of Bahrain. Othman Abufalah, Jordan Othman is a world-renowned journalist with al-Jazeera TV. Khaled Al-Shenoo, Bahrain Khaled is a lecturer with the University of Bahrain. Mansour Al-Abi, Yemen Mansour is a cameraman with Al-Jazeera TV. Fatima Al-Attawi, Bahrain Fatima is a relief worker and community activist from Bahrain. Juhaina Alqaed, Bahrain Juhaina is a journalist & human rights activist. Huwaida Arraf, US Huwaida is the Chair of the Free Gaza Movement and delegation co-coordinator for this voyage. Ishmahil Blagrove, UK Ishmahil is a Jamaican-born journalist, documentary film maker and founder of the Rice & Peas film production company. His documentaries focus on international struggles for social justice. Kaltham Ghloom, Bahrain Kaltham is a community activist. Derek Graham, Ireland Derek Graham is an electrician, Free Gaza organizer, and first mate aboard the Spirit of Humanity. Alex Harrison, UK Alex is a solidarity worker from Britain. She is traveling to Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring. Denis Healey, UK Denis is Captain of the Spirit of Humanity. This will be his fifth voyage to Gaza. Fathi Jaouadi, UK Fathi is a British journalist, Free Gaza organizer, and delegation co-coordinator for this voyage. Mairead Maguire, Ireland Mairead is a Nobel laureate and renowned peace activist. Lubna Masarwa, Palestine/Israel Lubna is a Palestinian human rights activist and Free Gaza organizer. Theresa McDermott, Scotland Theresa is a solidarity worker from Scotland. She is traveling to Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring. Cynthia McKinney, US Cynthia McKinney is an outspoken advocate for human rights and social justice issues, as well as a=2 0former U.S. congressperson and presidential candidate. Adnan Mormesh, UK Adnan is a solidarity worker from Britain. He is traveling to Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring. Adam Qvist, Denmark Adam is a solidarity worker from Denmark. He is traveling to Gaza to do human rights monitoring. Adam Shapiro, US Adam is an American documentary film maker and human rights activist. Kathy Sheetz, US Kathy is a nurse and film maker, traveling to Gaza to do human rights monitoring. Sincerely, Sign the petition online at http://www.iacenter.org/palestine/gazashippetition -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ You are subscribed as annewolkow at yahoo.ca Anyone can subscribe. Send an email request to Action.News-subscribe at organizerweb.com To unsubscribe Action.News-unsubscribe at organizerweb.com Subscribing and unsubscribing can also be done on the Web at http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/action.news Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:39:35 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:39:35 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Honduras: Zelaya recounts coup Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:50 PM Subject: [stopnato] Honduras: Flashback From Cold War Era Of Putsches http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/01/content_11630389.htm Xinhua News Agency July 1, 2009 Feature: Tearful, ousted Honduran president speaks to UN, vows to return home Thursday By William M. Reilly UNITED NATIONS: Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya tearfully recounted to the UN General Assembly (GA) on Tuesday his pre-dawn gunpoint rousting and forced flight to Costa Rica then vowed to return to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on Thursday, escorted by two international diplomats and two Latin American presidents. Zelaya arrived in New York Tuesday morning from Nicaragua at the invitation of GA President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a former Nicaraguan foreign minister, just hours before his address to the 192-member body, said a spokesman for d'Escoto, Enrique Yeves. "Thursday I will be returning" to Tegucigalpo, capital of Honduras, Zelaya told reporters after the speech. "Miguel d'Escoto,the president of the GA, has said that he is going to travel with me to our capital. Today, Cristina Kirchner, president of Argentina, said she will accompany me on the aircraft. The secretary-general of the Organization of American States, Miguel Insulza, will be with me. President Rafael Correa of Ecuador will accompany me on the airplane. So, this is a struggle of al l of us." The exile "arrived this morning and went to the hotel to change clothes," said Yeves. "When the president heard he was going to Washington for the OAS meeting he was invited here." Zelaya left later in the day for Washington. The garrulous Zelaya, wearing an over-size dark and shining suit he adjusted as he spoke, sometimes leaning casually on the dark green podium, welcomed a resolution the GA had just passed which condemned the coup d'etat and demanded restoration of a constitutional government. He said it expressed the indignation of the people of Honduras. "This resolution is historic," he said. "It is significant and it will empower every last citizen of the world." Zelaya welcomed the support by regional groups from the Americas to Europe, which all condemned the military coup. He listed names of scores of head of states from Latin America and elsewhere and international figures who had telephoned him of their support. "There always are those who wish to protect the status quo," Zelaya said. "It is always difficult to bring about change. The United Nations is one such instrument to uphold democracy and freedom. I would like to applaud this organization. Thank you all." While "a number of charges" had been leveled against him, he pointed out: "I have not been put on trial. Nobody has told me what my crime is. No accusations have been brought to my attention by a judge." Zelaya recalled he was elected in 2005 to a four-year term beginning in 2006 and intends to finish his term. "I never thought I would have to hark back to the old days," he said, referring to the Cold War era when Latin America was rife with rebellion and putsch. Zelaya has been accused with attempting to engineer the possibility of another term, forbidden by the present Constitution, seeking out a vote that was to have occurred on Sunday, which the army balked at when asked to distribute ballot boxes. "I sought to launch a public survey," he said. His opponents alleged "this constituted a crime," Zelaya said. "The law is not binding. It's comparable to Gallup Polls, a polling entity. They are surveys that are used to take the temperature of the public." The poll never occurred. "I was awoken by shouts, hammering at door below, screams," he said, his voice becoming emotionally charged. "These are moments I do not wish to remember. It breaks my heart to see humanity slide backwards." As his eyes welled with tears, he recounted hearing rifle shots and attempting to telephone friends "to warn them of what was happening, and in particular a journalist who was in the area." He said at least eight heavy rifles were pointed at his chest by soldiers in full combat gear, "Drop that mobile phone, or we will shoot," the men said. "My mobile phone was ripped from my hand. 'If it is your order, shoot me,' I said. They grabbed my arms and said, 'we're taking you away.'" Zelaya said he was in an airplane 15 minutes later and in Costa Rica 45 minutes after that. "I was dumped at the airport still wearing my night clothes," he said. The ousted president, at a news conference, said: "I have always said anyone who is afraid should not become a politician." =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE How Many Triangles? 92.6% of Americans Fail this Question!. (1) New IQ Challenge. 92.6% of Americans get this question wrong!. Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other 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 Biz Resources Y! Small Business Articles, tools, forms, and more. Yahoo! Groups Small Business Group Own a business? Connect with others. Yahoo! Groups Join people over 40 who are finding ways to stay in shape.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:43:36 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:43:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Venezuela And Iran: Whither The Revolutions? Message-ID: <590E860027B94A18BBAA65DB4DF47106@TonyPC> http://ericwalberg.com July 1, 2009 Venezuela & Iran: Whither the revolutions? Eric Walberg June was a busy month for two of Washington?s real ?Axis of Evil?. Venezuela?s Chavez completed his nationalisation of oil and Iran?s Ahmedinejad stemmed a Western-backed colour revolution, leaving both bad boys in place, muses Eric Walberg What drives US foreign policy? Is it primarily the domestic economy, as it logically should be, or, as many argue, the powerful Israel lobby, or as other argue, the need to secure energy sources? Of course, the answer is all three, in varying degrees depending on the geopoltical importance of the country in question. And woe to any country that threatens any of the above. Russia is perhaps a special case, as US politics was dependent for so long on the anti-communist Cold War that ideologues found it impossible to dispense with this useful bugaboo even after the collapse of Communism. But it was not only Sovietologists like Condoleezza Rice that perversely prospered from this obsession, but the US domestic economy itself, which was transformed into what is best described as the military-industrial complex (MIC). It would take very little to placate today?s Russia -- pull in NATO?s horns and stop pandering to the Russophobes in Eastern Europe -- but that would hurt the MIC and would hamper the US plans for empire and oil. So it remains an enemy of choice, though not part of the Axis of Evil. This crude characterisation by Bush/Cheney lumped North Korea, Iraq and Iran together as the worst of the worst. With the US invasion of Iraq, the current score is one down, two to go. But North Korea is a red herring. It is merely a very useful Cold War foil, beloved of the MIC, justifying its many useless, lethal weapons programmes. A popular whipping boy, a bit of innocent ideological entertainment. Without Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and ignoring Korea, we are left with Iran. But Bush could easily have added Venezuela to his list, as it is these two countries that pose the greatest real threat to the US empire. Both have charismatic leaders who not openly denounce US and Israeli empire but do something about it. And both have large, nationalised oil sectors. Chavez?s successful defiance of the US has directly inspired Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to elect socialist leaders and given Cuba a new lease on life. Ahmedinejad has defied the many Israel-imposed bans on supporting the Palestinian resistance and even publically questioned the legitimacy of Israel itself. These bold and principled men are thereby pariahs, albeit useful ones for the MIC, along with their Cold War ghost Kim Jong Il. That is the catch. While the empire officially frets, the US military-based economy thrives on its official enemies. It would collapse without them. This is the supreme irony to be noted by observers of what can only be described as the bizarre and contradictory world of US foreign policy. Venezuela and Iran are indeed threats to the US empire. President Hugo Chavez not only thoroughly nationalised the oil sector after the crippling strike led by oil executives in 2002-03, but proceeded to use the revenues to transform his country, putting it on the albeit bumpy road to socialism -- subsidised basic goods, mass literacy and free health care. He has even been providing poor Americans with discount gas. ?The oil belongs to all Venezuelans,? Chavez emphasised to reporters last month in Argentina, after the government announced it was taking over oil service companies along with US-owned gas compression units, adding to the heavy oil projects Venezuela took over in 2007. Natural gas looks like it will be next. The point of this is to ?regain full petroleum sovereignty,? that is, full political sovereignty. No more attempted colour revolutions for Venezuela. Which brings us to Iran. When Mahmoud Ahmedinejad took office in 2005, with the backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he tried to wrest control of key ministries, especially oil and the government?s National Iranian Oil Company (NOIC), from the Rafsanjani/ Mousavi capitalist elite, replacing officials with his own choices -- primarily from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It was not till 2007 that he was able to install his candidate for oil minister, also head of the NIOC, Gholamhossein Nozari. Like Chavez, he proceeded to use state oil revenues to consolidate his base among the poor, something which the so-called reformists under his predecessor Mohammed Khatami or earlier nonreformists under Rafsanjani/ Mousavi were not noted for. While Hashemi Rafsanjani was parliamentary speaker with Mirhossein Mousavi his prime minister in the 1980s, younger Iranians, including Ahmedinejad, were fighting in the IRGC (many martyring themselves) in the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Rafsanjani became Iran ?s first president in 1989 and added to his family?s vast fortune, much of it connected with oil, during his privatisation programme when he opened the oil industry to private Iranian contractors. This continued under the ?reformist? Khatami, who took over the presidency in 1997. Ahmedinejad?s ascendancy in 2005 on a platform to fight and eliminate the ?oil mafia? confirmed the IRGC as the underlying force confronting Rafsanjani and the reformists. Throughout the 2009 electoral campaign, Ahmedinejad attacked his opponents as leaders of the corrupt elite, now trying to claw back control. The elite had had enough, and the election ruckus last month was their last stand against the clearly populist, essentially leftist Ahmedinejad (in the West labelled a ?hardliner?). Some pundits call Ahmedinejad?s decisive win a coup d?etat by the IRGC, but the recent demonstrations in Teheran look eerily similar to those in Caracas in 2002-03 when Venezuelan society was paralysed by its economic elite, mobilising its own Gucci crowd, strongly backed by the US, protesting a populist president?s determination to use oil revenues to help the common people. Chavez risked his life in the process, but his careful planning foiled the plotters and he survived to carry out his agenda. Whether Ahmedinejad can do the same, and to what extent the IRGC is a vehicle for promoting social welfare is a drama which is only now unfolding. The Western media has uniformly denounced the Iranian elections, with no real evidence, as fraudulent, much as it denounced the many elections that Chavez had to undergo in the face of US-inspired strikes and even a military coup, before the opposition and its US backers relented. The US has generously financed Iranian expatriate dissidents and has penetrated Iranian society with the clear intent to overthrow Ahmedinejad, exactly like they did in Venezuela, though it is rarely mentioned in the Western press. The US policy of using soft power to undermine unfriendly governments is well known to both Latin American socialists and Iranian clerics. Khamenei insisted in his sermon last week that Iran would not tolerate the green ?colour revolution? underway. No wonder that Ahmedinejad, Chavez and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are such good friends. They have much in common. In similar electoral contests in Latin America between nationalist-populists and pro-Western liberals, the populists have consistently won in fair elections, so the results in Iran should come as no surprise. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have consistently polled 60 per cent or more of the vote in free elections. The people in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires. The parallel between Iran and Venezuela coincides with a flowering of relations between Iran and Latin American countries as it seeks a way out of the US-imposed blockade. Iran will help develop Bolivia?s oil and gas sector, has opened a trade office in Ecuador, and entered into agreements with Nicaragua, Cuba, Paraguay, Brazil and, of course, Venezuela. Council of Hemispheric Affairs analyst Braden Webb reports that ?Venezuela and Iran are now gingerly engaged in an ambitious joint project, putting on-line Veniran, a production plant that assembles 5,000 tractors a year, and plans to start producing two Iranian-designed automobiles to provide regional consumers with the ?first anti-imperialist cars?.? Perhaps what upsets the US most about Ahmedinejad is his continued attempts to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse in the Iranian Free Trade Zone on the island of Kish, an idea which Chavez heartily approves of. The bourse is meant to attract international oil trading to the Middle East and to help move international trade away from the dollar as the oil currency, currently accounting for 65 per cent of trade. Over half of Iran?s oil business is now conducted in euros, despite the EU?s support for the US boycott. An indication of just how evil the US considers this move is the fact that his Evil Axis colleague Saddam Hussein was executed not long after switching his accounts to euros. Note that Kim Jong Il remains comfortably in place despite his own penchant for euros. Both the Venezuelan and Iranian thorns have incensed Washington for daring to use their oil revenues to redistribute wealth in their societies and then organise resistance to US hegemony in their respective neighbourhoods. They are examples which continue to inspire and which pose a threat to US imperial policy, both international and domestic. For what better way to solve all the ills of US society -- lack of secure health care, poverty, violence -- than dismantling the MIC and initiating a foreign policy based on peace rather than war? The big difference between these two thorns, of course, is Islam and Iran?s interference with the US-Israeli agenda. Now that the oil companies have resigned themselves to Venezuela?s new assertiveness, they and their government spokesmen are not so concerned with trying to overthrow Chavez. However, the extra weight of the Israel lobby in Washington makes sure that another Iranian revolution remains at the top of the list of Obama?s things-to-do. Another curious difference is that US attempts to turn Venezuela?s neighbours against it backfired, as they came to Chavez?s defence and followed his example, while similar efforts to conspire against Iran have had considerable success. The schism in both Venezuelan and Iranian societies is very real and is being taken advantage of by the US and friends, who are doing their ?best? to engineer a collapse of the populist governments to make room for more US-friendly colour revolutions. But there is too much Yankee baggage for this to work anymore. It is time for a colour revolution at home. *** Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls 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 Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From tboyle at rosehill.net Wed Jul 1 23:33:38 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:33:38 -0700 Subject: [A-List] No Recovery in Sight? Good! We don't need no steenkin recovery In-Reply-To: References: <1261446425.943821246397758580.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <1501890803.1120551246482088647.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: At 02:43 PM 7/1/2009, Suzanne de Kuyper wrote: > The silence on the trajedy of milions with no futures unfolding is > perhaps one of the reasons it is happening? I think this is an > example of a deep cultural leitmotif of United States > identity. More real than real. > >There is no such thing, but an American will give his life to prove >it is true? OK, a lot of businesses have failed, and as far as I'm concerned, GOOD RIDDANCE. Americans tried to do this after 911 -- Stop driving so much, stop flying so much, take time off work, build trust and community locally, and decentralize the excessive financial and managerial control away from NY-WashDC, since it is obviously too exposed and concentrated. But NY-WashDC had other ideas and practically imposed martial law, started wars and persecutions just to keep us working in the same, fortune-500 type of industries. Workin and grinding the planet into rubble grit and dust, all for nothing. Well GOOD RIDDANCE to the economic activities that have collapsed, frankly, I hope MORE of them collapse. The excess housing they forced us to build, the fuel-wasting, badly made cars, the financial "industry", etc. Who needs it? Even the lowbrow, mass of humanity didn't want it, and ultimately wouldn't pay for it. OK, so, as a result, a huge number of people are sitting around on park benches. So what? That's good. That's where they belong. They were in a business making junk, that people didn't want, and finally, wouldn't pay for. Exactly like the Soviet Union. It was "producer sovereignty" for awhile, under the rightwing Bush dictatorship-- the fascism. Too bad about the secondary effects on the rest of public and private sector. The layoffs and shrinkage everywhere. But somehow, I sense. this is connected with the dynamiting of auto, banking and "finance" sic, airlines, and other useless sectors. Lets say, the cuts were 10% of the economy. OK, so 10% of the paychecks stop. So, eveyrbody else slows down by 10%. Thats ok too. That works for me. NY-WashDC has been beating us to death with the money printing engines. We've had the throttle stuck at high speed, and it's good to slow down. Things will sort themselves out. I don't see it as a crisis. I see the slowdown as good and rational. And I know, people are going crazy, with worry and fear, I know it seems very painful but most of the pain is mental pain. At the end of the day, that's something only the individuals involved can fix. It is a LOT easier to make mental adjustments than build 100 million cars a year just so that everybody can have a new car every three years, for psychic gratification. And our job, improving economic justice is as urgent as ever. The recessions don't fool me for one second, any more than the booms, Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3324 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090701/0e6f0a57/attachment.txt From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 01:34:09 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:34:09 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Panama Deception In-Reply-To: <1246447927.6291.17.camel@phollings-desktop> References: <25C07004ABCD481C94C8BC1305030E44@TonyPC> <1246447927.6291.17.camel@phollings-desktop> Message-ID: Note that the Invasion of Panama - of which most Americans and Canadians know little or nothing - occurred just six months after Tiananmen Sq....to which our glorious 'free press' has built a veritable mountain of monuments. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Hollings To: The A-List Cc: America in Crisis Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] The Panama Deception I lived in Panama for about a year ten years ago. Some of the people there were very resentful of the US invasion. Panama City saw most of the action. Whole city blocks were turned to rubble. Since the surrounding areas were filled with multi-story brick tenement buildings occupied, generally on the ground floor, by small businesses, and, upstairs, by poor families, I assumed that was the nature of those destroyed. My understanding of the death toll from locals is that it likely was around 3 to 4,000. Incid entally, their bodies were bulldozed by the US Army into mass graves. All this to arrest one man, a former CIA asset? Peter Hollings On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 03:22 -0400, Tony B. wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony B." Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:22 AM Subject: The Panama Deception > For those of you who have never seen this.....time you did. > > In memorium of the >4000 victims of the US invasion of Panama, Dec. > 1989... > > T. > > > : >> >> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/654.html >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2873 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090702/f1f576a3/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jul 2 03:42:54 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:42:54 +0900 Subject: [A-List] California's Empty Wallet Message-ID: <20090702184254.32fc773c.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Turning Crisis into Opportunity by Ellen Brown webofdebt.com (June 30 2009) "Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed and our credit is dried up". -- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (June 02 2009) California State Controller John Chiang has warned that without a balanced budget in place by July 1, he will begin using IOUs to pay most of the state's bills. On June 25, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected a plan that would save the state $3 billion by cutting school spending, saying he would rather see the state issue IOUs than delay the funding problem with a piecemeal approach. The state's total budget deficit is $24.3 billion. Meanwhile, other funding doors are slamming closed. The Obama administration has said it will not use federal stimulus money to prop up California; and Fitch Ratings, a bond rating agency, announced that it was downgrading the credit rating of the state, which already has the lowest in the nation. Once downgraded, California's rating is likely to fall below the minimum level legally required for most money market funds, forcing the funds to sell their California bonds. The result could be a cost of millions of additional dollars in higher interest rates for the state. What to do? Perhaps California could take a lesson from the island state of Guernsey, located in the English Channel off the French Coast, which faced similar funding problems in the 19th century. Toby Birch, an asset manager who hails from there, tells the story in Gold News {1}: "As weary troops returned from a protracted foreign war [the Napoleonic Wars ending in 1815], they encountered a land racked with debt, high prices and a crumbling infrastructure, whose flood defenses were about to be overwhelmed ... While 1815 brought an end to the conflict on the battlefront ... severe austerity ensued on the home front. The application of the Gold Standard meant that loans issued over many years were then recalled to balance the ratio of money to precious metals. This led to economic gridlock as labor and materials were abundant, but much-needed projects could not be funded for want of cash. "This led to a period of so-called 'poverty amongst plenty' ... The situation seemed insoluble; existing borrowing costs were consuming eighty percent of the island's revenues. What was already an unsustainable debt burden would need to be doubled to fund the two most essential infrastructure projects. This was when a committee of States members was formed ... The committee realized that if the Guernsey States issued their own notes to fund the project, rather than borrowing from an English bank, there would be no interest to pay. This would lead to substantial savings. Because as anyone with a mortgage should understand, the debtor ends up paying at least double the amount borrowed over the long-term." To prevent an unwanted inflation of the money supply, the Guernsey States issued the notes with a date due, and on that date the bearer was paid in gold. The money came from rents on the finished infrastructure, supplemented with a tax on liquor. Birch goes on: "The end result of the Guernsey Experiment was spectacular - new roads, sea defenses and public buildings were established, fostering widespread trade and prosperity. Full employment was achieved, no deficits resulted and prices were stable, all without a penny paid in interest. What started as a trial led to a string of construction projects, which still stand and function to this day. Money was used in its purest form: as a convenient mechanism for oiling the wheels of commerce and development." Like Guernsey, California is facing "poverty amidst plenty". The state has the eighth largest economy in the world, larger than Russia's, Brazil's, Canada's and India's. It has the resources, labor, and technical expertise to make just about anything its citizens put their minds to. The only thing lacking is the money to do it. But money is merely a medium of exchange, a means of getting suppliers, laborers and customers together so that they can produce and exchange products. As has been explained elsewhere, today money is simply credit. All of our money except coins is created by banks when they make loans. The current crisis stems from a credit freeze that began on Wall Street in the fall of 2007, when banks were required to revalue their assets due to a change in accounting rules, from "mark to fantasy" to "mark to market". Banks that were previously considered in good shape, with plenty of capital for making loans, suddenly came up short. Lending fell off, and so did the available money supply. Just understanding the problem is enough to see the solution. If a private bank can create credit on its books, so can the mighty state of California. It merely needs to form its own bank. Under the "fractional reserve" lending system, banks are allowed to extend credit - or create money as loans - in a sum equal to many times their deposit base. Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this: "[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people - or the government - deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up." {2} The ten percent reserve requirement is now largely obsolete, in part because banks have figured out how to get around it. What chiefly limits bank lending today is the eight percent capital requirement {3} imposed by the Bank for International Settlements, the head of the private global central banking system in Basel, Switzerland. With an eight percent capital requirement, a state with its own bank could fan its revenues into 12.5 times their face value in loans (100 / 8 = 12.5). And since the state would actually own the bank, it would not have to worry about shareholders or profits. It could lend to creditworthy borrowers at very low interest, perhaps limited only to a service charge covering its costs; and on loans the bank made to the state, the state would ultimately get the interest, making the loans essentially interest-free. Precedent for this approach is to be found in North Dakota, one of only three states currently able to meet its budget. North Dakota is not only solvent but now boasts the largest surplus it has ever had. The Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned bank in the nation, was established by the legislature in 1919 to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its deposits. The bank's surplus profits are returned to the state's coffers. The bank operates as a bankers' bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It makes 1% loans to startup farms, has a thriving student loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from public institutions. Looking at California's budget figures, projected state revenues for 2009 are $128 billion {4}. At a reserve requirement of ten percent, if California deposited all $128 billion in its own state-owned bank, it could issue $1.28 trillion in loans, far more than it would need to cover its $23 billion budget shortfall. To lend itself the money to cover the shortfall, it would need only $2.3 billion in deposits and about $2 billion in capital (assuming an eight percent capital requirement). What Sheldon Emry wrote of nations is equally true of states: "It is as ridiculous for a nation to say to its citizens, 'You must consume less because we are short of money', as it would be for an airline to say, 'Our planes are flying, but we cannot take you because we are short of tickets'". As a card-carrying member of the banking elite, California could create all the credit it needs to fund its operations, with money to spare. Links: {1}: http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/guersney_experiment_credit_creation_gold_standard_051920083 {2} http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/ECONOMICSPOLITICS/FEDERAL%20RESERVE/Jerry%20VoorhisFedReserve.html {3} http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php {4} http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html _____ Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt (2007), 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 (1998), Nature's Pharmacy (1998), co-authored with Dr Lynne Walker, and The Key to Ultimate Health (2000), co-authored with Dr Richard Hansen. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com. (c) Copyright 2007 Ellen Brown. All Rights Reserved. http://www./articles/california_wallet.php http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 12:24:55 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:24:55 -0400 Subject: [A-List] "Impunity No More" Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:09 AM Subject: [Fwd: Re: "Impunity No More" - Louis Moreno-Ocampo-July 1, 2009] > > David, Acting on your suggestion, this was sent to the NY Times and the > IHT. I doubt they will publish. But we will see. let me know if you see it > appear. > > Chris > > The Editor, > > > In his article entitled "Impunity No More" in defense of the ICC, Mr. > Moreno-Ocampo states that the international community watched as Rwanda > and other tragedies happened instead of acting to prevent genocide and war > crimes and this must never happen again. Of course, he fails to mention > that they did not watch the wars of aggression and all the war crimes that > flowed from them committed by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or > Indonesia or Nicaragua, nor did they watch closely the US-Nato aggression > and war crimes committed against Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It is now an > uncontested fact, on the evidence at the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal, that > the US was directly involved in the Rwanda War on the side of the RPF and > that US forces took part directly in that war throughout, and, therefore, > as the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros-Boutros > Ghali, stated in 1998 and 2002, "The Americans are 100% responsible for > what happened in Rwanda." But for Mr. Ocampo it is just the victims of US > and Nato aggression who are the criminals. Yes, Mr, Ocampo, we see what > you mean by "impunity no more". Except for the US and its allies, of > course. > > Christopher Black, Barrister > International Criminal Lawyer > Lead Counsel, International War Crimes Tribunal For Rwanda > Toronto, Canada > bar at idirect.com > 1-416-453-0537 > > > > > > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 12:37:44 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:37:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Honduran Junta Tightens Siege Restrictions Message-ID: <1F446F5CA94F461EBBACAEF4E8CF1C72@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:00 AM Subject: [stopnato] Honduran Junta Tightens Siege Restrictions http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=47569&cid=219&p=02.07.2009 Voice of Russia July 2, 2009 Honduran parliament votes to suspend certain constitutional guarantees The Honduran parliament has voted to suspend certain constitutional guarantees, including the rights to assembly, circulation and the right to not be detained for more than 24 hours without appearing before a judge. The police have the right to detain people without a court ruling.... The parliament enacted the suspensions at the behest of Roberto Micheletti, who it declared president last Sunday after deposing Roberto Zelaya for alleged crimes against the constitution. Late Tuesday the UN General Assembly issued a resolution condemning the coup d?etat in Honduras. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other 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 2New Members Visit Your Group Share Photos Put your favorite photos and more online. Yahoo! Groups Mental Health Zone Mental Health Learn More Yahoo! Groups Mom Power Kids, family & home Join the discussion. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 13:11:52 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:11:52 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The war against your health Message-ID: > > It's not enough that they pollute with > real toxins including dangerous > substances like mercury... > > It's not enough that they push > food that's not only non-nutritious > but also injurious to health... > > It's not enough they they approve > drugs that not only don't work, but > also create dangerous, side effects... > > They (the medical-industrial-food > complex) also wants to take away > your ability to opt out of their > madness. > > Details (from the Real Food Channel): > > http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/24.html > > - 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/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0rAxMDKxsLA== > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 13:30:35 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:30:35 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Election fraud Message-ID: <7F1ACE61ED4745D3ACB2D8E30656209A@TonyPC> ....an 'old' one now...but still a 'goodie'....How Clint Curtis, elite softward programmer working for Yang Enterprises was asked by Congressman (and Yang insider) Tom Feeney to fix the 2000 Presidential election.... T. > This must be some kind of a joke. > > The US news media and its controllers has its > knickers in a knot over election fraud in > Iran. > > I don't know what's going on in in Iran, but > I know election fraud it rampant in the US. > > But the US news media isn't interested in > telling THAT story. > > Details: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html > > > > > - 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/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0LJys7BxMHA== > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 13:33:16 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:33:16 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Real-world economics review / post-autistic economics review - CRASH -- a free ebook Message-ID: <4A4D0B7C.8040207@gmail.com> Hot off the...umn... the... well anyway: From real-world economics review a free ebook crash -- Why it happened and what to do about it Download the book http://www.paecon.net/CRASH-1.pdf Contents http://www.paecon.net/CRASH-contents.pdf Introduction http://www.paecon.net/CRASH-Introduction.pdf Contents Introduction Part 1: Why it happened 1. High finance ? a game of risk: Subprimes, ninja loans, derivatives and other financial fantasies Fr?d?ric Lordon 2. The global economy bubble equilibrium Ian Fletcher 3. The housing bubble and the financial crisis Dean Baker 4. Global finance in crisis Jacques Sapir 5. End-of-the-world trade Donald MacKenzie 6. What?s in a number? The importance of LIBOR Donald MacKenzie Part 2: What to do about it 7. How to deal with the US financial crisis Claude Hillinger 8. The crrisis and what to do about it George Soros 9. Progressive conditions for a bailout Dean Baker 10. Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives James K. Galbraith 11. The triumph ? and costs ? of greed (Part I) Clive Dilnot 12. Reforming the world's international money Paul Davidson From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jul 2 16:38:54 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:38:54 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Guernsey Experiment Message-ID: <20090703073854.053b02e0.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> A long-forgotten alternative to unfettered credit creation. by Toby Birch goldnews.bullionvault.com (May 19 2008) As weary troops returned from a protracted foreign war, they encountered a land racked with debt, high prices and a crumbling infrastructure, whose flood defenses were about to be overwhelmed. Not some nightmarish news story from New Orleans in the years ahead, but the stark reality faced by the island of Guernsey, just off the French coast in the English Channel, after the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815. To fund Britain's fight against the French, credit creation had become rife in the early nineteenth century. Once Bonaparte was beaten, deficits and inflation in Britain were likewise kept in check by containing the money supply, through the introduction of the Gold Standard. In theory, the holder of a paper note could demand an equivalent sum of Gold from their bank so money could only be created in proportion to the available bullion. The small annual increase in precious metal supplies helped restrict the growth of money, and price stability became the rule rather than the exception for the balance of the nineteenth century. While 1815 brought an end to the conflict on the battlefront, however, severe austerity ensued on the home front. The application of the Gold Standard meant that loans issued over many years were then recalled to balance the ratio of money to precious metals. This led to economic gridlock as labor and materials were abundant, but much-needed projects could not be funded for want of cash. This led to a period of so-called "poverty amongst plenty". And the independent States of Guernsey (or rather, their government), endured similar problems to England, since the Pound Sterling was also the currency of the Bailiwick. The disintegrating sea defenses were symptomatic of Guernsey's financial woes as the island faced being swamped with hefty debts and interest payments. The situation seemed insoluble; existing borrowing costs were consuming eighty per cent of the island?s revenues. What was already an unsustainable debt burden would need to be doubled to fund the two most essential infrastructure projects. This was when a committee of States members was formed by the then-Bailiff, Daniel DeLisle Brock, in what proved to be the defining moment for the island?s finances. He is still commemorated on Guernsey One Pound notes, as is the Town Market which was one of the first beneficiaries of the Experiment. Like all great ideas, the principles were straightforward. The committee realized that if the Guernsey States issued their own notes to fund the project, rather than borrowing from an English bank, there would be no interest to pay. This would lead to substantial savings. Because as anyone with a mortgage should understand, the debtor ends up paying at least double the amount borrowed over the long-term. While some of the committee were merchants, they were not necessarily financial wizards. They did, however, appreciate the risk of previous schemes involving government debt which led to concurrent crises a century earlier - the Mississippi Bubble in France and then the South Sea Bubble in London. The irresponsible creation of credit is a dangerous game that temporarily benefits the current generation but steals from the next; a lesson that has been forgotten yet again in modernity. To bring balance to the equation, therefore, the people of Guernsey had to find a way to neutralize such deficits while neither contracting nor expanding the money supply. On a purely practical level, this was achieved by adding a sell-by date to the notes in issue, rather like a maturity date on a bond. For example, on a note issued 21 November 1827, it "Promises to pay the bearer One Pound on the first of October 1830". This begs the question as to how the future obligation was to be honored, but again, a simple mechanism was implemented whereby rent from the resulting infrastructure and tax revenues on liquor was set aside into a sinking fund to pay off the interest-free borrowing. The end result of the Guernsey Experiment was spectacular - new roads, sea defenses and public buildings were established, fostering widespread trade and prosperity. Full employment was achieved, no deficits resulted and prices were stable, all without a penny paid in interest. What started as a trial led to a string of construction projects, which still stand and function to this day. Money was used in its purest form: as a convenient mechanism for oiling the wheels of commerce and development. One would have thought that everyone would be happy with such a success story but this was not the case. When you open a closed shop to competition, those with vested interests become highly protective. In those days it was the private banks who were threatened, because they were cut out of the equation. No loans meant no interest and no profit margin. So they may well have been the source of a mysterious complaint made to England?s Privy Counsel which put a ceiling on the issuance of Guernsey notes for the next century. Why is this story relevant today? Whenever stimulus packages, tax rebates or bank bail-outs are paraded as solutions to the credit crisis they are actually part and parcel of its very cause. It all stems from the quick-fix approach of producing money out of thin air and leaving it for the next generation to pay-off. This has been on-going in the United States since the Vietnam War, when the last vestige of monetary restraint was cast aside; in abandoning Gold as a check on the money supply, the US freed the world from financial discipline. The dissolution of the Dollar has been evident ever since. Credit creation is possible, and even beneficial today, but only if the money is later retired in a measured manner. This requires restraint and stewardship; qualities that are all-too-rare for those with misplaced incentives. Like swords to ploughshares, the banking industry does not have to be eradicated in the process of reform. Banks still have a role to play in providing liquidity by matching investors with borrowers. But they can no longer be trusted with unfettered credit creation. The Guernsey Experiment - as it was termed in a booklet compiled in 1960 by Olive and Jan Grubiak for Omni Publications, USA - shows that simple ideas can work wonders. They simply require an unselfish philosophy and a desire to do the right thing for future generations, much like America?s Founding Fathers. One of their number, Thomas Jefferson - who was US President during the Napoleonic era - had uncanny foresight when he said "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." As the blame game begins once more today, the very people who fostered conditions for the credit crisis will no doubt be implementing knee-jerk legislation. This is not the time for new laws, but for new leaders to match the calibre and insight of our ancestors. _____ Toby Birch is managing director of Birch Assets Limited in Guernsey. Educated at the City University in London and a Fellow of the Securities and Investment Institute, he also holds the Securities Institute Islamic Finance Qualification and is author of The Final Crash: Addictive Debt & the Deformation of the World Economy (Pendula Press, 2007), written under the pen-name Hugo Bouleau. Please Note: All articles published here are to inform your thinking, not lead it. Only you can decide the best place for your money, and any decision you make will put your money at risk. Information or data included here may have already been overtaken by events - and must be verified elsewhere - should you choose to act on it. Please review our Terms & Conditions for accessing Gold News. http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/guersney_experiment_credit_creation_gold_standard_051920083 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 21:29:37 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:29:37 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Fw: California's Empty Wallet Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Tony B." Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:48 PM Subject: Re: California's Empty Wallet > > > "Money is simply credit" What a stupid statement. No, it is not. Money is > a commodity like any other (basic marxist analysis) which is why the > exchanges rates fluctuate because, like any other commodity, the value of > money varies depending on demand and supply. > > Money is not credit. Credit is a means of lending money to those who don't > have it. It is due to such ignorance that the US will collapse. > > What this writer is suggesting-creation of California's own money is in > reality the succession of California from the US. This may well happen. If > it saves California it will destroy the US. > > Further the situation she describes in a small island off the coast of > Britain is not parallel at all. The problem in California is that the rich > don't want to pay taxes. The tax base that relies on the working poor and > middle class has been gutted due to the depression. That is not going to > change. Beggar thy neighbour has resulted in the collapse of the > government in California. It will soon happen in the rest of the US. > > Chris > > > > > >> >>> >>> Turning Crisis into Opportunity >>> >>> by Ellen Brown >>> >>> webofdebt.com (June 30 2009) >>> >>> >>> "Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed and our credit is dried up". >>> -- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (June 02 2009) >>> >>> >>> California State Controller John Chiang has warned that without a >>> balanced >>> budget in place by July 1, he will begin using IOUs to pay most of the >>> state's bills. On June 25, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger >>> rejected a plan that would save the state $3 billion by cutting school >>> spending, saying he would rather see the state issue IOUs than delay the >>> funding problem with a piecemeal approach. The state's total budget >>> deficit is $24.3 billion. >>> >>> Meanwhile, other funding doors are slamming closed. The Obama >>> administration has said it will not use federal stimulus money to prop >>> up >>> California; and Fitch Ratings, a bond rating agency, announced that it >>> was >>> downgrading the credit rating of the state, which already has the lowest >>> in the nation. Once downgraded, California's rating is likely to fall >>> below the minimum level legally required for most money market funds, >>> forcing the funds to sell their California bonds. The result could be a >>> cost of millions of additional dollars in higher interest rates for the >>> state. >>> >>> What to do? Perhaps California could take a lesson from the island state >>> of Guernsey, located in the English Channel off the French Coast, which >>> faced similar funding problems in the 19th century. Toby Birch, an asset >>> manager who hails from there, tells the story in Gold News {1}: >>> >>> "As weary troops returned from a protracted foreign war [the Napoleonic >>> Wars ending in 1815], they encountered a land racked with debt, high >>> prices and a crumbling infrastructure, whose flood defenses were about >>> to >>> be overwhelmed ... While 1815 brought an end to the conflict on the >>> battlefront ... severe austerity ensued on the home front. The >>> application >>> of the Gold Standard meant that loans issued over many years were then >>> recalled to balance the ratio of money to precious metals. This led to >>> economic gridlock as labor and materials were abundant, but much-needed >>> projects could not be funded for want of cash. >>> >>> "This led to a period of so-called 'poverty amongst plenty' ... The >>> situation seemed insoluble; existing borrowing costs were consuming >>> eighty >>> percent of the island's revenues. What was already an unsustainable debt >>> burden would need to be doubled to fund the two most essential >>> infrastructure projects. This was when a committee of States members was >>> formed ... The committee realized that if the Guernsey States issued >>> their >>> own notes to fund the project, rather than borrowing from an English >>> bank, >>> there would be no interest to pay. This would lead to substantial >>> savings. >>> Because as anyone with a mortgage should understand, the debtor ends up >>> paying at least double the amount borrowed over the long-term." >>> >>> To prevent an unwanted inflation of the money supply, the Guernsey >>> States >>> issued the notes with a date due, and on that date the bearer was paid >>> in >>> gold. The money came from rents on the finished infrastructure, >>> supplemented with a tax on liquor. Birch goes on: >>> >>> "The end result of the Guernsey Experiment was spectacular - new roads, >>> sea defenses and public buildings were established, fostering widespread >>> trade and prosperity. Full employment was achieved, no deficits resulted >>> and prices were stable, all without a penny paid in interest. What >>> started >>> as a trial led to a string of construction projects, which still stand >>> and >>> function to this day. Money was used in its purest form: as a convenient >>> mechanism for oiling the wheels of commerce and development." >>> >>> Like Guernsey, California is facing "poverty amidst plenty". The state >>> has >>> the eighth largest economy in the world, larger than Russia's, Brazil's, >>> Canada's and India's. It has the resources, labor, and technical >>> expertise >>> to make just about anything its citizens put their minds to. The only >>> thing lacking is the money to do it. But money is merely a medium of >>> exchange, a means of getting suppliers, laborers and customers together >>> so >>> that they can produce and exchange products. >>> >>> As has been explained elsewhere, today money is simply credit. All of >>> our >>> money except coins is created by banks when they make loans. The current >>> crisis stems from a credit freeze that began on Wall Street in the fall >>> of >>> 2007, when banks were required to revalue their assets due to a change >>> in >>> accounting rules, from "mark to fantasy" to "mark to market". Banks that >>> were previously considered in good shape, with plenty of capital for >>> making loans, suddenly came up short. Lending fell off, and so did the >>> available money supply. >>> >>> Just understanding the problem is enough to see the solution. If a >>> private >>> bank can create credit on its books, so can the mighty state of >>> California. It merely needs to form its own bank. Under the "fractional >>> reserve" lending system, banks are allowed to extend credit - or create >>> money as loans - in a sum equal to many times their deposit base. >>> Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this: >>> >>> "[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people - or the government - deposit in a >>> bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of >>> a >>> pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that >>> $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a >>> little >>> more in reserve to back it up." {2} >>> >>> The ten percent reserve requirement is now largely obsolete, in part >>> because banks have figured out how to get around it. What chiefly limits >>> bank lending today is the eight percent capital requirement {3} imposed >>> by >>> the Bank for International Settlements, the head of the private global >>> central banking system in Basel, Switzerland. With an eight percent >>> capital requirement, a state with its own bank could fan its revenues >>> into >>> 12.5 times their face value in loans (100 / 8 = 12.5). And since the >>> state >>> would actually own the bank, it would not have to worry about >>> shareholders >>> or profits. It could lend to creditworthy borrowers at very low >>> interest, >>> perhaps limited only to a service charge covering its costs; and on >>> loans >>> the bank made to the state, the state would ultimately get the interest, >>> making the loans essentially interest-free. >>> >>> Precedent for this approach is to be found in North Dakota, one of only >>> three states currently able to meet its budget. North Dakota is not only >>> solvent but now boasts the largest surplus it has ever had. The Bank of >>> North Dakota, the only state-owned bank in the nation, was established >>> by >>> the legislature in 1919 to free farmers and small businessmen from the >>> clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the state >>> must >>> deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its >>> deposits. >>> The bank's surplus profits are returned to the state's coffers. >>> >>> The bank operates as a bankers' bank, partnering with private banks to >>> loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small >>> businesses. It makes 1% loans to startup farms, has a thriving student >>> loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from public institutions. >>> >>> Looking at California's budget figures, projected state revenues for >>> 2009 >>> are $128 billion {4}. At a reserve requirement of ten percent, if >>> California deposited all $128 billion in its own state-owned bank, it >>> could issue $1.28 trillion in loans, far more than it would need to >>> cover >>> its $23 billion budget shortfall. To lend itself the money to cover the >>> shortfall, it would need only $2.3 billion in deposits and about $2 >>> billion in capital (assuming an eight percent capital requirement). What >>> Sheldon Emry wrote of nations is equally true of states: >>> >>> "It is as ridiculous for a nation to say to its citizens, 'You must >>> consume less because we are short of money', as it would be for an >>> airline >>> to say, 'Our planes are flying, but we cannot take you because we are >>> short of tickets'". >>> >>> As a card-carrying member of the banking elite, California could create >>> all the credit it needs to fund its operations, with money to spare. >>> >>> Links: >>> >>> {1}: >>> http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/guersney_experiment_credit_creation_gold_standard_051920083 >>> >>> {2} >>> http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/ECONOMICSPOLITICS/FEDERAL%20RESERVE/Jerry%20VoorhisFedReserve.html >>> >>> {3} http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php >>> >>> {4} http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing >>> civil >>> litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt (2007), 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 >>> (1998), Nature's Pharmacy (1998), co-authored with Dr Lynne Walker, and >>> The Key to Ultimate Health (2000), co-authored with Dr Richard Hansen. >>> Her >>> websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com. (c) Copyright >>> 2007 >>> Ellen Brown. All Rights Reserved. >>> >>> http://www./articles/california_wallet.php >>> >>> >>> http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com >>> http://www.ashisuto.co.jp >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 22:00:23 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:00:23 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Thermodynamic Economy In-Reply-To: <20090701110635.d54ab137.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <20090701110635.d54ab137.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <413CB5D93D4C465C8D12950018F38180@TonyPC> ..In fact the ability to concentrate solar energy towards the powering of a national electrical power grid is doable (if likely to be obstructed to the hilt by the present entrenched economic interests), and has already been extensively mapped out by both American and European scientists...Still, as regard Greer's general theme, I take the point... Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Totten" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:06 PM Subject: [A-List] The Thermodynamic Economy > > by John Michael Greer > > The Archdruid Report (June 24 2009) > > Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial > society > > > The last twelve months or so of economic chaos has taught those of us in > the peak oil community some useful lessons. Perhaps the most valuable of > these lessons is extent to which conventional economic ideas have failed > to make sense of the way that the twilight of fossil fuels is working out > in practice. > > Not too long ago, it bears remembering, most people on all sides of the > peak oil debate - believers, skeptics, and everyone in between - assumed > that the law of supply and demand would necessarily define the world's > response to the end of cheap oil. As existing reserves depleted, nearly > everyone agreed, the intersection of decreasing supply and rising demand > would drive prices up. Common or garden variety cornucopians insisted that > this would lead to more drilling, more secondary extraction, and other > measures that would produce more oil and bring the price back down; > techno-cornucopians insisted that this would lead to the discovery of new > energy resources, which would produce more energy and bring the price back > down; green cornucopians insisted that this would finally make renewable > energy cost-effective, and at least keep the price from rising further; > and pessimists argued that none of these things would happen, and the > price of oil would rise steadily on up into the stratosphere. > > None of them were right. Instead, as the world crossed the bumpy plateau > surrounding its 2005 production peak, oil prices moved up and down in > waves of increasing violence, culminating in a drastic price spike driven > in part by speculative greed, and followed by an equally drastic crash > driven in part by speculative panic. The shockwaves from that spike and > crash were not solely responsible for the economic power dive that > followed - most of a decade of hopelessly misguided fiscal policy, > criminal negligence in the banking and business sectors, and a popular > psychology of entitlement extreme even by the standards of past > speculative disasters, all had their own parts to play - but even a > financial world less shaky than the house of cards that imploded last year > would have had a hard time dealing with the body blow inflicted on it by > the oil spike and its aftermath. > > The rubble from that collapse is still bouncing, even as politicians and > pundits insist that the worst is over and a recovery will follow shortly. > (This is not exactly comforting; the politicians and pundits of an earlier > day said exactly the same thing during the "sucker's rally" of 1930, when > stock markets and other economic indicators regained much of the ground > lost in 1929 before plunging catastrophically in the years that followed.) > One thing that's already become clear amid the dust and rubble, though, is > that models of the future that assumed a steady upward rise in prices > don't apply to the much more complex reality of spike and crash that is > shaping our energy future. > > Somewhere in the midwest, perhaps, where a half-completed ethanol plant > whose parent company has gone bankrupt is being sold for scrap, and oil > leases bought for high prices last June sit unused because the current > price of oil won't justify their development, the dream of a smooth > market-driven transition to a different energy system is rolling across a > field with the tumbleweeds. Meanwhile the price of oil is continuing its > stubborn refusal to obey the laws of supply and demand. Demand has > dropped, as consumers and businesses caught in the economic downdraft cut > costs, and stockpiles are ample, but the price of oil has doubled since > its post-spike low, following a slow, ragged, but unmistakable upward > trend. > > What makes this all the more fascinating is that oil has shown the same > habit of standing economic rules on their heads before. Back in the 1970s, > one of the great challenges facing the economics profession was the riddle > of stagflation. According to one of the most widely accepted rules of > macroeconomics, inflation and deflation - which can be defined precisely > as expansion and contraction, respectively, of the money supply - form two > ends of a continuum of economic behavior. Rising prices, rising wages, and > increased economic activity leading to overproduction are all signs of > inflation, while flat or declining prices and wages and diminished > economic activity leading to recession are all signs of deflation. In the > wake of the Seventies oil shocks, though, the industrial world found > itself in the theoretically impossible situation of an inflationary > recession: prices were rising, but wages struggled to keep pace, and > economic activity declined sharply. > > That was stagflation. For more than a decade, economists tried to make > sense of the riddle it posed, before finally giving up with a certain > amount of relief in the Reagan years, and deciding that it was an anomaly > that had gone away and so didn't matter any more. To many of the > economists who tried to make sense of stagflation, it was clear enough > that the oil crises had had something to do with it, but this in itself > posed its own awkward questions. The economics of commodity prices had > been studied exhaustively since the time of Adam Smith, but the behavior > of the world economy in the face of rising oil prices violated everything > economists thought they knew. > > Only a few economists at the time, and even fewer since then, realized > that these perplexities pointed to weaknesses in the most basic > assumptions of economics itself. E F Schumacher was one of these. He > pointed out that for a modern industrial society, energy resources are not > simply one set of commodities among many others. They are the > ur-commodities, the fundamental resources that make economic activity > possible at all, and the rules that govern the behavior of other > commodities cannot be applied to energy resources in a simplistic fashion. > Commented Schumacher in Small is Beautiful (1973): > > "I have already alluded to the energy problem in some of the other > chapters. It is impossible to get away from it. It is impossible to > overemphasize its centrality [...] As long as there is enough primary > energy - at tolerable prices - there is no reason to believe that > bottlenecks in any other primary materials cannot be either broken or > circumvented. On the other hand, a shortage of primary energy would mean > that the demand for most other primary products would be so curtailed that > a question of shortage with regard to them would be unlikely to > arise." (page 123) > > If Schumacher is right - and events certainly seem to be pointing that way > - at least one of the basic flaws of contemporary economic thought comes > into sight. The attempt to make sense of energy resources as ordinary > commodities misses the crucial point that energy follows laws of its > own that are distinct from the rules governing economic > activities. Trying to predict the economics of energy without paying > attention to the laws governing energy on its own terms - the laws of > thermodynamics - yields high-grade nonsense. > > Look at the way that rules governing the availability of other resources > go haywire when applied to energy. When North America's deposits of > high-grade iron ore were exhausted, for example, the iron industry > switched over to progressively lower grades of ore; these contain less > iron per ton than the high-grade ores but are much more abundant, and > improved technology for extracting the iron makes up the difference. In > theory, at least, the supply of iron ore can never run out, since industry > can simply keep on retooling to use ever more abundant supplies of ever > lower-grade ores, right down to iron salts dissolved in the sea. > > Try to do the same thing with energy, by contrast, and two awkward facts > emerge. First, the only reason the iron industry can use progressively > lower grades of ore is by using increasingly large amounts of energy per > ton of iron produced, and the same rule applies across the board; the > lower the concentration of the resource in its natural form, the more > energy has to be used to extract it and turn it into useful forms. Second, > when you try to apply this principle to energy, you very quickly reach the > point at which the energy needed to extract and process the resource is > greater than the energy you get out the other end. Once this point > arrives, the resource is no longer useful in energy terms; you might as > well try to support yourself by buying $1 bills for $2 each. > > This difficulty can be generalized: where energy is concerned, > concentration counts for much more than quantity. That's a function of the > second law of thermodynamics: energy in a whole system always moves from > high concentrations to low. Within the system, you can get energy moving > against the flow of entropy, but only at the cost of reducing a larger > amount or higher concentration of energy to waste heat. That's how fossil > fuels came into existence in the first place; the vast majority of > hundreds of millions of years of energy from sunlight falling on > prehistoric plants were degraded to waste heat and radiated into outer > space, and in the process a very small fraction of that sunlight was > concentrated in the form of carbon compounds and buried underground. > > The same rule of concentration explains a great many things that current > economic ideas miss. Consider the claims made every few years that we can > power the world off some relatively low-grade energy source. Latent heat > stored in the waters of the world's oceans, for example, could > theoretically provide enough power for the world's economy to keep it > running for some preposterously long period of time, and any number of > inventions have tried to tap that energy. They've all failed, because it > takes more energy to concentrate that heat to a useful temperature than > you get back from the process. The same is true a fortiriori of "zero > point energy", the energy potential that according to current physics > exists in the fabric of spacetime itself. It doesn't matter in the least > that there's an infinite amount of it, or something close to that; it's at > the lowest possible level of concentration, and thus utterly useless as a > power source for human society. > > The same limits apply, if less strictly, to many of today's renewable > energy sources. Solar energy, for example, is very abundant, but it's also > very diffuse. As with any other energy resource, you can concentrate some > of it, but only by letting a larger quantity of it turn into waste heat. > It's quite common to hear the claim that because solar energy's so > abundant, our society can easily power itself by the sun, but this shows a > failure to grasp thermodynamic reality. Today's industrial societies > require very highly concentrated energy sources; our transportation > networks, our power grids, and most of the other ways we use energy, all > work by degrading very high concentrations of energy all at once into > waste heat, and without those highly concentrated resources, those things > won't work at all. > > Now of course there are plenty of productive things that can be done with > more diffuse energy sources. Once again, solar energy provides a good > example. Passive solar heating for buildings is a mature and highly > successful technology; so is solar hot water heating; so are a good many > other specialized uses, such as using solar ovens for cooking, water > purification, and the like. All these can contribute mightily to the > satisfaction of human needs and wants, but they presuppose very different > social and economic arrangements than the centralized energy economy of > power plants, refineries, pipelines and power grids we have today. As > concentrated energy from fossil fuels becomes scarce, in other words, and > more diffuse energy from the sun and other renewable sources has to take > up the slack, many of the ground rules shaping today's economic decisions > will no longer apply. > > What this implies, in turn, is that economics does not exist in a vacuum. > The ground rules just mentioned took shape, after all, in an age where > economic processes were dominated - one might even say "distorted" - by > our species' temporary access to extravagant supplies of cheap and highly > concentrated fossil fuel energy. The new ground rules of economics that > will take shape in the twilight of the age of cheap energy, in turn, will > be shaped by the fact that energy is once again scarce, costly, and > diffuse. More generally, it's necessary once again to pay attention to the > myriad ways that human economic systems are rooted in the wider processes > of the natural world - a theme that will be central to next week's post. > > _____ > > ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality > movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, > including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He > lives in Ashland, Oregon. > > http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/thermodynamic-economy.html > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 2 23:52:29 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:52:29 -0400 Subject: [A-List] U.S. seeks 'deal' between Honduran coup leaders and deposed president Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "grok" To: "undisclosed-recipients:" Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:04 AM Subject: U.S.IMPERIALISM: U.S. seeks deal between Honduran coup leaders anddeposed president > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Already honduran president Mel Zel has been backpedaling more and more > quickly on his stance against the (botched) U.S.-backed coup -- and is > essentially handing the yanqui imperialists more-or-less the outcome > they wanted all along. The first big mistake here was allowing the OAS > to hijack the struggle against the coup: letting them set the agenda > - -- the OAS being the imperialist-controlled bourgeois organization > that Cuba, Venezuela and the other ALBA members have stated from the > beginning must give way to a truly independent regional body. Like > ALBA. So how was the OAS allowed to seize the opportunity to sabotage > any real struggle against imperialism here..? > > And nota bene: in fact, *this coup was not a coup against the OAS* -- > it was a coup against *ALBA* and against latin american socialism. And > it is *ALBA* which should be leading the charge here instead -- most > especially as this weakened bourgeois president is being forced before > our eyes to abandon whatever real alliance he has with the other ALBA > states. Aren't the bourgeoisie so smart... But none of this would be > happening, either, in a state where the masses are organized and ARMED > - -- and well aware of the issues surrounding an international socialist > alliance between themselves and other organized, ARMED working- > classes, which can lend each other moral, political and material > support. And you can't have that level of awareness and organization > without Party and Program -- and leadership. And just being a 'lider' > (in the vulgar bourgeois sense) doesn't necessarily make you a leader. > Or one who demonstrates leadership. And in this particular situation, > leadership requires leading a principled fight against imperial > aggression, in all its shape-shifting forms. And a principled fight > just might involve confrontation: something which liberals and the > liberal-Left are wholly and completely incompetent to deal with. > > > - -- grok. > > > > > > US SEEKS DEAL BETWEEN HONDURAN COUP LEADERS AND DEPOSED PRESIDENT: > > > > > > > > > - -- > Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! > > Build the North America-wide General Strike. > TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. > TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. > ALL power to the councils and communes. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpMsE8ACgkQB9bXLLhitTNSMgCfVfyt0dmeRoAWxRF+CTXPof2S > QWgAn2UgB4n9n3p8Dx0DoTemumczffR/ > =N/ke > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jul 3 03:36:32 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:36:32 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Federal Reserve Message-ID: <20090703183632.9be4b9a5.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Jerry Voorhis {1} The Constitution of the United States says: "Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof". Congress does no such thing, which is the heart of our trouble. Private banks coin our money and regulate its value. In doing so they take from the government and people of the United States a large chunk of their sovereignty, a large chunk of the taxing power, and the key to a prosperous economy without inflation. For example, in testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives in 1935, Marriner Eccles, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board itself, said: "In purchasing offerings of Government bonds, the banking system as a whole creates new money, or bank deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered - and you have to consider the banking system as a whole as a unit - the banks credit the deposit account of the Treasury with a billion dollars. They debit their Government bond account a billion dollars; or they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars." Mr Eccles' statement is exactly as true today as when he made it. Here is how it works: The private banking system of our country creates our money in the form of demand deposits on the banks' books. The reason it is able to do this is because no bank is required to have in its vault anything like the amount of money which its depositors think they have in the banks. Banks are only required by the Federal Reserve System, which the banks are sure they own, to have in their vaults anywhere from $1 to $1.50 for every $10 of demand deposits on their books. Thus for every $1 or $1.50 which people - or the government - deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up. This is, of course, the "fractional reserve system" of banking. It is more or less controlled by the Federal Reserve System, whose only stock is held by the private banks of the Federal Reserve System. Not a single share of such stock is held by the government or people of the United States, although if "national sovereignty" means anything at all, these banks of issue should be the property of the nation. But what actually happens when our government engages in deficit financing? The obvious way the government can get more buying power into the people's hands is by itself putting more money into the stream of commerce than it takes out in taxes. The tragedy of the situation is that, up to date, the only way our government has enabled itself to spend more money than it takes in has been by forcing this sovereign nation to borrow its own credit from private sources. This has been true, despite the fact that if deficit financing accomplishes its purpose at all it will increase production and trade, enhance tax revenues, and broaden the base of government credit. To the extent that government bonds are sold for cash to individuals or to institutional purchasers other than banks the government is taking out of circulation approximately as many dollars as it will put back in when it spends the money. To accomplish its purpose, deficit financing must result in the creation of new money, and the use of it to increase mass buying power. Only if this happens will there be any stimulation of idle plants to go back into production, or more employment. Under these circumstances what ought to happen is that the credit of this great nation should be drawn upon directly by the government - not that it should go more deeply into debt. For the credit of this or any nation is squarely based upon and derived from the production of wealth by the nation plus the power of the government to tax. A nation like the United States thus possesses an almost unlimited amount of credit. Otherwise it could not possibly have persuaded investors to buy $480 billion of government securities. By whatever percentage it can be anticipated that production and hence potential tax revenues will increase as a result of deficit spending, by that same amount the credit of the nation and its government will be increased. This same percentage of the volume of money previously in circulation should appear on the books of the Treasury as a credit entry to be drawn upon just like tax revenues. To do that would be nothing more than rational and proper bookkeeping. It would also be morally right bookkeeping. And it would make some sense of Mr Nixon's "full employment budget" idea. But this is not what happens at all. Instead the sovereign government of the United States goes hat in hand to the private banking system and asks it to create the new money that the economy needs. The government gives - the word is used advisedly - it gives to the banking system, including the Federal Reserve banks, government bonds, the debt of all the people. Interest-bearing bonds, that is, bonds bearing as high an interest rate under today's regime as the banks decide to demand. Else they won't buy the bonds. The banks "buy" the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books - nothing more. It is fountain-pen money and considerably more inflationary than would be the same amount of dollar bills created by the government. The deposits the banks create with which to own the people's debt are backed by nothing except the bonds themselves! In other words, they are backed by the credit of the American people. What the government has "borrowed" from the banks, what the people must for years pay interest on, is nothing more nor less than the credit of the nation, which obviously the nation possessed in the first place or the bonds themselves would be no good! At long last, a few years ago the Federal Reserve made tacit acknowledgment of these facts. As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the US Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation's money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit - which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do. But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people's money. When the commercial banks create money, as they do when they acquire government bonds, they levy a tax on every person in the United States. This is so because every new dollar that is created makes every dollar previously in existence worth somewhat less than it was worth before. This is the very heart of inflation. It is also taxation without representation with a vengeance. Until this system is changed, our debt will continue to skyrocket without limit and the fixing of debt limits by the Congress will continue to be an exercise in utter futility. What ought to be done? Banks should lend existing money. But, as the Constitution clearly requires, the money (or credit) of the nation should never be created by any private agency, but by an agency of the nation itself. It is the duty of Congress to provide for this by a carefully drawn statute. The stock in Federal Reserve Banks should be purchased by the government from their present private bank owners. The Federal Reserve should then become our national bank of issue. It should create reserve Bank Credit as it does now. But that credit should be credited to the United States Treasury, not charged against it and the people as debt. As much such new credit should be created each year as is needed to keep our economy running at or near capacity - and no more than that. A stable price level could result. Then and only then can we expect to overcome recessions, to put our people to work, and do this without the danger of inflation and the ever-increasing debt which are inescapable under the present monetary system. - Jerry Voorhis, The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon (1973) How to Nationalize Credit Congress [could] provide for governmental purchase of the capital stock of the twelve central Federal Reserve Banks from the member banks which now own it. This would cost $144,000,000 in round figures, and would correct the present anomalous situation of a privately owned bank of issue. The Federal Reserve Banks could then create money in the form of "Federal Reserve Bank credit" entries on their books just as they do now. A "National Credit Account" (in contrast to present national debt) could be established on the central banks' books in favor of the United States Treasury. To such an account would be credited each year such amounts of newly created "Reserve Bank credit" as would provide the increased purchasing power needed to maintain economic balance and a stable price level. The Treasury would draw checks against their account and pay them out to those to whom the government owed money, thus getting it into the purchasing power stream. In this way the whole nation would derive the benefit from the creation of the additional supply of money which its own growth had made necessary. No interest bearing debt would be incurred, but only a bookkeeping transaction between two public agencies. Should inflation threaten so that it was desirable to reduce the volume of money in circulation, the process could be reversed and the Treasury could transfer a portion of its tax revenues to the central banks for cancellation and retirement of the requisite amount of money to restore stability. - Jerry Voorhis, Beyond Victory (1944) Link {1}: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Voorhis http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/ECONOMICSPOLITICS/FEDERAL%20RESERVE/Jerry%20VoorhisFedReserve.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Fri Jul 3 18:46:21 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:46:21 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Cuban Five - Checks and Balances? Message-ID: What Happened to Checks and Balances? Arnold August | June 16th 2009 On June 15, 2009 the US Supreme Court announced its decision to reject the request for a revision of the Cuban Five case. This demand for a review was carried out by millions of people from all walks of life around the world, a record number of "Friends of the Court" petitions and thousands of personalities and elected officials from every continent. All of these pleas also came from within the USA itself. The US brags about its political systems as being based on the separation of powers between the Executive (President and Vice-President), the Legislature and the Judiciary and a resulting built-in checks and balances system. This is supposedly a superior form of democracy based on checks and balances to avoid abuse of power by one or the other of the three branches forming the US government. In the US Constitution Article II Section 2 states that the US president has "the power to grant reprieves and pardons." Every indication is that President Obama, far from using his constitutional powers to free the Cuban Five, made it clear to the Supreme Court judges that they should rule against revision. This has obviously been a political case right from day one. It is even further revealed by the Supreme Court's decision and the shameless refusal of the judges to publicly explain to the world the basis of their ruling. Of course the judges are not obliged to divulge it according to the American legal system. However, in a case such as this one in which the whole world and many governments are watching, a public explanation was necessary. We are perhaps witnessing one of the greatest ironies in the current international political scene. The Cuban Five are cruelly and politically persecuted for their peaceful anti-terrorist motivations and activities. The reason? They are acting on behalf of and supporting the Cuban government. One of the main charges that Washington levies against Cuba is lack of democracy, that it is does not, amongst other characteristics exhibit a political system similar to the American one which would include checks and balances. The Cuban system is in fact one unified revolutionary peoples' political power, from the top down and from the bottom up including the judiciary, each enjoying its own respective fields of competence. The relationship and inter-action of all the different Cuban state levels between themselves including the judiciary and all of these institutions in turn with the citizens, is a feature of the Cuban type of democracy. There is no need to get into a debate as to whether the Cuban system is more democratic than the American model. However, if one takes into account this latest Supreme Court episode of US democracy in action on the one hand and my direct experience and study of the Cuban political system on the other hand, Cuba has no "democracy" lessons to take at all from the USA. Obama must change his position and use the checks and balances powers vested in him through the US Constitution to free the Cuban Five now. If ever an institution in the USA needs a check and a balance, it is the June 15 2009 Supreme Court decision. Obama must also take into account the offer by President Ra?l Castro to exchange the 200 prisoners in Cuba and all their families for the Cuban Five. Governments in such countries as mine, Canada, should not be allowed to open their mouth about human rights violations in other countries without throwing in their face the latest human rights violation just south of the border in the USA. *Arnold August is an author/journalist/lecturer specializing on Cuban democracy, a member of the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five and the Comit? Fabio Di Celmo pour les 5 of the Table de concertation de solidarit? Qu?bec-Cuba. On June 15, 2009 the US Supreme Court announced its decision to reject the request for a revision of the Cuban Five case. This demand for a review was carried out by millions of people from all walks of life around the world, a record number of Friends of the Court? petitions and thousands of personalities and elected officials from every continent. All of these pleas also came from within the USA itself. The US brags about its political systems as being based on the separation of powers between the Executive (President and Vice-President), the Legislature and the Judiciary and a resulting built-in checks and balances system. This is supposedly a superior form of democracy based on checks and balances to avoid abuse of power by one or the other of the three branches forming the US government. In the US Constitution Article II Section 2 states that the US president has ?the power to grant reprieves and pardons.? Every indication is that President Obama, far from using his constitutional powers to free the Cuban Five, made it clear to the Supreme Court judges that they should rule against revision. This has obviously been a political case right from day one. It is even further revealed by the Supreme Court?s decision and the shameless refusal of the judges to publicly explain to the world the basis of their ruling. Of course the judges are not obliged to divulge it according to the American legal system. However, in a case such as this one in which the whole world and many governments are watching, a public explanation was necessary. We are perhaps witnessing one of the greatest ironies in the current international political scene. The Cuban Five are cruelly and politically persecuted for their peaceful anti-terrorist motivations and activities. The reason? They are acting on behalf of and supporting the Cuban government. One of the main charges that Washington levies against Cuba is lack of democracy, that it is does not, amongst other characteristics exhibit a political system similar to the American one which would include checks and balances. The Cuban system is in fact one unified revolutionary peoples? political power, from the top down and from the bottom up including the judiciary, each enjoying its own respective fields of competence. The relationship and inter-action of all the different Cuban state levels between themselves including the judiciary and all of these institutions in turn with the citizens, is a feature of the Cuban type of democracy. There is no need to get into a debate as to whether the Cuban system is more democratic than the American model. However, if one takes into account this latest Supreme Court episode of US democracy in action on the one hand and my direct experience and study of the Cuban political system on the other hand, Cuba has no ?democracy? lessons to take at all from the USA. Obama must change his position and use the checks and balances powers vested in him through the US Constitution to free the Cuban Five now. If ever an institution in the USA needs a check and a balance, it is the June 15 2009 Supreme Court decision. Obama must also take into account the offer by President Ra?l Castro to exchange the 200 prisoners in Cuba and all their families for the Cuban Five. Governments in such countries as mine, Canada, should not be allowed to open their mouth about human rights violations in other countries without throwing in their face the latest human rights violation just south of the border in the USA. *Arnold August is an author/journalist/lecturer specializing on Cuban democracy, a member of the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five and the Comit? Fabio Di Celmo pour les 5 of the Table de concertation de solidarit? Qu?bec-Cuba. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Fri Jul 3 19:48:46 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:48:46 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Blood Flows in the Amazon Message-ID: Peru: Blood Flows in the Amazon James Petras | June 12th 2009 In early June, Peruvian President Alan Garc?a, an ally of US President Barack Obama, ordered armored personnel carriers, helicopter gun-ships and hundreds of heavily armed troops to assault and disperse a peaceful, legal protest organized by members of Peru's Amazonian indigenous communities protesting the entry of foreign multinational mining companies on their traditional homelands. Dozens of Indians were killed or are missing, scores have been injured and arrested and a number of Peruvian police, held hostage by the indigenous protestors were killed in the assault. President Garc?a declared martial law in the region in order to enforce his unilateral and unconstitutional fiat granting of mining exploitation rights to foreign companies, which infringed on the integrity of traditional Amazonian indigenous communal lands. Alan Garc?a is no stranger to government-sponsored massacres. In June 1986, he ordered the military to bomb and shell prisons in the capital holding many hundreds of political prisoners protesting prison conditions - resulting in over 400 known victims. Later obscure mass graves revealed dozens more. This notorious massacre took place while Garc?a was hosting a gathering of the so-called 'Socialist' International in Lima. His political party, APRA (American Popular Revolutionary Alliance) a member of the 'International', was embarrassed by the public display of its 'national-socialist' proclivities, before hundreds of European Social Democrat functionaries. Charged with misappropriation of government funds and leaving office with an inflation rate of almost 8,000% in 1990, he agreed to support Presidential candidate Alberto Fujimori in exchange for amnesty. When Fujimori imposed a dictatorship in 1992, Garc?a went into self-imposed exile in Colombia and later, France. He returned in 2001 when the statute of limitations on his corruption charges had expired and Fujimori was forced to resign amidst charges of running death squads and spying on his critics. Garc?a won the 2006 Presidential elections in a run-off against the pro-Indian nationalist candidate and former Army officer, Ollanta Humala, thanks to financial and media backing by Lima's rightwing, ethnic European oligarchs and US overseas 'AID' agencies. Back in power, Garc?a left no doubt about his political and economic agenda. In October 2007 he announced his strategy of placing foreign multi-national mining companies at the center of his economic 'development' program, while justifying the brutal displacement of small producers from communal lands and indigenous villages in the name of 'modernization'. Garc?a pushed through congressional legislation in line with the US-promoted 'Free Trade Agreement of the Americas' or ALCA. Peru was one of only three Latin American nations to support the US proposal. He opened Peru to the unprecedented plunder of its resources, labor, land and markets by the multinationals. In late 2007, Garc?a began to award huge tracts of traditional indigenous lands in the Amazon region for exploitation by foreign mining and energy multinationals. This was in violation of a 1969 International Labor Organization-brokered agreement obligating the Peruvian government to consult and negotiate with the indigenous inhabitants over exploitation of their lands and rivers. Under his 'open door' policy, the mining sector of the economy expanded rapidly and made huge profits from the record-high world commodity prices and the growing Asian (Chinese) demand for raw materials. The multinational corporations were attracted by Peru's low corporate taxes and royalty payments and virtually free access to water and cheap government-subsidized electricity rates. The enforcement of environmental regulations was suspended in these ecologically fragile regions, leading to wide-spread contamination of the rivers, ground water, air and soil in the surrounding indigenous communities. Poisons from mining operations led to massive fish kills and rendered the water unfit for drinking. The operations decimated the tropical forests, undermining the livelihood of tens of thousands of villagers engaged in traditional artisan work and subsistence forest gathering and agricultural activities. The profits of the mining bonanza go primarily to the overseas companies. The Garc?a regime distributes state revenues to his supporters among the financial and real estate speculators, luxury goods importers and political cronies in Lima's enclosed upscale, heavily guarded neighborhoods and exclusive country-clubs. As the profit margins of the multinationals reached an incredible 50% and government revenues exceeded $1 billion US dollars, the indigenous communities lacked paved roads, safe water, basic health services and schools. Worse still, they experienced a rapid deterioration of their everyday lives as the influx of mining capital led to increased prices for basic food and medicine. Even the World Bank in its Annual Report for 2008 and the editors of the Financial Times of London urged the Garc?a regime to address the growing discontent and crisis among the indigenous communities. Delegations from the indigenous communities had traveled to Lima to try to establish a dialogue with the President in order to address the degradation of their lands and communities. The delegates were met with closed doors. Garc?a maintained that 'progress and modernity come from the big investments by the multinationals.,(rather than) the poor peasants who haven't a centavo to invest.' He interpreted the appeals for peaceful dialogue as a sign of weakness among the indigenous inhabitants of the Amazon and increased his grants of exploitation concessions to foreign MNCs even deeper into the Amazon. He cut off virtually all possibility for dialogue and compromise with the Indian communities. The Amazonian Indian communities responded by forming the Inter-Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP). They held public protests for over 7 weeks culminating in the blocking of two transnational highways. This enraged Garc?a, who referred to the protestors as 'savages and barbarians' and sent police and military units to suppress the mass action. What Garc?a failed to consider was the fact that a significant proportion of indigenous men in these villages had served as rmy conscripts, who fought in the 1995 war against Ecuador while others had been trained in local self-defense community organizations. These combat veterans were not intimidated by state terror and their resistance to the initial police attacks resulted in both police and Indian casualties. Garc?a then declared 'war on the savages' sending a heavy military force with helicopters and armored troops with orders to 'shoot to kill'. AIDESEP activists report over one hundred deaths among the indigenous protestors and their families: Indians were murdered in the streets, in their homes and workplaces. The remains of many victims are believed to have been dumped in the ravines and rivers. Conclusion The Obama regime has predictably not issued a single word of concern or protest in the face of one of the worst massacres of Peruvian civilians in this decade - perpetrated by one of America's closest remaining allies in Latin America. Garc?a, taking his talking points from the US Ambassador, accused Venezuela and Bolivia of having instigated the Indian 'uprising', quoting a letter of support from Bolivia's President Evo Morales sent to an intercontinental conference of Indian communities held in Lima in May as 'proof'. Martial law was declared and the entire Amazon region of Peru is being militarized. Meetings are banned and family members are forbidden from searching for their missing relatives. Throughout Latin America, all the major Indian organizations have expressed their solidarity with the Peruvian indigenous movements. Within Peru, mass social movements, trade unions and human rights groups have organized a general strike on June 11. Fearing the spread of mass protests, El Commercio, the conservative Lima daily, cautioned Garc?a to adopt some conciliatory measures to avoid a generalized urban uprising. A one-day truce was declared on June 10, but the Indian organizations refused to end their blockade of the highways unless the Garc?a Government rescinds its illegal land grant decrees. In the meantime, a strange silence hangs over the White House. Our usually garrulous President Obama, so adept at reciting platitudes about diversity and tolerance and praising peace and justice, cannot find a single phrase in his prepared script condemning the massacre of scores of indigenous inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon. When egregious violations of human rights are committed in Latin America by a US backed client-President following Washington's formula of 'free trade', deregulation of environmental protections and hostility toward anti-imperialist countries (Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), Obama favors complicity over condemnation. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jul 3 20:49:32 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:49:32 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Central banks rewarded for failure with new powers Message-ID: <20090704114932.4e2f167f.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Richard A Werner Special to The Daily Yomiuri (July 03 2009) As Obama's campaign promise of finally introducing universal provision of basic health care in the United States (and thereby finally catching up with 19th-century Germany) is being quietly shelved, the transfer of power to the banking community is coming close to completion. The former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - for all practical means and purposes the true central bank of the United States - in his current role as US treasury secretary has proposed to give more powers to the privately owned US central bank. The ostensible excuse is that it should be given the allegedly new brief of ensuring the health and stability of the overall financial system - as the "systemic risk regulator". Apparently the Federal Reserve Board needs more staff, more resources and greater legal powers to do this. But this brief was precisely why the Fed was founded in the first place in 1914, against much resistance from Congress. It was argued at the time that only by having a privately owned cartel of bankers' interests, which is given the government's prerogative to create and allocate money, can the bankers ensure that their speculative excesses won't create massive recessions, bankruptcies and large-scale unemployment. It was hardly a convincing argument - just as it has hardly been a convincing case that bankers need to be given billions and trillions of taxpayers' money in the past half year or so as soon as some of their big bets went sour, after they had made billions and trillions of profits from their speculative gambling. Then, just as now, the bankers got their way nevertheless. They are a persuasive lot. Their powers of persuasion may have to do with the fact that already at the time (just as today) they were the creators of the majority of the money supply. If money speaks volumes, money creators have a monopoly on the library. The Bank of England is now also asking for more powers. A similar proposal to give more unaccountable power to the European Central Bank has been signed off in Europe: The ECB will be given new scope to influence the European economy and government policies in an additional role as pan-European "systemic risk supervisor", as if it not already wielded the greatest power concentration in banking history. Central bankers like the ECB, the Bank of England and the Fed talk about little else but "stability" and how they are always concerned with it. The problem is that this is not what they have delivered. Has that been because they just did not have enough power? The political and legal powers of central banks worldwide have increased dramatically in the past thirty years. While deregulation, liberalization and privatization have consistently eaten away the former powers of governments and elected representatives of the public, unelected central bankers have managed to amass increasing powers and influence over the economy and people's lives. The ECB is the world's most powerful, unregulated, unaccountable and untransparent central bank since the Reichsbank (which could not be reined in by laws made in the German parliament and was only accountable to external interests, namely the J P Morgan-controlled Reparations Committee - today known as the BIS). Central banks have long had enough power to prevent asset bubbles and banking crises - if only they had put their minds to it. But do they have any incentive to do so? The powers of former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to influence the economy were virtually boundless. He was able to block any regulation of the credit derivatives market and interfered in attempts by other public sector entities to rein in the exploding speculative activities of bankers, loan sharks ("subprime lenders") and second-hand debt dealers. The main constituency of the Fed are its banking shareholders. It has little to gain from restricting the bankers' profiteering. And it has much to gain from erring on the side of laissez-faire. The fact is that central banks chose to ignore warnings by critics who had argued consistently since the early 1990s that central banks needed to intervene in the inefficient and rationed credit markets to restrict bank credit extension for purely speculative purposes and encourage bank credit for productive investment. This can be achieved by simply imposing a rule that banks are only allowed to create credit for transactions that are classified as contributing to gross domestic product. Financial transactions don't. This proposal does not directly restrict financial speculation: let there be a free market for speculators to speculate as much as they wish to do so. However, let them not lay claim to newly created money for their activities and let them raise their funds in the supposedly efficient and deep capital markets or from other nonbank financial institutions that in turn must not receive credit from banks. This simple rule will prevent asset bubbles and banking crises. Central banks not only ignored this advice (detailed in many of my publications since the early 1990s, as well as in my 2005 book), but took policies that encouraged bank credit creation for speculative purposes. Predictably, this led to asset inflation and - with mathematical precision - banking crises. Central banks thus were responsible for the biggest resource misallocation in peacetime history. The central banks lobbied to fight the ensuing pandemonium with vast new money injections, for the benefit of the financial sector, and most of which was put on the taxpayer's tab again. Taxpayers now have to face multiyear belt-tightening programs that will continue the agenda of rolling back useful government activities and exposing ever increasing parts of society to predatory raids by profiteers. How were central banks called to account for their massive mistakes? Have there been any serious inquiries into the responsibility of central banks? Have any disciplinary or legal measures been imposed or proposed against the responsible central bankers? Instead of punishment, central bankers are about to be rewarded with new and greater powers. This is at least historically consistent: whenever bankers and central banks mess up on a large scale, they are not punished, but usually rewarded with greater influence and powers. Thus it happened after the Reichsbank's hyperinflation, the coordinated aggressive money printing policies of central banks in the early 1970s which created the high inflation of the first half of the 1970s, the Bank of England's policy to encourage speculative credit expansion since the early 1980s; the Bank of Thailand's catastrophic creation of what grew into the Asian crisis, the Bank of Japan's active propagation of the bubble economy and subsequent unprecedented slump with record deflation. Even the Fed's shocking policy of bankrupting tens of thousands of banks, causing the Great Depression and bringing starvation upon a previously healthy farming sector did not lead to any serious restriction on central bank powers or stricter accountability for central bank failures. By contrast, the few central banks that had remained prudent and failed to create bubbles and busts were not rewarded with greater powers: the Bundesbank had dared to be the odd one out among central banks and through its refusal to create an asset bubble in Germany was becoming increasingly isolated. It started to make other central banks look bad. It got its just reward: it was stripped of all its powers with the introduction of the ECB. Rewarding the Fed for its massive failure by giving it yet more powers and control levers will increase regulatory moral hazard. It will not reduce systemic risk, but is the surest way to increase it: When those who mess up don't have to pay up, but instead are being bailed out or rewarded, they have little incentive to change their behavior. To the contrary, the reward is likely to encourage them to take risks and mess up again. As I have warned for the past decade: By increasing central banks' powers, the risk that central banks will do more of what they do best - create massive cycles - is likely to rise; hence since 2001 I have warned of the risk of ever bigger boom/bust cycles and banking crises (what I call "central bank risk"). The plan to give more powers to the Fed, right after it has been responsible for the global financial crisis, is sending a clear message to central bankers across the globe: Messing up on a grand scale is highly advantageous. Little failures such as some consumer price inflation here or a minor recession there will draw public criticism. But catastrophic blowups have unimaginable potential to further increase the unaccountable powers of central bankers. _____ Werner is professor of international banking at the School of Management, University of Southampton and author of Princes of the Yen (2003) and New Paradigm in Macroeconomics (2005). http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/columns/commentary/20090703dy02.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 4 05:21:42 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:21:42 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Germany's Constitutional Court issues nationalist ruling on European Union Message-ID: <06CC5AB80FF44B4E8CA34306E2D44418@home9sg93n9r5y> Germany's Constitutional Court issues nationalist ruling on European Union ["The result of the judgment will be an intensification of national conflicts throughout Europe. ...The BVG judgment strengthens a tendency, which has emerged ever more clearly with the deepening of the world economic crisis: the renewed outbreak of national egoisms and conflicts..."] 4 July 2009 WSWS The Federal Constitutional Court (BVG) passed a judgment on Tuesday, which will have sweeping repercussions for the future development of Europe. The court in Karlsruhe laid down narrow limits for the powers of the European Union and stipulated that, on all important questions, the final word rests with the nation state, i.e., the two chambers of the German parliament and the court itself. The court questioned the democratic legitimacy of the European parliament and denied the right of the European Court of Justice to make final judgments. The BVG ruled on several appeals made against the Lisbon Treaty, which was drawn up to replace the failed European Constitution and grant more power to the European Union. Along with Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic, Germany is the only EU member state which has so far not ratified the Treaty. The two chambers of the German parliament-the Bundestag and Bundesrat-agreed the Treaty, but the German President Horst K?hler then withheld his signature pending the judgment by the BVG. The court has now decided that while the Lisbon Treaty is in principle compatible with the German constitution, it can only be ratified when the Bundestag and Bundesrat have thoroughly revised a supplementary law. The detailed parameters laid down by the BVG for the new supplementary law transforms the Lisbon Treaty into its opposite. The Lisbon Treaty grants the European Union and its institutions additional authority and extended powers of decision, while the BVG judgment limits the EU's authority. It specifies "key areas", which can only be decided upon in Germany not in Brussels. The list of these key areas is detailed and long. It covers all political fields, "which mould the living conditions of the population and which in particular are dependant on cultural, historical and linguistic preconceptions". As examples the BVG specifies criminal law, police, the military, taxes, social politics, upbringing, education, media regulation and the treatment of religious communities. According to the judgment the German constitution forbids the transfer of power to the EU by the German government and judiciary in all these fields. The BVG verdict also declares that the European parliament has no authority to decide on such questions. The verdict states that the European parliament is not "elected on the basis of equal universal suffrage" and is not authorized to "decide on political matters of central importance". It does not represent the "sovereign people of Europe", but is rather a supra-national representative body of the peoples of the member states. The BVG intends to function as court of ultimate resort to ensure that the European Union does not overstep its authority. That brings it into conflict with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which regards itself as the highest authority on European legal questions. In future the German constitutional court will "breathe down the neck" of the European Union court and not regard itself as subordinate to the ECJ, was the comment by constitutional lawyer Rupert Scholz. The judges in Karlsruhe even recommend withdrawal from the EU, should it persist in extending its rights of sovereignty. According to the BVG judgment, "in the worst case, Germany must refuse its further participation in the European Union". The constitutional court judgment represents an about turn in Germany's European policy, which for many decades was aimed at deepening and expanding European integration. In the process Germany had exerted a dominating influence in an indirect way, due to its size and economic weight. Now national interests have openly come to the fore. The F.A.Z. newspaper summed up the judgment with the words, "Karlsruhe can stress its friendship with Europe as often as it wants-the real message is: We are wearing the trousers." The result of the judgment will be an intensification of national conflicts throughout Europe. If Germany, as the EU's largest member, grants highest priority to its national interests then the other 26 EU members are bound to follow suit. The BVG judgment strengthens a tendency, which has emerged ever more clearly with the deepening of the world economic crisis: the renewed outbreak of national egoisms and conflicts, which on two occasions had disastrous consequences for Europe in the twentieth century. The judgment in Karlsruhe is immediately the result of the campaign conducted by Peter Gauweiler, a member of the German parliament situated on the right fringe of the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), which is allied with the Christian Democratic Union. Gauweiler defied the CDU/CSU parliamentary fraction and raised his own constitutional appeal against the Lisbon Treaty. He considers his stance fully confirmed by the court's judgment. In his comment on the Karlsruhe judgment he declared that the constitutional court had vindicated the idea of "a Europe of Nations". This term was first coined in 1962 by French President Charles de Gaulle and has since become the calling card for right-wing Euro-sceptics and opponents of the EU. The phrase is also used by fascist parties, such as the German National Party (NPD) and the French National Front (FN). That did not prevent the leaders of all of the Bundestag parties from congratulating Gauweiler and praising the court decision. Chancellor Angela Merkel of the CDU spoke of "a good day for the Lisbon Treaty". Interior Minister Wolfgang Sch?uble (CDU) declared that the judgment helped democracy. The European spokesman of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) faction, Axel Sch?fer and the leading candidate of the Greens, J?rgen Trittin, also praised the judgment declaring that it strengthened the Bundestag. The most enthusiastic support for Gauweiler came from the Left Party, which had lodged its own appeal against the Lisbon Treaty. A remarkable spectacle played out in the German parliament when deputies discussed the judgment on Wednesday. Virtually every sentence uttered by the notorious right-winger Gauweiler was wildly applauded by the deputies of the Left Party. Left Party leader Gregor Gysi expressed his thanks to Gauweiler several times. The Left Party saw no reason why it should distinguish its own opposition to the Lisbon Treaty from that of Gauweiler. Instead the party celebrated the judgment as a victory for democracy. A statement by the party leadership declared that the BVG had given "a private lesson in democracy to the federal government and the majority of the Bundestag". Similar reactions came from liberal circles. Heribert Prantl, head of the domestic affairs department of the S?ddeutsche Zeitung and bearer of many awards for his services to democracy, called the judgment a "great moment for Europe". It was not directed against European integration, but stressed "the principles of democracy at the center of which is the will of the people". It put an end "to Brussels' high handedness". According to Prantl, the judgment had been arrived at by "eight European democrats" rather than "eight European critics". "The judgment condemns the Bundestag to more democracy," he wrote. Prantl and the Left Party are blind to the class issues involved in the dispute over the European Union. For both objection to "Brussels' high handedness" is synonymous with strengthening national sovereignty. The European Union is undemocratic, while the Bundestag is the embodiment of popular sovereignty. This is despite the fact that every election reveals the growing alienation of the population from official politics. The positions taken by the Bundestag-on military deployment in Afghanistan, Hartz IV welfare payments and numerous other issues-are diametrically opposed to the will of the majority of the German people. This attitude brings the Left Party and Prantl into an alliance with the most rightwing opponents of the EU, including-alongside Gauweiler-the British Conservatives, the Polish PiS of the Kaczynski brothers and other repulsive organizations whose opposition to the European Union is bound up with national chauvinism, racism and not infrequently anti-Semitism. Prantl and the Left Party fail to notice that there is a notable gap in the long list of "key areas" laid down by the BVG-markets, companies and financial institutions are not subject to national sovereignty. It is for this reason that the BVG has given the green light to the Lisbon Treaty in principle. Its judgment is not directed against the power of the financial and economic interests that determine policy in Brussels. Rather it is afraid that the aloof institutions in Brussels will prove incapable of containing increasing opposition from the working class. It is therefore strengthening the nation state and its instruments of repression, the police and the judiciary. Economically, the nationalism underlying the BVG judgment is even more reactionary. European industry is profoundly interlinked. Millions of workers in Europe and internationally are bound together through the process of production. National borders have long since become an obstacle to the development of the productive forces. The unification of Europe is urgently necessary, but, as long as the productive forces remain in private ownership and oriented to increasing the wealth of a tiny few, unification in the interest of the European people is impossible. The struggle for profits and markets inevitably encourages national antagonisms that develop into crises and wars. This is confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty, which further removes the constraints to the activities of the continent's most powerful financial and economic interests, deepens the social divide in Europe, seals the borders against immigrants and builds up the police and surveillance. The struggle against this treaty can only be conducted on a socialist basis. It requires the unification of the European working class. The fight for democracy is inseparably bound up with the struggle against social inequality. The aim of such a struggle is not the defense of national sovereignty, but rather the building of the United Socialist States of Europe. This is the program pursued by the Fourth International and its sections, the Socialist Equality Parties of Germany and Britain. Peter Schwarz From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 4 07:13:10 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:13:10 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Honduras quits Organization of American States Message-ID: <37440120400B490E8B8EB93A8061B1A6@home9sg93n9r5y> MH: Honduras quits Organization of American States Posted by: "Walter Lippmann" walterlx at earthlink.net walterlx Sat Jul 4, 2009 4:39 am (PDT) MIAMI HERALD Posted on Sat, Jul. 04, 2009 Honduras quits Organization of American States BY FRANCES ROBLES frobles at MiamiHerald.com http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1126603.html The newly installed Honduran government withdrew from the Organization of American States Friday night, after a tense visit from the hemisphere's top diplomat who urged the return of the nation's deposed leader. OAS Secretary General Jos? Miguel Insulza visited Honduras Friday on a mission to convince members of the Supreme Court and other civic leaders to allow the return of President Manuel Zelaya, who was overthrown in a pre-dawn raid Sunday. Rebuffed at every turn, Insulza announced that "conditions did not exist'' for Zelaya's return and that his toppling was a coup d'etat. Hours later, acting President Roberto Micheletti and vice chancellor Martha Lorena de Casco announced Honduras planned to withdraw from the region's key diplomatic organization. The move preempts an OAS General Assembly meeting scheduled for Saturday, where Honduras was widely expected to be suspended from the group for overthrowing a democratically elected leader. The OAS "tried to impose unilateral solutions. The government of Honduras repudiates such attempts to impose unilateral solutions and reaffirms its sovereignty," de Casco said in a nationwide address. "The OAS is a political organizatioon, not a court of law. ... There is no institutional crisis here." She ended her brief statement by invoking article 143 of the OAS charter -- without elaborating what that article says. The OAS clause she cited calls for member nation to withdraw from the OAS after submitting a written complaint. Zelaya was forced out of his country Sunday over a tense impasse with the judiciary and Congress. Thousands of people both for and against him poured into the streets in dueling rallies that paralyzed the area around the presidential palace and OAS offices here while Insulza tried brokering the president's come-back. ''The people who did this have no intention of reversing what they did,'' Insulza said. ``Unfortunately, conditions to not exist for Zelaya's return.'' Insulza was presented with documents illustrating all the reasons Zelaya was deposed in a predawn raid last week, and he will present those to the organization's General Assembly on Saturday. But he said the paperwork detailing Zelaya's alleged treason and abuse of power did not change his position: ``This was a coup d'etat.'' The head of Honduras' Supreme Court flatly rejected Insulza's plea to allow Zelaya to return to office, a court spokesman said. ''Insulza did not come here to negotiate; he came here to impose,'' said Supreme Court spokesman Jos? Danilo Izaguirre. ``The president of the court [Jorge Alberto Rivera] told Insulza: `I thought you were going to bring Zelaya here, so I could arrest him.' ``He told him: the decision is made.'' Insulza refused to meet President Roberto Micheletti, who succeeded Zelaya, or any member of his administration. The OAS had vowed to suspend Honduras' membership if the exiled leader is not allowed to return to his elected position. The organization's general assembly meets Saturday in Washington, and Zelaya has indicated that he planned to return here Sunday. Local officials have said they'll be waiting to arrest him. Insulza said no one in Honduras appears willing to take responsibility for Zelaya's irregular ouster. In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro digital news site, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they broke laws when they did it. It was the first time any participant in Sunday's overthrow admitted committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who made the decision that has been denounced worldwide. `THERE WAS A CRIME' ''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.'' Zelaya was ousted in a predawn raid at his home Sunday after he vowed to defy a court order that ruled a nonbinding referendum to be held that day was illegal. The wealthy leftist rancher had clashed with the attorney general, the Supreme Court, Congress and the military he commanded. But instead of being taken to court to stand trial for abuse of power and treason, the military swept him out of bed at gunpoint and forced him into exile. Inestroza described weeks of mounting pressure, in which a president allied with Venezuela's Hugo Ch?vez used soldiers as ''political tools.'' The attorney general's office had ordered Zelaya's arrest, and the Supreme Court, Inestroza said, ordered the armed forces to carry it out. So when the powers of state united in demanding his ouster, the military put a pajama-clad Zelaya on a plane and sent him to Costa Rica. The rationale: Had Zelaya been jailed, throngs of loyal followers would have erupted into chaos and demanded his release with violence, Inestroza said. ''What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to have to shoot?'' he said. ``If we had left him here, right now we would be burying a pile of people.'' This week, Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho told reporters that he launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force instead of taken to court. Article 24 of Honduras' penal code will exonerate the joint chiefs of staff who made the decision because it allows for making tough decisions based on the good of the state, Inestroza said. U.S. State Department lawyers are studying whether the action should be legally considered a military coup, even though the person who was constitutionally next in line took power. Inestroza acknowledged that after 34 years in the military, he and many other longtime soldiers found Zelaya's allegiance to Ch?vez difficult to stomach. Although he calls Zelaya a ''fake leftist'' for his bourgeoisie upbringing, he admits he'd have a hard time taking orders from a leftist. Memories of the 1980s fight against guerrilla insurgents are still fresh in Honduras. FOUGHT SUBVERSIVES ''We fought the subversive movements here and we were the only country that did not have a fratricidal war like the others,'' he said. ``It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That's impossible. I personally would have retired, because my thinking, my principles, would not have allowed me to participate in that.'' ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Victoria, BC, Canada Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 07:27:16 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:27:16 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Honduras quits Organization of American States In-Reply-To: <37440120400B490E8B8EB93A8061B1A6@home9sg93n9r5y> References: <37440120400B490E8B8EB93A8061B1A6@home9sg93n9r5y> Message-ID: They're counting on the US to keep the aid flow going and to continue to "study" if it was a coup till the next elections, at which point they may "elect" a new right-winger and legitimate their power. US leftists have a heavy responsibility not to let them see their plan come to fruition. Yoshie On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:13 AM, james daly wrote: > MH: Honduras quits Organization of American States > Posted by: "Walter Lippmann" walterlx at earthlink.net ? walterlx > Sat Jul 4, 2009 4:39 am (PDT) > > > MIAMI HERALD > Posted on Sat, Jul. 04, 2009 > Honduras quits Organization of American States > BY FRANCES ROBLES > frobles at MiamiHerald.com > > http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1126603.html > > The newly installed Honduran government withdrew from the Organization of > American States Friday night, after a tense visit from the hemisphere's top > diplomat who urged the return of the nation's deposed leader. > > OAS Secretary General Jos? Miguel Insulza visited Honduras Friday on a > mission to convince members of the Supreme Court and other civic leaders to > allow the return of President Manuel Zelaya, who was overthrown in a > pre-dawn raid Sunday. > > Rebuffed at every turn, Insulza announced that "conditions did not exist'' > for Zelaya's return and that his toppling was a coup d'etat. > > Hours later, acting President Roberto Micheletti and vice chancellor Martha > Lorena de Casco announced Honduras planned to withdraw from the region's key > diplomatic organization. The move preempts an OAS General Assembly meeting > scheduled for Saturday, where Honduras was widely expected to be suspended > from the group for overthrowing a democratically elected leader. > > The OAS "tried to impose unilateral solutions. The government of Honduras > repudiates such attempts to impose unilateral solutions and reaffirms its > sovereignty," de Casco said in a nationwide address. "The OAS is a political > organizatioon, not a court of law. ... There is no institutional crisis > here." > > She ended her brief statement by invoking article 143 of the OAS charter -- > without elaborating what that article says. The OAS clause she cited calls > for member nation to withdraw from the OAS after submitting a written > complaint. > > Zelaya was forced out of his country Sunday over a tense impasse with the > judiciary and Congress. Thousands of people both for and against him poured > into the streets in dueling rallies that paralyzed the area around the > presidential palace and OAS offices here while Insulza tried brokering the > president's come-back. > > ''The people who did this have no intention of reversing what they did,'' > Insulza said. ``Unfortunately, conditions to not exist for Zelaya's > return.'' > > Insulza was presented with documents illustrating all the reasons Zelaya was > deposed in a predawn raid last week, and he will present those to the > organization's General Assembly on Saturday. But he said the paperwork > detailing Zelaya's alleged treason and abuse of power did not change his > position: ``This was a coup d'etat.'' > > The head of Honduras' Supreme Court flatly rejected Insulza's plea to allow > Zelaya to return to office, a court spokesman said. > > ''Insulza did not come here to negotiate; he came here to impose,'' said > Supreme Court spokesman Jos? Danilo Izaguirre. ``The president of the court > [Jorge Alberto Rivera] told Insulza: `I thought you were going to bring > Zelaya here, so I could arrest him.' > > ``He told him: the decision is made.'' > > Insulza refused to meet President Roberto Micheletti, who succeeded Zelaya, > or any member of his administration. > > The OAS had vowed to suspend Honduras' membership if the exiled leader is > not allowed to return to his elected position. The organization's general > assembly meets Saturday in Washington, and Zelaya has indicated that he > planned to return here Sunday. Local officials have said they'll be waiting > to arrest him. > > Insulza said no one in Honduras appears willing to take responsibility for > Zelaya's irregular ouster. > > In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro digital news > site, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top > military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they broke > laws when they did it. > > It was the first time any participant in Sunday's overthrow admitted > committing an offense and the first time a Honduran authority revealed who > made the decision that has been denounced worldwide. > > `THERE WAS A CRIME' > > ''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor > for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the > country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the > circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a > justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.'' > > Zelaya was ousted in a predawn raid at his home Sunday after he vowed to > defy a court order that ruled a nonbinding referendum to be held that day > was illegal. The wealthy leftist rancher had clashed with the attorney > general, the Supreme Court, Congress and the military he commanded. > > But instead of being taken to court to stand trial for abuse of power and > treason, the military swept him out of bed at gunpoint and forced him into > exile. > > Inestroza described weeks of mounting pressure, in which a president allied > with Venezuela's Hugo Ch?vez used soldiers as ''political tools.'' The > attorney general's office had ordered Zelaya's arrest, and the Supreme > Court, Inestroza said, ordered the armed forces to carry it out. > > So when the powers of state united in demanding his ouster, the military put > a pajama-clad Zelaya on a plane and sent him to Costa Rica. The rationale: > Had Zelaya been jailed, throngs of loyal followers would have erupted into > chaos and demanded his release with violence, Inestroza said. > > ''What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present > him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to > have to shoot?'' he said. ``If we had left him here, right now we would be > burying a pile of people.'' > > This week, Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho told reporters that he > launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force instead of > taken to court. > > Article 24 of Honduras' penal code will exonerate the joint chiefs of staff > who made the decision because it allows for making tough decisions based on > the good of the state, Inestroza said. > > U.S. State Department lawyers are studying whether the action should be > legally considered a military coup, even though the person who was > constitutionally next in line took power. > > Inestroza acknowledged that after 34 years in the military, he and many > other longtime soldiers found Zelaya's allegiance to Ch?vez difficult to > stomach. Although he calls Zelaya a ''fake leftist'' for his bourgeoisie > upbringing, he admits he'd have a hard time taking orders from a leftist. > > Memories of the 1980s fight against guerrilla insurgents are still fresh in > Honduras. > > FOUGHT SUBVERSIVES > > ''We fought the subversive movements here and we were the only country that > did not have a fratricidal war like the others,'' he said. ``It would be > difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist > government. That's impossible. I personally would have retired, because my > thinking, my principles, would not have allowed me to participate in that.'' > > ========================================= > WALTER LIPPMANN > Victoria, BC, Canada > Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews > > > From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 4 07:41:50 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:41:50 +0100 Subject: [A-List] State Department press briefing: "..."it's not a "military coup". " Message-ID: <4B4731E612604A3887964F657C5911CB@home9sg93n9r5y> The United States Is the Only Remaining Country in the Americas Still Maintaining Diplomatic Relations with Honduras after Sunday's Coup by Eva Golinger Thursday, July 2, 2009 DAY 5: MASS PROTESTS IN HONDURAS AGAINST COUP; TENS OF THOUSANDS MARCHING ON THE CAPITAL TO AWAIT PRESIDENT ZELAYA'S RETURN Despite the suspension of constitutional rights in place as of yesterday, per a decree by the Honduran congress in support of the coup government, tens of thousands of Hondurans are mobilizing throughout the country and participating in nationwide marches in route to the capital, Tegucigalpa. Demonstrators are protesting the illegal coup d'etat that ousted the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, on Sunday, after kidnapping him from his bedroom and forcing him into exile. Hondurans in support of President Zelaya are marching on the capital to await President Zelaya's return, scheduled as of now for Saturday, July 4th, after the Organization of American States (OAS) 72-hour ultimatum, that was issued to the coup government on Wednesday, calling on them to step down or face severe sanctions, has expired. Hondurans are still denouncing the media blackout in place in their country, preventing the majority of people in the country from receiving news from independent and international sources. The only media permitted to broadcast or publish since Sunday's coup are those supporting the illegal takeover of the state. Hondurans are also reporting food and medicine shortages in the country, resulting from the border closings imposed by neighboring nations Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador, in reaction to the coup. Central American nations have adamantly condemned the coup and refused to recognize the illegal government in place, led by Roberto Micheletti, former head of congress. Nations around the world have expressed they only recognize Manuel Zelaya as the legitimate and constitutional president of Honduras. It is still unsure how things will play out over the next few days, since the coup government is defiantly holding its power in Tegucigalpa and still has the military on its side. If they refuse to step down by Saturday, further sanctions could be imposed that would severely harm the already third poorest nation in Latin America's economy and infrastructure. As it stands today, the coup government appears ready to bear the consequences of months of isolation from the world community. The US may determine next Monday that sanctions should be in place against Honduras, resulting from the military coup, but it is unlikely that substantial aid will be cut, which will allow the illegal government to ride out the next 6 months until elections are held in November. Governments in Latin America have stated they will not recognize any government elected during the November elections if the coup government remains in place until then, since such a process would not be considered legitimate or constitutional. Friday, July 3, 2009 DAY 6: OAS SECRETARY GENERAL HEADS TO HONDURAS TODAY TO PERSONALLY GIVE ULTIMATUM TO COUP GOVERNMENT Today the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Jose Miguel Insulza, is traveling to Tegucigalpa to personally inform the coup government, in place since Sunday's military coup d'etat, that if they don't step down by Saturday and allow for President Manuel Zelaya's return to power, then Honduras will be suspended from the most important multilateral organization in the region. The suspension will not just be symbolic, it also includes ceasing all economic aid from the Inter-American Development Bank, which provides millions of dollars in support to the Central American nation, and the imposition of sanctions for human rights violations through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The coup government, led by Roberto Micheletti, has said it will remain in power "with or without" the OAS. We'll see how things develop today. Meanwhile, the United States is the only remaining country in the Americas still maintaining diplomatic relations with Honduras after Sunday's coup. The US Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, remains in Tegucigalpa, apparently "negotiating" with the coup government to find a solution. However, President Zelaya, the constitutional and democratically elected president of Honduras since 2005, has stated he will not "negotiate" his return to power. It's ridiculous to request a president overthrown in an illegal coup negotiate with the criminals who overthrew him in order to reestablish constitutional order. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that the US government is, unfortunately, involved in that will soon be exposed. Check out how the State Department is finding ways to get out of sanctioning Honduras and pressuring the coup government to step down by now legally classifying what took place as a "military coup d'etat" under US law. Note how instead of referring to the coup in English, the State Dept official does it in Spanish, as though that somehow makes it mean something else (yeah, since it's said in Spanish, it doesn't mean the same under US law): Excerpt from Wednesday's State Department press briefing: QUESTION: And so this is properly classified as a military coup? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, it's a golpe de estado. The military moved against the president; they removed him from his home and they expelled him from a country, so the military participated in a coup. However, the transfer of leadership was not a military action. The transfer of leadership was done by the Honduran congress, and therefore the coup, while it had a military component, it has a larger -- it is a larger event. The Obama administration is trying desperately to save its image before the world, but not break ranks with its allies in Honduras. It's very pleased with the outcome of the coup, just not the method used to get there. So now they're saying, it was a "golpe de estado," and even though the armed military guards in ski masks kidnapped President Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint in the middle of the night and forced him into exile, since it was a leader of Congress, a civilian, and not a military general, who subsequently named himself the de facto president, then it's not a "military coup." Way to go State! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eva Golinger is the author of The Ch?vez Code and Bush vs Chavez. The above text is her blog entries on 2-3 July 2009. Visit her blog Postcards from the Revolution: . From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 4 08:00:30 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 15:00:30 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Honduras: Typical CIA Lab Message-ID: Prensa Latina - Honduras roundup - July 2, 2009 Posted by: "Walter Lippmann" walterlx at earthlink.net walterlx Fri Jul 3, 2009 6:01 am (PDT) Honduras: Typical CIA Lab, warns Scholar Caracas,Jul 2 (PL) Venezuelan academics and politicians warn today about a new mechanism to counter the progressive thrust in the region, in which the CIA does the dirty work and US diplomacy hides the hand. Consulted by Prensa Latina, doctor Rigoberto Lanz, from the Center of Post-doctoral Research of the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences of the Universidad Central of Venezuela, calls to oppose this with a new type of internationalism. In his opinion, politics in Honduras reveals the rightwing forces are the same throughout the continent: the same interests, the same script, the same actors, the same ideology, the same alibis. To counter this, he puts conscience before the need to have common platforms from the left: It is clear once more that revolution is not possible in only one country. A new type of internationalism compels to asume these processes as their own. In the opinion of the academician, Honduras is today a typical counterinsurgency war lab with which the CIA has for decades toppled governments and practiced every form of terrorism. Questioned on the perspective of this conflicto, Lanz believes that as the Honduras rightwing forces gets clumsy it makes it harder for the US government that pretends to wash the sodden image left by ex president George W. Bush. For Obama, he says, the issue is to keep the face and until now the ambiguous speech works in part for him: the CIA does the dirty work and diplomacy saves face. The novelty, according to Lanz, is that policy dynamics in the region does not leave much margin for those maneuvers: the upsurge of the leftwing forces is evident and the mobilization capacity of the peoples changed, and that s why the right gets exasperated. Questioned about a possible negotiated way out in Honduras, the academician said for the momento, the right thing is top ut pressure domestically and internationally ? to isolate the fascist sectors of the liberal right. Lanz believes it is necessary to build bridges with interm?diate sectors that do not agree with the ultrarightist coup. Along that line, the president of the Venezuelan group of the Latin American Parliament, Victor Chirinos, affirmed that the coup in Honduras is a swipe for democracy in Honduras, but also for all of Latin America. He advocated for OAS to assume strong measures in order to oust an alien to democracy, who attempted against the democratic balance in the whole continent. Politologist Alexander Yanez expressed that in Honduras and in Latin America there is a confrontation of models: the individual and that of the collective interest. Coupists Will Stand Trial: Zelaya Caracas, Jul 2 (Prensa Latina) Honduras president Manuel Zelaya, declared today illegal, anulled and inadmisible all actions of the de facto government and warned coupists they will have to stand trial before an international court. In an exclusive interview to the Telesur TV network, the president ratified his decision to return to the country next weekend, after the 72-hour deadline offered by the OAS to the de facto regime to abandon power. Zelaya called on thousands of persons awaiting his return ? to not give up the struggle and not let down their guard. The president was kidnapped by a group of military and taken by force to Costa Rica last Sunday in a coup that was a setback to the country to the worst times of dictatorship. The de facto government decreed a curfew and launched brutal repression against their oppositors, leaving one dead, dozens of wounded and an unknown number of arrested persons. ? This is one of the most brutal regimes I have ever known in history, ? said the head of State. Zelaya, who is in Panama, informed his family is in Honduras and has had to take refuge in different embassies due to the repression. Honduras Crackdown Intensified Tegucigalpa, Jul 2 (Prensa Latina) Constitutional rights have been suspended on Thursday in Honduras, where the population is living in a sort of state of siege, according to El Tiempo daily. Extraordinary measures have been implemented, including a curfew (from 22:00 to 5:00 the next day), extended until Saturday by Congress. The curfew was one of the first decisions made by the military after the kidnapping of constitutional President Manuel Zelaya early Sunday, triggering a wave of popular protests. Armed forces keep public institutions militarized, including ENEE (the national electric power firm) and Hondutel (communication firm). Popular organizations denounced that checkpoints established by the troops also prevent demonstrators from reaching the capital. However, the people's cleaverness has always been present. A farmer, and leader, spoke of how they had to walk five hours through rural areas to evade one such checkpoint and get to the capital to join the marches opposing the coup. Another leader said they deceived soldiers in El Progreso town (north) by telling them that the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, had summoned them to Tegucigalpa. rma/rl/ms Possible Israeli Role in Honduran Coup Caracas, Jul 2 (Prensa Latina) Venezuelan deputy Adel El Zabayar revealed Thursday the implication of Israeli intelligence service (Mossad) in the perpetrated coup d'etat last Sunday against Honduran constitutional President Manuel Zelaya. Two weeks before the action Israeli diplomacy was active among representatives of the opposition in Honduras, mainly the sector represented by facto ruler, Roberto Micheletti, stated the Venezuelan deputy in an interview with Prensa Latina. "The Embassy of Israel was the scenario of intense diplomatic movement with important representatives of the opposition, including Micheletti," he emphasized. El Zabayar expressed that the financing given from the Israeli and US governments toward some high military commands before the arrival of Zelaya and later, represents a factor that brings a high level of suspicion as to their involvement. He put forward the idea that Honduras is just a "rehearsal" for other countries in the region, and "that test would be developed to be applied in the future in cases like Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries." The deputy informed that the Arab community vigorously rejects the actions against Honduras and based on their experiences in the Middle East are alert for situations like that which happened in Honduras. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jul 4 08:30:20 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:30:20 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism Message-ID: <20090704233020.c70326d7.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Economic Strategy of Imperial America by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (July 01 2009) First written in 1972, it was updated in a 2003 edition that's every bit as relevant now - thus this review focusing on Hudson's new preface, introduction, and detailed account of the book's theme. He revisited it in his 2008-09 Project Censored award-winning article titled: "Economic Meltdown - The 'Dollar Glut' is What Finances America's Global Military Build-up" in which he explains the following - the "inter-related dynamics" of: - "surplus (US) dollars pouring into the rest of the world for yet further financial speculation and corporate takeovers"; - global central banks "recyl(ing) these dollar inflows (into) US Treasury bonds to finance the federal US budget deficit; and most important (but most suppressed in the US media);" - "the military character of the US payments deficit and the domestic federal budget deficit". In other words, the global "dollar glut" finances US corporate takeovers, speculative excesses creating bubbles and global economic crises, America's reckless spending, foreign wars, hundreds of bases worldwide, "military build-up", and culture of militarism and belligerence overall at the expense of democratic freedoms, beneficial social change, and human and civil rights. In softer form, it's what former US diplomat, advisor, father of Soviet containment, and dove compared to others at that time George Kennan believed should be America's post-World War Two foreign policy. In his February 1948 Memo PPS23, he stated: "...we have fifty per cent of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. (It makes us) the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships (to let us) maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national society. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction ... "We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism ... We should (stop talking about) unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans (ideas and practices), the better". Yet Kennan advocated diplomacy over force in contrast to Paul Nitze, Dean Atcheson and other Truman and succeeding administration officials favoring hardline militarism, future wars, and National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) policies to contain the Soviet Union. In 1962, nuclear disaster nearly resulted. The threat remains, more menacingly than ever by "forc (ing) foreign central banks to bear the costs of America's expanding military empire" through recycling their dollars into US Treasuries - something the mass media call "showing their faith in US economic strength". Hudson refers to a "sinister dynamic", not involving consumers or private investors, but central banks putting "their money" in US Treasuries, but "it is not 'their money' at all. They are sending back the dollars that foreign exporters and other recipients turn over to their central banks for domestic currency". "When the US payment deficit pumps dollars into foreign economies, these banks (have) little option except to buy US Treasury bills and bonds which the Treasury spends on financing an enormous, hostile military build-up to encircle (today's) major dollar-recyclers China, Japan and Arab OPEC oil producers" - essentially a process by which they finance their own endangerment. Up to now it's continued, but, given the reckless dollar glut in recent months, with less enthusiasm by bigger buyers and hints of a possible end game or at least less buying than previously - mostly among BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and OPEC countries but other emerging economies as well getting more interdependent on themselves than on America. In his 2002 preface, Hudson noted that "the US Treasury (pursued the same balance-of-payment) 'benign neglect' (strategy as) it did thirty years" earlier. In 1971, it "caused a global crisis when its $10 billion (level) led to a ten per cent dollar devaluation". Now it's hundreds of billions annually and still high during the current economic crisis when exports and imports are lower. Earlier and especially now, if Europe and Asia let the dollar deflate, their exporters will be disadvantaged at a time they can least afford it. So they're forced to "support the dollar's exchange rate by recycling their surplus dollars back to the United States" by buying US Treasuries. Sooner or later, it's a losing proposition, especially in today's climate with the Federal Reserve sacrificing dollar strength to bail out Wall Street and trying to keep long rates low to contain borrowing costs. Yet the greater the dollar erosion, the more losses foreign investors will incur and less likely they'll tolerate more by buying bad assets. So far, however, they're still recycling their dollar inflows to fund America's budget deficit and global militarism - something Hudson calls a "Free Lunch in the form of compulsory foreign loans to finance US Government policy". Even so, they have no say over US policies, yet America and international lending agencies, like the IMF and World Bank, "use their dollar claims" on indebted nations to enforce Washington Consensus diktats. Independent-minded states face sanctions, isolation, coups or wars if they refuse. Until Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971, America couldn't run unlimited balance-of-payments deficits. However without gold convertibility, it's continued for nearly forty years along with protectionist policies through generous subsidies to US exporters - most notably to agribusiness. As a result, Hudson sees international tensions growing for the next generation, perhaps even greater now given America's reckless monetarism and perpetual wars. His book "provid(es) the background for US - European and US - Asian financial relations by explaining how (post-1971) the US Treasury-bill standard came to provide America with a Free Lunch". Also how the IMF promoted debtor nations' capital flight and the World Bank supported "foreign trade dependency on US farm exports ..." The early 1970s dollar crisis and balance-of-payments deficits seem small compared to today. Yet the "Treasury-bill standard (frees) the US economy from (doing) what American diplomats (force on) other debtor nations (with) payments deficits: impose austerity to restore balance in its international payments. The United States alone has been free to pursue domestic expansion and foreign diplomacy with hardly a worry about the balance-of-payment consequences". No other nation has that luxury. Post-World War Two, Washington made other countries dependent on America, something it eschewed after World War One, staying isolationist instead to pursue internal development. In the 1970s, emerging nations proposed a New International Economic Order (NIEO) through the UN Conference on Trade and Development to promote their own trade and other concerns. It "originated as a response to America's aggressive world economic diplomacy, and how US strategy has provided other nations with a learning curve that they may follow in pressing their own national and regional interests". The more reckless and belligerent America becomes, the more incentive they have to try - and in greater alliance, with BRIC country partners, may have a greater chance for success. Introduction Post-World War Two, on the pretext of national security, America pursued "world power ... and economic advantage as perceived by American strategists quite apart from the profit motive of private investors". After World War One, it achieved world creditor status from its "unprecedented terms (in extending) armaments and reconstruction loans to its wartime allies". In 1917, it entered the war late when it felt staying out would "entail at least an interim economic collapse (the result of) American bankers and exporters (getting) stuck with uncollectible loans to Britain and allies". So it joined the Triple Entente as an associate, not a full partner, to protect its $12 billion investment. Post-war, America was the world's major creditor - but one "to foreign governments with which it felt little brotherhood" and no obligation to stabilize world finance and trade. Unlike its post-World War Two policy, it didn't extend loans to foreign countries so they could finance their US-owed debt. Nor did it open its markets to foreign imports. It wanted Europe's empires dissolved, their military spending cut, their wealth "to flow out and their prices to fall" - the idea being in this way to re-establish world payments equilibrium, a very unrealistic notion, but many leading Europeans embraced it. It didn't work and made repayment of foreign debts impossible. The "world economy emerged from World War One shackled with debts far beyond its ability to pay", except by "borrow(ing) funds from private lenders in the creditor nation to pay the creditor-nation government". A more enlightened policy would have turned "other countries into (US) economic satellites". But America eschewed European imports, and US investors preferred its own outperforming stock market. On trade and finance, US policies "impelled European countries to withdraw from the world economy and turn within". America's isolationism prevented it from collecting its foreign debts. "Its status as world creditor proved ultimately worthless as the world broke into nationalist units", and sought independence from foreign trade and payments. Washington pursued isolationism, thus prompting other nations to seek self-sufficiency. A bankrupt Britain convened the 1932 Ottawa Conference "to establish a system of Commonwealth tariff preferences". By the mid-1930s, Germany began preparing for war. At the same time, the Depression affected one country after another as private capital dried up while at the same time Britain and other nations had mounting debt problems. It begs the question as to why they let them get so onerous in the first place. American Plans for a Post-World War Two "Free-Trade Imperialism" Early in the war, US officials and economists knew America would prevail and emerge as the world's dominant power. However, transitioning from war to peace needed large export volumes to stimulate economic growth and full employment. "This in turn required that foreign countries be able to earn or borrow dollars to pay" for what they got. So America supplied them through government loans and private investment. In return, it "name(d) the terms on which" they were provided and structured the IMF and World Bank so countries could "pursue laissez faire policies by insuring adequate resources to finance the international payments imbalances", the result of opening their markets to US imports. It was thought that free trade and investment would result in "balanced international trade and payments ... under US leadership". Post-war, America was the only dominant nation intact, so it alone had enough foreign exchange to invest substantially abroad. Its commercial strength turned other economies into US satellites and assured America achieved maximum world power by: - having European nations let US investors buy extractive industries in their former colonies, especially Middle East oil; - less developed nations would supply America with raw materials rather than develop their own competitive manufacturing infrastructure; - they'd also buy US products and services; and - the resulting trade surplus would provide enough foreign exchange for US investors to buy the world's most productive resources and make America even stronger. The goal was short-lived as: - America had tariffs on commodities that other nations could produce more cheaply; - the International Trade Organization, in place to subject all economies to the same rules, was scuttled; and - private US investment abroad was never enough to finance sufficient foreign purchases of US exports; IMF and World Bank loans also fell short. America accumulated a payments surplus. It, in turn, weakened its export potential. The lesson learned was that "Beyond a point, a creditor and payment-surplus status can be decidedly uncomfortable". At first, the enlightened solution wasn't taken - extended foreign aid for rebalancing as Congress put internal interests ahead of foreign policy. The Cold War Pushes America's Balance-of-Payments into Deficit Cold War strategy gave Congress an anti-communist reason to "bribe foreign governments" to fight the red menace as well as open their markets to US exporters. It got the Marshall Plan and other aid agreed on to "keep its fellow capitalist countries solvent" and not tempted to turn left. The possibility continued foreign aid for several decades. At the same time, America's balance-of-payments reached never before attained levels and needed rebalancing "to promote foreign export markets and world currency stability". To buy US products and services, other countries needed resources to pay for them, something only Washington could arrange at a time when they weren't creditworthy. However, what worked early on became destabilizing as America began "sink (ing) into the mire that had bankrupted every European power that experimented with colonialism". Unlike foreign investors that cut their losses when necessary, national security interests (and industries profiting from them) trump other considerations even when counterproductive. Once begun, military spending takes on a life of its own - something very apparent given its current out-of-control level and growing. New Characteristics of America's Financial Imperialism A growing US balance-of-payments surplus was "incompatible with continued growth in world liquidity and trade". So America had to buy more foreign products, services and capital assets than it supplied to foreign buyers. At the same time, it shifted more dollars abroad through a payments deficit, easily handled in the 1950s and 1960s as long as Washington could redeem them with gold. But that game had a limited life span as "Attempts by governments to repay their debts beyond a point extinguish(es) their monetary base". .."..international money (is also) a debt of the key-currency nation". Providing other countries with assets involves going into debt, and repaying it "extinguish(es) an international monetary asset". By the early 1960s, America approached "the point at which its debts to foreign central banks soon would exceed the value of the Treasury's gold stock". It happened in 1964 the result of Vietnam War spending at an early stage in the conflict. Just as two world wars bankrupted Europe, Vietnam threatened the same fate for America, but it didn't curtail spending and still doesn't. Earlier, the result was a run on gold with foreign central banks "cash (ing) in their dollar surpluses for American gold almost on a monthly basis". By March 1968, the US Treasury suspended its sales, and informally world central banks agreed to stop converting dollars into the metal. The result - the dollar gold price link was broken, and in August 1971, Nixon closed its window with an official embargo. Henceforth, in place of gold, the US Treasury-bill (dollar-debt) standard began. No longer able to buy US gold, substituting Treasuries became the only option and "to a much lesser extent, US corporate stocks and bonds". From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 4 10:24:19 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 17:24:19 +0100 Subject: [A-List] "Peace Process" -- the reality Message-ID: <4754422E2F2541A4B1B265B56628EED8@home9sg93n9r5y> PSNI accused of 'naked sectarian policing' By Deborah McAleese Belfast Telegraph [Unionist daily!] Thursday, 2 July 2009 The PSNI [formerly Royal Ulster Constabulary] has been accused in court of "naked sectarian policing" after officers in Coleraine allegedly facilitated the erection of loyalist flags close to the scene of the [recent] sectarian murder of Catholic Kevin McDaid [a reconciliation activist kicked to death at police instigation]. During a High Court bail application for a man accused of inciting hatred following a confrontation with Orange Order members who were putting up the flags, a defence barrister suggested police may have inflamed tensions by facilitating them. Barrister Kieran Mallon told the court that facilitating the erection of the flags so close to the murder scene in the Heights area of the town "did not do the credit of the PSNI any good." He said: "Police officers were there in riot gear to facilitate the erection of these emblems. Members of the nationalist community in the area found the emblems offensive and all the more because of recent events." Mr Mallon added: "In terms of easing tensions, there were very many more persons there, perhaps in uniform, inflaming tensions by their actions or lack of actions." However, Crown counsel Conor Maguire said officers were in the area at the time to prevent any breaches of the peace. Tensions flared in Coleraine last week when the flags were erected close to where Mr McDaid was murdered and his friend Damien Fleming left for dead during a vicious attack by a loyalist mob in the Heights estate in May. It was alleged in the High Court yesterday that three of the men questioned in connection with the murder and attempted murder were helping to erect the Orange flags and that some of the loyalists began to chant "Kevin McDaid fenian b*****d". A relative of Mr McDaid - Peter Neill (41), of Westbourne Crescent in the town - was arrested by police for allegedly shouting "Orange b*****ds, you're not wanted here, we don't want your f***ing flags" at the loyalists. He was remanded in custody and charged with incitement to hatred and behaviour likely to stir up hatred. Mr Mallon told the court that before his arrest Neill had asked police if it would be illegal to take down the flags. He was allegedly told it would not be, but that it would breach the peace. Mr Mallon said his client questioned was it not also a breach of the peace to enter a nationalist area to put up flags. "Mr Neill says this is political policing at its worst. He said it is naked sectarian policing," said Mr Mallon. He added: "The police facilitated a large group of loyalists to enter a known nationalist area with a cherry picker to erect these flags, some metres away from a sectarian murder. "This particular applicant (Neill) comes from a community that does not welcome the emblems or flags of the Orange Order. Policing is all about confidence and impartiality. It leaves a lot to be desired in terms of confidence that police deliberately facilitated a cherry picker to erect flags of the Orange Order in an area housing mainly nationalists." The court heard that Neill, who denies the charges against him, was being kept under 23 hour lock up in the punishment unit of Maghaberry Prison to protect him from the loyalists charged with the McDaid murder because he is one of the witnesses against them. Opposing bail, Crown counsel Conor Maguire said that Neill has a lengthy record and that since his arrest incidents of antisocial behaviour have decreased dramatically. He claimed Neill was the leader of a group of people intent on stirring up trouble. However, Mr Justice Treacy granted bail on certain conditions, including that Neil is not allowed to reside in Coleraine and must adhere to a strict curfew. Members of the McDaid and Fleming families moved out of the Heights area temporarily in advance of last night's Orange parade amid rising tensions. From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sat Jul 4 07:26:22 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:26:22 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Give-and-take on guns in Akwesasne Message-ID: <01df0ac3$39998$0cd33933146296@xnote> GIVE-AND-TAKE? ON GUNS IN AKWESASNE - Video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUeNtM6qakk MNN. July 4, 2009. According to Mike Mitchell, the new band councilor, we hope he doesn?t mean that the Indigenous give and the colonists take! He has announced a give-and-take style negotiation with Canada. The armed border guards want to come into Akwesasne in exchange for something. He suggests the Canada Border Services agents CBSA could give by taking some cultural sensitivity training. If they become sensitive to us, our laws and our rights, they will get off the island and never come back. The colony of Canada has no legal business manning their store in the middle of our community. The Canada and US ultimatum is that they are going to keep the two bridges onto Kawenoke on Cornwall Island closed until we let them come in with guns. As a band councilor, Mitchell has been a longtime anti-Confederacy sovereignty advocate. He seems willing to compromise the Mohawk nation position. Mitchell wants to make it look like he settled our valid complaint and come out looking like the hero. Some of the human rights complaints will be settled, he said. He wants to make the economically dying cities of Cornwall Ontario and Massena New York happy. Any deal Mitchell makes will only apply to those 350 people who voted for him, who obviously support the colonial band council system and their goal to undermine us. They are trying to set a precedent for outsiders to patrol other Indigenous communities. This is a nation-to-nation issue. Canada and US both know that this is a Rotino?shonni:onwe movement based on our sovereignty, which is supported by international law. A majority have to give our fully informed consent which we will never. Watch the following short video linked to this article. You can see how happy Mohawks feel about being free of the abuse and brutality of the border guards! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUeNtM6qakk There is talk of putting a temporary Canadian customs on the Cornwall Ontario side at the foot of the Bridge. This hasn?t been brought to the Mohawks. At least the Canadian government recognizes they can?t put guns on the island in the middle of Kawenoke. Not mentioned is that this too is Mohawk territory which is under dispute. The Mohawks have given the message that we are not going to be intimidated. This is being acknowledged by the non-native community. They now know that we cannot be pushed around anymore. We must give credit to Dooley Thompson, the former chief, and his supporters, for standing up for the people forcefully and eloquently. Hopefully Mike Mitchell learns from his predecessor that the non-natives can?t walk over us. We are in the right. We don?t want guns like the others. We have to take a stand and stay with it. The cutting off of traffic to Kawenoke has allowed us to feel relieved from the years of intimidation. It?s a vacation from the abuse that has been going on for a long time. The Mohawks message to the world is that tyranny has to be resisted. With the move towards global totalitarianism by the few elite thugs and their military goons, the Mohawks, our brothers, sisters, friends, allies and supporters are showing everybody how to defend themselves without using violence. Only the truth! ****** The Akwesasne Women's Fire remains in good spirits and smiling a lot when the Peace Caravan arrived. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe on behalf of their bosses, Canada and US, tried to sidetrack the public into thinking they weren't welcome. We sent out a message inviting the public to join us. For updates and to donate online, go to the www.akwesasnewomensfire.com. Urgently needed are life jackets and fuel for the boats. Your help is appreciated for food, can goods, general supplies, non-perishable food, flashlights and batteries, lanterns, coal oil lamps, bug spray or zapper and regular toiletries. Please send donations by check or money order to: Akwesasne Womens Fire, 936 Island Rd, Akwesasne ON K6H 5R7 For further information please contact: Rosemarie White 613-933-8784; Veronica Cook; 915-886-0210; Neddy Thompson 613-577-4647; and Nona Benedict 613-938-8145 (h) nonabena at yahoo.com Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jul 4 19:42:08 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:42:08 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Running on Empty Message-ID: <20090705104208.31e4acd6.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Why the Economy Has Yet to Hit Bottom by Mike Whitney CounterPunch (July 3-5 2009) There's a big difference between an inventory-driven recession and a credit-driven recession. An inventory recession is caused by a mismatch between supply and demand. It's the result of overcapacity and under-utilization which can only work itself out over time as inventories are pared back and demand builds. Credit-driven recessions are a different story altogether. They typically last twice as long as and can precipitate financial crises. The current recession is a severe credit bust of Depression-era magnitude. The financial system has effectively melted down. The wholesale credit system (securitization) is frozen, the banking system is dysfunctional and insolvent, and consumer spending has tanked. The Fed's multi-trillion dollar lending facilities and monetary stimulus have kept the financial system from grinding to a halt, but the problems have not been resolved. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has chosen to avoid the hard decisions and keep the price of toxic assets artificially high with the help of $12.8 trillion liquidity backstop. That's why stocks have rallied for the last four months while conditions in the real economy have continued to deteriorate. Bernanke is using all the tools at the Fed's disposal to keep the market from clearing and to prevent the mountain of debt that has built up from decades of credit expansion to be purged from the system. The surging stock market has made it harder to see that the economy is resetting at a lower rate of economic activity. Deflation is setting in across all sectors. Housing prices are leading the retreat, falling 18.1 percent year-over-year according to the new Case-Schiller report. Vanishing home equity is forcing households to slash spending which is weakening demand and triggering more layoffs. It's a vicious circle which ends in slower growth. Also, the banking system is still broken. The $700 billion TARP program was not used to purchase toxic assets, but to buy equity stakes in the banks and bailout insurance giant AIG. Bernanke knows that a hobbled banking system will be a constant drain on public resources, but he refuses to nationalize the banks or restructure their debt. Instead, he's expanded the Fed's balance sheet by $1.2 trillion and ignited a rally in the stock market. Bernanke's bear market rally has lifted the financials from the doldrums and generated the capital the banks need to survive the downgrading of their bad assets. Former Fed-chief Alan Greenspan (unintentionally) clarified this point in an editorial in the Financial Times : "The rise in global stock prices from early March to mid-June is arguably the primary cause of the surprising positive turn in the economic environment. The $12,000 billion of newly created corporate equity value has added significantly to the capital buffer that supports the debt issued by financial and non-financial companies ... Previously capital-strapped companies have been able to raise considerable debt and equity in recent months. Market fears of bank insolvency, particularly, have been assuaged. "Global stock markets have rallied so far and so fast this year that it is difficult to imagine they can proceed further at anywhere near their recent pace. But what if, after a correction, they proceeded inexorably higher? That would bolster global balance sheets with large amounts of new equity value and supply banks with the new capital that would allow them to step up lending." {1} Clearly, Bernanke was thinking along the same lines as Greenspan when he decided to push traders back into the market with his generous liquidity programs and quantitative easing (QE). He probably realized that political support for more bailouts had waned and that "large amounts of new equity" (in Greenspan's words) would be needed to keep the banks from defaulting. Whatever his motives may have been, Bernanke's stimulus has turbo-charged equities while the real economy continues to stagger. Jordan Irving, who helps manage more than $110 billion at Delaware Investments in Philadelphia told Bloomberg News, "This has been a government-induced rally. We need to see some real positives coming from internal demand, as opposed to government-related demand, and it's just not there". Still, the Fed's intervention in the markets hasn't removed the threat posed by toxic assets; a problem which only gets worse over time. That's why The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) issued a report last week warning of the "perils" of not tackling the issue head-on. Here's an excerpt from the report, as described in The Guardian: "... Despite months of co-ordinated action around the globe to stabilize the banking system, hidden perils still lurk in the world's financial institutions according to the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements. "'Overall, governments may not have acted quickly enough to remove problem assets from the balance sheets of key banks', the BIS says in its annual report. 'At the same time, government guarantees and asset insurance have exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses'. "As one of the few bodies consistently sounding the alarm about the build-up of risky financial assets and under-capitalized banks in the run-up to the credit crisis, the BIS's assessment will carry weight with governments. It says: 'The lack of progress threatens to prolong the crisis and delay the recovery because a dysfunctional financial system reduces the ability of monetary and fiscal actions to stimulate the economy'." The toxic assets problem is further compounded by an estimated $2 trillion of additional losses from defaulting residential mortgages, commercial real-estate loans, credit card loans, and auto loans. It's is the double-whammy; a fetid portfolio of non-performing loans and garbage mortgage-backed derivatives. At the same time, personal consumption has dropped off a cliff and the signs of economic contraction are visible everywhere, from bulging homeless shelters, to long lines at the unemployment offices, empty state coffers, half-filled shopping carts at the grocery store. Unemployment is rising at 600,000 per month, consumer confidence is at record lows, retail sales have fallen sharply, and housing continues its plunge. The data are clear; there are no green shoots or silver linings. The best snapshot of the economy appeared in the Fed's Beige Book, which was released two weeks ago, but was barely covered in the financial media. The report gives a candid assessment of an economy that is in deep distress. Here's an excerpt: "Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks indicate that economic conditions remained weak or deteriorated further during the period from mid-April through May ... Manufacturing activity declined or remained at a low level across most Districts ... Demand for nonfinancial services contracted across Districts reporting on this segment. Retail spending remained soft as consumers focused on purchasing less expensive necessities and shied away from buying luxury goods. New car purchases remained depressed, with several Districts indicating that tight credit conditions were hampering auto sales. Travel and tourism activity also declined ... Vacancy rates for commercial properties were rising in many parts of the country ... Credit conditions remained stringent or tightened further. Energy activity continued to weaken across most Districts, and demand for natural resources remained depressed ... Labor market conditions continued to be weak across the country, with wages generally remaining flat or falling ... Districts reporting on nonfinancial services indicated that for the most part activity continued to decline ... Activity continued to weaken or remain soft for providers of professional services such as accounting, architecture, business consulting, and legal services ... Consumer spending remained soft as households focused on purchasing less expensive necessities ... Travel and tourism activity declined, and vacationers are tending to spend less ... "Commercial real estate markets continued to weaken across all Districts ... With few exceptions, the District Banks reported that prices at all stages of production were generally flat or falling ... Reports from a number of Districts indicated that pricing at retail remains very soft ..." {2} It's all bad. The financial meltdown has left homeowners with the worst debt-to-income ratio in history. Working people have been forced to cut discretionary spending and begin to save. The household savings rate zoomed to 6.9 percent in May, a fifteen-year high. The rate in April 2008 was zero. The downside of the rising savings rate, is that it will deepen and prolong the recession. The negligible increase in retail spending can be attributed to fiscal stimulus. Without the government checkbook, the economy will continue to struggle. There's been a sudden shift from debt-fueled consumption to thriftiness. The trauma of losing one's job, health care or home; or simply living one paycheck away from disaster will probably shape attitudes for years to come. Personal savings will continue to swell as households build a bigger nest egg to weather the slump and make up for lost equity, droopy retirement accounts, and the possibility of losing their job. This fundamental change in consumer behavior points to less economic activity, more inventory reduction, additional layoffs, and smaller corporate profits. When consumers save, the economy contracts. Consumer spending is seventy per cent of GDP, but consumers have suddenly stepped on the brakes. This is a real game-changer. Even if the credit markets are restored and the banks show a greater willingness to lend, there will be no return to the pre-crisis consumption-levels of the past; those days are over. The administration will have to provide more fiscal stimulus, jobs programs, state aid, and other forms of public relief to compensate for overcapacity and falling demand. Household balance sheets are so stretched that more disposable income will have to be devoted to paying down debt and increasing savings. Past consumption trends cannot be trusted to predict the future. It's a whole new ballgame. Household wealth has slipped $14 trillion since the crisis began. This includes sizable losses in real estate, investments and retirement funds. Home equity has dropped to 41 per cent (a new low) and joblessness is on the rise. When credit was easy, borrowing increased, assets prices rose and the economy grew. Now the process has shifted into reverse. Credit has dried up, collateral values have plunged, GDP is negative, and consumers are buried under a mountain of debt. Personal bankruptcies, defaults and foreclosures are all up. It will take years, perhaps a decade or more, to rebuild household balance sheets and restore the flagging economy. The consumer is running on empty and the chances of a robust recovery are nil. Notes: {1} {1} Alan Greenspan, "Inflation, The real threat to a sustained recovery", Financial Times (June 26 2009) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/786355f2-61ea-11de-9e03-00144feabdc0.html {2} http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/Beigebook/2009/ Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.com http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07032009.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 21:05:48 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:05:48 -0400 Subject: [A-List] =?iso-8859-1?q?Am=E9rica_Latina=3A_aprofundamento_ou_res?= =?iso-8859-1?q?taura=E7=E3o=3F?= Message-ID: 04/07/2009 Am?rica Latina: aprofundamento ou restaura??o? Tr?s acontecimentos simult?neos refletem, em dire??es distintas, os dilemas latinoamericanos atuais: o golpe em Honduras, a derrota eleitoral dos Kirchner na Argentina e a escolha dos candidatos a presidente para as elei??es uruguaias. Os tr?s apontam para o tema da continuidade e aprofundamento dos processos de transforma??o que est?o vivendo grande parte dos pa?ses latinoamericanos ou a restaura??o conservadora, com o retorno da direita aos governos da regi?o. O golpe em Honduras ? que tem possibilidade de ser revertido pela rejei??o internacional e pelas mobiliza??es populares internas ? aponta para a tentativa do presidente Zelaya de obter um segundo mandato via referendo, para dar continuidade ao processo rec?m iniciado de transforma??es internas na contracorrente do neoliberalismo at? ent?o vigente no pa?s. O golpe, por sua vez, dado pela c?pula do Judici?rio, das FFAA e do Congresso, expressa a in?rcia das for?as conservadoras que sempre dirigiram a Honduras. Zelaya, filho desgarrado do Partido Liberal que, em rod?zio com o Partido Conservador, dirigiram por d?cadas ao pa?s, de forma praticamente harm?nica. Como sinal dos tempos e da perda de influ?ncia norteamericana, especialmente durante o governo Bush, a onda de novos governos no continente chegou ? Am?rica Central, atrav?s da Nicar?gua, de Honduras e, mais recentemente, de El Salvador. A direita, comandada pela imprensa olig?rquica ? similar ? que se estende a praticamente todo continente -, se precipitou e pode pagar um pre?o caro por isso. Zelaya termina seu mandato no fim do ano, j? havia afirmado que a consulta informal, caso levasse ? introdu??o da reelei??o, n?o afetaria seu mandato, que terminaria em janeiro de 2010. Confirmando que se pode tudo com as baionetas, o golpe dificilmente viabilizar? o governo que pretende se instalar. Resta saber se Zelaya retornar? enfraquecido, cumprindo o final do mandato seu capacidade de iniciativas, abandonando o referendo. Ou se sentir? fortalecido, retomando a consulta e punindo pelo menos alguns dos golpistas. Caso ocorra esta segunda hip?tese, o tiro ter? sa?do pela culatra para a direita e Zelaya poder? dar continuidade ao processo de transforma??es rec?m iniciado em Honduras. Se a ofensiva fracassa, como havia acontecido com as aquelas contra Hugo Chavez, contra Lula, contra Evo Morales e contra os Kirchner, se consolida a id?ia de que o contexto continental impede novos golpes militares, not?cia importante para os governos progressistas e, na ?rea, para o rec?m come?ado governo de Mauricio Funes em El Salvador, em particular. A derrota eleitoral do governo Kirchner se d? no marco da contraofensiva da direita, iniciada com a mobiliza??o do campo contra a eleva??o de impostos, no cen?rio dos ganhos monstruosos que, especialmente a exporta??o de soja, permitiu nos ?ltimos anos na Argentina. Aproveitando-se do erro do governo de taxar a grandes, m?dios e pequenos propriet?rios de maneira indiferenciada, favorecendo a unifica??o do campo sob a dire??o dos grandes exportadores sojeros, a direita conseguiu articular alian?a desses setores com a classe m?dia branca de Buenos Aires, colocando o governo na defensiva. As elei??es refletem essa mudan?a na rela??o de for?as entre governo e oposi??o, com o governo perdendo maioria no Parlamento e condenando a Cristina Kirchner a dif?ceis 2 anos e meio, alem de alentar a direita para a possibilidade de conseguir derrubar o primeiro dos governos progressistas eleitos na regi?o. No Uruguai, o candidato que mais diretamente expressa a possibilidade de aprofundamento da supera??o do modelo herdado por Tabar? Vasquez, ? seu ex-ministro da agricultura, Pepe Mujica, ex-dirigente tupamaro, que derrotou o candidato da prefer?ncia de Tabar?, o moderado Danilo Astori, ex-ministro da economia. Aqui, sendo favorito para ganhas as presidenciais, Mujica aponta para o aprofundamento das transforma??es come?adas no Uruguai, enquanto na Argentina se aponta para o risco de uma restaura??o conservadora e em Honduras, depende do desenlace da crise. Trata-se dos mesmos dilemas do Brasil nas elei??es presidenciais de 2010. Postado por Emir Sader ?s 05:29 From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 03:52:07 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:52:07 +0100 Subject: [A-List] "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while." -- "I think the last one was in 1983" Message-ID: <68D1F3E170CD4AC18943736FF33D8132@home9sg93n9r5y> WB: "This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole?" The Anti-Empire Report July 3rd, 2009 by William Blum www.killinghope.org Much ado about nothing? What is there about the Iranian election of June 12 that has led to it being one of the leading stories in media around the world every day since? Elections whose results are seriously challenged have taken place in most countries at one time or another in recent decades. Countless Americans believe that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the Republicans, and not just inside the voting machines and in the counting process, but prior to the actual voting as well with numerous Republican Party dirty tricks designed to keep poor and black voters off voting lists or away from polling stations. The fact that large numbers of Americans did not take to the streets day after day in protest, as in Iran, is not something we can be proud of. Perhaps if the CIA, the Agency for International Development (AID), several US government-run radio stations, and various other organizations supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (which was created to serve as a front for the CIA, literally) had been active in the United States, as they have been for years in Iran, major street protests would have taken place in the United States. The classic "outside agitators" can not only foment dissent through propaganda, adding to already existing dissent, but they can serve to mobilize the public to strongly demonstrate against the government. In 1953, when the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, they paid people to agitate in front of Mossadegh's residence and elsewhere and engage in acts of violence; some pretended to be supporters of Mossadegh while engaging in anti-religious actions. And it worked, remarkably well.1 Since the end of World War II, the United States has seriously intervened in some 30 elections around the world, adding a new twist this time, twittering. The State Department asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown of its service to keep information flowing from inside Iran, helping to mobilize protesters.2 The New York Times reported: "An article published by the Web site True/Slant highlighted some of the biggest errors on Twitter that were quickly repeated and amplified by bloggers: that three million protested in Tehran last weekend (more like a few hundred thousand); that the opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi was under house arrest (he was being watched); that the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid last Saturday (not so)." 3 In recent years, the United States has been patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with warships, halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas or for other illegal reasons, financing and "educating" Iranian dissidents, using Iranian groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran, kidnaping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, kidnaping Iranian military personnel in Iran and taking them to Iraq, continually spying and recruiting within Iran, manipulating Iran's currency and international financial transactions, and imposing various economic and political sanctions against the country.4 "I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs," said US President Barack Obama with a straight face on June 23. "Some in the Iranian government [have been] accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd."5 "Never believe anything until it's officially denied," British writer Claud Cockburn famously said. In his world-prominent speech to the Middle East on June 4, Obama mentioned that "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government." So we have the president of the United States admitting to a previous overthrow of the Iranian government while the United States is in the very midst of trying to overthrow the current Iranian government. This will serve as the best example of hypocrisy that's come along in quite a while. So why the big international fuss over the Iranian election and street protests? There's only one answer. The obvious one. The announced winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Washington ODE, an Officially Designated Enemy, for not sufficiently respecting the Empire and its Israeli partner-in-crime; indeed, Ahmadinejad is one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy in the world. So ingrained is this ODE response built into Washington's world view that it appears to matter not at all that Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the election and very much supported by the protesters, while prime minister 1981-89, bore large responsibility for the attacks on the US embassy and military barracks in Beirut in 1983, which took the lives of more than 200 Americans, and the 1988 truck bombing of a US Navy installation in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons. Remarkably, a search of US newspaper and broadcast sources shows no mention of this during the current protests.6 However, the Washington Post saw fit to run a story on June 27 that declared: "the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms." Can it be that no one in the Obama administration knows of Mousavi's background? And do none of them know about the violent government repression on June 5 in Peru of the peaceful protests organized in response to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement? A massacre that took the lives of between 20 and 25 indigenous people in the Amazon and wounded another 100.7 The Obama administration was silent on the Peruvian massacre because the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, is not an ODE. And neither is Mousavi, despite his anti-American terrorist deeds, because he's opposed to Ahmadinejad, who competes with Hugo Chavez to be Washington's Number One ODE. Time magazine calls Mousavi a "moderate", and goes on to add: "It has to be assumed that the Iranian presidential election was rigged," offering as much evidence as the Iranian protestors; i.e., none at all.8 It cannot of course be proven that the Iranian election was totally honest, but the arguments given to support the charge of fraud are not very impressive, such as the much-repeated fact that the results were announced very soon after the polls closed. For decades in various countries election results have been condemned for being withheld for many hours or days. Some kind of dishonesty must be going on behind the scenes during the long delay it was argued. So now we're asked to believe that some kind of dishonesty must be going on because the results were released so quickly. It should be noted that the ballots listed only one electoral contest, with but four candidates. Phil Wilayto, American peace activist and author of a book on Iran, has observed: Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?9 All of which is of course not to say that Iran is not a relatively repressive society on social and religious issues, and it's this underlying reality which likely feeds much of the protest; indeed, many of the protesters may not even have strong views about the election per se, particularly since both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are members of the establishment, neither is any threat to the Islamic theocracy, and the election can be seen as the kind of power struggle you find in virtually every country. But that is not the issue I'm concerned with here. The issue is Washington's long-standing goal of regime change. If the exact same electoral outcome had taken place in a country that is an ally of the United States, how much of all the accusatory news coverage and speeches would have taken place? In fact, the exact same thing did happen in a country that is an ally of the United States, three years ago when Felipe Calderon appeared to have stolen the presidential election in Mexico and there were daily large protests for more than two months; but the American and international condemnation was virtually non-existent compared to what we see today in regard to Iran. Iranian leaders undertook a recount of a random ten per cent of ballots and recertified Ahmadinejad as the winner. How honest the recount was I have no idea, but it's more than Americans got in 2000 and 2004. By what standard shall we judge Barack Obama? Many of my readers have been upset with me for my criticisms of President Obama's policies. Following my last two reports, more than a dozen have asked to be removed from my mailing list. But if you share my view that the numerous atrocities US foreign policy is responsible for constitute the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity and happiness, then I think you have to want leaders who are unambiguously opposed to America's military adventures, because those interventions are unambiguously harmful. There's nothing good to be said about dropping powerful bombs on crowds of innocent people, invading their land, overthrowing their government, occupying the country, breaking down the doors of the citizens, killing the father, raping the mother, traumatizing the children, torturing those opposed to all this ... Barack Obama has no problem with this, if we judge him by his policies and not his rhetoric. And neither does Al Franken, who's about to become a Democratic Senator from Minnesota. The former Saturday Night Live comedian would like you to believe that he?s been against the war in Iraq since it began, but he's gone to Iraq four times to entertain the troops. Does that make sense? Why does the military bring entertainers to soldiers? To lift the soldiers' spirits. Why does the military want to lift the soldiers? spirits? A happier soldier does his job better. And what?s the soldier?s job? All the charming things listed above. Doesn't Franken know what these guys do? He criticized the Bush administration because they ?failed to send enough troops to do the job right.?10 What ?job? did the man think the troops were sent to do that had not been performed to his standards because of lack of manpower? Did he want them to be more efficient at killing Iraqis who resisted the occupation? Franken has been lifting soldiers' spirits for a long time. This past March he was honored by the United Service Organization (USO) for his ten years of entertaining troops abroad. That includes Kosovo in 1999, as imperialist an occupation as you'll want to see. He called his USO experience "one of the best things I've ever done."11 Franken has also spoken at West Point, encouraging the next generation of imperialist warriors. Is this a man to challenge the militarization of America at home and abroad? No more so than Obama. Tom Hayden wrote this about Franken in 2005 when Franken had a regular program on the Air America radio network: Is anyone else disappointed with Al Franken's daily defense of the continued war in Iraq? Not Bush's version of the war, because that would undermine Air America's laudable purpose of rallying an anti-Bush audience. But, well, Kerry's version of the war, one that can be better managed and won, somehow with better body armor and fewer torture cells. This morning Franken was endorsing Sen. Joe Biden's proposal to send 5,000 NATO troops to close the Syrian-Iraq border, bring in foreign trainers for the Iraqi officer corps, and put Iraqis to work cleaning up the destruction of our invasion. ... Now that Bush has manipulated us into the invasion, Franken thinks we have no choice but to ... stay until we crush the insurgents. It's a humanitarian excuse for open-ended American occupation. And it's shared widely by the professional political and pundit class who think of themselves as the conscience of the American establishment and the leadership of the Democratic Party.12 I know, I know, I'm taking away all your heroes. But such people shouldn't be your heroes. You can learn to see through the liberal, Democratic Party apologists for the empire. Only a week ago, documents released by the Nixon Library in California revealed that five days before US and South Vietnamese troops made their surprise invasion of Cambodia on April 29, 1970 ? which elicited widespread, angry protests in the US, resulting in the fatal shootings by the National Guard of students at Kent State University in Ohio ? President Richard Nixon got approval for the invasion from the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Stennis of Mississippi. Stennis told the president: "I will be with you. ... I commend you for what you are doing."13 Long live the Cold War President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?" One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end. At this writing it's not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military's plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It's difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with "a frown". The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional "golpe" bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate. Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station's leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Siegel: "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while." Forman: "I think the last one was in 1983" Siegel did not correct her.14 This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole? Notes William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 9 ↩ Associated Press, June 16, 2009 ↩ New York Times, June 21, 2009 ↩ See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker magazine, June 29, 2008; ABC News, May 22, 2007; and Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch, June 19-21, 2009 for descriptions of some of these and other anti-Iran covert activities. ↩ White House press conference, June 23, 2009 ↩ The only mention is by Jeff Stein in "CQ Politics" [Congressional Quarterly], online, June 22, 2009, "according to former CIA and military officials". ↩ Center for International Policy (Washington, DC) report, June 16, 2009 ↩ Time magazine, June 29, 2009, p.26 ↩ AlterNet.org, June 14, 2009; Wilayto is the author of "In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic" ↩ Washington Post, February 16, 2004 ↩ Star Tribune (Minneapolis), March 26, 2009 ↩ Huffington Post, sometime in June 2005, but it may no longer be there. ↩ Washington Post, June 30, 2009 ↩ NPR, All Things Considered, June 29, 2009 ↩ William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. (Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.) Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 03:59:28 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:59:28 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Medea Benjamin: No Press Freedom in Post-Coup Honduras Message-ID: Posted by: "LaborExchange at aol.com" Sat Jul 4, 2009 10:39 am (PDT) No Press Freedom in Post-Coup Honduras Medea Benjamin When Jos David Ellner Romero heard the soldiers breaking down the door of the Globo radio station on the evening of the June 28 coup, he had a flashback. His mind conjured up the terrible images from the 1980s, when he was arrested by the military, thrown into an underground prison and tortured. I couldn?t stand the thought of going through that hell again, so I got out on the ledge of the windowsill and jumped, Elner told our International Emergency Delegation. His fractured shoulder, ribs and bruises were minor given that he jumped from the third floor. The owner of the station, Alejandro Villatoro, was thrown to the ground by soldiers who put their guns to his head and demanded to know where the transmitter was. Villatoro also happens to be a deputy in the National Assembly from the governing Liberal Party, but that didn?t afford him special treatment. While Villatoro was not a fan of deposed President Mel Zelaya, he believes in free speech and always guaranteed his employees that freedom. After the military invaded and censored his station, he now supports Zelaya?s return. ?If this new government says it?s for democracy, then why is it censoring the press? This is the 21st century,? he told us. ?We shouldn?t have coups and censorship and thugs running the country.? Radio Globo is now back on the air, but one of its m ost critical programs, Hable como habla, is still banned and the host of the show, Eduardo Maldonado, is in hiding. And every now and then, like when they broadcast an interview with the deposed president, their signal is suddenly blocked. Reporter Luis Galdamez, who hosts a show on Radio Globo, is back on the air but the military told him not to criticize the new government. He refuses to buckle, but he?s scared. ?I get death threats every day. I don?t even read my text messages anymore, they?re so grotesque? he said. On our insistence, he pulled out his iphone and randomly picked from the 64 new messages he had. ?We?re watching you,? the message read. ?We know where you live and how many children you have. If you keep talking shit, we?re going to hang you and cut out your tongue for talking shit. Remember what happened in the 80s.? Galdamez, a single father, is under tremendous pressure. At night, he sees cars without license plates outside his house, rifles pointing out the window. He wants to leave the country, but doesn?t know where he and his children could go. Another radio station under attack is Radio Progreso in the city of Progreso. Four hours after the coup around 25 soldiers stormed into the studios of the community-based station and closed it down. Hundreds of local people quickly gathered to defend the station and demand that the military leave. Thanks to the tremendous20outpouring of support, Radio Progreso opened the next day, Monday, but by Tuesday the soldiers were back again. The station is now transmitting clandestinely. While the coup leaders say they are bringing back democracy by deposing an autocratic president, their first actions after kidnapping the president and flying him to Costa Rica was to keep the public in the dark. At the time of the coup on June 28, they cut the electricity and when it came back on four hours later, news programs had been replaced by music shows, soap operas, sports and cooking lessons. By day two, most TV and radio stations were back on the air, but the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) notified cable TV operators of a ban on broadcasting certain international TV stations such as Telesur, Cubavisi?n Internacional and CNN Espa?ol. The pro-Zelaya Channels 36, 45 and 50 were also banned, their studios surrounded by soldiers. Another TV station not allowed to broadcast was Canal 66 Maya TV. "They've taken off the air everyone who does not support the coup," said Santos Gonzalez, a Channel 50 reporter. The owner of Channel 36, Esdras Amado Lopez, received threats that he would be arrested and went into hiding. A week after the coup, the station was still shut and surrounded by soldiers. The government-operated Channel 8, located inside the heavily guarded presidential palace, was taken off the air but was back in business on Wednesday?transmitting the new government?s propa ganda. All of the TV stations are now decidedly pro-coup, devoting significant coverage to demonstrations in favor of the new government while ignoring or minimizing mass rallies supporting Zelaya. The only reason there is not more press censorship in Honduras today is because most of the media?TV, print and radio?is owned by businesspeople who support the coup. Edgardo Dumas, publisher of the large circulation daily La Tribuna and the country?s former Defense Minister, claims that rumors about censorship are ?totally and absolutely false.? In a July 2 interview with W Radio in Bogot?, Colombia, Dumas claimed, ?I don?t see any limit on freedom of the press. The four newspapers are putting out impartial and true news. No TV or radio station has been interfered with." When asked why CNN was cut, he said it was ?misinforming? the public and was ?on the payroll of the dictator of Venezuela Hugo Chavez.? The more educated Hondurans are now seeking information from the internet and text messages, but most Hondurans are getting a daily dose of pro-coup propaganda and journalists who oppose the government are doing so at great risk to themselves and their families. The Honduran people should have the right to know what their new leaders, in the name of democracy, are doing to destroy the very basic foundations of a democratic system - a free press. Medea Benjamin (medea at globalexchange.org) is cofounder of Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org) and CODEPINK: Women for Peace (www.codepinkalert.org ). She is part of a delegation an International Emergency Delegation to Honduras that includes members of Nonviolence International, Global Exchange, CODEPINK and Rights Action. For more information or to join the delegation, contact Andres at nvintl.net. From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 04:09:36 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:09:36 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Honduran MPs Deny Coup Unanimity Message-ID: Prensa Latina - Honduras Roundup - July 3, 2009 Forced Recruits into Honduran Army Tegucigalpa, Jul 3 (Prensa Latina) The Honduran Army continued on Friday its forcible recruiting of young people, as it crushes demonstrations demanding the restoration of the constitutional order broken last Sunday by the military coup. The National Front against the Coup, created by popular organizations, denounced that those recruited by force are boys over 15, who are violently dragged from their homes. "We have received such reports from Catacamas, Manto, Olanchito, Sonaguera and other municipalities," the Front said in a communiqu? demanding an immediate investigation into these cases and the return of these youth to their homes and reiterates the decision to intensify the peaceful resistance struggle, which will "not stop unless constitutional order is restored." Coup leaders said the country returned to normalcy and denied the forcible recruiting of youth. However, the families of the victims said they will try to report concrete cases to human rights organizations. National media organizations support the pro-coup leaders in their efforts to keep repression a secret before the eyes of world public opinion, despite a majority rejection of the usurpers. ef rma mjm ms Honduran MPs Deny Coup Unanimity Tegucigalpa, Jul 3 (Prensa Latina) Members of the Honduran Parliament denied the unanimous appointment of Roberto Micheletti as President of the Republic by the National Congress, as claimed by the coup perpetrators. Deputy Silvia Ayala, of the Democratic Unification Party (UD), told Prensa Latina that "it is not true that all deputies agreed with the imposition of Micheletti." The false consensus was presented to the world to try to confer some legitimacy to those taking part in the coup, including the illegal president, who used to be the chief of the unicameral Parliament. "The UD deputies are being persecuted by the military because they oppose the de facto government," said Ayala. A total of 16 deputies, including ten of the Liberal Party (PL) and six of UD, voted against the imposition of Micheletti, several legislators who refused to be identified told Prensa Latina. WALTER LIPPMANN Vancouver, BC, Canada Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 04:27:07 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:27:07 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Spider to the Fly? Message-ID: Tom Hayden: The Possibility of an Obama-Chavez Understanding Posted by: "Walter Lippmann" walterlx at earthlink.net Sat Jul 4, 2009 12:23 pm (PDT) http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/02/the_possibility_of_an_obama-chavez_understanding/?ref=fpd The Possibility of an Obama-Chavez Understanding By Tom Hayden - July 2, 2009, 2:03PM The media is full of speculation about President Obama's deft "deflection" against President Hugo Chavez' maneuvering and finger-pointing in the Honduras crisis. But another narrative is possible, of an undisclosed new diplomatic collaboration replacing the constant tensions and CIA foreknowledge of the brief 2002 coup against the Venezuelan leader. It is too early to define a new era, but something profoundly new began developing between Obama and Chavez at the hemispheric conference in April in Trinidad. According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano. What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present. It is not known what occurred in the secret talks. But sources in Caracas say that Chavez has become fascinated with Obama, seeking to understand the new US president and the forces around him, partly with advice from Brazil's president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The Honduran crisis has been mounting for weeks. According to the New York Times', Chavez "had his playbook ready", planning to blame the CIA. But Obama, according to the Times' headlines, "deflected" the Venezuelan president by coming out strongly against the coup. The real story is that a gradual rapprochement - not an alliance but a dialogue - is happening between the US and Venezuela, and it began in Trinidad, was pushed by Latin American leaders and welcomed by those like Obama, who prefer diplomacy over a return to US Cold War isolation. It was no accident that Venezuela's ambassador to Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, returned to Washington in recent days after his expulsion several months ago. The rapprochement, if it holds, would seem to be welcome news. The fact that is has occurred so silently is evidence that peace has its enemies. WALTER LIPPMANN Vancouver, BC, Canada Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews From nscchicago at igc.org Sat Jul 4 18:53:13 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 19:53:13 -0500 Subject: [A-List] THE COUP IN HONDURAS Message-ID: <0F52B0B83DBF44898F887AB859778373@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here forwarding to you reports and background on Honduras the kidnapping of democratically elected Manuel Zelaya in a military coup. Some are in Spanish. Video clips from the streets. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: Zelaya anuncia regreso, marchas en Tegucigalpa Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:33:22 -0700 Size: 6954 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0009.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: Zelaya to return Sunday. Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:13:50 -0700 Size: 12110 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0010.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Kaufman" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: Honduras Alert #11 - Human Rights violations Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:42:24 -0400 Size: 52619 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0011.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Chiapas Support Committee Subject: [Lasolidarity] Hondurans Seek Refuge in Mexico Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Size: 6064 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0012.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] Insulza was in Honduras today Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:51:00 -0700 Size: 16717 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0013.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] video of protests Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:30:27 -0700 Size: 9106 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0014.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: Honduras: Carta de los movimientos a Insulza Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:31:47 -0700 Size: 17832 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0015.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] Achievements of Zelaya's administration! Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:49:04 -0700 Size: 16759 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0016.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] From OFRANEH on U.S. meddling Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:45:48 -0700 Size: 44597 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090704/8dc39e23/attachment-0017.eml From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 19:05:04 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 03:05:04 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] Author Naomi Klein calls for boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:03 AM Subject: Fwd: [R-G] Author Naomi Klein calls for boycott of Israel To: "kcourtenay at aol.com" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 1:17 AM Subject: [R-G] Author Naomi Klein calls for boycott of Israel To: Suzanne de Kuyper http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/06/author-naomi-klein-calls-boycott-israel Author Naomi Klein calls for boycott of Israel By AFP - June 26th, 2009 BILIN , West Bank (AFP) ? Bestselling author Naomi Klein on Friday took her call for a boycott of Israel to the occupied West Bank village of Bilin, where she witnessed Israeli forces clashing with protesters. "It's a boycott of Israeli institutions, it's a boycott of the Israeli economy," the Canadian writer told journalists as she joined a weekly demonstration against Israel's controversial separation wall. "Boycott is a tactic ... we're trying to create a dynamic which was the dynamic that ultimately ended apartheid in South Africa," said Klein, the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." "It's an extraordinarily important part of Israel's identity to be able to have the illusion of Western normalcy," the Canadian writer and activist said. "When that is threatened, when the rock concerts don't come, when the symphonies don't come, when a film you really want to see doesn't play at the Jerusalem film festival... then it starts to threaten the very idea of what the Israeli state is." She briefly joined about 200 villagers and foreign activists protesting the barrier which Israel says it needs to prevent attacks, but which Palestinians say aims at grabbing their land and undermining the viability of their promised state. She then watched from a safe distance as the protesters reached the fence, where Israeli forces fired teargas and some youths responded by throwing stones at the army. "This apartheid, this is absolutely a system of segregation," Klein said adding that Israeli troops would never crack down as violently against Jewish protesters. She pointed out that her visit coincided with court hearings in Quebec in a case where the villagers of Bilin are suing two Canadian companies, accusing them of illegally building and selling homes to Israelis on land that belongs to the village. The plaintiffs claim that by building in the Jewish settlement of Modiin Illit, near Bilin, Green Park International and Green Mount International are in violation of international laws that prohibit an occupying power from transferring some of its population to the lands it occupies. "I'm hoping and praying that Canadian courts will bring some justice to the people of Bilin," Klein said. Her visit was also part of a promotional tour in Israel and the West Bank for "The Shock Doctrine" which has recently been translated into Hebrew and Arabic. Klein said she would get no royalties from sales of the Hebrew version and that the proceeds would go instead to an activist group. _______________________________________________ Rad-Green mailing list Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4534 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/e4669a54/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 19:19:35 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 03:19:35 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Daily Newsletter: Sabbah's Blog Global Peace Index Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sabbah Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:01 PM Subject: Daily Newsletter: Sabbah's Blog To: suzannedk at gmail.com Daily Newsletter: Sabbah's Blog [image: Add to Google] [image: Link to Sabbah] ------------------------------ Israel rank bottom in Global Peace Index Posted: 08 Jun 2009 12:28 PM PDT In a recently published report, Global Peace Indexplaced Israel only three steps from the less peaceful countries in the world. In its third year study, an Australian nonprofit organization ranked 144 countries for how peaceful they are. On top of the list, New Zealand followed by Denmark and Norway were ranked as the most peaceful countries in the world. Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq only kept Israel from "occupying" the bottom of the list and positioned it as 141st out of 144 countries. Although 2008 research study ranked Israel 136th, but then the list only had 140 countries, which means that they have slipped one position lower since then. In 2007 Israel was ranked 119 out of 121. Out of the 23 indicators used in the report to determine the existence or absence of peace, Israel received the lowest possible "peace" scores for military capability, aggregate number of heavy weapons, number of armed services personnel and volume of imports of major conventional weapons. Similarly low was Israel score when it came to respect for human rights, potential for attacks and perceptions of criminality in society. In short we can say: This is a quick shot of Zionistan-Israel reality. Video: New Profile and the Israeli conscientious objector movement Posted: 08 Jun 2009 11:13 AM PDT A new report from Al Jazeera English sheds light on the Israeli conscientious objector movement and the crack down on the organization New Profile. You are subscribed to email updates from Sabbah To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now .Email delivery powered by Google Inbox too full? [image: Add to Google] If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Sabbah, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8212 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/9e6618b9/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 20:05:35 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 04:05:35 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] The "Bomb Iran" contingent's newfound concern for The Iranian People In-Reply-To: <1041135743.4541671245785822848.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <1463121204.4322101245715557775.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <1041135743.4541671245785822848.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: "Our ability to render invisible" those we want to or intend to anihalate conferrs legitimacy to wars (annihalations) of choice, is an analytical phrase that obscures the total media control of the United States nation wide and increasingly internationally. This fact is neither debatable nor usefully stated as an oblique reality as it is in this first sentence taken from the critical "Bomb Iran" sent by Sid. The effects of war were on the news movie screens that preceded the movies during WW11 in the US. The effects of war were in all the U S livingrooms that had TV during the Vietnam War, the Korean War. The viewing of annihalation and mutilation in process produce an immediate gut response, not debate. That prehistoric ability of the human animal to see what his realty is, is being eliminated systematicly. The orders that there was to be no body count of Iraqi war deaths or dismembermets, no press photos of US soldier flag drapped caskets, world wide television coverage of a Vice President and then an ex-Vice President who praises annihalation of prisoners of war kept as animals rather than prisoners, all are simple proofs of well developed fascism, not just commercial control of a country. Fascism is not good for commerce. This type of government now defines the United States. The United States is rushing,not sliding, into much much more than bankrupsty. The world has trusted the untrustable and uses the US dollar as the one world currency so it too slides, rushes to insolvency, with the few who are not moving in the same direction only slightly noticed as the controlled media slips over the cautious, the careful, the in-sightful. "Ability to render invisible" is a controlled way of saying what the media will not allow. It and all 'civil' literate expressions attemptig to influence it are then mirrors of that fascism, not critques of it. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid Shniad Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:37 PM Subject: [R-G] The "Bomb Iran" contingent's newfound concern for The Iranian People To: Suzanne de Kuyper http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/16/iran/index.html Salon.com June 16, 2009 The "Bomb Iran" contingent's newfound concern for The Iranian People Glenn Greenwald (updated below - Update II) I'm going to leave the debate about whether Iran's election was "stolen" and the domestic implications within Iran to people who actually know what they're talking about (which is a very small subset of the class purporting to possess such knowledge). But there is one point I want to make about the vocal and dramatic expressions of solidarity with Iranians issuing from some quarters in the U.S. Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary 's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program. Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called "attack on Iran" or "bombing Iran" in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many -- obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it's some abstract decision in a video game. After The Wall St. Journal published the Podhoretz war dance demanding that Iran be bombed, and after Podhoretz casually called for England to " bomb the Iranians into smithereens " if their sailors weren't immediately returned, I wrote : In this week's Newsweek, Michael Hirsh has a worthwhile article reporting on his observations during his visit to Iran. While listing the internally repressive measures taken by the Iranian government, Hirsh describes Tehran as "bustling," as "traffic crowds the streets and boulevards," filled with the "chic" Iranian women and the "meterosexual" Iranian males who seek greater economic security and prosperity. That is what Norm Podhoretz and his friends hungrily want to annihilate. Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades want to slaughter: Our ability to render invisible the people we kill when cheering on our wars is one of the primary mechanisms which make it so easy to embrace that option. Perhaps the scenes unfolding in Iran, our Enemy Du Jour , will make those dehumanization efforts -- the linchpin of our militarism and state of perpetual war -- more difficult in the future. * * * * * See also: this post from earlier today on the government's rapidly expanding secrecy claims. UPDATE : Daniel Larsion makes some very astute and necessary points about those demanding greater American involvement in Iran's political matters. UPDATE II : Even leaving aside Rudy Giuliani's contemplated first-strike nuclear attack and Norm Podhoretz's desire to "bomb the Iranians to smithereens" -- plans that would obviously kill an unspeakably large number of Iranians -- it's delusional to claim that these desired bombing attacks would be "targeted" and thus wouldn't result in substantial civilian deaths. Even the limited version of the standard neocon bombing plan envisions at least 1,500 targets. Many of their attack plans were far more elaborate than that. Many bombing-Iran advocates -- such as Newt Gingrich and John Bolton -- have "regime change" as the ultimate goal. When is the last time we dropped thousands -- or even hundreds -- of bombs on a country without killing large numbers of people? Virutally no experts believe we could meaningfully impede Iran's nuclear capabilities without massive bombing campaigns, and even the CIA recognized as absurd the claim that you could drop bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities without causing widespread, uncontrollable devastation: The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran?s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,? says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. ?The question is, what then?? NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran?s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ?The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating." The notion that we would have harmed Iran's nuclear capabilities with our bombing attacks without killing substantial numbers of Iranian civilians is a fantasy comparable to the claim that we could remove Saddam Hussein in a quick and easy war, with few civilian casualties, and in the face of a grateful population. Except where there is a single target , that isn't what happens when you bomb countries. Large numbers of civilians die, and the advocates of these campaigns -- today masquerading as crusaders for the welfare of the Iranian People -- were well aware of that result and (at best) were indifferent to it. _______________________________________________ Rad-Green mailing list Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9714 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/61e303b6/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 01:14:51 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:14:51 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] Labor's last stand Vital read Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid Shniad Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM Subject: [R-G] Labor's last stand To: Suzanne de Kuyper Harpers Magazine July 2009 Labor's last stand: The corporate campaign to kill the Employee Free Choice Act By Ken Silverstein On a Monday morning this past April, a few dozen Arkansans from that state?s Chamber of Commerce could be found holing up in a Marriott hotel in Crystal City, Virginia, less than a mile from Washington?s Ronald Reagan National Airport. They assembled in the hotel?s Jefferson Ballroom, on one wall of which hangs a portrait of the third president standing before a giant Declaration of Independence. Despite the early hour, the visitors were cheerful, sipping from big Starbucks cups as they gathered up political literature and hard candies and waited for their program to begin. These men and women had come to town as part of a lobbying ?fly-in? coordinated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Their mission: to battle the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill that would make it easier for workers to organize unions, which now represent only 12 percent of the American labor force (compared with nearly a third in Canada and more than a quarter in the United Kingdom). That morning the group was to be briefed by Glenn Spencer, a deputy chief of staff at the Labor Department during the George W. Bush years who is now coordinating the Chamber of Com merce?s campaign against EFCA. Another squad of fly-ins from Arkansas was meeting at the Chamber?s downtown Washington headquarters, and the two forces would soon join to fan out across Capitol Hill for meetings with members of the state?s congressional delegation. That night, the Arkansans would reconvene at the hotel for a reception and dinner at the Sky View Lounge, an event to help business leaders ?maintain close and productive contact? with the state?s two senators and four representatives. Among the sponsors of the dinner were some of Arkansas?s most powerful corporations, including Tyson Foods, the steel company Nucor, and, of course, Walmart. The true purpose of all this effort and expense was to persuade the state?s two senators?Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both Democrats?to support a Republican bid to stop EFCA from coming to a vote. After eight years in the Bush wilderness, the labor movement has achieved some early victories under Barack Obama. He has issued an executive order supporting the use of union labor on government construction projects, for example, and another barring federal contractors from seeking reimbursement for anti-union expenditures; also, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which extends the deadline for filing pay-discrimination claims. But for business, EFCA is seen as a sort of Armageddon. Currently, when workers wish to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will oversee an election after 30 percent of the employees in a given workplace sign union authorization cards. Under EFCA, if half of the company?s employees sign such cards, no election would be required, a practice that is standard in much of the industrialized world. Another provision of EFCA, and one fiercely opposed by business, calls for binding arbitration after 120 days if a company and a new union are unable to come to terms on a contract. EFCA?s opponents deride the bill as ?card check? and say it would strip workers of their ?sacred right? to hold a secret-ballot election. ?This is the demise of a civilization,? Bernie Marcus, the former CEO of The Home Depot, said of EFCA during a business conference call last fall. Sheldon Adelson, the hotel magnate and funder of right-wing causes, calls EFCA ?one of the two fundamental threats to society,? the other being radical Islam. Randy Zook, head of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, spoke in similarly dire terms when I met him at the Marriott. ?For small-business and plant managers to have a chance to survive, they have to be incredibly flexible and incredibly ruthless in terms of efficiency and cost-cutting measures,? said Zook, who before joining the Chamber spent three decades with the Atlantic Envelope Company. ?It?s not just about wages but [union] work rules, which are very rigid. We have companies in Arkansas selling 25 to 30 percent of their total output abroad. We are in a global environment, and to succeed you have to be better, faster, and cheaper than your competitors. The business community is unanimous on EFCA, and I mean so unanimous that it?s crazy.? EFCA enjoys overwhelming support in the House, and there has never been any doubt that the bill will pass there. It also commands a majority in the Senate, but supporters need sixty votes for ?cloture,? that is, to stop a promised filibuster by the bill?s G.O.P. opponents. In March, exactly two weeks after the U.S. Chamber sponsored a fly-in from Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter announced that he would oppose cloture on the bill?a potentially fatal blow, because Specter, who himself co-sponsored the bill in 2003 and 2005, was thought to be the Republican most likely to vote for cloture. When he announced in April that he was switching parties, Specter went out of his way to reiterate his opposition to EFCA and cloture. Two weeks before the Marriott event, Senator Lincoln, always carefully attuned to the desires of Walmart, announced her intention to oppose cloture. This announcement no doubt helped to explain the upbeat mood of the Arkansan delegation, which occupied three rows of folding chairs before a black-draped table at the head of the room. ?When you see [Lincoln] later today,? Glenn Spencer told the audience, ?it?s important that you thank her and let her know she did the right thing. We really need to get Senator Pryor to follow her lead. We haven?t gotten him quite there yet, but I know you guys will keep working him and we will get him across the goal line. The forest has gotten a little thinner, but we?re still not out of the woods. It?s still too early to pull out the champagne.? ?What about a beer?? retorted Zook, to general amusement. Spencer said that the strategy now was to win over a few more Democrats ?and fully bury this.? From the crowd, a voice asked which Demo crats might be persuaded to vote with business. Spencer counted out about a dozen on his fingers, including Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jim Webb of Virginia (who the same day expressed reservations about EFCA), Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tom Carper of Delaware (?He?s a co-sponsor, but I was on a conference call with him and he said he thought this was a terrible bill?), and Dianne Feinstein of California (?believe it or not?). ?I?m not a seasoned lobbyist like some of those in the room, but as I see it we?re in a pretty good position not to compromise,? said a man in the audience. ?Yeah,? replied Spencer. ?We are. But the unions have not given up on this bill. At some point they will have to make a strategic decision: do they try to get a compromise bill now and come back for more later, or do they go down fighting on this bill and then see if they can pick up a few seats in the 2010 elections? This shouldn?t be a partisan issue, but unfortunately it largely breaks down along the lines of Rs and Ds. We?ve got to keep fighting to make sure that a bad compromise bill doesn?t come to the floor, and keep fighting right through 2010.? Before dispatching the Arkansans to their lobbying mission on the Hill, Zook made a forceful declaration: ?It is critical that we take the view that our beef is not with organized labor but with a terrible piece of legislation.? This is a central talking point?cooked up by Navigators Global, the chief public-relations firm for the anti-EFCA coalition?but it is not convincing on even a cursory examination of the coalition?s leadership and its prehistory. Indeed, the campaign to defeat EFCA is best seen as the latest onslaught in a business crusade to destroy the labor movement, one that began in the early twentieth century but has been waged with increasing intensity only since the mid-1970s. During 1974 and 1975, with the specter of stagflation looming?and amid the twin political crises of Vietnam and Watergate?top corporate officials held a series of meetings under the auspices of The Conference Board. The climate was dark. Feeling pressured by the unions, as well as by the demands of an ungrateful citizenry, the assembled CEOs feared a popular revolt might be imminent. ?We have been hoist with our own petard,? one executive said. ?We have raised expectations that we can?t deliver on.? Another executive complained, ?One man, one vote has undermined the power of business in all capitalist countries since World War II.? With profits down and debt up, business determined that the rules of the game had to be changed in its favor. ?[I]t will be a hard pill for many Americans to swallow?the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more,? Business Week stated bluntly in 1974. ?Nothing that this nation, or any other nation, has done in modern economic history compares in difficulty with the selling job that must now be done to make people accept the new reality.? A key part of the sales job was an ideological attack on unions. In order to target universities, intellectuals, and the media, corporations shoveled cash into conservative think tanks. They also vastly increased their lobbying efforts?as Kim Phillips-Fein recounts in her new book, Invisible Hands, most Fortune 500 firms didn?t have Washington public-affairs offices in 1970, but 80 percent did by 1980?and poured money into the political system as well. Justin Dart, chairman of California?s Dart Industries and a major financial backer of Ronald Reagan, was an early champion of corporate political-action committees. ?I don?t advocate that business buy a legislator,? he said in 1978. ?Rhetoric is a very fine thing; a little money to go with the rhetoric is better. They listen better.? Around the same time, unions sought to push through a labor-law reform bill that shared many features with EFCA. The legislation would have made it easier for workers to organize, by streamlining the process of holding elections under the oversight of the National Labor Relations Board and imposing stiff fines on companies that fired activists. The Business Roundtable, the traditional political leader of major corporations, had generally hesitated to take anti-union positions in public, and some members initially declined to oppose the bill. The group ultimately joined the fight, however, as did a number of major trade associations and the newly revitalized U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represented smaller businesses and took a much harder line toward labor. As with EFCA today, the business interests in the late 1970s mounted a multimillion-dollar campaign that included a massive lobbying effort by CEOs from around the country to pressure Congress, as well as the formation of ?grass-roots? coalitions and the purchase, from friendly economists, of research concluding that the bill would all but destroy the U.S. economy. As with EFCA, the Dem ocrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, and the legislation had overwhelming support in the House of Representatives. Yet the unions couldn?t get it through; in the end, it was filibustered to death by Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar. ?For the first time in twenty years, the business community had vanquished organized labor in a fight over a ?gut? issue for labor,? the New York Times observed at the time. No significant revision of union-organizing laws has taken place since then, as labor?s ranks, and influence, have steadily dwindled. In 1954, there were 17 million union members, which then meant 35 percent of the workforce. This was the high point of unionism in the country and also was, not coincidentally, when the American middle class was created. The decline of the union movement since then has been accompanied by growing social inequality, slashed salaries, and, for the first time in American history, a de-linking of rising productivity from rising wages. Labor has had almost no voice in any administration since 1980, including that of Bill Clinton, whose White House political director, Rahm Emanuel (now Obama?s chief of staff), was a chief operative in passing NAFTA over the strenuous objections of labor; moreover, Clinton?s chief of staff, John Podesta (who led Obama?s transition team), spearheaded the campaign to pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, which further decimated union jobs. Under George W. Bush, all the key agencies were stacked with anti-union appointees. Bush?s labor secretary, Elaine Chao?the wife of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and now a ?distinguished fellow? at the Heritage Foundation?worked openly against EFCA, saying in 2007, ?A worker?s right to a secret-ballot election is an intrinsic right in our democracy that should not be legislated away at the behest of special-interest groups.? The attorney Robert Battista, whom Bush appointed chairman of the NLRB, had during the 1990s counseled Detroit?s newspapers on union-breaking and now works for a law firm that advises companies on how to keep unions out. Although the business lobby has framed its opposition to EFCA around the issues of the ?secret ballot? and labor ?coercion,? the current rules give management a chokehold over union elections. Employers can require that workers attend ?captive audience? meetings, that is, anti-union presentations during the workday at which union supporters are forbidden to speak. Firing of union activists and intimidation of employees during organizing drives are routine practices and have been encouraged by lax enforcement of the law: according to the NLRB?s most recent annual report, it took an average of about eighteen months for administrative-law judges to rule on charges of unfair labor practices. In the uncommon cases where an employer is found guilty of illegally firing or demoting a worker, the firm typically needs only to reinstate the worker and pay back wages, minus any income the worker may have earned in the interim. With delays so long and penalties so minor, as the group Human Rights Watch noted in a recent report, companies often regard fines as ?a cost of doing business?a small price to pay for defeating worker organizing efforts.? Leading the fight against EFCA has been an organization called Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), an ad-hoc group formed in cooperation with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Buoyed by funding from hundreds of companies and trade associations, CDW and its allies have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV and radio advertisements, worked the right-wing talk-radio circuit, and paid for ?independent? studies to be trotted out in congressional hearings. Technically, CDW was created in 2007, but its true origins date to several years earlier; and its effective birthplace, as with so many conservative efforts in Washington, was the offices of Grover Norquist?s Americans for Tax Reform. As early as the fall of 2005, Norquist?s group began discussing the danger EFCA posed during the monthly meetings of its First Friday Labor Reform Working Group. On November 16, 2006, eight lobbyists?all representing organizations that had taken part in the First Friday meetings and that would become key actors in CDW?signed an anti-EFCA letter on U.S. Chamber of Commerce letterhead and sent it to Congress. The lobbyists included Bruce Josten of the Chamber, John Gay of the National Restaurant Association, and Robert Green of the National Retail Federation Association. Other early advocates of the anti-EFCA campaign included the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the International Council of Shopping Centers, and the Food Marketing Institute?in all of which associations Walmart looms large as a donor and political force. On an institutional level, the prime movers against EFCA have been CDW and dozens of other nonprofit advocacy groups. Norquist?s group opposes EFCA through its Alliance for Worker Freedom, a special project that opposes ?overregulation of the marketplace? and other ?atrocities.? Another key group, SOS BALLOT, which seeks to stop card-check at the state level by amending state constitutions, is headquartered at a Las Vegas mail drop; its sole officer is one Charles Hurth, a frequent cat?s-paw for right-wing corporate efforts.11. In 2004, Hurth helped set up Choices for America, a secretive G.O.P. effort to get Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot in key states so that Republicans would have an electoral advantage. More infamously, Hurth was also successfully sued by, and in 1990 forced to pay $27,500 in damages to, a woman whose buttocks he bit in a St. Louis bar. Yet another group is the Employee Freedom Action Committee, created by Richard Berman, a prominent lobbyist for the food and restaurant industry. In terms of personnel, the fighters in the anti-EFCA crusade are approximately two dozen lobbyists and consultants, most of them Republicans, some of whom are married to each other, many of whom have shared the same jobs in government and at the trade associations. A number are former G.O.P. staffers from Capitol Hill, such as Doug Loon, regional director of the U.S. Chamber in the Midwest and a onetime aide to Specter, and Breana Teubner, who once worked for Congressman Jeff Flake and now lobbies for Walmart. Next come those who are politically connected through blood and the campaign trail, such as Katherine Lugar22. Her husband, David Lugar, lobbies for the Chamber of Congress and Tyson Foods; her father-in-law is Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) and Todd Harris, a former Jeb Bush and John McCain aide who crafted CDW?s lobbying and media strategy at the public-relations firm Navigators Global. A number of central figures are veterans of Elaine Chao?s Labor Department: besides Glenn Spencer, these include Marlene Colucci, of the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AH&LA), and Geoffrey Burr, a lobbyist for Associated Builders and Contractors. (Burr?s wife, Danielle, works for Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, a strident EFCA opponent.) But with Republicans now a diminished presence in government, the anti-EFCA lobby desperately needs Democrats to block the bill. ?Coalition members are also thinking ahead,? Colucci wrote last December about a CDW Steering Committee meeting. ?We have scheduled meetings with some of the more conservative Democrats who recognize the threat card check poses to the health of the American economy.? To win over the majority party, anti-EFCA advocates have spent heavily to buy Democratic lobbying power. Key acquisitions include Jonathan Hoganson, Rahm Emanuel?s former legislative director, who represents RILA and Walmart for the firm of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti; Tony Podesta, brother to John, whose firm represents Walmart and whose lobbyists include a former top aide to Senator Pryor; Tony Podesta?s wife, Heather, whose firm represents The Home Depot; and The Alpine Group, which also represents The Home Depot, using a team that includes a former legislative aide to Senator Lincoln. The amount of money being spent by this coalition is anyone?s guess. Public records show that during the last quarter of 2008, there were at least 126 registered lobbyists working against EFCA on behalf of companies and trade groups. And countless more nonprofit groups, which aren?t required to register, are also lobbying against the bill. For example, Employee Freedom Action Committee?the group run by Richard Berman, the food and restaurant lobbyist?shares office space and staff with the Center for Union Facts, which in addition to its own advocacy against EFCA also gathers ?information about the size, scope, political activities, and criminal activity of the labor movement.? Berman and Company, a for-profit management firm of which Berman is sole owner and president, runs both groups, as well as at least another ten interlocking corporate front groups. Berman himself holds no fewer than thirteen positions within these various entities. Berman is required to publicly disclose virtually no financial information about his company and very little specific data about his nonprofits. The Center?s 2007 IRS tax return, the last currently available, shows that it took in $2.5 million that year, almost entirely from unnamed donors, including one who put up $1.2 million. About half of the group?s money was spent on an anti-union print and online ad campaign, and $840,000 went to Berman and Company for ?management? services. (The Center rails against highly paid union officials, listing on its website the annual salaries of top officials at the AFL-CIO. But as of 2006, the last year listed, the federation?s three highest-paid employees made about $680,000 combined, well less than what Berman?s company takes to manage only the Center for Union Facts.) In addition to all this money for Washington lobbying and consulting, prodigious sums are also being spent on advertising and other, more shadowy activities. The website of the AH&LA says it is seeking to raise ?a minimum of $30 million? for the CDW?s coffers to pay ?for a ?surround sound? campaign targeting swing voters in key states.? The Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs, a CDW spin-off, has the specific purpose of providing academic ?research? to counter EFCA; it funded a March 2009 study titled ?An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications,? which was written by Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist at a corporate consulting firm, and predicted dire consequences if the bill was passed. (A Fox News Special Report highlighted Layne-Farrar?s Senate appearance?as did a number of other outlets, none of which mentioned the source of her funding?quoting her as saying that passage ?would result in an increase in the unemployment rate of around 11/2 to 3 percentage points.?) Let?s stand up to the business lobby,? Barack Obama declared in April 2008 at a union event in Pennsylvania, during a presidential campaign in which he pledged to make passage of EFCA a top priority; and in fact, during his term in the Senate, Obama had co-sponsored an earlier version of the bill. Unions spent tens of millions of dollars to support Obama against John McCain, dispatching thousands of volunteers to swing states to bolster the young nominee?s ground operation. Overwhelming union support for Obama in Michigan made it the first swing state the G.O.P. gave up on, and labor backing was vital to Obama?s eventual triumphs in Ohio and Pennsylvania. So one can hardly blame the unions for imagining that Obama would aggressively promote their interests, EFCA in particular, after he assumed office. But the unions? few legislative victories notwithstanding?as well as the appointment as labor secretary of former Representative Hilda Solis, who by all accounts is very sympathetic to unions?Obama has failed to embrace their agenda. Privately, union officials clearly feel let down by the new president. ?It?s been disappointing,? one told me. ?We would like a higher decibel level. We haven?t had the bully pulpit. Strengthening unions is one of the most important things he can do to rebuild the middle class, but he hardly mentions EFCA when he talks about that goal.? The day after we spoke, the _New York Times _published a lengthy interview with Obama in which he said that better schools, financial reform, and more affordable health care were the pillars of the future economy. Asked specifically what he saw as ?today?s ticket to the middle class,? the president replied: ?I think it would be too rigid to say everybody needs a four-year college degree. I think everybody needs enough post-high-school training that they are competent in fields that require technical expertise, because it?s very hard to imagine getting a job that pays a living wage without that?or it?s very hard at least to envision a steady job in the absence of that.? Missing was any mention of unions or EFCA. The best assessment of Obama?s mind-set I?ve heard so far was offered by Glenn Spencer at the Chamber of Commerce. ?The administration is working on a lot of serious issues, the kind of things that make a legacy?health care, the economy, immigration reform,? he said. ?This is just a distraction. It will split the Senate right down the middle, and you still may not win. [Obama?s] not going to ignore the unions. But will he sink a lot of political capital into a radioactive issue like this? I don?t think so. Congress has noted the lack of engagement. They know what his priorities are.? The Democratic-led Congress also has been a letdown to unions. Back in August of 2008, when it was already clear that the G.O.P. would be routed in the fall election, the Retail Industry Leaders Association gathered for a retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. One of the group?s top flacks, Brian Dodge, flipped through a PowerPoint presentation that warned of ?Harsh Realities? regarding EFCA?s favorable chances. Consideration of the bill, one slide advised, would be ?likely in the first 100 days of the next Congress,? which would be more amenable to the bill than the last Congress. But the intense business lobbying of recent months has clearly had an impact on wavering legislators, especially moderate Democrats from states like Arkansas, where union voters are few. Ironically, Obama?s election might also have helped to flip some senators? votes (for example, Specter and Lincoln) or prompted others to delay in announcing their position (as Landrieu and Pryor have). When the bill came up for a vote in 2007, noted Gene Barr, head of government affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, ?you had a president who was adamantly opposed and sure to veto it. So it was a free vote. You could tell labor you were with them but there was no chance it was going to pass. This time it?s a different climate.? In April I traveled to Pittsburgh to meet with the pro-EFCA activists from the United Steelworkers (USW). The city has rebounded from the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and is often hailed today as a model of urban post-industrialism. Most of the new jobs there have been in health care and higher education, and these jobs typically pay much less than what workers at the steel mills made. Moreover, the city?s demographics have become bizarrely skewed, as college graduates and middle-aged people have fled?leaving large ranks of the elderly, who scrape by on union health-care benefits and pensions. Overall, Pittsburgh is one of the only major cities in the country to have lost population for the past three decades. Since the collapse of the steel industry, the USW has had to diversify, with more than 80 percent of its membership now working in non-steel industries, including automobile parts, aluminum, mining, plastics, and rubber, as well as forestry and even undertaking. Steffi Domike, an outreach coordinator for the union, drove me out to the old site of Andrew Carnegie?s Homestead Works mill, where in 1892 strikers fought with hundreds of Pinkerton detectives brought in by the company. The mill shut down in 1986 and was demolished and replaced fifteen years later by The Waterfront, the biggest shopping complex in the region. All that remains of the mill is a dozen old brick smokestacks and the pump house, where the strikers fought Carnegie?s thugs. It was a cool, sunny day, and a breeze carried the overwhelming smell from a P. F. Chang?s. ?This was all mill and now it?s all mall,? said Domike, who wore a blue USW jacket. ?We?ve gone from production to consumption. They?ve created an Industrial Stonehenge with these relics dropped down in the middle of a consumption paradise. It?s like those suburban neighborhoods called Foxhall Manor, where they killed all the foxes to build it.? The following day, at the USW?s thirteen-story headquarters in downtown Pittsburgh, I met Tim Waters, head of the union?s Rapid Response network on EFCA. Along with Bob McAuliffe, a regional coordinator on Waters?s team, we drove to Beaver, an aging industrial town an hour north of the city. ?I?ve been an organizer in this union and I can tell you this,? Waters said over his shoulder, looking me in the eye in the back of the car. ?If the boss really doesn?t want the union and is willing to spend what?s needed, you can?t win. They hire union-busting firms that charge $600 to $1,000 an hour, and they?re good at what they do. At the end of the day, they just fire, threaten, and harass the leaders. Even if you get past that and the workers vote for a union, you still need a contract; if you don?t have one in a year they can begin the process of decertifying the union, so the company will just stall it out. By then, the workers are disillusioned, they?ve taken abuse, some have been fired, and they start peeling off.? USW Local 8183 is located in a brick building on a side street in Beaver, a block off the Beaver River. Waters headed straight for the office of Phil Lucci, the union president, and eyed the jars of peanut-butter pretzels, caramels, and red gummy bears on his desk. It wasn?t long before the conversation turned to the bitter topic of Arlen Specter. Early this year, before Specter left the Republican Party, the AFL-CIO thought it had a deal with him: labor would back him for re-election against a Democratic opponent in 2010 in exchange for his continued support of EFCA. Waters acknowledged his frustration with Specter but said it was important for union activists to keep their heads. ?I?ve never been madder at any legislator than I am with him right now,? he said. ?But our challenge becomes what do we do about it. We?ve asked our members to take action [on EFCA] fourteen times already, but now we have to go back and tell them, ?I know we told you he said he was with us, but you have to do more.? We have to assume that he changed his position before and there?s no reason to think he can?t do it again.? (In fact, of this writing, Specter had softened his opposition and was trying to broker a compromise with pro-labor Democrats in the Senate.) The unions have fought too long and spent too much money to walk away from the EFCA fight with nothing. Can they push Obama and the Democrats to approve a compromise bill that genuinely makes it easier for workers to organize unions? Or will any bill end up being merely a face-saving gesture? Given the shakiness of support for EFCA, unions will probably have to drop the two key provisions on organizing: majority sign-up and binding arbitration. Labor will now likely focus on heightening the penalties for companies that violate labor law, and on narrowing the window during which union elections are held (which would give employers less time to exert pressure on workers). Meanwhile, business will be doing its best to prevent the passage of any bill at all. ?From the union perspective, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,? Glenn Spencer told me at the Crystal City Marriott. ?They have the White House and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They?d be foolish to waste the opportunity. For business, we see this as a killer.? He added: ?And if it passes, when is the next time we?ll have a filibuster-proof majority to repeal it?? Ken Silverstein is the Washington editor of Harper?s Magazine. _______________________________________________ Rad-Green mailing list Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 32601 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/b83e1cbb/attachment.txt From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 07:53:55 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:53:55 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Dollar's future in US hands Message-ID: Asia Times Online China Business Jul 2, 2009 Dollar's future in US hands By Henry C K Liu Since 2008, I have been widely recognized on the Internet as the person who changed China's policy regarding the US dollar by advocating since 2002 that Chinese exports should be denominated in yuan. Chinese readers doing a Google search on my Chinese name will find numerous posts to that effect. The issue is not whether Asian central banks will continue to have confidence in the dollar, but why Asian central banks should see their mandate as supporting the continuous expansion of the dollar economy through dollar hegemony at the expense of their own non-dollar economies. Why should Asian economies send real wealth in the form of goods to the US for foreign paper of declining value instead of selling their goods in their own economy? Without dollar hegemony, Asian economies can finance their own economic development with sovereign credit in their own currencies and not be addicted to export for fiat dollars that repeatedly lose purchasing power because of US monetary and fiscal indiscipline. As for Americans, is it a good deal to exchange your job for lower prices at Wal-Mart? (See Follies of fiddling with the yuan, Asia Times Online, October 23, 2003, for a detailed analysis of the relationship of the Chinese currency to the dollar.) In a September 2004 article, I wrote: "China needs to activate its domestic market to balance its overblown foreign trade. The Chinese economy can benefit enormously by the aggressive deployment of sovereign credit for domestic development and growth, particularly in the slow-growth western and central regions. Sovereign credit can be used to stimulate domestic demand by raising wage levels, improve farm income, promote state-owned-enterprise restructuring and bank reform, build needed infrastructure, promote education and health care, re-order the pension system, restore the environment and promote a cultural renaissance. While exchange control continues, China can free its economy from the dictate of dollar hegemony, adopt a strategy of balanced development financed by sovereign credit and wean itself from excess dependence on export for dollars. Sovereign credit can finance full employment with rising wages in the Chinese economy of 1.4 billion people and project it towards the largest economy in the world within a very short time, possibly in less than five years. The expansion of its domestic economy will enable China to import more, thus also allowing it to export more without excessive and persistent trade gaps. Much needs to be done, and can be done to develop the full potential of China's economy, but exporting for dollars is not the way to do it. "China is in the position to kick start a new international finance architecture that will serve international trade better. China has the option of making the yuan an alternative reserve currency in world trade by simply denominating all Chinese export in yuan. This sovereign action can be taken unilaterally at any time of China's choosing. All the Chinese State Council has to do is to announce that as of a certain date all Chinese exports must be paid for in yuan, making it illegal for Chinese exporters to accept payment in any other currencies. This will set off a frantic scramble by importers of Chinese goods around the world to buy yuan at the State Administration for Foreign Exchange (SAFE), making the yuan a preferred currency with ready market demand. Companies with yuan revenue no longer need to exchange yuan into dollars, as the yuan, backed by the value of Chinese exports, becomes universally accepted in trade. "Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which import sizable amount of Chinese goods, would accept yuan for payment for their oil, so will Russia. This can be done without de-pegging the yuan from the dollar and SAFE can retain it position as the exclusive window for trading yuan for other currencies without any need for new currency control regulations. The proper exchange rate of the yuan can then be set by China not based on export to the US, but on Chinese conditions. "If Chinese exports are paid in yuan, China will have no need to hold foreign reserves, which currently stand at more than $480 billion [2004 figure, $2 trillion in 2009]. And if the Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the yuan instead of the dollar, Hong Kong's $120 billion foreign-exchange reserves can also be freed for domestic restructuring and development. Chinese trade surplus would stay in the yuan economy. China is on the way to becoming a world economic giant but it has yet to assert its rightful financial power because of dollar hegemony. "There is no stopping China from being a powerhouse in manufacturing. Many Asian economies are trapped in protracted financial crisis from excessive foreign-currency debts and falling real export revenue resulting from predatory currency devaluation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), orchestrated by the US, has come to the 'rescue' of these distressed economies with a new agenda beyond the usual IMF conditionalities of austerity to protect Group of Seven (G7) creditors. This new agenda aims to open Asian markets for US transnational corporations to acquire distressed Asian companies so that the foreign-acquired Asian subsidiaries can produce and market goods and services inside Asian national borders as domestic enterprises, thus skirting potential protectionist measures. The United States, through the IMF, aims to break down the traditionally closed financial systems all over Asia. This system mobilizes high national savings to finance industrial policies to serve giant national industrial conglomerates with massive investment in targeted export sectors. The IMF, controlled by the US, aims at dismantling these traditional Asian financial systems and forcing Asians to replace them with a structurally alien global system, characterized by open markets for products and services and crucially, for financial products and services. The focus is of course on China, for as US policymakers know: as China goes, so goes the rest of Asia. "Trade flows under neo-liberal globalization in the context of dollar hegemony have put Asian countries in a position of unsustainable dependency on foreign, dollar-denominated loans and capital to finance export sectors that are at the mercy of saturated foreign markets while neglecting domestic development to foster productive forces and to support budding domestic consumer markets. In Asia, outside the small elite circle of well-heeled compradores, most people cannot afford the products they produce in abundance for export, nor can they afford high-cost imports. An average worker in Asia would have to work days making hundreds of pairs of shoes at low wages to earn enough to buy one McDonald's hamburger meal for his family while Asian compradores entertain their foreign backers in luxurious five-star hotels with prime steaks imported from Omaha. Markets outside of Asia cannot grow fast enough to satisfy the developmental needs of the populous Asian economies. Thus intra-region trade to promote domestic development within Asia needs to be the main focus of growth if Asia is ever to rise above the level of semi-colonial subsistence that will inevitably translate into political instability. "The Chinese economy will move quickly up the trade-value chain, in advanced electronics, telecommunications, and aerospace, which are inherently 'dual use' technologies with military implications. Strategic phobia will push the US to exert all its influence to keep the global market for 'dual use' technologies closed to China. Thus 'free trade' for the US is not the same as freedom to trade. Increasingly, the world's nations will all procure their military needs from the same global technology market. Depriving any nation access to dual-use technology will not enhance national security as the deprived nation can easily shift to asymmetrical warfare which is more destabilizing than conventional armament. "Still, China will inevitably be a major global player in the knowledge industries because of its abundant supply of raw human potential. Even in the US, a high percentage of its scientists are of Chinese ethnicity. With an updated educational system, China will be a top producer of brain power within another decade. World leaders in high-tech, such as Intel and Microsoft, are actively pursuing cross-border R&D wage-arbitrage in Asia, primarily in China and India. As China moves up the technology ladder, coupled with rising consumer demand in tandem with a growth economy, global trade flow will be affected, modifying the 'race to the bottom' predatory competitive game of two decades of globalization among Asian exporters to acquire dollars to invest in the dollar economy, toward trade to earn their own currencies for investment in domestic development. "Asian economies will find in China a preferred alternative trading partner, possibly with more symbiotic trading terms, providing more room to structure trade to enhance domestic development along the path of converging regional interest and solidarity. The rise in living standards in all of Asia will change the path of history, restoring Asia as a center of advanced civilization, putting an end to two centuries of Western economic and cultural imperialism and dominance. "The foreign-trade strategies of all trading nations in recent decades of neo-liberal globalization have contributed to the destabilizing of the global trading system. It is not possible or rational for all countries to export themselves out of domestic recessions or poverty. The contradictions between national strategic industrial policies and neo-liberal open-market systems will generate friction between the US and all its trading partners, as well as among regional trade blocs and inter-region competitors. The US engages in global trade to enhance its superpower status, not to undermine it. Thus the US does not seek equal partners as a matter of course. With economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, the US has been preventing, or trying to prevent, an increasing number of US transnational companies, and foreign companies trading with the US, from doing business in an increasing number of countries deemed rogue by Washington. Trade flows not where it is needed most, but to where it best serves the US national security interest. "Neo-liberal globalization has promoted the illusion that trade is a win-win transaction for all, based on the Ricardian model of comparative advantage. Yet economists recognize that without global full employment, comparative advantage is merely Say's Law internationalized. Say's Law states that supply creates its own demand, but only under full employment, a pre-condition supply-siders conveniently ignore. After two decades, this illusion has been shattered by concrete data: poverty has increased worldwide and global wages, already low to begin with, have declined since the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and by 45 percent in some countries, such as Indonesia. "Yet export to the US under dollar hegemony is merely an arrangement in which the exporting nations, in order to earn dollars to buy needed commodities denominated in dollars and to service dollar loans, are forced to finance the consumption of US consumers by the need to invest their trade surplus dollars in dollar assets as foreign-exchange reserves, giving the US a rising capital account surplus to finance its rising current account deficit. [Wages everywhere are continuing to decline with no bottom in sight in the current credit crisis.] "Furthermore, the trade surpluses are achieved not by an advantage in the terms of trade, but by sheer self-denial of basic domestic needs and critical imports necessary for domestic development. Not only are the exporting nations debasing the value of their labor, degrading their environment and depleting their natural resources for the privilege of running on the poverty treadmill, they are enriching the dollar economy and strengthening dollar hegemony in the process, and causing harm also to the US economy. Thus the exporting nations allow themselves to be robbed of needed capital for critical domestic development in such vital areas as education, health and other social infrastructure, by assuming heavy foreign debt to finance export, while they beg for even more foreign investment in the export sector by offering still more exorbitant returns and tax exemptions, putting increased social burden on the domestic economy. Yet many small economies around the world have no option but to continue to serve dollar hegemony like a drug addiction." That was written in 2004. Now, at long last, jolted by the global financial crisis that began in July 2007, China is finally demanding that its export be paid in Chinese yuan. But this demand should not be interpreted as a push to make the yuan a reserved currency for international trade. China only wants to denominate its bilateral trade in yuan. It has no desire in making the yuan a reserve currency for international trade in which China is not directly involved. Because of the size of the economy, the dollar will continue to serve as a preferred reserve currency, but only if the US puts its own financial house in order. Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is at http://www.henryckliu.com. (Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 08:25:04 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:25:04 +0100 Subject: [A-List] It's Not about Zelaya Message-ID: MRZine 05/07/09 It's Not about Zelaya by David L. Wilson Manuel "Mel" Zelaya is a rancher and business owner who wears large cowboy hats and, in November 2005, was elected president of Honduras, an impoverished Central American country with a population of 7.5 million. On June 28 of this year the Honduran military, backed by the country's elite, removed Zelaya from power. He instantly became a focus of attention for the U.S. media -- his statements were examined, and his appearances at the United Nations and regional meetings were dutifully covered. Most media depicted him as a major "leftist strongman" seeking to extend his term of office in the style of Venezuelan president Hugo Ch?vez. U.S. journalists generally present world events as the actions of a few important individuals, a sort of Greek drama without the chorus. Latin American politics especially are viewed as a parade of good guys and bad guys -- Fidel Castro, August Pinochet, Hugo Ch?vez, Alvaro Uribe. Which is good and which is bad depends on your perspective. The current Honduras coverage is no exception. Most working people in this country, pressed by the worst economic crisis of their lifetime, understandably change the channel or click on another website. If you want celebrity news, the death of Michael Jackson is far more gripping than the overthrow of Mel Zelaya. "No Revolutionary" But was this coup really about a leftist strongman? "What Zelaya has done has just been little reforms," Rafael Alegr?a, the leader of the local branch of the international group V?a Campesina ("Campesino Way"), explained to the Mexican daily La Jornada on June 29. "He isn't a socialist or a revolutionary, but these reforms, which didn't harm the oligarchy at all, have been enough for them to attack him furiously." The local elite and the U.S. media insist that the nonbinding referendum Zelaya wanted to hold on June 28 was a power grab. In reality Hondurans would simply have been asked whether they wanted to vote in the November general elections on a constituent assembly to rewrite the 1982 Constitution. If this actually came about, the new Constitution might well allow presidential reelection, but it's not easy to see how any constituent assembly could finish its work in time to keep Zelaya in office after his term expires on January 27, 2010. A more likely motive for the coup lies in the Honduran oligarchy's fear of what would happen if the people got a chance to write their own Constitution. Not many people in the United States are aware that over the past few decades Hondurans have created, under very adverse circumstances, a vibrant grassroots movement: campesino organizations like V?a Campesina; three labor confederations, often competing, sometimes cooperating; a strong indigenous movement; Afro-Honduran groups like the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization (OFRANEH);human rights monitoring groups like the Committee of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees in Honduras (COFADEH); environmental groups; community radio stations; an anti-militarization movement; women's groups; student groups; and a nascent LGBT movement. Early this year, Honduran teachers went on strike for back pay and held a sit-in at the education ministry. In February the Civic Council of Grassroots and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) organized a 12-day mobilization to protest the destruction of forests. In April hundreds of indigenous Chort? blocked access to the Cop?n archeological park, probably Honduras' most important ancient Mayan site, to press demands for land. None of these were one-time protests -- they continued long-term struggles, some going back for years. And these same groups, which frequently support each other and coordinate their actions, are the ones that have confronted the coup and the subsequent repression with massive and spirited protests throughout the country. The Chorus Takes the Stage The growth of social movements in Honduras reflects a pattern. Everywhere you look in the hemisphere, the protagonists of the drama are increasingly "the people from below" -- los de abajo, as Mariano Azuela called the subjects of his novel of the 1910 Mexican Revolution. In the first months of 2009, general strikes by virtually the whole population of the "French overseas departments" of Guadeloupe and Martinique forced President Nicolas Sarkozy to agree to an increase in the minimum wage -- and inspired workers' struggles in European France. Starting in April, militant protests by indigenous Peruvians in the Amazon region, backed by urban unionists, shook the pro-U.S. government of President Alan Garc?a. In June students battled United Nations troops in Haiti, the only country in the Americas more impoverished than Honduras, in support of workers' demands for a higher minimum wage. These struggles get little media attention here, but they have a direct bearing on los de abajo of our own country. Working people in the United States understand the effects of outsourcing industrial work to other countries, and they know about the pressure undocumented workers put on the wages of the native born. What they don't know is how these phenomena are linked to U.S. foreign policy. Some 100,000 Hondurans now work in their country's maquiladora sector, which assembles apparel and automotive parts largely for the U.S. market. About 300,000 Hondurans live and work in the United States itself, according to the 2000 census. Hondurans don't actually want to do backbreaking labor for minuscule pay in maquilas in San Pedro Sula, much less risk their lives crossing the border to work in the sweatshops of Los Angeles and New York. It is repression by the U.S.-backed military and oligarchy and the hardships resulting from US-promoted economic policies and U.S.-dominated trade deals like the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that have forced Hondurans into these jobs. It doesn't do U.S. workers any good to rail against foreign countries and "illegal" immigrants. If people here are serious about defending their standard of living, they have no choice but to oppose their government's foreign policies and to support their counterparts in countries like Honduras. Unions like United Electrical Workers (UE) and organizations like the National Labor Committee, US LEAP, Students Against Sweatshops, and the Maquila Solidarity Network are already active in this work. We need to back them -- and maybe learn some lessons from Latin America about how to fight for our rights. David L. Wilson is co-editor of Weekly News Update on the Americas and co-author, with Jane Guskin, of The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers (Monthly Review, 2007). From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jul 5 08:49:24 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 23:49:24 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Money System is a Confidence Trick Message-ID: <20090705234924.d5b481e0.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Arian Forrest Nevin, JD Banks loan us money they create out of nothing. Not only is this a scam, but it is outlawed by the Constitution, although our government allows this criminal activity. This activity is at the heart of our unsound money system, which is the direct cause of our nation`s current economic collapse. To reverse our economic decline we must have a sound and constitutional money system. "I thought that, as a scientific man, I ought to know something about economics. So I studied the money system for two years and could make nothing of it. Then, one day, the truth dawned on me. What I was studying was not a system, but a confidence trick." The conclusion that the money system is a confidence trick comes from "the father of nuclear fission" Nobel Prize winning chemist Frederick Soddy. A confidence trick is a scam, a racket, a rip off, a con. What makes the money system a confidence trick? Put most simply, money is created for private profit by banks rather than created for the common good by the government. Only the government of a nation should create money. The confidence trick that is the money system takes two forms. First, rather than simply print money, the government, when it wants more money than it has obtained through taxation, issues bonds. The Federal Reserve then creates new money that did not exist before and uses this money to purchase the bonds. Then the populace, through taxation, is forced to pay the interest on these bonds. This is how the National Debt was created. Rather than impoverishing the populace by forcing them to pay interest on bonds, the government could simply create money instead of having the Federal Reserve create money to purchase government issued bonds. Second, banks devised a subtle way to counterfeit money. Banks invented a separate and distinct form of money other than cash. Banks invented a kind of money which exists solely as entries in their computers. Over 99% of money exists in this form. Anytime a check, credit card, debit card, or money order is used, electronic bank money is being used. Whenever someone gets a loan from a bank the bank is in fact creating entirely new electronic money that did not exist before. Through this subtle form of counterfeiting banks have been able to take control of the money system. This confidence trick is played not only by US banks but by all banks the world over. The money system is the world`s longest running and most successful confidence trick. Not only is allowing banks to create money and charge us interest a confidence trick, but it is also illegal! The Constitution explicitly gives the power to create money to Congress and to Congress alone. It does not authorize Congress to allow private corporations to create money. Article I, Section 8, Part 5 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power, "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin". The Constitution is the highest law in the United States of America. No law passed by Congress can override the Constitution. It is illegal for banks to create money, and it is illegal for Congress to allow banks to create money. The only way banks could legally create money would be if an amendment to the Constitution authorizing money creation by banks were passed. There is no such amendment. Sadly the Constitution is not a self-enforcing document, and if the people do not force the government to follow its dictates the government is free to ignore the law without consequence. President Garfield stated, "He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation". Is it any wonder that against the will of the great majority of Americans the banks and Wall Street were able to get the bailout bill passed? The so-called bailout was nothing other than a massive transfer of purchasing power from the people to the banks and the acquisition of worthless debt and stock by the government at high prices from the banks. Banks were able to force this bill through because of the enormous power they wield from controlling the money system. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is a banker. He is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and he conducts government policy in accord with the interests of banks and not of the American people. The truth of the monetary system has long been withheld from the American people. We have been kept in the dark by the twin commandments put into effect through the influence and power of banks: we shall not have an honest money system, and we shall not examine the money system except under their direction. An honest, constitutional money system is the one thing banks will not stand for. The workings of the money system and the economy are always discussed in mysterious terms. People feel that it is something too complicated for them to understand. In fact, only falsehoods and false principles need to be discussed in mysterious terms. Any person of average intelligence can understand how the money system works. However, banks do everything in their power to keep people from understanding how the money system works, because if the majority of Americans ever did understand, then there would soon be a great call for the abolition of the unsound and dishonest monetary system and a call for its replacement with an honest and constitutional one. Never on television, radio, in newspapers, or in magazines is the truth of the money system discussed. The people are to be kept in the dark and ignorant. Only on the internet and in a few books is the truth of the monetary system discussed. Those who literally create money can certainly afford to direct the discourse regarding the money system in a direction favorable to their interests. Economists prophesize nothing but economic doom and gloom for us upon the horizon. This is true so long as we have a dishonest money system. As soon as it is replaced with an honest money system the way will be open to much greater prosperity than ever before. The worldwide economic crisis we face today is caused directly by the dishonest and unsound money system. There can be no liberty without economic freedom. There can be no economic freedom without an honest money system. The people must demand an honest money system. We must put such pressure on the government that they have no alternative but to execute the will of the people. Either we continue to pay billions and trillions yearly to be kept artificially poor or we demand honest US constitutional money. The choice is clear. Questions, Comments, or Submissions? Email Here: comments at nationaleconomy.net http://www.nationaleconomy.net/moneysystemisaconfidencetrick.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 5 12:18:22 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:18:22 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Eva Golinger's blog on President Zelaya's return Message-ID: <7A2EDA6D33F74F70B25AD0518AC27FBC@home9sg93n9r5y> COUP GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN ALL AIRPORTS IN HONDURAS TO IMPEDE PRESIDENT ZELAYA'S RETURN The de facto coup government in place in Honduras since last Sunday's coup d'etat has militarized the international airport outside the capital city of Tegucigalpa and shut down all other airports in the country. Letters were received by the Embassies of Argentina, Paraguay and Ecuador from the coup government, denying authorization for airplanes to land in Honduran airspace carrying the heads of state from those nations. Protesters against the coup government and in favor of President Zelaya's return are gathered around the airport in Tegucigalpa, awaiting their constitutional president's arrival. They have reported snipers are stationed all around the airport, apparently ready to fire at any airplane that enters the area. President Zelaya is announcing right now from Washington, where he arrived last night to attend the extraordinary Organization of American States (OAS) meeting that resulted in the suspension of Honduras from the multilateral group until constitutional order is reestablished, that he will return today to his country, accompanied by two different delegations. The first delegation will be compromised of President Zelaya and the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) Miguel D'Escoto. They will arrive directly in Tegucigalpa. The second delegation will be the Secretary General of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, together with President Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay and President Rafael Correa of Ecuador. The second delegation will land first in neighboring El Salvador. It is unclear still how President Zelaya's airplane will enter Honduran airspace considering the coup government has militarized the nation and placed an order prohibiting the arrival of his airplane. The flight from Washington is four hours, so he should be entering Honduras around 4pm EDT, approximately. Either the plane will be shot down or President Zelaya will be taken prisoner by the military coup forces upon arrival. Posted by Eva Golinger at 11:15 AM From nscchicago at igc.org Sun Jul 5 12:02:57 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:02:57 -0500 Subject: [A-List] NICARAGUA HOTLINE - JUNE 30th HONDURAS AND MORE - DELEGATIONS THIS NOVEMBER Message-ID: <2958E67CCE004324B02FC240600417A7@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here, friends, for Nicaragua Solidarity Chicago to announce our hosting of delegations to Nicaragua. See attachments; text follows Hotline. (PS. To be deleted from this list REPLY to NSC WORKERS COOP) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicaragua Network Hotline (June 30, 2009) News Flash: Alexis Arg?ello, mayor of Managua, holder of three world boxing titles, died in the early hours of July 1st, reportedly of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. More information in next week's Hotline. 1. Nicaragua hosts multiple official meetings on Honduran coup 2. CENIs case blocked in National Assembly 3. IMF demands damaging budget changes 4. New law guarantees food as a human right 5. Construction starts on new hospital for social security recipients Topic 1: Nicaragua hosts multiple official meetings on Honduran coup At least 15 Latin American leaders gathered in Managua for meetings of the System of Central American Integration (SICA), the Bolivarian Alliance the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) and the Rio Group, where they denounced the June 28 coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. The SICA meeting was attended by the presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, President Zelaya of Honduras, and Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza of the Organization of American States (OAS). The SICA member states voted to suspend all cooperation with the coup government including political, financial, cultural, and tourism. The Central American countries which border Honduras-Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador-said that they will close those borders for 48 hours and, if the coup is not reversed, will impede trade between their countries and Honduras. Loans from the Central American Bank for Economic Integration will be put on hold. The final declaration was read by Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega as chair for this period of the SICA. El Salvador's new President Mauricio Funes said countries should "withdraw their ambassadors from Honduras" and expel Honduras from international organisms. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias said, "We believed that coups had passed into the pages of the history books." He supported the political isolation of the coup government. OAS head Insulza, who had arrived in Managua with Funes, said, "If President Zelaya thinks that it would be a good idea to travel to Honduras, we are ready to accompany him if it is necessary." Insulza said that he would return to Washington to attend the extraordinary meeting of the OAS that will discuss sanctions against the coup government in Tegucigalpa. The ALBA also met in special session in Managua late Sunday night, after having held a summit in Maracay, Venezuela, the week before to welcome Ecuador as a full member along with St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda. They also changed the alliance's name to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas. The Managua meeting was attended by Zelaya, Ortega, Cuban President Raul Castro, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ecuadoran President Rafael Corea, Bolivian President Evo Morales, among others, who strategized about how to return President Zelaya to office. The presidents said in a statement that they would maintain themselves in permanent session to evaluate joint actions that would enable them to "accompany the Honduran people in the re-establishment of legality and the restitution of President Manuel Zelaya." Castro said, "I believe in the sincerity of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but they have to demonstrate it with actions, not just words." His formulation echoed that of the Nicaragua Network and Alliance for Global Justice which began putting out alerts on Sunday and is working with the Latin America Solidarity Coalition to coordinate grassroots pressure in the US. The Rio Group, with the presence of current chair Mexican President Felipe Calderon, also met in Managua. Calderon had arrived in the Nicaraguan capital accompanied by Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas, who had fled to Mexico after being briefly detained by the Honduran military during the coup. Calderon said that "Mexico and the Rio Group express our most energetic rejection of the coup that occurred in Honduras yesterday." The Rio Group also expressed its willingness to contribute to the "immediate reestablishment of constitutional order in Honduras." Meanwhile, the leadership of Nicaragua's National Assembly made public a resolution supporting President Zelaya which will be voted on by the full Assembly on July 1st. It urges the current Honduran authorities to restore constitutional order. The Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) leadership issued a statement saying that it is respectful of the self-determination of peoples and hoped that the crisis would be overcome by the Honduran people. The Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) condemned the coup and demanded the immediate reestablishment of constitutional order. Topic 2: CENIs case blocked in National Assembly The Sandinista Party was unable to achieve a quorum in the National Assembly on June 24 in order to hold a vote to lift the legislative immunity of Deputy Eduardo Montealegre and Central American Parliament Deputy Noel Ramirez so they could be prosecuted in the case of the Negotiable Investment Certificates (CENIs). FSLN Deputy Alba Palacios said it was possible that the vote would be delayed until after the mid-year recess. This would give Montealegre breathing space to present his side of the story to the Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) on June 29 and to the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN) that same afternoon. Both parties have deputies in the National Assembly. Palacios said that the government has higher priorities at the moment including passing amendments to the national budget. Meanwhile, some political figures are demanding that the indictments be broadened to include officers of the banks whose failures provoked the emission of the certificates in the first place. Vice-President Jaime Morales Carazo said that "Not all that are guilty are there and not all that are there are guilty," referring to the 39 figures who have been indicted. He said that those responsible for the bank failures would provide all the actors for a theater, "at least ten or more." He added, "It's not that I believe that they are all guilty but I believe there shouldn't have been such notorious exclusions." Victor Hugo Tinoco of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS), which has become closely allied with Montealegre, said that "Eduardo Montealegre was only involved in the third stage of the problem." The MRS released a statement in which the party demanded "an impartial investigation which would include all of those responsible, including those who bankrupted the banks." The statement declares that the MRS considers that "the reactivation of the legal proceedings against Eduardo Montealegre on the subject of the CENIs is manifestly a measure of political repression." The statement also said that MRS Deputies in the National Assembly would not vote for the lifting of Montealegre's immunity. That would seem to indicate that the MRS has cut its final ties to its roots in Sandinismo. Topic 3: IMF demands damaging budget changes President Daniel Ortega called on all sectors of the country to support him in discussions with the International Monetary Fund which is trying to impose loan conditions that will negatively affect the country. "I want to call on all sectors, on small producers of the countryside and the cities, on the workers in the countryside and the cities," he said, "so that we can unite in this moment because what they are doing is putting us in front of an abyss and giving us a push." On June 24 Ortega submitted an amended 2009 budget to the National Assembly which he said was adjusted to bring it into line with lower revenue expectations. Budget Committee Chair, Sandinista Walmaro Gutierrez, said that essential social services such as education and health care would not be reduced. He said that the plan is to cut capital projects held up by foreign aid hold-ups. If Nicaragua does not come to an agreement with the IMF, the country will have difficulties obtaining credit. Under the current agreement, Nicaragua is receiving US$30 million but has asked for another US$30 million to cover a budget deficit. [One source says the total in funds is US$90 million.] Among the measures that the IMF wants the Nicaraguan government to take, along with modifications to the budget, are tax reform, removing subsidies and freezing salaries and pensions. The IMF will send another mission to Nicaragua in the first days of July. IMF representative in Nicaragua Humberto Arbul? said, "The new mission comes at the beginning of July and we want to be able to take the documents to the IMF board of directors on July 29.. The mission wants to give the National Assembly time to approve the changes to the budget and the government has ready a couple of changes. Then there are the issues of the tax exonerations for non-productive activities [newspapers, donations to non-profits, etc.] and Social Security. These latter two do not need to be approved by the Assembly but they do need to be presented." He added that if the commitments have not been fulfilled, the IMF mission will not come. The Ortega administration had won approval by the Assembly in April of a modified US$32.5 billion budget for 2009, but the global economic crisis and the loss of some funding after accusations of fraud in the Nov. 2008 municipal elections has meant that expenditures have to be cut yet again. Topic 4: New law guarantees food as a human right Diverse groups of civil society and others in the Interest Group for Food Sovereignty and Nutritional Security (GISSAN) celebrated the newly passed Law of Food Sovereignty and Security that establishes the right of Nicaraguans to have sufficient safe nutritious food. The law commits the State to promote programs that assure adequate availability and equitable distribution of food according to Eduardo Vallecillo, coordinator of GISSAN. He said it will be important to provide proper funding in the budget to assure sufficient food production. The National Assembly approved the new law on June 18, making Nicaragua the second country in Central America, after Guatemala, to legally mandate food sovereignty and food security. Vallecillo said that the law does not include specific provisions against genetically modified food or detail support for small farmers, but rather for food production in general. But, he called it a great advance in identifying food as a fundamental human right. Vallecillo said this law brings state institutions and branches of government together to work for food security, creating spaces for citizen participation in decision making in municipal councils. He explained that the law includes administrative sanctions against civil servants who obstruct the fight for food security and mandates the appointment of an ombudsman, who will work out of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. Topic 5: Construction starts on new hospital for workers and retirees under Social Security As part of its effort to guarantee better quality health services, the government of President Daniel Ortega and the Nicaraguan Social Security Institute (INSS) initiated the first stage of construction on a new public hospital, to be named Solidarity Hospital, for those covered by Social Security. In Nicaragua, Social Security is both a retirement system and a health care system for those whose employers pay into the INSS. The first stage of the project will take about six months. The second phase will house emergency services for children and adults, obstetrics, orthopedics and other specialties. That will take an additional three months although no starting date was announced. Orlando Coto said, "It is magnificent. Only this government could do it. It is a great benefit, one that no other government has done for all of us." Seventy year old Rosa Coca said, "We elderly have many needs but many hospitals don't want to take us because we're on social security. It makes me happy to have this hospital." This hotline is prepared from the Nicaragua News Service and other sources. To receive a more extensive weekly summary of the news from Nicaragua by e-mail or postal service, send a check for $60.00 to Nicaragua Network, 1247 E St., SE, Washington, DC 20003. We can be reached by phone at 202-544-9355. Our web site is: www.nicanet.org. To subscribe to the Hotline, send an e-mail to nicanet at afgj.org Nicaragua Network Hotline (June 30, 2009) News Flash: Alexis Arg?ello, mayor of Managua, holder of three world boxing titles, died in the early hours of July 1st, reportedly of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. More information in next week's Hotline. 1. Nicaragua hosts multiple official meetings on Honduran coup 2. CENIs case blocked in National Assembly 3. IMF demands damaging budget changes 4. New law guarantees food as a human right 5. Construction starts on new hospital for social security recipients Topic 1: Nicaragua hosts multiple official meetings on Honduran coup At least 15 Latin American leaders gathered in Managua for meetings of the System of Central American Integration (SICA), the Bolivarian Alliance the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) and the Rio Group, where they denounced the June 28 coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. The SICA meeting was attended by the presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, President Zelaya of Honduras, and Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza of the Organization of American States (OAS). The SICA member states voted to suspend all cooperation with the coup government including political, financial, cultural, and tourism. The Central American countries which border Honduras-Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador-said that they will close those borders for 48 hours and, if the coup is not reversed, will impede trade between their countries and Honduras. Loans from the Central American Bank for Economic Integration will be put on hold. The final declaration was read by Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega as chair for this period of the SICA. El Salvador's new President Mauricio Funes said countries should "withdraw their ambassadors from Honduras" and expel Honduras from international organisms. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias said, "We believed that coups had passed into the pages of the history books." He supported the political isolation of the coup government. OAS head Insulza, who had arrived in Managua with Funes, said, "If President Zelaya thinks that it would be a good idea to travel to Honduras, we are ready to accompany him if it is necessary." Insulza said that he would return to Washington to attend the extraordinary meeting of the OAS that will discuss sanctions against the coup government in Tegucigalpa. The ALBA also met in special session in Managua late Sunday night, after having held a summit in Maracay, Venezuela, the week before to welcome Ecuador as a full member along with St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda. They also changed the alliance's name to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas. The Managua meeting was attended by Zelaya, Ortega, Cuban President Raul Castro, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Ecuadoran President Rafael Corea, Bolivian President Evo Morales, among others, who strategized about how to return President Zelaya to office. The presidents said in a statement that they would maintain themselves in permanent session to evaluate joint actions that would enable them to "accompany the Honduran people in the re-establishment of legality and the restitution of President Manuel Zelaya." Castro said, "I believe in the sincerity of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but they have to demonstrate it with actions, not just words." His formulation echoed that of the Nicaragua Network and Alliance for Global Justice which began putting out alerts on Sunday and is working with the Latin America Solidarity Coalition to coordinate grassroots pressure in the US. The Rio Group, with the presence of current chair Mexican President Felipe Calderon, also met in Managua. Calderon had arrived in the Nicaraguan capital accompanied by Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas, who had fled to Mexico after being briefly detained by the Honduran military during the coup. Calderon said that "Mexico and the Rio Group express our most energetic rejection of the coup that occurred in Honduras yesterday." The Rio Group also expressed its willingness to contribute to the "immediate reestablishment of constitutional order in Honduras." Meanwhile, the leadership of Nicaragua's National Assembly made public a resolution supporting President Zelaya which will be voted on by the full Assembly on July 1st. It urges the current Honduran authorities to restore constitutional order. The Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) leadership issued a statement saying that it is respectful of the self-determination of peoples and hoped that the crisis would be overcome by the Honduran people. The Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) condemned the coup and demanded the immediate reestablishment of constitutional order. Topic 2: CENIs case blocked in National Assembly The Sandinista Party was unable to achieve a quorum in the National Assembly on June 24 in order to hold a vote to lift the legislative immunity of Deputy Eduardo Montealegre and Central American Parliament Deputy Noel Ramirez so they could be prosecuted in the case of the Negotiable Investment Certificates (CENIs). FSLN Deputy Alba Palacios said it was possible that the vote would be delayed until after the mid-year recess. This would give Montealegre breathing space to present his side of the story to the Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) on June 29 and to the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN) that same afternoon. Both parties have deputies in the National Assembly. Palacios said that the government has higher priorities at the moment including passing amendments to the national budget. Meanwhile, some political figures are demanding that the indictments be broadened to include officers of the banks whose failures provoked the emission of the certificates in the first place. Vice-President Jaime Morales Carazo said that "Not all that are guilty are there and not all that are there are guilty," referring to the 39 figures who have been indicted. He said that those responsible for the bank failures would provide all the actors for a theater, "at least ten or more." He added, "It's not that I believe that they are all guilty but I believe there shouldn't have been such notorious exclusions." Victor Hugo Tinoco of the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS), which has become closely allied with Montealegre, said that "Eduardo Montealegre was only involved in the third stage of the problem." The MRS released a statement in which the party demanded "an impartial investigation which would include all of those responsible, including those who bankrupted the banks." The statement declares that the MRS considers that "the reactivation of the legal proceedings against Eduardo Montealegre on the subject of the CENIs is manifestly a measure of political repression." The statement also said that MRS Deputies in the National Assembly would not vote for the lifting of Montealegre's immunity. That would seem to indicate that the MRS has cut its final ties to its roots in Sandinismo. Topic 3: IMF demands damaging budget changes President Daniel Ortega called on all sectors of the country to support him in discussions with the International Monetary Fund which is trying to impose loan conditions that will negatively affect the country. "I want to call on all sectors, on small producers of the countryside and the cities, on the workers in the countryside and the cities," he said, "so that we can unite in this moment because what they are doing is putting us in front of an abyss and giving us a push." On June 24 Ortega submitted an amended 2009 budget to the National Assembly which he said was adjusted to bring it into line with lower revenue expectations. Budget Committee Chair, Sandinista Walmaro Gutierrez, said that essential social services such as education and health care would not be reduced. He said that the plan is to cut capital projects held up by foreign aid hold-ups. If Nicaragua does not come to an agreement with the IMF, the country will have difficulties obtaining credit. Under the current agreement, Nicaragua is receiving US$30 million but has asked for another US$30 million to cover a budget deficit. [One source says the total in funds is US$90 million.] Among the measures that the IMF wants the Nicaraguan government to take, along with modifications to the budget, are tax reform, removing subsidies and freezing salaries and pensions. The IMF will send another mission to Nicaragua in the first days of July. IMF representative in Nicaragua Humberto Arbul? said, "The new mission comes at the beginning of July and we want to be able to take the documents to the IMF board of directors on July 29.. The mission wants to give the National Assembly time to approve the changes to the budget and the government has ready a couple of changes. Then there are the issues of the tax exonerations for non-productive activities [newspapers, donations to non-profits, etc.] and Social Security. These latter two do not need to be approved by the Assembly but they do need to be presented." He added that if the commitments have not been fulfilled, the IMF mission will not come. The Ortega administration had won approval by the Assembly in April of a modified US$32.5 billion budget for 2009, but the global economic crisis and the loss of some funding after accusations of fraud in the Nov. 2008 municipal elections has meant that expenditures have to be cut yet again. Topic 4: New law guarantees food as a human right Diverse groups of civil society and others in the Interest Group for Food Sovereignty and Nutritional Security (GISSAN) celebrated the newly passed Law of Food Sovereignty and Security that establishes the right of Nicaraguans to have sufficient safe nutritious food. The law commits the State to promote programs that assure adequate availability and equitable distribution of food according to Eduardo Vallecillo, coordinator of GISSAN. He said it will be important to provide proper funding in the budget to assure sufficient food production. The National Assembly approved the new law on June 18, making Nicaragua the second country in Central America, after Guatemala, to legally mandate food sovereignty and food security. Vallecillo said that the law does not include specific provisions against genetically modified food or detail support for small farmers, but rather for food production in general. But, he called it a great advance in identifying food as a fundamental human right. Vallecillo said this law brings state institutions and branches of government together to work for food security, creating spaces for citizen participation in decision making in municipal councils. He explained that the law includes administrative sanctions against civil servants who obstruct the fight for food security and mandates the appointment of an ombudsman, who will work out of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. Topic 5: Construction starts on new hospital for workers and retirees under Social Security As part of its effort to guarantee better quality health services, the government of President Daniel Ortega and the Nicaraguan Social Security Institute (INSS) initiated the first stage of construction on a new public hospital, to be named Solidarity Hospital, for those covered by Social Security. In Nicaragua, Social Security is both a retirement system and a health care system for those whose employers pay into the INSS. The first stage of the project will take about six months. The second phase will house emergency services for children and adults, obstetrics, orthopedics and other specialties. That will take an additional three months although no starting date was announced. Orlando Coto said, "It is magnificent. Only this government could do it. It is a great benefit, one that no other government has done for all of us." Seventy year old Rosa Coca said, "We elderly have many needs but many hospitals don't want to take us because we're on social security. It makes me happy to have this hospital." This hotline is prepared from the Nicaragua News Service and other sources. To receive a more extensive weekly summary of the news from Nicaragua by e-mail or postal service, send a check for $60.00 to Nicaragua Network, 1247 E St., SE, Washington, DC 20003. We can be reached by phone at 202-544-9355. Our web site is: www.nicanet.org. To subscribe to the Hotline, send an e-mail to nicanet at afgj.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ? VISIT NICARAGUA ALL DAY SPANISH TUTORING TWO WEEK DELEGATIONS .NOVEMBER 15-29 .NOVEMBER 22 DECEMBER 6 .NOVEMBER 29 DECEMBER 13 .DECEMBER 6-20 2009 Tom Baker here inviting you to join me in Nicaragua during the month of Nov-15 to Dec-20. Spanish tutoring is structured and flowing, integrated into the learning of Nicaraguan culture and history, the ecology, the indigenous movement, the history of revolution in Nicaragua and what's going on now. I know my way around, will function as guide leader, help you find your own way, and together we discover the many secrets, not hiding nor hidden, that Nicaragua and the people wish to share. The experience of Nicaragua is important. That is, many of us come from Old World Europe Judeo-Christian Imperialism culture and know no other world. The experience of Nicaragua , the people, their culture, opens ways to see that Another World Is Possible. People of Nicaragua are among the many of the Americas whose first identity is their indigenous root. They never lost their indigenous identity while coping with 500 years of Old World Imperialism, Spain, Britain, and the USA. If any one of you has interest in revolutionary Nicaragua, to learn more about People as Power, or just want immersion in a Spanish speaking culture, SIGN UP NOW. The delegation fee is $600 for 14 days lodging and full day immersion in Spanish with tutor. You cover your round trip airfare to Nicaragua. We will be using the people's excellent, low cost, school bus mass transit and taxi; we'll lodge where the people do and eat where they do. EMAIL your name and contact information, delegation date to nscchicago at igc.org SNAIL MAIL your check of $100 to hold your space to Nicaragua Solidarity Fair Trade Resource 1221 W Lunt - 1A Chicago IL 60626 Visit www.vianica.com www.miraflor.org www.cecocafen.com www.nicanet.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 33144 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/24e6ed85/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/bmp Size: 1036854 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/24e6ed85/attachment-0002.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/bmp Size: 1036854 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/24e6ed85/attachment-0003.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DELEGATION NOVIEMBRE 2009 TWO EMAIL.je02 09.wpd Type: application/wordperfect Size: 666588 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/24e6ed85/attachment-0001.wpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DELEGATION NOVIEMBRE 2009 TWO EMAIL.je02 09.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1022844 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/24e6ed85/attachment-0001.pdf From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sun Jul 5 10:46:09 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 12:46:09 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN We hold the rock, said Richard Oakes Message-ID: <012f7e53$39999$0cd35320489005@xnote> WE HOLD THE ROCK [ALCATRAZ], SAID RICHARD OAKES OF AKWESASNE IN 1969 MNN. July 5, 2009. No Canadian or US government officials are talking to us. The guards and workers in the two checkpoints in Akwesasne have abandoned their posts since June 1, 2009. We can come and go off the island to the north. We can go off to the south but can?t come back. Our ancestors invoked some basic principles for us to use in such times. The federally run prison on Alcatraz Island in San Franciso Bay had been abandoned in 1963. In 1964 a small group of Lakota attempted to take the Island to invoke a principle in the 1868 Treaty of Laramie. All surplus abandoned federal land automatically reverts to the Indigenous nations. On November 20, 1969 Richard Oakes of Akwesasne lead Indigenous People onto Alcatraz Island and held it until 1971. It was to prove a basic point. This event changed the relationship between Indigenous and the US government. Up to then it was negotiation, compromise and legal remedies forced down our throats by the government. The Alcatraz Proclamation was signed, ?In the name of all Indians ? we reclaim this island for our Indian Nations?. Other abandoned federal facilities were reclaimed afterwards. The US government knowing this principle was furious that the Indigenous would have the audacity to invoke it. This act focused the entire world upon this basic law. The US government was put on the spot. It could no longer be hidden in the dusty archives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs basement. In 1971 Richard Oakes was assassinated. The Mohawks of Akwesasne have always asserted our rights for the world to know. The current Cornwall Island event reveals the nature of the relationship between the Mohawks and the US and Canadian governments. The Canadian government knows we can assert our rights over the abandoned buildings in the community, the highway and bridges that go through our sovereign land. We can invoke the Great Law of Peace which all Indigenous people adhere to. We are one people by covenant. The checkpoints have been abandoned because we won?t let their guards carry guns. We have not been violent in any way. According to the principle, the abandoned US border checkpoint at Akwesasne irrevocably reverts to the Mohawk Nation. The Canadian Twilight Zone check point in the middle of Kawenoke on Cornwall Island was abandoned and irrevocably reverts to the Mohawk Nation. The two bridges and highways onto the island are closed/abandoned by the US and Canada. They irrevocably revert to the Mohawk Nation. The RCMP and other foreign police who patrol the foot of the bridge in the city of Cornwall are trespassers. This is disputed Mohawk land. They must leave. None of these structures cannot be torn down because they now irrevocably belong to the Mohawk Nation. You build anything on our land, it?s ours. The US checkpoint and bridge are patrolled by US Border Security Field Operations and a Mohawk Policeman. US Border Security is trespassing and must leave. We can traverse the whole community of Akwesasne as one entity without borders. It was illegally divided by the US, Canadian and British governments into five jurisdictions ? Ontario, Quebec, New York State, US and Canada. They legislated two separate councils, tribal and band, to divide us with their imaginary boundary line. The outsiders cannot establish the perimeter of our territory to limit us to small areas of our vast Haudenosaunee territory. It is our right to decide who will cross the two bridges and enter our community and our territories. The Mohawk elders and people made the initial demand for no guns in the hands of foreigners in our midst. Both US and Canadian band and tribal councils stood together and made demands on behalf of the sovereign Mohawk people. The Akwesasne people took the initiative. This is an Iroquois Confederacy issue. It affects all Ongwehonwe, our friends and allies at the Canada- US and US-Mexico borders which were never meant for us. The visitors cannot apply their line to us. Rumors has it that US and Canada might build a new bridge several miles west of Akwesasne. This is part of Haudenosaunee Territory. They have to consult us and get our permission. They think they stole this land outright. No so! Most people in the world know that Great Turtle Island is ours. They cannot show any evidence that they?ve legally acquired any of our land. International law was violated by the US and Canada when they made laws to claim our land and resources. Arrangements to speak with us must be made through the Governor General and US President. Mike Mitchell, the tribal and band councils do not speak for us. Under the Great Law, they have don?t speak for the Iroquois Confederacy or Mohawk Nation. Anything they decide is not valid because they represent the foreign US and Canadian jurisdictions. Our people sit under the tent at the crossroads at Kawenoke and patiently wait for them to come and make valid and legal arrangements with us. Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations by check or money order to ?MNN Mohawk Nation News?, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Or go to PayPal on MNN website. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jul 5 20:13:54 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:13:54 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Japan caught dumping US Treasury Bonds Message-ID: <20090706111354.6c974bda.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> (Turner Radio Network) -- Two Japanese men arrested by Italian Police while trying to smuggle $134 Billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds concealed in suitcases, out of Italy into Switzerland, are employees of the Finance Ministry of Japan. Turner Radio Network has now confirmed the two men arrested by Italy were trying to secretly dump Bonds that were previously held by the nation of Japan. The men arrested have told Italian police they were ordered to move the Bonds by the government of Japan because the Japanese government has lost faith in the ability of the U.S. government to repay its debts. Despite assurances from Japanese Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano about Japan's "absolutely unshakable? confidence in the credibility of the U.S. dollar, it is now confirmed based upon the serial numbers of the Bonds, that the $134 Billion is part of the $686 billion of U.S. debt officially held by Japan. According to Italian Law Enforcement, authorities originally thought the men were part of the "Yakuza", a Japanese organized crime syndicate similar to the Italian Mafia, which lead officials to believe the Bonds were forgeries But after the men who were arrested were forced to remain in jail for more than a few days, they discarded their cover story and admitted to being employees of the Finance Ministry of Japan. Strangely, very few major media outlets have covered this story. Of the few media outlets that have covered it, one - Bloomberg Business News - reported the bonds were "fakes." But according to Italian authorities, that is a cover story developed by the U.S. government to avoid panic selling of U.S. Treasuries by other nations. Law enforcement sources in Rome claim the Italian government is ecstatic over the seizure because under Italian law, they get to keep forty percent (40%) of the smuggled bonds. The governments of both the US and Japan are trying to negotiate with Italy for return of the Bonds but because of the astonishing amount of money involved, Italy is refusing any negotiation at all. TRN has been told to expect to receive serial numbers from the bonds as proof they are real. In addition, our source claims he can obtain scanned images of some of those bonds as well. If we are given such information or images, we will report them publicly. UPDATE June 19, 2009 2115 HRS ET -- The Japanese men taken into custody by Italy have been released and they were allowed to take their "fake" Bonds with them! Authorities now say they do not know where the men went. Those same authorities have told the "Financial Times" of London that the Bonds were "most likely fakes." (Financial Times Story Here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82091ec2-5c2f-11de-aea3-00144feabdc0.html) Updated Commentary: This is the single biggest farce we've heard about in a long time. Does anyone actually believe that anyone would be transiting a national border with $134 Billion in "fake" Bonds concealed in a suitcase with a fake bottom? Does anyone actually believe Italian Authorities would ignore their own laws and release persons who violated Italian financial disclosure laws? Does anyone really believe that a bank or other entity would simply accept a US Treasury "Intergovernmental" Bond with a face value of either $500 Million or $1 Billion without ever calling the US Treasury to determine if the bonds were valid? The absurd explanation provided by the U.S. Government that the bonds were "fakes" would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Clearly the government of Japan got caught red handed trying to dump U.S. Treasury Bonds because they no longer trust that the USA can pay its debts. When the issue blew up in their faces, everyone from Japan to Italy to the USA had to get together and lie about what was happening with the hope that other nations wouldn't start dumping U.S. Treasuries too. That is precisely what happened. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or stupid. . . . . or thinks we're stupid enough to believe them! We have now entered the official "end game" for the United States Government. They are broke. Bankrupt. They have no hope of ever repaying their debts. Countries around the world know this and are starting to dump U.S. debt and U.S. currency because it will all become worthless very soon. There's no stopping it. There's no avoiding it. There's no way to patch things up to make this go away. The United States of America has been bankrupted by its own government. That government bears sole responsibility for the economic collapse that is coming. When the collapse happens, the American people - the most heavily armed population on Earth - will probably take up arms and overthrow the government by force. In our view, forcible overthrow is a fate the U.S. Government richly deserves. It would be very wise for those of you who still can, to consult with qualified financial people about how to get your assets out of the USA and your money OUT of U.S. dollars before you are all wiped out too. Time is running out. Japan is already trying to dump their U.S. holdings. You should too before everyone does at the same time. UPDATE - JUNE 20 1435 HRS ET -- The Turner Radio Network has obtained photos and video from the Guardia di Finanza (Italian Financial Police) showing the actual $134 Billion in U.S. Bonds, with coupons attached, which were caught being smuggled from Italy into Switzerland. The bonds were intercepted in Chiasso, Italy at the border of Switzerland. The Bonds were owned by the country of Japan since the early 1980's when printed bonds were still issued by the U.S. Treasury. Today, all such Bonds are done electronically. The paper bonds below were being smuggled into Switzerland by employees of the Japan Finance Ministry so they could be sold, at discount, under the anonymity of Swiss financial laws. If no one knew Japan was dumping US Treasury bonds, it would not cause a panic worldwide as other nations dumped their US Treasuries too. Japan was rudely surprised when the two employees of the Japan Finance Ministry were grabbed at the Italian border. Japan sent the $134 Billion in bonds to Switzerland because Japan has lost faith in the ability of the U.S. government to repay its debts and Japan wanted to sell the bonds at a discount off face value with the hope of recouping at least some of the money before the U.S.collapses economically. Those of you around the world who are holding U.S. Treasury notes would do well to consult with a qualified financial planner to see how quickly you can dump any U.S. Treasury Bonds and any U.S. Dollars you may be holding before the U.S. suffers the economic collapse which is now unavoidable. If you are left holding Bonds or Dollars, you will likely be financially wiped out when the US Government repudiates its debt because it simply cannot pay anymore. In the photo below, the piles of Bonds which appear to have a cash-like top have a face value of five hundred million dollars each ($500,000,000) and the smaller Bonds at the bottom right of the table are "Kennedy Bonds" with a face value of one billion dollars each ($1,000,000,000) The total face value of the bonds shown on the table below is one hundred thirty four billion dollars! U.S. Treasury Bonds grabbed by Italian Police at Swiss Border http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:XfMKzBTqko4J:www.turnerradionetwork.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D59:employees-of-japan-finance-ministry-arrested-in-italy-trying-tosmuggle-134-billion-in-us-treasuries-in-suitcases%26catid%3D1:latest-news%26Itemid%3D50+Finance+Ministry+of+Japan+arrested+Treasury+Bonds%E3%80%80&cd=1&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp&client=firefox-a http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sun Jul 5 22:38:35 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 00:38:35 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Report: US Planned Massive Attack On Cuba In 2003 Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:20 AM Subject: [stopnato] Report: US Planned Massive Attack On Cuba In 2003 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99767§ionid=351020702 Press TV July 4, 2009 US planned to attack Cuba in 2003: Report Rumsfeld had planed a huge attack against Cuba in mid-2003. Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was planning a huge attack against Cuba in mid-2003, a report quotes Cuban President Raul Castro as saying. "It was most dangerous moment ever to face our country since the missile crisis of 1962," Castro told the National Defense Council on Friday, the Cuban daily Granma reported. The then US president George W. Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney had endorsed the purported attack, AFP cited the paper as saying. "The situation prompted the party's central committee at a meeting on July 15, 2003, to boost and accelerate measures to strengthen the country's defenses," the daily wrote. Cuba's defenses are still maintained in a state of readiness, Castro said "Let's avoid war and so win it." In 1962, the discovery that Moscow was secretly building nuclear missile launchpads in Cuba pushed the world close to a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls 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 2New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sun Jul 5 22:41:13 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 00:41:13 -0400 Subject: [A-List] US Scientists Urge Government To Scrap Missile Shield Plans Message-ID: <1168271C9D794F8D8160257B789F0719@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:18 AM Subject: [stopnato] US Scientists Urge Government To Scrap Missile Shield Plans http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=47671&cid=58&p=04.07.2009 Voice of Russia July 4, 2009 US scientists say ?no? to missile shield in Europe A group of leading American scientists, including ten Nobel Prize winners, urge President Barack Obama to refrain from deploying missile shield elements in Europe, which they insist have not been properly tested. They warn that going ahead with the proposed placements would cost America dearly both politically and with regard to its national security interests, and that the implementation of the missile shield plan inherited from the Bush Administration would jeopardize much-needed cooperation with Russia in the face of new global threats and challenges. That?s why they want the new President to issue an executive order that would guarantee no US missile defense facilities in Europe. The Pentagon says it needs missile shield elements in Europe to shoot down Iranian ballistic missiles the Iranians actually do not have. In fact, the whole plan has in mind neutralizing Russia?s ICBM?s and thus gaining a strategic advantage over this country. Because these days there is not much difference, really, between so-called ?offensive? and ?defensive? potentials. This is apparently what the authors of all previous strategic arms reduction treaties were fully aware of. Natalya Romashkina, an expert with the Institute of World Economy and International Relations think tank, says that the authors of the 1972 AMB Treaty and the START 1 accord considered offensive and defensive potentials in a single package and that?s exactly what must be done again. ?Because it is the balance of defensive and offensive strategic arms that ensures you a sufficient level of stability,? Natalya Romashkina says. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls 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 2New Members Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others.. __,_._,___ From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jul 6 05:33:11 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:33:11 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Blum www.killinghope.org (July 03 2009) Much ado about nothing? What is there about the Iranian election of June 12 that has led to it being one of the leading stories in media around the world every day since? Elections whose results are seriously challenged have taken place in most countries at one time or another in recent decades. Countless Americans believe that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the Republicans, and not just inside the voting machines and in the counting process, but prior to the actual voting as well with numerous Republican Party dirty tricks designed to keep poor and black voters off voting lists or away from polling stations. The fact that large numbers of Americans did not take to the streets day after day in protest, as in Iran, is not something we can be proud of. Perhaps if the CIA, the Agency for International Development (AID), several US government-run radio stations, and various other organizations supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (which was created to serve as a front for the CIA, literally) had been active in the United States, as they have been for years in Iran, major street protests would have taken place in the United States. The classic "outside agitators" can not only foment dissent through propaganda, adding to already existing dissent, but they can serve to mobilize the public to strongly demonstrate against the government. In 1953, when the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, they paid people to agitate in front of Mossadegh's residence and elsewhere and engage in acts of violence; some pretended to be supporters of Mossadegh while engaging in anti-religious actions. And it worked, remarkably well. {1} Since the end of World War Two, the United States has seriously intervened in some thirty elections around the world, adding a new twist this time, twittering. The State Department asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown of its service to keep information flowing from inside Iran, helping to mobilize protesters. {2} The New York Times reported: "An article published by the Web site True/Slant highlighted some of the biggest errors on Twitter that were quickly repeated and amplified by bloggers: that three million protested in Tehran last weekend (more like a few hundred thousand); that the opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi was under house arrest (he was being watched); that the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid last Saturday (not so)". {3} In recent years, the United States has been patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with warships, halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas or for other illegal reasons, financing and "educating" Iranian dissidents, using Iranian groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran, kidnaping Iranian diplomats in Iraq, kidnaping Iranian military personnel in Iran and taking them to Iraq, continually spying and recruiting within Iran, manipulating Iran's currency and international financial transactions, and imposing various economic and political sanctions against the country. {4} "I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs", said US President Barack Obama with a straight face on June 23. "Some in the Iranian government [have been] accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd." {5} "Never believe anything until it's officially denied", British writer Claud Cockburn famously said. In his world-prominent speech to the Middle East on June 4, Obama mentioned that "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government". So we have the president of the United States admitting to a previous overthrow of the Iranian government while the United States is in the very midst of trying to overthrow the current Iranian government. This will serve as the best example of hypocrisy that's come along in quite a while. So why the big international fuss over the Iranian election and street protests? There's only one answer. The obvious one. The announced winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Washington ODE, an Officially Designated Enemy, for not sufficiently respecting the Empire and its Israeli partner-in-crime; indeed, Ahmadinejad is one of the most outspoken critics of US foreign policy in the world. So ingrained is this ODE response built into Washington's world view that it appears to matter not at all that Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the election and very much supported by the protesters, while prime minister 1981-89, bore large responsibility for the attacks on the US embassy and military barracks in Beirut in 1983, which took the lives of more than 200 Americans, and the 1988 truck bombing of a US Navy installation in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons. Remarkably, a search of US newspaper and broadcast sources shows no mention of this during the current protests. {6} However, the Washington Post saw fit to run a story on June 27 that declared: "the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms". Can it be that no one in the Obama administration knows of Mousavi's background? And do none of them know about the violent government repression on June 5 in Peru of the peaceful protests organized in response to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement? A massacre that took the lives of between twenty and 25 indigenous people in the Amazon and wounded another 100. {7} The Obama administration was silent on the Peruvian massacre because the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, is not an ODE. And neither is Mousavi, despite his anti-American terrorist deeds, because he's opposed to Ahmadinejad, who competes with Hugo Chavez to be Washington's Number One ODE. Time magazine calls Mousavi a "moderate", and goes on to add: "It has to be assumed that the Iranian presidential election was rigged", offering as much evidence as the Iranian protestors; that is, none at all. {8} It cannot of course be proven that the Iranian election was totally honest, but the arguments given to support the charge of fraud are not very impressive, such as the much-repeated fact that the results were announced very soon after the polls closed. For decades in various countries election results have been condemned for being withheld for many hours or days. Some kind of dishonesty must be going on behind the scenes during the long delay it was argued. So now we're asked to believe that some kind of dishonesty must be going on because the results were released so quickly. It should be noted that the ballots listed only one electoral contest, with but four candidates. Phil Wilayto, American peace activist and author of a book on Iran, has observed: "Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?" {9} All of which is of course not to say that Iran is not a relatively repressive society on social and religious issues, and it's this underlying reality which likely feeds much of the protest; indeed, many of the protesters may not even have strong views about the election per se, particularly since both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are members of the establishment, neither is any threat to the Islamic theocracy, and the election can be seen as the kind of power struggle you find in virtually every country. But that is not the issue I'm concerned with here. The issue is Washington's long-standing goal of regime change. If the exact same electoral outcome had taken place in a country that is an ally of the United States, how much of all the accusatory news coverage and speeches would have taken place? In fact, the exact same thing did happen in a country that is an ally of the United States, three years ago when Felipe Calderon appeared to have stolen the presidential election in Mexico and there were daily large protests for more than two months; but the American and international condemnation was virtually non-existent compared to what we see today in regard to Iran. Iranian leaders undertook a recount of a random ten per cent of ballots and recertified Ahmadinejad as the winner. How honest the recount was I have no idea, but it's more than Americans got in 2000 and 2004. By what standard shall we judge Barack Obama? Many of my readers have been upset with me for my criticisms of President Obama's policies. Following my last two reports, more than a dozen have asked to be removed from my mailing list. But if you share my view that the numerous atrocities US foreign policy is responsible for constitute the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity and happiness, then I think you have to want leaders who are unambiguously opposed to America's military adventures, because those interventions are unambiguously harmful. There's nothing good to be said about dropping powerful bombs on crowds of innocent people, invading their land, overthrowing their government, occupying the country, breaking down the doors of the citizens, killing the father, raping the mother, traumatizing the children, torturing those opposed to all this ... Barack Obama has no problem with this, if we judge him by his policies and not his rhetoric. And neither does Al Franken, who's about to become a Democratic Senator from Minnesota. The former Saturday Night Live comedian would like you to believe that he's been against the war in Iraq since it began, but he's gone to Iraq four times to entertain the troops. Does that make sense? Why does the military bring entertainers to soldiers? To lift the soldiers' spirits. Why does the military want to lift the soldiers' spirits? A happier soldier does his job better. And what's the soldier's job? All the charming things listed above. Doesn't Franken know what these guys do? He criticized the Bush administration because they "failed to send enough troops to do the job right". {10} What "job" did the man think the troops were sent to do that had not been performed to his standards because of lack of manpower? Did he want them to be more efficient at killing Iraqis who resisted the occupation? Franken has been lifting soldiers' spirits for a long time. This past March he was honored by the United Service Organization (USO) for his ten years of entertaining troops abroad. That includes Kosovo in 1999, as imperialist an occupation as you'll want to see. He called his USO experience "one of the best things I've ever done". {11} Franken has also spoken at West Point, encouraging the next generation of imperialist warriors. Is this a man to challenge the militarization of America at home and abroad? No more so than Obama. Tom Hayden wrote this about Franken in 2005 when Franken had a regular program on the Air America radio network: "Is anyone else disappointed with Al Franken's daily defense of the continued war in Iraq? Not Bush's version of the war, because that would undermine Air America's laudable purpose of rallying an anti-Bush audience. But, well, Kerry's version of the war, one that can be better managed and won, somehow with better body armor and fewer torture cells. This morning Franken was endorsing Senator Joe Biden's proposal to send 5,000 NATO troops to close the Syrian-Iraq border, bring in foreign trainers for the Iraqi officer corps, and put Iraqis to work cleaning up the destruction of our invasion ... Now that Bush has manipulated us into the invasion, Franken thinks we have no choice but to ... stay until we crush the insurgents. It's a humanitarian excuse for open-ended American occupation. And it's shared widely by the professional political and pundit class who think of themselves as the conscience of the American establishment and the leadership of the Democratic Party." {12} I know, I know, I'm taking away all your heroes. But such people shouldn't be your heroes. You can learn to see through the liberal, Democratic Party apologists for the empire. Only a week ago, documents released by the Nixon Library in California revealed that five days before US and South Vietnamese troops made their surprise invasion of Cambodia on April 29 1970 - which elicited widespread, angry protests in the US, resulting in the fatal shootings by the National Guard of students at Kent State University in Ohio - President Richard Nixon got approval for the invasion from the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Stennis of Mississippi. Stennis told the president: "I will be with you ... I commend you for what you are doing". {13} Long live the Cold War President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?" One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end. At this writing it's not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military's plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It's difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with "a frown". The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional "golpe" bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate. Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station's leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Siegel: "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while". Forman: "I think the last one was in 1983". Siegel did not correct her. {14} This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole? Notes: 1. William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 9 2. Associated Press, June 16 2009 3. New York Times, June 21 2009 4. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker magazine, June 29 2008; ABC News, May 22 2007; and Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch, June 19-21 2009 for descriptions of some of these and other anti-Iran covert activities. 5. White House press conference, June 23 2009 6. The only mention is by Jeff Stein in "CQ Politics" [Congressional Quarterly], online, June 22 2009, "according to former CIA and military officials". 7. Center for International Policy (Washington, DC) report, June 16 2009 8. Time magazine, June 29 2009, page 26 9. AlterNet.org, June 14 2009; Wilayto is the author of In Defense of Iran: Notes from a US Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic (2009) 10. Washington Post, February 16 2004 11. Star Tribune (Minneapolis), March 26 2009 12. Huffington Post, sometime in June 2005, but it may no longer be there. 13. Washington Post, June 30 2009 14. NPR, All Things Considered, June 29 2009 William Blum is the author of:- Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two (Common Courage Press, 1995) Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Zed Books, 2002) West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir (Soft Skull Press, 2002) Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (Common Courage Press, 2004) Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at http://www.killinghope.org and previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website. To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area. Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite. Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer71.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Sun Jul 5 20:29:49 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 21:29:49 -0500 Subject: [A-List] HONDURAS 5 DE JULIO, DIA 8 Message-ID: <1D4FFD322D6B420E8F2364B6F7FB0A4B@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here and the coup junta are so tripping over themselves. This sending includes photos and video from the streets, updating info, what we know right now. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 869 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 4514 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] Earlier today: Sea of people made the police at the airport move back! Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:10:01 -0700 Size: 55997 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0008.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: grok Subject: [21stcenturysocialism] U.S.IMPERIALISM: Repression in Tegucigalpa as presidential planes detour to San Salvador Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:35:28 -0700 Size: 4982 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0009.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Kaufman" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: THE RESURGENCE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN HONDURAS Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:42:02 -0400 Size: 50360 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0010.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Kaufman" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: Honduran coup leaders' plots against other countries revealed Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:02:01 -0400 Size: 16050 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0011.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Eric LeCompte" Subject: [Lasolidarity] Plane carrying ousted Honduran President Zelaya diverted to El Salvador, authorities say Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:32:37 +0000 Size: 13534 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0012.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "andres thomas conteris" Subject: [Lasolidarity] Media Advisory: Murder, Threats and Bombing against the Press in Honduras Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:11:03 -0700 Size: 10907 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0013.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "kathy hoyt" Subject: [Lasolidarity] FW: Fotorreportaje: Mel Amigo, el Pueblo Esta Contigo Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:25:03 -0700 Size: 12035 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0014.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Hendrik Voss, SOA Watch" Subject: [Lasolidarity] President Mel Zelaya's plane was due to leave Washington at around 10 a.m. (1400 GMT), to arrive in Honduras at around 3 pm (2100 GMT) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:35:05 +0000 Size: 6691 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090705/a702478d/attachment-0015.eml From banishcm at sbfj.com Sun Jul 5 22:34:18 2009 From: banishcm at sbfj.com (Darlene Duke) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:34:18 -0300 Subject: [A-List] Diplomas for everybody. Message-ID: <000d01c9fdf3$06a114f0$6400a8c0@banishcm> GET YOUR DIPLOMA TODAY!If you are looking for a fast and cheap way to get a diploma, this is the best way out for you. Choose the desired field and degree and call us right now: For US: 1.845.709.8044 Outside US: +1.845.709.8044 "Just leave your NAME & PHONE NO. (with CountryCode)" in the voicemail. Our staff will get back to you in next few days! From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 14:53:30 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:53:30 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com> Interesting that this article appears to be about the Iranian elections, but does not clarify in the least what happened that would make it a fraud, or not... Just innuendo based on previous US actions that may or may not be applicable, and then it wanders off to discussions of "They did it here (Honduras for example) so they MUST have done the same thing there." It's the old 'Vietnam Commie Massacre' story, where the articles begin to discuss the alleged post-US occupation massacre in Vietnam but quickly moves to 'details from Laos and Cambodia'. I'm NOT impressed, as a matter of fact, I find this style of proving a point (that is perhaps unprovable) disingenuously suspect. Here's Mousavi's basis for claims of election fraud: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/04/AR2009070402685.html > In a 24-page document posted on his Web site, Mousavi's special > committee studying election fraud accused influential Ahmadinejad > supporters of handing out cash bonuses and food, increasing wages, > printing millions of extra ballots and other acts in the run-up to the > vote. > > The committee, whose members were appointed by Mousavi, said the state > did everything in its power to get Ahmadinejad reelected, including > using military forces and government planes to support his campaign I've already sumitted in a previous posting that "using military forces and government planes" etc, is traditional (if not due for reform) in Iranian elections. However, "cash bonuses and food, increasing wages" is the equivalent of ol GW giving tax cuts to SOME interest groups in the run up to the elections so everyone connected to that interest group, even remotely, would "Luv" him. > The report released by Mousavi pointed out that the Interior Ministry, > which counted the votes, is headed by Sadegh Mahsouli, a longtime > friend of Ahmadinejad. The secretary of the Guardian Council, > Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, had publicly supported Ahmadinejad, as had > six others on the 12-member council despite a law requiring them to > remain impartial, according to the report. If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what would the folks on this list think? I KNOW scant few of you (if any) would be manning burning barricades in the streets of your town. > Mousavi and his supporters say that commanders of the Revolutionary > Guard Corps played an instrumental role in the election by campaigning > for Ahmadinejad. The report pointed to interviews with Guard Corps > publications in which commanders allegedly implied that they would not > accept victory by any candidate except Ahmadinejad. That's equivalent to the commander of the US National Guard publicly campaigning for a candidate and threatening a coup if the candidate of choice did not win. Obviously, these charges need further elaboration and a public display of proof (if the researchers aren't imprisoned or killed first) but somewhere, a while back, some pundit compared GW Bush and Ahmadinejad to each other socio-politically, and found little difference. I second that... Ahmadinejad appears to be an arrogant, albeit educated, political jackass. So what makes Ahmadinejad "revolutionary", and Mousavi not? Mr Blum didn't elaborate on that question either. Maybe someone here can elaborate, WITHOUT mentioning "Western" connections. The people responsible for the creation of the 'Iranian revolution' that allowed for Ahmadinejad's to rise to a position of power in Iran were for the most part Western educated... Heck! They almost completely funded the construction of Monterey Peninsula Community College, right down the street from the Naval Post-Graduate School and Defense Language Institute. If anyone, the people who set the stage for Ahmadinejad's rise to power, were not only Western connected, the local community here thrived in the shadow of the US military's spook schools. It WOULD be worth considering that NO revolution has happened within the last 50 years or more in Iran that wasn't supported by the West and perhaps the vehement (and verbally insulting to opposing views) favoritism shown by some of the posters here simply illustrates that Marxists prefer authoritarians.... Revolutionary or not. Leigh Bill Totten wrote: > by William Blum > > www.killinghope.org (July 03 2009) > > > Much ado about nothing? > > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jul 6 18:01:52 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:01:52 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Where Economics Fails Message-ID: <20090707090152.063d301d.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (July 01 2009) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society It's occurred to me more than once that we might be wise to set aside an annual weekend to mourn the death of Osiris or Persephone or Bladud the wind-god or some other divinity, as our pagan ancestors did, or as those Christians who still take the narratives of their faith seriously do each year on Good Friday. It might at least put a merciful end to the media's frantic and macabre efforts to bestow a belated sainthood on each new member of the dead celebrities' club, no matter how far from sanctity the trajectory of their lives might have been. Thus you'd be correct in guessing that I didn't put much time this past weekend into paying attention to the media furore over the death of Michael Jackson. I was, instead, busy with my usual research. While tens of millions of people spent the weekend glued to their TVs reviewing the catastrophic fall from grace of an undeniably brilliant cultural phenomenon that achieved unparalleled success, and then was brought down by a supertanker-sized load of unresolved inner conflicts heated to crisis by a disastrous mismatch between an extravagant lifestyle and faltering income - well, I suppose that's a fair description of what I was doing, too. Still, the decline and fall of industrial civilization, that troubled and dysfunctional superstar still wobbling across the historical stage, can't be tracked that effectively by taking in music videos or soundbite interviews. Instead, I spent the weekend reading through economics textbooks. "Thriller" is not exactly the word I'd use to describe these hefty tomes, but I'd recommend that anyone concerned with the future of our society ought to read at least one. This is not because current economic textbooks offer useful guidance to the challenges of our time. Quite the contrary; the world they describe is as imaginary as Oz, and rather less relevant to contemporary life. What makes them important is precisely that so many of the decision makers of our time treat this fantasy as reality. Understand current economic thought and you understand most of the mistakes that are dragging industrial civilization down to ruin. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the US government, has become infamous in the peak oil scene over the last decade or so for publishing estimates of future petroleum production that have no relationship to geological reality. Their methodology, as described in EIA publications, was simply to estimate probable increases in demand, and then to assume that increased demand would automatically be met with a corresponding increase in supply. Quite a few peak oil writers have suggested some dark conspiracy behind this blithe disregard for the limits of a finite planet, but it takes only a few minutes' worth of reading to identify the real culprit as the standard notion of the law of supply and demand taught in every first-year economics textbook today. According to this model of the world, the amount of any commodity available in a free market is controlled by the demand for that commodity. When consumers want more of a commodity than is available on the market, and are willing to pay more for it, the price of the commodity goes up; this provides an economic incentive for producers to produce more of the commodity, and so the amount of the commodity on the market goes up. Increased production sets an upper limit on price increases, since producers competing against one another will cut prices to gain market share, and the willingness of consumers to pay rising prices is also limited. Thus, in theory, the production and price of a commodity are set by a shifting balance between the desire of consumers to buy it and the desire of producers to make a profit from producing it. What makes the theory so seductive is that within certain limits, and in certain circumstances, it works tolerably well. The problem creeps in when economists lose track of the existence of those limits and circumstances, and this, to a remarkable degree, is exactly what they have done. To be fair, they had good reason to do so, because during the three-hundred-year boom that created the industrial world following the successful harnessing of fossil fuels, the limits rarely applied and the circumstances were far more often present than not. Among the most important roots of the current crisis, in turn, are the hard facts that the limits have begun to come into play, and the circumstances no longer exist. Let's start with the obvious. Imagine that a plane full of investment bankers makes a forced landing in the Pacific close to a desert island. The island has no food, no water, and no shelter; it's just a bare lump of rock and sand with a few salt-tolerant grasses on it. As the bankers struggle ashore from the sinking plane, the need for food, water, and shelter on that island is going to be considerable, but even if each of the bankers have a suitcase full of $134 billion dollars in bearer bonds - like those guys who were caught trying to enter Switzerland a little while back - that need is going to go unfilled, until and unless a ship arrives from somewhere else. The lesson here is simple: economics doesn't trump physical reality. More generally, the theoretical relationship between supply and demand functions only when supply is not constrained by factors outside the economic sphere. The constraints in question can be physical: no matter how much money you're willing to pay for a perpetual motion machine, for instance, you can't have one, because the laws of thermodynamics don't take bribes. They may be political: Nazi Germany had a large demand for oil from 1943 to 1945, for example, and the Allies had plenty of oil to sell, but anyone who assumed on that basis that a deal would be cut was in for a big disappointment. They may be technical: no matter how much you spend on health care, for instance, sooner or later it's going to fail, because nobody's yet been able to develop an effective treatment for death. Economists have come up with various workarounds to deal with external factors of this sort, some more convincing than others. Another set of factors that can crumple up the law of supply and demand and toss it into the wastebasket, though, has received far less attention. These are constraints that we might as well call "ecological", and they unfold from the awkward fact that human economic activity is far less independent of the natural world than economists often try to pretend. The scale of this dependence is as rarely recognized as it is hard to overstate. One of the few attempts to quantify it, an attempt to work out the replacement costs for natural services carried out a few years back by a team headed by heretical economist Robert Costanza, came up with a midrange figure equal to around three times the gross domestic product of all human economic activity on earth. Out of every dollar of value circulating in the world's economy, in other words, something like 75 cents were provided by natural processes rather than human labor. What's more, most if not all of that 75 cents of value had to be there in advance in order for the production of the other 25 cents to be possible at all. Before you can begin farming, for example, you need to have arable soil, water, and an adequate growing season, as well as more specialized natural services such as pollination. These are nonnegotiable requirements; if you don't have them, you can't farm. The same is true of every other kind of productive work in the human economy: nature's contribution comes first, and generally determines how much the human economy can produce. It's for this reason that E F Schumacher, the maverick economist whose ideas are the launching pad for this series of posts, drew a hard distinction between what he called primary goods and secondary goods. Secondary goods are the goods and services provided by human labor, the ordinary subject of economic theory. Primary goods are the goods and services provided by nature, and they make the production of secondary goods possible. The difference between the two is very much like the difference between income and profit in a business: you have to have income in order to have profit, and if you neglect income while maximizing your profit, sooner or later you go bust. A failure to distinguish between primary and secondary goods is at the root of a great deal of current economic nonsense. It's usually possible, for example, to substitute one secondary good for another if the supply runs short or the price gets too high, and for this reason it's a standard assumption of economics - and one of the foundations of the law of supply and demand - that consumers can meet their needs equally well with many different goods. Yet this assumption does not apply to natural goods. In the world of nature, a different rule - Liebig's law of the minimum - applies instead: production is limited by the scarcest necessary resource. Thus if you have a farm and can't get water for your crops, it doesn't matter if you have excellent soil and all the other requisites of farming; you can't grow anything. In certain limited situations, to be sure, it's possible to substitute one primary good for another - for instance, to use low-grade iron ores such as taconite when the high-grade ores have been exhausted. Even when this can be done, though, a law of diminishing returns always applies. You can get iron out of low-grade ore, but the extraction process is less efficient and takes much larger inputs of energy. When energy is cheap, you can ignore this - and this is exactly what happened over the course of the 20th century, as the iron industry retooled itself to use steadily lower grades of ore and steadily larger inputs of energy - but that in itself simply passes costs onto the future, since the fossil fuels that provided the energy inputs are themselves subject to depletion, and to a law of diminishing returns. One way or another, the substitution imposes additional costs without providing any additional economic benefit. This same rule also applies to every other natural good. Consider the valuable service provided to the world's economies by the honeybees that pollinate most nongrain food crops. If we succeed in adding the honeybee to the already long list of the world's extinct life forms, it would doubtless be possible to replace their pollination services by other means, whether that took the form of huge pollinating machines rumbling across the fields or the simpler and probably more economical approach of migrant workers using little brushes to wipe pollen from a bag onto the stamen of every single flower. Note, though, that no farmer in his or her right mind would hire a thousand laborers with brushes instead of calling up the local beekeeper and arranging for a few hives to be left in the fields; substituting some other pollination method for bees would add a huge additional cost to farming, without yielding any additional benefit. I've come to think that the unrecognized difference between secondary goods, which can be readily replaced by other goods without additional cost, and primary goods, which cannot, is among the most important forces driving our current crisis. For the last three centuries, the industrial economies of the world have been using up every primary good that can be converted into secondary goods at extravagant and steadily increasing rates. Think of any good or service provided by nature - from topsoil to oceanic fish stocks, from the pollution-absorbing capacities of rivers to the storm-buffering properties of wetlands, from breathable air and drinkable water to the mineral stocks and fossil fuel reserves that keep the entire system running - and you've just identified something that's being used up rapidly by industrial societies, with no thought of the potential costs of substituting something else for it, much less of the hard fact that nothing we can possibly do can provide a substitute for some of them once they're gone. The mismatch between this hopelessly shortsighted approach and the unforgiving limits of nature is imposing a rising toll of substitution costs on industrial economies around the world. Of course there are other factors involved. Still, as I hope to show in a future post, the best explanation for the "stagflation" that beset economies and baffled economists in the 1970s was the unrecognized burden of substitution costs for a range of natural goods depleted or damaged during the previous decades. Equally, the economic dysfunctions that led central banks around 2002 to flood financial markets with cheap credit - a disastrous decision that ended up powering the boom and bust that landed us in the current Great Recession - were driven by mounting substitution costs for another range of natural goods that had been depleted or overused in the previous decades of prosperity. As peak oil adds a new round of substitution costs to those already in play, this same process is likely to have even more dramatic impacts on the future. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/07/where-economics-fails.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tboyle at rosehill.net Mon Jul 6 15:24:45 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:24:45 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> <4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 01:53 PM 7/6/2009, Leighm wrote: >If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US >election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what would >the folks on this list think? > >I KNOW scant few of you (if any) would be manning burning barricades >in the streets of your town. What good would that do? The configuration of the people and systems of organization in north america would not be deflected much, in any way. We are fragmented and dispersed on so many dimensions, our stages of personal evolution or development, our jobs or activities we are bound to, and our very diverse, isolated social networks, etc. creates a huge lack of simultaneity. We're just living in separate worlds, we are only coordinating by money signals. We are disunited, we are not synchonized like they were in 1917 or whatever because we are not all being screwed in the same way, at the same time. We *are* being screwed, but the empire isolates and screws a few million at a time. They manipulate the many, to screw the few. People who wanted to burn tires in the street in 2000 were hugely disappointed, and cynical and apathetic by 2001. Those who were inflamed in 2001, were apathetic and quit by 2002, etc. People think I'm nuts because I'm not over the Iraq invasion in 2003 and cant even remember, no vietnamese ever attacked us, nor, koreans, etc. I think they are nuts, and ask, :"where were YOU in 2003 when we needed you?" but in 2000 I was a well-paid dot-com boomer. So the empire is as big as ever. With one flick of its mighty tail, it will sweep aside any tire-burners etc. It only increases in confidence from squashing such puny assaults. LOL! So it does even more outrageous things, creates even more outlandish propaganda. What kills the empire, I suspect in the end, is people shrug their shoulders and lose interest in it, and stop participating in the economy because the whole deal is not worth it. Rather like the Soviets who just let the thing dissolve. Today, in the U.S. it is already not worth paying your mortgage, good god, no. It is not even worth working for money at all, and more people are realizing it. You can focus on your housing and food directly, thru many other nonmonetary strategies. The work ethic is unethical. It is unethical to participate in the U.S. economy. It is not even enough to boycott, and try to control your spending. The only ethical thing for Americans, is to quit and become a dead weight on the system, just calm the whole thing down. Don't let them rev. up the engines at all. Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2917 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090706/e21f32e0/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 22:06:30 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:06:30 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Iran Jews in Israel prefer Ahmadinejad Message-ID: Alas, Mr. Mousavi can't get any break. ;-) Yoshie Jul 6, 2009 23:58 | Updated Jul 7, 2009 2:34 Iran Jews in Israel prefer Ahmadinejad By CARRIE SHEFFIELD Despite unrest and violence following last month's presidential elections in Iran, some Jewish Iranians living in Israel and abroad say life in the Islamic republic is better under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than it would be under challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. At a conference of Iranian Jews in Jerusalem on Monday, leaders of the Mashadi Jewish community said that despite Ahmadinejad's blustery rhetoric against Israel, Iran is a safe place for Jews to practice their religion. "Ahmadinejad speaks badly about Jews, but he is preferable to Mousavi," said Shlomo Zabihi, a Mashadi rabbi. The current government is relatively stable and provides a safe environment for Jews, he said. Monday's event marked the first meeting of the Global Mashadi Jewish Federation, an umbrella organization of community and religious groups preserving the historical and cultural identity of Jews from Mashad, Iran's second largest city, with a population of about 2.5 million. During the 1979 Islamic Revolution, many Mashadi Jews fled to the United States, primarily New York City - where some 6,000 Jews with ties to Mashad now live. There are almost no Jews in Mashad today, though an estimated 25,000 still live in Iran, concentrated in Teheran. "They've found it very safe and pleasant, no problems," said Bahman Kamali, founder of the federation. "Actually, the regime during [the time of reformist president Mohammad] Khatami and the regime now have been very good with Jewish people. There has not been any problem." Kamali said Ahmadinejad's calls for the destruction of Israel were not the same as condemnation or encouragement of violence against Jews in the Diaspora. "There's a distinction between the two because Iranians, they respect the religions that have books, Christianity, Judaism," Kamali said. "They respect people freely going to the synagogues and praying there without any problems." He doesn't think the Jewish community in Iran will face persecution stemming from political unrest following the disputed elections. "I'm not concerned about that," said Kamali, who downplayed the political involvement of his group. "The purpose of this conference is not political. It's only our heritage, that we are proud of to be from Mashad, Iran, and we would like to preserve that." From bobenoch at shaw.ca Tue Jul 7 04:22:46 2009 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (bob enoch) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:22:46 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> <4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5321F6.8030405@shaw.ca> > Leigh wrote..... > > If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US > election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what would > the folks on this list think? > --------------------- But that is exactly what did happen.Did you notice? Did you twitter? Bob From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Mon Jul 6 20:42:05 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:42:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <7vo5oi$1df0h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp><4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com> <7vo5oi$1df0h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <018001c9feac$84512430$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> Americans support imperialism because for many it "works" for them. And even if it doesn't, they think it does. I have spent the past 22 years or so organizing prisoners, arguably the most oppressed sector of US society. Yet the reality is most US prisoners have the same politics and outlook as both their captors and the police, judges and prosecutors who put them there. Of the 17 fourth of July's I spent in prison I always marveled at the patriotism of most prisoners. Very rarely was there ever a wholesale rejection of that system of oppression that for the vast majority of prisoners, had failed us at every turn from the day we were born and had ensured we were denied adequate educations, health care, job opportunities, etc. yet as the US invaded every country between 1987 and 2003 there would be legions willing to volunteer to go fight for the empire. Talking to older prisoners, some of whom had been doing time back during the Korean war, they said it was the same thing back then. But thinking about it objectively, the average American prisoner has a higher standard of living than say the Average Bengali or Hindu peasant in that at least they can count on three crappy meals a day, some form of shelter and inadequate medical care. On the occasions I was involved in prison riots and rebellions it was usually over some long festering abuse that led prisoners to overcome their fear (and these are men serving lengthy sentences with little hope of release in maximum security prisons, i.e., not much to lose) and rise up. Hence rebellions by Hindu and Bengali peasants but not by Americans. Given the conditions of US prisons the interesting thing is how few rebellions there are. The same thing applies to non prisoners. Most Americans are doing fairly well and people tend to rise up when they would rather die than live one more day as they are. Most Americans are a long way from that. As far as the lack of a popular response to the 2000 election. Why a response? There was no difference of substance between the candidates. There is a reason a majority of Americans know better than to vote. The other thing is most Americans rightly fear the police state. The US state is fully geared up for a domestic counter insurgency campaign, the only thing is they don't even have much in the way of protest, much less resistance. 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. Suite 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 _____ From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Todd Boyle Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 5:25 PM To: The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report At 01:53 PM 7/6/2009, Leighm wrote: If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what would the folks on this list think? I KNOW scant few of you (if any) would be manning burning barricades in the streets of your town. What good would that do? The configuration of the people and systems of organization in north america would not be deflected much, in any way. We are fragmented and dispersed on so many dimensions, our stages of personal evolution or development, our jobs or activities we are bound to, and our very diverse, isolated social networks, etc. creates a huge lack of simultaneity. We're just living in separate worlds, we are only coordinating by money signals. We are disunited, we are not synchonized like they were in 1917 or whatever because we are not all being screwed in the same way, at the same time. We *are* being screwed, but the empire isolates and screws a few million at a time. They manipulate the many, to screw the few. People who wanted to burn tires in the street in 2000 were hugely disappointed, and cynical and apathetic by 2001. Those who were inflamed in 2001, were apathetic and quit by 2002, etc. People think I'm nuts because I'm not over the Iraq invasion in 2003 and cant even remember, no vietnamese ever attacked us, nor, koreans, etc. I think they are nuts, and ask, :"where were YOU in 2003 when we needed you?" but in 2000 I was a well-paid dot-com boomer. So the empire is as big as ever. With one flick of its mighty tail, it will sweep aside any tire-burners etc. It only increases in confidence from squashing such puny assaults. LOL! So it does even more outrageous things, creates even more outlandish propaganda. What kills the empire, I suspect in the end, is people shrug their shoulders and lose interest in it, and stop participating in the economy because the whole deal is not worth it. Rather like the Soviets who just let the thing dissolve. Today, in the U.S. it is already not worth paying your mortgage, good god, no. It is not even worth working for money at all, and more people are realizing it. You can focus on your housing and food directly, thru many other nonmonetary strategies. The work ethic is unethical. It is unethical to participate in the U.S. economy. It is not even enough to boycott, and try to control your spending. The only ethical thing for Americans, is to quit and become a dead weight on the system, just calm the whole thing down. Don't let them rev. up the engines at all. Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14649 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090706/716706f2/attachment.txt From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jul 7 02:38:11 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 04:38:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Hidden Story Behind Rwanda's Tragedy Message-ID: <9198957DE9BC4C01B525DDDF46C05216@TonyPC> > > My op-ed here was changed a bit by the editor of Black Star News and as a > result some errors crept into the text that I have fixed here. The most > glaring was that he put the town of Nyaruhengeri when it is Ruhengeri that > suffered a big attack by the RPF in February 93. That's important because > they are two different towns at opposite ends of the country. He also > mangled my sentence on the Rwanda Emergency office. I corrected it here. > But if you go to the site the errors remain. I wrote to him today asking > him to make these corrections. Anyway you can distribute this version as > correct. > > Chris > > http://www.blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5831/2009-07-03.html > > > > > > [Op-Ed: Africa Genocide] > > Editor's Note: The Op-Ed is written by a Canadian attorney who represents > a defendant before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) > in Arusha, Tanzania, on war crimes charges. The attorney offers a > counter-view to the one-sided representation of the Rwanda narrative. > Readers are encouraged to submit their comments and reactions. > > > > > The Hidden Story Behind Rwanda's Tragedy > > By Christopher Black > > July 3rd, 2009 > > > Rwanda before 1990 was considered the Switzerland of Africa, a model of > social development. > The result of the 1959 social revolution that deposed the Tutsi monarchy > and aristocracy, and freed the majority Hutu population from serfdom and a > lifetime of humiliation, was the establishment of a collective society in > which both Hutus and Tutsis as well as Twas lived together in relative > harmony. Tutsis were members of the government, its administration, the > judiciary, present in large numbers in the education system, and > controlled most > of the large private commercial companies in Rwanda. > The Rwandan army was a multiethnic army composed of both Hutus and Tutsis > and it stayed a multiethnic force even when the Rwandan Army was forced by > the invaders from Uganda to retreat into the Congo forest in July 1994 > because it ran out of ammunition due to the Western embargo on arms and > supplies. > Rwanda descended into chaos in 1990 when the self-described Rwanda > Patriotic Front (RPF) forces launched a surprise attack on October 1, 1990 > from Uganda. In fact, every one of the men and officers of that invasion > force were members of the Ugandan national Army. It was an invasion by > Uganda disguised as an independent force of "liberation". Liberation from > what, has never been stated. > Initially the justification put out by the RPF was that of attaining the > return of Tutsi "refugees" from Uganda to Rwanda. However, that problem > had been resolved by an agreement between the RPF, Uganda, Rwanda, the > United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the OAU a few > weeks earlier. The Rwandan government had agreed to the return of all > those Tutsis in Uganda who wanted to return to Rwanda. > That accord required that Tutsi representatives of the refugees travel to > Kigali for a meeting to determine the mechanics of that population > movement, and how to accommodate all those people in a small country. They > were expected at the end of September 1990. They never arrived. > Instead of civilians returning in peace, Rwanda was viciously attacked on > October 1, 1990 by a force that unleashed unbridled savagery. During that > invasion the RPF forces of the Ugandan Army slaughtered everyone in their > path, Hutu or Tutsi. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians, the majority > Hutu, were butchered. These crimes have never been accounted for. > The RPF's favorite method was the bayonet or knife with which they > disembowelled men and women or to tied their hands behind their backs and > smashed their skulls with hoes, the farm tool iconic of the Hutu > peasantry. > After several weeks of intense fighting, the RPF forces were destroyed by > the small Rwandan Army and the remnants fled, on US instructions, back > into Uganda to regroup and reorganize. > The RPF still never justified this aggression and the needless slaughter > of civilians in a peaceful country. Individual Tutsis had always been > allowed to return to Rwanda from the early 1960s and several times the > Rwandan government invited them all to return. However the Tutsi > aristocracy, jealous of its lost power and which viewed the Hutus as > nothing but subhuman, refused to return unless their absolute power was > restored. This the people of Rwanda, even the Tutsis who remained in the > country, refused. > In the 1960s and early 1970s various Tutsi groups in Uganda and elsewhere > had organized terrorist raids into Rwanda in which they murdered without > pity anyone they caught. These raids were repelled by Rwanda's tiny armed > forces. The years that followed were a period of development and peace for > Rwandans. Even though one of the smallest and poorest countries in the > world it had the best road system, healthcare, and education systems in > Africa. Until the late 1980s it prospered and received help from both the > socialist countries of the USSR, North Korea and China and West Germany, > France and Israel and others. > Some Tutsis in Uganda became involved in the civil wars there between the > socialist Milton Obote and the US- and UK puppet Yoweri K. Museveni who > was supported by the West to get rid of socialism in Uganda. By 1990 > Tutsis composed a large section of the Ugandan Army and all the senior > officers of the RPF were high officers in the Ugandan Army, the National > Resistance Army. Paul Kagame himself was one of the highest-ranking > officers in the intelligence services of the Ugandan army and was > notorious for enjoying torturing prisoners. > Rwanda until 1990 was a one party socialist state. The ruling party the > National Movement For revolutionary Development (MRND) was not considered > a party as such but rather a social movement in which everyone in society > took part through local elections and the mechanism of consensus much like > the system in Cuba. The fall of the Soviet Union led to pressure from the > West, notably the United States and France to dismantle the one party > state system and permit multiparty democracy. > The President, Juvenal Habyarimana, instead of resisting, agreed to a > change in the constitution and in 1991 Rwanda became a multiparty > democracy. The fact the Rwandan government did this in the middle of a war > is more than remarkable. It was also an offer of peace. The RPF, since its > abject failure in 1990, had changed its strategy from a frontal assault to > the tactics of terrorism. > The RPF likes to refer to this phase as the guerrilla. However, it was not > the guerrilla of a liberation struggle like the FLMN in Vietnam or the > FARC in Colombia. It was instead a mirror image of the Contras campaign of > terrorism conducted against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Its purpose was > not to make revolution. Its purpose was to overthrow the 1959 revolution. > And, like the contras, the RPF was supported by the United States. > This was clear from the beginning of the war. > When the RPF launched their attack, President Juvenal Habyarimana was in > Washington, lured out of the way, by the State Department. The evidence > that the US was aware of and supported the October surprise attack was the > US Administration's offer to Habyarimana of asylum in the United States if > he surrendered power to the RPF. > Habyarimana refused and immediately flew back home. There was no > condemnation of the Ugandan-RPF aggression by the United States, a matter > which France raised at the United Nations, or any of its allies despite > the big noise they made at the same time about the advance of Iraqi forces > into Kuwait. Further, the Rwanda ambassador to the UN, then on the > Security Council, filed a protest in the Security Council but the US had > it taken off the agenda. > In fact the US and its allies supported the aggression against Rwanda from > the beginning and US Special Forces operated with the RPF from the > beginning. Recently, while former president Bill Clinton was in Toronto, > he denied any involvement in Rwanda--this is one of the big lies of the > century. Clinton and George W. Bush are up to their necks in the blood of > the Rwandan and Congolese people. > With the arrival of multiparty democracy in 1991, the RPF took full > advantage and created several front parties to take away support from the > popular MRND. These parties though claiming to represent different > political views in fact were, in the main front parties for the RPF. > The press was expanded and many of the new papers were financed by and > acted as mouthpieces for the RPF. At the same time as these parties sprang > up, criticizing the government, the RPF continued its terror campaign: > planting mines on roads that killed Hutu and Tutsi alike; assassinating > politicians and officials; and, blaming it, with the help of various NGOs > funded by western intelligence agencies, on the government. > In 1992 a coalition government was formed with the RPF or its front > parties seizing control of key ministries and appointing the prime > minister. Through these agents they also controlled the civilian > intelligence services that they then began to dismantle. The RPF engaged > in a "talk and fight" strategy. Always agreeing to a ceasefire, pressing > for more power, then launching new attacks on civilians. The most > egregious was their breaking of the ceasefire and their major offensive in > February 1993 in which they seized the major town of Ruhengeri in the > process murdering 40,000 civilians most of them Hutu. > The Rwandan Army, even though hamstrung by the civilian ministries that > were controlled by the RPF, managed to drive the RPF back. Finally in > August 1993 the Arusha Accords were signed under pressure from the United > States and its allies in which the RPF obtained major concessions in > return to the formation of a broad-based transition government to be > followed by general elections. > However, they knew they could not win such elections as the RPF was not > only unpopular with the majority Hutu population it did not even enjoy the > support of many internal Tutsis whose lives and businesses had been > destroyed by the war they did not see a need for. > Instead of preparing for elections the RPF prepared for their final > offensive. As far back as December 1993, UN reports document the massive > build-up of men and weapons coming in from Uganda. The UN force that was > deployed supposedly to ensure a peaceful transition; in fact, it was a > cover for the US and its allies to assist in this build up. > General Rom?o Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of the UN force hid > this build up from the Rwandan army and the President. The build-up was > accompanied by death threats against the president. > According to an account of Habyarimana's last conversation with president > Mobutu Sese Seko of what was then Zaire, just two days before he was > murdered, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman > Cohen had, in October 1993, told Habyarimana, that unless he ceded all > power to the RPF they were going to kill him and drag his body through the > streets. > These threats were punctuated by the murder of the first Hutu president of > neighboring Burundi, Melchior Ndadaye, by Tutsi officers in October 1993 > in which Kagame and the RPF also had a hand; the officers who committed > the murder, including Lieutenant Paul Kamana, later fled to Uganda. > Ndadaye was in office a mere four months, having won the country's first > free elections. In the aftermath of that murder 250,000 Hutus were > massacred by the Tutsi army of Burundi and hundreds of thousands of Hutus > fled to Rwanda. > The result of the 1993 offensive was that one million Hutus fled the > terror of the RPF in northern Rwanda towards the capital, Kigali, so that > by April 1994 over a million refugees were encamped close to the capital > and hundreds thousands more in camps in the south all fleeing RPF terror. > The RPF did all it could in 1994 to paralyse the functioning of the > government, to exacerbate racial tensions, and prepare for war. > Then on April 6, 1994 they launched their final surprise attack by > shooting down the presidential plane returning from a meeting in Tanzania > that Uganda's Museveni had arranged. In fact it is known that Museveni's > half-brother general Salim Saleh was at the final meeting at which the > date for the shoot down was agreed. > The missile attack killed Habyarimana, as well as Burundi's new Hutu > president Cyprien Ntayamire, and Rwanda's military chief of staff, and > others on board. This was the first massacre of 1994 and it was a massacre > of Hutus by the RPF. > The RPF then immediately launched attacks across Kigali and the north of > the country. In the sector of Kigali known as Remera they killed everyone > on the night of the 6th and the 7th, wiped out the Gendarme camp there, > wiped out the military police camp at Kami and launched a major attack > against Camp Kanombe, Camp Kigali and the main gendarme camp at Kacyriu. > The Rwandan government and army called for a ceasefire the same night and > next day. The RPF rejected the call. The Rwandan government asked for more > UN help to control the situation. Instead, the US arranged that the main > UN force be pulled out while flying in men and supplies to the RPF using > C130 Hercules aircraft. > The Rwandan Army, short of ammunition and unable to contain the RPF > advances even offered an unconditional surrender on April 12th. The RPF > rejected even this offer and instead shelled the Nyacyonga refugee camp > where the one million Hutu refugees were located provoking their flight > into the capital. > The effect of one million people flooding into a small city that itself > was under bombardment cannot be described. The RPF used this flood of > people to infiltrate its men behind army lines. This created panic among > the Hutu population that began killing anyone they did not recognize. It > was clear that the RPF was not interested in saving lives, even Tutsis, > but in seizing total power and did not want to negotiate at all. > The late Dr. Alison Des Forges, the American who was considered a noted > scholar on Rwanda, in her testimony in the Military II trial at the > International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 2006 testified that > the RPF claim that they attacked to stop a "genocide" was a myth; just > propaganda to justify their attempt to seize power by force of arms. > She also testified that the Rwandan government did not plan and execute > genocide. This accords with the testimony of General Dallaire who also > confirmed an earlier statement that there was no planned genocide by the > government as did the deputy head of Belgian Army intelligence, Col. > Vincent, who also testified at the ICTR that the idea of a genocide was a > fantasy. > The fighting in Kigali was intense. UN officers -confirming what has been > said by Rwandan and RPF officers who have testified- state that the RPF > was launching hundreds of Katyusha rockets every hour round the clock > while the Rwandan Army ran out of hand grenades in the first few days and > was reduced to fighting the RPF with hand made explosives. > The vaunted RPF could not take Kigali. The siege of Kigali lasted three > months and only ended when the Rwandan Army literally ran out of > ammunition and ordered a general retreat into the Congo forest. > RPF officers have stated that the RPF killed up to two million Hutus in > those 12 weeks in a deliberate campaign to eliminate the Hutu population. > The Akagera River, the length of which was under RPF control throughout, > ran red with the blood of the Hutus massacred on its banks. > The RPF claimed these were Tutsis but there were no Tutsis in that area > and only the RPF had access to that area. Robert Gersony, of USAID in a > report to the UNHCR in October 1994, filed as an exhibit at the ICTR, > stated that the RFP carried out a systematic and planned massacre of the > Hutu population. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gersony > As the Rwandan Army, including Tutsi officers within that army and men > retreated into the Congo forest, the Hutu population, in fear for their > lives fled with them in their millions. In local villages, Hutu neighbours > attacked Tutsis in revenge for the murder of Hutus or fearing death at > their hands. Tutsis also attacked Hutus. It was total war just as the RPF > wished. The RPF later pursued the Hutus through the Congo forest between > 1996 to 1998 and killed hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. They > were shelled, machine gunned, raped, cut to pieces with knives. Accounts > of that trek are difficult to bear. > The RPF was assisted in its offensive by the United States. The UN Rwanda > Emergency office in Nairobi in fact was manned by US Army officers and > acted as the operational headquarters of the RPF and gave them > intelligence on Rwandan Army movements and actions and directions. > Prudence Bushnell the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African > Affairs telephoned the Rwandan Army chief of staff in May 1994 and told > him that unless he surrendered he must know that he was fighting the > United States of America and would be defeated. US Special Forces fought > with the RPF. There is also evidence that Belgian forces of the UN were > involved as an intercepted radio message from Kagame to his forces in the > field refers to the help they had received from the Belgians. > There is also evidence that Canadian forces were also involved and Antoine > Nyetera a Tutsi prince, who was in Kigali in that period testified for the > defense in the Military II trial and stated that not only were there no > massacres committed against Tutsis by the Rwandan Army but that it was the > RPF that began the massacres after they took Kigali and began killing > Hutus. > Nyetera testified that despite the claim by the RPF of being a Tutsi > liberation group, when he saw their long columns enter the capital he saw > that most of them were Sudanese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Tanzanians and > others speaking Swahili or Sudanese languages, in other words, > mercenaries. > Several RPF officers have testified at the ICTR and stated that they fled > the Kagame regime as they had been promised that they fought for > liberation of the Tutsis. However, when they wanted to take over the > streets of Kigali to stop reprisals against Tutsis by Hutu civilians the > junior officers were forbidden to do so, putting the lie to Kagame's claim > that he attacked to save Tutsis. > These officers testified that Kagame wanted deaths to justify his war. The > RPF could have controlled large parts of Kigali as they had at least > 15,000 men in or near the capital opposed to 5,000 Rwandan Army forces. > Instead Kagame used his men to ethnically cleanse the rest of the country > of the Hutu population. > The Rwanda War was a total war. All means were used to destroy that > country and the Hutu people. The ultimate objective, the resources of the > Congo. The US agreed to support the RPF in return for the RPF acting as a > US proxy force to invade the Congo and seize its resources. > The US now has several military bases in Rwanda and the country is nothing > more than a US and UK colony run by thugs who keep control of the majority > of the people by intimidation, murder and disinformation. > None of this could have happened if those in the UN such as Kofi Anan, > then in charge of the Department of peacekeeping operations, had done his > job. None of this could have happened without the connivance of the NATO > countries and Uganda, from where the invasion was launched. > Ultimately, the prime responsibility rests with the United States of > America and in particular the regimes of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush > and now President Barack Obama. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then UN > Secretary General, stated to Canadian historian Robin Philpot in 2004: > "The United States is one hundred percent responsible for what happened in > Rwanda." > > > > Toronto-based Christopher Black is a Barrister and International Criminal > Lawyer. He is Lead Counsel, General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of > Staff, Rwandan Gendarmerie. International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda (ICTR) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 24059 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090707/d7f7ccf0/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Jul 7 08:46:00 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:46:00 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Frederick Soddy Message-ID: <20090707234600.f7d5da3e.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Chapter 1 of National Economy: The Way to Abundance (2009) by Arian Forrest Nevin In the 1920s Frederick Soddy undertook the first and only scientific investigation of economics and the monetary system. Soddy was "the father of nuclear fission", winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1921, discoverer of the existence of isotopes (in general, not of a specific isotope), discoverer of the cause of radioactivity, a professor of chemistry at Oxford University, and a Fellow of England's most prestigious scientific organization, the Royal Society. Without Soddy's discoveries we would never have developed nuclear power. All of these accomplishments pale in comparison to Soddy's economic and monetary discoveries. After winning the Nobel Prize Soddy went on to invent a scientific monetary system and the new science of National Economy - the science of wealth. With these inventions Soddy forever solved the problem of poverty and paved the way to national prosperity. Soddy's inventions and discoveries make it possible for everyone to work less and have more, to forever get out and stay out of debt, and to live better and longer lives. Today, Frederick Soddy is little remembered. When he is remembered, it is for his contributions to chemistry. His greatest achievements are almost completely unknown. Soddy's investigation is unique. Never before in history and never since has an investigation of the economic and monetary system been undertaken by a scientist of the physical sciences, let alone by an elite Nobel Prize winning scientist, one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived. Soddy set before himself the impossible task of discovering how to eliminate poverty and establish national prosperity - and he succeeded. In Soddy's search, his guiding question was: How can a nation - as opposed to an individual - become wealthy? Soddy's approach to the truth was fearless. He did not accept anything said by economists, banks, and financiers as true on its face. He started his own independent investigation from the ground up. Feeling that he must reach an understanding of our monetary system, Soddy spent two years studying what its advocates had to say about it. After two years of studying the monetary system he felt he "could make nothing of it". He felt this way until "one day the truth dawned on me. What I was studying was not a system but a confidence trick". With good reason, Soddy concluded the monetary system was a swindle, which depended on keeping people deceived for its successful operation. To replace the current dishonest monetary system, Soddy developed a new scientific monetary system. The end result of his investigation and efforts was the creation of an entirely new science, the science of wealth - National Economy, which explains why we do not produce the things we can make and do need and want, and how a nation, rather than an individual, can be made wealthy. In his investigation Soddy applied the physical sciences of chemistry and physics to economics. He gave a concrete scientific basis to economics. Soddy separated the subject matter of economics into the psychological - debt - and the physical - wealth. Soddy set out to discover how the current money system worked and how it should work; to discover how production and consumption could be maximized; and to find a physical definition of wealth. The product of his investigation was National Economy. National Economy is at root a social system and is the social counterpart to scientific discovery. It is the link between science and the human; the system that connects science and the social. Without National Economy we lack the ability to utilize science's discoveries fully. Soddy's great discovery was how to fully utilize scientific discoveries for human ends. As of now, we are not producing wealth at even one-fifth of our capacity to produce. What good are further scientific discoveries if we are not fully utilizing our current ones? Some discoveries are not used at all and most only partially at best. It is one thing to make a discovery and another to be able to implement it for mankind. Scientists make discoveries and leave it to others to utilize them. Soddy developed the social systems necessary for new advances to be produced, distributed, and used to the maximum extent possible. Soddy first published his discoveries in 1926 with the release of the book Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt: The Solution of the Economic Paradox. This book was followed by Money Versus Man in 1931 and The Role of Money in 1934. Soddy expected the publication of his discoveries would have a great impact upon society. Soddy believed that since the days of Galileo, freedom of scientific thought and discovery had been won. However, he was to discover that in matters of money, economics, and finance freedom of thought had yet to be won. In these matters we are very much still locked in the dark ages. What today passes for economics is not really a science, and it is completely shielded from any real criticism. It is shielded by silence. The public is carefully guarded from any real knowledge of money, economics, and finance. In Galileo's day scientists were persecuted by the Catholic Church. Today we know persecution only brings attention, so scientists with inconvenient truths are simply ignored. Their discoveries are suppressed by silence. Over eighty years have passed since Soddy first published his discoveries. Today they remain unknown and unused. Apart from the silence of the press in economic matters, there is a second reason Soddy's ideas never became widely known or popular: they are extremely difficult to understand. In this work, Soddy's ideas are for the first time made accessible and clearly explained. In addition, his system, though complete in a rough form, needed much additional refinement and improvement. I have expanded, revised, updated, corrected, stripped away the inessential, and improved the system of National Economy. Further, National Economy is presented and linked to the systems that exist today. Many of the economic events we see today, such as the "mortgage meltdown" and "credit crunch", can be explained by the principles of National Economy. Most importantly, a practical application of National Economy to alleviate many of the ills created by our current monetary system is now possible. National Economy There are two kinds of knowledge. The first kind results from the study of nature. This kind of knowledge is real and does not change. This is the kind of knowledge acquired through the studies of physics and chemistry. In this domain humanity does not have any influence on the laws it is learning. Humanity can only use these laws if it acts in accord with them. You can only harness or dominate nature by obeying natural laws. The second kind of knowledge comes from human conventions such as the law. It is an artificial knowledge created by people and is modified by changes in society. We have advanced science and technology, but the human systems necessary to fully utilize them have not been advanced with them. We have cutting edge technology alongside a medieval monetary system. It is like having the technical knowledge of how to make cars and having a factory to make them, but being unable to do so because management does not know how to structure work or organize, motivate, and manage people to work together effectively or efficiently. Our civilization today is a scientific civilization, and we are thwarted from attaining anywhere near our full potential by out-of-date human systems. Any system can have a bottleneck or limiting factor. Simply put, the government, law, monetary system, and economic system have not kept up with scientific advances, and all are now bottlenecks strangling our production and consumption. Right now, we have a massive economic traffic jam. Production, exchange, and consumption are the activities of any economic system. Money is the means by which these activities can occur. Specifically money supports processes that enable society to generate equivalencies between these three activities, that is, translate the relative importance of these three activities against and within each other. Human activity is required for production, exchange, and consumption. Whenever there are multiple activities, there must be a mechanism by which these activities can interact. Money is the mechanism that allows us to weigh these activities relative to each other. The means of interaction between the three activities is a purely human convention called money. The real nature of money needs to be understood, so we can make use of it rather than be enslaved by it. Production and consumption are both physical. However, the payment and distribution systems are products of the human mind and are changeable. The changeable human system should match and be synchronized with the physically real system. Economics is comprised of both kinds of knowledge, natural and human. Production and consumption, which are the ultimate foundation of economics, are both physical. They are both wholly governed by natural law. The system of economic exchange and interaction among humans, the money system, is wholly a human convention. Ultimately, these human conventions sit on top of the physical systems for which they create equivalencies. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we have a complete and accurate understanding of the physical processes that underlie economics. Equally important is that the human economic conventions be in accord with the underlying physical reality. We have the physical ability to meet all human economic needs and desires. We are not fundamentally limited by our resources or technologies. We have time and time again shown, that as a race, we have the ability to overcome physical constraints. However, clearly all societies of the world have people that suffer from economic hardship. These hardships are imposed by the human economic conventions. Today, the physical processes underlying economics are not fully understood, and the human conventions built on top of these processes are hopelessly out-of-date and not in accord with the physical realities. Human conventions are strangling us economically. Today, in people's thoughts, there is a complete inversion of reality. The human convention of money is thought to be of primary importance, and the underlying physical reality to be of secondary importance. National Economy is as an attempt to discover the best that an individualistic society can offer economically if it were intelligently administered. National Economy is the science of wealth. The aim of National Economy is to make a nation wealthy, and continuously increase its wealth with time. Through the study of the physical realities underlying economics and of the human system that sits on top of the physical reality, National Economy seeks to develop the human system that will best utilize our potential. National Economy seeks to maximize the amount of production and consumption of a nation up to the limit of physical constraint, rather than the current limits imposed by human convention. In the study of National Economy lies the answer to how all manufacturing that has moved to other countries and all jobs that have been outsourced can be returned to America forever, how real wages can be increased dramatically, and how, at the same time, the people can have more leisure. In short, the study of National Economy provides the answer to how the nation can be made wealthier. The Map The age we live in is scientific. Daily, the dangers to our scientific civilization grow. Our civilization is in great peril caused by obsolete and false medieval ideas. Original and fearless scientific thought is needed to avert the dangers we face. Economic sufficiency is an essential foundation of all national progress. We have, today, the ability to create a nobler and more humane civilization. This book asserts that we have the capability to completely eliminate poverty, provide excellent medical care to all, increase leisure time, reduce working hours, be wealthier, provide every family with a decent home, afford to live and raise children on a single salary, eliminate the National Debt, eliminate all personal debt, and to produce almost everything we consume here in America. Not only could we do all this, but on top of it we have the capability to produce even more, if for no other purpose than to throw what we produced into a pit. The problems standing in the way of prosperity are an unsound and fraudulent money system and a lack of understanding of the physical reality underlying economics. Nothing could do more to improve the current state of affairs than instituting and maintaining an honest money system. What normally passes for economics is really the study of chrematistics. Chrematistics is the study of commerce, of wants and demands and of how they exchange for one another. Or simply put the study of buying and selling. It is a distinct and separate study from National Economy. National Economy is concerned with the production of wealth by humans to maintain and enrich their lives. For example, chrematistics will be concerned with such questions as, given the current level of demand, what will the price of an orange be if 100 oranges are available? What will the price be if fifty or 200 oranges are available? How many oranges should be made available for sale to maximize profit? Will the cost incurred by advertising be offset by an increase in demand caused by the advertising? Everything in chrematistics is about buying and selling from an individual standpoint, whether the individual is a person or an organization. Chrematistics could also be called Individual Economy. National Economy, on the other hand, is concerned with maximizing the production and consumption of the nation as a whole, rather than maximizing the profits of an individual. Chrematistics is the study of how the economic pie is divided and of the means to increase an individual or group's share of the pie. National Economy is the study of how to make the biggest and best economic pie. The goal of National Economy is to make a nation wealthy and to increase the wealth of the nation continuously over time. Accomplishing this aim requires the government to make several changes to the current unsound monetary system. All of these changes are simple. Many of the proposed changes are what the Constitution requires, but are today ignored by the government. To understand what changes need to be made and why the changes are necessary, the reader must know: (1) the fundamental change to society that science has brought about which allows for increased national prosperity, (2) what is preventing this gain from being realized, and (3) how this gain can be realized. www.nationaleconomy.net http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 7 11:38:16 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:38:16 +0100 Subject: [A-List] =?iso-8859-1?q?WSWS__--__Iran=2C_imperialism=2C_and_the_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=22left=22?= Message-ID: <3569776C68F54BF699D438E0DED7FCE8@home9sg93n9r5y> WSWS -- Iran, imperialism, and the "left" 7 July 2009 Recent developments have further confirmed the bourgeois and politically-reactionary character of the Iranian protest movement organized by supporters of defeated reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. As the political struggle between different factions of the Islamic Republic has intensified, the imperialist powers are exerting pressure to shift the political advantage to the "reform" tendencies who favor a sharp change in Iran's foreign policy (toward accommodation with US and European objectives in the Middle East and Central Asia) and economic policy (in favor of a rapid introduction of pro-market policies). The European powers have collectively threatened to pull their ambassadors from Iran, and have summoned Iran's ambassadors to EU member states to protest Iran's detention of British embassy employees. In an even more provocative and threatening action, Vice President Joe Biden told the New York Times that the US would not veto an Israeli decision to launch a military strike against Iran. The timing of Biden's statement is politically significant. In the midst of an acute power struggle within the Iranian political establishment, Biden's message is a warning-especially to those power brokers in the Islamic Republic who are still sitting on the fence-that the United States and its clients will not wait forever for dissident forces to effect a regime change in Iran. To drive home Biden's point, the vice president's speech was supplemented by a column by Roger Cohen-who has just returned from his Tehran exploits where he led the New York Times post-election propaganda campaign-in which he urges Ahmadinejad's opponents in the Islamic Republic to carry out the president's "defenestration." As developments expose the reactionary politics of the post-election demonstrations and their limited social base, various "left" groups are trying to justify their embrace of Mousavi. Groups from the US International Socialist Organization to France's Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste (NPA) have published articles praising the protest movement's supposed revolutionary credentials. A supporter of one such group, Britain's International Marxist Tendency (IMT), sent a letter that was posted on the IMT's web site denouncing the World Socialist Web Site's coverage of the Iranian crisis. "I was horrified to discover," he wrote, "that at this pivotal moment in world history, they have chosen to devote their energy to proving that this election was not a fraud and to attacking other leftists who say otherwise. In other words, they have come to the defense of the Islamic Republic." The issue raised by this criticism of the WSWS is the means by which the "left" allies of Mousavi hope to realize their political aims. The writer of this attack is furious that the WSWS refused to line up with those factions of the Iranian bourgeoisie, backed by US and European imperialism, in their struggle against Ahmadinejad. The standpoint adopted by this critic is the destruction of the Islamic Republic is to be welcomed, regardless of the class forces, within Iran and internationally, who are carrying out the operation. This is not only the position of the letter writer quoted approvingly by the IMT. The French NPA issued a public statement in which it declared that it supported all opponents of the Islamic Republic. This declaration came just as French President Sarkozy was taking the lead in mobilizing the EU against Iran! The political and theoretical bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois left finds particularly glaring expression in an essay by IMT leader Alan Woods, published on June 26, on the Iranian crisis ("Iran regime steps up terror-a general strike is needed!"). It gives a more detailed exposition of the political misconceptions underlying the IMT reader's attack on the WSWS. Woods attempts to refute the fairly obvious fact that the Mousavi protest movement was a right-wing movement: "Some on the left are questioning whether the movement in Iran is a progressive one. They have been taken in by propaganda that states that the movement is all an 'imperialist plot' to overthrow the Islamic regime." What "propaganda" is Woods referring to? For several weeks, the mass media in the US and Europe waged an unrelenting campaign to disorient and manipulate public opinion. The flagship of "progressive" liberalism, the Nation, legitimized the media campaign with reports filed by a correspondent who had previously defended the Shah's regime. In the face of this massive disinformation campaign, a small number of publications, including the WSWS, sought to analyze the social and political basis of the Mousavi-led protests. For Woods, anything that contradicted the official mass media-sanctioned story line is illegitimate. As for Woods' claim that critics of the official story line were presenting the opposition demonstrations as nothing more than an "imperialist plot," this is simply an attempt to set up a straw man. The analysis presented by the WSWS explained that the demonstrations reflected real divisions within the Iranian regime. We also noted that among the demonstrators were elements sincerely opposed to the Islamic regime. However, the demonstrations were politically led by sections of the Iranian bourgeoisie, drew its main forces from the privileged sections of the urban middle class, and based on a program deeply antagonistic to the interests of the working class. Moreover, the issue of an "imperialist plot" was not as insignificant as Woods would like his readers to believe. Woods can only justify the IMT's support for Mousavi's movement by glossing over the class program of its leadership and the related aims of the imperialist powers. He writes: "There is not the slightest doubt that the US is covertly trying to effect regime-change in Iran, and has been doing so for the last three decades. We know that Washington has set up a special fund for this purpose." However, Woods writes as if these facts had not played a role in the situation and could safely be dropped from consideration: "But the curious thing about the present situation is how circumspect the Americans have been." [Emphasis added] This is an extraordinary statement. As in every other aspect of the IMT's line, it is simply adapting to the line of the mass media, which claimed that Obama was adopting a restrained attitude toward events in Iran. In reality, the US response to the Iranian crisis, including Biden's recent threats, has unfolded in the context of a basic US policy of encircling Iran (invading neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and keeping bases throughout the Persian Gulf) and subjecting it to constant threats of attack. This policy is not circumspect, but aggressive and criminal. Woods has more work to do to fully evade the issue of imperialist intervention in Iran. He supports the Venezuelan regime of Hugo Chavez, a bourgeois populist whom Washington would also like to remove from power. Woods has to acknowledge "the reaction of many people in Venezuela (not just Chavez), who have drawn a parallel between the reactionary movements of the middle-class escualidos trying to destabilize the Bolivarian government [i.e. the Chavez regime] and the Iranian protests." Woods reacts angrily: "What has this got to do with the situation in Iran? The government of Iran is not a progressive, pro-working class government but a reactionary theocratic dictatorship... The facts show there is nothing progressive about the rule of the mullahs in Iran, and there is no basis whatsoever for comparing it to Venezuela and Bolivia." The basic issue at stake is Woods' unprincipled and cowardly attitude towards imperialism. He does not adopt a principled class opposition to imperialist interference in all oppressed countries. Rather, he objects to imperialist intrigue in the Third World bourgeois regimes that he likes, and ignores it when it affects regimes he dislikes. Woods then tries to explain his perspective for the Mousavi protest movement. He says that it "has a confused character," but hopefully notes that "the early stages of a Revolution are always characterized by an incoherent and confused situation." As an example of a confused and complex situation, he cites the February Revolution of 1917, the initial overthrow of the czar that set the stage for the Bolshevik Party to take power in the October Revolution several months later. These analogies are untenable. The February Revolution was a mass working-class uprising that overthrew the czar; the Mousavi protest movement was a middle-class protest that lacked mass support. Woods gets even further entangled when he describes how the Mousavi protest might evolve. Noting "democratic illusions" of pro-Mousavi protestors, he says that Iranians will receive a "harsh education" about the "big illusions in the 'democratic' leaders." He explains: "The 'reformers' only want a cosmetic change, which means no change at all. The bourgeois Liberals want a change that will place them at the helm of power and protect their privileges by more efficient means of control." This is his view of the political leadership of the movement he defends against all charges of not being progressive! Woods' reasoning is that of a reactionary petty-bourgeois politician who easily adapts himself to bourgeois public opinion. His essay is an example of the politics of the overwhelming majority of "left" groups that support the Mousavi movement-a support that speaks volumes on their own social and political orientation. These petty-bourgeois groups make no class analysis of the movements they support, passing over Iran's history as an oppressed, semi-colonial country in silence as they fall in line with the latest color-coded "democracy" campaign. Alex Lantier From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 13:19:17 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:19:17 -0700 Subject: [A-List] WSWS -- Iran, imperialism, and the "left" In-Reply-To: <3569776C68F54BF699D438E0DED7FCE8@home9sg93n9r5y> References: <3569776C68F54BF699D438E0DED7FCE8@home9sg93n9r5y> Message-ID: <4A539FB5.5070805@gmail.com> "There is not the slightest doubt that the US is covertly trying to effect regime-change in Iran, and has been doing so for the last three decades. We know that Washington has set up a special fund for this purpose." That qualifies as the intellectually vacant statement-of-fact of the week. OF COURSE the US is covertly (and quite OVERTLY as well) pressing for 'regime change' in Iran. Anyone who thinks that EVERY Iranian-on-the-street doesn't know this is so, believes (by the simple process of elimination), as I've stated previously, that the Iranians are just stupid children needing 'guidance' from *their* 'anti-imperial' reference point. Arrogance on the part of the so-called 'marxist' left. Get it straight... EVERYONE is entitled to be 'wrong'. That IS how humans learn. Sometimes one is just 'wrong', sometimes people get killed, but nevertheless... ...and FWIW, in regard to my other 'dis at so-called 'marxists' ("ist" meaning 'something like', just the nomenclature is an indication of 'something like'), I never said manning burning barricades in the streets of the US would help or change anything. I just know for a fact that US 'marxists' of my generation have never considered it even when it HAS SEEMED appropriate (The US invasion of Cambodia and Laos f'rinstance), and further, reacted (as in REACTIONARY) to anyone who thought the need had arisen... often acting as GOVERNMENT SNITCHES, PROVOCATEURS, and OBSTRUCTIONISTS against anyone with any agenda besides their (insipid, un-inspired, and also worthless in the current cultural mileau) own. More recently, as I recall... I was the only person on this list supporting Iran's actions against the Iranian-American Wilson Institute Scholar Haleh Esfandiari... while Yoshie and others were horrified by it. Any attempt to brand me reactionary (Tony B.) because I believe that Iran's citizens have a right to overthrow ANY of their governments, for better or worse, is just so much rhetorical and lamely authoritarian crap whilst a number of you confusedly 'flip-flop' around on the political ground like so many fish out od the socio-cultural waters. The tactic of shouting people down they don't agree with is one of the hallmarks of the American 'marxist' 'community' and quite akin to what their counterparts in mainstream American society do (because the typical American 'marxist' IS a mainstream American (How ARE Dougie boy' Henwood's investments doing now days anyway?). Unfortunately, due to bad programming, they don't understand that 'shouting opposing views down' only works on their similarly sheep-like peers. ...and yeah Bob (Enoch), I noticed... > But that is exactly what did happen.Did you notice? Did you twitter? I was kinda busy in the streets doing public education (agitprop if you would) because of a murderous war or two and have ALWAY known the US elections were a sham. Where were you... 'comrade'? james daly wrote: > WSWS -- Iran, imperialism, and the "left" > 7 July 2009 > > Recent developments have further confirmed the bourgeois and > politically-reactionary character of the Iranian protest movement organized > by supporters of defeated reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein > Mousavi. > > > As the political struggle between different factions of the Islamic Republic > has intensified, the imperialist powers are exerting pressure to shift the > political advantage to the "reform" tendencies who favor a sharp change in > Iran's foreign policy (toward accommodation with US and European objectives > in the Middle East and Central Asia) and economic policy (in favor of a > rapid introduction of pro-market policies). > > > The European powers have collectively threatened to pull their ambassadors > from Iran, and have summoned Iran's ambassadors to EU member states to > protest Iran's detention of British embassy employees. > > > In an even more provocative and threatening action, Vice President Joe Biden > told the New York Times that the US would not veto an Israeli decision to > launch a military strike against Iran. The timing of Biden's statement is > politically significant. In the midst of an acute power struggle within the > Iranian political establishment, Biden's message is a warning-especially to > those power brokers in the Islamic Republic who are still sitting on the > fence-that the United States and its clients will not wait forever for > dissident forces to effect a regime change in Iran. > > > To drive home Biden's point, the vice president's speech was supplemented by > a column by Roger Cohen-who has just returned from his Tehran exploits where > he led the New York Times post-election propaganda campaign-in which he > urges Ahmadinejad's opponents in the Islamic Republic to carry out the > president's "defenestration." > > > As developments expose the reactionary politics of the post-election > demonstrations and their limited social base, various "left" groups are > trying to justify their embrace of Mousavi. Groups from the US International > Socialist Organization to France's Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste (NPA) have > published articles praising the protest movement's supposed revolutionary > credentials. > > > A supporter of one such group, Britain's International Marxist Tendency > (IMT), sent a letter that was posted on the IMT's web site denouncing the > World Socialist Web Site's coverage of the Iranian crisis. "I was horrified > to discover," he wrote, "that at this pivotal moment in world history, they > have chosen to devote their energy to proving that this election was not a > fraud and to attacking other leftists who say otherwise. In other words, > they have come to the defense of the Islamic Republic." > > > The issue raised by this criticism of the WSWS is the means by which the > "left" allies of Mousavi hope to realize their political aims. The writer of > this attack is furious that the WSWS refused to line up with those factions > of the Iranian bourgeoisie, backed by US and European imperialism, in their > struggle against Ahmadinejad. The standpoint adopted by this critic is the > destruction of the Islamic Republic is to be welcomed, regardless of the > class forces, within Iran and internationally, who are carrying out the > operation. This is not only the position of the letter writer quoted > approvingly by the IMT. The French NPA issued a public statement in which it > declared that it supported all opponents of the Islamic Republic. This > declaration came just as French President Sarkozy was taking the lead in > mobilizing the EU against Iran! > > > The political and theoretical bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois left finds > particularly glaring expression in an essay by IMT leader Alan Woods, > published on June 26, on the Iranian crisis ("Iran regime steps up terror-a > general strike is needed!"). It gives a more detailed exposition of the > political misconceptions underlying the IMT reader's attack on the WSWS. > > > Woods attempts to refute the fairly obvious fact that the Mousavi protest > movement was a right-wing movement: "Some on the left are questioning > whether the movement in Iran is a progressive one. They have been taken in > by propaganda that states that the movement is all an 'imperialist plot' to > overthrow the Islamic regime." > > > What "propaganda" is Woods referring to? For several weeks, the mass media > in the US and Europe waged an unrelenting campaign to disorient and > manipulate public opinion. The flagship of "progressive" liberalism, the > Nation, legitimized the media campaign with reports filed by a correspondent > who had previously defended the Shah's regime. In the face of this massive > disinformation campaign, a small number of publications, including the WSWS, > sought to analyze the social and political basis of the Mousavi-led > protests. For Woods, anything that contradicted the official mass > media-sanctioned story line is illegitimate. > > > As for Woods' claim that critics of the official story line were presenting > the opposition demonstrations as nothing more than an "imperialist plot," > this is simply an attempt to set up a straw man. The analysis presented by > the WSWS explained that the demonstrations reflected real divisions within > the Iranian regime. We also noted that among the demonstrators were elements > sincerely opposed to the Islamic regime. However, the demonstrations were > politically led by sections of the Iranian bourgeoisie, drew its main forces > from the privileged sections of the urban middle class, and based on a > program deeply antagonistic to the interests of the working class. Moreover, > the issue of an "imperialist plot" was not as insignificant as Woods would > like his readers to believe. Woods can only justify the IMT's support for > Mousavi's movement by glossing over the class program of its leadership and > the related aims of the imperialist powers. > > > He writes: "There is not the slightest doubt that the US is covertly trying > to effect regime-change in Iran, and has been doing so for the last three > decades. We know that Washington has set up a special fund for this > purpose." However, Woods writes as if these facts had not played a role in > the situation and could safely be dropped from consideration: "But the > curious thing about the present situation is how circumspect the Americans > have been." [Emphasis added] > > > This is an extraordinary statement. As in every other aspect of the IMT's > line, it is simply adapting to the line of the mass media, which claimed > that Obama was adopting a restrained attitude toward events in Iran. In > reality, the US response to the Iranian crisis, including Biden's recent > threats, has unfolded in the context of a basic US policy of encircling Iran > (invading neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and keeping bases throughout the > Persian Gulf) and subjecting it to constant threats of attack. This policy > is not circumspect, but aggressive and criminal. > > > Woods has more work to do to fully evade the issue of imperialist > intervention in Iran. He supports the Venezuelan regime of Hugo Chavez, a > bourgeois populist whom Washington would also like to remove from power. > Woods has to acknowledge "the reaction of many people in Venezuela (not just > Chavez), who have drawn a parallel between the reactionary movements of the > middle-class escualidos trying to destabilize the Bolivarian government > [i.e. the Chavez regime] and the Iranian protests." > > > Woods reacts angrily: "What has this got to do with the situation in Iran? > The government of Iran is not a progressive, pro-working class government > but a reactionary theocratic dictatorship... The facts show there is nothing > progressive about the rule of the mullahs in Iran, and there is no basis > whatsoever for comparing it to Venezuela and Bolivia." > > > The basic issue at stake is Woods' unprincipled and cowardly attitude > towards imperialism. He does not adopt a principled class opposition to > imperialist interference in all oppressed countries. Rather, he objects to > imperialist intrigue in the Third World bourgeois regimes that he likes, and > ignores it when it affects regimes he dislikes. > > > Woods then tries to explain his perspective for the Mousavi protest > movement. He says that it "has a confused character," but hopefully notes > that "the early stages of a Revolution are always characterized by an > incoherent and confused situation." As an example of a confused and complex > situation, he cites the February Revolution of 1917, the initial overthrow > of the czar that set the stage for the Bolshevik Party to take power in the > October Revolution several months later. > > > These analogies are untenable. The February Revolution was a mass > working-class uprising that overthrew the czar; the Mousavi protest movement > was a middle-class protest that lacked mass support. > > > Woods gets even further entangled when he describes how the Mousavi protest > might evolve. Noting "democratic illusions" of pro-Mousavi protestors, he > says that Iranians will receive a "harsh education" about the "big illusions > in the 'democratic' leaders." He explains: "The 'reformers' only want a > cosmetic change, which means no change at all. The bourgeois Liberals want a > change that will place them at the helm of power and protect their > privileges by more efficient means of control." > > > This is his view of the political leadership of the movement he defends > against all charges of not being progressive! > > > Woods' reasoning is that of a reactionary petty-bourgeois politician who > easily adapts himself to bourgeois public opinion. His essay is an example > of the politics of the overwhelming majority of "left" groups that support > the Mousavi movement-a support that speaks volumes on their own social and > political orientation. These petty-bourgeois groups make no class analysis > of the movements they support, passing over Iran's history as an oppressed, > semi-colonial country in silence as they fall in line with the latest > color-coded "democracy" campaign. > > > Alex Lantier > > > > From cbcox at ilstu.edu Tue Jul 7 13:48:12 2009 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:48:12 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Copy of Post to LBO-Talk. Iran & U.S. Leftists Message-ID: <4A53A67C.140BDB29@ilstu.edu> [Note for A-List: I wrote this for lbo-talk, in response to a wide-ranging set of threads on Iran. I am forwarding it to the A-List to allow Yoshie and Nestor to correct what I assume is my gross simplification of their thought. See below.] [Note: My eyesight has deteriorated to the point that I can no longer reread the whole of the text below fast enough and easily enough to know whether or not I have kept it minimally coherent. I am also posting it to to the A-List so that Yoshie and/or Nestor can correct what is undoubtedly a vulgarisation of their political theory. I have not reread the various posts (mostly from 2007) that account of their premises. When they correct me I will rewrite with corrections that portion of this post and send them to lbo-talk.] ----- Joseph Catron wrote: Perhaps we should ?focus our attention on the crimes of our own government. Those are, after all, our concern, in a way the internal affairs of the Iranian state are not. Crazy talk, I know ... This is heading in the right direction, but "crimes" tebds ti reaffirm the implicit premise in the positions you are questioning: The premise is that the goal of leftists is to have correct thoughts and feelings, which are defined as having the right MORAL posture in respect to whatever topic has been raised - in the present instance, the Iranian regime. That is no doubt an entertaining activity, and I approve of leftists having fun. [1] But it is literally inconsequential - that is, no consequence flows from it. And neither do any consequences necessarily flow from focusing on the _crimes_ of the u.s. regime. Not that those 'crimes' do not dwarf, in comparison, the worst offenses of Iran or Libya or North Korea, but that simply attending to them is as much an exercise in mere moralism as have been the posts attacking the Iranian regime. If anyone, avoiding kneejerk response, has followed Yoshie's course from the beginning of her attention to Iran,you will find that her point of departure was an empirical judggment of the U.s. anti-war effort, which she then raised to a level of theory in respect to the global struggle against imperialism. The theory (never expressed by her in these words), and the theory in which Nestor Gorojovsky tends to support also, is that only resistance on the "periphery" could defeat u.s. imperailism. (Angelus Novusdescribed this perspective as revolutionary defeatism.) Moreover, Yoshie had come to feel from her experience in the anti-war movement, this external attack on the empire (whether or not anti-capitalist) can expect no or little aid from a left movement within the core capitalist cpre. They are on their own. Hence, for example, her bracketing Chavez and Ahmadinejad. It follows that the most we can do in the U.S. is give what individual support (ideologically) that we can to those regimes. (Referencews to her as a mullah, etc. are merely clumsy slanders.) Now I have come to disagree with this theory, and have no particular opinions on the regime in Iran (or Venezuela for that matter) for essentially the same reason I reject the maunderings about "the developmental state" by the Pollyanna of the LBO list. I don't believe that capitalism _or_ capitalist aggression around the world _can_ be defeated by external opposition. That is why, for example, I insist that Capitalism is Capitalism is a sensible taugology. (The proposition "feudalism is feudalism" would be nonsense.) It can only be defeated by movements within the capitalist core: The U.S. and the European Union (along with their junior partners, England and Japan, and the camp-followers Australia and Canada). It is similarly fruitless to hope for signifcant opposition to imperailism from peripheral capitalist powers, China, Russia, Brazil, or India. It's up to us, and our priority is to build a movement at home, not hope for salvation from the resistance at the periphery. The anti-war movement was, is and will be as weak as Yoshie concluded it to be. That was not her error. Her error (and mine at the time) was to think it could be otherwise, to expect of it what no anti-war movement in isolation can achieve. Moreover, in what might be called "normal" periods" [2] leftists must accept the fact that they cannot directly, in the present, affects u.s. policy, at home or abroad, for the reason I have been hammering on for ten years: there is no left (in any coherent sense) in the U.S., and it is silly to make demands on or tp criticise that which does not exist. But there do exist, I believe, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of radical leftists, and millions of potential leftists[3]. Now, one one cannot will such a coherent left into existence - that is the trap of volunteerism. Nor can one create it in small incremental steps, moving from the present in a "progressive" manner. Actions _and thought_ dominated by present empirical actuality is wasted action, wasted thoughrt. Mass movements, from which a left can emerge, occur under conditions which cannot be known in advanced, which in fact are contingent upon events and actions which do not, in the present, point clearly to any such future. (This is simple summary of _all_ capitalist history. No one ahs, ever, predicted in advance the coming of mass movements. No one predicted the CIO; no one predicted that a bus boycott and the feeble invisible anti-wqr movement of the ealry '50s would prove to be the seedbeds of one of the greatest explosions in u.s. history. So all of this is leading to what will seem like a rather anti-climactic conclusion. Someone wrote a poem which goes something like, "They cannot see out far, they cannot see in deep / But when was that ever a bar to any wathc they keep." That sort of, in an analogjous way, points towards where I want to go with this argument. We keep trying to jumpsart mass movements. MASS MOVEMENTS, not elecotroal movements. Just as the CP & its followers kept trying to build an anti-war movement in the early '50s; just as various radicals, some associated with the CP, some with the SWP, some pacifists, some civil-rights workers, some just individual radicals, et etc etc keept sponsoring political training schools, kept talking to anyone they could buttonhole, kept trying to jumpstart this or that movement of reistance (to the Korean War, to nuclear testing, to the blockade of Cuba), drove from Stanford to San Francisco to attend little groups made up of the equivalent of today's greay-haired hippies (complaining all the time but not letting that keep them back), kept working rather pointlessly to keep this or that local NAACP chapter alive, went to demos of six lonely people against an execution. None of that had the least effect on current policy in the u.s. It never got anywhee - except for the fact that wityhhout it there would have been no Montgomery bus boycott, no March on Washington, no sprouting of local groups all over the u.s. demanding local open-housing ordinances, not Panthers, no Mobe, to Moratorums like that in Novemb er 1969 which stopped the nuking of North Vietnam. Don't' focus attention on _anyone's_ crimes; focus attention on how to build resistance to the continued crimes, at home and abroad, of the U.S. state. We won't succeed, but in that way, and only in that way, will we contribute to some future (and now not visible) mass struggle(s) which will make a difference. Incidentally, Rosa Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarianism" was not an empty slogan She saw that barbarianism was a very reall outcome of capitalism, perhaps even the most likely outcome. It's up to leftists in the u.s. and Euope to battle to prevent that likely outcome. There is energizing as well as debilitating despair. We need more of the energizing kind. Carrol [1] One qualification, for there is always the potential for unintended consquences. Criticism of the current Iran regime by Americans may, as argued above, be fluff, mere entertainment, OR, regardless of the critic's own intentions, a contribution to preparing the way for a future attempt by the u..s. to overthrow that regime. No matter how often the critics _say_ that they are against such intervention, no matter how deeply they would oppose it, the material effect remains the same: support for u.s. subversion or military overthrow of 'hostile' governments. And probably overthrow of the regime from within, by Iranian patriots, can occur only when Iran in material fact AND in the consciousness of its populace is truly independent, that is secure from any threat from outside. The goal at present has to be independence, not liberty. I'm trying to work out a post differentiating & relating these concepts of independence, liberty, freedom, and equality. I don't know if I can get it written or not. [2] Periods of relative inaction, of poor to worse turnout at left demonstrations or forums, are precisely _normal_, and failure to realize this, to realize how infrequent & dependent upon unpredictable contingency, "active" periods are is the source of much of the mindless criticism of the left, such as the posts early in the history of this list wwhich would contain the phrase, "No wonder the leftis so weak?." For much of the last 200 years, in all nations and localities, _nothing_ leftists might have done would have transfromed the normal into a period of high activity and growing strength. [3] By "passive leftists" I refer to those whose attitudes and much of their thinking are already left but who have not realized (a) the anti-capitalist nature of those attitudes and (b) that such purposes can be realized only in extra-legal activity. (Demonstrations are extra-legal but not illegal. Sometimes the line is a fine one.) Such movements grow by existinng rather than by persuading people with arguments: that is, their visible existence and dynamic of the movement makes its goals visible in action, thereby providing a focus for otherwise scattered responses. Only after joining the movement in action will many begin to seek more abstract and precise formulation of the informing ideas ("values") of the movement. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Jul 7 18:39:29 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:39:29 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Free and the Dead Message-ID: <20090708093929.15e247a8.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (July 06 2009) I was out on a big Adirondack lake in a canoe this weekend while the American economy was dying - but you wouldn't have known it for the fleets of giant power boats dragging children back and forth across the water on rubber tubes, and the giant camping vehicles crammed into every bare spot. How do people pay for these things, I wondered. For not a few, installment loans, no doubt - though that still begs the question. The sheer programming of American life runs wide and deep. We are, apparently, a people born to drag children behind hundred-and-fifty horsepower two-stroke engines, so that's what we do, no matter what is really going on in the world. Alas, mindless programming is the sort of thing that kills societies. Watching the summer panorama on an Adirondack lake is like reading a history of the post World War Two decades, because almost nothing on view there now existed before 1945 and we'll be stunned to see how swiftly it all terminates. The fantastic prosperity of these postwar decades killed the wildness of these once-remote lakes. Fortunes were made - like everywhere else in the USA - carving up the landscape and deploying graceless houses made of cheap, fabricated materials. All the diabolical genius brought to engineering the New Jersey and Long Island suburbs was eventually turned loose on the Adirondack wilderness, with predictable results. The lakes themselves, stuffed with all those sleek plastic power boats, are like the Long Island Expressway minus the painted lanes. The American victory over manifest evil in World War Two was so total that there was no one else left on earth to compete with in making and selling useful articles, at least for a while. And it produced a middle class so well-paid that it could express itself in a vast spewage of plastic and leisure across the land. The human race will look back on this society with wonder and nausea for whatever remains of its time on Earth. For at least twenty years, though, this way of life has been running on fumes, inertia, and promissory notes. The amazing thing is that these life-extension strategies worked, especially the past ten years when there was really nothing left besides a Ponzi structure of interlocked swindles and rackets. When the time comes when we do look back to understand what went wrong, I think we'll see that the Woodstock generation went off the rails in 1980, with the election of the actor, Ronald Reagan, who really established the idea that a society could benefit hugely just by lying to itself, or simply pretending. It wasn't "morning in America", of course. It was more like eleven-thirty at night, and the rest of the world had eaten our breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and we decided that inflating our national self-esteem was more important than paying attention to reality. That was when we became a something-for-nothing society - and, incidentally, it was also the take-off point for legalized gambling all over America (an "industry" based on the worship of unearned riches). And that was, coincidentally, the moment when we became a nation of dupes, grifters, marks, and suckers. Now, when I look around that Adirondack lake, I can easily imagine the time - not far off - when the motors cease to ring, and the big, white plastic ridiculous power boats vanish from the scene, and the houses along the shore de-laminate, or are plundered for their materials, and the sites they occupy return to nature, and the aroma of roasting hot dogs no longer wafts on the summer air, and the pastures and orchards run back from the shoreline up the slopes, with people laboring earnestly in them - rather than dragging children on plastic tubes around the water behind a boat that gets four miles to the gallon of gasoline. For those still capable of paying attention to our national predicament, the questions are: what happens from here ... and how does it happen? Over the last ten days, somebody shot the "Green Shoots" narrative in the head. There is no way the American economy can re-expand. This is a debt deflation like unto nothing the world has ever seen before. We've entered the really painful zone of the "work-out" where insolvency can no longer be denied. Things will be heard crashing every day - enterprises, households, assets, institutions, prospects, deals. No amount of stimulus, first, second, or beyond, will avail to stop this process. President Obama had better turn his efforts from pretending to re-start the revolving credit rackets to overseeing the comprehensive re-simplifying of American life. I think he has a few weeks to turn his rhetoric around before the political mischief begins for real, and the aggrieved classes start shooting things up and burning things down. These classes really do need something to hope for, and something to work at, and something to occupy their attention besides their grief over the massive losses in their lives. But none of that energy will be focused beneficially unless they hear the truth ... that there really is no going back to what was before. It's also vitally important to commence public hearings and official investigations of those who committed real crimes and malfeasances. Bernie Madoff has been salted away for two and a half lifetimes, but Henry Paulson is still at large after overseeing the creation of the biggest heap of fraudulent securities the world has ever known - and then betting against them in the swaps market, in effect shorting his own swindle - not to mention his misdeeds at the US Department of the Treasury. Why are those other Wall Street smoothies still enjoying their Hamptons villas while the foreclosed set up tents in the Sacramento Delta? Why are the government officials who failed so miserably at regulation still enjoying their salaries, perqs, and pensions while those not employed by a bloated government struggle to stay alive another week. And how many more weeks will go by before Michael Jackson is buried in the ground? _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/07/the-free-and-the-dead.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Jul 7 18:49:28 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:49:28 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Japan caught dumping US Treasury Bonds References: Message-ID: This site has been taken down by the "Turner Family", or so the note says. Any speculation as to why? Richard > 2. Japan caught dumping US Treasury Bonds (Bill Totten) > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:13:54 +0900 > From: Bill Totten > Subject: [A-List] Japan caught dumping US Treasury Bonds > To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: <20090706111354.6c974bda.shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > (Turner Radio Network) -- Two Japanese men arrested by Italian Police > while trying to smuggle $134 Billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds concealed in > suitcases, out of Italy into Switzerland, are employees of the Finance > Ministry of Japan. (clip) http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:XfMKzBTqko4J:www.turnerradionetwork.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D59:employees-of-japan-finance-ministry-arrested-in-italy-trying-tosmuggle-134-billion-in-us-treasuries-in-suitcases%26catid%3D1:latest-news%26Itemid%3D50+Finance+Ministry+of+Japan+arrested+Treasury+Bonds%E3%80%80&cd=1&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp&client=firefox-a From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 18:56:20 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:56:20 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Blackwater Charged With Murder Tax Evasion Evidence Destruction Controlled Substance Distribution Child Prostitution Message-ID: <4A53EEB4.10203@gmail.com> RICO... http://trunc.it/rzve (The World According To Bill Fisher [ex-state dept.]) By William Fisher New charges filed against private security contractor Blackwater accuse the company of murder, destruction of audio and videotaped evidence, distribution of controlled substances, tax evasion, child prostitution, and weapons smuggling. The new charges were filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by several of the Iraqi civilians who were injured or who lost family members when Blackwater personnel opened fire in Nisoor Square in Baghdad in September 2007. The new allegations, which have been added to an ongoing civil lawsuit in Virginia federal court, charge that then Blackwater chairman Erik Prince "has created an enterprise that has engaged in a series of illegal acts that suffice as RICO predicate acts extending over a substantial period of time beginning at least in 2003. The Prince RICO Enterprise continues to exist, continues to engage in repeated illegal acts, and poses a grave and special threat to the social well-being of the world." The lawsuit alleged that Blackwater ?created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company?s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. This action seeks compensatory damages to compensate the injured and the families of those gunned down and killed by Blackwater shooters. This action seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Erik Prince and his Blackwater companies for their repeated callous killing of innocents.? Blackwater has changed its name and is now operating as Xe and other names under Prince?s control. Eric Prince has resigned as chairman of the company. Katherine Gallagher, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a member of the legal team bringing the suit, told us, "Through this case, the victims of the most notorious -- though far from the only -- shooting of civilians on the streets of Baghdad seek to hold accountable those who have caused irreparable harm to them and their loved ones. The Plaintiffs are all Iraqis who were simply going about their daily lives when Blackwater opened fire in Nisoor Square. They look forward to having their day in court against Blackwater and its founder, Eric Prince." She added, ?The Iraqi victims of Xe - Blackwater?s unlawful actions have come to U.S. courts in search of justice. Justice begins with accountability, and private military contractors must be held accountable when they shoot innocent people.? The complaint alleges that Xe-Blackwater ?created and fostered a culture of lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the company's financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. The destruction and suffering caused by the defendants, controlled by Erik Prince, are contrary to the interests of the U.S. military and State Department, and the nation of Iraq." The suit also seeks a court order requiring Erik Prince to divest himself of any direct or indirect interest in the RICO Enterprise or dissolve the RICO Enterprise after making due provision for the rights of innocents, imposes reasonable restrictions on Prince's future activities or investments, and prohibits Prince from engaging in any mercenary or private military business." This case, Abtan v Prince, was originally filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia in October 2007 following the shooting in Nisoor Square in September 2007. The alleged victims voluntary dismissed the case in the District of Columbia and filed in the Eastern District of Virginia last month. The amended RICO complaint was filed last week. The underlying facts in this civil case form the basis for the criminal case filed by the Department of Justice against six Blackwater "shooters." One pled guilty and the trial of the remaining five defendants is currently set for early 2010. The defendants in both cases include Mr. Prince, Xe, various Prince-controlled entities such as Blackwater, The Prince Group, Falcon, Greystone Limited, Total Intelligence Solutions, EP Investments, and Raven Development Group. Blackwater was operating Iraq under a contract with the U.S. State Department (DOS), its mission being to protect DOS personnel. In December 2008, the State Department?s inspector general warned that Blackwater might not be granted a license by the Iraqi government next year, forcing the Obama administration to make new security arrangements. The Iraqi government subsequently denied Blackwater a license and the State Department hired another private security firm. The issue of private security contractors in Iraq was further complicated by the Status of Forces agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Iraq. Under that agreement, State Department contractors no longer have immunity from criminal prosecution under Iraqi law. The IG report found that changes since the 2007 shooting ?have resulted in a more professional security operation and the curtailment of overly aggressive actions? by contractors toward Iraqi civilians. In response to its findings, Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, urged the State Department to drop Blackwater as an Iraq contractor. Blackwater founder Erik Prince is a former U.S.navu Seal and a major contributor to Republican Party candidates. In resigning, he released a brief statement announcing he is stepping down to ?focus his efforts on a private equity venture unrelated to the company." In a personal message sent to his employees and clients, Prince attempted to depict his departure as a natural evolution. "As many of you know, because we focus on continually improving our business that Xe is in the process of a comprehensive restructuring," he wrote. "It is with pride in our many accomplishments and confidence in Xe's future that I announce my resignation as the company's Chief Executive Officer." Blackwater's new name and Prince's resignation followed the State Department's announcement that it would not be renewing Blackwater's security contract in Iraq. Blackwater still holds lucrative government contracts in Afghanistan and elsewhere and is reportedly marketing "CIA-type services" to Fortune 1000 companies through Prince's Total Intelligence Solutions. The complaint alleges that Xe-Blackwater, ?in addition to hiring persons known (or should have been known) to use steroids and other judgment-altering drugs, has been hiring as mercenaries former military officials known to have been involved in human rights abuses in Chile.? It contends that ?Xe-Blackwater knows that the former Chileans commandos hired by Xe-Blackwater received amnesty from punishment for their wanton disregard of human rights in exchange for being forbidden from taking part in any military or security activities in Chile.? The suit also charges that ?Xe-Blackwater has been hiring mercenaries from the Philippines, Chile, Nepal, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Peru, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Jordan and perhaps South Africa.? Blackwater hired foreign nationals without regard for the fact that they were forbidden by the laws of their country from serving as mercenaries,? the complaint says. It also alleges that Xe-Blackwater employees ?shredded an unknown number of documents that related to the company?s criminal and civil legal exposures.? Xe-Blackwater failed to take the appropriate steps in hiring proper personnel to perform services.? It failed to properly screen personnel before their hiring; to train personnel properly; to investigate allegations of wrongdoing; to reprimand for wrongful actions; to adequately monitor for and stop illegal substance abuse; and negligently permitted repeated lawlessness by employees,? the lawsuit charges. It also accuses The Prince RICO Enterprise of ?willfully evading the payment of taxes during 2006 and 2007 by hiding the proceeds from its illegal racketeering acts in offshore accounts, the complaint charges. http://trunc.it/rzve From noreply at coha.org Tue Jul 7 13:06:51 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:06:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] COHA Takes on the Honduran Coup; Recent COHA Citations Message-ID: <20090707190607.530263E4B6C@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6529 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090707/f43e462e/attachment.txt From tal1 at cogeco.ca Tue Jul 7 18:41:50 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:41:50 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <018001c9feac$84512430$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp><4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com><7vo5oi$1df0h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <018001c9feac$84512430$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> Message-ID: <18EFF59426FD4967954F140F79B0316F@TonyPC> Paul, I hardly think that the reason prisoners entertain the same political values as their captors is due to their relative affluence compared to Hindu or Bengali peasants - of whom these prisoners likely know little or nothing about. Instead, their values are the result of ignorance and propaganda...what Marx and Engels would label as a classic case of 'false consciousness'. Indeed, such false consciousness is not limited to this 'most oppressed sector of society', but is present throughout American - and Western - society in general. Frankly, I am a little amazed at how little the theory and practice of 'class analysis' (and its many correlates, including 'false consciousness') has found root in the American left. This, I opine, is a serious concern, a serious deficit. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Wright To: 'The A-List' Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report Americans support imperialism because for many it "works" for them. And even if it doesn't, they think it does. I have spent the past 22 years or so organizing prisoners, arguably the most oppressed sector of US society. Yet the reality is most US prisoners have the same politics and outlook as both their captors and the police, judges and prosecutors who put them there. Of the 17 fourth of July's I spent in prison I always marveled at the patriotism of most prisoners. Very rarely was there ever a wholesale rejection of that system of oppression that for the vast majority of prisoners, had failed us at every turn from the day we were born and had ensured we were denied adequate educations, health care, job opportunities, etc. yet as the US invaded every country between 1987 and 2003 there would be legions willing to volunteer to go fight for the empire. Talking to older prisoners, some of whom had been doing time back during the Korean war, they said it was the same thing back then. But thinking about it objectively, the average American prisoner has a higher standard of living than say the Average Bengali or Hindu peasant in that at least they can count on three crappy meals a day, some form of shelter and inadequate medical care. On the occasions I was involved in prison riots and rebellions it was usually over some long festering abuse that led prisoners to overcome their fear (and these are men serving lengthy sentences with little hope of release in maximum security prisons, i.e., not much to lose) and rise up. Hence rebellions by Hindu and Bengali peasants but not by Americans. Given the conditions of US prisons the interesting thing is how few rebellions there are. The same thing applies to non prisoners. Most Americans are doing fairly well and people tend to rise up when they would rather die than live one more day as they are. Most Americans are a long way from that. As far as the lack of a popular response to the 2000 election. Why a response? There was no difference of substance between the candidates. There is a reason a majority of Americans know better than to vote. The other thing is most Americans rightly fear the police state. The US state is fully geared up for a domestic counter insurgency campaign, the only thing is they don't even have much in the way of protest, much less resistance. 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. Suite 148 Seattle, WA 98117 206-246-1022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Todd Boyle Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 5:25 PM To: The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report At 01:53 PM 7/6/2009, Leighm wrote: If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what would the folks on this list think? I KNOW scant few of you (if any) would be manning burning barricades in the streets of your town. What good would that do? The configuration of the people and systems of organization in north america would not be deflected much, in any way. We are fragmented and dispersed on so many dimensions, our stages of personal evolution or development, our jobs or activities we are bound to, and our very diverse, isolated social networks, etc. creates a huge lack of simultaneity. We're just living in separate worlds, we are only coordinating by money signals. We are disunited, we are not synchonized like they were in 1917 or whatever because we are not all being screwed in the same way, at the same time. We *are* being screwed, but the empire isolates and screws a few million at a time. They manipulate the many, to screw the few. People who wanted to burn tires in the street in 2000 were hugely disappointed, and cynical and apathetic by 2001. Those who were inflamed in 2001, were apathetic and quit by 2002, etc. People think I'm nuts because I'm not over the Iraq invasion in 2003 and cant even remember, no vietnamese ever attacked us, nor, koreans, etc. I think they are nuts, and ask, :"where were YOU in 2003 when we needed you?" but in 2000 I was a well-paid dot-com boomer. So the empire is as big as ever. With one flick of its mighty tail, it will sweep aside any tire-burners etc. It only increases in confidence from squashing such puny assaults. LOL! So it does even more outrageous things, creates even more outlandish propaganda. What kills the empire, I suspect in the end, is people shrug their shoulders and lose interest in it, and stop participating in the economy because the whole deal is not worth it. Rather like the Soviets who just let the thing dissolve. Today, in the U.S. it is already not worth paying your mortgage, good god, no. It is not even worth working for money at all, and more people are realizing it. You can focus on your housing and food directly, thru many other nonmonetary strategies. The work ethic is unethical. It is unethical to participate in the U.S. economy. It is not even enough to boycott, and try to control your spending. The only ethical thing for Americans, is to quit and become a dead weight on the system, just calm the whole thing down. Don't let them rev. up the engines at all. Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 17191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090707/563817ef/attachment.txt From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Jul 7 18:26:44 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:44 +1000 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Honduras, Iran, Slump and the poor world, forests, Marta Harnecker on Lat Am, W. Sahara film scandal, Arabic, Boycott Israel Message-ID: <4A53E7C4.4020904@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Honduras, Iran, Slump and the poor world, forests, Marta Harnecker on Lat Am, Jean Hale, W. Sahara film scandal, Arabic, Boycott Israel *** Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism 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/. * * * Patrick Bond, Adam Hanieh (video): World slump and class struggles in the global South Toronto, June 28, 2009 - The political period that has opened up since the financial turbulence of 2007 began to grip the world market has led to both a crisis of neoliberalism and an attempt to reconstruct it. The overaccumulation of capital in key sectors in the US and Europe, particularly in real estate markets, auto production and financial services, has led to an economic contraction that has spread across global capitalism. * Read more Honduras: (Updated July 3) Solidarity and left movements condemn coup, demand elected president be returned to powe Below are just some of the statements released by solidarity groups, left parties and governments, and international organisations demanding the return to power of Honduras' elected presidet Manuel Zelaya. * Read more Can carbon trading save our forests? By Susan Austin June 26, 2009 - Hobart, Tasmania -- Along with over 400 other people, I turned up to the Wrest Point Casino here to attend the premiere of The Burning Season on June 1. I had the film's headline -- "As inspiring as The Inconvenient Truth was frightening" in the back of my mind, hoping for a good news story. Instead I sat through a well-orchestrated promo for a carbon trading company, set up by a young Australian-based millionaire whose message was that it is possible to make money and save the environment at the same time. By setting up a carbon trading company called Carbon Conservation, and brokering high-level deals between big banks and provincial Indonesian governors, the film's "star", young entrepreneur Dorjee Sun, was able to secure the protection of large areas of forests that may otherwise have been logged or burnt. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Popular power in Latin America -- Inventing in order to not make errors By Marta Harnecker, translated by Coral Wynter and Federico Fuentes Closing lecture given at the XXVI Gallega Week of Philosophy, Pontevedra, April 17, 2009. * Read more Iranian and Sudanese communists on Iran protests: `A deeply genuine struggle for democracy' Joint statement by the Sudanese Communist Party and the Tudeh Party of Iran Recently, representatives of the central committees of the Tudeh Party of Iran and the Sudanese Communist Party exchanged views and consulted on the political situation unfolding in Iran, in light of the rigged elections of June 12 and the mass protests that quickly took place and began to gain momentum shortly thereafter. The two parties discussed the political situation in their respective countries and the conditions in which the struggle for peace, human rights, democracy and social justice is taking place. Based on their discussion and deliberations the leaderships of the two fraternal parties hereby issue the following statement: The existing electoral process in Iran is a mockery of democracy, designed to disenfranchise the Iranian electorate. Its entire se- up is not related to the pursuit and furthering of democracy or any concept of progress within Iranian society but to keep the reins of power firmly in the hands of the despotic theocratic regime regardless of the wishes and aspirations of the Iranian people. Despite using every method to orientate the electoral process in their favour, the ruling guard of the theocracy still sought fit to directly rig the outcome of the ballots cast on the day of the election. * Read more Jean Hale, 1912-2009 -- Farewell to a `most revered activist' By Sylvia Hale June 13, 2009 -- Jean Hale (nee Heathcote) was born on July 29, 1912, in Brisbane. Her grandfather, Wyndham Selfe Heathcote, was an Anglican clergyman who opposed the Boer War. His opposition to the Anglican Church's social policies and his opinions, such as this from one of his essays -- "The death of Jesus, as a social reformer using direct action, has been transmuted into the death of a God dying for the world" -- found him at loggerheads with the church and resulted in his leaving to become a Unitarian minister. His public speaking skills, which Jean inherited, were considerable. In October 1916 the Woman Voter reported that, "despite the large seating capacity of the building, thousands of people were turned away" from a debate between himself and Adela Pankhurst (the youngest member of the British suffragist family). * Read more Australia: Damage on many fronts in false charge of slavery in Western Sahara A documentary on Western Sahara refugees marks a low point, Kamal Fadel writes. July 1, 2009 -- Last month in Sydney, the notion of democracy took a pounding. The launch of the documentary Stolen at the Sydney Film Festival marked a low point in local film culture, and signified the tenuous grip on truth we now have in contemporary society. That such a film should be financed with about A$350,000 of public money -- through Screen Australia -- and accepted by the prestigious festival raises questions about the nature of reality and on how it is depicted in mainstream media, such as through the medium of the film documentary. The film purports, in a sensationalistic way, to reveal widespread evidence of racially based slavery in the Saharawi refugee camps on the Western Sahara-Algeria border. Central to the apparent scoop is an interview with Fetim Sallem, a 36-year-old mother of four. She was in Australia to explain her story, which is significantly at odds with the film's take on it (so much so that Fetim requested unsuccessfully to have her interviews removed from the film). * Read more The Flame, June-July 2009 -- Green Left Weekly's Arabic-language supplement With the help of Socialist Alliance members in the growing Sudanese community in Australia, Green Left Weekly -- Australia's leading socialist newspaper -- is publishing a regular Arabic language supplement. The Flame covers news from the Arabic-speaking world as well as news and issues from within Australia. The editor-in-chief is Soubhi Iskander, a comrade who has endured years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the repressive government in Sudan. * Read more Pro-Israel lobby alarmed by growth of boycott, divestment movement By Art Young June 24, 2009 -- The movement to call Israel to account for its crimes against the Palestinian people is growing, it is "invading the mainstream discourse, becoming part of the constant and unrelenting drumbeat against Israel". It could eventually threaten the existence of the Jewish state by undermining the support it receives from its strongest backer, the US government. That was the message of alarm delivered by the executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Howard Kohr, to the AIPAC Policy Conference on May 3. * Read more Selling Iran: Ahmadinejad, privatisation and a bus driver who said `no' By Billy Wharton June 26, 2009 -- A creeping assumption lies just beneath the surface of arguments concerning the disputed election in Iran. Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is cast as an anti-US populist crusader resisting the materialistic advances of the West. His opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as his foil - a Western-backed liberal intent on implementing free-market policies. Violent street battles have been presented as a reinforcement of the Western disposition to see the two idealised positions as the limit of what is politically imaginable. Such arguments conveniently avoid a third force - the people of Iran, whose street politics threaten to move well beyond the confines of the electoral campaigns. Questions remain. Is Ahmadinejad really a populist - the only force preventing a wave of pro-market policies in Iran? Does Mousavi's campaign mark the limits of the reform movement? * Read more Iranian workers in action for democratic rights Introduction by Robert Johnson and John Riddell June 29, 2009 -- The mass protests in Iran, sparked by charges of fraud in the June 12 presidential elections, express deeply felt demands for expanded democratic rights. The establishment press has been silent on the aspirations of rank-and-file protesters. Socialist Voice is therefore pleased to be able to publish several statements by components of Iran's vigorous trade union movement, which has been a major target of repression by Iran's security forces. We have provided the titles and some introductory comments. * Read more Iran: (Video) Not a Twitter revolution, not a CIA revolution By Reese Erlich June 26, 2009 -- Iran is not undergoing a ``Twitter Revolution''. The term simultaneously mischaracterizes and trivialises the important mass movement developing in Iran. Here's how it all began. The Iranian government prohibited foreign reporters from traveling outside Tehran without special permission, and later confined them to their hotel rooms and offices. CNN and other cable networks were particularly desperate to find ways to show the large demonstrations and government repression. So they turned to internet sites such as Facebook and Twitter in a frantic effort to get information. Since reporters were getting most of their information from Tweets and You Tube video clips, the notion of a "Twitter Revolution" was born. We reporters love a catch phrase and, Twitter being all a flutter in the West, it seemed to fit. It's a catchy phrase but highly misleading. * 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 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 17705 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090708/e390ca30/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jul 8 03:00:42 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:00:42 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Economic Evil Gripping Our Nation Message-ID: <20090708180042.370294bd.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Arian Forrest Nevin, JD Fundamentally, only the national government of a country should create money. It should be created by the national government and paid into circulation in the first instance through government expenditures. As the science and technology of a people advance, so does their ability to produce the necessities and luxuries of life; therefore they are capable of producing more crops, houses, clothing, et cetera. As production increases, more money is necessary to distribute all the goods produced among the people of a nation. If the money system of our nation was directed by people of conscience and character, they would carefully monitor the growth of wealth production, and as it increased, they would increase the quantity of money by spending new money into existence in payment for some governmental activity. The amount of government spending that could be met by creating new money rather than through taxation would be small if the price level, that is, the value of money, were kept invariant. New money could only be issued as physical production increased; otherwise the purchasing power of all existing money would be diluted. For a nation, money is simply a medium of exchange, not a source of wealth. The objective of a monetary system that is operated honestly and scientifically is to keep the flow of money adequate to permit the distribution of all goods produced by the nation. If money is placed into circulation out of proportion to the goods produced, prices will rise and the purchasing power of money will be decreased. If the supply of money is too restricted then goods cannot be distributed and sold. This will result in excessive inventory, which in turn will result in reduced production, businesses closing down, and people being put out of work. The goal of an honest money system is neither to create too much or too little money, but to keep it in proper balance with production to allow for the distribution of all goods. Before money creation was privatized by banking corporations, anyone who created money and spent or lent it was guilty of counterfeiting. What counterfeiters are really doing is stealing from every single other person in the nation. By creating money a counterfeiter not only obtains purchasing power for himself, but also dilutes the purchasing power of the money possessed by everyone else. Stated differently, a counterfeiter is increasing the quantity of money without any regard to the production level of the nation. By increasing the volume of money in the nation the counterfeiter raises the price level in the nation, that is, the prices everyone must pay for goods. This of course means that the purchasing power of everyone else has been reduced for the benefit of the counterfeiter. When caught, counterfeiters were punished very severely, as counterfeiting is theft from every person who has any money, and that is a serious offense. Of course, when banks create money out of nothing on a scale unreachable for an individual counterfeiter, namely billions and trillions, then counterfeiting becomes a respected business and is not punished by the government. Nobel laureate, Frederick Soddy, spent years researching the causes of economic crises and how the prosperity of a nation could be increased. In his book Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt (1926) he came to the conclusion that: "With adequate knowledge of the physical realities that dominate the economic affairs of peoples, the road is clear for unlimited progress and the attainment of universal peace and prosperity. The evils in the past that have paralyzed the very heart of nations lie patent and beyond concealment." The evil Soddy speaks of are the private money system which has usurped the national money system and caused the nation to sink into indebtedness and recession. The road "for unlimited progress" he speaks of is the fruit of science and technology, which we are frustrated from fully grasping by the private money system. http://www.nationaleconomy.net/economicevilgrippingournation.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 09:53:01 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:53:01 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <18EFF59426FD4967954F140F79B0316F@TonyPC> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp><4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com><7vo5oi$1df0h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <018001c9feac$84512430$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> <18EFF59426FD4967954F140F79B0316F@TonyPC> Message-ID: <4A54C0DD.2040807@gmail.com> Tony B. wrote: > Paul, > I hardly think that the reason prisoners entertain the same political > values as their captors is due to their relative affluence compared to > Hindu or Bengali peasants - of whom these prisoners likely know little > or nothing about. Instead, their values are the result of ignorance > and propaganda... ...as I said... Like stupid little children. Arrogant ****wad. > what Marx and Engels would label as a classic case of 'false > consciousness'. Indeed, such false consciousness is not limited to > this 'most oppressed sector of society', but is present throughout > American - and Western - society in general. > Frankly, I am a little amazed at how little the theory and practice of > 'class analysis' (and its many correlates, including 'false > consciousness') has found root in the American left. This, I opine, is > a serious concern, a serious deficit. Here's some class 'analysis' for ya: From an email I sent to another person recently (slightly edited). > Personal experience. > > Sometime around the above time period (1971 or so) I walked into the > hallway of the slum on DeLancy St (Slum = We wired the electricity in > the apartment from the fluorescent fixture in the hall and the > building's drainage water ran out an open pipe to the 'backyard') I > was living in after work one day and walked into the middle of a > heroin raid on some junkies who lived upstairs. Cool guys, but > junkies... I even remember their names (It's not true what they say > about "if you can remember the 60s..." ) Brad & Chang. > > I spent a lovely month on Rikers Island with the police not showing up > for court and a looong morning trip once a week down to the "Tombs" > before breakfast, a cheeze sandwich with something resembling > Mayonnaise for lunch, just to return 'home' too late for dinner. > > A subtle form of coercion... Screaming "Plead out and get it over > with!" if you want to eat 7 days a week. > > While in, and mind you my girlfriend didn't have the vaguest idea what > happened to me her not having a phone I ran into a Puerto Rican friend > of mine from the East Village, Willie, and we hung out/played handball > in the dayroom/shared smokes. > > One day, a guard came over to me and asked what I was doing hanging > out with "Lopez"? I told him Willie was a friend I knew from hanging > out in 'The Village'. The guard bluntly stated he didn't want me > hanging out with him anymore. I responded by mentioning the 'cigarette > thing'... We weren't gambling or playing 'you owe me', but we just > KNEW each other and it was, as the vernacular goes now days "All Good". > > The guard retorted, AND I QUOTE (Again... It's not true what they say > about "if you can remember the 60s..." ) > > "We just don't want the 'PR' prisoners mixing with you guys. It causes > trouble." > > I never detected that any of the other inmates gave a flying, so it > was all on his "...it causes trouble." 'premise' and not reality based. > > The belief was 'On him'. > > Divide/Conquer. I rest my case. That's the tactic amongst bullshit marxist too. Divide and conquer. We KNOW what's 'right'... follow us or you're 'wrong' (ignorant, propagandized, What-the-fuck-ever). We'll even INTERFERE if YOU get in 'OUR' way, at the expense of EVERYBODY besides us (and as easily seen, often even to the point of self-destruction in some sort of sick fanatic political temper tantrum) What EXACTLY do you do besides re-post stop-nato list postings Tony B.? How do you live? In an armchair, like that asshole Lou Proyect? 'Theorizing' the 21st century using Marx 19th century political theory like it's a fucking instruction manual and not a guidebook (asshat xtians do that too Tony also at the expense of THEIR followers) often in conflict with the direct needs of what people need to survive NOW? Are you a worker? Homeless? Poor? Artist? Your arrogant attitude reflects gentry such as Ricardo, NOT Marx or any other person I would care to use for a social or cultural model,. Authoritarianism is ugly, unworkable in the long-term, and unattractive in manner, word ("...their values are the result of ignorance and propaganda..."), AND deed. What the fuck do you know about LIVING in 'class war' 24/7/365? Do tell? Start there... before you attempt an analysis of anything YOU THINK is relevant to MY life, or an Iranian election and concurrent revolt... externally fomented, or not. > Tony > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Paul Wright > *To:* 'The A-List' > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2009 10:42 PM > *Subject:* Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report > > Americans support imperialism because for many it ?works? for > them. And even if it doesn?t, they think it does. > > I have spent the past 22 years or so organizing prisoners, > arguably the most oppressed sector of US society. Yet the reality > is most US prisoners have the same politics and outlook as both > their captors and the police, judges and prosecutors who put them > there. Of the 17 fourth of July?s I spent in prison I always > marveled at the patriotism of most prisoners. Very rarely was > there ever a wholesale rejection of that system of oppression that > for the vast majority of prisoners, had failed us at every turn > from the day we were born and had ensured we were denied adequate > educations, health care, job opportunities, etc. yet as the US > invaded every country between 1987 and 2003 there would be legions > willing to volunteer to go fight for the empire. Talking to older > prisoners, some of whom had been doing time back during the Korean > war, they said it was the same thing back then. > > But thinking about it objectively, the average American prisoner > has a higher standard of living than say the Average Bengali or > Hindu peasant in that at least they can count on three crappy > meals a day, some form of shelter and inadequate medical care. On > the occasions I was involved in prison riots and rebellions it was > usually over some long festering abuse that led prisoners to > overcome their fear (and these are men serving lengthy sentences > with little hope of release in maximum security prisons, i.e., not > much to lose) and rise up. Hence rebellions by Hindu and Bengali > peasants but not by Americans. Given the conditions of US prisons > the interesting thing is how few rebellions there are. > > The same thing applies to non prisoners. Most Americans are doing > fairly well and people tend to rise up when they would rather die > than live one more day as they are. Most Americans are a long way > from that. As far as the lack of a popular response to the 2000 > election. Why a response? There was no difference of substance > between the candidates. There is a reason a majority of Americans > know better than to vote. > > The other thing is most Americans rightly fear the police state. > The US state is fully geared up for a domestic counter insurgency > campaign, the only thing is they don?t even have much in the way > of protest, much less resistance. > > **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. Suite 148** > > **Seattle****, WA 98117** > > **206-246-1022** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu > [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] *On Behalf Of *Todd Boyle > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2009 5:25 PM > *To:* The A-List > *Subject:* Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report > > At 01:53 PM 7/6/2009, Leighm wrote: > > If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US > election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what > would the folks on this list think? > > I KNOW scant few of you (if any) would be manning burning > barricades in the streets of your town. > > > What good would that do? The configuration of the people and > systems of organization in north america would not be deflected > much, in any way. We are fragmented and dispersed on so many > dimensions, our stages of personal evolution or development, our > jobs or activities we are bound to, and our very diverse, isolated > social networks, etc. *creates a huge lack of simultaneity. We're > just living in separate worlds*, we are only coordinating by money > signals. We are disunited, we are not synchonized like they were > in 1917 or whatever because we are not all being screwed in the > same way, at the same time. > > We *are* being screwed, but the empire isolates and screws a few > million at a time. They manipulate the many, to screw the few. > > People who wanted to burn tires in the street in 2000 were hugely > disappointed, and cynical and apathetic by 2001. Those who were > inflamed in 2001, were apathetic and quit by 2002, etc. People > think I'm nuts because I'm not over the Iraq invasion in 2003 and > cant even remember, no vietnamese ever attacked us, nor, koreans, > etc. I think they are nuts, and ask, :"where were YOU in 2003 when > we needed you?" but in 2000 I was a well-paid dot-com boomer. > > So the empire is as big as ever. With one flick of its mighty > tail, it will sweep aside any tire-burners etc. It only increases > in confidence from squashing such puny assaults. LOL! So it does > even more outrageous things, creates even more outlandish propaganda. > > What kills the empire, I suspect in the end, is people shrug their > shoulders and lose interest in it, and stop participating in the > economy because the whole deal is not worth it. Rather like the > Soviets who just let the thing dissolve. Today, in the U.S. it is > already not worth paying your mortgage, good god, no. It is not > even worth working for money at all, and more people are realizing > it. You can focus on your housing and food directly, thru many > other nonmonetary strategies. > > The work ethic is unethical. It is unethical to participate in the > U.S. economy. It is not even enough to boycott, and try to control > your spending. The only ethical thing for Americans, is to quit > and become a dead weight on the system, just calm the whole thing > down. Don't let them rev. up the engines at all. > > Todd > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 11:39:36 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:39:36 -0700 Subject: [A-List] China, Capitalism, And 'The Ethnic Minority Problem' - The Effects Of Centralized Government Message-ID: <4A54D9D8.3020901@gmail.com> July 08 2009 Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: China, Capitalism, And 'The Ethnic Minority Problem' - The Effects Of Centralized Government... From The Uighurs To The Nepalese... From The Amazon Tribes To The Zapatistas Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_090708 My site: http://razedbywolves.blogspot.com/2009/07/july-08-2009-travus-t-hipp-morning-news.html In The News (with linkage on site): There is the seed of a coalition forming in the Senate health care battle. The American Hospital Association has come on board with the President's plan. Al Franken will get to vote for Minnesota when that happens. The president of Honduras met with Secretary of State Clinton and received assurance of US support (for any Democratically elected government... (who defines the state of the nation's democracy is unstated)). President Arias of Costa Rica may act as inter-state mediator in the presidential dispute. Palau, the island that has offered to take the Uighurs has 'upped the price'. They want a 35 year full feature aid agreement with a large dollar package. The details at Associated Press. In Sacramento California, the budget is still stalled and the governor is threatening to call a continuing summer session in the living hot-box hell that is the Central California Valley in summer. The State of California will also examine Marijuana policy in an attempt to tax it or somehow derive revenue to ease the load on the state budget (letting all the pot war prisoners out of the already overcrowded prisons could help). There has been a promotional ad created for TV. "...they were rejected by the NBC affiliate in the San Francisco Bay Area, and by ABC affiliates in Los Angeles and San Francisco." (links to disputed advertisement) --30-- From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 8 12:02:08 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:02:08 +0100 Subject: [A-List] The Honduras Coup: Is Obama Innocent? Message-ID: <8225155122CF4D8E9B8E09E37A72D468@home9sg93n9r5y> The Honduras Coup: Is Obama Innocent? July 07, 2009 By Michael Parenti ENGLISH: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21905 SPANISH: http://www.lajiribilla.cu/2009/n425_06/honduras/093.html http://rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=88274 Is President Obama innocent of the events occurring in Honduras, specifically the coup launched by the Honduran military resulting in the abduction and forced deportation of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya? Obama has denounced the coup and demanded that the rules of democracy be honored. Still, several troubling questions remain. First, almost all the senior Honduran military officers active in the coup are graduates of the Pentagon's School of the Americas (known to many of us as "School of the Assassins"). The Honduran military is trained, advised, equipped, indoctrinated, and financed by the United States national security state. The generals would never have dared to move without tacit consent from the White House or the Pentagon and CIA. Second, if Obama was not directly involved, then he should be faulted for having no firm command over those US operatives who were. The US military must have known about the plot and US military intelligence must have known and must have reported it back to Washington. Why did Obama's people who had communicated with the coup leaders fail to blow the whistle on them? Why did they not expose and denounce the plot, thereby possibly foiling the entire venture? Instead the US kept quiet about it, a silence that in effect, even if not in intent, served as an act of complicity. Third, immediately after the coup, Obama stated that he was against using violence to effect change and that it was up to the various parties in Honduras to resolve their differences. His remarks were a rather tepid and muted response to a gangster putsch. Fourth, Obama never expected there would be an enormous uproar over the Honduras coup. He hastily joined the outcry against the perpetrators only when it became evident that opposition to the putschists was nearly universal throughout Latin America and elsewhere in the world. Fifth, Obama still has had nothing to say about the many other acts of repression attendant with the coup perpetrated by Honduran military and police: kidnappings, beatings, disappearances, attacks on demonstrators, shutting down the internet and suppressing the few small critical media outlets that exist in Honduras. Sixth, as James Petras reminded me, Obama has refused to meet with President Zelaya. He dislikes Zelaya mostly for his close and unexpected affiliation with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. And because of his egalitarian reformist efforts Zelaya is hated by the Honduran oligarchs, the same oligarchs who for many years have been close to and splendidly served by the US empire builders. Seventh, under a law passed by the US Congress, any democratic government that is the victim of a military takeover is to be denied US military and economic aid. Obama still has not cut off the economic and military aid to Honduras as he is required to do under this law. This is perhaps the most telling datum regarding whose side he is on. As president, Obama has considerable influence and immense resources that might well have thwarted the perpetrators and perhaps could still be applied against them with real effect. As of now his stance on Honduras is too little too late, as is the case with too many other things he does. Michael Parenti's recent books include: Contrary Notions (City Lights); and God and His Demons (Prometheus, forthcoming). For further information, visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org. WALTER LIPPMANN Vancouver, BC, Canada Editor From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Jul 8 12:21:34 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:21:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report In-Reply-To: <4A54C0DD.2040807@gmail.com> References: <20090706203311.7ee5cd55.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp><4A52644A.3000402@gmail.com><7vo5oi$1df0h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <018001c9feac$84512430$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local><18EFF59426FD4967954F140F79B0316F@TonyPC> <4A54C0DD.2040807@gmail.com> Message-ID: Leighm, I'll ignore your snide, gutter-mouth remarks....(Talk about real arrogance.)...They're not fit for this list..or any list ...or any discussive forum for that matter.. To stick to the issue: I was responding to the notion which Paul (whose comments I normally find perspicacious and penetrating) was espousing, that the identification of the average (US) male prison population's conservative political values were some sort of rational response to the supposed benefits of US imperalism. I maintain that this is, well, off track. Thus, it is well known in the sociological literature - and from my own experience (i.e. I have worked in prison settings for many years) - that this 'most oppressed sector of society' (throughout, at least, the Western industrialized world) entertains (on average naturally) these conservative, reactionary political values. Such is well understood and so are the reasons..and these latter have nothing to do with a rational cost / benefit analysis of prisoners' relative affluence with respect to Third World 'peasants'. It is, instead, readily comprehensible in terms of ignorance / lack of education, propaganda (which affects all of us) and, of course, the inherent complicity of the propagandee in responding to propaganda: Let me expound a touch on this latter point. [From a piece written in my youth] : "Finally, we are obliged to ask ourselves why we so easily succumb to such transparent manipulations; why are we so easily duped? The answere is that we *desire* it. We desire it because we have needs which, seemingly, only propaganda can fulfill. We have needs, for instance, to belong, to transcend ourselves in the group, to express vicariously via the State our repressed hates and longings for power. We have a need raise ourselves from the mere specks of dust that we are, from the sludge of anonymity and passivity that inform our lives unto the empyrean heights of National Purpose and Collective Concern. To link our humdrum fate with the fate of Empire. Moreover, we have a need to simplify and parse a complex world as in a fairytale. These and thousand other urgings prompt us to conspire in our own encirclement by propaganda; an enslavement which, far from simply being imposed form above, is nurtured secretly from within." ...And these urgings, exacerbated by accentuated helplessness, despair, martial values etc, are more to be found - and expected - in a prison population. As for 'false consciousness'....In fact, I am not some dyed-in-the-wool Marxist. It is just that I recognize the intrinsic value of many of Marxism's specific, tactical ideational constructs. Moreover, the notion of 'false consciousness' is hardly a Marxist invention, but is to be found (though, admittedly, not applied in a political context...except in the case of Wilhelm Reich) in the works of some of the 20th centuries best psychological theorists (e.g. Freud, Jung, Reich, ..and particularly Karen Horney and R.D. Laing). I opine, fhen, Leighm, that is *you* who are naive...You seem not to have any real understanding of the nature of propaganda. Indeed, you appear to feel that anyone who broaches the possibility of (I would proffer, the overwhelming *reality of*) our stout citizenry being deluded (in general, and in majority) as to its true interests is just being 'elitist' or 'arrrogant'. No, we're just employing our knowledge of our propaganda works. 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' This I would say sums up your 'understanding' of 'propaganda'. In fact, of course, the essential point is, of course - the one heroically overlooked in this liberal shibboleth - is the fact that...'you can fool *most* of the people *most* of the time'....At least in our present socio-political context (i.e. where the major means of communciation are totally dominated by elites). And until we take this process seriously, we, as supposed 'politically aware intellectuals' (or whatever you want to call us) will fail to provide a political analysis which penetrates to the core of political reality. And without proper analysis, real solutions are hardly likely to be hit upon. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leighm" To: "The A-List" Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report Tony B. wrote: > Paul, > I hardly think that the reason prisoners entertain the same political > values as their captors is due to their relative affluence compared to > Hindu or Bengali peasants - of whom these prisoners likely know little or > nothing about. Instead, their values are the result of ignorance and > propaganda... ...as I said... Like stupid little children. Arrogant ****wad. > what Marx and Engels would label as a classic case of 'false > consciousness'. Indeed, such false consciousness is not limited to this > 'most oppressed sector of society', but is present throughout American - > and Western - society in general. > Frankly, I am a little amazed at how little the theory and practice of > 'class analysis' (and its many correlates, including 'false > consciousness') has found root in the American left. This, I opine, is a > serious concern, a serious deficit. Here's some class 'analysis' for ya: From an email I sent to another person recently (slightly edited). > Personal experience. > > Sometime around the above time period (1971 or so) I walked into the > hallway of the slum on DeLancy St (Slum = We wired the electricity in the > apartment from the fluorescent fixture in the hall and the building's > drainage water ran out an open pipe to the 'backyard') I was living in > after work one day and walked into the middle of a heroin raid on some > junkies who lived upstairs. Cool guys, but junkies... I even remember > their names (It's not true what they say about "if you can remember the > 60s..." ) Brad & Chang. > > I spent a lovely month on Rikers Island with the police not showing up for > court and a looong morning trip once a week down to the "Tombs" before > breakfast, a cheeze sandwich with something resembling Mayonnaise for > lunch, just to return 'home' too late for dinner. > > A subtle form of coercion... Screaming "Plead out and get it over with!" > if you want to eat 7 days a week. > > While in, and mind you my girlfriend didn't have the vaguest idea what > happened to me her not having a phone I ran into a Puerto Rican friend of > mine from the East Village, Willie, and we hung out/played handball in the > dayroom/shared smokes. > > One day, a guard came over to me and asked what I was doing hanging out > with "Lopez"? I told him Willie was a friend I knew from hanging out in > 'The Village'. The guard bluntly stated he didn't want me hanging out with > him anymore. I responded by mentioning the 'cigarette thing'... We weren't > gambling or playing 'you owe me', but we just KNEW each other and it was, > as the vernacular goes now days "All Good". > > The guard retorted, AND I QUOTE (Again... It's not true what they say > about "if you can remember the 60s..." ) > > "We just don't want the 'PR' prisoners mixing with you guys. It causes > trouble." > > I never detected that any of the other inmates gave a flying, so it was > all on his "...it causes trouble." 'premise' and not reality based. > > The belief was 'On him'. > > Divide/Conquer. I rest my case. That's the tactic amongst bullshit marxist too. Divide and conquer. We KNOW what's 'right'... follow us or you're 'wrong' (ignorant, propagandized, What-the-fuck-ever). We'll even INTERFERE if YOU get in 'OUR' way, at the expense of EVERYBODY besides us (and as easily seen, often even to the point of self-destruction in some sort of sick fanatic political temper tantrum) What EXACTLY do you do besides re-post stop-nato list postings Tony B.? How do you live? In an armchair, like that asshole Lou Proyect? 'Theorizing' the 21st century using Marx 19th century political theory like it's a fucking instruction manual and not a guidebook (asshat xtians do that too Tony also at the expense of THEIR followers) often in conflict with the direct needs of what people need to survive NOW? Are you a worker? Homeless? Poor? Artist? Your arrogant attitude reflects gentry such as Ricardo, NOT Marx or any other person I would care to use for a social or cultural model,. Authoritarianism is ugly, unworkable in the long-term, and unattractive in manner, word ("...their values are the result of ignorance and propaganda..."), AND deed. What the fuck do you know about LIVING in 'class war' 24/7/365? Do tell? Start there... before you attempt an analysis of anything YOU THINK is relevant to MY life, or an Iranian election and concurrent revolt... externally fomented, or not. > Tony > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Paul Wright > *To:* 'The A-List' > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2009 10:42 PM > *Subject:* Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report > > Americans support imperialism because for many it ?works? for > them. And even if it doesn?t, they think it does. > > I have spent the past 22 years or so organizing prisoners, > arguably the most oppressed sector of US society. Yet the reality > is most US prisoners have the same politics and outlook as both > their captors and the police, judges and prosecutors who put them > there. Of the 17 fourth of July?s I spent in prison I always > marveled at the patriotism of most prisoners. Very rarely was > there ever a wholesale rejection of that system of oppression that > for the vast majority of prisoners, had failed us at every turn > from the day we were born and had ensured we were denied adequate > educations, health care, job opportunities, etc. yet as the US > invaded every country between 1987 and 2003 there would be legions > willing to volunteer to go fight for the empire. Talking to older > prisoners, some of whom had been doing time back during the Korean > war, they said it was the same thing back then. > > But thinking about it objectively, the average American prisoner > has a higher standard of living than say the Average Bengali or > Hindu peasant in that at least they can count on three crappy > meals a day, some form of shelter and inadequate medical care. On > the occasions I was involved in prison riots and rebellions it was > usually over some long festering abuse that led prisoners to > overcome their fear (and these are men serving lengthy sentences > with little hope of release in maximum security prisons, i.e., not > much to lose) and rise up. Hence rebellions by Hindu and Bengali > peasants but not by Americans. Given the conditions of US prisons > the interesting thing is how few rebellions there are. > > The same thing applies to non prisoners. Most Americans are doing > fairly well and people tend to rise up when they would rather die > than live one more day as they are. Most Americans are a long way > from that. As far as the lack of a popular response to the 2000 > election. Why a response? There was no difference of substance > between the candidates. There is a reason a majority of Americans > know better than to vote. > > The other thing is most Americans rightly fear the police state. > The US state is fully geared up for a domestic counter insurgency > campaign, the only thing is they don?t even have much in the way > of protest, much less resistance. > > **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. Suite 148** > > **Seattle****, WA 98117** > > **206-246-1022** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu > [mailto:a-list-bounces at lists.econ.utah.edu] *On Behalf Of *Todd Boyle > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2009 5:25 PM > *To:* The A-List > *Subject:* Re: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report > > At 01:53 PM 7/6/2009, Leighm wrote: > > If Jeb Bush or other Rethuglican leaders had been counting the US > election ballots when GW was elected/reelected/installed, what > would the folks on this list think? > > I KNOW scant few of you (if any) would be manning burning > barricades in the streets of your town. > > > What good would that do? The configuration of the people and > systems of organization in north america would not be deflected > much, in any way. We are fragmented and dispersed on so many > dimensions, our stages of personal evolution or development, our > jobs or activities we are bound to, and our very diverse, isolated > social networks, etc. *creates a huge lack of simultaneity. We're > just living in separate worlds*, we are only coordinating by money > signals. We are disunited, we are not synchonized like they were > in 1917 or whatever because we are not all being screwed in the > same way, at the same time. > > We *are* being screwed, but the empire isolates and screws a few > million at a time. They manipulate the many, to screw the few. > > People who wanted to burn tires in the street in 2000 were hugely > disappointed, and cynical and apathetic by 2001. Those who were > inflamed in 2001, were apathetic and quit by 2002, etc. People > think I'm nuts because I'm not over the Iraq invasion in 2003 and > cant even remember, no vietnamese ever attacked us, nor, koreans, > etc. I think they are nuts, and ask, :"where were YOU in 2003 when > we needed you?" but in 2000 I was a well-paid dot-com boomer. > > So the empire is as big as ever. With one flick of its mighty > tail, it will sweep aside any tire-burners etc. It only increases > in confidence from squashing such puny assaults. LOL! So it does > even more outrageous things, creates even more outlandish propaganda. > > What kills the empire, I suspect in the end, is people shrug their > shoulders and lose interest in it, and stop participating in the > economy because the whole deal is not worth it. Rather like the > Soviets who just let the thing dissolve. Today, in the U.S. it is > already not worth paying your mortgage, good god, no. It is not > even worth working for money at all, and more people are realizing > it. You can focus on your housing and food directly, thru many > other nonmonetary strategies. > > The work ethic is unethical. It is unethical to participate in the > U.S. economy. It is not even enough to boycott, and try to control > your spending. The only ethical thing for Americans, is to quit > and become a dead weight on the system, just calm the whole thing > down. Don't let them rev. up the engines at all. > > Todd > From cb31450 at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 13:34:36 2009 From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:34:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Smoke gets in our eyes Message-ID: <5c2e4d230907081234m23a7b084y5e53d68266f97493@mail.gmail.com> http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=14151 Environmental > News Hits Smoke gets in our eyes Will back-room deals keep the incinerator burning? By News Hits staff The July 1 deadline for deciding the long-term future for disposal of Detroit's garbage has come and gone, but we here at the Hits, even with a fixation on the issue that borders on the unnatural, can't tell you with any certainty what that future will be. And part of the reason we don't know what's going on is that decision-makers appear to be blowing a lot of smoke. We do know this: For much of the past year, as opponents of the waste-to-energy incinerator battled to get the facility on the city's east side shut down, there's been a feeling that the powers that be would do whatever it takes to keep the burner going. Sure, the City Council last year passed a pair of resolutions calling on the Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Authority (GDRRA) ? the quasi-public agency responsible for overseeing disposal of the city's municipal waste ? to stop sending trash to the incinerator, shifting instead to landfills while ramping up efforts to establish a curbside recycling program. On top of that, the council, on a 6-2 vote, last week passed another resolution: This one authorizes hiring an attorney to provide guidance in seeking an injunction that would halt shipment of city garbage to the incinerator. That had area greens cheering. It's not that the coalition of environmental groups that has been pushing for the change is enamored with dumps; the methane emitted from landfills is about 20 times more potent in terms of greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. But, along with health and cost concerns, the enviros see the incinerator as an impediment to what they really want: a world-class recycling program. They say that's what makes the most sense environmentally and economically. But with the incinerator needing 800,000 tons of trash a year to produce the steam and electricity it is contractually obligated to provide, there is an inherent disincentive to recycling, they claim. The incinerator needs all the garbage it can get, especially high-BTU fuel such as paper and plastic ? which is also among the easiest materials to recycle. At this point, only about 300,000 tons of city trash is being burned a year, according to John Prymack, GDRRA's director. The rest comes from private haulers who, until now, have had their fees subsidized by Detroit taxpayers. These private haulers, who bring in suburban trash as well as garbage from businesses within the city, pay about $15 a ton, says Prymack. The city, which until now has been obligated to pay off bonds used to fund construction of the facility as well as the addition of costly air-pollution control equipment installed in the early 1990s, also had to guarantee the facility got those 800,000 tons of trash every year, or pay a penalty. But now, with the bonds paid off, that obligation no longer exists, assures Prymack. Which means that those private haulers will supposedly have to start paying the market rate ? which, we assume, would be close to the $25 per ton the city will reportedly be paying to burn its trash now that the bonds have been paid off. Being an astute reader, you probably notice the above paragraph contains the weasely words "supposedly" and "assume." That's because we're not getting much clarification from the office of Mayor Dave Bing, who appoints the GDRRA board members. That and there seems to be an emerging credibility problem here. At the June 18 meeting where a decision about awarding a contract to either a landfill or the incinerator owner was supposed to be made but wasn't, Prymack stated on the record that no announcement was ever intended that day ? even though a report from the council's Research and Analysis Division (RAD) quoted a letter from Prymack stating an announcement would be made at the meeting. At that same meeting, Amanda Van Dusen, a Miller Canfield attorney who represents GDRRA, stated that Detroit Thermal, which buys the steam produced by the incinerator and then sells much of it to the city for heating and cooling buildings that are part of a network from downtown to the New Center area, would have trouble staying in business if that steam were no longer available. That statement took us by surprise. As part of this rag's ongoing series of stories about the incinerator debate, we did a cover story last year looking specifically at Detroit Thermal and its relationship with the incinerator. At the time, Detroit Thermal President Victor Koppang said the company could switch over to burning natural gas and provide all the steam necessary. What, we wondered, had changed in the interim? Turns out nothing has changed. We talked with Koppang this week and he told us that not only could his company supply steam without the incinerator, it was doing so as we spoke because the previous contract with facility operator Covanta expired as of July 1, and a new agreement had not been reached. As a result, the incinerator, while sill burning garbage and producing electricity (which is sold to DTE) is not currently generating any steam. (Covanta, for the record, is both the operator of the facility and also a co-owner, having recently purchased a 30 percent stake in the facility.) "We made the transition without a hiccup," said Koppang. "Our customers weren't affected at all." Neither is there much concern on his part about the company's ability to keep going without the incinerator. Prymack, at the June 18 meeting, suggested to us that the price for burning natural gas could be so costly Detroit Thermal couldn't remain viable. But Koppang said that given natural gas reserves available, and the nation's current usage, that really isn't a concern for the foreseeable future. But that didn't stop Charlie Beckham, Bing's chief administrative officer and the newly appointed chair of the GDRRA board, from going on WDET's Detroit Today program and declaring one of the big reasons for continuing to use the incinerator is so that the city schools also on Detroit Thermal's loop wouldn't have to go without heat. So there's why Detroit has to keep burning its trash: It's for the sake of the kids. Who would want to do anything that would lead to all those tykes sitting at their desks shivering with cold? Not everyone is as cynical as News Hits when it comes to this issue. There is, for example, Dan McCarthy. As the business rep for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 547, McCarthy represents more than 120 people employed by the plant. He is, we think, a good guy. He informs us that a one-year operating agreement between Covanta and majority owner Energy Investors Funds has been inked, but that Covanta is telling employees they plan to be in Detroit for the long haul. That's a good thing, McCarthy says, not just for those employees, but the city as a whole. "I'm dismayed that people think landfills would be a better option," he said. "That seems reckless to me." Certainly there are pros and cons involved with either landfills or the incinerator, and figuring out the best option is incredibly complicated. But what we find dismaying is the extent to which the City Council and, by extension, the taxpaying public, is being kept in the dark about what's really going on. Over and over in its reports to the council, RAD attorneys complain that they are not being given documents necessary to make a fair and fully informed analysis of the deals being worked out behind closed doors. In fact, in yet another resolution recently passed, the council practically begged GDRRA to let them know what the long-term plan is, what the costs will be, and what the benefits of that plan are for the city. There's still no answer. Why, if there's nothing to hide, is GDRRA making it so hard for the people paying the bill to know what exactly they are up to? Something stinks. And it's not the garbage. SEE ALSO News Hits ARCHIVES More Environmental Stories No direction known (6/24/2009) Recycling? Incineration? Detroit still hasn't decided. Slow burn (5/27/2009) Is talk of shutting down the incinerator just smoke and mirrors? From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jul 8 20:28:15 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:28:15 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Dubai Is for Flamingos Message-ID: <20090709112815.96fb0d14.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Negar Azimi Harper's Magazine Notebook (June 2009) The flamingos at Dubai International Airport had been in quarantine for five days and nobody knew what to do with them. Their handlers had gone missing, I heard, and there was great bewilderment about how to tend to their needs: what exactly they ate, the temperature to which they were accustomed. People said the birds were unhappy, fluffing their feathers and gravitating toward the edges of the enclosure like sulking children, or erupting into great fits of squawking that sent the airport personnel scurrying away. Natives of the Great Rift Valley, they were destined for The Lagoons, a seventy-million-square-foot development of residences, shopping centers, and offices set on seven interconnected islands of finely cultivated marsh ecology in the middle of the city. But the construction of The Lagoons, along with many other extravagant projects in Dubai, had been put "on hold", maybe for good. The story I heard - and Dubai is full of stories these days - was that the primary developer on the project was in jail, held on multiple charges of corruption and bribery. The long-legged waterfowl, dyed a deep mauve color for dramatic effect, waited in awkward limbo. Since the coming of the plunge, the Persian Gulf city of Dubai has been subjected to a windfall of press coverage chronicling its dramatic decline. Cocktail-party chatter once celebrated the spectacular rise of this "global hub", its multicultural can-do spirit and liberal-leaning ways. Now conversations over artfully carved morsels of cheese dwell on hubris and the inevitability of imploding bubbles. "It just had to end", one hears. "It was too big, too much, too fast". Heads nod in unison. Earlier this year, the Australian feminist and sometime Marxist Germaine Greer deplaned at Dubai International Airport for all of a four hour layover. Boarding one of Dubai's hokey green double-decker tourist buses, she traveled a typical route that took her from the tallest building in the world (the Burj Dubai) to a hotel shaped like a sailing ship (the Burj Al Arab) to a handful of malls, and proceeded swiftly to eviscerate the place. "For all its extravagant novelties and its masses of petunias, Dubai is a city with neither charm nor character", she wrote in a February issue of the Guardian. Some weeks later, her colleague Simon Jenkins described flying over Dubai in an airplane. He was no more generous, dismissing the city as "a festival of egotism with humanity denied", and concluding ominously, "The towers of Dubai will become casualties not of human greed but of architectural folly. Their lifts and services, expensive to maintain, will collapse. Their colossal facades will shed glass. Sand will drift round their trunkless legs. Animals will inhabit their basements." Animals! Imagine that. In part, Dubai invites such hysterical interpretations because it is nearly impossible to verify anything there. When the New York Times published accounts of 3,000 cars abandoned at the airport by panicked debt-ridden foreigners, officials insisted that the number was more modest: eleven. Three thousand or eleven? Who knows? The cars are but one example. No one seems to be collecting statistics in any systematic way. What is offered instead is a stream of perennially sunny press releases ("UAE Protects Workers' Rights", announced a piece in the Gulf News last year in response to a report by Human Rights Watch on the dire situation of laborers). And although rumors have always had a magical currency here, these days they have become Dubai's chief commodity. A cursory sampling: Thousands of businessmen have been locked up in prison for bad debts; come the end of the school year, half the expatriate population will abandon their strenuously air-conditioned palaces; the United Arab Emirates, famously tax-free, will soon impose an income tax on all its residents; neighboring Abu Dhabi will shift its border into Dubai in exchange for a $20 billion "bailout"; the posh Atlantis Hotel, perched on the tip of a man-made island shaped like a palm tree, has shut an entire wing due to low occupancy; the ruler of Dubai is dead; judging from the city's ubiquitous security cameras, there have never been so many people weeping in elevators; there are thirty-two purple flamingos languishing in Terminal 3 of the Dubai International Airport. "It's all lies", an acquaintance from the Executive Office, the ruler's consulting circle, told me defensively as we sat at a Starbucks in the Emirates Towers. "It is all coming from Abu Dhabi", said another EO employee, referring to the emirate's oil-rich cousin next door. And although I knew these individuals were unreliable narrators, I wondered if there weren't also glimmers of promise out there in the vast desert expanse that the journalist Jenkins had so happily left for dead. Long before the indoor ski slopes and marathon shopping festivals that made Dubai both a business-school case study and an inspired tourist trap, this spur of land was part of a vast trading empire that stretched from the ports of Zanzibar to China. Whatever it may have lost in consumer confidence, Dubai remains uniquely situated at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And so I set out to talk to Dubai's residents, the little people who haven't yet headed for the hills, to see what they thought about the impending apocalypse. "Most of the England has been purchased by Iranians", says Mr Nouri, a thickly lashed sixty-something seated in the management office of International City, a sprawling housing development on the edge of central Dubai. We are in China - aptly, the most populous of the developments, which also include France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Persia, and Spain. Mr Nouri, who works for an Iranian oil company and is shaped like a sweet potato, is suspicious of me and my queries. I have suggested that I am in the market to buy an apartment in England (whose architectural flourishes have all the character of a Ramada Inn), though I am also seriously considering Morocco. "Four years ago there was no one here. And the prices were almost twice as high. Now there are no parking spaces in the England." He seems satisfied with himself. Eventually he discloses that he is also an owner: "I bought myself and my daughters a second home here at a bargain". However, he concedes, "sometimes it smells in the England. But only when there is a strong breeze." As it happens, England is situated alongside a massive sewage-processing plant, a fact that has inspired more than a handful of persons to refer to this Olympic village as "International Shitty". "But it is getting better", he assures me. "They are working on it. Soon, the smell will be gone". At Mr Nouri's urging, I spend several hours after we part ways wandering around in the sun looking for an Iranian restaurant in China. (International City boasts an Afghan grocery in Greece, an Indian restaurant in Persia, and a dumpling cafe in Italy that is owned by an Iraqi. Still, cosmopolitanism has its limits: Dubai's large population of South Asians notwithstanding, there is no India.) It turns out China is vast. I settle on kebab in Turkey. Later, while strolling through the finely palazzoed streets of Italy, I find that a cup of sweet melon juice is the same price as my entire Chinese meal. That same day, I meet Mohsin, a Pakistani man with severely pomaded hair who runs a one-man real estate business in Dubai's Deira neighborhood and does a swift trade in homes in International City. A sort of Naipaulian antihero, he left his wife and children behind in Torrance, California, and seems to be plotting out a sweet enough existence in Dubai, where he caters to Nigerians and Iranians in the market for a second home. In spite of the general real estate downturn, he tells me, the Nigerians and Iranians, whose respective economies have been slower to feel the effects of the global crisis, are still buying in droves. As a result, he made more money in the first few months of this year than in the past five years put together. "Big money", he says, insisting on the "g". He holds up his hands as if indicating a fish yea big. "It's a buyer's market, so for me business is good. Dubai will bounce back. You wait and see". "We are the Burj AI Arab of chocolate", says Martin van Almsick. Just off the road to El Ain, a few kilometers from the densely zigzagging skyline that marks "downtown Dubai", is the world's first producer of camel-milk chocolate. Al Nassma, aptly located on a patch of desert where the only colors in sight are various shades of light brown, operates under the patronage of Sheikh Mohamed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai and the vice president of the UAE, and houses 3,000 of the finest camels from around the world. Van Almsick, the general manager of the farm, is a German-born chocolatier who once served as director of Cologne's chocolate museum. He is a sprightly, energetic man who fell in love with the East while reading Karl May novels as a kid. Like a box of Cracker Jacks in reverse, all the pocket editions of May's oriental tales, he tells me, had a bar of chocolate inserted within. "The newspapers write about Iraq and Afghanistan and all these sufferings, but people have had enough. They need chocolate! We all need it. It is something related to our childhoods", he says, biting into a piece of chocolate shaped like a camel. "And camel's milk has higher-than-average levels of vitamins B and C - iron, too". Al Nassma's flavors, all of which have a distinctly mineral flavor, include cocoa, date, macadamia nut and orange zest, and, the company's flagship, "Arabia" - a blend of honey, cardamom, and other spices. It is 10:30 am and I am certain this is not his first chocolate of the day. He continues, "What goes through your head when you hear the words 'goat milk'? Nothing, right? But say the word 'camel' and people's eyes light up. They are the most charming animals! And what's more, they are part of the local heritage. They have three sets of eyelids, you know. Because of the sand." Al Nassma, like International City, is faring well. Since its launch last October, van Almsick has attracted many customers, among them several luxury hotels in the region and the Saudi royal family. Soon you will be able to buy his chocolates from Harrods, in London. By now, we are sipping cups of camelicious cappuccino, a prototype in early stages. "This is a story that can only happen here", he tells me, a perfect halo of sunlight having suddenly illuminated his head of golden locks. "Chocolate is recession-proof. Maybe people can't afford big cars or yachts anymore, but these little pleasures are forever. There has never been a better time to eat chocolate." It is true that many people are leaving Dubai. The offices of Aries International immigration services are on the second floor of the Emirates Bank Building in Karama, a residential neighborhood - one of the city's oldest - along the Dubai Creek and filled with members of the city's white-collar South Asian community. The Aries reception area is a small, wincingly fluorescent-lit room, a perfect square, with a potted fern, four red plastic chairs, and a stack of faded oversized coffee-table books about Australia. I spy Australia: Images of a Timeless Land. Seated behind a desk surrounded by a plastic barrier is Aby, a petite Filipino woman wearing a complicated bright-green top and chatting away on the phone through an earpiece. She has one hand wrapped around a can of diet soda and the other poised for AIM chat. Seated before her are two men from Pakistan. Aby, who once dreamed of being a television newscaster like Christiane Amanpour, is very good at her job, which involves receiving visitors, answering phones, making appointments, and collecting heaps of CVs from people hoping to get work visas in Canada and Australia. Given the spike in layoffs these past months, demand for Aries's services has never been greater. Aby gets off the phone to address the two men standing before her. "You are both clients, right?" Blank stares. "Do you have file numbers?" More blank stares. "Mr Sumesh, Mr Ritesh, my name is Aby. I want to help you, but I need to know if you are already in our system." Finally, Mr Ritesh speaks up - in flawless, albeit non-sequitur, English. "I want to move to Canada". "Do you have a file number?" "Canada", he repeats. Another man comes in, looking vaguely expectant. "Who are you?" he asks Aby. "My name is Aby. A-B-Y. Please sit down and wait for your turn, sir". The queue is growing longer by the minute. Aby, who came to Dubai nine months ago from Manila, found her receptionist job on the Internet. "All they required was knowing how to use a computer!" She works eleven-hour days, seven days a week, but is happy simply to have a job. She even received a raise last month - in fact, everyone in this busy office did - bringing her salary to 3,000 dirhams a month. "I tell my colleagues we are so lucky. Things are bad here for many people. I heard they are capturing more jaywalkers on the streets just to make money. Maybe they will come and get me for saying these things. They will say, 'You are saying Dubai is going down'." She corrects herself, "But you know what? They are visionaries here." The Dubai World Cup, touted as the world's richest horse race, goes on as scheduled. Each year on a Saturday in the spring, thousands of people descend upon this patch, of grass in the desert to watch horses circle a magnificently fancy track. In the public section, where admission is free, the Sudanese, most of them northerners, turn out in the biggest numbers, followed by the Pakistanis, the Indians, and assorted others; together they partake of a Woodstock-sized group picnic. In what is referred to as the Apron View section, where tickets go for several thousand dirhams, droves of drunken expats, beet-colored from the sun and abundant booze, stumble about the lawns in pointy heels and hats shaped like birds and paisley suits and watch anything but the races. There is a champagne bar called The Bubble Lounge, a Style Arena in which an elaborate ladies' fashion competition is staged, and much slurred enunciation and giddy gyration to very bad house music. This year's race, I soon learn, should be tight, with a front-runner named Albertus Maximus and his closest competitor, an Argentine-bred horse named Asiatic Boy. I lean across a gaggle of Sudanese men in the public section, one of whom asks to borrow my pen. They are hunched over a red betting slip for which the winning prize is 60,000 dirhams. As the pen passes through twelve sets of hands, I ask them why they have come to the day's event. "We came for the lottery money", Hassan tells me. "The view", says Saeed. "To see the foreigners in their clothes", offers Magid. Later that evening, a locally owned and trained horse, jockeyed by a local man named Ahmad Ajtebi, races to a first-place finish. This has never happened before, and the cover of the Gulf News shows the wiry jockey, his arm outstretched in a victorious pose, with the headline: "Ajtebi The New Role Model for UAE Kids". A hero is born. On one of my last days in Dubai, I drive past The Lagoons, its entrance blocked by security and the scenic marshlands visible only from the adjacent highway. I have been thinking about the flamingos again. How long will they remain in the middle of delirious Dubai, locked in by the busy Sheikh Zayed Road on the one side and skyscrapers on the other? Will they ever go home? I call up Sama Dubai, the stateowned development firm that was in charge of The Lagoons project before it all came to a screeching halt. I am eventually referred to Kevin Hyland, a British-born flamingo specialist at Dubai's Wildlife Protection Office, who confirms that the real estate venture was supposed to have included flamingos, though they've never set foot in an airport. They're local birds - about 1,000 of them - and Hyland has been tending them since the 1990s, at their home in the Ras Al Khor Wildlife Sanctuary, which was to be one of The Lagoons' premier attractions. Nor have they been dyed purple but are instead a standard shade of pink. And if the new, grand lodgings envisioned for them fail to materialize, at least they are not in jail, where several executives of Sama Dubai have, in fact, been obliged to take up residence. Like flamingos everywhere, they cluck, squawk, and flutter, but these are not necessarily noises of complaint. I've come to think of them as stoic, strutting under the sun as they weather the interminable downturn. _____ Negar Azimi is a senior editor of Bidoun magazine. http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jul 9 03:00:43 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:00:43 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Banks Do Not Keep Reserves Message-ID: <20090709180043.b88dec10.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Arian Forrest Nevin, JD Contrary to widely held belief, banks, not the government, create money. It is also widely believed that banks practice "fractional-reserve lending". This is totally false. Banks do not keep reserves. Not only do banks not keep reserves it is impossible for them to do so. Money comes in two separate and distinct types. One type everyone is familiar with is physical, which is cash. The second type is purely electronic, and exists solely within a bank's computer. The kind of money created by commercial banks is of the second type, electronic. Most people believe that banks keep a "reserve" of cash to back the electronic money that they create. This is untrue and impossible. A reserve of money cannot be kept to back money. A reserve of oranges cannot be kept to back other oranges. Dollar bills cannot be backed by a reserve of quarters. A reserve of the same thing cannot be kept to back the very same thing. Money is money. Banks do not create money based on a reserve of money they keep. Banks create money based on a legal reference, not a reserve. Just as at Walmart there may be a sale where you "buy one and get two free". Walmart is using a reference that says if you purchase one then you get two more for free. There is no reserve. Similarly, banks reference a rule to determine how much money they can create. For any amount of money on deposit with a bank that bank is allowed to create 90% of that amount as new electronic money. So if I deposited $100 at Bank of America, then based on the legal reference banks use, Bank of America would be allowed to create $90 new dollars. As you can see there is no reserve involved in the process of money creation by banks. Banks are not legally required to keep any cash whatsoever. In fact, to meet the requirements of the legal reference banks can keep an account of electronic money with a Federal Reserve Bank. Banks do not need to keep any cash on hand. In practice, banks keep enough cash on hand to meet their customers' demands for withdrawals of cash. This is no different than any other operational stockpile kept by a business. McDonalds keeps enough french fries on hand so that they will not run out. All of the money that is supposed to be in a bank is there all of the time. One might then wonder, what is a run on a bank if all of the money is there? Quite simply, as there are two kinds of money, the total amount of money that exists at any given time is greater than the amount of either physical or electronic money individually. Thus, if everyone wanted to only possess one-dollar bills and not five or ten-dollar bills, this would be impossible because the total amount of cash is greater than the amount of one-dollar bills. Similarly, it is impossible for everyone to possess all of their money as cash at the same time, because the total amount of cash is less than the total amount of the two types of money. Banks have all the money they are supposed to have at all times. It is just that some of it is cash and some of it is electronic. At any given time an individual bank may have created the maximum total amount of money it is allowed to create. However, the aggregate of all banks will always have created less money than they could. For the past forty years banks have created nearly the maximum possible amount of money. On average, during the past forty years banks have created about ten billion dollars less than they were legally allowed to. In the past three months this amount has exploded. As of November 1st 2008, the amount of money banks are choosing not to create has gone from the average of about ten billion to over five trillion dollars. This is 56 times greater than what it has been on average for the past forty years. Yet at the same time we have a "credit crunch". Banks are quite capable of creating and loaning more money; they could lend over five trillion dollars. They simply choose not to. Source for numerical data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EXCRESNS.txt Questions, Comments, or Submissions? Email Here: comments at nationaleconomy.net http://www.nationaleconomy.net/banksdonotkeepreserves.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 07:17:29 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:17:29 -0400 Subject: [A-List] From Iran to China, Skipping Honduras Message-ID: As far as the Western mass media are concerned, they went from Iran (electoral conflict in an oil-rich country) to China (ethnic conflict in an oil-rich region), skipping Honduras (a coup d'?tat in an oil-poor country dependent on foreign aid and remittances* where the USG has a military base). Yoshie * "Honduras is the hemisphere's fourth-poorest country and directly finances nearly 20 percent of its budget with foreign donations and credit. . . . [Remittances represent] about 18 percent of the Honduran economy" (Will Weissert and Theresa Bradley, "Honduras Coup Costs Oil, Aid as Economy Stalls," AP, ). From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 06:40:52 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:40:52 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] 'No green light' for Iran attack In-Reply-To: References: <1954959606.886431247074595305.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: There is no green light to bomb Iran but one of a mixture of all colors. Joe Biden made quite clear the actuality of the planning. Should something unforseen happen to the President, Joe will be in charge. He is a proud Zionist. The media relentlessnes of covering 'Bomb / Iran' for years now only serves to make it inevitable, if it should accidently so happen! Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [R-G] 'No green light' for Iran attack To: "Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion." < rad-green at lists.econ.utah.edu> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8139655.stm > > > > BBC News 8 July 2009 > > > > 'No green light' for Iran attack > > > > The US has "absolutely not" given Israel a green light to attack Iran over > its nuclear programme, President Barack Obama has said. > > > > His remarks followed weekend comments by Vice-President Joe Biden that the > US would not stand in the way of Israel 's response to Iran 's nuclear > ambitions. > > > > Meanwhile, US military chief Adm Mike Mullen said Washington should keep > military options on the table. > > > > But he said he hoped dialogue with Tehran would prove productive. > > > > Clarification > > > > Speaking to CNN while on a visit to Russia , President Obama said the US > would to try to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue "in a peaceful way through > diplomatic channels." > > > > Vice-President Joe Biden had said in an interview with ABC TV on Sunday > that " Israel can determine for itself... what's in their interest and what > they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else". > > > > Asked whether the comment meant that Washington had given Israel the > go-ahead for an attack, Mr Obama said: "Absolutely not." > > > > ? I worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck. It > is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, > shape or form ? > > > > Adm Mike Mullen Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff > > > > However, he did defend his deputy, who was accused of being gaffe-prone by > rivals during the 2008 presidential election campaign. > > > > "I think Vice-President Biden stated a categorical fact which is we can't > dictate to other countries what their security interests are," Mr Obama > added. > > > > He added that the US also reserved the right to take "whatever actions" > were necessary to protect itself, without elaborating what those were. > > > > At an event in Washington Adm Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs > of Staff, echoed the president's comments. > > > > "There is a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the > engagement, and I think we need to do that with all options remaining on the > table, including certainly military options," he said. > > > > The US military chief said Tehran could have an atomic bomb within one to > three years, which "would be potentially very destabilising" to the Middle > East . > > > > But he said the potential consequences of an attack on Iran were of great > concern and weighed heavily against launching any strike. > > > > "I worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck." > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4728 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090709/09aa48eb/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 08:54:45 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:54:45 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] 'No green light' for Iran attack In-Reply-To: References: <1954959606.886431247074595305.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: The USG has also claimed that it tried to stop the 2002 Venezuelan coup and the 2009 Honduran coup (cf. ). That's all part of an attempt to create so-called plausible deniability. In this case, it doesn't even claim that it's trying to stop an Israeli attack on Iran. Whether or not Israel will actually attack Iran, the threat of it is certainly very useful for the USG. Yoshie On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Suzanne de Kuyper wrote: > There is no green light to bomb Iran but one of a mixture of all colors. > ?Joe Biden made quite clear the actuality of the planning. ?Should something > unforseen happen to the President, Joe will be in charge. ?He is a proud > Zionist. ?The media relentlessnes of covering 'Bomb / Iran' for years now > only serves to make it inevitable, if it should accidently so happen! > Suzanne ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?suzannedk at gmail.com > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Suzanne de Kuyper > Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM > Subject: Re: [R-G] 'No green light' for Iran attack > To: "Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion." > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8139655.stm >> >> BBC News 8 July 2009 >> >> 'No green light' for Iran attack From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 10:36:02 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:36:02 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The G-8 And Bilderbergers - Simple Public Displays Of The Power Elite's Uselessness Message-ID: <4A561C72.1060903@gmail.com> July 09 2009 Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: It's Becoming Increasingly Obvious That Circle-Jerks Like The G-8 And Bilderbergers Are Simply Public Displays Of The Power Elite's Ineffectuality And Overall Uselessness My Site: http://razedbywolves.blogspot.com/2009/07/july-09-2009-travus-t-hipp-morning-news.html Archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_090709 In... "Other" News: In Afghanistan the Talib are drawing thinly distributed US troops into firefights as they 'retreat' (quotes intentional). The US Marine commanding officer for the theater says 'Sure, we could use a few more marines around here, but what we really need are Afghani troops to hold the ground we take'. Afghanistan's army has contributed 600 troops to the effort. More. Meanwhile: NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shares of DynCorp International Inc. (DCP) rose Wednesday as the service provider to government agencies and Fluor Corp. (FLR) were selected over rival KBR Inc. (KBR) for U.S. contracts worth up to $7.5 billion each to support base-camp operations in Afghanistan. DynCorp and Fluor were notified Tuesday that each won one-year contracts worth as much as $1.5 billion with four one-year options for the same annual amount, Dan Carlson, spokesman for the U.S. Army Sustainment Command, told Dow Jones Newswires. Carlson said DynCorp's contract is for southern Afghanistan, while Fluor's is for the north. Bloomberg first reported news of the Afghanistan LogCap IV contracts. A DynCorp official confirmed the company won the award, although he declined to confirm the amount of the award or provide further comment or details. Fluor did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [In Full] ...and the death toll... pardon ME! 'The "casualty" count' ("Nothing Casual About That!" --Gil Scott-Heron) As of Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at least 647 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, according to the Defense Department. The department last updated its figures Wednesday at 10 a.m. EDT. Of those, the military reports 480 were killed by hostile action. Outside the Afghan region, the Defense Department reports 68 more members of the U.S. military died in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those, three were the result of hostile action. The military lists these other locations as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba; Djibouti; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Jordan; Kenya; Kyrgyzstan; Philippines; Seychelles; Sudan; Tajikistan; Turkey; and Yemen. There were also four CIA officer deaths and one military civilian death. [In Full] [After the commentary, a little piece of important election news relevant to the commentary's topic got 'puffed' under during the 2008 election cycle. The premier investigative news network ONN reports.] More.... From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 9 12:54:47 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:54:47 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Speaking of the X Files Message-ID: ....Not to put any great stock in this...but a 'curiosity' nonetheless.. T. (less than 2 min.) > > There's a popular "urban myth" that a March 2001 > episode of the X Files predicted 9/11 to a "t." > > It's not a myth. > > Details: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/663.html > > - 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/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0rAwsnMzsnA== > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 9 13:01:58 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:01:58 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Peru: Garcia's Support Plummets To 21% Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:40 AM Subject: [stopnato] Peru: Garcia's Support Plummets To 21% http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/peruvian-demonstrators-angry-president Radio Netherlands July 9, 2009 Thousands have taken to the streets in Peru to demonstrate against the policies of President Alan Garcia Demonstrations were held in Lima, Cuzco and Arequipa. The demonstrators accuse the president of selling land to large companies and investors, while doing nothing about poverty in Peru. Polls suggest that only 21 percent of Peruvians support President Garcia. He announced on Tuesday that he will make changes to his cabinet this weekend, but stresses he will keep free market policies in place. The indigenous people of the Amazon region staged demonstrations last month in protest at Mr Garcia's plans, which resulted in at least 34 deaths. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff at yahoo.com or stopnato-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Daily digest option available. Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages ============================== __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Database | Polls MARKETPLACE Mom Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, for the world and for each other 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 2New Members Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Dogs Owners Group Join Do More For Dogs pet community Yahoo! Groups Mental Health Zone Learn about issues Find support Yahoo! Groups Auto Enthusiast Zone Love cars? Check out the Auto Enthusiast Zone. __,_._,___ From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 9 13:19:36 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:19:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Background to the Honduran Coup Message-ID: <93440CF832594A19B5E9AB96349756B7@TonyPC> Background to the Honduran coup: Poverty, exploitation and imperialist domination By Rafael Azul (WSW) 9 July 2009 On June 28, a US-trained army with close links to the US Southern Command removed President Manuel Zelaya from office, kidnapped him and expelled him from Honduras. Given the close relationship between the Honduran army and the Pentagon, it is not credible that the coup took place without Washington's knowledge and tacit approval. Behind the coup, which installed a new president, Roberto Micheletti, is one of the most exploitative and oppressive political and economic systems in the world upon which the wealthy landowning and businesses elites, the military and the church depend for their wealth. These forces are now threatened by the escalation of the class struggle. Social tensions that are being fueled by the global economic crisis find their expression in deep divisions within the country's ruling elite. Zelaya's pragmatic turn to the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez for cheap oil and loans combined with his populist rhetoric and his government's raising the minimum wage by 60 percent have all been aimed at containing the explosive social struggles in Honduras. Zelaya is a wealthy landowner and timber magnate who won the presidential contest in 2005 on a right-wing law-and-order platform as the candidate the Liberal Party, one of the two traditional parties of the Honduran oligarchy that have alternated in power for over a century. Nonetheless, his actions have brought upon him the hostility of his own class and his former closest political allies, including Micheletti, a fellow Liberal whom he had endorsed as the candidate to succeed him. Both factions defend the system that is responsible for the massive inequality and poverty that prevail in Honduras. Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the American hemisphere. By most indexes that measure living standards, it lags behind its Central American neighbors, Guatemala and Nicaragua, nations that are also extremely poor. In the Americas, only Haiti is poorer than Honduras. Honduras is also in transition from a rural, largely agricultural economy dominated by a feudal social structure-giant estates rule over peasant-owned mini-farms-to an urban economy with a significant industrial sector. It has a young and growing urban working class. The old plantation economy, based largely on the production of bananas for export to the United States, is being transformed. Larger capital investments have resulted in redundancies among agricultural workers, increasing poverty and pushing agricultural workers into the cities, despite chronic high levels of urban unemployment. This urban reserve army of labor now depends on the export-oriented manufacturing industries, commonly known as "maquiladoras." Sweatshop working conditions at these plants are considered to be among the worst in the world. The average working day for adult men and women is now 14 hours under a system known as four-by-four or three-by-four. Workers labor 14 hours a day, three or four days a week, and are replaced by another crew during their days off, so that the machinery can be kept running constantly. The production quotas are so high that even ill workers are given limited rest time and meal breaks-one half-hour break per shift. As orders rise and fall, so does employment at the plants. Labor laws are routinely ignored, and union organizing is repressed. On March 24, the Inter-American Committee on Human Rights (CIDH), an agency of the Organization of American States (OAS), held hearings in Washington on conditions at the 229 maquiladoras in Honduras. These enterprises collectively employ 130,000 workers, 69 percent of whom are young women. CIDH officials called on the Honduran government to investigate what it called "typical examples of the exploitation of poor people." According to Florencia Quesada of the Honduran Women's Collective, "Women workers are hired when they are 18 and fired when they are 30, because the owners prefer younger women. In many cases, the hiring process requires that the women undress. Women showing cesarean scars or those over a certain weight limit are rejected." Quesada described the crowded working conditions and the long hours in the maquiladoras. She reported that at times, employees have been required to work non-stop for 24 hours. The object, said Quesada, "is to meet exorbitant targets" under the threat of a 40 percent cut in wages. Another member of the Honduran Women's Collective, Brenda Mej?a, spoke about the muscular and joint lesions that result from the intense work pace. In many cases, "workers are incapable of coordinating simple movements, such as drinking a glass of water." Those who are incapacitated by the work have little chance of collecting disability payments or social security benefits. If they manage to collect such benefits, the sums are very low. Over 300,000 children labor in Honduras. Their working day is only marginally shorter than that of adults. In the maquiladoras, children as young as 15 are forced to work 10 to 13 hours a day for as little as 40 cents an hour, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The International Labor Organization (ILO) reports that children work in the following industries: prostitution (particularly in the tourist sector along the North Coast), fireworks manufacturing (in Copan), marine diving (on lobster boats on the Mosquito Coast), limestone quarries and garbage dumps (in the two large cities of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula), agriculture (in the coffee and melon industries). Poverty in Honduras is concentrated in the countryside, where 53 percent of the population currently lives. Some 75 percent of that population exists under conditions that make it impossible for them to meet basic needs, resulting in very high rates of infant mortality, child malnutrition, child labor and illiteracy. Seventy percent of the population live under the poverty line, and 40 percent subsist on less than two dollars a day. UN statistics show that the probability of an average Honduran dying before the age of 40 is 12 percent. Sixteen percent of Hondurans are considered severely deprived of health services, and 17 percent of children under the age of 5 are underweight. One in five adults is unable to read or write. At nearly 30 percent, the unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America. As banana plantations have shed workers, more and more people have chosen to move to the cities, where they make up a large reserve army of labor, whose hourly wages fluctuate between US 75 cents and 95 cents for male workers and considerably less for female workers. For tens of thousands, migration to the cities is followed by emigration to Mexico and, ultimately, to the United States. The distribution of income and wealth is immensely unequal, though not unusual by Central American standards. The top 10 percent of the population consumes over 45 percent of the output of goods and services. The lion's share goes to the very top layer, which is divided into three main groups-large landowners, industrialists, and the high echelons of the military. The very bottom 10 percent consists of peasants and consumes less than 4 percent of output. There is also a small but growing urban middle class that was severely affected by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, and has yet to recover. The Hurricane devastated Honduras, killing 7,000 people and destroying 50 percent of the nation's transportation infrastructure and many of the plantations. The effects of the storm were magnified by the backward slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that created the conditions for widespread flooding. The hurricane accelerated the movement of workers to the cities and fueled the growth of the maquiladoras, mainly in textile goods, dependent on the fluctuations of demand from the United States. The current global financial crisis and the drop in demand for clothing in the US are having a devastating effect on the economy. Twenty-nine maquiladoras have shut their doors since the crisis began in 2008. So far 30,000 workers have been sacked with little or no severance pay. There is no unemployment compensation in Honduras, raising class tensions to the breaking point. Historically, this pattern of intensive exploitation has been maintained through repression, often with the assistance of the United States. The traditional ruling classes are dependent on feudal patterns of land ownership and on their relationship to US imperialism. Throughout the last century, the Honduran state depended on the US Marines and Navy to stand between it and a rebellious agricultural proletariat and peasantry. Honduras was repeatedly invaded by US forces-in 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924, 1925 and 1931. In each of these invasions, the object was to protect US corporate interests and the stability of tyrannical puppet regimes. The price extracted from the Honduran ruling classes was control over the fertile eastern tropical valleys by the United Fruit Company, which, beginning in 1906, established banana plantations in Honduras and set itself up as a state within a state. In 1910, facing resistance from Honduran President Miguel D?vila, the company organized a coup to overthrow D?vila. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Jul 6 09:31:04 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:31:04 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt disavowed open and unilateral military interventions in Latin America. Instead, the US pursued its imperialist interests mostly through the creation of proxy armies and the integration and subordination of national armies and security forces to the US military command structure. Since then, Honduras has been a base of operations and supply chain for US intervention in the region. In 1954, a CIA-trained fascist army crossed into Guatemala from Honduras and El Salvador in the successful military coup against President Jacobo Arbenz. In 1961, Honduras was used as a training base and launching pad for the Bay of Pigs invasion against Cuba's Fidel Castro. In the 1980s, the CIA-backed contra armies that fought the Sandinista government in Nicaragua were directed and supplied from Honduras. The country still hosts one of the largest overseas US military bases in the region, with 600 American troops stationed at the Soto Cano Air Base, 50 miles northwest of Tegucigalpa, As is typical of economies based on plantations, extreme inequality in Honduras is joined by a history of labor militancy and resistance. In April 1954, as a CIA army was invading Guatemala, dock workers in the Honduran port of Tela refused to load a United Fruit ship. News of their job action spread quickly to other ports and gained the support of railroad and plantation workers. A strike that had begun as a demand for overtime pay became a massive struggle for the 8-hour day and decent living standards and working conditions. Strike committees took over entire towns. The strike spread to Tegucigalpa and gained the support of factory workers there. Despite mass state repression, the strike lasted 69 days and was ended only with partial concessions to the workers, including the recognition of trade unions. It is this resistance and self-sacrificing spirit that the Honduran ruling class fears the most. In response to the June 28 coup, it is the Honduran workers who have mounted the most determined resistance, carrying out strikes and protests, including the nationwide walkout by the country's 60,000 teachers, now in its second week. Whatever their tactical differences, the faction led by Zelaya and that of Micheletti both fear this movement. No doubt, the concern that these struggles could spin out of control has weighed heavily on Zelaya's decision to subordinate himself to US-brokered "mediation" between himself and those who overthrew him. The class relations and social conditions that exist in Honduras and throughout Central America make it impossible to secure democracy and freedom from imperialist domination without building an independent political movement of the working class to end class oppression and build a socialist society.. Copyright ? 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jul 9 13:40:58 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:40:58 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class Message-ID: <141187DECE7E41D9A02CCCB102BA9D21@TonyPC> > > THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS > 8 July 2009 > > > > > > Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling > elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged > an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and > repressive regime. > > Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike > since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was > seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew > him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students > and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran > working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it > through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. > > This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto > state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military > controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, > and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. > Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been > shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and > individual reporters threatened with death. > > On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed > Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, > where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was > not allowed to land. > > There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not > just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most > backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is > trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto > Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. > > The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like > those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and > Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. > > In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real > settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- > military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's > Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads > that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and > torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their > counterparts in the region. > > The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the > buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago > - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining > the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military > rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in > the 1980s. > > The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new > ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the > Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in > 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of > dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly > "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. > > Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel > Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the > intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his > presidency's political legitimacy. > > After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya > announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the > ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, > land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. > > The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by > Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and > those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, > having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas > process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El > Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions > within the ruling elite. > > Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the > overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored > "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of > democracy." > > There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with > Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published > reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about > removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran > military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. > > Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to > effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to > US interests in the region, including the severing of the close > economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan > government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that > Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together > with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet > coup." > > Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands > for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. > The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the > timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal > Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military > in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the > support of some of the richest men in Honduras. > > Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted > without any troubling questions about his government's handling of > public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, > has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the > oligarchy. > > The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the > Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the > Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support > the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing > leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the > coup. > > However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing > elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the > interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of > the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them > would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while > helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely > elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. > > Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the > coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. > The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political > movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the > bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must > be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the > socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region > as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. > > Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not > in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the > working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by > the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. > > > Bill Van Auken > > > > > > - -- > Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! > > Build the North America-wide General Strike. > TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. > TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. > ALL power to the councils and communes. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi > AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s > =MeHX > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From tboyle at rosehill.net Thu Jul 9 10:43:15 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:43:15 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Financial Cryptography Update: alternative monies for peace? Message-ID: Ian Grigg has maintained the "Financial Cryptography" blog since the last dotcom boom, and has published on digital cash matters since the early 1990s. His former career was software and systems in banks; he co-developed the webfunds open source, P2P digital cash system in the late 1990s. If there is ever going to be digital cash, you'll hear it here first. For example, he was all over paypal from its earliest startup days. I met him in Edinburgh at a digital cash conference in 2002. -Todd >Subject: Financial Cryptography Update: alternative monies for peace? >From: iang at iang.org >Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 > >((((( Financial Cryptography Update: alternative monies for peace? ))))) >July 06, 2009 >https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001173.html > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >When the Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded a few years back for >alternative finance (in this case, microlending bank Grameen and >inventor Mohammad Yunus), this caught people by surprise. Economics >maybe, but why peace? There is an alternative payment system called >M-PESA in Kenya that has made the case: > >http://technology.cgap.org/2009/05/22/findings-from-the-field-an-observ >ation-on-m-pesa-usage-during-the-post-election-violence/ >http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2009/07/intangible-money-virtual-banks >.html > > >M-PESA flows reversed during Kenya?s political crisis, with rural users >sending money to urban contacts. > >As I noted in a previous post - ?Why has M-PESA become so popular in >Kenya?? M-PESA was used predominantly for the transfer of remittances >in the two research sites. Usually these flowed from urban centres like >Kibera to rural villages like Bukura. However, there was a reversal in >such flows during the post-election crises in Kenya. Urban migrants >were receiving money and airtime from their rural relatives. > >During this period, money and airtime cards could not be physically >transported across the country. Many of the roads were blocked by >rioting youth, and the railway was dismantled. This was problematic for >many of the urban migrants. They needed money to escape the threat of >ethnic violence, and airtime to communicate about their situation. > >Some of the migrants received such support from friends and relatives >in the village, who transferred both money and airtime via M-PESA. >Others withdrew cash from M-PESA if they had a balance in their >account. Most banks remained closed during the violence, which further >made it difficult to access money. Some agents located in urban areas, >which were affected by the violence, confirmed this finding. They >asserted that the demand for services was high during this period. They >further explained that the nature of transaction had changed?urban >customers were making withdrawals rather than deposits. > > >In times of trouble, the standard mechanisms are attacked. Rioters >target merchants and especially banks. So what works? Well, >alternative methods spring up. > >It doesn't so matter what the alternative methods are, as long as they >are alternatives. In this sense, the world's banking strategy of >cartelising the payments mechanisms is a recipe for collapse, because >we are enforcing a legal monoculture. When the monoculture hits a >virus, all transactions catch the cold and the economy goes to bed. > >The same thing happened in 1998 or so when the Russian financial crisis >happened. The banking sector met its Battle of Kursk and collapsed, >taking their payments abilities with them. A rough upstart called >Webmoney was luckily up and going, and was able to transmit sorely >needed payments across Russia and further. At the end of the crisis, >it was the last man left standing, because it wasn't one of them. > >So when you see regulation and cartelisation against alternative >finance systems, ask for a guarantee of stability from the those >supporting the anti-competitive activity. Of course no such is worth >the paper it is printed on, but somehow we have to get the message >through that lightweight alternative finance is good for us all, and >monoculture is bad for us, unless you happen to be the predominant >organism that is taking over the organ of economy. > >(( Financial Cryptography Update: Webmoney's start in the 1998 crisis )) > July 09, 2009 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >In comments, Igor Drokov asked for data points on my claim that >Webmoney single-handedly saved the Russian people from their crisis. >The problem with Webmoney has always been that the documentation is in >Russian, so the story spread slowly and was wildly exaggerated in the >telling. I asked Dani Nagy, who is fluent in Russian, for the truth, >and here's what he said: > >Here is a summary of the official history of WebMoney, as told in 2005 >(in Russian): http://owebmoney.ru/history.shtml and an interview. >http://www.xakep.ru/post/30793/default.asp > >The first financial transaction in WebMoney happened on November 20, >1998, when the shock of the financial meltdown was still raw in Russia. >They started their operations with a "Marshall-plan", spending a few >tens of thousands of dollars as follows: the first 1000 registered >users got 30 WMZ (WM denominated in USD) on their accounts, the first >few vendors that signed up for accepting WM got 100 WMZ and invitations >were rewarded by 3 WMZ each, if successful. > >For about a month, they announced each signed up vendor as a separate >news item on their main page. By December 1998 they switched to batch >announcements, as the service was growing in popularity, albeit mostly >confined to Moscow due to the (almost negligibly) low residential >internet penetration elsewhere in Russia. > >The growth was quite rapid. By the end of 1999, businesses operating >mostly online, such as ISPs, banner exchanges, hosting providers and >web design studios, adopted Webmoney almost universally. It was in 1999 >when exchange agents started popping up in major Russian cities. They >also got into the remittance business, mostly for Russians working in >America's dot com boom. > >By 2000, WebMoney was already very popular across Russia. That same >year, Oleg Bunas started a branch in Minsk, Belarus. See this (also in >Russian): http://www.itb.by/publications/view/9/ > >Of course, in those years, WebMoney was severely constrained by the low >Internet penetration in Russia. But among internet users it was a >runaway success from the very beginning, as there was no comparable >fast and cheap means of payment. The banking sector certainly failed >to meet the demand for such. > >My (Dany's) comment: > >Giving cash to conductors on railroads has been and still remains a >popular means of money transfer, but when it's -20C outside (with a >raging blizzard to complete the picture), the benefits of being able to >wire money from the comfort of one's home or office are difficult to >overstate. :-) > >The effect of the present financial crisis on WebMoney is thankfully >measured by Google: >http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=webmoney&cmpt=q > > >-- >Version 2.64 >http://www.movabletype.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8611 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090709/16218e6a/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Thu Jul 9 12:25:23 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:25:23 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Media Ignores Uribe's Visit, as Obama Lectures him on U.S. History; Recent Citations Message-ID: <20090709182422.B65EC3E5BE1@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5858 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090709/587a3706/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 15:13:52 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:13:52 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Today Message-ID: . Today In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, it is 10:19 PM or 22:19, in New York City it is six hours earlier or 4:19 pm or 16:19. Today is relative, just as reality or truth is relative. Today one reality the whole world shares is that the United States wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have lasted longer than World War 11 and are not about to end any time soon, though the semblance of them ending will be crafted feverishly and at great expense by the financially hemmoraging United States. All the world is audience to these few realities of the many that destabalise the twentyfirst century peoples. This list is of a group of beautifully educated, articulate, passionately commited sociaists who parse the world of this century with skill, historical connectedness and informed sceptisicsm, often brilliance, certainly courage. But, as perhaps Willa Cather might comment, something is missing. So much so I cannot even articulate what it is! But, there is a place at the table where there is no chair, no setting, no person ...but the space is visible to all. 'Empty' is a judgement call, let one say it is 'in-waiting'. That playwright that wrote a play where the one not there and waited for is the main charachter got today right. Pinter wrote it yesterday. Today is in waiting. The silent commentator, the tolerant mute critic? Our Queen has given us away to those who want no human rights laws or rules. The Bilderberg Group is her pleasure, our International Criminal Court gathers dust and sneering laughter.. As Israel continues its genocide of the Palestinians and the world watches, the U.S killing the middle easterners for their oil treasure, we with homes and countries yet, marvel at the absences of reality at the tables of the powerful. Pinter may have meant that man, as Magritte did with the man wearing the Homberg.? We who watch have become audience rather than participants? Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2160 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090709/9fbedc8f/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jul 9 19:21:50 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:21:50 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Can You Believe It? Message-ID: <20090710102150.cdef1d50.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Silly Series Number 1 by Vincent Vickers They kept it a profound secret. They said it was "not in the public interest" that the news should be broadcast. The fact remains, that I myself was present when the Great Logical Professor arrived here direct from Mars, and met the World's leading orthodox economist. "Well, boys said the Logical Professor from Mars, "Everything okay up here?" "Alas! Far from it", said our orthodox economist. "This world is in economic eruption! Wars and rumors of wars, millions of people unemployed, ill-fed, ill-clothed, suffering malnutrition and great poverty, and discontent everywhere!" "Oh", said the Martian professor. "I suppose, then, that you are finding it impossible to produce sufficient to feed your increasing population, and supply them with what they need for a comfortable life?" "On the contrary", said the orthodox economist, "we have wonderful machinery! We can produce far more than all the people need; in fact, we are actually destroying food." "You don't say", said the astonished professor, "Then there must be something wrong with your shipping and transport facilities - you can't carry the goods to the consumers". "Wrong again", said the orthodox economist. "We have to most up-to-date and ample transport, and marvelous ships - no, that is not what is wrong". "But what else can be wrong?" asked the Martian professor, lifting his eyebrows. "Well, you see", said out orthodox economist, "The poor people can't have the goods because they have not got enough money". "Money", said the professor from Mars. "What on this earth is that?" "Fancy you not knowing about money!" said the orthodox economist. "It was invented by Mankind for his own special benefit long before 1066, to make everything simple and easy for the exchange of one man's goods for another man's goods. It enables us to do away with the previous cumbersome procedure of barter. We do not have to lead a cow down Bond Street in order to exchange it for perfumes and jewelry; all we have to do is to exchange the cow for 'money' and then hand over the money for our other requirements. A wonderful invention, affecting the lives and happiness of all Mankind!" "So that is where the trouble lies!" said the professor. "Then, obviously, what you have got to do is to alter your money system, so as to enable these discontented millions of people to buy the things they need, and employ your unemployed!" "Oh, we must not do that", exclaimed the orthodox economist, with a shocked expression on his face. "We must not alter out ancient money system! No, that would never do!" "But why not?" said the professor from Mars. "Am I to understand that this invention has become a sort of 'religion' with rules and regulations that cannot be changed?" "Well", said the orthodox economist, gazing down rather sheepishly at his white spats, "I had not thought of it that way before, but you are right - it is a 'religion' with us. We call it 'Sound Finance!'" The big, thick lips of the professor slowly curled themselves into a Martian grin. Without a word, he clambered back into his rocket-apparatus and started off for home. And when he had reached a height of some eighty thousand meters, he looked down on the World, flapped his great ears, and laughed, and laughed, and LAUGHED. _____ Vincent Vickers was a Director of the Bank of England, a Director of the Vickers Limited, and a Deputy-Liutenant of the City of London. He had exceptional inside knowledge and experience of trading and banking. This knowledge convinced him that the present economic system is so dangerously unwise that he felt it his duty during the later years of his life to work whole-heartedly for its reform. In 1926 Vickers told the Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, that henceforth he would fight Montagu and the Gold Standard and the Bank of England Policy until Vickers died. And he did. Vincent Vickers died on November 3rd 1939 after a long illness. All the while he was sick he was working and writing on economic reform. Before his death Vickers started The Silly Series, which he intended to be a series of short humorous leaflets on economics. He never got beyond Number 1 before his death. Arian Nevin plans to continue The Silly Series started by Vickers. Questions, Comments, or Submissions? Email Here: comments at nationaleconomy.net http://www.nationaleconomy.net/sillyseries1.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From cb31450 at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 14:42:34 2009 From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:42:34 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Copy of Post to LBO-Talk. Iran & U.S. Leftists Message-ID: <5c2e4d230907101342k59154193rdcd2ed9a6953e002@mail.gmail.com> Now I have come to disagree with this theory, and have no particular opinions on the regime in Iran (or Venezuela for that matter) for essentially the same reason I reject the maunderings about "the developmental state" by the Pollyanna of the LBO list. I don't believe that capitalism _or_ capitalist aggression around the world _can_ be defeated by external opposition. That is why, for example, I insist that Capitalism is Capitalism is a sensible taugology. (The proposition "feudalism is feudalism" would be nonsense.) It can only be defeated by movements within the capitalist core: The U.S. and the European Union (along with their junior partners, England and Japan, and the camp-followers Australia and Canada). It is similarly fruitless to hope for signifcant opposition to imperailism from peripheral capitalist powers, China, Russia, Brazil, or India. It's up to us, and our priority is to build a movement at home, not hope for salvation from the resistance at the periphery. ^^^^^ CB: Workers of the West, it's our turn. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jul 10 17:12:55 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:12:55 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Mr Soddy's Ecological Economy Message-ID: <20090711081255.559e2353.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Eric Zencey, Op-Ed Contributor The New York Times (April 12 2009) INNOVATIVE and opaque instruments of debt; greedy bankers; lenders' eagerness to take on risky loans; a lack of regulation; a shortage of bank liquidity: all have been nominated as the underlying cause of the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. But a more perceptive, and more troubling, diagnosis is suggested by the work of a little-regarded British chemist-turned-economist who wrote before and during the Great Depression. Frederick Soddy, born in 1877, was an individualist who bowed to few conventions, and who is described by one biographer as a difficult, obstinate man. A 1921 Nobel laureate in chemistry for his work on radioactive decay, he foresaw the energy potential of atomic fission as early as 1909. But his disquiet about that power's potential wartime use, combined with his revulsion at his discipline's complicity in the mass deaths of World War One led him to set aside chemistry for the study of political economy - the world into which scientific progress introduces its gifts. In four books written from 1921 to 1934, Soddy carried on a quixotic campaign for a radical restructuring of global monetary relationships. He was roundly dismissed as a crank. He offered a perspective on economics rooted in physics - the laws of thermodynamics, in particular. An economy is often likened to a machine, though few economists follow the parallel to its logical conclusion: like any machine the economy must draw energy from outside itself. The first and second laws of thermodynamics forbid perpetual motion, schemes in which machines create energy out of nothing or recycle it forever. Soddy criticized the prevailing belief of the economy as a perpetual motion machine, capable of generating infinite wealth - a criticism echoed by his intellectual heirs in the now emergent field of ecological economics. A more apt analogy, said Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (a Romanian-born economist whose work in the 1970s began to define this new approach), is to model the economy as a living system. Like all life, it draws from its environment valuable (or "low entropy") matter and energy - for animate life, food; for an economy, energy, ores, the raw materials provided by plants and animals. And like all life, an economy emits a high-entropy wake - it spews degraded matter and energy: waste heat, waste gases, toxic byproducts, apple cores, the molecules of iron lost to rust and abrasion. Low entropy emissions include trash and pollution in all their forms, including yesterday's newspaper, last year's sneakers, last decade's rusted automobile. Matter taken up into the economy can be recycled, using energy; but energy, used once, is forever unavailable to us at that level again. The law of entropy commands a one-way flow downward from more to less useful forms. An animal can't live perpetually on its own excreta. Neither can you fill the tank of your car by pushing it backwards. Thus, Georgescu-Roegen, paraphrasing the economist Alfred Marshall, said: "Biology, not mechanics, is our Mecca". Following Soddy, Georgescu-Roegen and other ecological economists argue that wealth is real and physical. It's the stock of cars and computers and clothing, of furniture and French fries, that we buy with our dollars. The dollars aren't real wealth, but only symbols that represent the bearer's claim on an economy's ability to generate wealth. Debt, for its part, is a claim on the economy's ability to generate wealth in the future. "The ruling passion of the age", Soddy said, "is to convert wealth into debt" - to exchange a thing with present-day real value (a thing that could be stolen, or broken, or rust or rot before you can manage to use it) for something immutable and unchanging, a claim on wealth that has yet to be made. Money facilitates the exchange; it is, he said, "the nothing you get for something before you can get anything". Problems arise when wealth and debt are not kept in proper relation. The amount of wealth that an economy can create is limited by the amount of low-entropy energy that it can sustainably suck from its environment - and by the amount of high-entropy effluent from an economy that the environment can sustainably absorb. Debt, being imaginary, has no such natural limit. It can grow infinitely, compounding at any rate we decide. Whenever an economy allows debt to grow faster than wealth can be created, that economy has a need for debt repudiation. Inflation can do the job, decreasing debt gradually by eroding the purchasing power, the claim on future wealth, that each of your saved dollars represents. But when there is no inflation, an economy with overgrown claims on future wealth will experience regular crises of debt repudiation - stock market crashes, bankruptcies and foreclosures, defaults on bonds or loans or pension promises, the disappearance of paper assets. It's like musical chairs - in the wake of some shock (say, the run-up of the price of gas to $4 a gallon), holders of abstract debt suddenly want to hold money or real wealth instead. But not all of them can. One person's loss causes another's, and the whole system cascades into crisis. Each and every one of the crises that has beset the American economy in recent years has been, at heart, a crisis of debt repudiation. And we are unlikely to avoid more of them until we stop allowing claims on income to grow faster than income. Soddy would not have been surprised at our current state of affairs. The problem isn't simply greed, isn't simply ignorance, isn't a failure of regulatory diligence, but a systemic flaw in how our economy finances itself. As long as growth in claims on wealth outstrips the economy's capacity to increase its wealth, market capitalism creates a niche for entrepreneurs who are all too willing to invent instruments of debt that will someday be repudiated. There will always be a Bernard Madoff or a subprime mortgage repackager willing to set us up for catastrophe. To stop them, we must balance claims on future wealth with the economy's power to produce that wealth. How can that be done? Soddy distilled his eccentric vision into five policy prescriptions, each of which was taken at the time as evidence that his theories were unworkable: The first four were to abandon the gold standard, let international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price index) in order to facilitate this effort. All of these are now conventional practice. Soddy's fifth proposal, the only one that remains outside the bounds of conventional wisdom, was to stop banks from creating money (and debt) out of nothing. Banks do this by lending out most of their depositors' money at interest - making loans that the borrower soon puts in a demand deposit (checking) account, where it will soon be lent out again to create more debt and demand deposits, and so on, almost ad infinitum. One way to stop this cycle, suggests Herman Daly, an ecological economist, would be to gradually institute a 100-percent reserve requirement on demand deposits. This would begin to shrink what Professor Daly calls "the enormous pyramid of debt that is precariously balanced atop the real economy, threatening to crash". Banks would support themselves by charging fees for safekeeping, check clearing and all the other legitimate financial services they provide. They would still make loans and still be able to lend at interest "the real money of real depositors", in Professor Daly's phrase, people who forgo consumption today by taking money out of their checking accounts and putting it in time deposits - CDs, passbook savings, 401(k)'s. In return, these savers receive a slightly larger claim on the real wealth of the community in the future. In such a system, every increase in spending by borrowers would have to be matched by an act of saving or abstinence on the part of a depositor. This would re-establish a one-to-one correspondence between the real wealth of the community and the claims on that real wealth. (Of course, it would not solve the problem completely, not unless financial institutions were also forbidden to create subprime mortgage derivatives and other instruments of leveraged debt.) If such a major structural renovation of our economy sounds hopelessly unrealistic, consider that so too did the abolition of the gold standard and the introduction of floating exchange rates back in the 1920s. If the laws of thermodynamics are sturdy, and if Soddy's analysis of their relevance to economic life is correct, we'd better expand the realm of what we think is realistic. _____ Eric Zencey, a professor of historical and political studies at Empire State College, is the author of Virgin Forest: Meditations on History, Ecology and Culture (1998) and a novel, Panama (2001). Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?_r=2&ref=opinion http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From seanfischer at earthlink.net Sat Jul 11 01:12:42 2009 From: seanfischer at earthlink.net (Sean Fischer) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Message-ID: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Fri Jul 10 03:05:32 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:05:32 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Today ...addendum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61B4088646E146BABB51C15C45C0F80F@TonyPC> "Those who are always watching to see what happens next will never act: such must be the spectator's condition." Guy Debord "We have just said that action exactly suited to its ends must be obtained. This leads us to state that if the classic but outmoded view of propaganda consists in defining it as an adherence of man to an *orthodoxy*, true modern propaganda seeks, on the contrary, to obtain an *orthopraxy* - an action that in itself, and not because of the value judgments of the person who is acting, leads directly to a goal, which for the individual is not a conscious and intentional objective to be attained, but which is considered such by the propagandist........This is a particular example of a more general problem: the separation of thought and action in our society. We are living in a time when systematically - though without wanting it so - action and thought are being separated." Jacues Ellul, from 'Propaganda' p.27 ----- Original Message ----- From: Suzanne de Kuyper To: The A-List Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:13 PM Subject: [A-List] Today . Today In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, it is 10:19 PM or 22:19, in New York City it is six hours earlier or 4:19 pm or 16:19. Today is relative, just as reality or truth is relative. Today one reality the whole world shares is that the United States wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have lasted longer than World War 11 and are not about to end any time soon, though the semblance of them ending will be crafted feverishly and at great expense by the financially hemmoraging United States. All the world is audience to these few realities of the many that destabalise the twentyfirst century peoples. This list is of a group of beautifully educated, articulate, passionately commited sociaists who parse the world of this century with skill, historical connectedness and informed sceptisicsm, often brilliance, certainly courage. But, as perhaps Willa Cather might comment, something is missing. So much so I cannot even articulate what it is! But, there is a place at the table where there is no chair, no setting, no person ...but the space is visible to all. 'Empty' is a judgement call, let one say it is 'in-waiting'. That playwright that wrote a play where the one not there and waited for is the main charachter got today right. Pinter wrote it yesterday. Today is in waiting. The silent commentator, the tolerant mute critic? Our Queen has given us away to those who want no human rights laws or rules. The Bilderberg Group is her pleasure, our International Criminal Court gathers dust and sneering laughter.. As Israel continues its genocide of the Palestinians and the world watches, the U.S killing the middle easterners for their oil treasure, we with homes and countries yet, marvel at the absences of reality at the tables of the powerful. Pinter may have meant that man, as Magritte did with the man wearing the Homberg.? We who watch have become audience rather than participants? Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4628 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090710/c6484178/attachment.txt From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 11 05:55:10 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:55:10 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Honduras Resists Message-ID: The following statement was released July 9, 2009 by the Honduran National Front Against the Coup d'etat. It appears on the website of Honduras Resists / Honduras Resiste (Alternative information on the military coup d'etat in Honduras and communication from the resistance. Go to: http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/ After that an update on today's protests from Prensa Latina, also in English. Honduras Resists / Honduras Resiste The people of Honduras are heroically resisting the military coup led by U.S. trained army officials. This blog provides links to alternative information sources and translations of communications coming out of the Honduran resistance movement. Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9th Communiqu? of the National Front Against the Coup d'etat The National Front Against the Coup d'etat in Honduras, made up of the different organized expressions in the country, on our feet in the struggle until the reinstatement of the constitutional order, communicates: We reiterate that the coup d'etat was conceived by the oligarchy and executed by the Armed Forces in collusion with the Supreme Court of Justice, the National Congress, the Public ministry, the Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Liberal, Nationalist Innovation, Social Democratic unity and Christian Democratic Parties, and the Catholic and evangelical churches. We demand that the meetings planned between President Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti Bain take into account the position of the National Front Against the Coup d'Etat which includes as a main point the installation of a National Constitutional Assembly. We demand pubishment for those responsible for the death of our fallen comrades and the repression of the mobilizations and locations of the popular movement. We reject the possibility of the legitimation of the de facto authorities and re-affirm that the only acceptable solution is the return of the institutional order. We make known the naming of a commission that represents the National Front Against the Coup d'Etat to participate in the meetings in San Jos?, Costa Rica. We continue demanding the restitution of individual guarantees immediately, as the suspension is a clear violation of people's human rights. NATIONAL FRONT AGAINST THE COUP D'ETAT IN HONDURAS Tegucigalpa, Honduras, July 8th, 2009 ================================================================= Honduras Front Peaceful, Relentless Tegucigalpa, Jul 9 (Prensa Latina) Honduran popular organizations mark Thursday their 12th consecutive day of peaceful resistance to the military coup, with the aim of maintaining their democratic struggles. "We are not tired of resisting," writer Dalila Bracamonte said in today's call at the Loarque Square. The National Front against the coup d'Etat ratifies in a brief release it will maintain the popular mobilization until the return of President Manuel Zelaya, overthrown by soldiers on June 28. Wednesday's rallies took place in the capital's eastern sector and the road joining the city with the nation's eastern zone, mainly Olancho and Paraiso departments. First Lady Xiomara Castro, who attended popular demonstrations two days ago, led the march with trade, rural, students, youth leaders and other sectors of society. "We reject legitimization of the de facto authorities. The only acceptable solution is the return of institutional order," stresses the document. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jul 11 12:08:36 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras In-Reply-To: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8B77428B7F1841E9936E3A4926E7D091@TonyPC> " Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward" In fact the existing 'constitution' as such, was a piece of work entirely constructed by the military and the oligarchy in their favour in 1982. Zelaya's motion was merely to have a referendum to seek a national constituent assembly which would have involved the (presently) powerless majority and given them the opportunity to craft a constitution to right this clearly inequitable situation. The military, the oligarchy, and the Church stepped in to stop this. One only has to look at the language of this piece ( i.e. "thrown state institutions into disarray" etc) to see its patent bias in favour of the coup. Indeed, from the oligarchy's point of view, I reckon 'true democracy' is a sort of 'disarray'....certainly of their future bank accounts. T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Fischer" To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 11 12:11:27 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:11:27 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y> Sean, you are preaching to yourself -- your pro-imperialist propaganda is not likely to convert the rest of us. -- James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Fischer" To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From seanfischer at earthlink.net Sat Jul 11 12:20:02 2009 From: seanfischer at earthlink.net (Sean Fischer) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [A-List] Honduras "Non-Coup" Message-ID: <2669079.1247336402556.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> LA TIMES: Opinion Honduras' non-coup Under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal. By Miguel A. Estrada July 10, 2009 ? Discuss Article (152 Comments) Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country's military arrested President Manuel Zelaya -- in his pajamas, he says -- and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this "coup." Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading. What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government." In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule. As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela. It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya's proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal. The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an "opinion survey." The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the "survey" -- and "fired" him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated. Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 -- three days before he was ousted -- Zelaya personally gathered a group of "supporters" and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the "survey" on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya's arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya's arrest by the country's army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court's order on the morning of the proposed survey. It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't. This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power? No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term. It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement. True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country. Miguel A. Estrada is a partner at the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. A native of Honduras, he was a member of the official U.S. delegation to President Zelaya's 2006 inauguration. 1. The Honduran government has acted democratically and honorably. Zelaya is a criminal! I cant believe Zelaya has the nerve to roam around arrogantly trying to be reinstated. Micheletti should allow Zelaya to return to Honduras so he can be thrown in jail for the crimes he has committed. I am a huge Obama fan but am extremely saddened by the position he has taken. It is ridiculous that Zelaya is made a victim on the international stage. Is it not clear enough when Hugo Chavez is Zelaya's number one supporter?! I completely agree with with Estrada and am excited to see an article finally written that says the truth! Submitted by: M. Ennabe 4:41 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 2. This is the best account of what is happening I've read yet. If only more of the media would inform the public of the truth of these events in Honduras. The worst part is that the leader of the free world (Obama) is taking the side of the dictators!!! Maybe he needs to read this article. Submitted by: Rachel Salas 4:37 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 3. Oscar, Obama has NOT been "hitting the middle ground" and is doing far more than giving Honduras "the cold shoulder". He and Hillary have in no uncertain terms denounce the actions of Honduras as illegal and they have made statements that they are looking for a solution (including sanctions against Honduras)to bring Zelaya back to power. Clearly our current administration values retention of leadership over protection of constitutional law. Be very scared when/if Obama's second term nears it's conclusion. Submitted by: What's Oscar thinking? 4:32 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 4. I'm glad LA Times had the courage to publish this article. The truth cannot be misrepresented forever. But all anybody ever has seen or heard in the US is a story to fit a script, and very far from reality. Please watch videos of the other side to the story- the reality from the ground in Honduras. ---- http://youtube.com/SupportHonduras ---- You might be surprised how much the international media hid such a huge outpouring of support by Honduras people. Submitted by: Jac 4:13 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 5. President Obama made a mistake. Honduras is a democratic country and they are only defending thei constitution against a corrupt and criminal ousted president.I ask you would you permit a president who wants to remove the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Submitted by: Edward Herrera 4:07 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 6. Many of you in these comments mention disappointment on Obamas' cold shoulder to Honduras. I was too, until I realize what Chavez has been doing. He's been coaxing the Obama administration to take a side, and only wishes that he is with Michelleti. This will further polarize Hondurans into Anti- Americanism. This sentiment already exists in rural Honduras, and as evident by the Chi case last year, only takes a little to kindle. Obama is doing the right thing by hitting the middle ground this time... Submitted by: Oscar Manzanares 3:50 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 7. Excellent article. Kudos for the Times. We need more reporters like you in the Times. Submitted by: altatension 3:49 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 8. Obama & Hillary should be ashamed of themselves for their stance on Honduras. I have lived here for 25 years and I love the country and the people. If the White Hoouse has it's way the country will be destroyed. Zelaya is the enemy of the people and his only desire is to become Chavez 2. If they don't know the truth by now they don't belong in office. If they do know the truth, What are they thinking? They are willing to destroy the people of Honduras because Zelaya was democratically elected. So was Nixon, but he was removed and his crimes were minor compared to what Zelaya has done. Submitted by: Dennis Smyth 3:42 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 9. As an expatriate living in Honduras, it has been interesting to see how Honduras has handled this situation. I've been quite impressed with the overall peace that has prevailed in Honduras since the 28th. Living in Honduras it's easy to see the legality of what happened and see it played out. It's also easy to see how the rest of the world would view what happened - given the horrible and uninformed media. I applaud this write-up, agree with all that has been said, and hope that more people will come to understand the truth to what happened. Submitted by: Erin 3:39 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 10. Do any of the latinos notice who is not supporting this legal and constitutional move by Honduras? It's the liberal anglo elitists who support revolutionary folks like Chavez and Castro. They think the whole world needs to be socialist. How many of you would like your Obama vote back? How's that "Change" working out for you? Submitted by: Observation 3:21 PM PDT, July 10, 2009 -----Original Message----- >From: james daly >Sent: Jul 11, 2009 7:55 AM >To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: [A-List] Honduras Resists > > > >The following statement was released July 9, 2009 by the Honduran National >Front Against the Coup d'etat. It appears on the website of Honduras Resists >/ Honduras Resiste (Alternative information on the military coup d'etat in >Honduras and communication from the resistance. Go to: > >http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/ > >After that an update on today's protests from Prensa Latina, also in >English. > >Honduras Resists / Honduras Resiste > >The people of Honduras are heroically resisting the military coup led by >U.S. trained army officials. This blog provides links to alternative >information sources and translations of communications coming out of the >Honduran resistance movement. > >Wednesday, July 8, 2009 >9th Communiqu? of the National Front Against the Coup d'etat > >The National Front Against the Coup d'etat in Honduras, made up of the >different organized expressions in the country, on our feet in the struggle >until the reinstatement of the constitutional order, communicates: > >We reiterate that the coup d'etat was conceived by the oligarchy and >executed by the Armed Forces in collusion with the Supreme Court of Justice, >the National Congress, the Public ministry, the Human Rights Commission, the >Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Liberal, Nationalist Innovation, Social >Democratic unity and Christian Democratic Parties, and the Catholic and >evangelical churches. > >We demand that the meetings planned between President Zelaya and Roberto >Micheletti Bain take into account the position of the National Front Against >the Coup d'Etat which includes as a main point the installation of a >National Constitutional Assembly. We demand pubishment for those responsible >for the death of our fallen comrades and the repression of the mobilizations >and locations of the popular movement. > >We reject the possibility of the legitimation of the de facto authorities >and re-affirm that the only acceptable solution is the return of the >institutional order. We make known the naming of a commission that >represents the National Front Against the Coup d'Etat to participate in the >meetings in San Jos?, Costa Rica. > >We continue demanding the restitution of individual guarantees immediately, >as the suspension is a clear violation of people's human rights. > >NATIONAL FRONT AGAINST THE COUP D'ETAT IN HONDURAS Tegucigalpa, Honduras, >July 8th, 2009 >================================================================= > >Honduras Front Peaceful, Relentless > >Tegucigalpa, Jul 9 (Prensa Latina) Honduran popular organizations mark >Thursday their 12th consecutive day of peaceful resistance to the military >coup, with the aim of maintaining their democratic struggles. > >"We are not tired of resisting," writer Dalila Bracamonte said in today's >call at the Loarque Square. > >The National Front against the coup d'Etat ratifies in a brief release it >will maintain the popular mobilization until the return of President Manuel >Zelaya, overthrown by soldiers on June 28. > >Wednesday's rallies took place in the capital's eastern sector and the road >joining the city with the nation's eastern zone, mainly Olancho and Paraiso >departments. > >First Lady Xiomara Castro, who attended popular demonstrations two days ago, >led the march with trade, rural, students, youth leaders and other sectors >of society. > >"We reject legitimization of the de facto authorities. The only acceptable >solution is the return of institutional order," stresses the document. > >This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from >http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jul 11 12:57:12 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:57:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] V for Vendetta Message-ID: <0EB593919BCF4FFFA256D8345FA10660@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony B." Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:55 PM Subject: V for Vendetta > Find here a particularly well crafted expose of the Orwellian state of > affairs in present-day Britain....this within the context of a > non-hyberbolic, rational analysis of the July 7th bombings in London that > took the lives of 56 people..and that prefigured the passage of a series > of draconian 'security' laws. > > >> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719 >> >> > From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Sat Jul 11 15:01:10 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:01:10 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras In-Reply-To: <60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y> References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y> Message-ID: <16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> Or the bottom line is whoever has the guns has political power. 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. Suite 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 james daly Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:11 PM To: Sean Fischer; The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Sean, you are preaching to yourself -- your pro-imperialist propaganda is not likely to convert the rest of us. -- James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Fischer" To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 18:51:38 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:51:38 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras In-Reply-To: <16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y> <16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> Message-ID: <4A59339A.9070709@gmail.com> The article is just statement of the Honduran governmental occupier's position... their rationale for doing what they did. This material has intrinsic political and legal value for ANYONE following events there as it lies (apparently) at the root of the dispute according to the usurpers... and further, considering Sean made no statements for or against the material he posted, I find branding him 'imperialist' for publishing it offensive... CHILLING, AAMOF.. Leigh Paul Wright wrote: > Or the bottom line is whoever has the guns has political power. > > 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. Suite 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 james daly > Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:11 PM > To: Sean Fischer; The A-List > Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras > > Sean, you are preaching to yourself -- your pro-imperialist propaganda is > not likely to convert the rest of us. -- James > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Fischer" > To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" > > Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:12 AM > Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras > > > Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras > Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT > > > > By Daniel Trotta > > TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica > > hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following > last month's military coup. > > President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the > country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend > presidential term limits. > > Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the > different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. > > Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? > > A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, > Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally > conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that > brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly > > put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When > > Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential > prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it > raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office > in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. > > His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and > allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. > > Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? > > A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he > called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November > elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the > constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into > disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek > > re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral > Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going > forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the > military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled > by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. > > Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? > > A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a > > more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily > influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign > companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the > final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was > > governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army > > that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility > of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing > the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. > > Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the > transfer of power. > > Q - Why not impeach him? > > A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support > Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that > requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change > the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. > > Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? > > A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent > judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the > institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian > authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order > to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any > trial. > > Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? > > A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved > incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his > opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In > the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to > Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said > > it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto > Micheletti soon after the ouster. > > (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Tony B." >> Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >> To: A-List >> Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class >> >> >>> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >>> 8 July 2009 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >>> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >>> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >>> repressive regime. >>> >>> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >>> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >>> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >>> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >>> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >>> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >>> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >>> >>> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >>> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >>> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >>> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >>> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >>> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >>> individual reporters threatened with death. >>> >>> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >>> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >>> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >>> not allowed to land. >>> >>> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >>> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >>> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >>> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >>> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >>> >>> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >>> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >>> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >>> >>> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >>> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >>> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >>> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >>> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >>> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >>> counterparts in the region. >>> >>> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >>> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >>> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >>> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >>> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >>> the 1980s. >>> >>> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >>> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >>> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >>> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >>> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >>> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >>> >>> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >>> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >>> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >>> presidency's political legitimacy. >>> >>> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >>> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >>> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >>> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >>> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >>> >>> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >>> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >>> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >>> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >>> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >>> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >>> within the ruling elite. >>> >>> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >>> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >>> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >>> democracy." >>> >>> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >>> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >>> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >>> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >>> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >>> >>> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >>> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >>> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >>> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >>> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >>> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >>> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >>> coup." >>> >>> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >>> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >>> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >>> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >>> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >>> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >>> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >>> >>> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >>> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >>> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >>> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >>> oligarchy. >>> >>> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >>> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >>> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >>> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >>> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >>> coup. >>> >>> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >>> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >>> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >>> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >>> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >>> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >>> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >>> >>> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >>> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >>> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >>> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >>> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >>> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >>> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >>> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >>> >>> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >>> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >>> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >>> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >>> >>> >>> Bill Van Auken >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - -- >>> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >>> >>> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >>> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >>> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >>> ALL power to the councils and communes. >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >>> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >>> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >>> =MeHX >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jul 11 20:47:19 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:47:19 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras In-Reply-To: <16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net><60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y> <16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> Message-ID: <43773FE308424741AD10E7C315D56A06@TonyPC> Too true. Which reflects on the wisdom of Chavez in arming (to a degree) the 'masses'...Such should be an axiom of every leftist leader who manages to find him/herself in (otherwise temporary) control of the state. [And it is on this note that Ward Churchill's 'Pacifism as Pathology' comes into its own.] Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wright" To: "'The A-List'" ; "'Sean Fischer'" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Or the bottom line is whoever has the guns has political power. 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. Suite 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 james daly Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:11 PM To: Sean Fischer; The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Sean, you are preaching to yourself -- your pro-imperialist propaganda is not likely to convert the rest of us. -- James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Fischer" To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From pwright at prisonlegalnews.org Sat Jul 11 21:12:23 2009 From: pwright at prisonlegalnews.org (Paul Wright) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:12:23 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras In-Reply-To: <43773FE308424741AD10E7C315D56A06@TonyPC> References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net><60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y><16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> <43773FE308424741AD10E7C315D56A06@TonyPC> Message-ID: <18c901ca029e$93d7eb50$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> I don't know that Chavez has armed the masses in Venezuela. Typically any move at creating armed masses to counterpose the armed forces quickly leads to a coup, as it did for Peron, Arbenz and Allende. Abimael Guzman wrote of the need for an "armed sea of the people" to safeguard a socialist regime. But Chavez is not a socialist. The ruling class still owns the means of production and media in Venezuela the last I heard and the military was the sole armed force. Latin America has a long history of populist nationalists, they come and go. 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. Suite 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 Tony B. Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:47 PM To: The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Too true. Which reflects on the wisdom of Chavez in arming (to a degree) the 'masses'...Such should be an axiom of every leftist leader who manages to find him/herself in (otherwise temporary) control of the state. [And it is on this note that Ward Churchill's 'Pacifism as Pathology' comes into its own.] Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wright" To: "'The A-List'" ; "'Sean Fischer'" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Or the bottom line is whoever has the guns has political power. 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. Suite 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 james daly Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:11 PM To: Sean Fischer; The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Sean, you are preaching to yourself -- your pro-imperialist propaganda is not likely to convert the rest of us. -- James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Fischer" To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jul 11 21:51:39 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:51:39 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras In-Reply-To: <18c901ca029e$93d7eb50$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net><60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y><16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local><43773FE308424741AD10E7C315D56A06@TonyPC> <18c901ca029e$93d7eb50$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> Message-ID: <0889177277F848DFBF88964B0954B9D3@TonyPC> I'll have to search for the references....but I seem to remember early on in Chavez's tenure that there were numerous reports coming from Venezuela of arms caches being stored so as to be in easy reach of the 'Bolivarian circles'.... I could be wrong however; I'll get back to you on that.. T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wright" To: "'The A-List'" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras I don't know that Chavez has armed the masses in Venezuela. Typically any move at creating armed masses to counterpose the armed forces quickly leads to a coup, as it did for Peron, Arbenz and Allende. Abimael Guzman wrote of the need for an "armed sea of the people" to safeguard a socialist regime. But Chavez is not a socialist. The ruling class still owns the means of production and media in Venezuela the last I heard and the military was the sole armed force. Latin America has a long history of populist nationalists, they come and go. 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. Suite 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 Tony B. Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:47 PM To: The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Too true. Which reflects on the wisdom of Chavez in arming (to a degree) the 'masses'...Such should be an axiom of every leftist leader who manages to find him/herself in (otherwise temporary) control of the state. [And it is on this note that Ward Churchill's 'Pacifism as Pathology' comes into its own.] Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wright" To: "'The A-List'" ; "'Sean Fischer'" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Or the bottom line is whoever has the guns has political power. 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. Suite 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 james daly Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:11 PM To: Sean Fischer; The A-List Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Sean, you are preaching to yourself -- your pro-imperialist propaganda is not likely to convert the rest of us. -- James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Fischer" To: "The A-List" ; "A-List" Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT By Daniel Trotta TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras following last month's military coup. President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend presidential term limits. Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of power. Q - Why not impeach him? A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any trial. Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto Micheletti soon after the ouster. (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) -----Original Message----- >From: "Tony B." >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM >To: A-List >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > >> >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS >> 8 July 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and >> repressive regime. >> >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. >> >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and >> individual reporters threatened with death. >> >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was >> not allowed to land. >> >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. >> >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. >> >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their >> counterparts in the region. >> >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in >> the 1980s. >> >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. >> >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his >> presidency's political legitimacy. >> >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. >> >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions >> within the ruling elite. >> >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of >> democracy." >> >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. >> >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet >> coup." >> >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. >> >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the >> oligarchy. >> >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the >> coup. >> >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. >> >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. >> >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. >> >> >> Bill Van Auken >> >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! >> >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. >> ALL power to the councils and communes. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s >> =MeHX >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jul 11 22:08:17 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:08:17 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Economic Thought of Frederick Soddy Message-ID: <20090712130817.ee1d7291.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Herman E Daly, Louisiana State University History of Political Economy Vol 12 No 4 (Winter 1980) Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. -Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), page 89. I. Introduction Frederick Soddy (1877-1956) is best known as a pioneering chemist who collaborated with Rutherford in studying radioactive disintegration, predicted the existence of and coined the name for isotopes, and was a major contributor to the modern theory of atomic structure. For these achievements he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1910 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921. He was a member of the Swedish, Italian, and Russian acadamies of science. During his career he held university positions at McGill, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and from 1919 onward, Oxford (Fleck 1957). Although an enthusiastic believer in scientific progress and in the possibility of a society in which the fruits of scientific knowledge would be shared by all, Soddy was acutely aware that history supported the view that science has proved as much a curse as a blessing to humanity. Nor could he accept the comfortable view that scientists have no responsibility for the uses to which their work is put. Even though others (bankers and economists) bore, in his view, a far greater burden of guilt for the misuse of knowledge, scientists could not plead innocent. The world's real problem was faulty economics, not faulty chemistry, and for the second half of his nearly eighty years economics replaced chemistry as the center of his intellectual life. Soddy realized earlier than most the theoretical possibility of atomic energy. Since his own work had contributed to the discovery that this vast energy potential existed, it was natural for him to ask, "what sort of a world it would be if atomic energy ever became available" (Wealth, page 28). His answer (written in 1926) was clear: If the discovery were made tomorrow, there is not a nation that would not throw itself heart and soul into the task of applying it to war, just as they are now doing in the case of the newly developed chemical weapons of poison-gas warfare ... If [atomic energy] were to come under existing economic. conditions, it would mean the reductio ad absurdum of scientific civilization, a swift annihilation instead of a none too lingering collapse [Wealth, page 28]. For Soddy, the problem was to change economic conditions in order eventually to make the world safe for atomic energy and other fruits of science. There must be something radically wrong with economic thought and institutions in order for the gift of scientific knowledge to have become such a threat. Soddy was thus led to a radical critique of economics. It is interesting that Soddy's concern about the destructive potential of atomic energy was considered extreme at the time. Another Nobel laureate, Robert A Millikan, commented: ... since Mr Soddy raised the hobgoblin of dangerous quantities of available subatomic energy [science] has brought to light good evidence that this particular hobgoblin - like most of the bugaboos that crowd in on the mind of ignorance - was a myth ... The new evidence born of further scientific study is to the effect that it is highly improbable that there is any appreciable amount of available subatomic energy for man to tap [Millikan, page 121]. Millikan, of course, turned out to be wrong, but the underlying faith that he went on to express is still held by many, namely that one may "sleep in peace with the consciousness that the Creator has put some foolproof elements into his handiwork, and that man is powerless to do it any titanic physical damage" (ibid). As R L Sinsheimer recently noted, "Scientific endeavor rests upon the faith that our scientific probing and our technological ventures will not displace some key element of our protective environment and thereby collapse our ecological niche" (Sinsheimer, page 24). It now seems evident that the only protective element the Creator put into his handiwork is man's capacity for moral insight and restraint, which is far from foolproof. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that Soddy was the true prophet and that the scientific establishment, represented by Millikan, was whistling in the dark.{1} Far from believing in providential "foolproof elements" built into creation, Soddy was convinced that the economic system contained built-in elements for assuring the destruction of creation, once science gave man the power. The key problem therefore was to discover and correct the errors in our economic thinking and institutions, a task which Soddy tackled with both moral fervor and the systematic logic of an experienced scientist. Perhaps the most intriguing thing about Soddy the economist is that he started his inquiry with a mind both highly intelligent and completely free from the preconceived paradigm of the orthodox economists, for whom he had an undisguised contempt. The contempt was mutual. With the significant exception of Frank Knight, to be discussed later, Soddy's work was ignored by economists. Unlike the American positional astronomer, Simon Newcomb, who also came to economics from the physical sciences, Soddy came as a critic, not a student, and remained an outsider. Newcomb liked economics, did not believe that his pre-World War One America was in mortal danger from an increasingly powerful but misdirected application of science, and wrote a fairly orthodox Principles of Political Economy (1885) which demonstrated that he had done his economics homework, and had earned the right to try to make economics just a bit more scientific. Soddy, on the other hand, considered economics a pseudoscience in need of a totally new beginning. John Ruskin, not Ricardo, Mill, or Marshall, was his inspiration. The not surprising consequence of this approach was that Soddy was and continues to be written off as a crank. In fact, Soddy's economics seems to have been something of an embarrassment to everyone but Soddy. The Times Literary Supplement (page 565), in reviewing his major economic work (Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt) remarked that it was sad to see a respected chemist ruin his reputation by writing on a subject about which he was quite ignorant. Nor had the verdict changed thirty years and several books later, when in 1956 an obituary in Science lamented that, "Some ... knew him only as ... a 'crank' on the subject of monetary policy ... His fanatical devotion to schemes of this sort, derided by the orthodox economists, ... was surprising to many who knew him first as a pioneer in chemical science" (Russell, page 1069). This neglect of Soddy's economics is unfortunate because, although Soddy is admittedly unconvincing in his frequent attribution of war and all other evils to fractional reserve banking, he nevertheless has much to teach us, and in fact anticipated the recent contribution of N Georgescu-Roegen (1971) in providing economics with a partial foundation in thermodynamics, the physics of usefulness. The fact that Soddy might have learned more from economists than he did does not mean that economists have nothing to learn from Soddy. The approach here taken is to think of him somewhat as an intelligence from Mars which looked at economic issues in a different way, and to try sympathetically to understand him and render him intelligible to modern economists. In what follows I attempt to summarize and explain Soddy's critique of economics. II. The Neglected Physical Basis of Economics Soddy's basic philosophical approach to economics might be called materialism without reductionism. We must recognize the fundamental dualism of the material and the spiritual and resist "monistic obsessions" (Cartesian Economics, page 6). Economics occupies the middle ground between matter and spirit, between the electron and the soul: In each direction possibilities of further knowledge extend ad infinitum, but in each direction diametrically away from and not towards the problems of life. It is in this middle field that economics lies, unaffected whether by the ultimate philosophy of the electron or the soul, and concerned rather with the interaction, with the middle world of life of these two end worlds of physics and mind in their commonest everyday aspects, matter and energy on the one hand, obeying the laws of mathematical probability or chance as exhibited in the inanimate universe, and, on the other, with the guidance, direction and willing of these blind forces and processes to predetermined ends [ibid]. Soddy rejects the monism of "Ultra-Materialism": I cannot conceive of inanimate mechanism, obeying the laws of probability, by any continued series of successive steps developing the powers of choice and reproduction any more than I can envisage any increase in the complexity of an engine resulting in the production of the "engine-driver" and the power of its reproducing itself. I shall be told that this is a pontifical expression of personal opinion. Unfortunately, however, for this argument, inanimate mechanism happens to be my special study rather than that of the biologist. It is the invariable characteristic of all shallow and pretentious philosophy to seek the explanation of insoluble problems in some other field than that of which the philosopher has first hand acquaintance [ibid, page 7]. Yet a proper materialism must be one of the foundation stones of economics. In fact, "without phosphorus no thought" (Story of Atomic Energy, page 129) is an axiom that all philosophers and ethicists should be required to memorize. What mechanical science teaches economics is that life derives the whole of its physical energy or power, not from anything self-contained in living matter, and still less from an external deity, but solely from the inanimate world. It is dependent for all the necessities of its physical continuance primarily upon the principles of the steam-engine. The principles and ethics of human law and convention must not run counter to those of thermodynamics [Cartesian Economics, page 9]. The last sentence is very significant because it provides the basis for many of Soddy's criticisms of the economy as a presumed perpetual motion machine. For men, like other heat engines, the physical problems of life are energy problems. Pre-nineteenth-century man lived on energy revenue (sunlight captured by plants, the "original capitalists"). Present-day man augments this revenue by consuming energy capital (coal, the "stored sunlight of palaeozoic summers"). While man can use fuel-fed machinery to lighten labor, he can feed his internal fires only with new sunshine, or rather the energy of new sunshine as transformed through the good offices of the plant. Life thus depends on a continuous flow of energy, and hence the enabling requisites of life must partake of the nature of a flow rather than only a stock. There are limits to the degree that this flow can be stored for future use. A significant part of the requisites of life must come to us as a current flow or "revenue" that cannot in any physical sense be converted to a stock and indefinitely stored for later use. Like the manna which God sent to the Hebrews in the wilderness, the revenue is renewed daily, must be gathered in amounts sufficient for the day (neither too much nor too little), and breeds worms and becomes foul if accumulated too much in excess of current needs (Exodus 16: 17-20). Stocks of assets, to the extent that we can maintain them against the ravages of entropy, are aids and accessories in improving our ability to tap the energy revenue, but the revenue itself cannot be significantly increased, and it cannot be saved except to a limited degree. Indeed, the very maintenance of our accumulated stock of physical wealth against the destructive force of entropy requires the renewing power of the low-entropy "revenue" flow. True, nature has stored energy in coal, but it took geologic epochs of time, and we are only able to unstore it. Furthermore the "flamboyant period" of using up the capital stock of coal was perceived by Soddy as a "very passing phase", after which the constraints imposed by living on energy revenue would be more clearly seen and unmistakably felt. For Soddy the basic economic question was "How does man live?" and the answer was "By sunshine". The rules that man must obey in living on sunshine, whether current or palaeozoic, are the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This in a nutshell is "the bearing of physical science upon state stewardship". Wealth is for Soddy "the humanly useful forms of matter and energy" (The Arch Enemy, page 6). Wealth has both a physical dimension, matter-energy subject to the laws of inanimate mechanism, and a teleological dimension of usefulness, subject to the purposes imposed by mind and will. Soddy's concept of wealth reflects his fundamental dualism and his belief that the middle world of life and wealth is concerned with the interaction of the two end worlds of physics and mind in their commonest everyday aspects. That Soddy concentrated on the physical dimension in order to repair the consequences of its past neglect should not be allowed to lead one to suppose that he proposed a monistic physical theory of wealth, a misinterpretation which, we will see, was fostered by Frank Knight. III. The Major Confusion: Wealth Versus Debt The fundamental error of economics is the confusion of wealth, a magnitude with an irreducible physical dimension, with debt, a purely mathematical or imaginary quantity. The positive physical quantity, two pigs, represents wealth and can be seen and touched. But minus two pigs, debt, is an imaginary magnitude with no physical dimension: Debts are subject to the laws of mathematics rather than physics. Unlike wealth, which is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, debts do not rot with old age and are not consumed in the process of living. On the contrary, they grow at so much per cent per annum, by the well-known mathematical laws of simple and compound interest ... For sufficient reason, the process of compound interest is physically impossible, though the process of compound decrement is physically common enough. Because the former leads with the passage of time ever more and more rapidly to infinity, which, like minus one, is not a physical but a mathematical quantity, whereas the latter leads always more slowly towards zero, which is, as we have seen, the lower limit of physical quantities [Wealth, page 70]. The ruling passion of the age is to convert wealth into debt in order to derive a permanent future income from it - to convert wealth that perishes into debt that endures, debt that does not rot, costs nothing to maintain, and brings in perennial interest (Money Versus Man, page 25). No individual could amass the physical requirements sufficient for maintenance during his old age, for like manna it would rot. Therefore he must convert his non-storable surplus into a lien on future revenue, by letting others consume and invest his surplus now in exchange for the right to share in the increased future revenue. The revenue is "a river of perishable and consumable wealth, steadily flowing to waste whether consumed by human beings or by rats and worms" (Inversion of Science, page 24). But since future annual revenue is limited, there is a corresponding limit on the extent to which present surpluses can be exchanged for perennial streams of future revenue. Soddy emphasizes that the present surplus accumulation can never be changed into future revenue in any physical sense, but only exchanged for it under social conventions. Although it may comfort the lender to think that his wealth still exists somewhere in the form of "capital", it has been or is being used up by the borrower either in consumption or investment, and no more than food or fuel can it be used again later. Rather it has become debt, an indent on future revenues to be generated by future sunshine. "Capital", says Soddy , "merely means unearned income divided by the rate of interest and multiplied by 100'' (Cartesian Economics, page 27). Although debt can follow the law of compound interest, the real energy revenue from future sunshine, the real future income against which the debt is a lien, cannot grow at compound interest for long. When converted into debt, however, real wealth "discards its corruptible body to take on an incorruptible" (Money Versus Man, page 28). In so doing, it appears "to afford a means of dodging Nature" (page 24), of evading the second law of thermodynamics, the law of random, ravage, rust, and rot. The idea that people can live off the interest of their mutual indebtedness (Wealth, page 89) is just another perpetual motion scheme - a vulgar delusion on a grand scale. Soddy seems to be saying that what is obviously impossible for the community - for everyone to live on interest - should also be forbidden to individuals, as a principle of fairness. If it is not forbidden, or at least limited in some way, then at some point the growing liens of debt holders on the limited revenue will become greater than the future producers of that revenue will be willing or able to support, and conflict will result. The conflict takes the form of debt repudiation. Debt grows at compound interest and as a purely mathematical quantity encounters no limits to slow it down. Wealth grows for a while at compound interest, but, having a physical dimension, its growth sooner or later encounters limits. Debt can endure forever; wealth cannot, because its physical dimension is subject to the destructive force of entropy. Since wealth cannot continually grow as fast as debt, the one-to-one relation between the two will at some point be broken - that is, there must be some repudiation or cancellation of debt. The positive feedback of compound interest must be offset by counteracting forces of debt repudiation, such as inflation, bankruptcy, or confiscatory taxation, all of which breed violence. Conventional wisdom considers the latter processes pathological, but accepts compound interest as normal. Logic demands, however, that either we constrain compound interest in some way, or accept as normal and necessary one or more of the counteracting mechanisms of debt repudiation. {2} As Soddy put it, You cannot permanently pit an absurd human convention, such as the spontaneous increment of debt [compound interest], against the natural law of the spontaneous decrement of wealth [entropy] [Cartesian Economics, page 30]. The perpetual motion delusion of living on debt has arisen in the following way, Soddy says: Because formerly ownership of land - which, with the sunshine that falls on it, provides a revenue of wealth - secured, in the form of rent, a share in the annual harvest without labor or service, upon which a cultured and leisured class could permanently establish itself, the age seems to have conceived the preposterous notion that money, which can buy land, must therefore itself have the same revenue-producing power [Wealth, page 106]. If debt and money are the units of measure by which we account for and keep track of the production and distribution of physical wealth, then surely the units of measure and the reality being measured cannot be governed by different laws. Soddy's "acid test is that no monetary accountancy be allowed that could not be done equally well by physical counters" (The Arch Enemy, page 24). If wealth cannot grow at compound interest for long, then debt should not either. If wealth cannot be created ex nihilo then how can we allow money (debt) to be created ex nihilo (and just as easily destroyed)? Worse, how can we tolerate the fact that money is both created ex nihilo and lent at compound interest, while at the same time serving as a unit of measure for wealth which is incapable of either of those "conjuror's tricks"? This brings us to money, the topic which most occupied Soddy's attention. IV. The Monetary Flaw The main defect in the economic system was, for Soddy, the practice of fractional reserve banking whereby the private banking system was enabled to create money, thus appropriating what he called the Virtual Wealth of the community, which it then lent at interest. The concept of "virtual wealth" plays a key role in Soddy's analysis. Essentially it is the aggregate value of real wealth which individuals in the community voluntarily abstain from holding in order to hold money instead. In order to escape the inconvenience of barter everyone must hold money, which could be exchanged for real wealth, but is not. In Soddy's words, "This aggregate of exchangeable goods and services which the community continuously and permanently goes without (though individual money owners can instantly demand and obtain it from other individuals) the author terms the Virtual Wealth of the community" (Role of Money, page 36). If everyone tried to exchange his money holdings for real assets it could not be done, because all real assets are already owned by someone, and in the final analysis someone has to end up holding the money. So Virtual Wealth does not really exist as actual wealth over and above the value of real assets, which is why it is called Virtual. Yet people behave as if Virtual Wealth were real, because at an individual level money is easily exchangeable for physical assets. The phenomenon of Virtual Wealth must occur in a monetary economy, unless the money is itself a commodity that circulates at its commodity value. The value of each unit of money, or the inverse of the "price-index", is simply the Virtual Wealth divided by the total aggregate of money held. Soddy gives the following summary of the nature and importance of Virtual Wealth: Money is now a form of national debt, owned by the individual and owed by the community, exchangeable on demand for wealth by transference to another individual. Its value or purchasing power is not directly determined by any positive or existing quantity of wealth, but by the negative quantity or deficit of wealth, the ownership and enjoyment of which is voluntarily abstained from without the payment of interest, by the owners of the money, to suit their individual business and domestic affairs and convenience. The aggregate of this deficit is called the Virtual Wealth of the community, and it measures the value of all the money owned by the community, which is forced by the necessity of exchanging its produce to act as though it possessed this amount of wealth more than it actually does possess. The Virtual Wealth of a community is not a physical but an imaginary negative wealth quantity. It does not obey the laws of conservation, but is of psychological origin [Wealth, page 295]. Virtual Wealth varies with the size of population and national income and the business and payment habits of the community. It is only when Virtual Wealth is constant that we can equate the value of a unit of money to the ratio of Virtual Wealth to aggregate money held. Soddy believed that Virtual Wealth, though not constant, was far less variable than the money supply. Who benefits from Virtual Wealth? In a sense the whole community does, since it is the price of avoiding barter, or more precisely the price of avoiding the waste of a full commodity currency which uses costly resources (gold) to perform a function that could be performed by paper or by abstract accounting units. In another sense, Virtual Wealth is like seigniorage, the difference between the monetary value and the commodity value (cost of production) of the money token. With the advent of credit money the commodity value of the token becomes nil and seigniorage or Virtual Wealth is the full monetary value of the money issued - or rather the equivalent in forgone utility. The analogy with seigniorage suggests a further answer to the question of who benefits from Virtual Wealth. It is the issuer of fiat money, whoever first puts it in circulation, that gets the seigniorage. The ancient prerogative of the crown has been usurped, not by the modern State, the crown's legitimate heir, but by the private banking system, which "has corrupted the purpose of money from that of an exchange medium to that of an interest-bearing debt'' (Wealth, page 296). Moreover the very existence of the bulk of our money depends upon this debt never being liquidated. The very existence of money now becomes a source of private income, and the total money supply becomes a "concertina" expanding to fuel a boom, and contracting with debt repayment and default thereby reinforcing a slump. Soddy's concept of Virtual Wealth bears an interesting relation to the modern debate about whether fiat money is a part of the net wealth of the community. Pesek and Saving (1967) argue that it is, whereas others, such as James Tobin (1965), argue that it is not. Soddy says that fiat money is Virtual Wealth. Individuals voluntarily hold money balances rather than an equivalent value in real assets in order to escape the enormous inconvenience of barter. Virtual Wealth is the utility cost of holding money. The fact that the benefits are worth more than the costs does not make the costs disappear, and does not convert money into wealth. The social institution of money may be regarded as a form of collective patrimony in the same sense as an efficient legal code or an advanced technology. But the money commodity itself need not be, and in the case of fiat money is not, a productive asset. Indeed, the very advantage of fiat money is to free resources from being tied up in money so that more real assets may be produced with the resources. We count the extra real assets made possible by fiat money as a part of the aggregate wealth of the community, but not the paper chits themselves. Soddy's notion of Virtual Wealth is actually very close to what James Tobin terms the "fiduciary issue": The community's wealth now has two components: the real goods accumulated through past real investment and fiduciary or paper "goods" manufactured by the government from thin air. Of course, the nonhuman wealth of such a nation "really" consists only of its tangible capital. But, as viewed by the inhabitants of the nation individually, wealth exceeds the tangible capital stock by the size of what we might term the fiduciary issue. This is an illusion, but only one of the many fallacies of composition which are basic to any economy or society. The illusion can be maintained unimpaired as long as the society does not actually try to convert all of its paper wealth into goods [Tobin, page 676]. For Soddy, banks do not really make loans, because a loan implies that the lender gives up what the borrower receives. When a bank lends money it gives up nothing, creating the deposits ex nihilo up to the limit set by reserve requirements. {3} The real "lender" is the community at large whose money balances lose in purchasing power with the issue of new money. We know the new money will be spent and increase demand, because the borrower who gets it would not pay interest just to increase his idle balances. Prices are bid up since ex nihilo creation of money (demand) can increase much more rapidly than can the ex materia creation of new physical wealth (supply). But the more direct line of causation is simply that relatively constant Virtual Wealth divided by more pounds means each pound is worth less. Money should not bear interest as a condition of its existence, but only when genuinely lent by an owner who gives it up to a borrower. Banks are like counterfeiters who lend false money, accept their own false money in repayment and destroy it, but receive the interest in real money transferred to them by the rest of the community, and which is not destroyed. Banks create and destroy money with no understanding of the "laws that correlate its quantity with the national income" (Wealth, page 296). Also by continually changing the value of money as they create and destroy it, the banking system converts the pound sterling into a rubber yardstick, in effect making a mockery of all physical measurement standards, since "yards per pound" or "gallons per pound" become variable magnitudes, even though yards and gallons be fixed. At first sight it may seem odd that one who analyzes the economy with the concepts of physical science should focus so much on money, instead of real resources, matter, energy, and the rest. But, of course, it is precisely the fact that money seems to have escaped the laws of conservation and entropy that led Soddy to conclude that the flaw in the system must lie with the "conjuror's tricks" of modern bankers, who have been allowed to regard themselves as the owners of the virtual wealth which the community does not possess, and to lend it and charge interest upon the loan as though it really existed and they possessed it. The wealth so acquired by the impecunious borrower is not given up by the lenders, who receive interest on the loan but give up nothing, but is given up by the whole community, who suffer in consequence the loss through a general reduction in the purchasing power of money [Wealth, page 296]. A further contradiction arises from the interest-bearing national debt being used as collateral security by bondholders who borrow from banks. Banks create a deposit (new money) for the borrowing bondholder and charge him interest. The public is taxed to enable the government to pay interest on the bond to the bondholder who, in effect, passes the interest on to the bank. Soddy draws the conclusion that "taxes are thus paid to the bank for doing what the taxes were imposed to prevent being done, namely, the increase of the currency. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for the State to borrow at interest if it had not wished to prevent the increase of the currency" (Wealth, pages 195, 298). Soddy considers this the final reductio ad absurdum of the monetary system. V. Reform Measures Three basic reforms are suggested by Soddy to restore honesty and accuracy to the economic system: a 100 percent reserve requirement for banks; a policy of maintaining a constant price-index; and freely fluctuating exchange rates internationally. With a 100 percent reserve requirement banks could no longer create money, and that basic function, along with the seigniorage prerogative, or the ownership of Virtual Wealth, would be restored to the State, which would again become the sole "utterer" of money. Banks would have to exist by charging for their legitimate services, that is, those that do not require the creation of money. What principle is to govern the State in issuing money? Money is to be created or destroyed by the State as needed in order to keep the purchasing power of money constant. A price index will be devised by the National Statistical Authority. If the index has a tendency to fall over time, the government will finance its own activities by printing money. Alternatively it might lower taxes, or use the newly created money to redeem interest-bearing national debt. In other words deflation would be corrected by some form of money-creating government deficit. If the index shows a rising tendency the government will raise taxes (or issue interest-bearing national debt) and not spend the revenue. Inflation would be corrected by a money-destroying government surplus. Soddy makes an analogy between the price index and the governor on a steam engine. Both provide a mechanism of stabilizing feedback. The then existing system suffered from destabilizing feedback, since the money supply would expand during a boom and contract during a slump, thereby reinforcing the original tendency. Equilibrium in balance of payments with the rest of the world would be achieved by freely fluctuating exchange rates which would tend to establish a kind of purchasing power parity among currencies. International flows of gold and the consequent inflationary and deflationary pressures on national economies would thereby be eliminated, thus easing the task of keeping the internal purchasing power of the currency constant. Furthermore, the need for tariffs and other interferences with free trade designed to correct international payments imbalances, major causes of international conflict, would have been eliminated. Soddy's proposals have nothing in common with those of Silvio Gesell or Major Douglas, or other famous "monetary cranks". Soddy respected these men for raising important questions, but concluded that in their proposals for reform they were just as guilty of appealing to "conjuror's tricks" as were the orthodox money men. Far from advocating "funny money schemes", Soddy considered the existing canons of sound finance to be elaborate mystifications obscuring the most blatant "funny money" practices carried on in the interest of the bankers and their class, to the detriment of society. These socially dishonest though perfectly legal practices, along with the attempt to convert wealth into debt internationally and live off the interest received from other countries, plus the waning of the "flamboyant period" of energy capital consumption, of which "imperialism marks its final bid for survival" (Cartesian Economics, page 12), would lead inexorably to international conflict and to the misuse of the gifts of science in warfare. Reform of both economic understanding and the economic system in the light of physical and moral first principles is the sine qua non of a civilization capable of using knowledge for good rather than evil. "Let us have an end of the pretence that economics should not be concerned with morals" (Role of Money, page 214). As a minimum morality, economics must surely insist on a system of honest weights and measures underlying exchange; yet the current monetary system with its fluctuations in purchasing power subverts honest measure and gives a false accounting of the physical realities underlying the production and distribution of wealth. VI. The Relevance of Soddy's Economic Thought Today Soddy's insistence that the first and second laws of thermodynamics must be the starting point of economics (Role of Money, pages 4, 5) is a fundamental insight the relevance of which has grown as we have come to discover that neither the sources of low entropy inputs nor the sinks for high entropy waste outputs are infinite. Probably the most important economic treatise of the last forty years is Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971), which demonstrates that the economic process is entropic in its physical coordinates; that wealth is an open system, a structure maintained in the midst of a throughput that begins with the depletion of low entropy matter-energy and ends with the return of an equal quantity of polluting high entropy matter-energy back to the environment; that in contrast to the reversibility of mechanical phenomena, entropic phenomena are characterized by irreversibility, a fatal weakness of the mechanistic epistemology of standard economics; and that there is a critical asymmetry between our two sources of low entropy. The last point refers to the fact that solar low entropy (Soddy's revenue) is nearly infinite in total amount but strictly limited in its rate of flow to earth, whereas terrestrial low entropy (concentrated minerals in the earth's crust) is strictly limited in total amount, but can be used up at a rate of our own choosing. Economic development since the industrial revolution has been in the direction of ever less reliance on the abundant solar flow and towards dependence on the relatively scarce terrestrial stock. This is what Soddy called the "flamboyant period", destined to be short-lived. Evidently Georgescu-Roegen was unaware of the writings of Soddy on this subject, because he never cites Soddy. No one is more scrupulously honest and painstaking in citing the work of others than Georgescu-Roegen, and this omission is pointed out only to indicate the extent of Soddy's obscurity as an economist. Similar comments apply to Kenneth Boulding, {4} who has also related economics to thermodynamics, without mentioning Soddy, and to the present author as well. This omission is understandable because after all Soddy was a chemist not an economist, and his economic writings all bore titles indicating only the monetary nature of his economic work, or such uninformative titles as Cartesian Economics. Only the subtitle of the latter, "The Bearing of Physical Science Upon State Stewardship", gives any hint of the nature of his most important and original contribution to economics. But the fact remains that Soddy anticipated the basic insights of Georgescu-Roegen and Boulding regarding the relation of economics and thermodynamics, and deserves recognition as a pioneer in a line of thinking which I believe will one day be dominant. Soddy was also a pioneer in recognizing the moral responsibility of science, and in realizing ahead of others that new knowledge, while it might not be permanently "forbidden", can certainly be "inopportune" under existing social and moral conditions, even to the extent of being lethal to the civilization that made it possible (Sinsheimer, page 24). Was Soddy successful in his effort to discover the flaws in the economic system that corrupted the fruits of science and led to war? Would 100 percent reserves, a constant price index, and flexible exchange rates make the world safe for atomic energy? Is it true that whether science emancipates or destroys humanity depends on a "minor technical point in a banking system", as Soddy claimed (Inversion of Science, page iv)? One may reasonably doubt it. In fact it seems that at this point Soddy himself was "seeking the solution to insoluble problems in some field other than that of which the philosopher has firsthand acquaintance" - to recall his own jibe at the mechanistic biologists. But the fact that Soddy exaggerated the efficacy of his suggested reforms does not mean that his analysis is unimportant. Neither the specific proposals nor the reasoning underlying them can be fairly dismissed as those of an outsider or a monetary crank who just does not understand economics. {5} Flexible exchange rates have come into being already, and Soddy was arguing their virtues at a time when most economists were wedded to the gold standard. The new humility born of the theoretical anomaly of simultaneous inflation and unemployment and the demonstrated inability of orthodox "monetary cranks" to deal with persistent inflation could conceivably lead to a reconsideration of the constant price-index and 100 percent reserve requirements. Of course some of these policies have had other champions besides Soddy, some with very respectable academic credentials, such as Henry Simons and Irving Fisher (see Simons 1948 and Fisher 1935). It is curious that Irving Fisher never mentions Soddy in his writings on 100 percent money. Soddy, however, in a pamphlet written in 1943 refers to Fisher: "Some years later, after the great depression in the USA, an American economist, Professor Irving Fisher of Yale University, put forward a scheme which in its original form was practically identical [to Soddy's "pound for pound banking" plan] and which he termed 100% money" (The Arch Enemy, page 11). Soddy's plan was published in 1926, Fisher's in 1935. Soddy seems to regard the near identity of plans as an interesting and encouraging coincidence and in no way suggests that Fisher had copied or even been influenced by him. Although a great enthusiast for science and technology, Soddy could not share the popular obsession with unlimited growth. Even if continual economic growth were possible, it would at some point become senseless. On this point Soddy quotes John Ruskin, whom he greatly admired as an economist: "Capital which produces nothing but capital is only root producing root; bulb issuing in bulb, never in tulip; seed issuing in seed never in bread. The Political Economy of Europe has hitherto devoted itself to the multiplication ... of bulbs. It never saw or conceived such a thing as a tulip" (Money Versus Man, page v). Soddy held that "economic sufficiency is the essential foundation of all national greatness and progress" (Money Versus Man, page 12). But sufficiency means "enough" and growth beyond "enough" is just "seed issuing in seed never in bread". Soddy does not define "sufficiency", but it is clear that any definition must respect the limits of energy revenue from the sun as captured by plants, and the entropic limits on the possibility of storing up wealth for future use, as well as the teleological constraint implied by a defined (that is, limited) purpose from which low entropy matter-energy derives its value dimension, and thus becomes wealth. Not all matter-energy is capable of becoming wealth; only low entropy matter-energy has the physical potential for usefulness, for receiving the imprint of information and purpose. Since the entropy law says in effect that potential gets used up, then scarcity must increase over the long run. But what bothered Soddy was not the scarcity implications of entropy, since he believed that science could more than offset increasing scarcity for a very long time yet. The truly scarce factor for Soddy was not low entropy, but our ability to keep from blowing up scientific civilization with the increasing power that science made available. We persist in applying those powers toward the impossible goal of making the real world of matter-energy conform to the purely mathematical law of compound interest. This leads to debt cancellation, conflict, and war. Orthodox growth economics notwithstanding, the best evidence is that the earth is not growing at all, much less at a rate equal to the rate of interest. The attempt to pit an absurd human convention against a natural law is not only foolish, but highly dangerous. The absurdity of infinite growth has been the most carefully ignored anomaly in the paradigm of modern economics. As Soddy put it, If Christ, whose views on the folly of laying up treasures on earth are well known, had put by a pound at this rate, it should now be worth an Octillion, and Tariff Reform would be of little help to provide that, even if you colonized the entire stellar universe ... It is this absurdity which inverts society, turns good into evil and makes orthodox economics the laughing stock of science. If the consequences were not the familiar atmosphere of our daily lives they would be deemed beyond the legitimate bounds of the most extravagant comic opera [Inversion of Science, page 17]. A contemporary unsympathetic reviewer, economist A G Silverman, was at least forthright enough to face the issue and to attempt a reply: In criticism of the above theory, it may be asked how can the receivers of interest, if they live on this income, take advantage of the law of compound interest; and if they reinvest this "unearned" income why cannot the law of compound interest approximately hold for physical capital as well as debt [Silverman, page 277]? The first question is sensible but irrelevant because Soddy never suggested that one could take advantage of compound interest without reinvesting at least part of the interest income. The second part of the question, however, reveals that the questioner had no conception of the difference between physical and purely mathematical quantities, and must have made Soddy despair of ever communicating with economists. Perhaps by "approximately" Professor Silverman meant "for a limited time period". But then we must ask what happens at the end of that limited time period, and how long it is. Probably the most favorable review that Soddy got from an economist came from none other than Frank Knight, who began by confessing that Somewhat to the reviewer's surprise this book [Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt] has proven well worth the time and effort of a careful reading. Surprising because, in general, when the specialist in natural sciences takes time off to come over and straighten out the theory of economics he shows himself even dumber than the academic economist, and because, in particular, Soddy's Pamphlet on Cartesian Economics which we read some years ago did not promise to set a new precedent in this regard [Knight, page 732]. Knight went so far as to call the book (page 732) "brilliantly written and brilliantly suggestive and stimulating". I would like to be able to appeal to the authority of Frank Knight to support my own favorable evaluation of Soddy's economics, but unfortunately our particular appreciations of Soddy conflict. Knight considers Soddy's practical theses concerning money to be "highly significant and theoretically correct" (ibid), a judgment with which I do not basically disagree, but consider a bit too kind, since Soddy certainly exaggerated the significance of his practical theses, however correct they may be. Concerning the physical basis of economics and the relation to thermodynamics, however, Knight is very negative (ibid): His effort to establish a conception of physical wealth, subject to a principle of conservation and interpretable in relation to physical energy, must be briefly dismissed. Knight's grounds for dismissal are opaque: Magnitudes of wealth and productive capacity ... change absolutely whenever a human being changes his (or her!) mind; and the mass-energy relations of mind-changes are as unimportant in this connection as they are obscure - if their very existence is anything but a metaphysical inference based on the monistic bias of the scientific intellect [Knight, page 732] Whatever that may mean, it is surely odd that anyone who read Cartesian Economics (recall the first two quotations in Section III above) could even obliquely accuse Soddy of "monistic bias". Furthermore Soddy had no theory of conservation of the value dimension of wealth (which may change with mental states), but only insisted that the physical dimension of wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics regardless of mind changes or financial conventions, and that this fact is not trivial. If the fact that magnitudes of wealth and productive capacity change absolutely whenever a human being changes his mind were the whole truth, then how easy it would be to make everyone wealthy - all we would need do to double wealth would be to change our minds! Then wealth could grow as fast as debt, since it would be free from its physical body. It would be quite unfair to accuse Knight of such simple-minded angelism, but it strikes me as equally unfair of Knight to treat Soddy as a simple-minded physical reductionist. It is true that Soddy emphasized the physical aspect of wealth in order to correct for its neglect by economists, a procedure which, if Knight's attitude is representative, Soddy was certainly justified in adopting. In view of the fact that Soddy's critique of money stemmed directly from his prior physical analysis, it is strange that Knight could so categorically reject the latter while enthusiastically embracing the former, although it is conceivable that one could arrive at the right monetary conclusions for the wrong physical reasons. Knight offers the following support for Soddy's views on money: In the abstract, it is absurd and monstrous for society to pay the commercial banking system "interest" for multiplying severalfold the quantity of medium of exchange when (a) a public agency could do it at negliglible cost, (b) there is no sense in having it done at all, since the effect is simply to raise the price level, and (c) important evils result, notably the frightful instability of the whole economic system [ibid]. Knight deserves much credit for having been the only reputable economist to have taken Soddy seriously, even though in my opinion he missed Soddy's main contribution. But then so did everyone else until now, when, in the light both of Georgescu-Roegen's masterly reuniting of economics with its physical base and of the current recognition of the critical importance of energy, the prior contribution of Soddy has become visible enough for anyone to see. Soddy was in many ways fifty years ahead of his time. Notes: 1. In fairness to Millikan it should be noted that in concluding his vigorous defense of science he did temper his optimism with the following caution: "I am not in general disturbed by expanding knowledge or increasing power, but I begin to be disturbed when this comes coincidentally with a decrease in the sense of moral values. If these two occur together, whether they bear any relationship or not, there is real cause for alarm" (Millikan, page 129). 2. This point has been forcefully made by biologist Garrett Hardin. See his (with Carl Bajema) Biology: Its Principles and Implications, third edition (San Francisco, 1978), page 257. 3. When a bank lends to A it forgoes the opportunity of making the same loan to B, so in that sense there is an opportunity cost in allocating the virtual wealth among borrowers, but there is no opportunity cost to the bank in acquiring the Virtual Wealth in the first place. 4. In fact, Boulding told me he was very much aware of Soddy the scientist, having slept through his chemistry lectures at Oxford, but knew nothing of his economic writings. As for sleeping through chemistry lectures, even the writer of one obituary tribute remarked that it would be idle to pretend that Soddy was a successful classroom teacher. 5. For such a dismissal see A G Silverman (1927). _____ The author is grateful for support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund during the period in which this article was written. Helpful comments on an earlier draft were received from T Beard, W Campbell, E Cook, G Hardin, S Farber, G Smith, and an anonymous referee. The author, of course, is solely responsible for all contents of the article. References Irving Fisher. 100% Money. New York, 1935. Alexander Fleck. "Frederick Soddy". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 3 (1957): 203-16. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971. Frank H Knight. Review of Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt. Saturday Review of Literature, 16 April 1927, page 732. R A Millikan. "Alleged Sins of Science". Scribner's Magazine 87, no 2 (1930): 119-30. B P Pesek and T R Saving. Money, Wealth, and Economic Theory. New York, 1967. Alexander S Russell. "F Soddy, Interpreter of Atomic Structure". Science, 30 November 1956, pages 1069-70. A G Silverman. Review of Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt. American Economic Review, June 1927, pages 275-78. Henry Simons. Economic Policy for a Free Society. Chicago, 1948. Robert L Sinsheimer. "The Presumptions of Science". Daedalus, Spring 1978, pages 23-35. Frederick Soddy. Science and Life. London, 1920. Frederick Soddy. Cartesian Economics. London, 1922. Frederick Soddy. Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt. London, 1926, 1933. Frederick Soddy. Money Versus Man. New York, 1933. Frederick Soddy. The Role of Money. London, 1934. Frederick Soddy. The Arch Enemy of Economic Freedom (pamphlet). Oxford, 1943. Frederick Soddy. The Story of Atomic Energy. London, 1949. Times Literary Supplement, London, 26 Aug. 1926, page 565. James Tobin. "Money and Economic Growth". Econometrica 33, October 1965. http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Jul 11 16:08:45 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:08:45 +0200 Subject: [A-List] A-List Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The audience is as much the participant as is possible. One writes the book, the other reads it The play on the stage has to have the audience. But the audience that is so far removed in time and space to be out of immediate human reaction space has natural reactions to events nonetheless, but the repressive fascistic governments that stop reaction and in time the real news, force us, if we allow them, to become pawns rather than real observers, real audiences. Just before the US launched the Iraq War there were coordinated peace marches all over the world as well as the biggest peace march in 30 years in Britain, none were in U S news! Fascist. Case in point. Waiting For Godo. His home was in a garbage can. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM, wrote: > Send A-List mailing list submissions to > a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/a-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > a-list-request at lists.econ.utah.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > a-list-owner at lists.econ.utah.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of A-List digest..." > > > The A-List Digest > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Media Ignores Uribe's Visit, as Obama Lectures him on U.S. > History; Recent Citations (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) > 2. Today (Suzanne de Kuyper) > 3. Can You Believe It? (Bill Totten) > 4. Copy of Post to LBO-Talk. Iran & U.S. Leftists (c b) > 5. Mr Soddy's Ecological Economy (Bill Totten) > 6. Re: Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras (Sean Fischer) > 7. Re: Today ...addendum (Tony B.) > 8. Honduras Resists (james daly) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:25:23 -0400 > From: Council on Hemispheric Affairs > Subject: [A-List] Media Ignores Uribe's Visit, as Obama Lectures him > on U.S. History; Recent Citations > To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: <20090709182422.B65EC3E5BE1 at mx-out.daemonmail.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: text/html > Size: 5859 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090709/587a3706/attachment.txt > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:13:52 +0200 > From: Suzanne de Kuyper > Subject: [A-List] Today > To: The A-List > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > . Today In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, it is 10:19 PM or 22:19, in New > York > City it is six hours earlier or 4:19 pm or 16:19. Today is relative, just > as reality or truth is relative. Today one reality the whole world shares > is that the United States wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have > lasted > longer than World War 11 and are not about to end any time soon, though the > semblance of them ending will be crafted feverishly and at great expense by > the financially hemmoraging United States. All the world is audience to > these few realities of the many that destabalise the twentyfirst century > peoples. > This list is of a group of beautifully educated, articulate, passionately > commited sociaists who parse the world of this century with skill, > historical connectedness and informed sceptisicsm, often brilliance, > certainly courage. But, as perhaps Willa Cather might comment, something > is > missing. > So much so I cannot even articulate what it is! But, there is a place at > the table where there is no chair, no setting, no person ...but the space > is > visible to all. 'Empty' is a judgement call, let one say it is > 'in-waiting'. That playwright that wrote a play where the one not there > and > waited for is the main charachter got today right. Pinter wrote it > yesterday. Today is in waiting. The silent commentator, the tolerant mute > critic? > > Our Queen has given us away to those who want no human rights laws or > rules. > The Bilderberg Group is her pleasure, our International Criminal Court > gathers dust and sneering laughter.. As Israel continues its genocide of > the Palestinians and the world watches, the U.S killing the middle > easterners for their oil treasure, we with homes and countries yet, marvel > at the absences of reality at the tables of the powerful. Pinter may have > meant that man, as Magritte did with the man wearing the Homberg.? We who > watch have become audience rather than participants? > > Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: text/html > Size: 2160 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090709/9fbedc8f/attachment.txt > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:21:50 +0900 > From: Bill Totten > Subject: [A-List] Can You Believe It? > To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: <20090710102150.cdef1d50.shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > The Silly Series Number 1 > > by Vincent Vickers > > > They kept it a profound secret. They said it was "not in the public > interest" that the news should be broadcast. The fact remains, that I > myself was present when the Great Logical Professor arrived here direct > from Mars, and met the World's leading orthodox economist. > > "Well, boys said the Logical Professor from Mars, "Everything okay up > here?" > > "Alas! Far from it", said our orthodox economist. "This world is in > economic eruption! Wars and rumors of wars, millions of people > unemployed, ill-fed, ill-clothed, suffering malnutrition and great > poverty, and discontent everywhere!" > > "Oh", said the Martian professor. "I suppose, then, that you are > finding it impossible to produce sufficient to feed your increasing > population, and supply them with what they need for a comfortable life?" > > "On the contrary", said the orthodox economist, "we have wonderful > machinery! We can produce far more than all the people need; in fact, > we are actually destroying food." > > "You don't say", said the astonished professor, "Then there must be > something wrong with your shipping and transport facilities - you can't > carry the goods to the consumers". > > "Wrong again", said the orthodox economist. "We have to most up-to-date > and ample transport, and marvelous ships - no, that is not what is > wrong". > > "But what else can be wrong?" asked the Martian professor, lifting his > eyebrows. > > "Well, you see", said out orthodox economist, "The poor people can't > have the goods because they have not got enough money". > > "Money", said the professor from Mars. "What on this earth is that?" > > "Fancy you not knowing about money!" said the orthodox economist. "It > was invented by Mankind for his own special benefit long before 1066, > to make everything simple and easy for the exchange of one man's goods > for another man's goods. It enables us to do away with the previous > cumbersome procedure of barter. We do not have to lead a cow down Bond > Street in order to exchange it for perfumes and jewelry; all we have to > do is to exchange the cow for 'money' and then hand over the money for > our other requirements. A wonderful invention, affecting the lives and > happiness of all Mankind!" > > "So that is where the trouble lies!" said the professor. "Then, > obviously, what you have got to do is to alter your money system, so as > to enable these discontented millions of people to buy the things they > need, and employ your unemployed!" > > "Oh, we must not do that", exclaimed the orthodox economist, with a > shocked expression on his face. "We must not alter out ancient money > system! No, that would never do!" > > "But why not?" said the professor from Mars. "Am I to understand that > this invention has become a sort of 'religion' with rules and > regulations that cannot be changed?" > > "Well", said the orthodox economist, gazing down rather sheepishly at > his white spats, "I had not thought of it that way before, but you are > right - it is a 'religion' with us. We call it 'Sound Finance!'" > > The big, thick lips of the professor slowly curled themselves into a > Martian grin. Without a word, he clambered back into his > rocket-apparatus and started off for home. And when he had reached a > height of some eighty thousand meters, he looked down on the World, > flapped his great ears, and laughed, and laughed, and LAUGHED. > > _____ > > Vincent Vickers was a Director of the Bank of England, a Director of > the Vickers Limited, and a Deputy-Liutenant of the City of London. He > had exceptional inside knowledge and experience of trading and banking. > This knowledge convinced him that the present economic system is so > dangerously unwise that he felt it his duty during the later years of > his life to work whole-heartedly for its reform. > > In 1926 Vickers told the Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu > Norman, that henceforth he would fight Montagu and the Gold Standard > and the Bank of England Policy until Vickers died. And he did. Vincent > Vickers died on November 3rd 1939 after a long illness. All the while > he was sick he was working and writing on economic reform. > > Before his death Vickers started The Silly Series, which he intended to > be a series of short humorous leaflets on economics. He never got > beyond Number 1 before his death. Arian Nevin plans to continue The > Silly Series started by Vickers. > > Questions, Comments, or Submissions? > Email Here: comments at nationaleconomy.net > > http://www.nationaleconomy.net/sillyseries1.html > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:42:34 -0400 > From: c b > Subject: [A-List] Copy of Post to LBO-Talk. Iran & U.S. Leftists > To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: > <5c2e4d230907101342k59154193rdcd2ed9a6953e002 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Now I have come to disagree with this theory, and have no particular > opinions on the regime in Iran (or Venezuela for that matter) for > essentially the same reason I reject the maunderings about "the > developmental state" by the Pollyanna of the LBO list. I don't believe > that capitalism _or_ capitalist aggression around the world _can_ be > defeated by external opposition. That is why, for example, I insist that > Capitalism is Capitalism is a sensible taugology. (The proposition > "feudalism is feudalism" would be nonsense.) It can only be defeated by > movements within the capitalist core: The U.S. and the European Union > (along with their junior partners, England and Japan, and the > camp-followers Australia and Canada). It is similarly fruitless to hope > for signifcant opposition to imperailism from peripheral capitalist > powers, China, Russia, Brazil, or India. It's up to us, and our priority > is to build a movement at home, not hope for salvation from the > resistance at the periphery. > > ^^^^^ > CB: Workers of the West, it's our turn. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:12:55 +0900 > From: Bill Totten > Subject: [A-List] Mr Soddy's Ecological Economy > To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu > Message-ID: <20090711081255.559e2353.shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > by Eric Zencey, Op-Ed Contributor > > The New York Times (April 12 2009) > > > INNOVATIVE and opaque instruments of debt; greedy bankers; lenders' > eagerness to take on risky loans; a lack of regulation; a shortage of bank > liquidity: all have been nominated as the underlying cause of the largest > economic downturn since the Great Depression. But a more perceptive, and > more troubling, diagnosis is suggested by the work of a little-regarded > British chemist-turned-economist who wrote before and during the Great > Depression. > > Frederick Soddy, born in 1877, was an individualist who bowed to few > conventions, and who is described by one biographer as a difficult, > obstinate man. A 1921 Nobel laureate in chemistry for his work on > radioactive decay, he foresaw the energy potential of atomic fission as > early as 1909. But his disquiet about that power's potential wartime use, > combined with his revulsion at his discipline's complicity in the mass > deaths of World War One led him to set aside chemistry for the study of > political economy - the world into which scientific progress introduces > its gifts. In four books written from 1921 to 1934, Soddy carried on a > quixotic campaign for a radical restructuring of global monetary > relationships. He was roundly dismissed as a crank. > > He offered a perspective on economics rooted in physics - the laws of > thermodynamics, in particular. An economy is often likened to a machine, > though few economists follow the parallel to its logical conclusion: like > any machine the economy must draw energy from outside itself. The first > and second laws of thermodynamics forbid perpetual motion, schemes in > which machines create energy out of nothing or recycle it forever. Soddy > criticized the prevailing belief of the economy as a perpetual motion > machine, capable of generating infinite wealth - a criticism echoed by his > intellectual heirs in the now emergent field of ecological economics. > > A more apt analogy, said Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (a Romanian-born > economist whose work in the 1970s began to define this new approach), is > to model the economy as a living system. Like all life, it draws from its > environment valuable (or "low entropy") matter and energy - for animate > life, food; for an economy, energy, ores, the raw materials provided by > plants and animals. And like all life, an economy emits a high-entropy > wake - it spews degraded matter and energy: waste heat, waste gases, toxic > byproducts, apple cores, the molecules of iron lost to rust and abrasion. > Low entropy emissions include trash and pollution in all their forms, > including yesterday's newspaper, last year's sneakers, last decade's > rusted automobile. > > Matter taken up into the economy can be recycled, using energy; but > energy, used once, is forever unavailable to us at that level again. The > law of entropy commands a one-way flow downward from more to less useful > forms. An animal can't live perpetually on its own excreta. Neither can > you fill the tank of your car by pushing it backwards. Thus, > Georgescu-Roegen, paraphrasing the economist Alfred Marshall, said: > "Biology, not mechanics, is our Mecca". > > Following Soddy, Georgescu-Roegen and other ecological economists argue > that wealth is real and physical. It's the stock of cars and computers and > clothing, of furniture and French fries, that we buy with our dollars. The > dollars aren't real wealth, but only symbols that represent the bearer's > claim on an economy's ability to generate wealth. Debt, for its part, is a > claim on the economy's ability to generate wealth in the future. "The > ruling passion of the age", Soddy said, "is to convert wealth into debt" - > to exchange a thing with present-day real value (a thing that could be > stolen, or broken, or rust or rot before you can manage to use it) for > something immutable and unchanging, a claim on wealth that has yet to be > made. Money facilitates the exchange; it is, he said, "the nothing you get > for something before you can get anything". > > Problems arise when wealth and debt are not kept in proper relation. The > amount of wealth that an economy can create is limited by the amount of > low-entropy energy that it can sustainably suck from its environment - and > by the amount of high-entropy effluent from an economy that the > environment can sustainably absorb. Debt, being imaginary, has no such > natural limit. It can grow infinitely, compounding at any rate we decide. > > Whenever an economy allows debt to grow faster than wealth can be created, > that economy has a need for debt repudiation. Inflation can do the job, > decreasing debt gradually by eroding the purchasing power, the claim on > future wealth, that each of your saved dollars represents. But when there > is no inflation, an economy with overgrown claims on future wealth will > experience regular crises of debt repudiation - stock market crashes, > bankruptcies and foreclosures, defaults on bonds or loans or pension > promises, the disappearance of paper assets. > > It's like musical chairs - in the wake of some shock (say, the run-up of > the price of gas to $4 a gallon), holders of abstract debt suddenly want > to hold money or real wealth instead. But not all of them can. One > person's loss causes another's, and the whole system cascades into crisis. > Each and every one of the crises that has beset the American economy in > recent years has been, at heart, a crisis of debt repudiation. And we are > unlikely to avoid more of them until we stop allowing claims on income to > grow faster than income. > > Soddy would not have been surprised at our current state of affairs. The > problem isn't simply greed, isn't simply ignorance, isn't a failure of > regulatory diligence, but a systemic flaw in how our economy finances > itself. As long as growth in claims on wealth outstrips the economy's > capacity to increase its wealth, market capitalism creates a niche for > entrepreneurs who are all too willing to invent instruments of debt that > will someday be repudiated. There will always be a Bernard Madoff or a > subprime mortgage repackager willing to set us up for catastrophe. To stop > them, we must balance claims on future wealth with the economy's power to > produce that wealth. How can that be done? > > Soddy distilled his eccentric vision into five policy prescriptions, each > of which was taken at the time as evidence that his theories were > unworkable: The first four were to abandon the gold standard, let > international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as > macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and > establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price > index) in order to facilitate this effort. All of these are now > conventional practice. > > Soddy's fifth proposal, the only one that remains outside the bounds of > conventional wisdom, was to stop banks from creating money (and debt) out > of nothing. Banks do this by lending out most of their depositors' money > at interest - making loans that the borrower soon puts in a demand deposit > (checking) account, where it will soon be lent out again to create more > debt and demand deposits, and so on, almost ad infinitum. > > One way to stop this cycle, suggests Herman Daly, an ecological economist, > would be to gradually institute a 100-percent reserve requirement on > demand deposits. This would begin to shrink what Professor Daly calls "the > enormous pyramid of debt that is precariously balanced atop the real > economy, threatening to crash". > > Banks would support themselves by charging fees for safekeeping, check > clearing and all the other legitimate financial services they provide. > They would still make loans and still be able to lend at interest "the > real money of real depositors", in Professor Daly's phrase, people who > forgo consumption today by taking money out of their checking accounts and > putting it in time deposits - CDs, passbook savings, 401(k)'s. In return, > these savers receive a slightly larger claim on the real wealth of the > community in the future. > > In such a system, every increase in spending by borrowers would have to be > matched by an act of saving or abstinence on the part of a depositor. This > would re-establish a one-to-one correspondence between the real wealth of > the community and the claims on that real wealth. (Of course, it would not > solve the problem completely, not unless financial institutions were also > forbidden to create subprime mortgage derivatives and other instruments of > leveraged debt.) > > If such a major structural renovation of our economy sounds hopelessly > unrealistic, consider that so too did the abolition of the gold standard > and the introduction of floating exchange rates back in the 1920s. If the > laws of thermodynamics are sturdy, and if Soddy's analysis of their > relevance to economic life is correct, we'd better expand the realm of > what we think is realistic. > > _____ > > Eric Zencey, a professor of historical and political studies at Empire > State College, is the author of Virgin Forest: Meditations on History, > Ecology and Culture (1998) and a novel, Panama (2001). > > Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?_r=2&ref=opinion > > > http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com > http://www.ashisuto.co.jp > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:12:42 -0400 (EDT) > From: Sean Fischer > Subject: Re: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras > To: The A-List , A-List > > Message-ID: > < > 8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root at elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras > Thu Jul 9, 2009 2:55pm EDT > > > > By Daniel Trotta > > TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Veteran mediator President Oscar Arias of Costa > Rica hosts talks on Thursday between the rivals for power in Honduras > following last month's military coup. > > President Manuel Zelaya was ousted on June 28 after he clashed with the > country's Supreme Court, Congress and army over his effort to extend > presidential term limits. > > Here are some questions and answers about the balance of power between the > different institutions in the impoverished Central American country. > > Q - Why was Zelaya seen as such a threat? > > A - Largely because of his increasingly friendship with Hugo Chavez, > Venezuela's socialist and anti-U.S. president. Honduras is a traditionally > conservative country that never had the type of leftist insurrections that > brought the Sandinistas to power in neighboring Nicaragua in 1979 and nearly > put guerrillas in power in El Salvador, another neighbor, in the 1980s. When > Zelaya allied himself with Chavez by taking Venezuelan oil at preferential > prices and adopted some of Chavez's populist rhetoric and policies, it > raised concerns within the political and business class. Zelaya took office > in 2006 and had been due to step down in 2010 after a single four-year term. > His Chavez-like steps to seek support for amending the constitution and > allowing presidential re-election finally triggered his ouster. > > Q - What exactly did Zelaya do? > > A - Zelaya was attempting to conduct nationwide balloting on June 28 -- he > called it a "survey" -- to gauge popular support for a vote in the November > elections on whether to hold a constituent assembly to amend the > constitution. Such an assembly could have thrown state institutions into > disarray, perhaps dissolving Congress and allowing for the president to seek > re-election. The Congress, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral > Tribunal all said the June vote was illegal, but Zelaya insisted in going > forward. As tension mounted over the looming vote, Zelaya angered the > military by trying to fire the head of the armed forces -- he was overruled > by the Supreme Court -- and then by seizing ballot boxes at an army base. > > Q - Why couldn't Congress and the courts stop him? > > A - Because they are weak and don't carry the same weight as they would in > a more mature democracy. Honduras has historically seen its affairs heavily > influenced by foreign powers like the United States and the foreign > companies that invested here, supported by the army, which has been the > final arbiter. For most of the period between 1951 and 1982, the country was > governed by the military. In the case of the current crisis, it was the army > that had the final say on Zelaya's survey because it had the responsibility > of distributing ballots and ballot boxes. The army refused to do so, citing > the other branches of government who said Zelaya's planned vote was illegal. > Moreover, the army is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the > transfer of power. > > Q - Why not impeach him? > > A - There is no impeachment law as such, but legal experts who support > Zelaya's ouster say his actions triggered a clause in the constitution that > requires the removal from office of any public official seeking to change > the laws governing the presidential limit of a single four-year term. > > Q - Why not simply charge Zelaya with a crime? > > A - Because Honduras does not have the kind of professional, independent > judiciary to handle criminal charges against a president, nor the > institutions needed for a political trial. It appears the army and civilian > authorities decided they needed to remove Zelaya from the country in order > to avoid bloodshed in the event Zelaya supporters rebelled against any > trial. > > Q - So who is holding the real power in Honduras? > > A - In this crisis, it is the army. The Supreme Court and Congress proved > incapable of stopping Zelaya in his push to conduct a ballot that his > opponents feared could lead to an extension of presidential term limits. In > the end, it was the military that seized Zelaya and put him on a plane to > Costa Rica. But the army was not acting on its own -- the Supreme Court said > it had asked the army to remove Zelaya and Congress installed Roberto > Micheletti soon after the ouster. > > (Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia, Editing by Frances Kerry) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Tony B." > >Sent: Jul 9, 2009 3:40 PM > >To: A-List > >Subject: [A-List] The Honduran coup: A warning to the working class > > > >> > >> THE HONDURAN COUP: A WARNING TO THE WORKING CLASS > >> 8 July 2009 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Since the June 28 coup by the most right-wing sections of the ruling > >> elite, backed by the US-trained military, Honduran workers have waged > >> an implacable struggle against the imposition of an illegitimate and > >> repressive regime. > >> > >> Over 60,000 Honduran teachers have carried out an indefinite strike > >> since June 29, the day after the elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was > >> seized at gunpoint by the military and bundled onto a plane that flew > >> him out of the country. Schools remain shut nationwide, with students > >> and parents supporting the action. Other sections of the Honduran > >> working class have joined in this struggle, threatening to escalate it > >> through the erection of barricades on the nation's highways. > >> > >> This heroic resistance has been carried out in the face of a de facto > >> state of siege. Honduras remains under curfew, with the military > >> controlling the streets. Basic democratic rights have been suspended, > >> and nearly 1,000 opponents of the coup regime have been arrested. > >> Sections of the media that voiced opposition to the takeover have been > >> shut down, with broadcasting facilities taken over by armed troops and > >> individual reporters threatened with death. > >> > >> On Sunday, the coup claimed its first fatality, 19-year-old Isy Obed > >> Murillo, shot down by Honduran troops at the Tegucigalpa airport, > >> where thousands turned out to show support for Zelaya, whose plane was > >> not allowed to land. > >> > >> There is every reason to fear that this is only the beginning, and not > >> just in Honduras. The country's ruling oligarchy is among the most > >> backward and reactionary in the region, while its military command is > >> trained by the Pentagon, which maintains a key military base at Soto > >> Cano, where over 600 US troops are deployed. > >> > >> The danger that workers in Honduras could face a bloody tragedy like > >> those inflicted upon working people in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and > >> Argentina more than 30 years ago is real and present. > >> > >> In Honduras, as elsewhere in Latin America, there has been no real > >> settling of accounts for the crimes carried out by the fascist- > >> military regimes headed by thugs like Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's > >> Videla. Those who led the US-backed Honduran military death squads > >> that carried out massacres, assassinations, "disappearances" and > >> torture 25 years ago continue to enjoy impunity, as do most of their > >> counterparts in the region. > >> > >> The deepening of the world economic crisis -- which has driven the > >> buying power of Hondurans down 30 percent compared to just a year ago > >> - -- is ushering in a new period of intense class struggle, undermining > >> the fa??ade of democratization erected when Latin America's military > >> rulers handed the reins of the state back to civilian politicians in > >> the 1980s. > >> > >> The lessons of the previous defeats must be learned to prevent new > >> ones. Above all, as was demonstrated time and time again, from the > >> Brazilian military coup of 1964, to Chile in 1973 and Argentina in > >> 1976, the working class cannot defend itself against the threat of > >> dictatorship by subordinating its struggles to supposedly > >> "progressive" factions within the native ruling elite. > >> > >> Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Honduran President Manuel > >> Zelaya, who, like the coup leaders themselves, is seeking the > >> intercession of the Obama administration in Washington to uphold his > >> presidency's political legitimacy. > >> > >> After his theatrical flight over Tegucigalpa Sunday -- Zelaya > >> announced that he would "jump" if he could find a parachute -- the > >> ousted president has abandoned his pledge return to Honduras by "air, > >> land or sea," instead flying to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with > >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. > >> > >> The outcome of that meeting was Zelaya's agreement to "mediation" by > >> Costa Rican President Oscar Arias between the elected president and > >> those who overthrew him. Arias is a veteran of such dirty deals, > >> having officiated in the late 1980s in the so-called Esquipulas > >> process that brokered an end to the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El > >> Salvador, consolidating power in the hands of US-backed factions > >> within the ruling elite. > >> > >> Significantly, Clinton refused to call for the restoration of the > >> overthrown president, allowing only that the US administration favored > >> "a peaceful resolution of this matter" and "the restoration of > >> democracy." > >> > >> There is no question that the coup in Honduras was prepared with > >> Washington's foreknowledge and blessing. According to published > >> reports, US diplomats were in discussion with Zelaya's opponents about > >> removing the president, and it impossible to believe that the Honduran > >> military would be deployed without the approval of its US overseers. > >> > >> Washington's aim was to replace the Honduran president in order to > >> effect changes in Honduran policy that would prove more favorable to > >> US interests in the region, including the severing of the close > >> economic and political ties established by Zelaya with the Venezuelan > >> government of Hugo Ch??vez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. It was hoped that > >> Obama's rhetoric about "mutual respect" in the hemisphere together > >> with a few formal protests would create the conditions for a "velvet > >> coup." > >> > >> Zelaya's decision to turn to Washington and comply with its demands > >> for mediation with the coup leaders expresses his own class position. > >> The product of a wealthy landowning family with interests in the > >> timber industry, he came to power as the candidate of the Liberal > >> Party, which has alternated with the National Party and the military > >> in holding power since the end of the 19th century, and with the > >> support of some of the richest men in Honduras. > >> > >> Zelaya turned to Venezuela for cheap oil as well as loans granted > >> without any troubling questions about his government's handling of > >> public funds. This, together with his use of empty radical phrases, > >> has been used to promote him as a "leftist" leader challenging the > >> oligarchy. > >> > >> The reality is that Zelaya secured support for joining ALBA (the > >> Spanish acronym for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, the > >> Venezuelan-sponsored regional trade group), by promising to support > >> the presidential candidacy of Roberto Micheletti, the right-wing > >> leader of parliament who has now been installed in that office by the > >> coup. > >> > >> However bitter the differences between Zelaya and the right-wing > >> elements that overthrew him, both are staunch defenders of the > >> interests of the country's capitalist ruling class. A resolution of > >> the current crisis on the basis of a mediated settlement between them > >> would spell a political defeat for the workers of Honduras, while > >> helping to legitimize military coups, making new ones more likely > >> elsewhere in Central America and throughout the hemisphere. > >> > >> Only the Honduran workers, who have been the main force resisting the > >> coup, can defeat such a reactionary settlement of the current crisis. > >> The critical task is the building of a revolutionary political > >> movement of the working class, independent of all factions of the > >> bourgeoisie and armed with a socialist program. Such a movement must > >> be built to fight for a workers' and farmers' government and the > >> socialist transformation of not only Honduras, but the entire region > >> as part of a United Socialist States of the Americas. > >> > >> Workers in Honduras and throughout Latin America will find support not > >> in the imperialist maneuvers of the Obama administration, but in the > >> working class of the United States, which is itself being driven by > >> the economic crisis into struggle against capitalism. > >> > >> > >> Bill Van Auken > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - -- > >> Beware the bait & switch fraud: "Social Justice" is NOT Socialism! > >> > >> Build the North America-wide General Strike. > >> TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. > >> TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. > >> ALL power to the councils and communes. > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > >> > >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpUOJAACgkQB9bXLLhitTMTFQCdGczJxGlc1Wq6uiMDsawM0XJi > >> AlwAn37fGWboyygatI7+FHepRKECIw0s > >> =MeHX > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:05:32 -0400 > From: "Tony B." > Subject: Re: [A-List] Today ...addendum > To: "The A-List" > Message-ID: <61B4088646E146BABB51C15C45C0F80F at TonyPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > "Those who are always watching to see what happens next will never act: > such must be the spectator's condition." > Guy Debord > > "We have just said that action exactly suited to its ends must be obtained. > This leads us to state that if the classic but outmoded view of propaganda > consists in defining it as an adherence of man to an *orthodoxy*, true > modern propaganda seeks, on the contrary, to obtain an *orthopraxy* - an > action that in itself, and not because of the value judgments of the person > who is acting, leads directly to a goal, which for the individual is not a > conscious and intentional objective to be attained, but which is considered > such by the propagandist........This is a particular example of a more > general problem: the separation of thought and action in our society. We are > living in a time when systematically - though without wanting it so - action > and thought are being separated." > > Jacues Ellul, from 'Propaganda' p.27 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Suzanne de Kuyper > To: The A-List > Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:13 PM > Subject: [A-List] Today > > > . Today In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, it is 10:19 PM or 22:19, in New > York City it is six hours earlier or 4:19 pm or 16:19. Today is relative, > just as reality or truth is relative. Today one reality the whole world > shares is that the United States wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq have > lasted longer than World War 11 and are not about to end any time soon, > though the semblance of them ending will be crafted feverishly and at great > expense by the financially hemmoraging United States. All the world is > audience to these few realities of the many that destabalise the twentyfirst > century peoples. > > > This list is of a group of beautifully educated, articulate, passionately > commited sociaists who parse the world of this century with skill, > historical connectedness and informed sceptisicsm, often brilliance, > certainly courage. But, as perhaps Willa Cather might comment, something is > missing. > So much so I cannot even articulate what it is! But, there is a place at > the table where there is no chair, no setting, no person ...but the space is > visible to all. 'Empty' is a judgement call, let one say it is > 'in-waiting'. That playwright that wrote a play where the one not there and > waited for is the main charachter got today right. Pinter wrote it > yesterday. Today is in waiting. The silent commentator, the tolerant mute > critic? > > > Our Queen has given us away to those who want no human rights laws or > rules. The Bilderberg Group is her pleasure, our International Criminal > Court gathers dust and sneering laughter.. As Israel continues its genocide > of the Palestinians and the world watches, the U.S killing the middle > easterners for their oil treasure, we with homes and countries yet, marvel > at the absences of reality at the tables of the powerful. Pinter may have > meant that man, as Magritte did with the man wearing the Homberg.? We who > watch have become audience rather than participants? > > > Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: text/html > Size: 4628 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090710/c6484178/attachment.txt > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:55:10 +0100 > From: "james daly" > Subject: [A-List] Honduras Resists > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > The following statement was released July 9, 2009 by the Honduran National > Front Against the Coup d'etat. It appears on the website of Honduras > Resists > / Honduras Resiste (Alternative information on the military coup d'etat in > Honduras and communication from the resistance. Go to: > > http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/ > > After that an update on today's protests from Prensa Latina, also in > English. > > Honduras Resists / Honduras Resiste > > The people of Honduras are heroically resisting the military coup led by > U.S. trained army officials. This blog provides links to alternative > information sources and translations of communications coming out of the > Honduran resistance movement. > > Wednesday, July 8, 2009 > 9th Communiqu? of the National Front Against the Coup d'etat > > The National Front Against the Coup d'etat in Honduras, made up of the > different organized expressions in the country, on our feet in the struggle > until the reinstatement of the constitutional order, communicates: > > We reiterate that the coup d'etat was conceived by the oligarchy and > executed by the Armed Forces in collusion with the Supreme Court of > Justice, > the National Congress, the Public ministry, the Human Rights Commission, > the > Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Liberal, Nationalist Innovation, Social > Democratic unity and Christian Democratic Parties, and the Catholic and > evangelical churches. > > We demand that the meetings planned between President Zelaya and Roberto > Micheletti Bain take into account the position of the National Front > Against > the Coup d'Etat which includes as a main point the installation of a > National Constitutional Assembly. We demand pubishment for those > responsible > for the death of our fallen comrades and the repression of the > mobilizations > and locations of the popular movement. > > We reject the possibility of the legitimation of the de facto authorities > and re-affirm that the only acceptable solution is the return of the > institutional order. We make known the naming of a commission that > represents the National Front Against the Coup d'Etat to participate in the > meetings in San Jos?, Costa Rica. > > We continue demanding the restitution of individual guarantees immediately, > as the suspension is a clear violation of people's human rights. > > NATIONAL FRONT AGAINST THE COUP D'ETAT IN HONDURAS Tegucigalpa, Honduras, > July 8th, 2009 > ================================================================= > > Honduras Front Peaceful, Relentless > > Tegucigalpa, Jul 9 (Prensa Latina) Honduran popular organizations mark > Thursday their 12th consecutive day of peaceful resistance to the military > coup, with the aim of maintaining their democratic struggles. > > "We are not tired of resisting," writer Dalila Bracamonte said in today's > call at the Loarque Square. > > The National Front against the coup d'Etat ratifies in a brief release it > will maintain the popular mobilization until the return of President Manuel > Zelaya, overthrown by soldiers on June 28. > > Wednesday's rallies took place in the capital's eastern sector and the road > joining the city with the nation's eastern zone, mainly Olancho and Paraiso > departments. > > First Lady Xiomara Castro, who attended popular demonstrations two days > ago, > led the march with trade, rural, students, youth leaders and other sectors > of society. > > "We reject legitimization of the de facto authorities. The only acceptable > solution is the return of institutional order," stresses the document. > > This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from > http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm > > > > > End of A-List Digest, Vol 70, Issue 18 > ************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 50368 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090712/5ff86bb3/attachment.txt From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 12 05:59:18 2009 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (james daly) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:59:18 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Q+A: The dispute that led to a coup in Honduras References: <8190221.1247296362573.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <60FD157CE3454382A78FE68D41DB3806@home9sg93n9r5y><16f201ca026a$b92159c0$0900a8c0@PRISONLEGALNEWS.local> <4A59339A.9070709@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Leigh, my post was written in a personal capacity, so I don't see why it should be chilling. Sean's seemed to me like trolling -- if it was, it's succeeding. The material he forwarded was extraordinary -- not the "rationale" but the pretext for the coup -- or must we now say "non-coup"?! If he did mean to unmask the coup plotters he could have let us know (and, indeed, -- done it!). Freedom of speech is a value, but as practised it can lead to profits for Goldman Sachs, and death for the homeless. It doesn't see