From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Jun 1 15:18:24 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:18:24 -0400 Subject: [A-List] El Salvador Message-ID: <34CA045A4ACB4316AAEEB1B253891DEB@TonyPC> Web Exclusive: EL SALVADOR: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA Jay Hartling | May 30th 2009 On Monday, June 1, 2009 El Salvador will turn a new page in its history with the inauguration of the country?s first left government, joining the ranks of the majority of Latin America. Representing the FMLN (Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional), Mauricio Funes and Salvador Sanchez Ceren, president and vice-president elect, will face a national assembly where the FMLN is outnumbered by more than 2:1. Out of a total of 84 seats, the FMLN only have 35. This will make broad sweeping changes difficult, but not impossible, and may force Funes to use the power of the presidential veto as a bargaining chip. It is important that those of us observing from a distance understand the complicated environment within which the new government will be operating. The new government represents a coalition of interests including the FMLN and its national grassroots system of committees, and a broad cross-section of civil society. As June 1 approaches, more and more information is coming to light that despite the glowing picture painted by the outgoing right-wing ARENA party, the country is bankrupt - the result of twenty years of failed economic and social policies, and rampant corruption by ARENA and its allies, the PDC and PCN. It is likely that the new government will discover the depth of the corruption and mismanagement after it assumes office. To further complicate matters, the outgoing ARENA government has been very busy over the last few weeks passing a number of laws and renewing contracts for their allies and supporters to ensure their continued control of the economy. The FMLN won on a platform of priorities created by the people of El Salvador ? through a lengthy, inclusive and thorough popular consultation process. The priorities expressed by the people are access to adequate food, medicine/healthcare, jobs, affordable energy and security. The Funes-Sanchez Ceren government will have to be creative in its approach to solving some of El Salvador?s many problems, most of which have been exacerbated over the last twenty years. Anyone who knows the history of El Salvador will not be surprised by ARENA?s cynical, desperate and cruel attempts to thwart the new government?s response to the needs of the people, particularly the most vulnerable. Information is slowly coming to light of the extent of the damage the outgoing government has done to the nation ? and this is only scratching the surface. For example, yesterday, a popular health committee in the city of Soyapango caught Department of Health employees red-handed trying to dispose of a warehouse of expired medicines. The medicines carried expiration dates from 2005 to present. What was the motive of the current government in hoarding medicines in a warehouse? Create instability and scarcity in public health institutions to force people (who can hardly afford to buy food) to buy medicine through private means. The following is just a sample of the current state of chaos being left behind by the outgoing ARENA government. The government subsidizes many basic services for the population, such as the distribution of electricity, transportation, gas and water. However,the ARENA government owes months of back payments for those subsidies to the private service providers, and they will leave this debt to the new government. What is the solution for the companies? They can either raise the rates directly to the consumer, or shut off the services. The cost of electricity for the average Salvadorean already increased by 40% last month. El Salvador has been hit hard by the global economic crisis. Currently,the official poverty rate stands at 40% of the population (however, it is believed to be much higher). The response to the crisis has been similar to other neo-liberal governments (including the Canadian government): inject money into the economy by sponsoring huge infrastructure projects. In El Salvador, the benefits of these projects will go directly to the two construction companies that are owned by ARENA. For example, as I drove from San Salvador to the Port of La Libertad earlier in the week, I encountered a major highway twinning project. The new highway is being built to facilitate a proposed (but not confirmed) Boeing parts plant, and to service the slew of million dollar luxury homes trailing up from the highway. The office of President Antonio Saca has spent millions on publicity during his term ? preferring to spread propaganda rather than actually putting the money into services for the public. The Office of the President has paid millions of dollars to public relations companies owned by ARENA party members; however, the source of the money is a ?secret? presidential fund that is not subject to audit. Surely, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Like other countries, El Salvador collects revenue through personal income and business taxes. This year, income tax returns have not been paid out because the government is bankrupt. Prior to leaving office, the ARENA government renewed the contract for the US Anti-Drug Monitoring Base at Comalapa for another five years. The government has a multi-million dollar debt with government supply and service providers (for example, security, cleaning). While these have not been paid, the contracts with ARENA?s own networked companies that supply these services were hastily renewed before the arrival of the new government. El Salvador has been taking out a number of short-term loans from foreign countries and institutions, and this foreign debt has accumulated because they are unable to make the payments. Because of the financial crisis in the U.S. and resulting job losses, approximately 300 undocumented Salvadoreans PER DAY are returning to El Salvador. The outgoing government had no plan or ability to deal with the influx, and this will now become a challenge for the FMLN government. President Saca and his family have made several last minute trips (purportedly to say "farewell") covering almost the entire continent, as well as Israel, and a trip to see the Pope all at great expense to the public purse. This is just a sample of the state of affairs left by ARENA. Prior to leaving office, the right-wing dominated national assembly also passed a number of laws: The citizenship and voters list has been controlled by the presidency for a number of years (whether or not this is appropriate is another matter). To prevent the FMLN from controlling the list, a law was passed that turns control over to the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal), which is controlled by the right-wing opposition. The government passed a ?bullet-proof" law that protects the positions of thousands of state employees that are ARENA supporters. Another law that was passed recently extends and protects the privileges of consular officials abroad. Many consular officials are family members of governing members of the ARENA party (for example, the Consul General in Toronto is related to President Saca). The new law means they can keep their diplomatic passports, continue to receive tax exemptions and discounts on international flights, and most importantly, they will not be required to submit to luggage checks at customs. These points are just a sample of the corruption and level of political cynicism of the outgoing ARENA government ? which is trying to foment chaos and insecurity before the new government even takes office, and make the next five years as difficult as possible. Despite the cynical moves, Salvadoreans are extremely hopeful and supportive of the new government. Before Mauricio Funes even takes office, his popularity is at 82%. The inauguration on Monday will be the most highly-attended presidential inauguration in the history of the country, and includes the presidents of Central America, many countries in the Caribbean, and allied country leaders like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Lula da Silva and Fernando Lugo. Also in attendance will be Hillary Clinton, Alvaro Uribe and Prince Felipe and Princess Beatriz of Spain. However, the real celebration will be in the Cuscatlan Stadium where more than 70,000 Salvadoreans are expected to celebrate the big day with a popular celebration that includes music, and speeches by the new president and vice president and attendance by hundreds of international delegations. Hugo Chavez, Fernando Lugo, Rafael Correa and Evo Morales have all confirmed they will attend the popular celebration. It is at this celebration that the new government will seek a public pact with the people to support the new government and overcome the obstacles that have been placed in their path by the ARENA government. Jay Hartling is an independent journalist and researcher based in Halifax, NS. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Jun 1 15:19:48 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:19:48 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Pakistan Quagmire - Moammar Gadhafi Message-ID: <59A1DDE44B5C4D919DADD41D8152EEC3@TonyPC> The Pakistan Quagmire A tangled web of regional challenges By Moammar Gadhafi May 29, 2009 "Washington Times" -- The West, particularly America, and Israel never wished for Pakistan to possess a nuclear bomb. But on May 28, 1998, they woke up to the fact that Pakistan had become a nuclear state and blamed their intelligence services for failure to anticipate the nuclear tests. Countless books, articles and speeches called Pakistan's nuclear bomb the "Islamic bomb," as loaded a term as any, as many considered it a doomsday weapon directed against their interests. Every effort was made to dissuade Pakistan from owning the bomb. American Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger frankly told then Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, "If you make the bomb, we'll make an example out of you." Mr. Bhutto, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, was, of course, hanged. Gen. Zia al-Haq, who Islamized Pakistan and consolidated its nuclear program, was murdered. More recently, Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Bhutto's daughter, was assassinated. Others still may face a similar fate. The question, however, is: Why do neither the Americans nor the Israelis want Pakistan to possess the bomb? Pakistan is a Muslim country. In fact, Islam is the very foundation for the existence of Pakistan. Except for religion, there really are no other factors that unite Pakistanis. This explains why the Pakistanis are fanatic about religion. It is the essence of their nationhood. Islam is for the Pakistanis as Judaism is for the Israelis, a matter of existence. This is not the same for other countries. China, for example, would be China with or without religion. Similarly, Iran would be the same even without religion. The same applies to Turkey. Pakistan is unique. There can be no Pakistan without Islam, as Islam was the basis for its separation from India and its raison d'etre as a state. Truly, the Pakistani nuclear bomb is a Muslim bomb. Islam for the Pakistanis is not a question of faith only but also a question of identity. Pakistan is witnessing dramatic changes because of its complex demographic structure. Socially, it is composed of various ethnicities and fierce tribes - bordering Afghanistan - that have no loyalty to either Pakistan or Afghanistan. This is a heterogeneous structure comprising people who speak different tongues, which disunites them rather than bringing them together. Pakistan faces challenges even within its region. It is threatened by the Shi'ite Muslim state of Iran and the Hindu and Buddhist India. Islam in Pakistan does not exist in a safe region. It is surrounded by a hostile environment that provokes its very Muslim essence, facing Buddhism and Hinduism as well as fanatic doctrines and intolerance. This is the reason behind the formation of violent Muslim groups affiliated with the fierce tribes in Afghanistan as well as al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. These groups, such as the Jama Islamiya, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Ulamaa of Pakistan, the Ahl-e-Hadith, the Islamic Movement and others, in fact, provided protection for bin Laden and his movement. They are numerous, vocally declaring their fanatic concept of Islam. The danger such fanatic groups constitute for the Israelis and Americans is that they may hold the reins of power, to which they indeed aspire. If these groups governed the state, which is a possibility, that would be a very dangerous outcome for the Americans and Israelis. On the other hand, if political parties, such as the Pakistan People's Party, or even the army, ruled, things would be relatively safe because they presumably constitute responsible institutions. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that they can form sustainable governments. If any of these extremist groups were to hold power, the key to the nuclear bomb would be in their hands. This has created the Pakistani quagmire for the Americans and Israelis. To address this potentially dangerous situation, they have attempted to further drive a wedge of hostility between Pakistan and neighboring India. The Pakistanis are told that their enemy is the Hindus, not the Jews or Christians, and therefore their bomb should be directed toward them, the Pakistanis' immediate enemy, and not anyone else. Similarly, the Indians are led to believe their real enemy is Pakistan and that the Pakistani bomb was directed toward them rather than the Israelis or Americans. This policy aims to preoccupy Pakistan with India and India with Pakistan. Perhaps this is why America has not been willing to contribute to solving the Kashmiri problem, whereas the Israelis will try to keep it always flammable. Tension and anxiety will continue, as will the danger posed by a nuclear Pakistan. Attempts by the Israelis and Americans to extricate themselves from this quagmire, by all means, also will never cease. Either way presents a dangerous endgame to the region and the world. Moammar Gadhafi is the leader of Libya. From noreply at coha.org Mon Jun 1 14:53:58 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:53:58 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Cuba and the Current OAS Meeting in Honduras Message-ID: <20090601205320.C8CD03E45CA@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3974 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090601/62b10b81/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 15:24:23 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:24:23 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] But Governor, You Can Create Money! In-Reply-To: <4A2332A3.5020605@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4A2332A3.5020605@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill Totten Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:45 AM Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] But Governor, You Can Create Money! To: Suzanne de Kuyper Just Form Your Own Bank by Ellen Brown www.webofdebt.com (May 26 2009) "I understand that these cuts are very painful and they affect real lives. This is the harsh reality and the reality that we face. Sacramento is not Washington - we cannot print our own money. We can only spend what we have." - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quoted in Time (May 22 2009) Christmas comes early, Governor. You CAN print your own money. Fiscally solvent North Dakota is doing it ... and so can California. Now!!! In a May 22 article in Time titled "Billions in the Red: Fiscal Reckoning in California", Juliet Williams reports that since California voters have now vetoed higher taxes and further state government borrowing, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated that he intends to close the budget gap almost entirely through drastic spending cuts. The cutbacks could include laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, ending the state's main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, slashing money for state parks, and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished. Schwarzenegger bemoaned the fact that the state could not print its own money but said it could only spend what it had. But the state can create its own money. After all, banks do this every day. Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do: they can create "credit" with accounting entries on their books. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas explains on its website: "Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here's how it works: Most of a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank ... holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times." President Obama has also acknowledged that banks create money, through what he calls the "multiplier effect". In a speech at Georgetown University on April 14, he said: "[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks - 'where's our bailout?', they ask - the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth". Money in a government-owned bank could give us the best of both worlds. We could have all the credit-generating advantages of private banks, without the baggage cluttering up the books of the Wall Street giants, including bad derivatives bets, unmarketable collateralized debt obligations, mark to market accounting issues, oversized CEO salaries and bonuses, and shareholders expecting a sizeable cut of the profits. A state could deposit its vast revenues in its own state-owned bank and proceed to fan them into eight to ten times their face value in loans. Not only would it have its own credit machine, but it would control the loan terms. The state could lend at one-half percent interest to itself and to municipal governments, rolling the loans over as needed until the revenues had been generated to pay them off. According to Professor Margrit Kennedy in her 1995 book Interest and Inflation-free Money, interest composes, on average, fully half the cost of every public project. Cutting costs by fifty percent could make currently-unsustainable projects such as low-cost housing, alternative energy development, and infrastructure construction not only sustainable but actually profitable for the government. If all this seems too radical and unprecedented to venture into, consider that one state has had its own bank for ninety years; and it has not only escaped the credit crunch but is doing remarkably well ... The Innovative Bank of North Dakota Only three of fifty states are now solvent, meaning they have the revenues to meet their state budgets; and one of them is North Dakota. It is an unlikely candidate for the distinction. It is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000 people, largely located in isolated farming communities afflicted with cold weather. Yet since 2000, the state's GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. The state not only has no funding issues, but this year it actually has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion, the largest it has ever had. North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. The bank's stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, which pays a competitive interest rate to the state treasurer. The state rather than the FDIC guarantees the bank's deposits, which are plowed back into the state in the form of loans. The bank's return on equity is about 25%, and it pays a hefty dividend to the state, which is expected to exceed $60 million this year. In the last decade, the BND has turned back a third of a billion dollars to the state's general fund, offsetting taxes. The former president of the BND is now the state's governor. The BND avoids rivalry with private banks by partnering with them. Most lending is originated by a local bank. The BND then comes in to participate in the loan, share risk, and buy down the interest rate. The BND provides a secondary market for real estate loans, which it buys from local banks. Its residential loan portfolio is now $500 billion to $600 billion. Guarantees are also provided for entrepreneurial startups, and the BND has ample money to lend to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans). It purchases municipal bonds from public institutions, and it backs loans made to new farmers at one percent interest. The BND also has a well-funded disaster loan program, which helps explain how Fargo, when struck by a disastrous flood recently, managed to avoid the devastation suffered by New Orleans in similar circumstances. North Dakota has also managed to avoid the credit freeze, through the simple expedient of creating its own credit. It has led the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty. In California and other states, workers and factories are sitting idle because the private credit system has failed. An injection of new money from a system of publicly-owned banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota could thaw the credit freeze and bring spring to the markets once again. _____ 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.webofdebt.com/articles/but_governor.php TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ 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: 9766 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090601/53c69766/attachment.txt From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Jun 1 15:31:07 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:31:07 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Torture Memos - Noam Chomsky Message-ID: <972E53781C8B4FD0ACFC90E6245588DB@TonyPC> The Torture Memos Noam Chomsky chomsky.info, May 24, 2009 (earlier version published on Tom Dispatch, May 21, 2009) The torture memos released by the White House elicited shock, indignation, and surprise. The shock and indignation are understandable -- particularly the testimony in the Senate Armed Services Committee report on Cheney-Rumsfeld desperation to find links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, links that were later concocted as justification for the invasion, facts irrelevant. Former Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney testified that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results"; that is, torture. The McClatchy press reported that a former senior intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue added that "The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime ... [Cheney and Rumsfeld] demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration... 'There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder'."1 These were the most significant revelations, barely reported. While such testimony about the viciousness and deceit of the administration should indeed be shocking, the surprise at the general picture revealed is nonetheless surprising. A narrow reason is that even without inquiry, it was reasonable to suppose that Guantanamo was a torture chamber. Why else send prisoners where they would be beyond the reach of the law -- incidentally, a place that Washington is using in violation of a treaty that was forced on Cuba at the point of a gun? Security reasons are alleged, but they are hard to take seriously. The same expectations held for secret prisons and rendition, and were fulfilled A broader reason is that torture has been routine practice from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and then beyond, as the imperial ventures of the "infant empire" -- as George Washington called the new Republic -- extended to the Philippines, Haiti, and elsewhere. Furthermore, torture was the least of the many crimes of aggression, terror, subversion and economic strangulation that have darkened US history, much as in the case of other great powers. Accordingly, it is surprising to see the reactions even by some of the most eloquent and forthright critics of Bush malfeasance: for example, that we used to be "a nation of moral ideals" and never before Bush "have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for" (Paul Krugman). To say the least, that common view reflects a rather slanted version of history. Occasionally the conflict between "what we stand for" and "what we do" has been forthrightly addressed. One distinguished scholar who undertook the task is Hans Morgenthau, a founder of realist international relations theory. In a classic study written in the glow of Camelot, Morgenthau developed the standard view that the US has a "transcendent purpose": establishing peace and freedom at home and indeed everywhere, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide." But as a scrupulous scholar, he recognized that the historical record is radically inconsistent with the "transcendent purpose" of America. We should not, however, be misled by that discrepancy, Morgenthau advises: in his words, we should not "confound the abuse of reality with reality itself." Reality is the unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it." What actually happened is merely the "abuse of reality." To confound abuse of reality with reality is akin to "the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds." An apt comparison. The release of the torture memos led others to recognize the problem. In the New York Times, columnist Roger Cohen reviewed a book by British journalist Geoffrey Hodgson, who concludes that the US is "just one great, but imperfect, country among others." Cohen agrees that the evidence supports Hodgson's judgment, but regards it as fundamentally mistaken. The reason is Hodgson's failure to understand that "America was born as an idea, and so it has to carry that idea forward." The American idea is revealed by America's birth as a "city on a hill," an "inspirational notion" that resides "deep in the American psyche"; and by "the distinctive spirit of American individualism and enterprise" demonstrated in the Western expansion. Hodgson's error is that he is keeping to "the distortions of the American idea in recent decades," the "abuse of reality" in recent years. Let us then turn to "reality itself": the "idea" of America from its earliest days. The inspirational phrase "city on a hill" was coined by John Winthrop in 1630, borrowing from the Gospels, and outlining the glorious future of a new nation "ordained by God." One year earlier his Massachusetts Bay Colony established its Great Seal. It depicts an Indian with a scroll coming out of his mouth. On it are the words "Come over and help us." The British colonists were thus benevolent humanists, responding to the pleas of the miserable natives to be rescued from their bitter pagan fate. The Great Seal is a graphic representation of "the idea of America," from its birth. It should be exhumed from the depths of the psyche and displayed on the walls of every classroom. It should certainly appear in the background of all of the Kim il-Sung-style worship of the savage murderer and torturer Ronald Reagan, who blissfully described himself as the leader of a "shining city on the hill" while orchestrating some of the more ghastly crimes of his years in office, leaving a hideous legacy. This early proclamation of "humanitarian intervention," to use the currently fashionable phrase, turned out to be very much like its successors, facts that were not obscure to the agents. The first Secretary of War, General Henry Knox, described "the utter extirpation of all the Indians in most populous parts of the Union" by means "more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru." Long after his own significant contributions to the process were past, John Quincy Adams deplored the fate of "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty ... among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement." The merciless and perfidious cruelty continued until "the West was won." Instead of God's judgment, the heinous sins bring only praise for the fulfillment of the American "idea."2 There was, to be sure, a more convenient and conventional version, expressed for example by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who mused that "the wisdom of Providence" caused the natives to disappear like "the withered leaves of autumn" even though the colonists had "constantly respected" them.3 The conquest and settling of the West indeed showed individualism and enterprise. Settler-colonialist enterprises, the cruelest form of imperialism, commonly do. The outcome was hailed by the respected and influential Senator Henry Cabot Lodge in 1898. Calling for intervention in Cuba, Lodge lauded our record "of conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion unequalled by any people in the 19th century," and urged that it is "not to be curbed now," as the Cubans too are pleading with us to come over and help them.4 Their plea was answered. The US sent troops, thereby preventing Cuba's liberation from Spain and turning it into a virtual colony, as it remained until 1959. The "American idea" is illustrated further by the remarkable campaign, initiated virtually at once, to restore Cuba to its proper place: economic warfare with the clearly articulated aim of punishing the population so that they would overthrow the disobedient government; invasion; the dedication of the Kennedy brothers to bring "the terrors of the earth" to Cuba (the phrase of historian Arthur Schlesinger, in his biography of Robert Kennedy, who took the task as one of his highest priorities); and other crimes continuing to the present, in defiance of virtually unanimous world opinion. There are to be sure critics, who hold that our efforts to bring democracy to Cuba have failed, so we should turn to other ways to "come over and help them." How do these critics know that the goal was to bring democracy? There is evidence: so our leaders proclaim. There is also counter-evidence: the declassified internal record, but that can be dismissed as just "the abuse of history." American imperialism is often traced to the takeover of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii in 1898. But that is to succumb to what historian of imperialism Bernard Porter calls "the salt water fallacy," the idea that conquest only becomes imperialism when it crosses salt water. Thus if the Mississippi had resembled the Irish Sea, Western expansion would have been imperialism. From Washington to Lodge, those engaged in the enterprise had a clearer grasp. After the success of humanitarian intervention in Cuba in 1898, the next step in the mission assigned by Providence was to confer "the blessings of liberty and civilization upon all the rescued peoples" of the Philippines (in the words of the platform of Lodge's Republican party) -- at least those who survived the murderous onslaught and the large-scale torture and other atrocities that accompanied it. These fortunate souls were left to the mercies of the US-established Philippine constabulary within a newly devised model of colonial domination, relying on security forces trained and equipped for sophisticated modes of surveillance, intimidation, and violence.5 Similar models were adopted in many other areas where the US imposed brutal National Guards and other client forces, with consequences that should be well-known. In the past sixty years, victims worldwide have also endured the CIA's "torture paradigm," developed at a cost reaching $1 billion annually, according to historian Alfred McCoy, who shows that the methods surfaced with little change in Abu Ghraib. There is no hyperbole when Jennifer Harbury entitles her penetrating study of the U.S. torture record Truth, Torture, and the American Way. It is highly misleading, to say the least, when investigators of the Bush gang's descent into the sewer lament that "in waging the war against terrorism, America had lost its way."6 Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld et al. did introduce important innovations. Ordinarily, torture is farmed out to subsidiaries, not carried out by Americans directly in their government-established torture chambers. Alain Nairn, who has carried out some of the most revealing and courageous investigations of torture, points out that "What the Obama [ban on torture] ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so." Obama did not shut down the practice of torture, Nairn observes, but "merely repositioned it," restoring it to the norm, a matter of indifference to the victims. Since Vietnam, "the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed." Obama's ban "doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of 'armed conflict,' which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict ... his is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more US-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years."7 Sometimes engagement in torture is more indirect. In a 1980 study, Latin Americanist Lars Schoultz found that US aid "has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their citizens,... to the hemisphere's relatively egregious violators of fundamental human rights." That includes military aid, is independent of need, and runs through the Carter years. Broader studies by Edward Herman found the same correlation, and also suggested an explanation. Not surprisingly, US aid tends to correlate with a favorable climate for business operations, and this is commonly improved by murder of labor and peasant organizers and human rights activists, and other such actions, yielding a secondary correlation between aid and egregious violation of human rights.8 These studies precede the Reagan years, when the topic was not worth studying because the correlations were so clear. And the tendencies continue to the present. Small wonder that the President advises us to look forward, not backward -- a convenient doctrine for those who hold the clubs. Those who are beaten by them tend to see the world differently, much to our annoyance. An argument can be made that implementation of the CIA's "torture paradigm" does not violate the 1984 Torture Convention, at least as Washington interprets it. Alfred McCoy points out that the highly sophisticated CIA paradigm, based on the "KGB's most devastating torture technique," keeps primarily to mental torture, not crude physical torture, which is considered less effective in turning people into pliant vegetables. McCoy writes that the Reagan administration carefully revised the international Torture Convention "with four detailed diplomatic 'reservations' focused on just one word in the convention's 26-printed pages," the word "mental." These intricately-constructed diplomatic reservations re-defined torture, as interpreted by the United States, to exclude sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain?the very techniques the CIA had refined at such great cost." When Clinton sent the UN Convention to Congress for ratification in 1994, he included the Reagan reservations. The President and Congress therefore exempted the core of the CIA torture paradigm from the US interpretation of the Torture Convention; and those reservations, McCoy observes, were "reproduced verbatim in domestic legislation enacted to give legal force to the UN Convention." That is the "political land mine" that "detonated with such phenomenal force" in the Abu Ghraib scandal and in the shameful Military Commissions act that was passed with bipartisan support in 2006. Accordingly, after the first exposure of Washington's resort to torture, constitutional law professor Sanford Levinson observed that it could perhaps be justified in terms of the "interrogator-friendly" definition of torture adopted by Reagan and Clinton in their revision of international human rights law.9 Bush, of course, went beyond his predecessors in authorizing prima facie violations of international law, and several of his extremist innovations were struck down by the Courts. While Obama, like Bush, eloquently affirms our unwavering commitment to international law, he seems intent on substantially reinstating the extremist Bush measures. In the important case of Boumediene v. Bush in June 2008, the Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional the Bush administration claim that prisoners in Guantanamo are not entitled to the right of habeas corpus. Glenn Greenwald reviews the aftermath. Seeking to "preserve the power to abduct people from around the world" and imprison them without due process, the Bush administration decided to ship them to Bagram, treating "the Boumediene ruling, grounded in our most basic constitutional guarantees, as though it was some sort of a silly game -- fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process." Obama adopted the Bush position, "filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue," arguing that prisoners flown to Bagram from anywhere in the world -- in the case in question, Yemenis and Tunisians captured in Thailand and the UAE -- "can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo." In March, a Bush-appointed federal judge "rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boumediene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo." The Obama administration announced that it would appeal the ruling, thus placing Obama's Department of Justice "squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions," in radical violation of Obama's campaign promises and earlier stands.10 The case of Rasul v Rumsfeld appears to be following a similar trajectory. The plaintiffs charged that Rumsfeld and other high officials were responsible for their torture in Guantanamo, where they were sent after they were captured by Uzbeki warlord Rashid Dostum. Dostum is a notorious thug who was then a leader of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan faction supported by Russia, Iran, India, Turkey, and the Central Asian states, joined by the US as it attacked Afghanistan in October 2001. Dostum then turned him over to US custody, allegedly for bounty money. The plaintiffs claimed that they had traveled to Afghanistan to offer humanitarian relief. The Bush administration sought to have the case dismissed. Obama's Department of Justice filed a brief supporting the Bush position that government officials are not liable for torture and other violations of due process in this case, because the Courts had not yet clearly established the rights that prisoners enjoy.11 It is also reported that Obama intends to revive military commissions, one of the more severe violations of the rule of law during the Bush years. There is a reason. "Officials who work on the Guant?namo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies."12 A serious flaw in the criminal justice system, it appears. There is much debate about whether torture has been effective in eliciting information -- the assumption being, apparently, that if it is effective then it may be justified. By the same argument, when Nicaragua captured US pilot Eugene Hasenfuss in 1986 after shooting down his plane delivering aid to Reagan's contra forces, they should not have tried him, found him guilty, and then sent him back to the US, as they did. Rather, they should have applied the CIA torture paradigm to try to extract information about other terrorist atrocities being planned and implemented in Washington, no small matter for a tiny and poor country under terrorist attack by the global superpower. And Nicaragua should certainly have done the same if they had been able to capture the chief terrorism coordinator, John Negroponte, then Ambassador in Honduras, later appointed counterterrorism Czar, without eliciting a murmur. Cuba should have done the same if they had been able to lay hands on the Kennedy brothers. There is no need to bring up what victims should have done to Kissinger, Reagan, and other leading terrorist commanders, whose exploits leave al-Qaeda far in the distance, and who doubtless had ample information that could have prevented further "ticking bombs." Such considerations, which abound, never seem to arise in public discussion. Accordingly, we know at once how to evaluate the pleas about valuable information. There is, to be sure, a response: our terrorism, even if surely terrorism, is benign, deriving as it does from the city on the hill. Perhaps the most eloquent exposition of this thesis was presented by New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, a respected spokesman of "the left." America's Watch (Human Rights Watch) had protested State Department confirmation of official orders to Washington's terrorist forces to attack "soft targets" -- undefended civilian targets -- and to avoid the Nicaraguan army, as they could do thanks to CIA control of Nicaraguan airspace and the sophisticated communications systems provided to the contras. In response, Kinsley explained that US terrorist attacks on civilian targets are justified if they satisfy pragmatic criteria: a "sensible policy [should] meet the test of cost-benefit analysis," an analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end"13 -- "democracy" as US elites determine. His thoughts elicited no comment, to my knowledge, apparently deemed acceptable. It would seem to follow, then, that US leaders and their agents are not culpable for conducting such sensible policies in good faith, even if their judgment might sometimes be flawed. Perhaps culpability would be greater, by prevailing moral standards, if it were discovered that Bush administration torture cost American lives. That is, in fact, the conclusion drawn by US Major Matthew Alexander [pseudonym], one of the most seasoned interrogators in Iraq, who elicited "the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq," correspondent Patrick Cockburn reports. Alexander expresses only contempt for the harsh interrogation methods: "The use of torture by the US," he believes, not only elicits no useful information but "has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11." From hundreds of interrogations, Alexander discovered that foreign fighters came to Iraq in reaction to the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and that they and their domestic allies turned to suicide bombing and other terrorist acts for the same reason.14 There is also mounting evidence that Cheney-Rumsfeld torture created terrorists. One carefully studied case is that of Abdallah al-Ajmi, who was locked up in Guantanamo on the charge of "engaging in two or three fire fights with the Northern Alliance." He ended up in Afghanistan after having failed to reach Chechnya to fight against the Russian invasion. After four years of brutal treatment in Guantanamo, he was returned to Kuwait. He later found his way to Iraq, and in March 2008 drove a bomb-laden truck into an Iraqi military compound, killing himself and 13 soldiers -- "the single most heinous act of violence committed by a former Guantanamo detainee," the Washington Post reports, the direct result of his abusive imprisonment, his Washington lawyer concludes.15 All much as a reasonable person would expect. Another standard pretext for torture is the context: the "war on terror" that Bush declared after 9/11, a "crime against humanity" carried out with "wickedness and awesome cruelty," as Robert Fisk reported. That crime rendered traditional international law "quaint" and "obsolete," Bush was advised by his legal counsel Alberto Gonzales, later appointed Attorney-General. The doctrine has been widely reiterated in one or another form in commentary and analysis. The 9/11 attack was doubtless unique, in many respects. One is where the guns were pointing: typically it is in the opposite direction. In fact that was the first attack of any consequence on the national territory since the British burned down Washington in 1814. Another unique feature is the scale of terror by a non-state actor. But horrifying as it was, it could have been worse. Suppose that the perpetrators had bombed the White House, killed the president and established a vicious military dictatorship that killed 50-100,000 people and tortured 700,000, set up a huge international terror center that carried out assassinations and helped impose comparable military dictatorships elsewhere, and implemented economic doctrines that destroyed the economy so radically that the state had to virtually take it over a few years later. That would have been a lot worse than 9/11 2001. And it happened, in what Latin Americans often call "the first 9/11," in 1973. The numbers have been changed to per capita equivalents, a realistic way of measuring crimes. Responsibility traces straight back to Washington. Accordingly, the -- quite appropriate -- analogy is out of consciousness, while the facts are consigned to the "abuse of reality" that the na.ve call history. It should also be recalled that Bush did not declare the "war on terror"; he re-declared it. Twenty years earlier, the Reagan administration came into office declaring that a centerpiece of its foreign policy would be a war on terror, "the plague of the modern age" and "a return to barbarism in our time," to sample the fevered rhetoric of the day. That war on terror has also been deleted from historical consciousness, because the outcome cannot readily be incorporated into the canon: hundreds of thousands slaughtered in the ruined countries of Central America and many more elsewhere. Among them an estimated 1.5 million in the terrorist wars sponsored in neighboring countries by Reagan's favored ally apartheid South Africa, which had to defend itself from Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, one of the more world's "more notorious terrorist groups," Washington determined in 1988. In fairness, it should be added that 20 years later Congress voted to remove the ANC from the list of terrorist organizations, so that Mandela is now at last able to enter the US without obtaining a waiver from the government.16 The reigning doctrine is sometimes called "American exceptionalism." It is nothing of the sort. It is probably close to universal among imperial powers. France was hailing its "civilizing mission" while the French Minister of War called for "exterminating the indigenous population" of Algeria. Britain's nobility was a "novelty in the world," John Stuart Mill declared, while urging that this angelic power delay no longer in completing its liberation of India. This classic essay on humanitarian intervention was written shortly after the public revelation of Britain's horrifying atrocities in suppressing the 1857 Indian rebellion. The conquest of the rest of India was in large part an effort to gain a monopoly of opium for Britain's huge narcotrafficking enterprise, by far the largest in world history, designed primarily to compel China to accept Britain's manufactured goods. Similarly, there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Japanese militarists who were bringing an "earthly paradise" to China under benign Japanese tutelage, as they carried out the rape of Nanking. History is replete with similar glorious episodes. As long as such "exceptionalist" theses remain firmly implanted, the occasional revelations of the "abuse of history" can backfire, serving to efface terrible crimes. The My Lai massacre was a mere footnote to the vastly greater atrocities of the post-Tet pacification programs, ignored while indignation focused on this single crime. Watergate was doubtless criminal, but the furor over it displaced incomparably worse crimes at home and abroad -- the FBI-organized assassination of black organizer Fred Hampton as part of the infamous COINTELPRO repression, or the bombing of Cambodia, to mention two egregious examples. Torture is hideous enough; the invasion of Iraq is a far worse crime. Quite commonly, selective atrocities have this function. Historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon, not only because it undermines moral and intellectual integrity, but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that lie ahead. 1 http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=72. Jonathan Landay, "Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link," McClatchy news, April 21. Gordon Trowbridge, "Levin: Iraq link goal of torture," Detroit News, April 22, 2009. 2 Reginald Horsman, Expansion and American Indian Policy (Michigan State, 1967); William Earl Weeks, John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire (Kentucky, 1992). 3 On the record of Providentialist justifications for the most shocking crimes, and its more general role in forging "the American idea," see Nicholas Guyatt, Providence and the Invention of the United States, 1607-1876 (Cambridge 2007). 4 Cited by Lars Schoultz, That Infernal Little Cuban Republic (North Carolina, 2009). 5 Ibid. Alfred McCoy, Policing America's Empire (Wisconsin, 2009). 6 McCoy, A Question of Torture (Metropolitan, 2006). Also McCoy, "The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture," http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html. Harbury (Beacon, 2005). Jane Mayer, "The Battle for a Country's Soul," NY Review, Aug. 14, 2008. 7 News and Comment, Jan. 24, 2009, www.allannairn.com. 8 Schoultz, Comparative Politics, Jan. 1981. Herman, in Chomsky and Herman, Political Economy of Human Rights I, ch. 2.1.1 (South End, 1979); Herman, Real Terror Network, 1 (South End, 1982), 26ff. 9 McCoy, "US has a history." Levinson, "Torture in Iraq & the Rule of Law in America," Daedalus, Summer 2004. 10 Greenwald, "Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now," http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html?source=newsletter. 11 Daphne Eviatar, "Obama Justice Department Urges Dismissal of Another Torture Case," Washington Independent, March 12, 2009, http://washingtonindependent.com/33679/obama-justice-department-urges-dismissal-of-another-torture-case. 12 William Glaberson, "U.S. May Revive Guantanamo Military Courts," NYT, May 1, 2009; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?scp=1&sq=%22military%20commissions%22&st=cse. 13 Kinsley, Wall Street Journal, March 26, 1987. 14 Cockburn, "Torture? It probably killed more Americans than 9/11," Independent, 6 April, 2009. 15 Anonymous (Rajiv Chandrasekaran), "From Captive to Suicide Bomber," WP, Feb. 22, 2009. 16 Joseba Zulaika and William Douglass, Terror and Taboo (Routledge, 1996). Jesse Holland, AP, May 9, 2009. NYT. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Jun 1 16:19:58 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:19:58 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Family of Secrets Message-ID: <068137A7672E40818B890CD8F45BD11E@TonyPC> ....might be worth taking a look at this book...For a preview, see below. T. ----- > If you wait long enough, anything can happen. > > Finally, a hard cover, bookstore-available book > about the criminal enterprise known as the > Bush family. > > Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is > completely ignoring it. > > Details: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/636.html > > > > From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Mon Jun 1 06:05:25 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:05:25 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Akwesasne Mohawks held hostage - bridges blocked - guards walk off Message-ID: <02788a77$39965$0cd73370971991@xnote> AKWESASNE MOHAWKS: BOTH BRIDGES BLOCKED ? CUSTOMS AGENTS WALK OFF AT MIDNIGHT MAY 31SR. Mohawks being held hostage. IS CANADA BECOMING AN ENEMY OF THE U.S.? The Canada Border Services Agency union created trouble to get guns in the hands of the border guards. Their strategy was to make trouble for the Mohawks. The aftermath is that it?s illegal and we don?t forget how brutally we?ve been treated. MNN. June 1, 2009. At 10:00 pm last night, May 31, the chief was coming through Cornwall Island Canada Customs. He was served with a letter from Peter Van Loan, Canada?s Public Safety Minister informing us that ?There will be guns? on June 1st 2009. The Canada Border Services Agents CBSA were to be armed at midnight last night. Instead they walked off. The two bridges to Cornwall Island have been closed. The north span by Cornwall police and the south span by New York State Police. There are native guards in the customs buildings. There has been an RCMP buildup in the area over the last few days. The people met all day yesterday to get a peaceful resolution to all aspects of the issue. They selected four men to be peace keepers. Canada says they want to meet with the leaders. They were told the people are the leaders and will decide what to do. So far no action is being taken. The Men will protect the people. They are at points on each bridge and adjacent to the customs. Canada is escalating the issue by blocking us in. We are now closed in and being held hostage. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne passed resolution #318 on February 28, 2008 forbidding firearms to be carried by Canada Customs Border Service Agents in the Mohawk community. According to their own legislation, that is the law on the territory. According to the will of the people based on the Great Law of Peace, our constitution, our position is against guns. International law supports the Mohawks. It forbids unilateral impositions without full consultation and consent of the majority of the people concerned. Canada must abide by our decisions according to the international conventions they?ve signed. ISSUE: In a democracy government doesn?t tell police what to do. Otherwise it?s a dictatorship. The agents have made a demand they will not work unless they have guns. The CBSA management says it?s out of their hands. The guards dispute is with management. Management and government have no control over them. The guards think they can do what they want because they are protected by their union, acting like a law onto themselves. What ideological group has taken over the union? Obviously they are anti- Mohawk, anti-democracy and anti-American. 514-269-1400. Contact Chief Nona Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Supporters may send comments to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Supporters of Mohawks: MPs Jean Crowder, Indian Affairs critic crowdj at parl.gc.ca ; Anita Neville nevila at parl.gc.ca ; Marc Lemay lemaym at parl.gc.ca ; Sen. Nancy Green; Sen. Gerry St. Germain; From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jun 1 18:00:01 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:00:01 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Maybe We Should Take The North Koreans At Their Word Message-ID: <4A246B81.40201@ashisuto.co.jp> by Tad Daley Tikkun Magazine (May 28 2009) Editor's introduction It is hard to know how to react to the pious lecturing of the US media and government to North Korea. The US has thousands of nukes and has them positioned all around the world to enforce the will of the American empire. The US is the only country on earth that has ever used nuclear weapons in war. What exactly gives the US the moral right to be lecturing North Korea or even Iran on who should or should not have nuclear weapons - except our chutzpah and our military power? But why does the media also continually speak in this same language of offended righteousness, when it is the US, not North Korea, which has just caused the deaths of over a million Asians in Iraq, the displacement into refugee status of another three million, and many more who have been wounded? This is not to say that anyone at Tikkun or the NSP has the slightest sympathy for the regimes in North Korea or Iran - but neither do we have much sympathy for other regimes like those in Pakistan or Russia or Israel that have nuclear weapons already. Perhaps we might be more effective in preventing proliferation of these weapons were we to try the Strategy of Generosity instead of the strategy of domination. And yes, it is the strategy of domination if the US agrees to negotiations, but meanwhile proclaims 'we will not take ANY OPTION off the table' meaning we may use our own nuclear power to back up an assault on other countries if our negotiations don't give us what we are asking for! We've tried the domination strategy with Bush, and it didn't work. How about trying the Global Marshall Plan and the Generosity Strategy? - The Editor of Tikkun Maybe We Should Take The North Koreans At Their Word Pyongyang has consistently said that its nuclear weapons are intended to deter aggression. And, indeed, they do. by Tad Daley Shortly after North Korea exploded its second nuclear device in three years on Monday morning, it released a statement explaining why. "The republic has conducted another underground nuclear testing successfully in order to strengthen our defensive nuclear deterrence". {1} If the Obama Administration hopes to dissuade Pyongyang from the nuclear course it seems so hell bent on pursuing, Washington must understand just how adroitly nuclear arms do appear to serve North Korea's national security. In other words, perhaps we should recognize that they mean what they say. >From the dawn of history until the dawn of the nuclear age, it seemed rather self-evident that for virtually any state in virtually any strategic situation, the more military power one could wield relative to one's adversaries, the more security one gained. That all changed, however, with Alamogordo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the Cold War's long atomic arms race, it slowly dawned on "nuclear use theorists" - whom one can hardly resist acronyming as NUTS - that in the nuclear age, security did not necessarily require superiority. Security required simply an ability to retaliate after an adversary had struck, to inflict upon that opponent "unacceptable damage" in reply. If an adversary knew, no matter how much devastation it might inflict in a first strike, that the chances were good that it would receive massive damage as a consequence (even far less damage than it had inflicted as long as that damage was "unacceptable"), then, according to the logic of nuclear deterrence, that adversary would be dissuaded from striking first. What possible political benefit could outweigh the cost of the possible obliteration of, oh, a state's capital city, and the leaders of that state themselves, and perhaps more than a million lives therein? Admittedly, the unassailable logic of this "unacceptable damage" model of nuclear deterrence - which we might as well call UD - failed to put the brakes on a spiraling Soviet/American nuclear arms competition that began almost immediately after the USSR acquired nuclear weapons of its own in 1949. Instead, a different model of nuclear deterrence emerged, deterrence exercised by the capability completely to wipe out the opponent's society, "mutually assured destruction", which soon came to be known to all as MAD. There were other scenarios of aggression - nuclear attacks on an adversary's nuclear weapons, nuclear or conventional attacks on an adversary's closest allies (in Western and Eastern Europe) - that nuclear weapons were supposed to deter as well. However, the Big Job of nuclear weapons was to dissuade the other side from using their nuclear weapons against one's own cities and society, by threatening to deliver massive nuclear devastation on the opponent's cities and society in reply. "The Department of Defense", said an Ohio congressman in the early 1960s, with some exasperation, "has become the Department of Retaliation". {2} Nevertheless, those who engaged in an effort to slow the arms race often employed the logic of UD in their attempts to do so. "Our twenty thousandth bomb", said Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the Manhattan Project that built the world's first atomic weapons, as early as 1953, "will not in any deep strategic sense offset their two thousandth". {3} "Deterrence does not depend on superiority", said the great strategist Bernard Brodie in 1965. {4} "There is no foreign policy objective today that is so threatened", said retired admiral and former CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1998, "that we would ? accept the risk of receiving just one nuclear detonation in retaliation". {5} Consider how directly the logic of UD applies to the contemporary international environment, to the twin nuclear challenges that have dominated the headlines during most of the past decade, and to the most immediate nuclear proliferation issues now confronting the Obama Administration. Because the most persuasive explanation for the nuclear quests on which both Iran and North Korea have embarked is, indeed, the notion that "deterrence does not depend on superiority". Deterrence depends only an ability to strike back. Iran and North Korea appear to be seeking small nuclear arsenals in order to deter potential adversaries from launching an attack upon them - by threatening them with unacceptable damage in retaliation. Neither North Korea nor Iran could hope to defeat its most powerful potential adversary - the United States - in any kind of direct military confrontation. They cannot repel an actual attack upon them. They cannot shoot American planes and missiles out of the sky. Indeed, no state can. However, what these countries can aspire to do is to dissuade the American leviathan from launching such an attack. How? By developing the capability to instantly vaporize an American military base or three in Iraq or Qatar or South Korea or Japan, or an entire US aircraft carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Japan, or even an American city on one coast or the other. And by making it implicitly clear that they would respond to any kind of assault by employing that capability immediately, before it's too late, following the venerable maxim: "Use them or lose them". The obliteration of an entire American military base, or an entire American naval formation, or an entire American city, would clearly seem to qualify as "unacceptable damage" for the United States. Moreover, to deter an American attack, Iran and North Korea do not need thousands of nuclear warheads. They just need a couple of dozen, well hidden and well protected. American military planners might be almost certain that they could take out all the nuclear weapons in these countries in some kind of a dramatic lightning "surgical strike". However, with nuclear weapons, "almost" is not good enough. Even the barest possibility that such a strike would fail, and that just one or two nuclear weapons would make it into the air, detonate over targets, and result in massive "unacceptable damage" for the United States, would in virtually any conceivable circumstance serve to dissuade Washington from undertaking such a strike. In addition, it is crucial to recognize that Iran and North Korea would not intend for their nascent nuclear arsenals to deter only nuclear attacks upon them. If the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States disappeared tomorrow morning, but America's conventional military superiority remained, it still would be the case that the only possible military asset that these states could acquire, to effectively deter an American military assault, would be the nuclear asset. The "Korean Committee for Solidarity with World Peoples", a mouthpiece for the North Korean government, captured Pyongyang's logic quite plainly just weeks after the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "The Iraqi war taught the lesson that ? the security of the nation can be protected only when a country has a physical deterrent force ?" {6} Similarly, a few weeks earlier, just before the Iraq invasion began, a North Korean general was asked to defend his country's nuclear weapons program, and with refreshing candor replied, "We see what you are getting ready to do with Iraq. And you are not going to do it to us." {7} It really is quite a remarkable development. North Korea today is one of the most desperate countries in the world. Most of its citizens are either languishing in gulags or chronically starving. And yet - in contrast to all the debate that has taken place in recent years about whether the United States and/or Israel ought to launch a preemptive strike on Iran - no one seems to be proposing any kind of military strike on North Korea. Why not? Because of the mere possibility that North Korea could impose unacceptable damage upon us in reply. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about UD is that it seems every bit as effective as MAD. North Korea today possesses no more than a handful of nuclear warheads, and maintains nothing like a "mutual" nuclear balance with the United States. In addition, the retaliation that North Korea can threaten cannot promise anything like a complete "assured destruction". To vaporize an American carrier group in the Sea of Japan, or a vast American military base in South Korea or Japan, or even an American city, would not be at all the same thing as the "destruction" of the entire American nation - as the USSR was able to threaten under MAD. And yet, MAD and UD, it seems, exercise deterrence in precisely the same way. Astonishingly, it seems that Washington finds itself every bit as thoroughly deterred by a North Korea with probably fewer than ten nuclear weapons as it did by a Soviet Union with 10,000. Although UD hardly contains the rich acronymphomaniacal irony wrought by MAD, it appears that both North Korea and Iran intend now to base their national security strategies solidly upon it. There is very little reason to suppose that other states will not soon follow their lead. President Obama, of course, to his great credit, has not only made a nuclear weapon-free Iran and North Korea one of his central foreign policy priorities, he has begun to chart a course toward a nuclear weapon-free world. In a groundbreaking speech before a huge outdoor rally in Prague on April 5th, he said, "Today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons". (Unfortunately, he followed that with the statement that nuclear weapons abolition would not "be achieved quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime", suggesting that neither he nor the nuclear policy officials in his administration fully appreciate the magnitude and immediacy of the nuclear peril. Do they really think the human race can retain nuclear weapons for another half century or so, yet manage to dodge the bullet of nuclear accident, or nuclear terror, or a nuclear crisis spinning out of control every single time?) The one thing we can probably say for sure about the prospects for universal nuclear disarmament is that no state will agree either to abjure or to dismantle nuclear weapons unless it believes that such a course is the best course for its own national security. To persuade states like North Korea and Iran to climb aboard the train to abolition would probably require simultaneous initiatives on three parallel tracks. One track would deliver foreign and defense policies that assure weaker states that we do not intend to attack them, that just as we expect them to abide by the world rule of law they can expect the same from us, that the weak need not cower in fear before the strong. Another track would deliver diplomatic overtures that convince weaker states that on balance, overall, their national security will better be served in a world where no one possesses nuclear weapons, rather than in a world where they do - but so too do many others. And another track still would deliver nuclear weapons policies that directly address the long-simmering resentments around the world about the long-standing nuclear double standard, that directly acknowledge our legacy of nuclear hypocrisy, and that directly connect nuclear non-proliferation to nuclear disarmament. The power decisively to adjust all those variables, of course, does not reside in Pyongyang or Tehran. It resides instead in Washington. Notes: [1] The Washington Post (May 25 2009). [2] Quoted in Daniel Lang, An Inquiry Into Enoughness: Of Bombs and Men and Staying Alive (1965), page 167. [3] Quoted in Ibid, page 38. [4] Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age (1971 - first published in 1965), page 274, quoted in Sarah J Diehl and James Clay Moltz, Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation: A Reference Handbook (2002), page 34. [5] Quoted in The Nation, Special Issue Containing Jonathan Schell's interviews with several nuclear policy professionals and intellectuals (February 2/9 1998), page 40. [6] Quoted in Securing Our Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Tilman Ruff and John Loretz, editors. (2007), page 37. [7] Don Oberdorfer, PBS, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (October 09 2006), quoted in Jonathan Schell, The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger (2007), page 141. _____ Tad Daley is the Writing Fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Nobel Peace Laureate disarmament advocacy organization. His first book, Apocalypse Never: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, is forthcoming from Rutgers University Press in January 2010. http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090528105725478 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Mon Jun 1 18:02:44 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 20:02:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Canada kidnaps Mohawks Message-ID: <02788d13$39965$0d038352319676@xnote> CANADA KIDNAPS THE MOHAWKS ? Bogus guns-at-the-border issue MNN June 1, 2009. Bully Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is trying to start an argument with the Mohawks to bring in paramilitary forces at Akwesasne. On May 26, 2009 he signed into law the Shiprider Agreement, a cross border law between Canada and U.S. The effect is those who stand up for their rights or criticize Canada are terrorists and the government can sue them and seize all their property. This is meant for us. A few years ago a plan was hatched. Prime Minister Harper was friendly with the American real estate people in New York City. They wanted him to change the laws so that Indigenous territories in Canada can be seized by outside interests for non-payment of false fines and criminal convictions. Their interest is primarily in Iroquois territories in southern Quebec and southern Ontario. They also wanted to seize Indigenous property and resources in Alberta and elsewhere. A campaign to discredit us was started. A huge article appeared in the New York Times about us being terrorists. Then the Center for Public Integrity of Washington DC published a series of 12 untruthful articles in the Montreal Gazette that hooked us up with bikers and other gangs. Harper announced it on Sunday, May 31st, in Toronto to the Canadian Jewish Congress. Opposition leader, Michael Ignatief, and many real estate promoters were there. It was another piece of the puzzle being fitted together. He will remove the protection so that his US friends and their Canadian partners can grab billions of dollars of prime Indigenous territories in urban Ontario and Quebec. In exchange they will deliver Ontario to his party in the next election. A Mohawk Band Council Resolution forbids guns at the border. Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety, said the guns are going to be given to the border guards. So far they have not. The border was shut down by the Cornwall city cops and NYS police, not the Mohawks. We can?t drive on or off the Island. If we do, we can?t go home. Grandmothers, grandfathers and children have been branded as terrorists to force us to submit to their demands. Who?s really behind this? Are they foreign elements who have taken power over the military, para military and peacekeeping forces in Canada? It seems decisions are being made by some secret entity with a totalitarian agenda. Could it be the international banksters and multinational corporatists? Why is a standoff being created between Canada and the U.S. with us in the middle? Is there a rift between two long time allies, or is something else really going on? It?s beginning to look more like a police state situation where more are going to be uniformed, carrying guns and deadly tasers. Everyone coming from the US is going to be facing an armed guard at the border. The U.S. citizens might think they are surrounded by enemies. The police control the politicians in Canada and the US. They are dictating their need for weapons. Their hidden agenda is to transform these two colonies on Great Turtle Island into police states. The US has always been worried that Canada was going to become an enemy and vice versa. That?s why Fort Drum Army Base was put 40 miles south of the Canadian border with 90,000 soldiers ready to march in. The Canadian police agencies have been undermined by somebody. What about the Northcom Agreement which is integrating all policing in US and Canada? They want to contain people and to stop freedom of travel. There is no safety issue. Terrorists will not come through the US to Canada. The US is not threatening Canada. In Akwesasne there are around 20 policing agencies. There is no danger whatsoever. Throughout history the Mohawks have always been the peace makers between all the competing parties. We do not become involved in these conflicts between greedy colonial powers that are fighting for control of the world. We learned how to be peacemakers from Dekanawida. Peter Van Loan said, ?It?s no use for the Mohawks to resist?. A whole community being held hostage for being ?Indian? hasn?t happened for a while. In 1990 three Mohawk communities were surrounded for 78 days by the army. This might go on indefinitely. We are patient and always willing to talk. 514-269-1400. Contact Chief Nona Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Supporters may send comments to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Supporters of Mohawks: MPs Jean Crowder, Indian Affairs critic crowdj at parl.gc.ca ; Anita Neville nevila at parl.gc.ca ; Marc Lemay lemaym at parl.gc.ca ; Sen. Nancy Green; Sen. Gerry St. Germain; From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Jun 2 05:41:32 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:41:32 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Entry for the President's Brainstorm Page Message-ID: <4A250FEC.9000809@ashisuto.co.jp> Take Back the Power to Create Money from the Private Banking Industry by Ellen Brown webofdebt.wordpress.com (May 28 2009) Today was the last day to submit entries to the President's Open Government Brainstorm page. I submitted the one below. The website has a place to vote ("Looks Promising!" "Not So Sure".) If you feel like voting, the link is here: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3648-4049 The Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof". This power has been abdicated to private bankers. Today, 99.99% of our money is created by private banks when they make loans. This includes the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, which orders Federal Reserve Notes to be printed, and then lends them to the US government. Only coins are actually created by the government itself. Coins compose only about 1-10,000th of the M3 money supply, and Federal Reserve Notes compose about three percent of it. All of the rest is created by banks as loans, something they do by simply writing numbers into accounts. Congress could take back the power to create the national money supply by: (a) Nationalizing the Federal Reserve. (b) Reviving the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a government-owned lending facility used by Roosevelt to fund the New Deal. Rather than merely recycling borrowed money as Roosevelt did, however, the RFC could actually create credit on its books, in the same way that banks do it today, by fanning its capital base into many times that sum in loans. Assuming $300 billion is left of the TARP money approved by Congress last fall, this money could be deposited into the RFC and leveraged into $3 trillion in loans. That's based on a ten percent reserve requirement. If the money were counted as capital, at an eight percent capital requirement it could be leveraged into 12.5 times the original sum. That would be enough to fund not only President Obama's stimulus package but many other programs that are desperately short of funding now. Many references are available which will be furnished on request. See generally www.webofdebt.com/articles. http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/take-back-the-power-to-create-money-from-the-private-banking-industry/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From barmy_basket at yahoo.es Tue Jun 2 06:43:46 2009 From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:43:46 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Entry for the President's Brainstorm Page In-Reply-To: <4A250FEC.9000809@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4A250FEC.9000809@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <4A251E82.1030601@yahoo.es> Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will soon introduce this legislation: http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2009/06/way-out.html > From suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 09:12:54 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:12:54 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] SA study finds Israel practising apartheid, colonialism in Occupied Palestinian Territories In-Reply-To: References: <1676340244.6283981243886816502.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <484546855.6289431243887682616.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM Subject: Fwd: [R-G] SA study finds Israel practising apartheid, colonialism in Occupied Palestinian Territories To: "kcourtenay at aol.com" Dear Karen: Looks like that silencing set of laws against critisism is going to be a lame duck unless Obama administration signs on to it. really good read. Suzette ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid Shniad Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:21 PM Subject: [R-G] SA study finds Israel practising apartheid, colonialism in Occupied Palestinian Territories To: Suzanne de Kuyper RE-ENVISIONING ISRAEL/PALESTINE Conference, hosted by the HSRC on 13 & 14 June in The Townhouse, Cape Town South African academic study finds that Israel is practising apartheid and colonialism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) has released a study indicating that Israel is practising both colonialism and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories. The study is being posted for public debate on the HSRC website: www.hsrc.ac.za/DG.phtml . The HSRC commissioned an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank to conduct the study. The resulting 300-page draft, titled Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel?s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law, represents 15 months of research and constitutes an exhaustive review of Israel?s practices in the OPT according to definitions of colonialism and apartheid provided by international law. The project was suggested originally by the January 2007 report by eminent South African jurist John Dugard, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Council, when he indicated that Israel practices had assumed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid. Regarding colonialism , the team found that Israel?s policy and practices violate the prohibition on colonialism which the international community developed in the 1960s in response to the great decolonisation struggles in Africa and Asia. Israel's policy is demonstrably to fragment the West Bank and annex part of it permanently to Israel, which is the hallmark of colonialism.Israel has appropriated land and water in the OPT, merged the Palestinian economy with Israel?s economy, and imposed a system of domination over Palestinians to ensure their subjugation to these measures. Through these measures, Israel has denied the indigenous population the right to self-determination and indicated clear intention to assume sovereignty over portions of its land and natural resources. Permanent annexation of territory in this fashion is the hallmark of colonialism. Regarding apartheid , the team found that Israel?s laws and policies in the OPT fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Israeli law conveys privileges to Jewish settlers and disadvantages Palestinians in the same territory on the basis of their respective identities, which function in this case as racialised identities in the sense provided by international law. Israel's practices are corollary to five of the six 'inhuman acts' listed by the Convention. A policy of apartheid is especially indicated by Israel's demarcation of geographic ?reserves? in the West Bank, to which Palestinian residence is confined and which Palestinians cannot leave without a permit. The system is very similar to the policy of ?Grand Apartheid? in apartheid South Africa, in which black South Africans were confined to black Homelands delineated by the South African government, while white South Africans enjoyed freedom of movement and full civil rights in the rest of the country. Quoting from the Executive Summary of the report, project leader Dr Virginia Tilley explained that the three pillars of apartheid in South Africa are all practised by Israel in the OPT. In South Africa, the first pillar was to demarcate the population of South Africa into racial groups, and to accord superior rights, privileges and services to the white racial group. The second pillar was to segregate the population into different geographic areas, which were allocated by law to different racial groups, and restrict passage by members of any group into the area allocated to other groups. And the third pillar was "a matrix of draconian ?security? laws and policies that were employed to suppress any opposition to the regime and to reinforce the system of racial domination, by providing for administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning, and assassination." The Report finds that Israeli practices in the OPT exhibit the same three 'pillars' of apartheid: The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews". The second pillar is reflected in "Israel?s 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel?s extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians". The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group." The research team included scholars and international lawyers based at the HSRC, the School for Oriental and African Studies (London), the British Institute for International and Comparative Law, the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (Durban), the Adalah/Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel and al-Haq/West Bank Affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists. Consultation on the study?s theory and method was provided by eminent jurists from South Africa, Israel and Europe. The HSRC serves as the national social science council for South Africa. The Middle East Project of the HSRC is an independent two-year project to conduct analysis of Middle East politics relevant to South African foreign policy, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Government of South Africa. The analysis in this report is entirely independent of the views or foreign policy of the Government of South Africa and does not represent an official position of the HSRC. It is intended purely as a scholarly resource for the South African government and civil society and the concerned international community. For more information or interviews, contact: mep at hsrc.ac.za or +27-21-466-7924. http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3230.phtml Democracy and Governance Programme Middle East Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 2009 Cape Town, South Africa Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israel?s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law The M IDDLE E AST P ROJECT is housed in the Democracy and Governance Programme of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. This Executive Summary and the full study can be downloaded from the HSRC Democracy & Governance website ( www.hsrc.ac.za/DG.phtml) at no charge. Duplication of this publication for commercial purposes is prohibited. The Human Sciences Research Council was established in 1968 by an Act of the South African Parliament to conduct applied social science research in the public interest. It serves as the national social science council for South Africa. Website: www.hsrc.ac.za Inquiries should be addressed to: The Middle East Project Democracy and Governance Programme Human Sciences Research Council Private Bag X9182 Cape Town South Africa 8000 Email: mep at hsrc.ac.za Tel: +27-21-466-8070 Street Address: 10th floor Plein Park Building 69-83 Plein Street Cape Town South Africa 8001 Editor?s Note: This Executive Summary and the full version of this report are drafts on which comments are invited. The HSRC editorial team regrets any typographical errors resulting from desktop publishing. ? All rights reserved to the Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, May 2009. Contributors: Editor: Virginia Tilley, Coordinator, Middle East Project, and Chief Research Specialist, Democracy & Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council Administrative Support: Tania Fraser, HSRC Principal Contributors: Max du Plessis, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal (Durban) and Senior Research Associate, Institute for Security Studies Fatmeh El-Ajou, Lawyer, Adalah/Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Haifa) Victor Kattan, Teaching Fellow, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS, University of London John Reynolds, Legal Researcher, Al-Haq (West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists) Rina Rosenberg, Esq. International Advocacy Director, Adalah/Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Haifa) Iain Scobbie, Sir Joseph Hotung Research Professor in Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Law, SOAS, University of London Virginia Tilley, Chief Research Specialist, Democracy & Governance Programme, Human Sciences Research Council (Cape Town) Contributing Researchers: Adalah ? The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel: Rana Asali, Legal Fellow; Katie Hesketh, Publications Researcher; Belkis Wille, Research Fellow Al-Haq (West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists): Legal Research and Advocacy Department: Michelle Burgis; Gareth Gleed; Lisa Monaghan; Fadi Quran; Mays Warrad Godfrey Musila, at the time of research, at the South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and International Law (Johannesburg), presently at the International Crime in Africa Programme, Institute for Security Studies (Pretoria) Consultation: John Dugard, Extraordinary Professor, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories (The Hague) Hassan Jabareen, Lawyer and General Director, Adalah/Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel Daphna Golan, Director, Minerva Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University (Jerusalem) Jody Kollapen, CEO, South African Commission on Human Rights (Pretoria) Stephanie Koury, Research Fellow, Sir Joseph Hotung Programme on Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, SOAS, University of London Gilbert Marcus, Senior Counsel and Constitutional Lawyer (Johannesburg) Michael Sfard, Lawyer (Tel Aviv) Pieter A. Stemmet, Advocate and Senior State Law Advisor, Department of Foreign Affairs, Government of South Africa (Pretoria) Background Note: This study was commissioned and coordinated by the Middle East Project (MEP) of the Democracy and Governance Programme, a research programme of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. The genesis of this study was the suggestion made in January 2007 by Professor John Dugard, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, that Israel?s military occupation displays elements of colonialism and apartheid. The Human Sciences Research Council commissioned this study to scrutinise Professor Dugard?s hypothesis from the perspective of international law. Over a period of 15 months, the team of scholars engaged in extensive research, discussion, and rounds of lively debate through seven drafts. The result is the consensus represented in this report, offered here for public discussion. Constructive criticism is welcomed, in order that shortcomings in this document may be addressed in a future edition. Although this study is essentially a legal document, observations from other disciplines are encouraged. The Executive Summary was presented for public discussion on 16 May 2009 at the School for Oriental and African Studies (London), at a public seminar co-hosted by the HSRC and the Sir Joseph Hotung Project in Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, based at the Law School of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The M IDDLE E AST P ROJECT is an independent two-year project of the HSRC, conducted from June 2007 through June 2009, to conduct analysis of Middle East politics relevant to South African foreign policy. Its funding was provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Government of South Africa. The analysis in this report is entirely independent of the views or foreign policy of the Government of South Africa and does not represent an official position of the HSRC, nor should it be taken to represent the views of contributors listed here under ?Consultation?. It is intended purely as a scholarly resource for the Department of Foreign Affairs and the concerned international community. Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid? A. Introduction B. Legal Framework for this Study C. Legal Framework in the Occupied Palestinian Territories D. Findings on Colonialism E. Findings on Apartheid F. Implications and Recommendations A. Introduction The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned this study to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard in the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council in January 2007, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel (namely, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time, elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the Occupying Power and third States? In order to consider these consequences, this study set out to examine legally the premises of Professor Dugard?s question: is Israel the occupant of the OPT, and, if so, do elements of its occupation of these territories amount to colonialism or apartheid? South Africa has an obvious interest in these questions given its bitter history of apartheid, which entailed the denial of self- determination to its majority population and, during its occupation of Namibia, the extension of apartheid to that territory which South Africa effectively sought to colonise. These unlawful practices must not be replicated elsewhere: other peoples must not suffer in the way the populations of South Africa and Namibia have suffered. To explore these issues, an international team of scholars was assembled. The aim of this project was to scrutinise the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric. This study is the outcome of a fifteen- month collaborative process of intensive research, consultation, writing and review. It concludes and, it is to be hoped, persuasively argues and clearly demonstrates that Israel, since 1967, has been the belligerent Occupying Power in the OPT, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid. Belligerent occupation in itself is not an unlawful situation: it is accepted as a possible consequence of armed conflict. At the same time, under the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law), occupation is intended to be only a temporary state of affairs. International law prohibits the unilateral annexation or permanent acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force: should this occur, no State may recognise or support the resulting unlawful situation. In contrast to occupation, both colonialism and apartheid are always unlawful and indeed are considered to be particularly serious breaches of international law because they are fundamentally contrary to core values of the international legal order. Colonialism violates the principle of self-determination, which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed as ?one of the essential principles of contemporary international law?. All States have a duty to respect and promote self-determination. Apartheid is an aggravated case of racial discrimination, which is constituted according to the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereafter ?Apartheid Convention?) by ?inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them?. The practice of apartheid, moreover, is an international crime. Professor Dugard in his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 suggested that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel?s conduct should be sought from the ICJ. This advisory opinion would complement the opinion that the ICJ delivered in 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories (hereafter ?the Wall advisory opinion?). This course of legal action does not exhaust the options open to the international community, nor indeed the duties of third States and international organisations when they are apprised that another State is engaged in the practices of colonialism or apartheid. The scope of this study was determined by the question it poses: whether Israel?s practises in the OPT amount to colonialism or apartheid under international law. Hence Israel?s practices inside the Green Line (1949 Armistice Line) are not examined, except where they illuminate Israeli policies in the OPT. The history of the conflict before Israel?s occupation began in June 1967 as a result of the Six-Day War is also not addressed, except where this is necessary to clarify the application of international law to the OPT. Questions of individual criminal responsibility or culpability for the commission of acts which constitute apartheid are also beyond the scope of this study, which focuses instead on the question of the responsibility of States as a result of internationally wrongful acts. B. Legal Framework for this Study This study is based on fundamental concepts and principles of international law and draws on diverse branches of substantive international law, in particular the law regulating belligerent occupation which forms part of the law of armed conflict. Israel remains the belligerent occupant of the OPT as they are territories over which Israel does not possess sovereignty but only a temporary right of administration. Consequently, Israel must abide by the relevant rules of the law of armed conflict?principally the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949?in its administration of the territories. The law of armed conflict is supplemented by international human rights law which also applies in occupied territory. The prohibitions on colonialism and apartheid are rooted principally in the field of international human rights law. Colonialism and apartheid both constitute serious violations of fundamental human rights. Colonialism has been consistently condemned by the international community because it prevents, and aims to prevent, a people from exercising freely its right to determine its own future through its own political institutions and in pursuit of its own economic policy. Although theoretical aspects of colonialism have increasingly been addressed in recent years in post- colonial and third world approaches to international law, the substantive aspects of colonialism have receded from international attention in recent decades following decolonisation in Africa and Asia over the course of the twentieth century. The main instrument of international law regarding colonialism, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960, hereafter ?the Declaration on Colonialism?), condemns ?colonialism in all its forms and manifestations?, which includes ?settler colonialism? such as was practiced, for example, in South Africa. Other laws and UN resolutions contribute to an understanding of colonialism, its threat to the enjoyment of human rights and the obligation of all states to ensure its abolition. This body of law and commentary establishes the basis for and the standard against which the review of Israel?s practices is undertaken in this study. Apartheid is an aggravated form of racial discrimination because it is a State-sanctioned regime of law and institutions that has ?the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them?. This definition is employed in the Apartheid Convention, which builds on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965, hereafter ?ICERD?). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998, hereafter ?Rome Statute?) includes apartheid as a crime falling within the Court?s jurisdiction. While this study does not consider the criminal responsibility of individuals, the provisions of these three treaties were employed to develop a working definition of apartheid for the purpose of considering Israel?s State responsibility for practices that offend against the norm prohibiting apartheid. The rules of international law prohibiting colonialism and apartheid are peremptory: that is, they are rules ?accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as [rules] from which no derogation is permitted?. Every State owes a legal duty to the international community as a whole not to engage in practices of colonialism or apartheid. Conversely, all States have an interest in ensuring that these rules are respected because they enshrine fundamental values of international public order. Faced with a violation of the prohibitions of colonialism and apartheid, all States have three duties: to co-operate to end the violation; not to recognise the illegal situation arising from it; and not to render aid or assistance to the State committing it. C. Legal Framework in the Occupied Palestinian Territories To examine Israeli practices for qualities of colonialism and apartheid one must first consider the wider framework of law in the OPT, including applicable international law and Israeli law. This framework is structured by three basic legal facts. First, the Palestinian people has the right to self-determination, with all the attendant consequences this entails under the relevant principles and instruments of international law. Second, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip remain under belligerent occupation. Israel?s arguments that the Palestinian territories are not ?occupied? in the sense of international law have been rejected by the international community. Israel does not possess sovereignty in these territories but only a temporary right of administration. As a conse- quence, Israel?s annexation of East Jerusalem has been dismissed as unlawful and is not recognised by the international community. The occupied status of the West Bank was confirmed by the ICJ in the Wall advisory opinion. Israel?s ?disengagement? from the Gaza Strip did not constitute the end of occupation because, despite the redeployment of its military ground forces from Gaza, it retains and exercises effective control over the territory. In all of the occupied Palestinian territories, Palestinians are therefore ?protected persons? under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention: namely, they are persons who ?find themselves, in the case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals?. Third, the prolonged length of Israel?s occupation has not altered Israel?s obligations as an Occupying Power as set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations. Israel must therefore abide by the relevant rules of the law of armed conflict in its administration of the territories, as these are supplemented by international human rights law. In the light of this normative framework, Israel?s administration of the OPT systematically breaches the law of armed conflict, both by disregarding the prohibition imposed on an Occupying Power not to alter the laws in force in occupied territory and by enforcing a dual and discriminatory legal regime on Jewish and Palestinian residents of the OPT. Israel grants to Jewish residents of the settlements in the OPT the protections of Israeli domestic law and subjects them to the jurisdiction of Israeli civil courts. Palestinians living in the same territory are ruled under military law and subjected to the jurisdiction of military courts whose procedures violate international standards for the prosecution of justice. As a consequence of this bifurcated system, Jewish residents of the OPT enjoy freedom of movement, civil protections, and services denied to Palestinians, while Palestinians are simultaneously denied the protections accorded to protected persons by international humanitarian law. This dual system has gained the imprimatur of Israel?s High Court and constitutes a policy by the State of Israel to sustain two parallel societies in the OPT, one Jewish and the other Palestinian, and discriminate between these two groups by according them very different rights, protections, and life chances in the same territory. This system has entailed serious violations of the law of armed conflict, but, as this study demonstrates, it also involves violations of the international legal prohibitions of colonialism and apartheid. D. Findings on Colonialism Although international law provides no single decisive definition of colonialism, the terms of the Declaration on Colonialism indicate that a situation may be classified as colonial when the acts of a State have the cumulative outcome that it annexes or otherwise unlawfully retains control over territory and thus aims permanently to deny its indigenous population the exercise of its right to self-determination. Five issues, which are unlawful in themselves, taken together make it evident that Israel?s rule in the OPT has assumed such a colonial character: namely, violating the territorial integrity of occupied territory; depriving the population of occupied territory of the capacity for self-governance; integrating the economy of occupied territory into that of the occupant; breaching the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources in relation to the occupied territory; and denying the population of occupied territory the right freely to express, develop and practice its culture. Israel?s annexation of East Jerusalem is manifestly an act based on colonial intent. It is unlawful in itself, as annexation breaches the principle underpinning the law of occupation: that occupation is only a temporary situation that does not vest sovereignty in the Occupying Power. Annexation also breaches the legal prohibition on the acquisition of territory through the threat or use of force. This prohibition has peremptory status, as it is a corollary of the prohibition on the use of force in international relations enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Israel?s acquisition of territory in the West Bank also starkly illustrates this intent: the construction of Jewish-only settlements within contiguous blocs of land that Palestinians cannot enter; a connecting road system between the settlements and the settlements and cities within the Green Line, the use of which is denied to Palestinians; and a Wall that separates Jewish and Palestinian populations while also dividing Palestinian communities from each other, with passage between Palestinian areas controlled by Israel. By thus partitioning contiguous blocs of Palestinian areas into cantons, Israel has violated the territorial integrity of the OPT in violation of the Declaration on Colonialism. The physical control exercised over these areas is complemented by the administration that Israel exercises over the OPT, which prevents its protected population from freely exercising political authority over that territory. This determination is unaffected by the conclusion of the Oslo Accords and the creation of the Palestinian National Authority and Legislative Council. The devolution of power to these institutions has been only partial, and Israel retains ultimate control. By preventing the free expression of the Palestinian population?s political will, Israel has violated that population?s right to self-determination. The law of self-determination further requires a State in belligerent occupation of foreign territory to keep that territory separate from its own, in order to prevent its annexation, and also to keep their economies separate. Israel has subordinated the economy of the OPT to its own, depriving the population under occupation of the capacity to govern its economic affairs. In particular, the creation of a customs union between Israel and the OPT is a measure of prohibited annexation. By virtue of the structural economic measures it has imposed on the OPT, Israel has violated the Palestinian population?s right of economic self-determination and its duties as an Occupying Power. The economic dimension of self-determination is also expressed in the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, which entitles a people to dispose freely of the natural wealth and resources found within the limits of its national jurisdiction. Israel?s settlement policy and the construction of the bypass road network and the Wall have deprived the Palestinian population of the control and development of an estimated 38 percent of West Bank land. It has also implemented a water management and allocation system that favours Israel and Jewish settlers in the OPT to the detriment of the Palestinian population. Not only is this practice contrary to the lawful use of natural resources in time of occupation, which is limited to the needs of the occupying army, but it is also contrary to international water law as the allocation employed is both unjust and inequitable. Moreover, it is significant that the route of the Wall is similar to Israel?s ?red line? that delineates those areas of the West Bank from which Israel can withdraw without relinquishing its control over key water resources that are used to supply Israel and the settlements. Thus, by its treatment of the natural resources of the OPT, Israel has further breached the economic dimension of self-determination, as expressed in the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Finally, self-determination also has a cultural component: a people entitled to exercise the right of self-determination has the right freely to develop and practice its culture. Israeli practices privilege the language and cultural referents of the occupier, while materially hampering the cultural development and expression of the Palestinian population. This last issue renders Israel?s denial of the right to self-determination in the OPT comprehensive. In his report, Professor Dugard suggested that elements of the occupation resembled colonialism. This study demonstrates that the implementation of a colonial policy by Israel has not been piecemeal but is systematic and comprehensive, as the exercise of the Palestinian population?s right to self-determination has been frustrated in all of its principal modes of expression. E. Findings on Apartheid The analysis of apartheid in this study encompasses three distinct issues: (1) the definition of apartheid; (2) the status of the prohibition of apartheid in international law; and (3) whether Israel?s practices in the OPT amount to a breach of that prohibition. Article 3 of ICERD prohibits the practice of apartheid as a particularly egregious form of discrimination, but it does not define the practice with precision. The Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute have developed the prohibition of apartheid in two ways: they criminalise certain apartheid-related acts and further elaborate the definition of apartheid. The Apartheid Convention criminalises ?inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them?. The Rome Statute criminalises inhumane acts committed in the context of, and to maintain, ?an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.? Both focus on the systematic, institutionalised, and oppressive character of the discrimination involved and the purpose of domination that is entailed. This distinguishes the practice of apartheid from other forms of prohibited discrimination and from other contexts in which the listed crimes arise. The prohibition of apartheid has also assumed the status of customary international law and, further, is established as a peremptory rule of international law (a jus cogens norm) which entails obligations owed to the international community as a whole (obligations erga omnes). In drafting this study, it was necessary to develop a methodology to determine whether an instance of apartheid has developed outside southern Africa. This aspect of the study was organised according to the definition of apartheid contained in Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention, which cites six categories of ?inhuman acts? as comprising the ?crime of apartheid?. This list is intended to be illustrative and inclusive, rather than exhaustive or exclusive. Accordingly, a determination that apartheid exists does not require that all the listed acts are practiced: for example, Article 2(b) regarding the intended ?physical destruction? of a group did not apply generally to apartheid policy in South Africa. Practices not expressly enumerated may also be relevant, as Article 2 mentions ?similar policies and practices ? as practiced in southern Africa?. For the purposes of this study, it was therefore assumed that a positive finding of apartheid need not establish that all practices cited in Article 2 are present, or that those precise practices are present, but rather that ?policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination? combine to form an institutionalised system of racial discrimination that has not only the effect but the purpose of maintaining racial domination by one racial group over the other. Fundamental to the question of apartheid is determining whether the groups involved can be understood as ?racial groups?. This required first examining how racial discrimination is defined in ICERD and the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, which concluded that no scientific or impartial method exists for determining whether any group is a racial group and that the question rests on local perceptions. In the OPT, this study finds that ?Jewish? and ?Palestinian? identities are socially constructed in the OPT as groups distinguished by ancestry or descent as well as nationality, ethnicity, and religion. On this basis, the study concludes that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can be considered ?racial groups? for the purposes of the definition of apartheid in international law. In examining Israel?s practices under the prism of the Apartheid Convention, this study also recalls the system of apartheid as it was practiced in South Africa because those practices illustrate the concerns and intentions of the drafters of the Apartheid Convention. It must be clear, however, that practices in South Africa are not the test or benchmark for a finding of apartheid elsewhere, as the principal instrument which provides this test lies in the terms of the Apartheid Convention itself. By examining Israel?s practices in the light of Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention, this study concludes that Israel has introduced a system of apartheid in the OPT. In regard to each ?inhuman act? listed in Article 2, the study has found the following: o Article 2(a) regarding the denial of the right to life and liberty of person is satisfied by Israeli measures to repress Palestinian dissent against the occupation and its system of domination. Israel's policies and practices include murder, in the form of extrajudicial killings; torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees; a military court system that falls far short of international standards for fair trial; and arbitrary arrest and detention of Palestinians, including administrative detention imposed without charge or trial and lacking adequate judicial review. All of these practices are discriminatory in that Palestinians are subject to legal systems and courts which apply standards of evidence and procedure that are different from those applied to Jewish settlers living the OPT and that result in harsher penalties for Palestinians. o Article 2(b) regarding ?the deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part? is not satisfied, as Israel?s policies and practices in the OPT are not found to have the intent of causing the physical destruction of the Palestinian people. Policies of collective punishment that entail grave consequences for life and health, such as closures imposed on the Gaza Strip that limit or eliminate Palestinian access to essential health care and medicine, fuel, and adequate nutrition, and Israeli military attacks that inflict high civilian casualties, are serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law but do not meet the threshold required by this provision regarding the OPT as a whole. o Article 2(c) regarding measures calculated to prevent a racial group from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and to prevent the full devel- opment of a group through the denial of basic human rights and freedoms is satisfied on several counts: (i) Restrictions on the Palestinian right to freedom of movement are endemic in the West Bank, stemming from Israel's control of the OPT's checkpoints and crossings, impediments created by the Wall and its crossing points, a matrix of separate roads, and obstructive and all-encompassing permit and ID systems that apply solely to Palestinians. (ii) The right of Palestinians to choose their own place of residence within their territory is severely curtailed by systematic administrative restrictions on Palestinian residency and building in East Jerusalem, by discriminatory legislation that operates to prevent Palestinian spouses from living together on the basis of which part of the OPT they originate from, and by the strictures of the permit and ID systems. (iii) Palestinians are denied their right to leave and return to their country. Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 from the territory now inside Israel who are living in the OPT (approximately 1.8 million people including descendents) are not allowed to return to their former places of residence. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced to surrounding states from the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 have been prevented from returning to the OPT. Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 to surrounding states (approximately 4.5 million) are not allowed to return to either Israel or the OPT. Palestinian residents of the OPT must obtain Israeli permission to leave the territory. In the Gaza Strip, especially since 2006, this permission is almost completely denied, even for educational or medical purposes. Political activists and human rights defenders are often subject to arbitrary and undefined 'travel bans', while many Palestinians who travelled and lived abroad for business or personal reasons have had their residence IDs revoked and been prohibited from returning. (iv) Israel denies Palestinians in the OPT their right to a nationality by denying Palestinian refugees from inside the Green Line their right of return, residence, and citizenship in the State (Israel) governing the land of their birth. Israel?s policies in the OPT also effectively deny Palestinians their right to a nationality by obstructing the exercise of the Palestinian right to self-determination through the formation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip. (v) Palestinians are restricted in their right to work, through Israeli policies that severely curtail Palestinian agriculture and industry in the OPT, restrict exports and imports, and impose pervasive obstacles to internal movement that impair access to agricultural land and travel for employment and business. Although formerly significant, Palestinian access to work inside Israel has been almost completely cut off in recent years by prevailing closure policies and is now negligible. Palestinian unemployment in the OPT as a whole has reached almost 50 percent. (vi) Palestinian trade unions exist but are not recognised by the Israeli government or by the Histadrut (the main Israeli trade union) and cannot effectively represent Palestinians working for Israeli employers and businesses. Although these workers are required to pay dues to the Histadrut, it does not represent their interests and concerns, and Palestinians have no voice in formulating Histadrut policies. Palestinian unions are also prohibited from functioning in Israeli settlements in the OPT where Palestinians work in construction and other sectors. (vii) The right of Palestinians to education is not impacted directly by Israeli policy, as Israel does not operate the school system in the OPT, but education is severely impeded by military rule. Israeli military actions have included extensive school closures, direct attacks on schools, severe restrictions on movement, and arrests and detention of teachers and students. Israel?s denial of exit permits has prevented hundreds of students in the Gaza Strip from continuing their education abroad. Discrimination in relation to education is striking in East Jerusalem. A segregated school system operates in the West Bank as Palestinians are not allowed to attend government-funded schools in Jewish settlements. (viii) The right of Palestinians to freedom of opinion and expression is greatly restricted through censorship laws enforced by the military authorities and endorsed by the High Court of Justice. Since 2001, the Israeli Government Press Office has greatly limited Palestinian press accreditation. Journalists are regularly restricted from entering the Gaza Strip and Palestinian journalists suffer from patterns of harassment, detention, confiscation of materials, and even killing. (ix) Palestinians? right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association is impeded through military orders. Military legislation bans public gatherings of ten or more persons without a permit from the Israeli military commander. Non-violent demonstrations are regularly suppressed by the Israeli army with live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets, tear gas, improper use of projectiles such as tear gas canisters, and arrests of participants. Most Palestinian political parties have been declared illegal and institutions associated with those parties, such as charities and cultural organisations, are regularly subjected to closure and attack. (x) The prevention of full development in the OPT and participation of Palestinians in political, economic, social and cultural life is most starkly demonstrated by the effects of Israel's ongoing siege and regular large-scale military attacks on the Gaza Strip. Although this is denied by Israel, the population of the Gaza Strip is experiencing an on-going severe humanitarian crisis. o Article 2(d), which relates to division of the population along racial lines, has three elements, two of which are satisfied: (i) Israel has divided the West Bank into reserves or cantons in which residence and entry is determined by each individual?s group identity. Entry by one group into the zone of the other group is prohibited without a permit. The Wall and its infrastructure of gates and permanent checkpoints suggest a policy permanently to divide the West Bank into racial cantons. Israeli government ministries, the World Zionist Organisation and other Jewish-national institutions operating as authorised agencies of the State plan, fund and implement construction of the West Bank settlements and their infrastructure for exclusively Jewish use. (ii) Article 2(d) is not satisfied regarding a prohibition on mixed marriages between Jews and Palestinians. The proscription of civil marriage in Israeli law and the authority of religious courts in matters of marriage and divorce, coupled with restrictions on where Jews and Palestinians can live in the OPT, present major practical obstacles to any potential mixed marriage but do not constitute a formal prohibition. (iii) Israel has extensively appropriated Palestinian land in the OPT for exclusively Jewish use. Private Palestinian land comprises about 30 percent of the land unlawfully appropriated for Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Presently, 38 percent of the West Bank is completely closed to Palestinian use, with significant restrictions on access to much of the rest of it. o Article 2(e) relating to the exploitation of labour is today not significantly satisfied, as Israel has raised barriers to Palestinian employment inside Israel since the 1990s and Palestinian labour is now used extensively only in the construction and services sectors of Jewish-Israeli settlements in the OPT. Otherwise, exploitation of labour has been replaced by practices that fall under Article 2(c) regarding the denial of the right to work. o Arrest, imprisonment, travel bans and the targeting of Palestinian parliamentarians, national political leaders and human rights defenders, as well as the closing down of related organisations by Israel, represent persecution for opposition to the system of Israeli domination in the OPT, within the meaning of Article 2(f). In sum, Israel appears clearly to be implementing and sustaining policies intended to maintain its domination over Palestinians in the OPT and to suppress opposition of any form to those policies. The comparative analyses of South African apartheid practices threaded throughout the analysis of apartheid in this report illuminates, rather than defines, the meaning of apartheid. Certainly differences are evident between apartheid as it was applied in South Africa and Israel?s policies and practices in the OPT. Nonetheless, the two systems can be defined by similar dominant features. A troika of legislation underpinned the South African apartheid regime and established its three principal features or pillars. The first pillar was formally to demarcate the population of South Africa into racial groups through the Population Registration Act (1950) and to accord superior rights, privileges and services to the white racial group: for example, through the Bantu Building Workers Act of 1951, the Bantu Education Act of 1953 and the Separate Amenities Act of 1953. This pillar consolidated earlier discriminatory laws into a pervasive system of institutionalised racial discrimination, which prevented the enjoyment of basic human rights by non-white South Africans based on their racial identity as established by the Population Registration Act. The second pillar was to segregate the population into different geographic areas, which were allocated by law to different racial groups, and restrict passage by members of any group into the area allocated to other groups, thus preventing any contact between groups that might ultimately compromise white supremacy. This strategy was defined by the Group Areas Act of 1950 and the Pass Laws?which included the Native Laws Amendment Act of 1952 and the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act of 1952?as well as the Natives (Urban Areas) Amendment Act 1955, the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act 1945 and the Coloured Persons Communal Reserves Act 1961. This separation constituted the basis for the policy labelled ?grand apartheid? by its South African architects, which provided for the establishment of ?Homelands? or ?Bantustans? into which denationalised black South Africans were transferred and forced to reside, in order to allow the white minority to deny them the enjoyment of any political rights in, and preserve white supremacy over, the majority of the territory of South Africa. Although the Homelands were represented by the South African government as offering black South Africans the promise of complete independence in distinct nation-States, and thus satisfying their right to self- determination, the Homelands were not recognised by either the African National Congress or the international community and were condemned by UN resolutions as violations of both South Africa?s territorial integrity and of the right of the African people of South Africa as a whole to self-determination. Having divided the population into distinct racial groups, and dictated which groups could live and move where, South Africa?s apartheid policies were buttressed by a third pillar: a matrix of draconian ?security? laws and policies that were employed to suppress any opposition to the regime and reinforce the system of racial domination, by providing for administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning, and assassination. _______________________________________________ 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: 54716 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090602/219ed5c9/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 09:39:34 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 17:39:34 +0200 Subject: [A-List] G M and the German government Message-ID: Evidently General Motors was allowed, if not prompted, to negotiate with the Geman government as to the cost to them of Opel, in the person of Angela Merkle. This is awesomely insulting to them. G M is acompany that is bankrupt because of it's royal insistence on being always right, while being always wrong, and allowed to get away with such behaviour by the U S government always agreeing. Millions of people will lose everything as dealerships by the thousands shut down. That the U S government again gives GM negotiating status over the government itself demeans everyone but the fraudulent entity that GM has become. This was not lost on either Germany or Angela Merkle. The U S on the other hand has watched the giant rob everyone with full government approval for so many years US media will not comment, except minimally. Operating procedure. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1005 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090602/876ccaae/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Jun 2 20:13:33 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:13:33 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Shattered and Shuttered Message-ID: <4A25DC4D.4090406@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (June 01 2009) The dollar was up to its armpits in quicksand, and oil prices had crept stealthily into the death-to-airlines range, and if, in the old slogan, what's good for General Motors really is good for the USA, then destiny was dealing a harsh lesson to The Land of the Free - while I made a drive on Thursday (in a Japanese rent-a-car) through the remotest ends of upstate New York State into the province of Ontario, Canada, to see what I could see. What I saw was pretty scary. You get into these far reaches of upstate New York and your senses report that you have entered something like an HP Lovecraft story {1}, where the sun comes up twenty minutes late, and the magnetic poles are not where they're supposed to be, and the few remaining denizens of the towns all have eleven fingers ... Even though I've seen plenty of desolation like it in other parts of the country - the back roads of Ohio, the Mississippi River towns of the upper Midwest, the morbid stretch of blue highway between Memphis and Little Rock - I've never encountered a landscape so shattered by the mere ravages of economic fate. The most striking feature is how all the things once so "modern", all the roadside business enterprises designed along "space age" motifs - the car dealerships with boomerang-shaped signs, the rocket-ship-style food huts, the schools that look like atomic power installations - all teeter now in sublime decrepitude. The reversal of spirit from childlike exuberance of the 1960s to the senile sclerosis of today said everything about where America is at. Much of what existed before the space age is not even there anymore, bulldozed decades ago in our haste to erase pre-drive-in living, as if it branded us a lower life-form than, say, our arch-enemy, the Soviets. I've wondered for many years what Modernism would be like when time finally passed it by, when it was no longer the sole thing it declared itself to be, up-to-date - and there it was smeared all over the landscape like so much road kill. The most horrifying part of the trip was the old city of Watertown, a short hop shy of the Canadian border. Named after the many falls located on the Black River, the city developed early in the 19th century as a manufacturing center. From years of generating industrial wealth, in the early 20th century the city was said to have more millionaires per capita than any other city in the nation. Residents of Watertown built a rich public and private architectural legacy. It is the smallest city to have a park designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, the celebrated landscape architect who created Central Park in New York City. - Wikipedia {2} All that industry is gone now, apparently, and all that's left of the town's economy is whatever it gets from nearby Fort Drum, the giant US Army installation. Nineteen year old soldiers-in-training are not so impressed by Olmsted parks and the civic embellishments dreamed up by timber magnates, bankers, and the owners of piano factories. The humanity visible on the downtown streets of Watertown looked like extras who wandered away from the latest Road Warrior location shoot - semi-hominid creatures with strange loping gaits, arresting hair-dos, and enough tattoos to qualify them for harpoon duty on Herman Melville's Pequod. You passed by groups of them on the streets and wanted to make sure the car's doors were locked. At the heart of the old town, everything possible had been done to erase the vestiges of pre-automobile living. I suppose this is because the first thing many young army recruits did until fairly recently was buy a car. If having to join the army (because there are so few other jobs) buys you a ticket to The American Dream, then getting a car is the consolation prize - even if you have to make four years of "easy monthly payments" on it. Very little of the town's physical history was left standing, and most of it stood in isolation, devoid of context, awaiting the next parade of the front-end-loaders. What was left of "the action" had shifted to a ghastly franchise strip along the Route 3 connector to I-81. This stretch of highway was clearly where all the money had gone since, say 1976, though mostly to the pavement itself and its heroic furnishings of signage, light poles, multiple turning lanes, and curb cuts. The buildings were little more than packing crates with a few plastic doo-dads stuck on. You had to wonder if all this stuff would ever see another iteration of repair and restoration. I doubt it. Burger King was doing some kind of promotion in its Watertown huts and the marquee in their several parking lots proclaimed - I swear to God - "Ask us about our Angry Burger". WTF? Is the rage of lumpen America so repressed now that it can only be expressed in menu items that turn people into hulking four-hundred-pound monsters? It was, I'm sad to say, a relief to cross the border out of my own country. Once you got off the main highway of Canada, 401, along the north side of Lake Ontario, the landscape presented a disturbing contrast to what you saw on the American side. Unlike the slovenly, failing farms of New York State, the farms of Ontario looked successful and prosperous. The barns did not tilt at weird angles and the roofs were intact. The farm houses were freshly painted and the grounds generally not strewn with the sort of dingy plastic effluvia Americans like to deploy around their dwellings to give the impression of plentitude. You wondered: how did all the IQ points below the Great Lakes somehow migrate over to the Canadian side? Had they invented some kind of quantum spirit vacuum, run perhaps on dark matter, that sucked all the vitality out of their neighbor-to-the-south? (If so, maybe Canada should take over our dreary duties in Central Asia.) All this was occurring against the background of General Motors looming bankruptcy, an epochal moment in US history, like losing a limb or a loved one. The US Government has decided to drive a Chevrolet off the cliff Thelma and Louise style. We were heading there anyway, so why not make the trip in air-conditioned comfort, with plenty of room for all the family members, and on-board video entertainment for the little ones. In fact, it may not be the bankruptcy of GM itself that will amaze and appall the other nations of the world, so much as the US government's pretense that the company can return to health in just a little while and pay back all the money that the citizenry has allowed to be sucked into its black hole of losses. My daddy bought Chevrolets in the 1950s, marvelously crazy-looking machines with winged tail-lights that handled like pontoon boats, broke down after 30,000 miles, and were tossed out every couple of years not on account of their mechanical failures so much as their obvious lack of up-to-the-minute styling. The post-war prosperity dazzled his generation with its democratic cornucopian bonanzas. The innocence of all that is truly lost now. There is a dark sense of things shifting out there now in a major way. The tectonics of history are taking us to a strange place. Maybe Mr Lovecraft had it right. Links: {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft {2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watertown,_New_York _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/06/shattered-and-shuttered.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nmgoro at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 20:50:30 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:50:30 -0300 Subject: [A-List] G M and the German government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A25E4F6.6070201@gmail.com> Funnily enough, the CEO of the Argentinean General Motors plant and firm has stated that they have no relation whatsoever with any plans by GM global, nor will they be affected by US nationalization. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 21:04:00 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:04:00 -0700 Subject: [A-List] G M and the German government In-Reply-To: <4A25E4F6.6070201@gmail.com> References: <4A25E4F6.6070201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A25E820.2080406@gmail.com> Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > Funnily enough, the CEO of the Argentinean General Motors plant and > firm has stated that they have no relation whatsoever with any plans > by GM global, nor will they be affected by US nationalization. > > Meant to post this the other day... I want my money back! GM intends to retain full ownership of operations in Latin America, Asia... http://trunc.it/9lav From charlesb at detroitmi.gov Tue Jun 2 13:01:59 2009 From: charlesb at detroitmi.gov (Charles Brown) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:01:59 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Germany's 1923 Hyperinflation Message-ID: <4A253EE6.84C9.0094.0@detroitmi.gov> Anne Williamson wrote: Well, Bill, you have posted "libertarian rants" in the past but were apparently unaware that you had done so....as far as the Founders go, they had a deathly fear of democracy and the word is not used in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights nor any of the other establishment documents, I suppose because the Founders were establishing a Republic, not a mass democracy....as ^^^ CB: Although the main principle of democracy is popular sovereignty , and the Constitution begins "We , the People..." that is all the power derives from the People as a whole, or popular sovereignty. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From annewilliamson at msn.com Tue Jun 2 20:10:03 2009 From: annewilliamson at msn.com (Anne Williamson) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:10:03 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Insurance Co Buys Insurance In-Reply-To: <4A1BF879.600@mindspring.com> References: <4A19D126.2070404@ashisuto.co.jp> <4A1AEFDE.3080703@mindspring.com> <4A1BF879.600@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Northwestern Mutual Makes First Gold Buy in 152 Years (Update2) By Andrew Frye June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., the third-largest U.S. life insurer by 2008 sales, has bought gold for the first time the company?s 152-year history to hedge against further asset declines. ?Gold just seems to make sense; it?s a store of value,? Chief Executive Officer Edward Zore said in an interview following his comments at a conference hosted by Standard & Poor?s in Brooklyn. ?In the Depression, gold did very, very well.? Northwestern Mutual has accumulated about $400 million in gold, and Zore said the price could double or even rise fivefold if the economy continues to weaken. Gold gained 10 percent last month, the most since November. The commodity has more than tripled since 2000, rising for eight straight years. Gold futures for August delivery slipped $4.80 to $975.50 at 4:03 p.m. in New York. ?The downside risk is limited, but the upside is large,? Zore said. ?We have stocks in our portfolio that lost 95 percent.? Gold ?is not going down to $90.? Policyholder-owned Northwestern Mutual, based in Milwaukee, ranks third by 2008 life insurance premiums according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The data excludes annuities. To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye at bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 1, 2009 16:34 EDT -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2548 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090602/17d82fee/attachment.txt From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Tue Jun 2 17:09:10 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:09:10 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Harper's penis envy problem at Akwesasne Message-ID: <01e8e885$39966$0cd57980293981@xnote> HARPER?S PENIS ENVY IS THE PROBLEM AT AKWESASNE MNN. June 2 2009. In the US everyone needs guns. Canadians don?t need guns to protect themselves, yet! It is still different enough. Canadian society went hard against anyone that used guns in a crime. In the US if someone burglarizes, the home owner can shoot and kill them. In Canada guns can only be used in self defense. They always thought they could work things out. Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has taken on the US attitude where most enforcement agencies need guns to deal with criminals or the public, who will also need guns to protect themselves from the police. There are countless super violent standoffs in the US. This is being invited into Canada by Harper. Harper wants to appear more masculine so that he is no longer just a sidekick of the US. To be the dominant party, he has to be as big and tough as Obama or Bush. He needs a macho image to compete with them. He needs a gun! Harper wants all enforcement agents to have guns. This idea is already expressed in many recent government legislation. A truck driver in the US needs a gun to protect himself from being hijacked or killed. They used to get arrested when they crossed the border into Canada for carrying guns. They had to leave them behind. In Canada they still should feel safe. Things haven?t changed. It will always be a safe place even though Harper wants to change it. What is the problem? It?s penis envy. In the minds of many men a gun is a phallic symbol which is a sign of masculinity and virility. This is untrue. If you get into a fight to defend yourself without guns, it requires a bigger person. Harper was always fat and seen as the pudgy little studious nerd of the class, something like the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Everybody sees him as a wimp who wants to be in charge of all situations. He won?t let anybody around freely express themselves. Harper, the sports trivia freak, was never good enough to play first string. He went into his closet and looked at all his hockey cards. That made him feel like a winner. His behavior is like a man who is concerned about the size of his penis. Under capitalism a large penis is part of gender identity, a symbol of high masculinity, dominance and power. He became an economist. To him, money is power. Penis size is being popularized in the popular culture. It looks like Harper aspires to this. That?s why he is likely to have a picture taken of himself with a rifle in his hands to hang in every CBSA Customs building for every visitor to see. He is going put a Beretta in every border agent?s hand to let the world know that Canada has real macho men like him. When it comes to masculinity, Harper thinks he always has to prove that he?s a man. Killing a deer and hunting for wild animals is a sign of the manhood he never had. He noticed this more when he left Canada, especially when he went to the US and visited so-called gunslinger, George Bush. We heard that Harper was afraid to get into the swimming pool and sauna with him where they would start comparing their jewels. He was scared of coming out second best. This is an old trick U.S. President Lyndon Johnson used whenever he had guests at his ranch. He would dominate everybody by walking around in the raw, which scared everybody. Dick Cheney does the same but his looks like Haggis, a Scottish national food. This is part of the macho image the Americans want to project to the world. Carrying guns is the epitome of being a real man. Harper bought into it. Now he wants to bring all Canadians into the sauna with him. This is an American sickness that Canada cannot take part in. With all that testosterone, the US is still in a state of collapse. Harper thinks he is going to rise up out of that and become the dominant control freak on Great Turtle Island. Canada thinks it can be a superpower by stealing the identity of the US. Harper does not need to change Canada. As bad as it is, he should be himself. He does not need hormone injections, a personal trainer or a sun tan bed. Axe Body deodorant will not make them more appealing to women [Watch out! It?s full of toxins that lower the sperm count]. Male enhancement pills might help his personal life. Buying powerful weapons of mass destruction is not going to make him more masculine. Canada must not become enraptured with war and guns. They proved themselves in both world wars. When the wars ended, they put their guns away and went back to the factories, farms and offices and carried on with a peaceful life. They have been influenced by the peaceful society that Dekanawida and the Rotinoshonnionwe developed. All countries of the world are aspiring to the peace embodied in the Great Law, our philosophy. Harper, go home and stop trying to be an American. 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. 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 Wed Jun 3 03:35:37 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:35:37 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" Message-ID: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> Part One by Stephen Lendman Countercurrents.org (May 06 2009) This is the first of several articles on Ellen Brown's superb 2007 book titled "Web of Debt", now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free". Given today's global economic crisis, it's an appropriate time to review it and urge readers to digest the entire work, easily gotten through Amazon or Brown's webofdebt.com site. Her book is a remarkable achievement - in its scope, depth, and importance. In the forward, banker/developer Reed Simpson said: "I have been a banker for most of my career, and I can report that even most bankers (don't know) what goes on behind (top echelon) closed doors ... I am more familiar than most with the issues (Brown covered, and) still found it an eye-opener, a remarkable window into what is really going on ... (Although many banks follow high ethical practices), corruption is also rampant, (especially) in the large money center banks, in one of which I worked." "Credible evidence (reveals) a world (banking) power elite intent on gaining absolute control over the planet and its natural resources, including its subservient human (ones)". Money is their "lifeblood", and "fear (their) weapon". Ill-used, they can "enslave nations and ensure perpetual wars and bondage". Brown exposes the scheme and offers a solution. Debt Bondage What president Andrew Jackson called "a hydra-headed monster ..." entraps entire nations in debt. Financial commentator Hans Schicht listed how: -- by making concentrated wealth invisible; -- "exercising control through leverage(d) mergers, takeovers" or other holdings "annexed to loans"; and -- using a minimum of insider front-men to exercise "tight personal management and control". Powerful bankers want to rule the world by creating and controlling money, the very lifeblood of world economies without which commerce would cease. Professor Henry Liu calls the monetary system a "cruel hoax" in that (except for government issued coins) "there is virtually no 'real' money in the system, only debts" - to bankers "for money they created with accounting entries ... all done by a sleight of hand", only possible because governments empowered them to do it. The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people it represents". Imagine the possibilities: -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle income people and at least substantially overall; -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway inflation"; and -- financial resources would be available to grow the nation economically and produce stable prosperity. It's not pie-in-the-sky. It happened successfully under Abraham Lincoln and early colonists. More on that below. Brown's book explains that: -- the Federal Reserve isn't federal; it's a private banking cartel owned by its major bank members in twelve Fed districts; -- except for coins, they "create" money called Federal Reserve notes, in violation of the Constitution under Article I, Section 8 that gives Congress alone the right "To coin (create) money (and) regulate the value thereof ..."; -- "tangible currency (coins and paper money comprise) less than three percent of the US money supply"; the rest is in computer entries for loans; -- money that banks lend is "new money" that didn't exist before; -- thirty percent of bank-created money "is invested for their own accounts"; -- banks once made productive loans for industrial development; today they're "a giant betting machine" using countless trillions for high-risk casino-type operations - through devices like derivatives and securitization scams; -- since Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829 - 1837), the federal debt hasn't been paid, only the interest - to private bankers and other owners of US obligations; -- the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to levy an income tax; it was done "to coerce (the public) to pay interest to the banks on the federal debt"; -- the amount has mushroomed to about $500 billion annually and keeps rising; -- creating money doesn't cause inflation; it's "caused by banks expanding the money supply with loans"; -- developing nations' inflation was caused "by global institutional speculators attacking local currencies and devaluing them on international markets"; -- it could happen in America or anywhere else just as easily; and -- escaping this trap is simple if Washington reclaims its money-issuing power; early colonists did it; so did Lincoln. As long as bankers control our money, we'll remain in a permanent "web of debt" and experience cycles of boom, bust, inflation, deflation, instability and crisis. Yet none of this has to be nor repeated and inevitable bubbles - created by design, not chance, to advantage empowered "moneychangers", much like today with its fallout causing global havoc. Prior to the Fed's creation, the House of Morgan was dominant in contrast to the early colonists' model. Operating out of Philadelphia, the nation's first capital, it favored state-issued and loaned out money, collecting the interest, and "return(ing) it to the provincial government" in lieu of taxes. Lincoln used the same system to finance the Civil War, after which he was assassinated and bankers reclaimed their money-issuing power. Wall Street's "silent coup (was) the passage of the (1913) Federal Reserve Act", the most destructive ever congressional legislation, thereafter extracting a huge toll amounting to permanent debt bondage with national wealth transference from the public to private bankers - with most people none the wiser. >From Gold to Federal Reserve Notes After the 1862 Legal Tender Act was rescinded (the so-called Greenback law letting the government issue its own money), new legislation replaced it empowering bankers by making all money again interest-bearing. Here's the problem. "As long as the money supply (is an interest-bearing) debt owed back to private bankers ... the nation's wealth (will) continue to be drained off into private vaults, leaving scarcity in its wake". Dollars should belong to everyone. Early colonists invented them as "a new form of paper currency backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the people". Today, a private banking cartel issues them by "turning debt into money and demanding" due interest be paid. Ever since, it's controlled the nation and public by entrapment in permanent debt bondage, and they do it through the Federal Reserve that's neither federal nor has reserves. It doesn't have money. It creates it with electronic entries, any amount at any time for any purpose, the main one being to enrich its owner banks. This body is a power unto itself, secretive, unaccountable, and independent of congressional oversight or control. It's a money-creating machine by turning debt into money, but only a small fraction of the total money supply. Individual commercial banks create most of it. A 1960s Chicago Fed booklet (called Modern Money Mechanics) explained how - through "fractional reserve" alchemy. It states: (Banks) do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." Money is created by "building up" deposits in the form of loans. They, in turn, become deposits, not the reverse. "This unique attribute of banking" goes back centuries, the idea being that paper receipts could be issued and loaned out for the same gold (in those days) many times over, so long as enough gold was held in "reserve" so depositors had access to their money. "This sleight of hand (became known) as 'fractional reserve' banking", using money to create multiples more of it. As for credit market debt, William Hummel (on the web site Money: What It Is, How It Works) explains that banks create only about twenty percent of it. The rest is by other non-bank financial institutions, including finance companies, pension and mutual funds, insurance companies, and securities dealers. They "recycle pre-existing funds, either by borrowing at a low interest rate and lending at a higher (one) or by pooling (investor) money and lending it to borrowers". In other words, just like banks, "they borrow low and lend high, pocketing the 'spread' as their profit". But banks do more than borrow. They also "lend the deposits they acquire ... by crediting the borrower's account with a new deposit". Banks thus increase total bank deposits that grow the money supply. It amounts to a sleight of hand like "magically pull(ing) money out of an empty hat". The US "money supply is the federal debt and cannot exist without it. (To) keep money in the system, some major player has to incur substantial debt that never gets paid back; and this role is played by the federal government." It's why the nation's debt can't be repaid under a banker-controlled system. Today's size and debt service compounds the problem, around double the amount Brown cited, growing exponentially to unimaginable levels. Colonial Paper Money - Another Way Predating the Republic's Birth In 1691, three years before the Bank of England's creation, Massachusetts became "the first local government to issue its own paper money ..." in the form of a "bill of credit bond or IOU ... to pay tomorrow on a debt incurred today". This money "was backed by the full 'faith and credit' of the government". Other colonies then did the same, some as IOUs redeemable in gold or silver or as "legal tender" money to be legally accepted to pay debts. Cotton Mather, a famous New England minister, later redefined money - not as gold or silver, but as a credit: "the credit of the whole country". Benjamin Franklin so embraced the "new medium of exchange" that he's called "the father of paper money", then called "scrip". It made the colonies independent of British banks and let them "finance their local governments without" taxation. It was done in two ways, and most colonies used both: -- direct issue "bills of credit" or "treasury notes"; essentially government-backed IOUs to be repaid by future taxes, with no interest owed bankers or foreign lenders; "they were just credits issued and sent into the economy on goods and services"; and -- a system of generating "revenue in the form of interest by taking on the lending functions of banks; a government loan office called a 'land bank' (issued) paper money and (loaned) it to residents (usually farmers) at low interest rates ... the interest paid ... went into the public coffers, funding the government"; it was the preferred way to assure a stable currency rather than by issuing "bills of credit". Pennsylvania did it best. It's 1723-established loan office showed "it was possible for the government to issue new money (in lieu of) taxes without inflating prices". For over 25 years, it collected none at all. The loan office provided adequate revenue, supplemented by liquor import duties. Throughout the period, prices remained stable. Prior to this system, Pennsylvania lost "both business and residents (for) lack of available currency". With it, its population grew and commerce prospered. The "secret was in not issuing too much, and in recycling the money back to the government in the form of principal and interest on government-issued loans". Colony-based British merchants and financiers objected strongly to Parliament. Enough so that in 1751, King George II banned new paper money issuance to force colonists to borrow it from UK bankers. In 1764, Franklin petitioned Parliament to lift the ban. In London, Bank of England directors asked him to explain colonial prosperity at a time Britain experienced rampant unemployment and poverty. It's because Colonial Scrip was issued, he stated, "our own money" with no interest owed to anyone. He added: "You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unrepayable debt and usury". With banks loaning money into the economy, more was "owed back in principle and interest than was lent in the original loans (so) there was never enough in circulation to pay interest and still keep workers fully employed". Unlike banks, government can both lend and spend money in circulation - enough to pay "interest due on the money it lent, (keep) the money supply in 'proper proportion' and (prevent) the 'impossible contract' problem (of having) more money owed back on loans than was created (from) the loans themselves". Franklin's efforts notwithstanding, the Bank of England got Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for the colonies to issue their own money. It turned prosperity into poverty because the money supply was halved with not enough to pay for goods and services. According to Franklin: "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament" got colonists to hate the British enough to spark the Revolutionary War. "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters (if) England (hadn't taken their money), which created unemployment and dissatisfaction". So much that outraged people again issued their own money in spite of the ban. As a result, they successfully financed a war against a major power - with almost no hard currency and no taxation. Thomas Paine called it the Revolution's "corner stone". However, British bankers responded by attacking its "competitor's currency", the Continental, driving down its value by flooding the colonies with counterfeit scrip. It was "battered but remained stable". Where Britain failed, speculators succeeded - "mostly northeastern bankers, stockbrokers and businessmen, who bought up the revolutionary currency at a fraction of its value after convincing people it would be worthless after the war". It had "to compete with states' paper notes and British bankers' gold and silver coins ... The problem might have been avoided by making the Continental the sole official currency, but the Continental Congress (didn't have) the power to enforce" such an order - with no courts, police or authority to collect taxes "to redeem the notes or contract the money supply". Having just rebelled against British taxation, colonists weren't about to let Congress tax them. Speculators took advantage and traded Continentals at discounts enough to make them worthless and give rise to the expression "not worth a Continental". How the Government Was Persuaded to Borrow Its Own Money John Adams once said: "there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt". The latter method is stealth enough so people don't know what's happening and submit to their own bondage. Openly, nothing seems changed, yet a whole new system becomes master "in the form of debts and taxes" that people think are for their own good, not tribute to their captors. That's today's America writ large. After the Revolutionary War, "British bankers and their Wall Street vassals" pulled it off by acquiring a controlling interest in the new United States Bank. It discredited paper scrip through rampant Continental counterfeiting and so disillusioned the Founders that they omitted mentioning paper money in the Constitution. Congress was given power to "coin money (and) regulate the value thereof, (and) to borrow money on the credit of the United States ..." It left enough wiggle room for bankers to exploit to their advantage - but only because Congress and the president let them. Alexander Hamilton bears much blame, the nation's first Treasury Secretary and Tim Geithner of his day (1789 - 1795). He argued that America needed a monetary system independent of foreign control, and that required a federal central bank - to handle war debts and create a standard form of currency. In 1791, it was created, hailed at the time as a "brilliant solution to the nation's economic straits, one that disposed of an oppressive national debt, stabilized the economy, funded the government's budget, and created confidence in the new paper dollars ... It got the country up and running, but left the bank largely in private hands" - to be manipulated for private gain, much like today. Worse still, "the government ended up in debt for money it could have generated itself". Instead, it had to pay interest on its own money in lieu of creating it interest free. Today, Hamilton is acclaimed as a model Treasury Secretary. For Jefferson, he was a "diabolical schemer, a British stooge pursuing a political agenda for his own ends". He modeled the Bank of the United States on the Bank of England against which colonists rebelled. It so angered Jefferson that he told Washington he was a traitor. It fostered a bitter feud between them with Jefferson ultimately prevailing. Hamilton's Federalist Party disappeared after 1820 while Jefferson and Madison's Democratic-Republicans became the forerunner of today's Democrats after the party split into two factions, the Whigs no longer in existence and Jacksonians that by 1844 officially became the Democratic Party. Shamefully they veered far from Jacksonian and Jeffersonian principles. For his part, Hamilton wasn't entirely bad. He stabilized the new economy and got the country on its feet. He restored the nation's credit, established a national currency, and made it economically independent. However, his legacy has a dark side - a "privileged class of financial middlemen (henceforth able) to siphon off a perpetual tribute in the form of interest". He delivered money power into private hands, "subservient to an elite class of oligarchical financiers", the same Wall Street types today holding the entire nation hostage - in permanent debt bondage. >From Abundance to Debt Charging excessive interest is called "usury", but originally it meant charging anything for the use of money. The Christian Bible banned it, and the Catholic Church enforced anti-usury laws through the end of the Middle Ages. Old Testament scripture was more lenient, prohibiting it only between "brothers". Charging it to foreigners was allowed and encouraged, which is why Jews unfairly were called "moneychangers". They, like others, suffered greatly from money-lending schemes. For centuries, they were "persecuted for the profiteering of a few", then scapegoated to divert attention from the real offenders. Fiat money is legal tender by government decree - a simple tally representing units of value to be traded for goods and services. Paper money was invented in 9th century Mandarin China and successfully used to fund its long and prosperous empire. The same was true in medieval England. The tally system worked well for over five centuries before banker-controlled paper money began demanding payment in the form of interest. History portrays the Middle Ages as backward, impoverishing, and a form of economic enslavement only the Industrial Revolution changed. In fact, the era was entirely different, characterized by 19th century historian Thorold Rogers as a time when "a labourer could provide all the necessities for his family for a year by working fourteen weeks", leaving nearly nine discretionary months to work for himself, study, fish, travel, or do what he pleased, something today's overworked, over-stressed, underpaid workers can't imagine. Some attribute Middle Age prosperity to the absence of usurious lending. Instead of paying tribute in the form of interest, "people relied largely on interest-free tallies". They avoided depressions and inflation since the supply and demand for goods and services grew in proportion to each other, thus holding prices stable. "The tally system provided an organic form of money that expanded naturally as trade (did) and contracted (the same way) as taxes were paid". No bankers set interest rates or manipulated markets to their advantage. The tally system kept Britain stable and thriving until the mid-17th century, "when Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658) ... needed money to fund a revolt against the Tudor monarchy". The Moneylenders Take Over England In the 19th century, the Rothchild banking family's Nathan Rothchild said it well: "I care not what puppet (sits on) the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British empire, and I (when he ran the Bank of England) control the British money supply." Centuries early, moneylender power was absent. But after the 1666 Coinage Act, money-issuing authority, once the sole right of kings, was transferred into private hands. "Bankers now had the power to cause inflations and depressions at will by issuing or withholding their gold coins". King William III (1672 - 1702), a Dutch aristocrat, financed his war against France by borrowing 1.2 million pounds in gold in a secret transaction with moneylenders, the arrangement being a permanent loan on which debt would be serviced and its principle never repaid. It came with other strings as well: -- lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency; -- it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves; -- loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and -- lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes. It was a prescription for huge profits and "substantial political leverage. The Bank's charter gave the force of law to the 'fractional reserve' banking scheme that put control of the country's money" in private hands. It let the Bank of England create money out of nothing and charge interest for loans to the government and others - the same practice central banks now employ. For the next century, banknotes and tallies circulated interchangeably even though they weren't a compatible means of exchange. Banker money expanded when "credit expanded and contracted when loans were canceled or 'called', producing cycles of 'tight' money and depression alternating with 'easy' money and inflation". In contrast, tallies were permanent, stable, fixed money, making banknotes look bad so they had to go. For another reason as well - because of King William's disputed throne and fear if he were deposed, moneylenders again might be banned. They used their influence to legalize banknotes as the money of the realm called "funded" debt with tallies referred to as "unfunded", what historians see as the beginning of a "Financial Revolution". In the end, "tallies met the same fate as witches - death by fire". They were money of the people competing with moneylending bankers. After 1834 monetary reform, "tally sticks went up in flames in a huge bonfire started in a House of Lords stove". Ironically, it got out of control and burned down Westminster Palace and both Houses of Parliament, symbolically ending "an equitable era of trade (by transferring power) from the government to the" central bank. Henceforth, private bankers kept government in debt, never demanding the return of principle, and profiting by extracting interest, a very lucrative system always paying off "like a slot machine" rigged to benefit its operators. It became the basis for modern central banking, lending its "own notes (printed paper money), which the government swaps for bonds (its promises to pay) and circulates as a national currency". Government debt is never repaid. It's continually rolled over and serviced, today with no gold in reserve to back it. Though gone, tallies left their mark. The word "stock" comes from the tally stick. Much of the original Bank of England stock was bought with these sticks. In addition, stock issuance began during the Middle Ages as a way to finance businesses when no interest-bearing loans were allowed. In America, "usury banks fought for control for two centuries before" getting it under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. An issue that once "defined American politics", today is no longer a topic for debate. It's about time it was reopened. Jefferson and Jackson Sound the Alarm Moneylenders conquered Britain, then aimed to entrap America - by provoking "a series of wars. British financiers funded the opposition to the American War for Independence, the War of 1812, and both sides of the American Civil War". They caused inflation, heavy government debt, the chartering of the Bank of the United States to fund it, thus giving private interests the power to create money. Jefferson opposed the first US Bank, Jackson the second, and both for similar reasons: -- distrust of profiteers controlling the nation's money; and -- concern about the nation's banking system falling into foreign hands. Jefferson got Congress to refuse to renew the first US Bank charter in 1811 and learned on liquidation that two-thirds of its owners were foreigners, mostly English and Dutch and none more influential than the Rothschilds. Later, Madison signed a twenty-year charter. However, when Congress renewed it, Jackson vetoed it. The Powerful Rothschild Family The House of Rothschild was British in name only. In the mid-18th century, it was founded in Frankfort, Germany by Mayer Amschel Bauer, who changed his name to Rothschild, fathered ten children, and sent his five sons to open branch banks in major European capitals. Nathan was the most astute and went to London. "Over the course of the nineteenth century, NM Rothschild would become the biggest bank in the world, and the five brothers would come to control most of the foreign-loan business of Europe". Belatedly, Jefferson caught on to the scheme - that "private debt masquerading as paper money ... owed to bankers" placed the nation in bondage. In his words, "deliver(ing) itself bound hand and foot to bold and bankrupt adventurers and bankers ..." Jefferson's idea for a national bank was a wholly government-owned one issuing its own credit without having to borrow it from private interests. Jackson believed the same thing in calling the Bank of the United States "a hydra-headed monster". When the bank charter was renewed, he promptly vetoed it, yet understood that the battle was just beginning. "The hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead", he said. He was right. The Bank's second president, Nicolas Biddle, retaliated "by sharply contracting the money supply. Old loans were called in and new ones refused. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression." However, Biddle's victory was short-lived. In April 1834, the House rejected re-chartering the Bank, then January 1835 became Jackson's "finest hour". He did something never done before or since. He paid off the first installment of the national debt, then reduced it to zero and accumulated a surplus. In 1836, the Bank's charter expired. Biddle was arrested and charged with fraud. He was tried and acquitted but spent the rest of his life in litigation over what he'd done. "Jackson had beaten the Bank". Imagine today if Obama defeated the Fed and its Wall Street puppeteers instead of embracing them with limitless riches. Lincoln Foils the Bankers and Pays with His Life Like Jackson, Lincoln faced assassination attempts, before even being inaugurated. "He had to deal with treason, insurrection, and national bankruptcy" during his first days in office. Considering the powerful forces against him, his achievements were all the more remarkable: -- he built the world's largest army; -- "smashed the British-financed insurrection", -- took the first steps to abolish slavery; it became official on December 6 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified, eight months after Lincoln was assassinated; -- during and after his tenure, the country became "the greatest industrial giant" in the world; -- "the steel industry was launched; a continental railroad system was created; the Department of Agriculture was established; a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted"; -- the Land Grant College system established free higher education; -- the Homestead Act gave settlers ownership rights and encouraged new land development; -- government supported all branches of science; -- "standardization and mass production was promoted worldwide"; -- labor productivity increased by fifty to 75%; and -- still more was accomplished "with a Treasury that was completely broke and a Congress that hadn't been paid" as a result. It was because the government issued its own money. "National control was reestablished over banking, and the economy was jump-started with a 600 percent increase in government spending and cheap credit directed at production". Roosevelt did the same thing with borrowed money. Lincoln did it with United States Notes called Greenbacks. They financed the war, paid the troops, spurred the nation's growth, and did what hasn't been done since - let the government print its own money, free from banker-controlled debt slavery, the very system strangling us today the way Lincoln feared would happen. His advisor was Henry Carey, a man historian Vernon Parrington called "our first professional economist". Lincoln endorsed his prescription: -- "government regulation of banking and credit to deter speculation and encourage economic development"; -- its support for science, public education and national infrastructure development; -- "regulation of privately-held infrastructure to ensure it met the nation's needs"; -- government-sponsored railroads and "scientific and other aid to small farmers"; -- "taxation and tariffs to protect and promote productive domestic activity"; and -- "rejection of class wars, exploitation and slavery, physical or economic, in favor of a 'Harmony of Interests' between capital and labor". Leaders like Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln are sorely missed, but for Lincoln it was costly. He Loses the Battle with "the Masters of European Finance" German Chancellor Otto von Bismark (1815 - 1898) called them that in explaining how they engineered the "rupture between the North and the South" to use it to their advantage, then later wrote in 1876: "The Government and the nation escaped the plots of the foreign bankers. They understood at once that the United States would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was resolved upon." The last Civil War battle ended on May 13 1865. Lincoln was assassinated on April 15. European bankers tried but failed to trap him "with usurious war loans", at 24 to 36% interest had he agreed. Using government-issued Greenbacks shut them out entirely, so they determined to fight back - eliminate the thorn, then get banker-friendly legislation passed, achieved through the National Bank Act reversing the Greenback Law. It was "only a compromise with bankers, (but) buried in the fine print", they got what they wanted. Although the Controller of the Currency got to issue new national banknotes, it was just a formality. In fact, the new law "authorized the bankers to issue and lend their own paper money". They "deposited" bonds with the Treasury, but owned them so "immediately got their money back in the form of their own banknotes". It was an exclusive franchise to control the nation's money forcing government back into debt bondage where it never had to be in the first place. A whole series of private banks were then chartered, all empowered to create money in lieu of debt free Greenbacks. One other president confronted bankers and paid dearly as well - James Garfield. In 1881, he charged: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce ... And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate". Garfield took office on March 4 1881. On July 2, he was shot. He survived the next two and half months, then died on September 19. It was a time of depression, mass unemployment, poverty, and starvation with no safety net protections. "The country was facing poverty amidst plenty", because bankers controlled money and kept too little of it in circulation - an avoidable problem if government printed its own. Gold vs Inflation - Debunking Common Fallacies The classical "quantity theory of money" holds that "too much money chasing too few goods" causes inflation, excess demand over supply forcing up prices. The counter argument is that if paper money is tied to gold, an inflation-free stable money supply will result. Another fallacy is that adding money (demand) raises prices only if supply remains fixed. In fact, if new money creates new goods and services, prices stay stable. For thousands of years, the Chinese kept prices of its products low in spite of their money supply being "flooded with the world's gold and silver, and now with the world's dollars ... to pay for China's cheap products". What's important is not what money consists of but who creates it. "Whether the medium of exchange (is) gold or paper or numbers in a ledger", when created by and owed to private lenders with interest, "more money would always be owed back than was created ... spiraling the economy into perpetual debt ... whether the money takes the form of gold or paper or accounting entries". Today's popularism is associated with the political left. However, 19th century Populists saw "a darker, more malevolent force ... private money power and the corporations it had spawned, which was threatening to take over the government unless the people intervened". Lincoln also feared it saying: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed." Today's America is the reality he feared. A tiny elite own the vast majority of the nation's wealth in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, natural resources, business assets and other investments. In contrast, ninety percent of Americans have little or no net worth. Of all developed nations, concentrated wealth and inequality extremes are greatest here with powerful bankers sitting atop the pyramid, now more than ever with their new riches extracted from public tax dollars and Fed-created money. _____ A follow-up article will discuss how "bankers capture(d) the money machine". Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago can be reached at lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10 am US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Jun 2 23:16:26 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:16:26 +1000 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: Shorter work week, population and climate, El Salvador, Michael Lebowitz, Castro, S. Korea, Marta Harnecker, Tamils, Make Greed History, Mexico Message-ID: <4A26072A.6020402@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Shorter work week, population and climate, El Salvador, Michael Lebowitz, Castro, S. Korea, Marta Harnecker, Tamils, Make Greed History, Mexico * * * 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/. * * * What's wrong with a 30-hour work week? By Don Fitz May 30, 2009 -- With millions of jobs lost during the first part of 2009, who is calling for a shorter work week to spread the work around? In the US, the vehicle industry sets the pace for organised labour. The only discussion at the top levels of the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) is how quickly the gains won during the last 50 years can be given back. Does the UAW have no memory of the 1930s and 1940s when a shorter work week was at centre of organising demands? * Read more Ten reasons why population control is not an answer to climate change By Simon Butler June 1, 2009 -- Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. The scientific evidence of the scale of the threat is overwhelming, compelling and frightening. Climate tipping points -- points which if crossed will lead to runaway global warming -- are being crossed now. A discussion has surfaced about whether population-control measures should be a key plank in the climate action movement's campaign arsenal. Below are 10 reasons why such a decision would hinder, rather than help, the necessary task of building a movement that can win. * Read more El Salvador: The beginning of a new era -- and great challenges By Jay Hartling May 31, 2009 -- El Salvador -- On Monday, June 1, 2009 El Salvador will turn a new page in its history with the inauguration of the country?s first left government, joining the ranks of the majority of Latin America. Representing the Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front) ), Mauricio Funes and Salvador Sanchez Ceren, president and vice-president elect, will face a national assembly in which the FMLN is outnumbered by more than 2:1. Out of a total of 84 seats, the FMLN only have 35. This will make broad sweeping changes difficult, but not impossible, and may force Funes to use the power of the presidential veto as a bargaining chip. It is important that those of us observing from a distance understand the complicated environment within which the new government will be operating. * Read more Michael Lebowitz: '21st century socialism needs a 21st century Marxism' May 23, 2009 -- Michael Lebowitz is a Canadian Marxist economist. He is the director of the "Transformative practice and human development" program at the Caracas-based left-wing think tank, the Centro Internacional Miranda. He is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University and author of Build it Now: 21st Century Socialism and the 2004 Isaac Deutscher-prize winning Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class. Christopher Kerr spoke with Lebowitz about capitalism's crisis and the socialist alternative. * Read more Fidel Castro's declarations of resistance Review by Alex Miller The Declarations of Havana, by Fidel Castro, with an introduction by Tariq Ali, Verso, 2008, 138 pages May 22, 2009 -- As Cuba celebrates the 50th anniversary of the revolution that overthrew the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, it is fitting that three of the most famous documents relating to the struggle against Batista and the early days of the revolution are published together in a single volume. The Declarations of Havana is part of Verso's new "revolutions" series. * Read more South Korea: The legacy of the 1980 Kwangju uprising On the weekend of May 15-18, 2009, the city of Kwangju, South Korea, held the Kwangju International Peace Forum to celebrate the struggle for democracy in South Korea and to support similar struggles elsewhere in Asia. Christopher Kerr of South Korea-based solidarity group Venceremos caught up with George Katsiaficas to discuss the legacy of the 1980 Kwangju uprising. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #3 -- To be at the service of popular movements, not displace them [This is the third in a series of regular articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series . Please return to Links regularly read the next articles in the series.] By Marta Harnecker We have previously stated that politics is the art of constructing a social and political force capable of changing the balance of forces in order to make possible tomorrow that which today appears to be impossible. But, to be able to construct a social force it is necessary for political organisations to demonstrate a great respect for grassroots movements; to contribute to their autonomous development, leaving behind all attempts at manipulation. They must take as their starting point that they aren't the only ones with ideas and proposals and, on the contrary, grassroots movements have much to offer us, because through their daily struggles they have also learned things, discovered new paths, found solutions and invented methods which can be of great value. * Read more Socialist Party of Malaysia condemns Sri Lanka's slaughter of Tamils By the Socialist Party of Malaysia (Parti Sosialis Malaysia, PSM) May 27, 2009 -- Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared victory over Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as the last LTTE strongpoints crumbled. The victory is for no one but only the chauvinistic nationalist Sinhalese government led by Rajapaksa, which had launched a brutal, merciless and cold-blooded military offensive against the Tamil population for several months, inflicting nothing but death, destruction and misery. The victory proclaimed by Rajapaksa will not put an end to the conflict that has lasted for several decades, but signals a new assault on working people in Sri Lanka -- Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim. * Read more Scottish Socialist Party: `Make Greed History * Read more `The only fight we lose is the one we abandon': Mexico's first openly lesbian MP on LGBT rights and people's power By Rachel Evans May 21, 2009 -- Coyacan, Mexico -- I interviewed Patria Jim?nez in Coyacan's normally bustling markets. The onset of the swine flu crisis had emptied the streets and enforced a stiffness into Mexico's normally effusive greetings tradition. No kissing hello or shaking hands was encouraged. Jim?nez ignored swine-flu protocol and greeted me warmly. In 1997, Jim?nez made history by being elected the first openly lesbian member of Mexico's Chamber of Deputies. Representing the Workers Revolutionary Party (PRT), which was in an alliance with the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), Jim?nez was also the first openly lesbian candidate to be elected in Latin America. She is standing again within a coalition, Salvemos a M?xico (We Will Save Mexico), for the July 2009 federal elections. She remains a member of the PRT. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #2 -- Convince, not impose [This is the second in a series of regular articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series . Please return to Links regularly read the next articles in the series.] By Marta HarneckerPopular movements and, more generally, the different social protagonists who today are engaged in the struggle against neoliberal globalisation both at the international and national levels reject, with good reason, attitudes that aim to impose hegemony or control on movements. They don't accept the steamroller policy that some political and social organisations tended to use that, taking advantage of their position of strength and monopolising political positions, attempt to manipulate the movement. They don't accept the authoritarian imposition of a leadership from above; they don't accept attempts made to lead movements by simply giving orders, no matter how correct they are. * 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: 15388 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090603/8f1f7b06/attachment.txt From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Wed Jun 3 12:39:12 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:39:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Indigenous Backbone Applauded Message-ID: <02304759$39967$0d596105590046@xnote> INDIGENOUS BACKBONE APPLAUDED - MOHAWKS STAND UP TO TYRANNY MNN June 3 2009. As long as we stand up for peace, democracy, human rights and sovereignty, we will win. We can?t be enslaved, even if the colonist war lords put guns to our heads. Historically, millions of us were killed for resisting subjugation. We will not let them put guns in the middle of Akwesasne. Because we are standing up to tyranny our community is being held hostage. It?s still closed down. We still can?t get on or off unless we walk. A few cars are let through the police blockades. War lords think all they have to do is hire heavily armed guards and police to beat us into submission. It?s not working on us or anyone else. Everyone is starting to stop bending to these monsters. The colonists have seen their bosses give themselves million dollar bonuses and raises. The whole capitalist machine is coming to a grinding halt. We Indigenous have to be treated respectfully. If not, we will fold our arms, cross our legs, sit down, do nothing and say, ?I?m not going to be moved?. For hundreds of years our colonial visitors have been watching us resist abuse. At first they were scared and resented us. They couldn?t stand to see us running around free and suffering the consequences. They wanted us to be in the cage with them. They learned we can?t compromise our will. Even they are starting to take on this spirit. ?Treat me right or else?. Megalomaniacs beating their employees doesn?t work anymore. They are going to lose everything, businesses, properties, companies and whatever. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a promise in the last election to give border guards guns, to toughen laws against child molesters and keep young people in jail longer. He?s going to make everybody tow the line, so he thinks. Harper is finding out that if he has no compassion, no one will back him up or work hard for him. It?s like beating a slave. If they refuse to obey, Harper says, ?Put them in jail, take all their money and give it to the rich?. He?s imitating Obama, who says, ?If you can?t cut it, then starve to death?. If you?re poor, it?s your fault. In the US, if you make it big, you can stomp everybody. Pop culture reflects this mentality. It?s fire them, kill them or knock them off the boat or island to drown in the water. Survival of the fittest and to hell with the losers! This self-centered attitude is destroying them. The poor are starting to say, ?I?m not moving?. No matter how hard you beat me, you can only kill me once. Our colonial visitors are getting stubborn like us against their oppressors. Rich guys? factories are closing down, cars can?t be built and sweat shops are being closed. GM, the largest company in the world, is going bankrupt. The workers refuse to be slaves anymore. They would-be slave owners did away with many unions so they could take advantage of the poor. People are not spending money, mostly because many don?t have it. Like the Depression, the poor in the US and some parts of Canada are living in tent cities, slums and alleys. They are out of work with gaunt faces like a third world country. Harper wants to import this social and economic disaster into Canada. Canadians think differently. They?ve been influenced by the Indigenous egalitarian philosophy in which people don?t threaten one another, try to work things out and help each other. In Canada there are more social programs and medicare. A top Canadian Border Services Agency official has allegedly agreed to meet with us. They found they can?t dictate to us. Their union ordered the guards to walk off the job on June 1. Both US and Canadian border crossings have been shut down. It is so peaceful on Cornwall Island. Maybe it will stay that way for good. They think we are suffering because they cut us off from them. We don?t miss them at all! CBSA president Stephen Rigby is still saying they intend to arm the guards no matter what. The Mohawks say never. CBSA officers are willing to take cultural sensitivity training. We will teach them how to work without guns, how to smile at us and keep their slimy hands off us. Some guards at the customs building are "hotheads" and racists against us who try to provoke us into confrontations. Guards with guns will make some of them even more dangerous than they already are. There are suggestions that the check points could be moved off Cornwall Island. Good idea! Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, whose oversees the border crossing, said arming of the guards will go as planned when the Mohawks agree to peacefully allow armed goons onto their territory. We know it?s all a Trojan Horse. They come in and sit inside the walls. While we?re asleep, the soldiers will come in and kill us. These people have already shown how much they hate us. Hundreds have been brutalized. How can anybody have that much hatred? It?s not our way. Canada knows they can come over and talk to us anytime. Those affected by the bridge closing and the general public on both sides of the border see that the Mohawks are right. Canada doesn?t see that we represent all those everywhere who are standing up to tyranny. They are applauding us. 514-269-1400. Contact Chief Nona Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. 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. 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 Supporters Contact the following: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jun 3 18:45:03 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:45:03 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Spirit Level Message-ID: <4A27190F.5030409@ashisuto.co.jp> Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett Penguin Books (2009) Review by John Carey The Sunday Times (March 08 2009) This is a book with a big idea, big enough to change political thinking, and bigger than its authors at first intended. The problem they originally set out to solve was why health within a population gets progressively worse further down the social scale; they estimate that together they have clocked up more than fifty person-years gathering information from research teams across the globe. Their eureka moment came when they thought of putting the medical data alongside figures showing the extent of economic inequality within each country. They say modestly that since dependable statistics both on health and on income distribution are internationally available, it was only a matter of time before someone put the two together. All the same, they are the first to have done so. Their book charts the level of health and social problems - as many as they could find reliable figures for - against the level of income inequality in twenty of the world's richest nations, and in each of the fifty United States. They allocate a brief chapter to each problem, supplying graphs that display the evidence starkly and unarguably. What they find is that, in states and countries where there is a big gap between the incomes of rich and poor, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity and teenage pregnancy are more common, the homicide rate is higher, life expectancy is shorter, and children's educational performance and literacy scores are worse. The Scandinavian countries and Japan consistently come at the positive end of this spectrum. They have the smallest differences between higher and lower incomes, and the best record of psycho-social health. The countries with the widest gulf between rich and poor, and the highest incidence of most health and social problems, are Britain, America and Portugal. Richard Wilkinson, a professor of medical epidemiology at Nottingham University, and Kate Pickett, a lecturer in epidemiology at York University, emphasise that it is not only the poor who suffer from the effects of inequality, but the majority of the population. For example, rates of mental illness are five times higher across the whole population in the most unequal than in the least unequal societies in their survey. One explanation, they suggest, is that inequality increases stress right across society, not just among the least advantaged. Much research has been done on the stress hormone cortisol, which can be measured in saliva or blood, and it emerges that chronic stress affects the neural system and in turn the immune system. When stressed, we are more prone to depression and anxiety, and more likely to develop a host of bodily ills including heart disease, obesity, drug addiction, liability to infection and rapid ageing. Societies where incomes are relatively equal have low levels of stress and high levels of trust, so that people feel secure and see others as co-operative. In unequal societies, by contrast, the rich suffer from fear of the poor, while those lower down the social order experience status anxiety, looking upon those who are more successful with bitterness and upon themselves with shame. In the 1980s and 1990s, when inequality was rapidly rising in Britain and America, the rich bought homesecurity systems, and started to drive 4x4s with names such as Defender and Crossfire, reflecting a need to intimidate attackers. Meanwhile the poor grew obese on comfort foods and took more legal and illegal drugs. In 2005, doctors in England alone wrote 29 million prescriptions for antidepressants, costing the NHS GBP 400 million . Status anxiety and how we respond to it are basic, it seems, to our animal natures. In an experiment with macaque monkeys, the animals were housed in groups, and the social hierarchies that developed among them were observed. Then the monkeys were taught to administer cocaine to themselves by pressing a lever. The dominant monkeys in each group were relatively abstemious, but the subordinate monkeys took a lot of cocaine to medicate themselves against the pain of low social status. In a similar experiment, high-status monkeys from different groups were housed together, so that some of them became low status. The downwardly mobile monkeys accumulated abdominal fat and developed a rapid build-up of atherosclerosis in their arteries, just like humans. The different social problems that stem from income inequality often, Wilkinson and Pickett show, form circuits or spirals. Babies born to teenage mothers are at greater risk, as they grow up, of educational failure, juvenile crime, and becoming teenage parents themselves. In societies with greater income inequality, more people are sent to prison, and less is spent on education and welfare. In Britain the prison population has doubled since 1990; in America it has quadrupled since the late 1970s. American states with a wide gap between rich and poor are likelier to retain the death penalty, and to hand out long sentences for minor crimes. In California in 2004, there were 360 people serving life sentences for shoplifting. California has built only one new college since 1984, but 21 new prisons. Whereas societies with high income differentials are exceptionally punitive, in Japan imprisonment rates are low and offenders who confess their crimes and express a desire to reform are generally trusted to do so by the judiciary and the public. The authors' method is objective and scientific, so that the human distress behind their statistics mostly remains hidden. But when they quote from interviews conducted by social researchers, passion and resentment flood into their book. A working-class man in Rotherham tells of the shame he felt having to sit next to a middle-class woman ("this stuck-up cow, you know, slim, attractive"); how he felt overweight and started sweating; how he imagined her thinking, "listen, low-life, don't even come near me. We pay to get away from scum like you." In half a page it tells you more about the pain of inequality than any play or novel could. It might be said that The Spirit Level merely formulates what everyone has always felt. Western European utopias have almost all been egalitarian. Polls in Britain over the past twenty years show that the proportion of the population who think income differences too big is on average eighty per cent. But what is new about their book, the authors insist, is that it turns personal intuitions into publicly demonstrable facts. With the evidence they have supplied, politicians now have a chance to "do genuine good". By reducing income inequality, they can improve the health and wellbeing of the whole population. How this should be effected, Wilkinson and Pickett do not think it is their job to say, but increasing top tax rates or legislating to limit maximum pay are possibilities they suggest. They warn, though, that short-term remedies like this could be reversed by a change of government, and that we need to find ways of rooting greater equality more deeply in our society. This is their book's mission, and they have set up a not-for-profit trust (equalitytrust.org) to make the evidence they set out better known. One illusion that, cheeringly, they hope to dispel is that the super-rich are some kind of asset we should all cherish, rather than, from the viewpoint of social health, the equivalent of the seven plagues of Egypt. The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett Allen Lane GBP 20 416 pages Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/services/terms_and_conditions/ Please read our Privacy Policy: http://www.nidp.com/ To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/services/syndication/ This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia Street, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article5859108.ece?print=yes http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tboyle at rosehill.net Wed Jun 3 10:36:45 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:36:45 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, >The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people >it represents". Imagine the possibilities: > >-- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't that the essence of a money system? The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the available goods and services alongside existing money stock, creating price inflation, other things being equal. Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. >-- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >income people and at least substantially overall; > >-- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >inflation"; and Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2633 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090603/4c81fcd8/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jun 4 19:25:10 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:25:10 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" (2) Message-ID: <4A2873F6.60903@ashisuto.co.jp> Part Two by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 08 2009) Countercurrents.org (May 11 2009) This is the second of several articles on Ellen Brown's remarkable book titled "Web of Debt ... the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free" (2007). It's a multi-part snapshot. Reading the entire book is strongly recommended - easily obtainable through Amazon or Brown's webofdebt.com site. Bankers Capture the Money Machine - Fighting for the Family Farm In the 1890s, "keeping the family homestead was a key political issue" given that foreclosures and evictions "were occurring in record numbers", much like today. The "Bankers Manifesto of 1892" spelled it out - a willful plan "to disenfranchise farmers and laborers of their homes and property", again like today except that now our very freedom and futures are at stake as sinister forces aim to steal them by turning America into Guatemala and lock it down by police state repression. The panic of 1893 caused an earlier depression - severe enough to establish a precedent of street protests, the result of the first ever march on Washington. Businessman/populist Jacob Coxey led his "Coxey's Army" (of around 500) from Massilon, Ohio (beginning March 25, Easter Sunday) to the nation's capital to demand jobs and a return to debt and interest-free Greenbacks. Local police intervened. The marchers were disbanded. Coxey was arrested. He spent twenty days in jail for disturbing the peace and violating a local ordinance against walking on the grass. However, he was never charged, then released, and is now remembered for his heroics. He began a tradition later sparking suffragist marches; unemployed World War One veterans for their "Bonus Bill" money; numerous anti-war and earlier civil rights protests; in 2004, one million in the nation's capital for women's rights, and the previous day thousands protesting IMF-World Bank policies. The late 19th century Populist movement was the last serious challenge to private bankers' monopoly power over the nation's money. Journalist William Hope Harvey wrote a popular book titled Coin's Financial School (1893) that explained the problem in simple English - that restricting silver coinage was a conspiracy to enrich "London-controlled Eastern financiers at the expense of farmers and debtors". He called England "a money power that can dictate the money of the world, and thereby create world misery". He referred to the "Crime of 73" that limited free silver coinage and replaced it with British gold. It forced America to pay England $200 million annually in gold in interest on its bonds and inspired William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech. He nearly became president, but lost in a close (big-monied financed) race to William McKinley, but he, too, paid a price. He was later assassinated, likely for his protectionism, very much disadvantaging British bankers. With him gone, the Morgans and Rockefellers dominated US banking, and arranged for friendly leaders to run the country, Teddy Roosevelt included, a man with more bark than bite. "The trusts and cartels remained the puppeteers with real power, pulling the strings of puppet politicians" who were bought and paid for like today. The Secret Government Various presidents suggested the worst of what's now clear. By signing the Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson was a tool of big money. Yet he belatedly expressed regret, said "I have unwittingly ruined my country", and called America "one of the worst ruled ... most completely controlled governments in the civilized world (run by) a small group of dominant men". Franklin Roosevelt was as clear in saying "The real truth (is that) a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson". Other officials said the same thing, and so did Matthew Josephson (in his 1934 book) calling bankers and business titans "Robber Barons" - men who "lived for market conquest, and plotted takeovers like military strategy". They sought monopolies for market dominance and trusts - concentrated wealth in a few hands to be manipulated for maximum profits and power. During the Gilded Age, trusts became strong enough to plant "their own agents in the federal commissions, (use) government regulation (for) greater control ... protect themselves from competition", and keep prices high. Four names (among others) stand out - Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and J P Morgan running finance with the power of a potentate. "He didn't build, he bought. He took over other people's businesses, and he hated competition" so he eliminated it. Together with Rockefeller, they dominated business and finance through interlocking directorates, the same way as today throughout industry, commerce and finance. For his part, Morgan was so dominant, financial writer John Moody called him "the greatest financial power in the history of the world" even before the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Morgan died months before its creation, but his influence made it possible. His long arm favored the fortunate - with enough funding to monopolize their industries. "But where did (he and other bankers get their money)?" Congressman Wright Patman explained that they created it "out of an empty hat". They held the ultimate credit card, limitless accounting-entries to buy out competitors, corner raw materials markets, control politicians, and after the birth of public relations, popular opinion the way distinguished author/psychogist and activist Alex Carey explained in his seminal book titled Taking the Risk out of Democracy (1996): "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy". It came into its own during World War One, then grew, became dominant, and remains near-omnipotent today, even with fissures appearing with enough promise to challenge it. The Jekyll Island Affair - Establishing the Federal Reserve In 1910, seven financial titans met secretly on this privately-owned island off the coast of Georgia and created the Federal Reserve: -- established three years later on December 23, in the middle of the night, by an act of Congress; -- its most outrageous action ever that few legislators, if any, even read or would have understood if they did because the text was so intentionally vague; -- it enfranchised powerful bankers to hold the nation hostage in permanent debt bondage by giving them the right to create money, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that states Congress alone has the power "To coin (create) money (and) regulate the value thereof ..." Woodrow Wilson made it possible, "Morgan's man in the White House" with an administration staffed with his cronies. This act was so publicly harmful it had to be shepherded through a carefully arranged Conference Committee, scheduled for between 1:30 - 4:30 am three days before Christmas when many lawmakers had left town and many others were asleep. It was then enacted the next day - one that will live in infamy for the damage it caused. "The bill was so obscurely worded that no one really understood its provisions". The nation's money would be printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, then issued as a government obligation (or debt) to the private Federal Reserve with interest. Nominally, Congress and the president appoint Fed governors, but they operate secretly with no government oversight or control. As a privately owned banking cartel, they're a power unto themselves. The chairman sits at its helm, but he's a mere tool of the bankers who control him. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act "was a major coup" for them. The Fed exists to serve them, not the government or public interest. Therein lies its problem and why it must be abolished. For over a century, powerful international bankers wanted a private central bank giving them "the exclusive right to 'monetize' the government's debt (that is, print their own money and exchange it for government securities or IOUs.)" The entire Act was written in obscure Fedspeak so no one but its creators knew its purpose. "In plain English, the Federal Reserve Act authorized a private central bank to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government at interest, and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will". Nothing has been the same since. Who Owns the Federal Reserve? Contrary to common belief, it's a private banking cartel owned by its member banks in each of its twelve Fed districts. "The amount of Federal Reserve stock" each one holds "is proportional to its size". The New York Fed is most dominant (like a mother bank) owning 53% of the System's shares because the nation's largest commercial banks are located there, on Wall Street, of course, with names like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley prominent and familiar. Bank of America was founded in California and remains concentrated heavily in Western and Southwestern states, yet operates globally like the others. The largest banks are financial superpowers with interests in commercial and investment banking, insurance, real estate, home mortgages, credit cards, and virtually all things financial - nationally and globally. Financial commentator Hans Schicht refers to Wall Street's "master spider" controlling a powerful inner circle of men, headed by him. Their business is done secretly behind closed doors by what he calls "spider webbing". It exercises "tight personal management and control, with a minimum of insiders and front-men who themselves have only partial knowledge of the game. They also have "leverage" over mergers, takeovers, chain store holdings where one company holds shares of others, conditions annexed to loans, and so forth. Further, they make concentrated wealth "invisible. The master spider studiously avoids close scrutiny by maintaining anonymity, taking a back seat, and appearing to be a philanthropist". Post-World War Two, the center of power shifted from the House of Rothschild to Wall Street with David Rockefeller Seniorr (John D's grandson) becoming "master spider", a sort of boss of bosses, much like the underworld but much more deadly and powerful. All the more so because "the Robber Barons (used) their monopoly over money to buy up the major media, educational institutions", and other means of communications. They got all this but Morgan wanted more - to "secure the banks' loans to the government with a reliable source of taxes, (gotten directly from) the incomes of the people. There was just one snag." The Supreme Court "consistently" declared federal income taxes unconstitutional. So how were they instituted and why are they willingly paid? The Federal Income Tax The Constitution omits any mention of a federal income tax because the Founders "considered the taxation of private income, the ultimate source of productivity, to be economic folly". They also decided that the States and federal government shouldn't impose the same tax at the same time. Congress was to have responsibility "for collecting national taxes from the States' " tax revenues. Direct taxes were to be apportioned according to each State's population. "Income taxes were considered unapportioned direct taxes in violation of this provision of the Constitution". Except in times of war, no federal income tax existed until the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 13 1913 empowering Congress to levy one - unapportioned among the states. Even without one, the economy grew impressively for nearly a century and a half, adequately funded by customs and excise taxes. For a brief period, Congress enacted an income tax in 1894 when the nation was at peace. On April 8 1895, in Pollock vs Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, the Supreme Court held that unapportioned income taxes were unconstitutional. "That ruling has never been overturned". To get around it, Wall Street packaged the 16th Amendment with the Federal Reserve Act, both in 1913. It applied only to annual incomes over $4000, well above the average level at the time. The original tax code was simple enough to be covered in fourteen pages. It's now a 17,000 page monster, filled with obscure provisions professionals struggle to understand or even know about. It also has "whole pages devoted to private interests", including loopholes exempting powerful corporations from paying rightfully owed taxes. Before World War Two, income taxes affected few people. However, from 1939 to 1944, Congress passed various ones, including to fund the war effort, and began letting workers (voluntarily) pay them in installments. Thereafter, "withholding" became mandatory. "Today the federal income tax has acquired the standing of a legitimate tax enforceable by law, despite longstanding (Supreme Court rulings) strictly limiting its constitutional scope". Numerous other taxes were also added, including on capital gains, real estate, corporate income, FICA, sales, luxury, and IRS interest and penalties. With all hidden ones included (dozens in all), up to forty percent of an average worker's income goes for taxes. Enough for some tax protesters to challenge the 16th Amendment's legitimacy on grounds that it was improperly ratified. However, US courts rejected the argument and now it's "beyond review" - even though no tax would be needed if the federal government printed its own money interest-free instead of taking ours to defray banker-imposed charges. After signing the Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson called himself "a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country". Yet he knew precisely what he did. He was a lawyer, a PhD, a historian and political scientist, and former Princeton University president before entering politics. Reaping the Whirlwind - The Great Depression In theory, the Federal Reserve was established to stabilize the economy, smooth out the business cycle, manage a healthy, sustainable growth rate, and maintain stable prices. It failed dismally on all counts - most noticeably in the 1930s after a depression followed the crash. The Fed wasn't the solution. It was the problem. As in recent years, it kept interest rates low and money plentiful - not money, in fact, but "credit" or "debt", the same problem creating havoc today. In the 1920s, production rose faster than wages, but (again like today) people could borrow on credit. Then as stocks soared in "value", Wall Street promoted buying them on margin (namely, leverage on credit) on the premise that higher prices could repay loans. It turned "investing" into a "speculative pyramid scheme" based on money that didn't exist. The Fed caused the whole scheme with easy and plentiful money (credit). It assured the inevitable crash, and late in the game Fed officials saw it coming. New York Fed governor, Benjamin Strong, warned wealthy industrialists, politicians, and high foreign officials to sell stocks, then began reducing the money supply and raising bank-loan rates to correct the bubble "naturally". It caused a huge liquidity squeeze. Stock purchases declined. Prices fell. Margins were called causing the crash over three days - so-called Black Thursday (on October 24), Monday and Tuesday. The subsequent fallout was disastrous. From 1929 to 1933, "the money stock fell by a third, and a third of the nation's banks closed their doors ... It was dramatic evidence of the dangers of delegating the power to control the money supply to a single autocratic head of an autonomous agency". It resulted in a "vicious cyclone of debt ... dragging all in its path into hunger, poverty and despair" - the very process repeating today, including insiders being tipped off, selling high, profiting from the collapse at fire sale prices, and letting the public pay for the dirty scheme they had in mind in the first place. Then, like today - shifting huge wealth amounts from "the Great American Middle Class to Big Money". Instead of shutting the Fed and prosecuting its conspirators, Congress enacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), "ostensibly to prevent" another collapse. It insured deposits up to $5000 at the time and rescued some banks, but not all. It was for "rich and powerful" ones, the equivalent of prominent names today and considered then like now, "too big to fail" run by officials too important to offend. Milton Friedman blamed the Great Depression on the contraction of the money supply, but others disagreed. Chairman Louis McFadden of the House Banking and Currency Committee said it "was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence ... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all". The "Bankers Manifesto of 1934" suggested the same thing, and some observers today believe it's again playing out, this time on a global scale for much greater stakes for both winners and losers. Roosevelt, Keynes and the New Deal Roosevelt addressed the collapse straightaway, starting impressively in his first 100 days with the passage of fifteen landmark acts, covering: -- emergency banking; -- Glass-Steagall and the FDIC; -- empowering the Reconstruction Finance Corporation that was toothless under Hoover; -- the Securities Act of 1933, then the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; -- the Home Owners' Loan Corporation to refinance homes and prevent foreclosures; and -- an alphabet soup of development agencies in charge of constructing national infrastructure and producing jobs for the unemployed. In all, it was a whirlwind of achievement in a few short months unlike anything before or since - so much in such a short time. This writer's late April article said: Despite its flaws and failures, FDR's New Deal was remarkable in what it accomplished. It helped people, put millions back to work, reinvigorated the national spirit, built or renovated 700,000 miles of roads, 7800 bridges, 45,000 schools, 2500 hospitals, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 1000 airfields, and various other infrastructure, including much of Chicago's lakefront where this writer lives. It cut unemployment from 25% in May 1933 to eleven percent in 1937, then it spiked before early war production revived economic growth and headed it lower. Challenging Classical Economic Theory - Keynesianism Post-World War Two, it dominated economic policy, the idea being that deficit spending could propel nations to prosperity unlike the classical economic belief that money supply increases weren't needed. Its theory was that when the supply contracts, so do prices and wages naturally leaving everything in balance like before. It didn't work at a time people wanted jobs, but there were few around. Factories could produce, but there was little demand, and resources were available but unused - for the lack of enough pump priming to reinvigorate a collapsed economy. Enough, but not too much because as long as bankers print money, added liquidity means more debt and a greater amount to service. In addition, doing it crowds out social services, sacrifices industrial growth, and increases inflation hugely over time. The five cent ice cream cone and candy bars this writer remembers as a boy today cost around $2.50. If government printed its own money, they might still be a nickel or pretty close. Congressman Wright Patman suggested it in 1933 by asking: "Why is it necessary to have Government ownership and operation of banks? The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall coin money and regulate its value", not hand it over to predatory private bankers. Instead of returning money-creation power to the government, Roosevelt let "moneychangers" keep it under an overhauled Federal Reserve - a still powerful private banker-controlled "citadel, run from the top down (by) a small cartel of appointed banking representatives (operating) behind a curtain of secrecy", more powerful than government itself. Had Roosevelt acted like Jackson and Lincoln, it would have been his greatest achievement. Even so, in his first few months in office, he got enacted tough reformist legislation, very much impacting bankers. He also "took aim at the trusts and monopolies that had returned in force" in the anything-goes 1920s. By 1929, consolidation left around 200 companies "in control of over half of all American industry". FDR reversed the trend with new legislation, reviving earlier trust-busting efforts. He also imposed banking regulations as cited above - enough to get him to call financiers "unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred". Lucky for him he survived. Big money plays for keeps, wins more often than it loses, and generally on what matters most. Wright Patman Exposes the Money Machine A Texas Democrat, he served in Congress from 1929 - 1976 where from 1963 - 1975 he headed the House Banking and Currency Committee until his death. Unlike his counterparts today in the House and Senate, he was called an "economic Populist", one way being for how he exposed Fedspeak to reveal the scheme behind it. In an August 5 1964 Committee document titled "A Primer on Money", he concluded: "The Federal Reserve is a total moneymaking machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover (them) simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them." Although the Fed now returns most interest on its government bonds to the Treasury, of far greater importance is the windfall its member banks get. "The bonds that have been acquired essentially for free become the basis of the Fed's 'reserves' - the phantom money that is advanced many times over by commercial banks in the form of loans". Virtually all money in circulation comes from the Fed and its member banks, expanded by a factor of about ten (through fractional reserve lending) for every federal debt dollar monitized. It all "consists of loans on which the banks have been paid interest". This interest, not what the Fed gets, "is the real windfall to the banks". The limitless money-creation machine is kept hidden "in obscure Fedspeak", even undecipherable to people who think they understand the process. In The Creature from Jekyll Island (1998), Ed Griffin states that: "modern money is a grand illusion conjured by the magicians of finance and politics. (The Fed's function) is to turn debt into money. It's just that simple ... if one remembers that the process is not intended to be logical but to confuse and deceive." It has to be. Would the public ever put up with it if they realized they'd be had - that their tax money was being used to enrich bankers, and Washington made it possible. "Magical(ly) multiplying reserves is called fractional reserve banking" that seems more like a con or "shell game". Each dollar deposited "magically" becomes about ten in the form of loans or computer-generated funds. As explained below, "reserves" are being phased out so the ten to one multiple is actually higher but the principle is the same. So if $1 million deposited becomes $10 million, and $900,000 can be loaned out (the other $100,000 required for reserves), "money created out of thin air (at five percent interest) is doubled in about two years". The Fed claims it returns 95% of its profits to the Treasury. In fact, it's only the interest on federal securities held as reserves. Far more important is the windfall afforded banks, the Fed's owners, that "use the securities as the 'reserves' that get multiplied many times over in the form of loans" that generate huge profits for them. Wright Patman wanted to abolish the Open Market Committee and nationalize the Fed, thus giving Congress control of it as a "truly federal agency" issuing interest-free money. The Fed is now heading for a zero percent reserve requirement meaning they'll be "no limit to the number of times deposits can be relent". There's effectively no limit now as if banks exhaust their reserves, they can borrow freely from the Fed - today at zero percent interest. Inside the Fed's Playbook "Banks don't have to have the money they lend before they make loans, because the Fed will 'provide' the necessary reserves by making them available at the federal funds rate" - today amounting to limitless free money at zero percent interest to be loaned out at higher rates for profit. The "slight of hand" is that the Fed "creates reserves out of thin air". Loans then become deposits that banks can freely re-lend many times over - the more deposits, the greater the amount of lending. It's a process of multiplying the money supply and charging interest for doing it, a very profitable business when working well in a healthy economy. So, the process works as follows: -- banks "lend money (they) don't have"; -- loans become deposits on their books; -- when borrowers spend their money, banks raise their reserves back to the required ten percent (or less) "by borrowing from the Fed or other sources"; and -- the Fed never runs out of reserves because its "open market operations" create more of them; it simply manufactures whatever amounts it wishes out of thin air, and the public is none the wiser or that they're being taxed to pay for this shell game. Reserves don't comprise safe money to pay claimants. They're accounting entries at Federal Reserve banks letting commercial banks "make many times those sums in loans". In plain English, "reserve accounts are a smoke and mirrors accounting trick concealing the fact that banks create the money they lend out of thin air, borrowing any 'reserves' they need from the Fed, which also creates the money out of thin air". What a business, especially given how secretive it is under the protection and auspices of the federal government that sanctions the con. There's more as well. Besides what they loan out, banks "create their own investment money" to use for their own purposes. Traditionally, commercial banks invested conservatively, but not investment banks. They raise money for their clients through stock issuances and sales. But more important is their "proprietary trading" that involves using their own money to buy or sell stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, or any other financial instrument or derivative thereof no matter how risky. Since investment and commercial banks may be one in the same, limitless sums are available through magical money creation and open-ended Fed borrowing, then leveraged multiple times through more borrowing. The game worked "magically" until it no longer did the old way, so alternatives are used. Bear Raids and Short Sales The 1929 "Crash" happened on three "Black" days but "continued for nearly four years, stoked by speculators who made huge profits not only on the market's" ascent but during its plunge to eleven percent of its peak value. Called a "bear raid", it targets vulnerable stocks for "take-down" quick profits or corporate takeovers at fire sale prices. When done on a large scale, short selling can impact markets greatly on the downside just like heavy "program buying" can rocket it up. The whole business amounts to blatant manipulation for quick profits. Short sellers actually do it with borrowed (not owned) stock, then sell it into the market. If it declines (it may also rise, of course), it's re-bought at the lower price, returned to the seller, with short-sellers pocketing the difference as profit. It's not investing. It's gambling with someone else's stock, without permission to borrow it, and as a result harms its owner by driving down the price when it works. "Short selling is sometimes justified as being necessary to keep a brake on (over-exuberance) that might otherwise drive popular stocks into dangerous 'bubbles'. (However,) Any alleged advantages to a company from the liquidity afforded by short selling (and supposedly keeping markets honest) are offset by the serious harm (this causes) companies targeted for take-down(s) in bear raids." When done with enough force, it can destroy companies if that's the intent. "Short selling is the modern version of the counterfeiting (that brought) down the Continental in the 1770s". Currencies, bonds, and commodities can be shorted just like stocks - to manipulate them for profit. Worse still, and illegal, is so-called naked short-selling without first borrowing the security shorted, assuring it can be borrowed, or arranging to borrow it as required by law - the reason being that it's an even easier way to manipulate stock prices so SEC regulations ban it. Even so, the idea that markets move randomly is rubbish. So is believing that companies or nations don't target competitors for destruction by attacking their worth through short selling or other manipulative ways. Hedge funds and Derivatives "Hedge funds are private funds that pool the assets of wealthy investors with the aim of making 'absolute returns' - making a profit whether (markets go) up or down" on whatever financial assets they invest in. Leverage is used for maximum profitability, the more of it the greater gain or loss. In futures trading, it's called the margin - placing "many more bets than if they had paid the full price". Originally, hedge funds were to "hedge (investment) bets ... against currency or interest rate fluctuations (but) they quickly became instruments for manipulation and control". At their peak, they controlled over half of daily equity market trading because of their numbers, size, amount of capital, and frequency of their buying or selling. Derivatives are one of their key tools - essentially making "side bets that some underlying investment will go up or down" to insure against the risk. "All derivatives are variations on futures trading (and like it) is inherently speculation or gambling". Familiar examples include puts and calls - on whether assets will go down or up. "Over ninety percent of the derivatives held by banks ... are 'over-the-counter' (ones) specially tailored to financial institutions (with) exotic and complex features, not traded on standard exchanges". They're unregulated, hard to trace, and "very hard to understand", quite often impossible. In a 1998 interview, banking columnist John Hoefle called them "the last gasp of a financial bubble". More recently Warren Buffett said they were "financial weapons of mass destruction" even though he owns a sizable amount of them and incurred considerable losses as a result. Derivatives aren't assets. They're "just bets" on how assets will perform using very little real money. Most is borrowed to make private unreported, unregulated bets that have soared to a "notional value" of around $370 trillion, according to the Bank for International Settlements as of 2006. Notional value is "the number of units of an asset underlying the contract, multiplied by the spot price of the asset". In other words, "fanciful, dubious or imaginary" assets. The amount gets so large because when unregulated "gamblers can bet any amount of money they want", and when markets work well for them, the sky's the limit. In mid-2006, the Office of the Controller of the Currency reported that around 97% of US bank-held derivatives were owned by five major US banks, including JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. In November 2005, Bloomberg reported that the credit derivatives market was "vulnerable to a crisis if one (of their major bank holders) fails to pay on contracts that insure creditors from companies defaulting ..." John Hoefle warned we were "on the verge of the biggest financial blowout in centuries, bigger than the Great Depression ..." Since banks can create money out of thin air, how can they go bankrupt? Because under accounting rules, commercial banks have to balance their books so their assets equal liabilities. "They can create all the money they can find borrowers for, but" if loans default, banks must record a loss. Just imagine - if the government created money and not banks, economic stability would follow, crises could be avoided or greatly lessened, inflation would be minimal or non-existant, prosperous growth would be long-term, and bank loans would be far less risky than today assuring steady profits but in smaller amounts. A follow-up article will discuss global debt entrapment. _____ 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 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. http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/reviewing-ellen-browns-web-of-debt-part_08.html http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman110509.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jun 5 00:26:40 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:26:40 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <7o4dbq$4mkf8h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <4A28BAA0.9010102@ashisuto.co.jp> Sorry Todd, but neither Ellen Brown's nor Lendman's claim is excessive. The federal debt can, indeed, be eliminated without consequence or pain (to the nation and its citizens, although banks and other bondholders may suffer the pain of the end of their parasitic freeloading). I've made the calculations for Japan, which shouldn't be much different than any other nation. Japan's public debt has built up from zero since 1968 solely because Japan's government has allowed private banks to create most of its currency, then borrowed most of the currency those private banks created, instead of creating all of that currency itself and spending it into circulation. I posted the calculations here earlier but can send them to you again if you wish. A summary of the results for Japan are as follows: 80% of Japan's Outstanding Public Debt has been spent to service that debt 30% of the taxes Japanese have paid since 1968 have been spent to service the public debt 90% of the money created by Japan's private banks has been borrowed by Japan's government 75% of those borrowings have been used to service the public debt All Japan needs to do is require private banks to have 100% reserves for all loans they make. It already has the legal authority to do that. Since the private banks have only ten percent or less of reserves for their currently outstanding loans, this would prevent private banks from making any more loans (that is, prevent them from creating any more money). Then if Japan's government would create and spend into circulation money at the same rate private banks have done over the past forty years, Japan's public debt would disappear in about forty years without any increase in taxes, and taxes could be reduced by about thirty percent thereafter.?This wouldn't cause inflation because the money created and spend into circulation would supplant, not add to, money created by private banks. A faster way would be for Japan or any other nation to announce it will pay no interest on its outstanding bonds hereafter (starting tomorrow). If that caused anyone to what to sell his/her/its bonds, Japan (or any other nation) could print enough money to buy them. Of course, if private banks tried to sell their bonds, their reserves would be reduced by the amount of the bonds they sold and, since their current reserves are ten percent or less than their outstanding loans, that would force them to reduce their outstanding loans by ten times or more than the amount of the loans they sold. This most likely would cause them to hold onto those bonds (even though they no longer paid interest) to prevent them from losing the interest on the loans they've made with those bonds as reserves. And if the banks did sell bonds and call in loans, the government could print money and loan it to the customers whose loans were called in, much as FDR's Reconstruction Finance Corporation did in the 1930s. Foreign nations, the other major holders of any nation's bonds, would have trouble selling them since each sale would reduce the value of their remaining holdings (the very problem that keeps China, Japan, Russia and the OPEC nations from dumping their toxic US Treasury bonds now). Finally, renouncing the payment of interest on outstanding bonds would wreck the nation's credit ratings, making it difficult to issue new bonds. But that wouldn't matter because nations able to collect taxes effectively don't need to borrow money because they can print all the money (other than taxes) they need because people will always want that money if (1) it is the only money that government accepts in payment of taxes and (2) it is the only money that government pays for whatever it buys. Yes, indeed, the federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain to the nation and its citizens, although any president that tried to do this might likely be assassinated. Bill Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, > The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, > money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people > it represents". Imagine the possibilities: > > -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable > amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't that the essence of a money system? The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the available goods and services alongside existing money stock, creating price inflation, other things being equal. Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. > -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle > income people and at least substantially overall; > > -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway > inflation"; and Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. Todd Todd Boyle wrote: > Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: > > At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, > >> The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >> money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people >> it represents". Imagine the possibilities: >> >> -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >> amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; > > The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the > federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's > not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and > has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the > paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't > that the essence of a money system? > > The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with > money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, > without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is > talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the > available goods and services alongside existing money stock, > creating price inflation, other things being equal. > > Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world > have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, > in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their > fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you > get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the > global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt > can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and > ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all > of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast > majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. > >> -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >> income people and at least substantially overall; >> >> -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >> inflation"; and > > Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. > > Todd From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jun 5 03:55:42 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:55:42 +0900 Subject: [A-List] How The US Empire Contributed To The Economic Crisis Message-ID: <4A28EB9E.4070407@ashisuto.co.jp> by Ivan Eland Mwcnews.net (May 12 2009) A few - and only a few - prescient commentators have questioned whether the US can sustain its informal global empire in the wake of the most severe economic crisis since World War Two. And the simultaneous quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan are leading more and more opinion leaders and taxpayers to this question. But the US Empire helped cause the meltdown in the first place. War has a history of causing financial and economic calamities. It does so directly by almost always causing inflation - that is, too much money chasing too few goods. During wartime, governments usually commandeer resources from the private sector into the government realm to fund the fighting. This action leaves shortages of resources to make consumer goods and their components, therefore pushing prices up. Making things worse, governments often times print money to fund the war, thus adding to the amount of money chasing the smaller number of consumer goods. Such "make-believe" wealth has funded many US wars. For example, the War of 1812 had two negative effects on the US financial system. First, in 1814, the federal government allowed state-chartered banks to suspend payment in gold and silver to their depositors. In other words, according Tom J. DiLorenzo in Hamilton's Curse (2008), the banks did not have to hold sufficient gold and silver reserves to cover their loans. This policy allowed the banks to loan the federal government more money to fight the war. The result was an annual inflation rate of 55 percent in some US cities. The government took this route of expanding credit during wartime because no US central bank existed at the time. Congress, correctly questioning The Bank of the United States' constitutionality, had not renewed its charter upon expiration in 1811. But the financial turmoil caused by the war led to a second pernicious effect on the financial system - the resurrection of the bank in 1817 in the form of the Second Bank of the United States. Like the first bank and all other government central banks in the future, the second bank flooded the market with new credit. In 1818, this led to excessive real estate speculation and a consequent bubble. The bubble burst during the Panic of 1819, which was the first recession in the nation's history. Sound familiar? Although President Andrew Jackson got rid of the second bank in the 1830s and the US economy generally flourished with a freer banking system until 1913, at that time yet another central bank - this time the Federal Reserve System - rose from the ashes. We have seen that war ultimately causes the creation of both economic problems and nefarious government financial institutions that cause those difficulties. And of course, the modern day US Empire also creates such economic maladies and wars that allow those institutions to wreak havoc on the economy. The Fed caused the current collapse in the real estate credit market, which has led to a more general global financial and economic meltdown, by earlier flooding the market with excess credit. That money went into real estate, thus creating an artificial bubble that eventually came crashing down in 2008. But what caused the Fed to vastly expand credit? To prevent a potential economic calamity after 9/11 and soothe jitters surrounding the risky and unneeded US invasion of Iraq, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan began a series of interest rate cuts that vastly increased the money supply. According to Thomas E Woods Jr in Meltdown (2009), the interest rate cuts culminated in the extraordinary policy of lowering the federal funds rate (the rate at which banks lend to one another overnight, which usually determines other interest rates) to only one percent for an entire year (from June 2003 to June 2004). Woods notes that more money was created between 2000 and 2007 than in the rest of US history. Much of this excess money ended up creating the real estate bubble that eventually caused the meltdown. Ben Bernanke, then a Fed governor, was an ardent advocate of this easy money policy, which as Fed Chairman he has continued as his solution to an economic crisis he helped create using the same measures. Of course, according to Osama bin Laden, the primary reasons for the 9/11 attacks were US occupation of Muslim lands and US propping up of corrupt dictators there. And the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary because there was never any connection between al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein, and even if Saddam had had biological, chemical, or even nuclear weapons, the massive US nuclear arsenal would have likely deterred him from using them on the United States. So the causal arrow goes from these imperial behaviors - and blowback there from - to increases in the money supply to prevent related economic slowdown, which in turn caused even worse eventual financial and economic calamities. These may be indirect effects of empire, but they cannot be ignored. Get rid of the overseas empire because we can no longer can afford it, especially when it is partly responsible for the economic distress that is making us poorer. _____ Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an MBA in applied economics and PhD in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent fifteen years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books, The Empire Has No Clothes: US Foreign Policy Exposed (2004, 2008), and Putting "Defense" Back into US Defense Policy (2001). http://www.countercurrents.org/eland120509.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Jun 4 17:08:31 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:08:31 -0500 Subject: [A-List] PANAMA NO FTA CUBA OAS Message-ID: <94C53EF9B45043F9AC911DE6F723F238@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here PANAMA NO TO FTA NO TO PANAMA FTA Witness for Peace reports on how people's response whipped enough Congresspeople into line to at least hold off. CUBA OAS How is it that a circumstance that the People of the Americas know about we of the USA do not. How do myths and lies keep going on, same myths and lies. What is it about the Miami Cuban Mafia? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1467 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090604/d244cf7b/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/20090604/d244cf7b/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Cort Greene Subject: [socialist_youth] OAS Decision on Cuba: No Surprise, All According to the Plan Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:41:07 -0500 Size: 23002 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090604/d244cf7b/attachment-0002.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Ben Beachy Subject: Trade We Actually Like: Your rep is key Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Size: 23203 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090604/d244cf7b/attachment-0003.eml From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Jun 4 18:22:08 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 19:22:08 -0500 Subject: [A-List] COLOMBIA IN AUGUST - Slots Open for Colombia Delegation to Visit Sustainable Farms, Labor Unions Message-ID: <4056119652DC48999CB04AD4034F32D3@NSCCHICAGO> Quick Links FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS EXCITING DELEGATION CALL 520-243-0381 OR EMAIL US AT clrlabor at AFGJ.org Please sign the Four Steps Toward Hope and Change in US-Colombia Relations Petition VISIT OUR NEW WEBSITE at www.clrlabor.org ! Follow CLR on Twitter Check CLR out on Myspace Alliance for Global Justice's Campaign For Labor Rights Invites YOU to participate in a unique delegation to Colombia August 7-17, 2009 Hosted by FENSUAGRO Colombia's largest union of farmers and farmworkers Colombia is frequently in the news in the US. It is center stage of the "drug war," the free trade/fair trade debate, and concerns about human rights. More union organizers are killed in Colombia each year than all the rest of the world combined. The US has pumped over $7 billion into military and related aid through Plan Colombia and is building a new base there from which it can reach every country in South America. Colombia has the second largest population displaced by war in the world. Join AfGJ's Campaign for Labor Rights on a unique delegation to learn first-hand from Colombian farmers, Afro-Colombian refugees, Sugar cane workers, cooperative members, and families of political prisoners, and those who have lost family members or are threatened by war. The delegation will have meetings across the political spectrum, visit farming regions near Cali and the capital city of Bogot?, and spend two days in the beautiful Caribbean beach town of Santa Marta. Because of our unique relationship with the union, this is one of the few US delegations hosted by FENSUAGRO, whose members have suffered more from paramilitary violence than any other union, making this an experience not to be missed by any person who wants to make up her or his own mind about where truth lies in the conflicting information about Colombia that we read in the US press. Colombia has been divided by a 45-year civil war, but the delegation will not be visiting zones of conflict and all measures will be taken to insure a safe and information-packed delegation. Delegates will be met at the airport in Cali, Colombia on August 7 and delivered to the Bogota airport on August 19. Delegation price includes in-country transportation, translation, housing, two meals a day. It does not include international airfare. Price for the 12 day delegation is $1400. Application deadline is June 30. Non-refundable deposit of $200 is due with application and balance is due by Aug. 1. Send an email to clrlabor at AFGJ.org or call 520-243-0381 to request an application. This Alert was prepared by the Campaign for Labor Rights. We can be reached by phone at 202-544-9355 or 520-243-0381. You can also email james at afgj.org for more information. Visit our website at: http://www.clrlabor.org/wordpress/ Forward email This email was sent to jon at afgj.org by clr at clrlabor.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by Alliance for Global Justice | 1247 E St. SE | Washington | DC | 20003 THIS IS A TEST EMAIL ONLY. This email was sent by the author for the sole purpose of testing a draft message. If you believe you have received the message in error, please contact the author by replying to this message. Constant Contact takes reports of abuse very seriously: if you wish to report abuse, please forward this message to abuse at constantcontact.com. __._,_.___ Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 26277 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090604/dc367ee8/attachment.txt From PeterHollings at comcast.net Fri Jun 5 06:31:04 2009 From: PeterHollings at comcast.net (Peter Hollings) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:31:04 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <7o4dbq$4mkf8c@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8c@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <1244205064.7349.67.camel@phollings-desktop> Todd, my understanding of it is that the most concrete monetary reform proposal is that of the American Monetary Institute (http://www.monetary.org/) and I believe that Brown & Lendman are advocating something along those lines. The AMI has drafted a piece of legislation that I expect Rep. Kucinich to introduce that would have the power to issue money transferred to the US Treasury. The US government would spend this money into circulation and also use it to redeem existing US debt. Since the new money would be issued without interest payment obligations, future interest payment obligations would be cancelled as the outstanding interest-bearing debt was redeemed. This would free up a large amount of society's resources to be used, hopefully, for social programs. As a side benefit, it would disempower the banking cartel that presently directs our society and government. Peter On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 09:36 -0700, Todd Boyle wrote: > Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: > > At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, > > > > The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, > > money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the > > people > > it represents". Imagine the possibilities: > > > > -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable > > amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; > > > The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the > federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's > not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and > has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the > paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't > that the essence of a money system? > > The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with > money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, > without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is > talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the > available goods and services alongside existing money stock, > creating price inflation, other things being equal. > > Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world > have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, > in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their > fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you > get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the > global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt > can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and > ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase > all > of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast > majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. > > > > -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle > > income people and at least substantially overall; > > > > -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway > > inflation"; and > > > Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. > > Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4130 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090605/807649ef/attachment.txt From barmy_basket at yahoo.es Fri Jun 5 08:20:27 2009 From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:20:27 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <1244205064.7349.67.camel@phollings-desktop> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8c@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <1244205064.7349.67.camel@phollings-desktop> Message-ID: <4A2929AB.7080206@yahoo.es> All fine and dandy. Casually, every and each U.S. president who attempted s.t. along these lines was promptly killed. http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2009/06/greenbacks-crazy-lone-nuts-dead.html Peter Hollings wrote: > Todd, my understanding of it is that the most concrete monetary reform > proposal is that of the American Monetary Institute > (http://www.monetary.org/) and I believe > that Brown & Lendman are advocating something along those lines. The > AMI has drafted a piece of legislation that I expect Rep. Kucinich to > introduce that would have the power to issue money transferred to the > US Treasury. The US government would spend this money into circulation > and also use it to redeem existing US debt. Since the new money would > be issued without interest payment obligations, future interest > payment obligations would be cancelled as the outstanding > interest-bearing debt was redeemed. This would free up a large amount > of society's resources to be used, hopefully, for social programs. As > a side benefit, it would disempower the banking cartel that presently > directs our society and government. > > Peter From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Fri Jun 5 06:23:06 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:23:06 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Yes, Iroquois Diplomacy at Akwesasne Message-ID: <01dfb0a5$39969$0cd53493613773@xnote> YES, IROQUOIS DIPLOMACY MNN. June 3, 2009. Canada has always known that we were against putting guns in the hands of the border guards in the middle of our community. The US and Canada have abandoned their border checkpoints at Cornwall Island in the St. Lawrence River. The New York State Police and Cornwall City Police have closed down the bridges. We can?t easily get on or off the island or go about our normal lives. In fact we are imprisoned. Canada created propaganda against us to provoke a confrontation and then an assault. Then the guns were to be put into the middle of our community. We think other indigenous communities might be next. Prime Minister Harper just announced a policy that he was going to generously fund those Indigenous who cooperate with resource development and extraction. The rest of us will just have to sink or swim. We are being isolated on the island. Our trade and commerce with each other is being deliberately crushed. This is having a dire impact on our ability to feed our families. About $100 million worth of construction is planned around Cornwall and on the island for a humongous international commercial transport depot. We would never approve this. Respondents around us think that the customs facility should be moved off Cornwall Island. Others think a joint Canada-U.S. customs facility should be built on the south side. People on the US side like to have guns to control and scare people. Canadians generally don?t the same necessity for them. Those CBSA guards who are being given guns have made it clear that they don?t like us. They are dangerous. Both the US and Canada have set up tribal and band councils in our communities. In this case these councils have turned out to be loyal to us. Canada would like to bull doze an agreement with them. They refuse to sign any agreement because they know how it will hurt us and our families. This issue has brought everybody together. We are standing together against our oppressors. Their idea of cooperation is to co-opt our so-called leaders. When Champlain first met us, he shot our Royaner and Otiyaner without any questions asked. In 2009 these bullets never disconnected us from our land. The Two Row Wampum agreement is being violated. There are two paths that shall never cross. In any negotiation the colonists would have to be truthful and honorable with us. Canada?s battleship diplomacy is intimidation with the threat of military deployment. They have put an embargo on us to starve us out and make us surrender. This approach will not lead to a lasting settlement. Canada wrongly thinks they can only use force and threats. After 500 years we?ve never violated who we are. They don?t want to sit down with us. They are afraid to see our full valid legal position that we never surrendered our sovereignty or identity on Great Turtle Island. Armed force is building up and to make us give in. Slimy Canada is provoking the stalemate on behalf of their international bankster bosses. Their hired public relations guns are creating the myth that we are dangerous. Racial taunts, assaults and interrogation of our youth, some as young as 18 months old by the guards, have escalated. We are a communal people and have no leaders. We have to consult each other and everyone. Secret agreements are forbidden and cannot be supported by us. When we are threatened, there can be no negotiation. The British knew this. This was the blueprint for the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and all treaties on Great Turtle Island. We never jump into negotiations. We always went for a long lasting agreement which would stand for hundreds of years. We made sure both sides understood each others position. Sometimes we said nothing for weeks or months at a time. Then we talk. Otherwise negotiations are flawed. Every time these invaders came to us, they had guns or something to take our lives. In Akwesasne, there is nothing to negotiate. To put the guns to our heads or not to put the guns to our heads, is the question before the colonists. Threats of force are being hurled to make us give up freedom and our land in order to stop them from harassing or killing us. Our neighbors agree with us. The US and Canada created this demilitarized zone that we are caught in. They can open it or keep it closed. The guns issue is a cover. Canada?s institutions and para military organizations have been infiltrated. Canada wants to cut the Mohawk Nation down to size because we are standing up against the US takeover. Our question is when will the colonists become human beings? If you can?t talk fairly with us, you should immediately return everything you took from us? You should take your guns, leave us alone and stop trying to be like violent Americans? Contact: Rotiskenekete 514-269-1400; Chief N. Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. 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. 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 tboyle at rosehill.net Fri Jun 5 09:08:09 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:08:09 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <4A28BAA0.9010102@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <4A28BAA0.9010102@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: Bill, thanks for your research on those economic statistics-- that's remarkable! Good work. I am very sympathetic to this whole proposition. But you haven't refuted my position: that the debt owed by the US Treas. has real consequences, and that the holders of the debt expect to be paid, and to exchange the money for real things. And many of the present account holders earned their balances fair and square. The U.S. as a whole, runs very huge trade deficits. It would be injustice to repudiate those debts outright. Can't we go back and retrace every transaction, and identify the rotten parts-- all original issuances that were unearned, and the interest that has flowed, and the interest still flowing on those transactions? The fact of all these bank transfers is probably still on the archive copies of bank records. Or, have they "lost" them, like the nixon tapes? At 11:26 PM 6/4/2009, Bill Totten wrote: >Sorry Todd, but neither Ellen Brown's nor >Lendman's claim is excessive. The federal debt >can, indeed, be eliminated without consequence >or pain (to the nation and its citizens, >although banks and other bondholders may suffer >the pain of the end of their parasitic >freeloading). I've made the calculations for >Japan, which shouldn't be much different than >any other nation. Japan's public debt has built >up from zero since 1968 solely because Japan's >government has allowed private banks to create >most of its currency, then borrowed most of the >currency those private banks created, instead of >creating all of that currency itself and >spending it into circulation. I posted the >calculations here earlier but can send them to you again if you wish. > >A summary of the results for Japan are as follows: > >80% of Japan's Outstanding Public Debt has been spent to service that debt > >30% of the taxes Japanese have paid since 1968 >have been spent to service the public debt > >90% of the money created by Japan's private >banks has been borrowed by Japan's government > >75% of those borrowings have been used to service the public debt > >All Japan needs to do is require private banks >to have 100% reserves for all loans they make. >It already has the legal authority to do that. >Since the private banks have only ten percent or >less of reserves for their currently outstanding >loans, this would prevent private banks from >making any more loans (that is, prevent them >from creating any more money). Then if Japan's >government would create and spend into >circulation money at the same rate private banks >have done over the past forty years, Japan's >public debt would disappear in about forty years >without any increase in taxes, and taxes could >be reduced by about thirty percent >thereafter.???This wouldn't cause inflation >because the money created and spend into >circulation would supplant, not add to, money created by private banks. > >A faster way would be for Japan or any other >nation to announce it will pay no interest on >its outstanding bonds hereafter (starting >tomorrow). If that caused anyone to what to sell >his/her/its bonds, Japan (or any other nation) >could print enough money to buy them. Of course, >if private banks tried to sell their bonds, >their reserves would be reduced by the amount of >the bonds they sold and, since their current >reserves are ten percent or less than their >outstanding loans, that would force them to >reduce their outstanding loans by ten times or >more than the amount of the loans they sold. >This most likely would cause them to hold onto >those bonds (even though they no longer paid >interest) to prevent them from losing the >interest on the loans they've made with those >bonds as reserves. And if the banks did sell >bonds and call in loans, the government could >print money and loan it to the customers whose >loans were called in, much as FDR's >Reconstruction Finance Corporation did in the 1930s. > >Foreign nations, the other major holders of any >nation's bonds, would have trouble selling them >since each sale would reduce the value of their >remaining holdings (the very problem that keeps >China, Japan, Russia and the OPEC nations from >dumping their toxic US Treasury bonds now). > >Finally, renouncing the payment of interest on >outstanding bonds would wreck the nation's >credit ratings, making it difficult to issue new >bonds. But that wouldn't matter because nations >able to collect taxes effectively don't need to >borrow money because they can print all the >money (other than taxes) they need because >people will always want that money if (1) it is >the only money that government accepts in >payment of taxes and (2) it is the only money >that government pays for whatever it buys. > >Yes, indeed, the federal debt can be eliminated >without consequence or pain to the nation and >its citizens, although any president that tried >to do this might likely be assassinated. Bill > > > >Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: > >At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, > > > The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, > > money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people > > it represents". Imagine the possibilities: > > > > -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable > > amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; > >The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the >federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's >not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and >has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the >paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't >that the essence of a money system? > >The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with >money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, >without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is >talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the >available goods and services alongside existing money stock, >creating price inflation, other things being equal. > >Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world >have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, >in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their >fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you >get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the >global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt >can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and >ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all >of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast >majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. > > > -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle > > income people and at least substantially overall; > > > > -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway > > inflation"; and > >Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. > >Todd > >Todd Boyle wrote: >>Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: >>At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, >> >>>The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >>>money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people >>>it represents". Imagine the possibilities: >>> >>>-- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >>>amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; >>The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the >>federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's >>not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and >>has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the >>paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't >>that the essence of a money system? >>The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with >>money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, >>without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is >>talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the >>available goods and services alongside existing money stock, >>creating price inflation, other things being equal. >>Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world >>have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, >>in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their >>fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you >>get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the >>global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt >>can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and >>ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all >>of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast >>majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. >> >>>-- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >>>income people and at least substantially overall; >>> >>>-- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >>>inflation"; and >>Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. >>Todd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 10203 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090605/1e022160/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Fri Jun 5 11:54:36 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 13:54:36 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Obama's Immigration Strategy; A recent sampling of COHA citations Message-ID: <20090605175425.BF61A3E4C4F@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4868 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090605/2fc70ad6/attachment.txt From hugh at svarsmaal.dk Fri Jun 5 15:27:29 2009 From: hugh at svarsmaal.dk (Hugh Whinfrey) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:27:29 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8c@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu><1244205064.7349.67.camel@phollings-desktop> <4A2929AB.7080206@yahoo.es> Message-ID: <0d5a01c9e625$074ff9b0$740cfea9@gabby> It's time for Anne to get ready to write a sequel entitled "The Harvard Boys Do America". Hugh ----- Original Message ----- From: "peripatetic" To: "The A-List" Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" > All fine and dandy. Casually, every and each U.S. president who > attempted s.t. along these lines was promptly killed. > > http://webabuser.blogspot.com/2009/06/greenbacks-crazy-lone-nuts-dead.html > > Peter Hollings wrote: > > Todd, my understanding of it is that the most concrete monetary reform > > proposal is that of the American Monetary Institute > > (http://www.monetary.org/) and I believe > > that Brown & Lendman are advocating something along those lines. The > > AMI has drafted a piece of legislation that I expect Rep. Kucinich to > > introduce that would have the power to issue money transferred to the > > US Treasury. The US government would spend this money into circulation > > and also use it to redeem existing US debt. Since the new money would > > be issued without interest payment obligations, future interest > > payment obligations would be cancelled as the outstanding > > interest-bearing debt was redeemed. This would free up a large amount > > of society's resources to be used, hopefully, for social programs. As > > a side benefit, it would disempower the banking cartel that presently > > directs our society and government. > > > > Peter > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 16:53:05 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leigh Meyers) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:53:05 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Like watching a minnow swallow a whale: Penske 'high leveraged' car dealership chain takes GM's Saturn Message-ID: It's the institutional version of the waitress I met who bought a $300,000 dollar mortgage because they let her. Bloomberg: http://trunc.it/cf26 ___________________________________________________________ Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software. Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jun 5 18:32:34 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:32:34 +0900 Subject: [A-List] What Hamilton Has Wrought Message-ID: <4A29B922.6010902@ashisuto.co.jp> by Thomas J DiLorenzo LewRockwell.com (October 06 2008) The current economic crisis is the inevitable consequence of what I call Hamilton's Curse (2008) in my new book of that name. It is the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and his political, economic, and constitutional philosophy. As George Will once wrote, Americans are fond of quoting Jefferson, but we live in Hamilton's country. The great debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over the purpose of government, which animates American politics to this day, was very much about economic policy. Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system - the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from - to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation's capital. Jefferson and his followers opposed him every step of the way because they understood that Hamilton's agenda was totally destructive of liberty. And unlike Hamilton, they took Adam Smith's warnings against economic interventionism seriously. Hamilton complained to George Washington that "we need a government of more energy" and expressed disgust over "an excessive concern for liberty in public men" like Jefferson. Hamilton "had perhaps the highest respect for government of any important American political thinker who ever lived", wrote Hamilton biographer Clinton Rossiter. Hamilton and his political compatriots, the Federalists, understood that a mercantilist empire is a very bad thing if you are on the paying end, as the colonists were. But if you are on the receiving end, that's altogether different. It's good to be the king, as Mel Brooks would say. Hamilton was neither the inventor of capitalism in America nor "the prophet of the capitalist revolution in America", as biographer Ron Chernow ludicrously asserts. He was the instigator of "crony capitalism", or government primarily for the benefit of the well-connected business class. Far from advocating capitalism, Hamilton was "befogged in the mists of mercantilism" according to the great late nineteenth century sociologist William Graham Sumner. The Curse of Government Debt In a lengthy "report" to Congress on the topic of the public debt Hamilton said that "a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a public blessing". He would spend the rest of his life politicking for excessive government spending - and debt. The reason Hamilton gave for favoring a large public debt was not to finance any particular project, or to stabilize financial markets, but to combine the interests of the affluent people of the country - particularly business people - to the government. As the owners of government bonds, he reasoned, they would forever support his agenda of higher taxes and bigger government. (He condemned Jefferson's first inaugural address and its minimal government message as "the symptom of a pygmy mind".) No wonder one historian entitled his book on Hamilton "American Machiavelli". Wall Street financiers naturally took an immediate liking to Hamilton's idea, and became the financial cornerstone of the Federalist Party (and later, the Whigs and Republicans). When Hamilton engineered the nationalization of the states' debt as treasury secretary - something that was totally unnecessary since many states like Virginia had nearly paid off their war debts - the plan was to cash out much of the old debt at face value. This immediately became public knowledge in New York City, but the news spread ever so slowly to the rest of the country. Consequently, Hamilton's friends and supporters from New York City and New England went on a mad scramble down the eastern seaboard, purchasing bonds from hapless war veterans (who had been paid in bonds) for as little as two percent of par value. Huge fortunes were made by these slick New York speculators. Robert Morris pocketed a nifty $18 million. John Quincy Adams wrote to his father that the wealthiest Federalist lawyer in Massachusetts made a huge fortune with this caper. Hamilton participated in this parade of plunder himself, but claimed that the profits he made were for his brother-in-law. The link between Wall Street and the federal government was cemented into place later on, when investment banks took on the responsibility of marketing the government's bonds, which of course they still do to this day. Thus, Wall Street investment bankers became inveterate lobbyists for any and all tax increases (on the rest of the population, anyway) to assure that their own principal and interest would be paid, and that they could promise their clients - the purchasers of government bonds - that the bonds were a good investment. They were corrupt from the very beginning. When Hamilton and George Washington led some 15,000 conscripts into Pennsylvania to enforce the hated whiskey tax, the purpose was not only to collect the tax and reassure bondholders, but also to send a message to any future tax resisters. The volunteer officers who led the conscripts were mostly "from the ranks of the creditor aristocracy in the seaboard cities", wrote Claude Bowers in Jefferson and Hamilton (1925). (The rebellion succeeded, nevertheless. George Washington pardoned all of the tax protesters despite Hamilton's hysterical opposition and his desire to hang all of them.) James Madison remarked that this episode revealed Hamilton's agenda of "the glories of a United States woven together by a system of tax collectors". Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers {1}, wrote that "with devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party". He also "transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents ... participated". If this sounds familiar it is because the political descendants of these eighteenth-century "propertied interests" are today's benefactors of the Wall Street Plutocrat/DC Political Class $700 Billion Bailout Bill of 2008. When Hamilton's Federalist Party consolidated its power during the Adams administration, government spending and debt skyrocketed. Citizens were prohibited to criticize it, however, thanks to the Sedition Act that outlawed free political speech. The national debt was so large that eighty percent of the government's annual expenditures were needed to service the debt. This was exactly what Hamilton wanted. As John C Miller, author of The Federalist Era (1998), wrote, Hamilton's main objective was "concentrating economic and political power in the Federal government", even if it meant destabilizing the entire nation's economy. The Founding Father of Central Banking Hamilton is also considered to be the founding father of central banking since America's first central bank, the Bank of the United States (BUS), existed primarily due to his efforts as Treasury Secretary. As William Graham Sumner wrote in his biography of Hamilton, however, "[A] national bank ... was not essential to the work of the Federal Government". The real purpose of Hamilton's bank, Sumner believed, was "the interweaving of the interests of wealthy men with those of their government". And interweave it did, providing cheap credit to business supporters of the Federalist Party, attempting to engineer boom-and-bust cycles to influence elections (called "political business cycles" in today's parlance) and even financing the political campaigns of BUS supporters. The BUS was a disaster for the general public, however; excessive money creating by the BUS printing press caused 72 percent inflation in its first five years, from 1791 to 1796. It became so unpopular that its twenty-year charter was not renewed, but then the War of 1812 gave it a new life, and it was resurrected in 1817. It immediately caused the Panic of 1819, and did what all central banks have always done: generated boom-and-bust cycles for the next twenty years. The bursting of the housing bubble in our time is the latest example of this hoary tradition. Hamilton's BUS was de-funded by President Andrew Jackson, and then a version of it was resurrected once again in 1863 by the neo-Hamiltonian Lincoln administration with several National Currency Acts. This, and other interventions of that period (fifty percent average tariff rates, massive corporate welfare for the railroad industry, income taxation, pervasive excise taxation), led historian Leonard Curry to observe in his book, Blueprint for Modern America: Nonmilitary Legislation of the First Civil War Congress (1968), that the interventions "ushered in four decades of neo-Hamiltonianism: government for the benefit of the privileged few". The record of Hamiltonian central banking from that time until the Fed was created in 1913 was summarized in a scholarly paper by economists Michael Bordo, Anna Schwartz and Peter Rappaport: "monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances". The Wall Street elite's response to all this central bank-induced monetary instability was even more centralized banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board. It may have meant instability to the ordinary citizens, but was the source of great riches to the banking industry and other members of the politically well-connected class. Sound familiar? Things have not changed at all to this day. A recent Fed publication entitled "A History of Central Banking in the United States" proudly boasts that "the Federal Reserve has similarities to the country's first attempt at central banking, and in that regard it owes an intellectual debt to Alexander Hamilton" who, the Fed says, "sounded like a modern-day Fed chairman". When Jefferson and his followers fiercely opposed Hamiltonian statism they were fighting to avoid bringing the rotten, corrupt, and economically-impoverishing system of British mercantilism to America. They understood what Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (1776), which was a harsh condemnation of British mercantilism as both corrupt and impoverishing. Indeed, many of these men (or their ancestors) came to America in the first place to escape from that very system. Hamilton mocked Adam Smith just as he mocked Jefferson's "pygmy mind" and his "excessive concern for liberty". It may have taken several generations, but that system of "crony capitalism" or "government for the benefit of the privileged few" has been cemented into place for quite some time now. The politically incestuous relation between the banking and finance industries and government is the sole cause of the current economic crisis, particularly the boom-and-bust cycle caused by the Fed and the system of fractional reserve banking (that is, lending money that you don't have) that it administers. Hamilton's Curse is plaguing America once again. Note {1} I wonder if he means Fame and the Founding Fathers (1998) by Douglass Adair. (Bill Totten) _____ Thomas J DiLorenzo - TDilo at aol.com - is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (2007) and How Capitalism Saved America (2004). His latest book, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution - And What It Means for America Today, will be published on October 21. Copyright (c) 2008 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives at LRC http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html Thomas DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=DiLorenzo Copyright (c) 2007 LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo151.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jun 5 18:04:10 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:04:10 -0000 Subject: [A-List] Bill sent you photos on Tagged :) Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3691 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090606/76f582b2/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jun 6 04:36:59 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:36:59 +0900 Subject: [A-List] THIS IS A VIRUS, PLEASE IGNORE AND DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: <7o7ghn$4nt03r@ipo4smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <7o7ghn$4nt03r@ipo4smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <4A2A46CB.6060903@ashisuto.co.jp> I apologize to everyone on the A-List for sending this. I was duped by the fraud described at http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/phishing_Tagged_dot_com.php. Don't go to the link and don't supply any of the information it requests. I made the mistake of doing just that and it accessed my address book and sent all addressees the message below. Delete the message immediately. I apologize from the bottom of my heart for any inconvenience this has caused any of you. Bill Bill Totten wrote: > If you can't see this email please click here > > Bill Totten > Bill Totten sent you photos on Tagged > Want to see the photos? > > > > Click Yes if you want to see the photos, otherwise click No. > But you have to click! > > > Please respond or Bill may think you said no :( > > Click here > > to block all emails from Tagged Inc., 110 Pacific Mall Box #117, San Francisco, > CA. 94111 > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jun 6 04:40:11 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:40:11 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" (3) Message-ID: <4A2A478B.1010808@ashisuto.co.jp> Part Three by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 11 2009) Countercurrents.org (May 12 2009) This is the third in a series of articles on Ellen Brown's superb 2007 book titled "Web of Debt", now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free". This article focuses on global debt entrapment. Global Debt Enslavement - From Gold Reserves to Petrodollars "The gold standard (while it lasted) was a necessary step in giving bankers' 'fractional reserve' legitimacy, but the ruse could not be sustained indefinitely" because exiting gold to defray foreign debts results in money backing it to be withdrawn from circulation. The result - contraction, recession, or depression, the very problem that forced FDR to drop the gold standard to prevent an even greater collapse. In 1971, Nixon did it permanently "when foreign creditors threatened to exhaust US gold reserves by cashing in their paper dollars for gold". John Kennedy was the last president to challenge Wall Street, contends Donald Gibson in one of his two books about him. In Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency (1994), he said that Kennedy opposed "free trade", believed industry should serve the nation, and that America should sustain its independence by developing cheap energy. That "pitted him against the oil/banking cartel", intent on "raising oil prices to prohibitive levels in order to" entrap the world in a "web of debt". Evidence also suggests that "Kennedy crossed the bankers by seeking to revive a silver-backed currency", independent of the Fed. In fact, on June 4 1963, he issued Executive Order (EO) 11110 giving the president authority to issue currency. He then ordered the Treasury to print over $4 billion of "United States Notes" in place of Federal Reserve Notes. Some believe that he intended to replace them all when enough of the new currency was in circulation - to return money-creation power to the government where it belongs. Five and a half months later, he was assassinated. In his second book on the president, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (1999), Gibson contends that a private network of wealthy individuals did it - not the FBI, CIA, Mafia, LBJ, the oil cartel, or anti-Castro extremists. Whatever the truth, bankers regained their power in short order when Johnson rescinded Kennedy's Executive Order and fully restored their money-creation authority. They've had it ever since. Bretton Woods - The Rise and Fall of the International Gold Standard In mid-1944, the Bretton Woods monetary management system was established, about a year before World War Two ended but when its outcome was clear. It created a postwar international monetary system of convertible currencies, fixed exchange rates, free trade, the US dollar as the world's reserve currency linked to gold, and those of other nations fixed to the dollar. It also designed an institutional framework for market-based capital accumulation to ensure that newly liberated colonies would pursue capitalist economic development beneficial to the victorious powers, most of all America. In August 1971, the system unraveled when Nixon closed the gold window - ending the last link between gold, the dollar, and sound money. Thereafter, currencies would float and compete with each other in a casino-like environment, easily manipulated by powerful insiders, hedge funds, giant international banks, or governments at times in their own self-interest. According to F William Engdahl: "Market forces now could determine the dollar (entirely without gold). And they did it with a vengeance." Bretton Woods was to ensure stability along with the IMF and World Bank's original missions - to establish exchange rates for the former and provide credit to war-torn Third World countries for the latter. Both bodies are, in fact, hugely exploitative while David Rockefeller ostensibly convened Bretton Woods to ensure gold-backed currencies would "justify a massive expansion of US dollar debt around the world". The scheme worked until Vietnam war debt unraveled it. It might have continued (for a while at least) by raising the gold price. Instead it was kept at $35 an ounce forcing Nixon to close the gold window permanently, then take "the brakes off the printing presses" to generate as many dollars as there were willing takers. After that, Wall Street financiers "proceeded to build a worldwide financial empire based on a 'fractional reserve' banking system (using) bank-created paper dollars in place of the time-honored gold. Dollars became the reserve currency for a global net of debt to an international banking cartel." Skeptics said they planned it that way to pull off "the biggest act of bad faith in history". True or not, gold failed as a global reserve currency because there isn't enough of it to go around. Inevitably shortages result forcing something to change. Flawed as it is, however, "floating" exchange rates are much worse, especially for developing nations at the mercy of giants, like America, able to devalue currencies by attacking them through short selling. Manipulative power is so great, it can extract painful concessions that are hugely profitable to bankers. Earlier in the 1930s, floating exchange rates proved disastrous, yet most countries agreed to them post-1971. Ones that resist are very vulnerable and can be coerced as a condition of debt relief, much like what happened after oil quadrupled in price in 1974. Suspicions about it at the time were justified. It was a Kissinger - Saudi royal family scheme to revive dollar dominance by recycling petrodollars into US investments and weapons in return for guaranteeing the kingdom's safety - mainly from America had they turned us down. In a word, it was protection money like the underworld extracts on a smaller scale with oil now backing dollars instead of gold. Henceforth, countries need dollars to buy it and require exports for enough of them. As for oil producers, Wall Street and London bankers profited from windfall petrodollar deposits - recyclable as developing nation loans to buy oil but at the same time to be entrapped in permanent debt bondage. Pre-1973, Third World debt "was manageable and contained ... financed mainly through public agencies (for projects) promising solid economic success". That changed when commercial banks took over. Their business isn't development. It's "loan brokering (or) loan sharking", preferably with dictator/strongmen able to cut deals on their own. Later the IMF got involved. At the behest of giant bankers, as "debt policemen" instituting rigorous structural adjustments, including slashed wages and social benefits as well as state asset sales on favorable terms to private investors. At the same time, America got deeply indebted. It's now the world's largest by far and needs hundreds of billions annually to keep the dollar recycling game going - in the last twelve months alone, far more than that after the national debt doubled. Today, the nation is "hopelessly mired in debt to support the banking system of a private international cartel". Ordinary people pay the price. Germany Finances a War without Money The 1919 Versailles Treaty imposed onerous post-World War One terms on Germany. In May 1921, it got a six-day ultimatum to accept them or have the industrial Ruhr Valley militarily occupied. Even worse, it lost its colonies, all their resources, and the population had to pay the cost of war, amounting to three times the value of all property in the country. At the same time, German mark speculation caused it to plummet causing hyperinflation that by 1923 was catastrophic. In January, the mark dropped to 18,000 to the dollar. By July, it was 353,000, by August 4,620,000, and by November an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000 - effectively worthless from the greatest ever hyperinflation, ravaging the nation's savings and making later calamitous events inevitable. Loss of German assets compounded the problem. Britain took its colonies along with Alsace-Lorraine and Silesia with its rich mineral and agricultural resources. Lost was 75% of the country's iron ore, 68% of zinc ore, 26% of coal as well as Alsatian textile industries and potash mines. In addition, Germany's entire merchant fleets were taken, a portion of its transport and fishing fleet plus locomotives, railroad cars and trucks - all justified as legitimate war debts that were fixed at an impossible to pay 132 billion gold marks at six percent interest. The 1923 Dawes Plan (named for US banker Charles Dawes) imposed fiscal control to continue the looting and assure reparations were paid. A huge debt pyramid resulted that collapsed after the 1929 crash along with radical political elements gaining prominence. How to cope was the key question. Like the earlier American Greenbackers, Germany issued its own money after Hitler came to power. He had two choices, and like Lincoln, did it right. He freed the country from debt bondage and at the same time implemented vast infrastructure development - what Roosevelt as well did, but in his case by indebtedness to bankers. Hitler issued $1 billion interest-free, "non-inflationary bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates". He put millions back to work, paid them with the Certificates that were used for goods and services to create more jobs and revive prosperity. Within two years, Germany was "back on its feet ... with a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time" America and Western economies were still struggling. Hitler, however, diverged from the Greenbackers by equating bankers with Jews and launching a reign of terror against them. Greenbackers knew the real enemy - private bankers imposing debt bondage with onerous terms. Beyond that and his imperial aims, Hitler reinvigorated the Third Reich in a few years, became hugely popular, and achieved it even before undertaking large-scale military spending. It impressed Pastor Sheldon Emry to write: "Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world" to bring him down and restore the power of bankers. Had Germany created debt and interest-free money post-Versailles, it could have escaped its disastrous inflation, later ravages, and rise of a tyrant like Hitler. In the 1920s, the privately-owned Reichsbank, not the government, caused havoc by flooding the economy with money compounded by foreign investor speculators shorting the mark and betting on its decline - because the Reichsbank printed massive currency amounts to be loaned "at a profitable interest to the bank. When (it couldn't keep up with demand), other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing and lend them at interest as well." According to Hitler's Reichsbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, the government regulated the Bank, ended speculation by eliminating "easy access to loans of bank-created money", and solved the previous decade's hyperinflation problem as a result. Reexamining the Inflation Humbug Old theories die hard. It's not money creation that causes inflation. It's because merchants have to raise prices to cover costs, the result of "a radical (currency) devaluation" stemming usually from it being manipulated by its floating exchange rate. Case in point - post-Soviet Russia's ruble collapse. It had nothing to do with rampant money creation. As F William Engdahl explained in his Century of War (2004): "In 1992, the IMF demanded a free float of the Russian ruble as part of its 'market-oriented' reform. The ruble float led within a year to (a 9900%) increase in consumer prices, and a collapse in real wages of 84 percent. For the first time since 1917, at least during peacetime, the majority of Russians were plunged into existential poverty." American-imposed "shock therapy" was the economic equivalent of military conquest, and most Russians have paid dearly to this day. With the IMF in charge, the nation and its former republics were weakened and made dependent "on Western capital and dollar inflows for their survival". A tiny elite got "fabulously rich" while most Russians experienced deep poverty and despair. In 1993 and 1994, it was even worse for Yugoslavia and Ukraine, by some estimates an even greater hyperinflation than in Weimar Germany. Again the textbook explanation was rubbish. Yugoslavia collapsed because the IMF "prevented the government from obtaining the credit it needed from its own central bank". Unable to create money and issue credit, social programs couldn't be financed or the provinces kept in place as one country. Yugoslavia's problem was its success under a mixed free-market socialist model that threatened Western capitalism once the Soviet Union disbanded. It was feared that other former republics would emulate it, free from IMF shock therapy. As a result, the country had to be dismembered and its model destroyed, especially because of its strategic location - its "critical path" to potential Central Asian oil and gas. In the 1980s, its imports exceeded exports, and it borrowed huge foreign sums for unprofitable factories. With too few dollars for repayment, IMF debt relief was requested under its usual terms. The result was twenty percent unemployment after 1100 companies went bankrupt. Worse still, inflation rose dramatically to over 150% in 1991. With still too little money to retain the provinces, "economic chaos followed causing each (one) to fight for its own survival" lasting a decade and causing tens of thousands of deaths and destruction. Washington-imposed policies made it worse - a total embargo causing hyperinflation and seventy percent unemployment while blaming it on Milosevic. Ukraine met the same fate the result of IMF diktats. The currency collapsed, inflation soared, and state industries unable to get credit went bankrupt - as planned. It's an ugly scheme to let Western predators buy assets on the cheap. Once Europe's breadbasket, Ukraine was reduced to begging the US for food aid, which then dumped its excess grain on the country, further exacerbating its self-sufficiency. Predatory capitalism is ruthless. This is how it works with bankers in the lead role. Argentina is another example - "swallowed (by) the same debt monster" as the others. In the late 1980s, inflation rose 5000 percent, but money creation had nothing to do with it. Post-World War Two, the country was troubled by inflation, but it wasn't critical until after Juan Peron's 1974 death. Over the next eight years, it increased seven-fold to 206 percent - not by printing pesos but by radically devaluing the currency combined with a 175 percent rise in oil prices. One source said it was done intentionally to benefit exporters, speculators, and capitalists to prove free-market policies work best. Nonetheless, high inflation and speculation became "hallmark(s) of Argentine financial life", the result of disastrous government policies. Even worse was that Argentina was "targeted by international lenders for massive petrodollar loans". When interest rates rocketed in the 1980s, repayment became impossible, and obtaining concessions came at the expense of IMF demands. In the 1990s, they were implemented. The peso was pegged to the dollar. Currency devaluations ceased. The country lost its international competitiveness. The "money supply was fixed, limited and inflexible", and as a result national bankruptcies occurred in 1995 and again in 2001, but government reaction wasn't as expected. Argentina defied its creditors, defaulted on its debt, and began its road to recovery - with no foreign help or intervention. Post-2001, the economy grew by eight percent for two successive years. Exports increased. The currency stabilized. Investors returned. The IMF was paid off, and unemployment eased. Numerous other examples are similar. Professor Henry C K Liu calls foreign capital a "financial narcotic that would make the (19th century) Opium War(s) look like a minor scrimmage". In the late 1990s, Asian Tiger economies got a taste. America's Economic War on Asia Today's Japan evolved out of its feudal past once a modern central government was formed. Its 20th century economic model "has been called 'a state-guided market system'. The (government) determines the priorities and commissions the work, then hires private enterprise to carry it out." America's military-industrial complex resembles it, but differs in one major respect. Post-World War Two, Japan developed its economy without war. America practically worships it to the detriment of everyone at home and abroad. At the end of the 1980s, "Japan was regarded as the leading economic and banking power in the world", and thus a challenge to US supremacy as the country that could say no. Its model was so successful that Asian "Tiger" economies copied it - in South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and elsewhere. Washington determined to undercut them as early as the 1985 James Baker-engineered Plaza accord and Baker-Miyazawa agreement. He got Toyko to exercise monetary and fiscal measures to expand domestic demand and reduce Japan's trade surplus. At the same time, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates to 2.5% in 1987 and held that level until May 1989. The idea was for lower rates to stimulate US goods purchases, but instead, cheap money went into Japanese stocks and real estate fueling two colossal bubbles. The yen was also affected. Within months, it shot up forty percent against the dollar, and overnight Japan became the world's largest banking center. At its twin bubble peaks, Tokyo real estate (in dollars) exceeded all of America's and its stock market represented 42% of world valuations - but not for long. In 1990, Japan proposed financing former Soviet republics on its model and drew strong US opposition for two reasons. It might exclude US companies, and it would rely on the successful model that fueled Japanese and Asian Tiger growth. It had to be stopped and was. Pressure was applied with threats of drastic US troop cuts that might endanger Japan's security. The scheme was drop your economic plans or defend yourself. At the same time, the country's twin bubbles imploded, and within months its Nikkei index lost $5 trillion in value, the result of predatory Wall Street short selling intervention. It left Japan severely hurt and no longer a challenge to America. Confronting Asia's Tiger economies came next. In a Century of War (2004), F William Engdahl explained: These economies "were a major embarrassment to the IMF and free-market model. Their very success in blending private enterprise with a strong state economic role" threatened IMF exploitation. "So long as the Tigers appeared to succeed with a model based on a strong state role, the former communist states and others could argue against taking the extreme IMF course. In east Asia during the 1980s, economic growth rates of seven to eight per cent per year, rising social security, universal education and a high worker productivity (free from debt) were all backed by state guidance and planning under market-based rules." In 1993, Washington demanded changes - deregulate, open financial markets, and allow free foreign capital flows. Easing followed along with trouble. From 1994 to 1997, hot money flooded in and created speculative real estate, stock, and other asset bubbles ripe for imploding. Hedge fund predators like George Soros took full advantage, attacking the weakest regional economy and its currency - Thailand and its baht. The aim: forced devaluation, and it worked. Thailand floated its currency and needed first-time ever IMF help. Next came the Philippines, Indonesia, and South Korea with much the same result and fallout. Prosperous Asian Tigers were forced into IMF debt bondage as their populations sank into economic chaos and mass poverty, the result of a liquidity crisis severe enough to plunge the region into depression. Within months, over $100 billion shifted to private hands, and within a year $600 billion in stock market valuations were lost. East Asia was effectively looted. Real earnings plummeted. Unemployment soared with the International Labor Organization estimating around 24 million lost jobs along with the region's remarkable miracle - its prosperous middle class. People literally were thrown overboard - small farmers and business owners, unions, and millions of ordinary people made human wreckage, the result of Wall Street-designed predation, the same scheme wrecking havoc today on a global scale. China Awakens and Prospers Under Deng Xiaoping, China changed from a centrally-planned economy to its own market-based model under government-owned banks able to issue credit for domestic development. Until the global economic crisis emerged, it grew impressively at double-digit rates. Key is its banking system, its government-issued currency, and a system of state-owned banks. Henry C K Liu distinguishes between "national" and "central" banks - the former serves the national and public interest; the latter, private international finance at the expense of the nation and people. In 1995, China's Central Bank Law gave the People's Bank of China (PBoC) central bank status, but more in name than form in that it still follows government policies by directing money for internal development, not bank profits. In addition, China is debt free and thus unemcumbered by IMF mandates and predatory banking cartel interests. It also protected its currency by refusing to let it float (beyond a minor adjustment) and be vulnerable to speculative predators. The proof is in the results. China's independent monetary policy works, much like colonial America, government under Lincoln, and Nazi Germany under Hitler. They printed their own money, debt free, and prospered - impossible under today's American model of indebtedness to predatory bankers. Even worse are New World Order and WTO rules for a global government run by powerful international bankers and corporations - "oppressing the public through military means and restricting individual freedoms". Financial terrorism as well by shifting wealth hugely to the top at the expense of beneficial social change to be abandoned. A follow-up article focuses on America captured in a "web of debt". _____ Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre of Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10 am US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/reviewing-ellen-browns-web-of-debt-part_11.html http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman120509.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 05:27:02 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 07:27:02 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Obama to "Clear the Way for Detainees Facing the Death Penalty to Plead Guilty without a Full Trial" Message-ID: June 6, 2009 Obama Weighs Plan Allowing 9/11 Suspects to Plead Guilty By WILLIAM GLABERSON The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial. The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom. The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention. The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the government?s difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to terrorism but whose cases present challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment. Some experts on the commissions said such a proposal would raise new questions about the fairness of a system that has been criticized as permitting shortcuts to assure convictions. David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who has written about the commission system, said: ?This unfortunately strikes me as an effort to get rid of the problem in the easiest way possible, which is to have those people plead guilty and presumably be executed. But I think it?s going to lack international credibility.? The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees? rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment. The provision would follow a recommendation of military prosecutors to clarify what they view as an oversight in the 2006 law that created the commissions. The law did not make clear if guilty pleas would be permitted in capital cases. Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such pleas. But American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty. During a December tribunal proceeding in Guant?namo, the five detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks said they wanted to plead guilty. Military prosecutors argued that they should be permitted to do so. Defense lawyers argued that tribunals should follow American military law and bar the guilty pleas. The military judge has not yet made a decision. Lawyers who were asked about the administration?s proposed change in recent days said it appeared to be intended for the Sept. 11 case. ?They are trying to give the 9/11 guys what they want: let them plead guilty and get the death penalty and not have to have a trial,? said Maj. David J. R. Frakt of the Air Force, a Guant?namo defense lawyer. The military commission system has been effectively halted since January while the administration considers its options. The only death penalty case now before a military judge is the case against the five detainees charged as the planners of the Sept. 11 attack, including the self-proclaimed mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Cmdr. Suzanne M. Lachelier, a Navy lawyer for one of the detainees in the Sept. 11 case, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, said of the Obama administration, ?They?re encouraging martyrdom.? The administration has not announced whether it will continue with the Sept. 11 case in the military commissions or charge some of the men in federal court. Officials involved in the process said that lawyers reviewing the case have said that federal-court charges against four of the men might be possible, but that the evidence might be too weak for a federal court case against one of the five, Walid Bin Attash, a veteran jihad fighter who was known as Khallad. Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, said no decisions had been made about where the men would be prosecuted. Mr. Boyd said it was premature to discuss any legislative proposals. But, he said, ?As the president has said, the administration is working diligently to identify possible legislative amendments to the current military commission system.? A bill presented to Congress seeking changes in the commissions could open a new debate about the system for trying terrorism suspects. The administration is already in a standoff with Congress over financing for Mr. Obama?s plan to close the Guant?namo prison by January. In the Sept. 11 case, the five detainees have seemed to be daring the United States to put them to death, expressing pride in their acts of what they call jihad against America, which they described as ?the terrorist country,? and its allies, ?the filthy Jews.? In December, the military judge, Col. Stephen R. Henley, ordered written arguments from lawyers. ?Can an accused plead guilty,? Colonel Henley asked, ?to a capital offense at a military commission?? The military prosecutors argued that Congress had a ?clear intent? to permit guilty pleas in death penalty cases at Guant?namo. They note that a detainee could be sentenced to death only after a unanimous vote by a panel of military officers. Critics of the military commission system say that the battles over its fairness show that any execution would bring new scrutiny around the world. They say the prosecutors should be required to present evidence proving that anyone who is to be executed was actually guilty of the crimes charged. Requiring prosecutors to reveal what they know about detainees and how they know it would cast light both on the interrogation techniques used against the men and the acts of terrorism for which they are facing death, said Denny LeBoeuf, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who works on Guant?namo death penalty issues. ?Don?t we have an interest as a society,? Ms. LeBoeuf asked, ?in a trial that examines the evidence and provides some reliable picture of what went on?? From billyoc at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 06:51:47 2009 From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:51:47 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Obama to "Clear the Way for Detainees Facing the Death Penalty to Plead Guilty without a Full Trial" In-Reply-To: (Yoshie Furuhashi's message of "Sat, 6 Jun 2009 07:27:02 -0400") References: Message-ID: <87eitxplss.fsf@t22.Belkin> Yoshie Furuhashi writes: > > June 6, 2009 > Obama Weighs Plan Allowing 9/11 Suspects to Plead Guilty > By WILLIAM GLABERSON > > The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the > military commissions at the prison at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, that would > clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty > without a full trial. It should be noted that the Pentagon unilaterally declared its own death penalty unconstitutional, due to the fact that only a panel of 5 military officers adjudicated courts martial. This was seen as a violation of due process, with the absence of a jury of your peers being the key point. It would strain credulity to think that this military tribunal system would be any better. -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jun 6 08:09:30 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:09:30 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <7o4dbq$4n8f3r@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <4A28BAA0.9010102@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4n8f3r@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> Message-ID: <4A2A789A.5070900@ashisuto.co.jp> Thanks for your kind comment, Todd, but I wonder if we're on the same wavelength. I haven't proposed that the USA, Japan or any other nation repudiate its national bonds. I only proposed that they stop paying interest on them. Isn't buying a bond is the same as making a loan? If so, isn't the party making the loan responsible for making sure s/he is loaning to a party likely to repay the loan? Can s/he "expect" to be paid if s/he loans to a pauper obviously incapable of repaying the loan. As far as their national (public) debts are concerned, both the USA and Japan are paupers. Small, naive investors may have bought US or Japanese government bonds "expecting" to be repaid but the main purchasers of those bonds are big, sophisticated private and public "investors" (aka gamblers) who know those governments have no prospects of repaying their bonds. These investors cum gamblers don't expect and don't want the governments to redeem (repay) the bonds (loans). All they want is for the governments to continue paying them interest on those bonds - and tax their citizens for the money to pay that interest. I propose that the US, Japanese, and other governments stop paying interest on outstanding bonds and stop issuing new bonds and, instead, printing and spending into circulation the money they're now borrowing from private banks and foreign governments. If the private banks and foreign governments want to sell the bonds that no longer pay interest, the US, Japan and other governments can print enough money to redeem those bonds. But: (1) Private banks are unlikely to sell the bonds even though they no longer pay interest because they need them as reserves for their outstanding loans, which are ten or more times greater than the bonds themselves. In other words, those private banks are likely to forego the interest no longer paid on national bonds to retain ten times more interest they gain by using those national bonds as reserves for their other loans under the current "fractional reserve" banking regime. (2) Foreign governments are unlikely to sell the bonds even though they no longer pay interest because each sale drives down the value in their own currency of their remaining holdings of those bonds, because each sale drives down the value of the dollar via-a-vis their own currency. For example, Japan's holdings of US Treasury bonds fell by eleven trillion yen last year, from 66 trillion yen to 55 trillion yen, because the price of the US dollar fell from 113 yen to 94 yen. Since the pauper US and Japan governments have no possible means of paying off their national debts, all holders of their bonds can "expect" is to be repaid with dollars or yen worth much less than the dollars or yen they paid for those bonds. Caveat emptor. Todd Boyle wrote: > Bill, thanks for your research on those economic statistics-- that's > remarkable! Good work. > > I am very sympathetic to this whole proposition. But you haven't > refuted my position: that the debt owed by the US Treas. has real > consequences, and that the holders of the debt expect to be paid, and to > exchange the money for real things. And many of the present account > holders earned their balances fair and square. The U.S. as a whole, > runs very huge trade deficits. It would be injustice to repudiate those > debts outright. > > Can't we go back and retrace every transaction, and identify the rotten > parts-- all original issuances that were unearned, and the interest that > has flowed, and the interest still flowing on those transactions? The > fact of all these bank transfers is probably still on the archive copies > of bank records. Or, have they "lost" them, like the nixon tapes? > > At 11:26 PM 6/4/2009, Bill Totten wrote: >> Sorry Todd, but neither Ellen Brown's nor Lendman's claim is >> excessive. The federal debt can, indeed, be eliminated without >> consequence or pain (to the nation and its citizens, although banks >> and other bondholders may suffer the pain of the end of their >> parasitic freeloading). I've made the calculations for Japan, which >> shouldn't be much different than any other nation. Japan's public debt >> has built up from zero since 1968 solely because Japan's government >> has allowed private banks to create most of its currency, then >> borrowed most of the currency those private banks created, instead of >> creating all of that currency itself and spending it into circulation. >> I posted the calculations here earlier but can send them to you again >> if you wish. >> >> A summary of the results for Japan are as follows: >> >> 80% of Japan's Outstanding Public Debt has been spent to service that >> debt >> >> 30% of the taxes Japanese have paid since 1968 have been spent to >> service the public debt >> >> 90% of the money created by Japan's private banks has been borrowed by >> Japan's government >> >> 75% of those borrowings have been used to service the public debt >> >> All Japan needs to do is require private banks to have 100% reserves >> for all loans they make. It already has the legal authority to do >> that. Since the private banks have only ten percent or less of >> reserves for their currently outstanding loans, this would prevent >> private banks from making any more loans (that is, prevent them from >> creating any more money). Then if Japan's government would create and >> spend into circulation money at the same rate private banks have done >> over the past forty years, Japan's public debt would disappear in >> about forty years without any increase in taxes, and taxes could be >> reduced by about thirty percent thereafter.???This wouldn't cause >> inflation because the money created and spend into circulation would >> supplant, not add to, money created by private banks. >> >> A faster way would be for Japan or any other nation to announce it >> will pay no interest on its outstanding bonds hereafter (starting >> tomorrow). If that caused anyone to what to sell his/her/its bonds, >> Japan (or any other nation) could print enough money to buy them. Of >> course, if private banks tried to sell their bonds, their reserves >> would be reduced by the amount of the bonds they sold and, since their >> current reserves are ten percent or less than their outstanding loans, >> that would force them to reduce their outstanding loans by ten times >> or more than the amount of the loans they sold. This most likely would >> cause them to hold onto those bonds (even though they no longer paid >> interest) to prevent them from losing the interest on the loans >> they've made with those bonds as reserves. And if the banks did sell >> bonds and call in loans, the government could print money and loan it >> to the customers whose loans were called in, much as FDR's >> Reconstruction Finance Corporation did in the 1930s. >> >> Foreign nations, the other major holders of any nation's bonds, would >> have trouble selling them since each sale would reduce the value of >> their remaining holdings (the very problem that keeps China, Japan, >> Russia and the OPEC nations from dumping their toxic US Treasury bonds >> now). >> >> Finally, renouncing the payment of interest on outstanding bonds would >> wreck the nation's credit ratings, making it difficult to issue new >> bonds. But that wouldn't matter because nations able to collect taxes >> effectively don't need to borrow money because they can print all the >> money (other than taxes) they need because people will always want >> that money if (1) it is the only money that government accepts in >> payment of taxes and (2) it is the only money that government pays for >> whatever it buys. >> >> Yes, indeed, the federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or >> pain to the nation and its citizens, although any president that tried >> to do this might likely be assassinated. Bill >> >> >> >> Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: >> >> At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, >> >> > The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >> > money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people >> > it represents". Imagine the possibilities: >> > >> > -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >> > amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; >> >> The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the >> federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's >> not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and >> has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the >> paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't >> that the essence of a money system? >> >> The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with >> money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, >> without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is >> talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the >> available goods and services alongside existing money stock, >> creating price inflation, other things being equal. >> >> Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world >> have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, >> in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their >> fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you >> get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the >> global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt >> can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and >> ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all >> of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast >> majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. >> >> > -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >> > income people and at least substantially overall; >> > >> > -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >> > inflation"; and >> >> Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. >> >> Todd >> >> Todd Boyle wrote: >>> Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: >>> At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, >>> >>>> The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >>>> money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the people >>>> it represents". Imagine the possibilities: >>>> >>>> -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >>>> amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; >>> The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the >>> federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's >>> not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and >>> has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the >>> paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't >>> that the essence of a money system? >>> The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with >>> money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, >>> without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is >>> talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the >>> available goods and services alongside existing money stock, >>> creating price inflation, other things being equal. >>> Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world >>> have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, >>> in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their >>> fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you >>> get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the >>> global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt >>> can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and >>> ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all >>> of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast >>> majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. >>> >>>> -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >>>> income people and at least substantially overall; >>>> >>>> -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >>>> inflation"; and >>> Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. >>> Todd > From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sat Jun 6 08:05:05 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:05:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Akwesasne: Canada committing war crime Message-ID: <0204e2b5$39970$0cd54202021412@xnote> AKWESASNE: CANADA FORCIBLY HOLDING CIVILIANS A WAR CRIME MNN. June 5, 2009. Canada continues to prepare and initiate aggression against the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances. Canada is carrying out ill treatment of civilian residents on the illegally occupied territory of the Haudenosaunee. No matter where the Canada-US border is relocated, it is still on Onwehonwe land. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is making money out of illegally leasing out our land for the border facility. According to the Jay Treaty 1794 between the U.S. and Britain, the border is meant for the colonists. Not us. Some suggest it be relocated somewhere in Europe. If the colonists block the bridges to our community every time they want to scare or control us, is it time to build our own? Mohawks are being held hostage on Cornwall Island by Canada and the U.S. until we agree to let the gun toting border guards roam around the middle of Akwesasne. The Minister of Public Safety won?t talk to us. Why? In the meantime boats and barges are shuffling kids, food and other necessities to us. THE TWO ROW WAMPUM AGREEMENT The basis of the relationship between us and the colonists is the Kaianereh?ko:wa, the Great Law, which embodies the Two Row Wampum Agreement. U.S. President George Washington agreed to the principle that our canoe and their sailing vessel are to travel side by side. Each contains our people, language, form of government, laws, culture, traditions and ceremonies. In our canoe are all the lands and resources of Great Turtle Island that the natural world has vested in us. Accordingly we can only deal with the U.S. President or the Queen on any issue between our nations. These principles were implemented in the Treaty of Canadaigua 1794, Article VII. There can be no interference with our birthright to travel and conduct commerce anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. The women are the progenitors of the soil of Great Turtle Island, the caretakers of the land, water and air. In 2003 a grandmother was going through the Cornwall Island checkpoint in the Indian lane. She was waved through. It was recorded on the CBSA video. Later she was charged with running the border and arrested. She put forward the following notice to the Queen for a dismissal of the bogus charge: ?1.Stop breaching the peace. You are inflicting genocide upon us and our future posterity. 2. Our relations are based on equality and mutual respect as affirmed by the Kaianereh?ko:wa, our constitution. Our relations with the colonists is defined by the Guswentah, the Two Row Wampum, also known as the Covenant Chain. 3. We are the trustees of all of our land for the future generations of our People, including the part upon which your corporations and subjects are squatting. 4. Your colonial successor states and corporations have carried out rape, pillage and pollution. With your protection the squatters are stealing our resources and poisoning our land, water and air almost beyond repair. They will soon kill themselves and injure our future generations. 5.Your justice system protects the squatters to keep the stolen property. It incriminates us or kills us to stop us from making our demands for restitution and protection from the crimes of your agents. To negotiate you must come to our table and talk to us. Your one-sided decisions are not legal. The demand is that: 6. You recognize that all your transactions as null and void, and that you must cease your illegal operations against us immediately. 7. You respect our inherent right to our land; and that our children will be born free from your bondage. 8. You deal with us, the true Ongwehonwe, on a nation-to-nation basis and stop using your unlawfully imposed tribal and band councils. 9. You respect the ?rule of law? that comes from Creation. Foreigners such as you and your corporate entities respect the Indigenous law of our land. You cannot legislate over or judge us. ?For 500 years we have resisted your brutal efforts to eliminate us and impose your unnatural institutions on us. Your claims to jurisdiction over us, our land and resources are delusional. We find you guilty of: genocide; violations of our freedom and our inherent right to self-determination; theft of our lands and resources; and destruction of our environment. Your subjects and corporations are inflicting ruthless violence on us. ?You are hereby ordered to relinquish all your stolen money, trusts, lands, rights and possessions that were made or stolen from us and our lands. You must disband all your foreign corporations and all foreign laws. We shall return to the original legal nation-to-nation relationship between us, the land owners, and you, our visitors. Your money was created from exploiting us, our land and our resources. Restitution must be made to the Indigenous people of Great Turtle Island.? Canada and the US are bound by international treaties on the laws of aggression. Last week UN observers came. They made a report. Now it?s time for the Security Council to resolve this issue. The Mohawks of Akwesasne need protection from the US, Canada and anyone else who wants to use us or take advantage us. We don?t want a platoon of armed guards in the middle our neighborhood. The UN must stop them. These armed belligerents stationed around us ? the NYS Police, Cornwall City Police and whoever else is behind them - must be removed immediately. Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Contact Rotiskenrakete 514-269-1400. N. Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Supporters may send comments to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Supporters of Mohawks: MPs Jean Crowder, Indian Affairs critic crowdj at parl.gc.ca ; Anita Neville nevila at parl.gc.ca ; Marc Lemay lemaym at parl.gc.ca ; Sen. Nancy Green; Sen. Gerry St. Germain; From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jun 6 10:36:32 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:36:32 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Obama in Cairo Message-ID: <149B2BCB15D84291930977D87533CCDF@TonyPC> Obama in Cairo: A New Face for Imperialism By Patrick Martin June 05, 2009 "WSW" -- -The speech delivered by US President Barack Obama in Cairo yesterday was riddled with contradictions. He declared his opposition to the "killing of innocent men, women, and children," but defended the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US proxy war in Pakistan, while remaining silent on the most recent Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. These wars have killed at least one million Iraqis and tens of thousands in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories. Obama declared his support for democracy, human rights and women's rights, after two days of meetings with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, two of the most notorious tyrants in the Middle East. He said nothing in his speech about the complete absence of democratic rights in Saudi Arabia, or about the ongoing repression under Mubarak's military dictatorship. In the days before the US president's arrival at Al-Azhar University, the campus was raided by Egyptian secret police who detained more than 200 foreign students. Before leaving on his Mideast trip, Obama praised Mubarak as a "steadfast ally." While posturing as the advocate of universal peace and understanding, Obama diplomatically omitted any reference to his order to escalate the war in Afghanistan with the dispatch of an additional 17,000 US troops. And he tacitly embraced the policy of his predecessor in Iraq, declaring, "I believe the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein." He even seemed to hedge on the withdrawal deadline of December 2011 negotiated by the Bush administration, which he described as a pledge "to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012." Obama rejected the charge that America is "a self-interested empire"-a perfectly apt characterization-and denied that the United States was seeking bases, territory or access to natural resources in the Muslim world. He claimed that the war in Afghanistan was a "war of necessity" provoked by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is the same argument made by the Bush-Cheney administration at the time, which deliberately conceals the real material interests at stake. The war in Afghanistan is part of the drive by US imperialism to dominate the world's two most important sources of oil and gas, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Basin. There was of course a distinct shift in the rhetorical tone from the bullying "you're either with or against us" of George W. Bush to the reassuring "we're all in this together" of Obama. But as several commentators noted (the New Republic compared the speech line-for-line to that given by Bush to the United Nations on September 16, 2006), if you turned off the picture and the sound and simply read the prepared text, the words are very similar to speeches delivered by Bush, Condoleezza Rice and other officials of the previous administration. The vague and flowery rhetoric, the verbal tributes to Islamic culture and the equal rights of nations, constitute an adjustment of the language being used to cloak the policy of US imperialism, not a change in substance. Obama made not a single concrete proposal to redress the grievances of the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. That is because the fundamental source of this oppression is the profit system and the domination of the world by imperialism, of which American imperialism is the most ruthless. Obama made one passing reference to colonialism, and to the US role in the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953. But in his litany of "sources of tension" in the region, he offered the same checklist as his predecessor, with the first place given to "violent extremism", Obama's rhetorical substitute for Bush's "terrorism." The reaction to the Obama speech in the American media was across-the-board enthusiasm. Liberal David Corn of Mother Jones magazine said Obama's great advantages were "his personal history, his non-Bushness, his recognition of US errors, his willingness to at least talk as if he wants to be an honest broker in the Mideast." Michael Crowley wrote in the pro-war liberal magazine New Republic, "to see him unfold his biography, to cut such an unfamiliar profile to the world, is to appreciate how much America will benefit from presenting this new face to the world." Perhaps most revealing was the comment by Max Boot, a neoconservative arch-defender of the war in Iraq, who wrote: "I thought he did a more effective job of making America's case to the Muslim world. No question: He is a more effective salesman than his predecessor was." In his speech in Cairo, Obama was playing the role for which he was drafted and promoted by a decisive section of the US financial elite and the military and foreign policy apparatus. This role is to provide a new face for US imperialism as part of a shift in the tactics, but not the strategy, of Washington's drive for world domination. Nearly two years ago, former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski gave his public backing to the presidential candidacy of a still-obscure senator from Illinois, holding out the prospect that as an African-American with family ties to the Muslim world, Obama would improve the worldwide image of the United States. Brzezinski was the leading hawk in the administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter and helped instigate the political upheavals in Afghanistan in the hopes of inciting a Soviet invasion that would trap the Moscow bureaucracy in a Vietnam-style quagmire. He has remained steadily focused on what he calls the "great chessboard" of Eurasia, and particularly on oil-rich Central Asia, where a struggle for influence now rages between the United States, Russia, China and Iran. According to Brzezinski in August 2007, Obama "recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world... Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world." Brzezinski, a ruthless defender of the interests of US imperialism, has repeatedly issued warnings to the American ruling elite of the danger of what he calls the "global political awakening." In one particularly pointed comment, he told the German magazine Der Spiegel, only months before he endorsed Obama, that the vast majority of humanity "will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades." To call it by its right name, what the more perceptive elements in the US ruling class fear is world revolution. The effort to prevent such a social upheaval is what impelled them to install Obama in the White House and what set him on his pilgrimage to Cairo. From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jun 6 10:44:54 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:44:54 -0400 Subject: [A-List] "False Ideology Dragging Ukraine To The Gallows" Message-ID: <4D2FAAACB9C644E0BDC106AC229A246F@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: rwrozoff at yahoo.com To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:46 AM Subject: [stopnato] "False Ideology Dragging Ukraine To The Gallows" http://www.ukrainianjournal.com/index.php?w=article&id=8517 Ukrainian Journal June 5, 2009 Russians, politicians, seek to reverse Western course, says official [With Viktor Yushchenko's national poll ratings holding steady at 1.9% and that of his ad hoc political party Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine) slipping beneath 1% - in large part because of "false ideology" that opposes NATO absorption according to Yushchenko - problems are exclusively attributed to foreign hands, of course. But not the US and Western Europe, which have been ruling (and ruining) Ukraine for four and a half years through the agency of Yushchenko and his American spouse Kathy, a former Reagan and Bush I administration operative.] KIEV - Russia?s growing pressure over natural gas supplies and an emerging constitutional crisis in Ukraine are coordinated attempts to reverse the country?s pro-Western course, a senior official at President Viktor Yushchenko?s office said Thursday. ?What happens in Parliament and what happens in the gas sector are parts of the same chain which Ukraine is being dragged to the gallows,? Bohdan Sokolovskiy, Yushchenko?s energy security envoy, said. =========================== 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 4New 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 Sat Jun 6 10:53:29 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Obama Continues Bush Policy On Weapons To Georgia Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: [stopnato] Obama Continues Bush Policy On Weapons To Georgia http://www.space4peace.org Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space May 1, 2009 OBAMA CONTINUES BUSH POLICY ON WEAPONS TO GEORGIA by Bruce K. Gagnon -The absurdity of NATO blaming Russia for securing their southern border, at the very time the US and NATO are surrounding them, indicates the real agenda underway. -Saakashvili, educated in the US, is an agent of corporate globalization and his job is to turn Georgia over to US interests which he has done. He has essentially made his country into a US military base on the Russian border. -The US and NATO are out to rule the world - they have become the military arm of corporate globalization. Obama and Hillary are doing their part to make it happen. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have announced that they intend to keep the promise of former president George W. Bush to send $242 million in military aid to Georgia in the 2010 budget. This comes at the very time that NATO war games are being prepared in Georgia, right on Russia's southern border. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev sounded the alarm about the NATO military operations saying, "?Military exercises can?t be conducted where the war has been recently unleashed. Those who took a decision to conduct them will bear responsibility for their negative consequences." Russia vows to help South Ossetia and Abkhazia protect their borders against a new Georgian attack that could well come following the NATO war games and efforts by the US to rearm Georgia after their failed attack on Russia last summer. NATO is accusing Russia of destabilizing the Southern Caucasus region by building up its military stronghold on the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The absurdity of NATO blaming Russia for securing their southern border, at the very time the US and NATO are surrounding them, indicates the real agenda underway. Some countries in the region are refusing to participate in the NATO-Georgia war games, recognizing the dangers they are causing in the region. So far Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Moldova have opted out. Just last month more than 60,000 Georgians marched onto their capital in Tbilisi calling on their fanatical President Mikheil Saakashvili to resign. The protesters said he is ruining their country and that they want peace with Russia. But Saakashvili, educated in the US, is an agent of corporate globalization and his job is to turn Georgia over to US interests which he has done. He has essentially made his country into a US military base on the Russian border. Although NATO leaders call the upcoming war games "staff training", they are nevertheless aimed at backing the puppet regime of Saakashvili. I'm following this Georgia-Russia situation closely as I see it as one key trigger for real war between the US-NATO and Russia. Just today I read that Czech Republic pilots are being sent on missions along the Russian border in a separate NATO operation. This is the first time that the Czech military's tactical air force has been deployed in a foreign operation since the end of World War II. Another area of major US-NATO moves against Russia is over control of the Artic region. Due to global warming the extraction of oil will now be possible in the Artic and the US is saying that its growing effort to militarize this region is about "security". In a meeting in Reykjavik in January NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that ?Here in the High North, climate change is not a fanciful idea ? it is already a reality ? a reality that brings with it a certain number of challenges, including for NATO." The challenges the NATO General Secretary refers to is keeping Russia at bay. Take a look at a map of the Artic north and you will see it is Russia that has the biggest land mass in that region. The US and NATO are out to rule the world - they have become the military arm of corporate globalization. Obama and Hillary are doing their part to make it happen. http://www.space4peace.org Bruce Gagnon is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. =========================== 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 Sat Jun 6 11:10:19 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 13:10:19 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" In-Reply-To: <4A2A789A.5070900@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4A2643E9.70405@ashisuto.co.jp> <7o4dbq$4mkf8h@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <4A28BAA0.9010102@ashisuto.co.jp><7o4dbq$4n8f3r@ipo3smtp.cc.utah.edu> <4A2A789A.5070900@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <2759646D66B64F8C9409627BE664F197@TonyPC> The Third World nations should, of course (in a better world), immediately repudiate their international 'debts'...these being imposed coercively and fraudulently and to which, in any case, they are due vast reparations from the Western imperial nations [Such would require the implementation of strict capital controls, issuance of non-internationally transferable national currency, repudiation of agricultural export models, extensive re-engineering of the economy towards autarky including import substitution and national works projects (with food security at the top of the list) etc....].This would, in large measure, aid in helping to collapse the Western economies and so in destroying these imperial systems to boot...As I say, in a better world. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Totten" To: "The A-List" Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" > Thanks for your kind comment, Todd, but I wonder if we're on the same > wavelength. I haven't proposed that the USA, Japan or any other nation > repudiate its national bonds. I only proposed that they stop paying > interest on them. > > Isn't buying a bond is the same as making a loan? If so, isn't the party > making the loan responsible for making sure s/he is loaning to a party > likely to repay the loan? Can s/he "expect" to be paid if s/he > loans to a pauper obviously incapable of repaying the loan. As far as > their national (public) debts are concerned, both the USA and Japan are > paupers. Small, naive investors may have bought US or Japanese government > bonds "expecting" to be repaid but the main purchasers of those bonds are > big, sophisticated private and public "investors" (aka gamblers) who know > those governments have no prospects of repaying their bonds. These > investors cum gamblers don't expect and don't want the governments to > redeem (repay) the bonds (loans). All they want is for the governments to > continue paying them interest on those bonds - and tax their citizens for > the money to pay that interest. > > I propose that the US, Japanese, and other governments stop paying > interest on outstanding bonds and stop issuing new bonds and, instead, > printing and spending into circulation the money they're now borrowing > from private banks and foreign governments. If the private banks and > foreign governments want to sell the bonds that no longer pay interest, > the US, Japan and other governments can print enough money to redeem those > bonds. But: > > (1) Private banks are unlikely to sell the bonds even though they no > longer pay interest because they need them as reserves for their > outstanding loans, which are ten or more times greater than the bonds > themselves. In other words, those private banks are likely to forego the > interest no longer paid on national bonds to retain ten times more > interest they gain by using those national bonds as reserves for their > other loans under the current "fractional reserve" banking regime. > > (2) Foreign governments are unlikely to sell the bonds even though they no > longer pay interest because each sale drives down the value in their own > currency of their remaining holdings of those bonds, because each sale > drives down the value of the dollar via-a-vis their own currency. > For example, Japan's holdings of US Treasury bonds fell by eleven trillion > yen last year, from 66 trillion yen to 55 trillion yen, because the price > of the US dollar fell from 113 yen to 94 yen. > > Since the pauper US and Japan governments have no possible means of paying > off their national debts, all holders of their bonds can "expect" is to be > repaid with dollars or yen worth much less than the dollars or yen they > paid for those bonds. Caveat emptor. > > > Todd Boyle wrote: >> Bill, thanks for your research on those economic statistics-- that's >> remarkable! Good work. >> >> I am very sympathetic to this whole proposition. But you haven't refuted >> my position: that the debt owed by the US Treas. has real consequences, >> and that the holders of the debt expect to be paid, and to exchange the >> money for real things. And many of the present account holders earned >> their balances fair and square. The U.S. as a whole, runs very huge >> trade deficits. It would be injustice to repudiate those debts outright. >> >> Can't we go back and retrace every transaction, and identify the rotten >> parts-- all original issuances that were unearned, and the interest that >> has flowed, and the interest still flowing on those transactions? The >> fact of all these bank transfers is probably still on the archive copies >> of bank records. Or, have they "lost" them, like the nixon tapes? >> >> At 11:26 PM 6/4/2009, Bill Totten wrote: >>> Sorry Todd, but neither Ellen Brown's nor Lendman's claim is excessive. >>> The federal debt can, indeed, be eliminated without consequence or pain >>> (to the nation and its citizens, although banks and other bondholders >>> may suffer the pain of the end of their parasitic freeloading). I've >>> made the calculations for Japan, which shouldn't be much different than >>> any other nation. Japan's public debt has built up from zero since 1968 >>> solely because Japan's government has allowed private banks to create >>> most of its currency, then borrowed most of the currency those private >>> banks created, instead of creating all of that currency itself and >>> spending it into circulation. I posted the calculations here earlier but >>> can send them to you again if you wish. >>> >>> A summary of the results for Japan are as follows: >>> >>> 80% of Japan's Outstanding Public Debt has been spent to service that >>> debt >>> >>> 30% of the taxes Japanese have paid since 1968 have been spent to >>> service the public debt >>> >>> 90% of the money created by Japan's private banks has been borrowed by >>> Japan's government >>> >>> 75% of those borrowings have been used to service the public debt >>> >>> All Japan needs to do is require private banks to have 100% reserves for >>> all loans they make. It already has the legal authority to do that. >>> Since the private banks have only ten percent or less of reserves for >>> their currently outstanding loans, this would prevent private banks from >>> making any more loans (that is, prevent them from creating any more >>> money). Then if Japan's government would create and spend into >>> circulation money at the same rate private banks have done over the past >>> forty years, Japan's public debt would disappear in about forty years >>> without any increase in taxes, and taxes could be reduced by about >>> thirty percent thereafter.???This wouldn't cause inflation because the >>> money created and spend into circulation would supplant, not add to, >>> money created by private banks. >>> >>> A faster way would be for Japan or any other nation to announce it will >>> pay no interest on its outstanding bonds hereafter (starting tomorrow). >>> If that caused anyone to what to sell his/her/its bonds, Japan (or any >>> other nation) could print enough money to buy them. Of course, if >>> private banks tried to sell their bonds, their reserves would be reduced >>> by the amount of the bonds they sold and, since their current reserves >>> are ten percent or less than their outstanding loans, that would force >>> them to reduce their outstanding loans by ten times or more than the >>> amount of the loans they sold. This most likely would cause them to hold >>> onto those bonds (even though they no longer paid interest) to prevent >>> them from losing the interest on the loans they've made with those bonds >>> as reserves. And if the banks did sell bonds and call in loans, the >>> government could print money and loan it to the customers whose loans >>> were called in, much as FDR's Reconstruction Finance Corporation did in >>> the 1930s. >>> >>> Foreign nations, the other major holders of any nation's bonds, would >>> have trouble selling them since each sale would reduce the value of >>> their remaining holdings (the very problem that keeps China, Japan, >>> Russia and the OPEC nations from dumping their toxic US Treasury bonds >>> now). >>> >>> Finally, renouncing the payment of interest on outstanding bonds would >>> wreck the nation's credit ratings, making it difficult to issue new >>> bonds. But that wouldn't matter because nations able to collect taxes >>> effectively don't need to borrow money because they can print all the >>> money (other than taxes) they need because people will always want that >>> money if (1) it is the only money that government accepts in payment of >>> taxes and (2) it is the only money that government pays for whatever it >>> buys. >>> >>> Yes, indeed, the federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or >>> pain to the nation and its citizens, although any president that tried >>> to do this might likely be assassinated. Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: >>> >>> At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, >>> >>> > The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >>> > money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the >>> > people >>> > it represents". Imagine the possibilities: >>> > >>> > -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >>> > amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; >>> >>> The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the >>> federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's >>> not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and >>> has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the >>> paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't >>> that the essence of a money system? >>> >>> The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with >>> money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, >>> without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is >>> talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the >>> available goods and services alongside existing money stock, >>> creating price inflation, other things being equal. >>> >>> Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world >>> have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, >>> in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their >>> fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you >>> get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the >>> global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt >>> can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and >>> ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all >>> of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast >>> majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. >>> >>> > -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >>> > income people and at least substantially overall; >>> > >>> > -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >>> > inflation"; and >>> >>> Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. >>> >>> Todd >>> >>> Todd Boyle wrote: >>>> Lendman and Ellen Brown do a disservice by this excessive claim: >>>> At http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060509.htm it is said, >>>> >>>>> The solution is simple but untaken. As the Constitution mandates, >>>>> money-creation power must "be returned to the government and the >>>>> people >>>>> it represents". Imagine the possibilities: >>>>> >>>>> -- the federal debt could be eliminated, at least a more manageable >>>>> amount before it mushroomed to stratospheric levels; >>>> The public, rightly would interpret this claim as meaning that the >>>> federal debt can be eliminated without consequence or pain. That's >>>> not true. The truth is that the federal debt is noncancellable and >>>> has real consequences. The bondholder expects that the >>>> paper can be exchanged for real goods and services--- isn't >>>> that the essence of a money system? >>>> The federal debt can only be "eliminated" by paying it down with >>>> money. The money can of course be printed and issued unearned, >>>> without taxing the country. Obviously that is what Ellen Brown is >>>> talking about. Equally obviously such money competes for the >>>> available goods and services alongside existing money stock, >>>> creating price inflation, other things being equal. >>>> Whenever inflationary expectations arise, banks all over the world >>>> have complete freedom to create loans in excess of their assets, >>>> in the time honored way they have done for many centuries. Their >>>> fake money competes with Uncle Sams' fake money. Then you >>>> get down to a war between the US Fed and Treasury versus the >>>> global financial industry-- it happens sometimes. The US govt >>>> can and does succeed in chasing down one of the hyenas and >>>> ripping it to pieces. But like the lion of Africa it cannot chase all >>>> of the hyenas, all the time. In fact, it cannot even kill the vast >>>> majority of patient and prudent hyenas who take no risks. >>>> >>>>> -- federal income taxes could as well; entirely for low and middle >>>>> income people and at least substantially overall; >>>>> >>>>> -- "social programs could be expanded ... without sparking runaway >>>>> inflation"; and >>>> Both of these claims are true, independently of how money is created. >>>> Todd >> > > From nscchicago at igc.org Sat Jun 6 11:00:17 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:00:17 -0500 Subject: [A-List] WHOOOSE EARTH IS THIS, ANYWAY? Message-ID: Tom Baker here from both sides of the world, a notion we need to recognize, and, from these postings you'll see We the People Is Moving On. - The Obama Spech in Cairo, an analysis and I think so too. We are making the turn away from Old World toward a New. - George Galloway and the US Caravan to Gaza. Join, help out as you can, seems to me. - Afghanistan Pakistan MORE WAR Seems to me the mechanism, its infrastructure for war IS on a binge, IS after the owning of everything, and IS making dummy down work, or is it. I don't think we so dumb. - Peru. The Indigenous rise up to save their Mother from transnationals mining and the State responds with live bullets. Whooose Earth is this, anyway? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3034 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090606/32b75904/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/20090606/32b75904/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Ted Pearson" Subject: [lpnufp] A view from Israel [1 Attachment] Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:47:07 -0500 Size: 4617 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090606/32b75904/attachment-0004.eml From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jun 6 19:20:49 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:20:49 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <4A2B15F1.30504@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Blum www.killinghope.org (June 05 2009) The great, international, demonic, truly frightening Iranian threat The United States is "facing a nuclear threat in Iran" -- article in Chicago Tribune and other major newspapers, May 26 "the growing missile threat from North Korea and Iran" -- article in the Washington Post and other major newspapers, May 26 "Iran's threat transcends religion. Regardless of sectarian bent, Muslim communities need to oppose the attempts by Iran ... to extend Shia extremism and influence throughout the world". - op-ed article in Boston Globe, May 27 "A Festering Evil. Doing nothing is not an option in handling the threat from Iran" -- headline in Investor's Business Daily, May 27 2009 This is a very small sample from American newspapers covering but two days. "Fifty-one percent of Israelis support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites" -- BBC, May 24 After taking office, on Holocaust Memorial Day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "We will not allow Holocaust-deniers [Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to carry out another holocaust". -- Haaretz (Israel), May 14 2009 Like clinical paranoia, "the threat from Iran" is impervious to correction by rational argument. Two new novels have just appeared, from major American publishers, thrillers based on Iran having a nuclear weapon and the dangers one can imagine that that portends - Banquo's Ghosts (2009) by Rich Lowry & Keith Korman, and The Increment (2009) by David Ignatius. Bomb, bomb, bomb. Let's bomb Iran, declares a CIA official in the latter book. The other book derides the very idea of "dialogue" with Iran while implicitly viewing torture as acceptable. {1} On May 12, in New York City, a debate was held on the proposition that "Diplomacy With Iran Is Going Nowhere" (English translation: "Should we bomb Iran?"). Arguing in the affirmative, were Liz Cheney, former State Department official (and daughter of a certain unindicted war criminal) and Dan Senor, formerly the top spokesman for Washington's Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. Their "opponents" were R Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state, and Kenneth Pollack, former National Security Council official and CIA analyst and author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (2002), a book that, unsurprisingly, did not have too long a shelf life. {2} This is what "debate" on US foreign policy looks like in America in the first decade of the 21st century AD - four quintessential establishment figures. If such a "debate" had been held in the Soviet Union during the Cold War ("Detente With The United States Is Going Nowhere"), the American mainstream media would unanimously have had a jolly time making fun of it. The sponsor of the New York debate was the conservative Rosenkranz Foundation, but if a liberal (as opposed to a progressive or radical leftist) organization had been the sponsor, while there probably would have been a bit more of an ideological gap between the chosen pairs of speakers, it's unlikely that any of the present-day myths concerning Iran would have been seriously challenged by either side. These myths include the following, all of which I've dealt with before in this report but inasmuch as they are repeated on a regular basis in the media and by administration representatives, I think that readers need to be reminded of the counter arguments. * Iran has no right to nuclear weapons: Yet, there is no international law that says that the US, the UK, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, and India are entitled to nuclear weapons, but Iran is not. Iran has every reason to feel threatened. In any event, the US intelligence community's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of December 2007, "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities", makes a point of saying in bold type and italics: "This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons". The report goes on to state: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program". * Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier: I have yet to read of Ahmadinejad saying simply, clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally that he thinks that what we know as the Holocaust never happened. He has instead commented about the peculiarity and injustice of a Holocaust which took place in Europe resulting in a state for the Jews in the Middle East instead of in Europe. Why are the Palestinians paying a price for a German crime? he asks. And he has questioned the figure of six million Jews killed by Nazi Germany, as have many other people of all political stripes. * Ahmadinejad has called for violence against Israel: His 2005 remark re "wiping Israel off the map", besides being a very questionable translation, has been seriously misinterpreted, as evidenced by the fact that the following year he declared: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom". {3} Obviously, he was not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union took place peacefully. * Iran has no right to provide arms to Hamas and Hezbollah: However, the United States, we are assured, has every right to do the same for Israel and Egypt. * The fact that Obama says he's willing to "talk" to some of the "enemies" like Iran more than the Bush administration did sounds good: But one doesn't have to be too cynical to believe that it will not amount to more than a public relations gimmick. It's only change of policy that counts. Why doesn't Obama just state that he would not attack Iran unless Iran first attacked the US or Israel or anyone else? Besides, the Bush administration met with Iran on several occasions. The following should also be kept in mind: The Washington Post (March 05 2009) reported: "A senior Israeli official in Washington" has asserted that "Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation". This was the very last sentence in the article and, according to an extensive Nexis search, did not appear in any other English-language media in the world. In 2007, in a closed discussion, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that in her opinion "Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel". She "also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears". This appeared in Haaretz.com (October 25 2007, print edition October 26), but not in any US media or in any other English-language world media except the BBC citing the Iranian Mehr English-language news agency (October 27). Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's Changeman! In January 2006 I was invited to attend a book fair in Cuba, where one of my books, newly translated into Spanish, was being presented. All my expenses were to be paid by the Cuban government and I was very much looking forward to the visit. Only one problem - the government of the United States would not give me permission to go. My application to travel to Cuba had also been rejected in 1998 by the Clinton administration. (On that occasion I went anyhow and was extremely lucky to avoid being caught by the American Travel Police on the way back and being fined thousands of dollars.) I mention this because Obama supporters would have us believe - as they themselves believe - that their Changeman has been busy making lots of important changes, Cuba being only one example. But I still don't have the legal right to travel to Cuba. The only real change made by the Obama administration in regard to Cuba is that Cuban-Americans with family on the island can travel there and send remittances without restrictions. The April 13 White House announcement listed several other provisions concerning telecommunications companies, but what this will actually mean in practice, if anything, is unknown, particularly as it affects Cuba's access to the Internet. American anti-Castroites have long blamed Cuban's deficient Internet access on the proverbial "communist suppression", when the technical availability and prohibitive cost were to a large extent in the hands of American corporations. Microsoft, for example, bars Cuba from using its Messenger instant messaging service. {4} And Google has long blocked Cuban access to many of its features. {5} Venezuela and Cuba have been working on an underwater cable system that they hope will make them less reliant on the gringos. The multifarious US economic embargo, which causes unending hardship and expense for the Cuban people, remains in place. Here is Changeman in a recent press conference: Reporter: Thank you, Mr President. You've heard from a lot of Latin America leaders here who want the US to lift the embargo against Cuba. You've said that you think it's an important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, it's failed to provide the source of raising standards of living, it's squeezed the innocent, and it's time for us to acknowledge that this particular policy has failed. I'm wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo? The President: Well, 2004, that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004? Reporter: Running for Senate. The President: Is it while - I was running for Senate. There you go. {6} Yes, there you go; you shouldn't confuse campaign rhetoric with the real world and the real Changeman. The case of the Cuban Five is another chance for Changeman to come to the rescue. This outrageous perversion of justice whereby Cubans were sent to the United States to try to learn of further terrorist attacks in Cuba planned by anti-Castroites in Florida and were themselves arrested by the FBI on information partly supplied to the US by the Cuban government as their contribution to the War On Terrorism. {7} The Cuban Five have been in US prisons for more than ten years. Around June 15 the Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on whether or not they will hear the appeal of the Five. The Clinton administration arrested them. The Bush administration continued the awful, mindless, crimeless persecution for eight more years. But now comes the Changeman administration. Hooray! Oh, in late May, the Changeman administration filed a brief urging the Court to deny the Five a hearing, and on June 2, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an Organization of American States meeting: "I want to emphasize the United States under President Obama is taking a completely new approach to our policy toward Cuba". {8} Another opportunity for Changeman to come to the rescue also involves Cuba - closing the Guantanamo prison. But our hero is once again displaying a woeful lack of political courage and imagination. If there's good evidence that certain detainees are a danger to anyone, then try them in US civilian courts with full rights, a decent defense team, and excluding secret evidence and coerced confessions. If they're found guilty - and with an American jury sitting in judgment of "terrorists", this, in almost all cases, would be the verdict - then imprison them in one of America's maximum security prisons, which already houses about 355 men labeled as "terrorists". {9} The new ones will not be any more of a danger in prison than the ones already there. However, if they're found innocent, then declare them free men. It would be much easier then to find a country to accept them, including the United States. Until now, the world has been told repeatedly by Washington that these men are "the worst of the worst". Small wonder that no country or community wants them near. But if they've been tried and acquitted, this situation should change markedly. So Mr Obama, we're waiting for you to step into a phone booth. It's part of America's ideology to pretend that it doesn't have any ideology. Oh, a woman nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. A woman whose parents are from Puerto Rico. A Latina! A Latina Supreme Court justice! Oh, hooray for America! Who cares? Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice. He's black. He's as hopelessly reactionary as they come. No one should give a damn that Sonia Sotomayor is a woman with a Latin American background. All that counts is her politics. Her ideology. Her positions on important social and political issues. Yes, I know, we're talking about the Law, the Majesty of the Law, judges who are scholars, impartial scholars, who study the fine points and the history of a law, experts on the Constitution of the United States, not swayed by today's partisan squabbles but take the long view, looking at precedent, considering what precedent may be set for the future. Don't believe it. That may be true in the infrequent Supreme Court case where no ideological question at all is raised. Otherwise the judges are all biased human beings, appointed by a biased president, confirmed by biased members of the Senate. Patrick Martin recently observed on the World Socialist Web Site: "For the past twelve years ... under two Democratic presidents and one Republican, the post of US Secretary of State has been occupied by, in succession, a white woman, a black man, a black woman, and a white woman". {10} And they all loved the empire. When the empire called for it, they bombed, invaded, and killed; they overthrew, occupied, tortured, and lied; and swore allegiance to Israel and the corporations. And now we have a black president. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, or Stokely Carmichael he's not. His policies and his appointments have all fallen in that area that runs from ever so slightly to the left of center to clear conservative and imperialist on the right. He's more loath to being identified as, or collaborating with, progressives than with right-wingers. Team Obama sees the left as an eccentric old aunt who keeps showing up at family functions, making everyone uncomfortable and wishing she'd just go away. America, and the world, have to grow up. Forget color. Forget ethnicity. Forget gender. Forget sexual orientation. Forget even the class the person comes from. Look at the class they serve. And understand that the person wouldn't be in the position they are, or be nominated for the position, if there was any serious question about their loyalty to the capitalist ethic or American world domination. It also matters not whether the president is comically inarticulate or whether he speaks in complete grammatical sentences. Keep your eye on the policies. Obama To the numerous fans of Barack Obama, on the left, in the middle, on the right, and to the apolitical Obamaniacs, my advice is to read Being There (1971) by Jerzy Kosinski, or see the film version (1979) of the same name starring Peter Sellers. Also read The Emperor's New Clothes (1837) by Hans Christian Andersen. "Men go mad in herds, but only come to their senses one by one". -- Charles Mackay, 19th century Scottish journalist Notes 1. Washington Post (May 26 2009) book review 2. Washington Post (May 15 2009) 3. Associated Press (December 12 2006) 4. Associated Press (June 02 2009) 5. Does Google Censor Cuba? 6. White House Press Office (April 19 2009) 7. Cuban Political Prisoners ... in the United States 8. Washington Post (June 03 2009) 9. "There Are Already 355 Terrorists in American Prisons", Slate Magazine (May 29 2009) 10. "The fundamental social division is class, not race or gender", World Socialist Web Site (May 28 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://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer70.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jun 7 05:12:31 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:12:31 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" (4) Message-ID: <4A2BA09F.6000308@ashisuto.co.jp> Part 4 by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 13 2009) This is the fourth in a series of articles on Ellen Brown's superb 2007 book titled Web of Debt, now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free". This article focuses on America's "web of debt" entrapment. The Debt Spider Captures America - American Workers Consigned to Debt Serfdom America has been trapped for over two centuries, with today's debt level way exceeding developing nations. Like bankrupt people staying "afloat by making the minimum payment(s) on (their) credit card(s), the government (avoids) bankruptcy by paying just the interest on its monster debt" - now double in size since Brown's first edition and onerous enough for Controller of the Currency David Walker to warn earlier of its unaffordability by this year. If America can't service the amount, it's officially bankrupt and the economy will collapse. If it happens, IMF austerity will follow and turn America into Guatemala. Other vulnerable economies as well - permanent debt bondage and worker serfdom. Catherine Austin Fitts was a former high-level Wall Street and government insider. She points to a "financial coup d'etat" conspiracy between the two to hollow out America, centralize power and knowledge, shift wealth to the top, destroy communities and local infrastructure, create new wealth by rebuilding them, and leave human wreckage in its wake. She also calls today's crisis "a criminal leveraged buyout of America (meaning) buying (the) country for cheap with its own money and then jacking up the rents and fees to steal the rest". She calls it the "American Tapeworm" model: It's "to simply finance the federal deficit through warfare, currency exports, Treasury and federal credit borrowing and cutbacks in domestic 'discretionary' spending ... This will then place local municipalities and local leadership in a highly vulnerable position - one that will allow them to be persuaded with bogus but high-minded sounding arguments to further cut resources. Then to 'preserve bond ratings and the rights of creditors', our leaders can be persuaded to sell our water, national resources and infrastructure assets at significant discounts of their true value to global investors" - masquerading as a plan to "save America by recapitalizing it on a sound financial footing". In fact, it's to loot the country by shifting wealth offshore and to the top. Also, to destroy the country's middle class, consign US workers to serfdom, then meet expected civil disobedience with military force, followed by mass internment in over 800 FEMA detention camps in every state. Today, the rich are getting richer while millions of Americans struggle daily to get by and live perilously from paycheck to paycheck, a mere one away from insolvent disaster. Given where we're heading, Warren Buffett warns that America is changing from an "ownership society" to a "sharecroppers' " one, no different than feudal serfdom. Economist Paul Krugman calls it "debt peonage", much like the post-Civil War South that forced debtors to work for their creditors. Make no mistake, it's a corporate America scheme for a plentiful reserve army of labor no better off than in developing countries - at low wages, no benefits, weak unions if any, and government engineering the whole scheme. Even personal bankruptcy protection eroded under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection of 2005 - benefitting lenders at the expense of borrowers by keeping them chained to their debts. It requires many more people "to file under Chapter 13, which does not eliminate debts but mandates that they be repaid under a court-ordered payment schedule over a three to five year period". Homes, in some cases, may be seized and even owe a "deficiency, or balance due" if its sales price doesn't cover it. This Act "eroded the protection the government once provided against (various) unexpected catastrophes (like job loss and high medical expenses) ensuring that working people (henceforth) are kept on a treadmill of personal debt". Even worse are loopholes in the law letting "very wealthy people and corporations ... go bankrupt ... and shield(ing) their assets from creditors ..". This bill was written at the behest of credit card companies that entrap consumers in debt, charge usurious interest, and demand repayment no matter what besets them. In one respect, debt bondage is worse than slavery. As property, slaves had to be cared for. Debt slaves have to fend for themselves and pay tribute (interest) to their captors. The Illusion of Home Ownership In 2004, household home ownership rates were "touted" to be nearly 69%. In fact, only forty percent of homes are debt-free, but that percentage fell given the amount of refinancing in recent years. As a result, "most mortgages on single-family properties today are less than four years old" meaning they're many years away from free and clear ownership. "The touted increase in home ownership actually means an increase in debt (and) Households today owe more relative to their disposable income than ever before", although in recent months they've been repaying it and saving more. Earlier, and still now, low "teaser rates" entrapped households in onerous debt, fueling the housing bubble as another Federal Reserve/lender ploy to pump "accounting-entry money into the economy", set it up for trouble, then let financial predators exploit it for profit. The same strategies for Third World countries are playing out in America with too few people the wiser. The 19th century "Homestead Laws that gave settlers their own plot of land (cost and debt free) have been largely eroded by 150 years of the 'business cycle', in which bankers have periodically raised interest rates and called in loans, creating successive waves of defaults and foreclosures" - worst of all for subprime and other risky mortgage holders defaulting in record numbers with millions still ahead in what's playing out as the nation's worst ever housing crisis showing no signs of ending. The Perfect Financial Storm It looms in the form of inflation and deflation given the enormity of newly created money at the same time borrowers can't repay loans that then default. When that happens, "the money supply contracts and deflation and depression result". When the housing market corrected between 1989 and 1991, "median home prices dropped by seventeen percent, and 3.6 million mortgages" defaulted. The equivalent 2005 decline "would have produced twenty million defaults, because the average equity-to-debt ratio ... had dropped dramatically" - from 37% in 1990 to fourteen percent in 2005, a record low as a result of equity extracted refinancings. "What would twenty million defaults do to the money supply?" Two trillion dollars would evaporate or about one-fifth of M3. The fallout would cause huge stock and home value declines, income taxes needing to be tripled, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits halved, and pensions and comfortable retirements gone for the vast majority of workers. And that's assuming a modest housing price decline when it's already far more severe and continuing, giving pause to the virtually certain calamity ahead and devastation for the millions affected. Policy changes in 1979 to 1981 laid the groundwork for today's crisis by "flood(ing) the housing market with even more new money", and much more. They let Fannie and Freddie speculate in derivatives and mortgage-backed securities and by so doing assume enormous risk. In June 2002, writer Richard Freeman warned of the impending dangers in an article titled: "Fannie and Freddie Were Lenders - US Real Estate Bubble Nears Its End". He cited the largest housing bubble in history made all the greater by Fannie and Freddie manipulation and stated: "... what started out as a simple home mortgage has been transmogrified into something one would expect to find at a Las Vegas gambling casino. Yet the housing bubble now depends on (highly speculative derivatives as new) sources of funds", made all the riskier through leverage. In 2003, Freddie was caught cooking its books to make its financial health look sound. In 2004, Fannie did the same thing. Meanwhile, housing peaked in 2006, then steadily imploded, bringing the economy down with it. Derivatives in the Eye of the Cyclone In November 2006, financial expert and investor safety advocate Martin Weiss called the derivatives crisis: "a global Vesuvius that could erupt at almost any time, instantly throwing the world's financial markets into turmoil ... bankrupting major banks ... sinking big-name insurance companies ... scrambling the investments of hedge funds (and) overturning the portfolios of millions of average investors". Gary Novak's web site explains the derivatives crisis as follows: the banking system gridlocked because "pretended assets are fake and fake assets" consumed real ones. Deregulation, beginning in the 1980s, caused the problem. Once eliminated, "funny money became the order of the day (in the form) of very complex vehicles (called) derivatives, which were often made intentionally obscure and confusing". Even financial experts don't understand them, and that was the whole idea - to sell junk to the unsuspecting, profit hugely as a result, and let buyers handle the problems. It was a Ponzi scheme disappearing money "down the derivatives hole". Holders are now stuck with "pretend" values. They can't sell and no one will buy. A global liquidity shortage resulted. "The very thing derivatives were designed to create - market liquidity - has been frozen to immobility in a gridlocked game". Ironically, derivatives are sold as insurance "against something catastrophic going wrong". The solution is now the problem writ large. Something gone wrong makes counterparties (on the other side of the bet) "liable to fold their cards", take losses, "and drop out of the game". In May 2005, early signs of a crisis emerged after GM and Ford debt was downgraded to junk. Dire warnings followed of "a derivatives crisis 'orders of magnitude' beyond LTCM" in 1998. To head it off, the Fed and other central banks covertly flooded the market with liquidity by no longer reporting M3 - "the main staple of money supply management and transparent disclosure for the last half-century, the figure on which the world has relied in determining the soundness of the dollar". Even worse is that the government isn't doing it interest and inflation-free. The private Federal Reserve and banks are creating a massive amount of government debt, debasing the currency, and risking a future hyperinflation even though none is around today. When the Fed buys government bonds with newly issued money, they stay in circulation, "become the basis for generating many times their value in new loans; and the result is highly inflationary". Catherine Austin Fitts describes an Orwellian (pump and dump) scheme letting "the powers that be steal money by manipulation (then) keep this thing going, but in a way that leads to a highly totalitarian government and economy - corporate feudalism" with workers as serfs. Another observer said: "The only way government can function and maintain control in an economically collapsed state is through a military dictatorship", where it looks like we're heading with police state laws enacted and hundreds of concentration camps nationwide to handle expected civil disobedience disruptions once people realized they've been had. Financial Market Rigging The notion that markets move randomly and reflect investors' sentiment is rubbish. There's a "mechanism at work, like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain, pulling on strings and pushing buttons". Indeed there is with names. In 1989, Reagan's EO 12631 created the Working Group on Financial Markets (WGFM) in response to the 1987 market crash. It's more commonly known as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT), including the president, Treasury secretary, Fed chairman, SEC chairman, and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chairman. Its purpose: to enhance "the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and (maintain) investor confidence". The plain truth is that the PPT rigs market performance up or down at Wall Street's discretion because insiders profit both ways. Money used to manipulate markets is "Monopoly money, funds created from nothing and given for nothing" just to move markets as insiders wish. In a June 2006 article titled "Plunge Protection or Enormous Hidden Tax Revenues", Chuck Austin wrote bluntly stating: "... Today the markets are, without a doubt, manipulated on a daily basis by the PPT. Government controlled 'front companies' such as Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan and many others collect incredible revenues through market manipulation. Much of this money is probably returned to government coffers, however, enormous sums ... are undoubtedly skimmed off by participating companies and individuals." They're no different from Mafia crime families but far larger and more profitable. Further, these banks are global crimes syndicates writ large, and, unlike the Mafia, have limitless Fed-supplied funds, free from accountability, investigation, and prosecution. "The PPT not only cheats investors out of trillions of dollars, it also eliminates competition that refuses to be 'bought' through mergers. Very soon now, only global companies and corporations owned and controlled by the NWO (New World Order) elite will exist." Wall Street giants sit atop that pyramid. Along with the PPT, the "Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) exists - "authorized by Congress to keep sharp swings in the dollar's exchange rate from 'upsetting' financial markets". In a word, like the PPT, it operates by rigging markets for insiders, the usual suspects being major Wall Street firms - getting inside information on how to invest or the equivalent of tomorrow's Wall Street Journal today. Another organization exists for the same purpose - the so-called Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG), established in 1999 to handle the LTCM crisis and protect against future ones. According to one account, it was "set up to bail out its members from financial difficulty by combining forces to manipulate markets" with US government approval. One of its devices is for the nation's giant banks to collude in large-scale program trading, amounting to over half of all daily New York Stock Exchange volume and on some days much more. Knowing which way to bet puts them at odds with smaller firms and ordinary investors, vulnerable to losing out by a scam designed to defraud them - supported, however, by the full faith, credit, and muscle of the government. But is an eventual day of reckoning coming? Hans Schicht believes so and says: "In 2003, master spider David Rockefeller was 88 years old, so today", he'll be 94 in June. "(W)herever we look, his central command is seen to be fading. Neither is there a capable successor in sight to take over the reigns ... Corruption is rife ... Rivalry is breaking up the empire." "What has been good for Rockefeller, has been a curse for the United States. Its citizens, government and country indebted to the hilt, enslaved to his banks ... The country's industrial force lost to overseas in consequence of strong dollar policies (pursued for bankers not the country ... )" With Rockefeller leaving the scene, sixty years of dollar imperialism (is ending) ... The day of financial reckoning is not far off any longer ... With Rockefeller's strong hand losing its grip and the old established order fading, the world has entered a most dangerous transition period, where anything could (and may) happen". Consider also the possibility that the "spider" moved to London where a "navy of pirate hedge funds ... rule the world out of Cayman Islands" - an "epicenter for globalization and financial warfare" run by "Anglo-Dutch oligarchy" chosen officials allied with major global banks and shadow financial system players. But even best laid plans at times fail, given how vulnerable even major banks are from their derivatives bets. As gold expert Adrian Douglas observed: The system is so corrupted that if huge bets go wrong, the giants "have no other choice (than) to manipulate the price of underlying asset prices to prevent financial ruin ... Instead of stopping this idiotic sham business from growing to galactic proportions, they've let it spin out of control (placing them) all on the hook ... (This) sham is coming unglued because the huge excess liquidity (in the system ballooned to) asset bubbles all over the place". He concluded that when derivatives buyers catch on to the scam and "quit paying premiums for insurance that doesn't exist, (they'll be) a whole new definition of volatility ... the financial equivalent of a hurricane Katrina hitting every US city on the same day ... When the bubble(s collapse), the banking empire ... built on (them) must collapse as well". To fend it off, Wall Street and its European partners are using desperate measures, "including a giant derivatives bubble that is jeopardizing the whole shaky system". In a February 2004 article called "The Coming Storm", the London Economist warned that "top banks around the world are now massively exposed to high-risk derivatives (posing a systemic) risk of an industry-wide meltdown". John Hoefle believes that "the Fed has been quietly rescuing banks ever since. (He) contends that the banking system went bankrupt in the late 1980s, with the collapse of the junk bond market and the real estate bubble". The S & L crisis was "just the tip of the iceberg". The Fed secretly took over Citicorp in 1989, arranged shotgun mergers for other giant banks, back door bailouts, and "bank examiners were ordered to ignore bad loans. These measures, coupled with a headlong rush into derivatives and other forms of speculation gave banks a veneer of solvency while actually destroying what was left of the US banking system." It got in trouble because big gambles failed, including Third World debt defaults as well as Enron and other corporate bankruptcies. Giant US banks "are masters at ... counting trillions of dollars of worthless IOUs (like derivatives) on their books at face value (to make it look like they're) solvent". Between 1984 and 2002, takeovers papered over failures by reducing bank numbers nearly in half and consolidating the top seven into three - Citigroup, J P Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. According to Hoefle: "The result of all these mergers is a group of much larger, and far more bankrupt giant banks. (A) similar process played out worldwide." He added that "zombies have now taken over the asylum" and writer Michael Edward agreed in a 2004 article titled: "Cooking the Books - US Banks Are Giant Casinos (engaging in) smoke and mirror accounting", then merging with each other to conceal their derivatives losses with "paper asset" bookkeeping. It means that "US banks have become (a giant) Ponzi scheme paying account holders with other account holder assets or deposits" - robbing Peter to pay Paul but promising to end very badly. Does this "mark the inevitable end times of a Ponzi scheme that is inherently unstable?" Perhaps private banking as well, replaced by pension and mutual funds, and others able to operate efficiently at low cost. Battling back, giants expanded into investment banking with repeal of Glass-Steagall, but profits continued to fall as the economic downturn accelerated, resulting in investment banks converting to commercial ones and retrenching temporarily from core businesses like M & A and corporate lending. "Meanwhile, banking as a public service has been lost to the all-consuming quest for profits", the very strategy getting giants in trouble and needing periodic government bailouts. Very few of their services involve "taking deposits, providing checking services, and making consumer or small business loans". Instead, they concentrate on "dubious practices" responsible for a giant Ponzi scheme with "the entire economy in its death grip". They created a "perilous derivatives bubble that has generated billions of dollars in short-term profits but has destroyed the financial system in the process". The "too big to fail" concept resulted from the S & L crisis when many of them collapsed and Citibank lost half its value. In 1989, Congress passed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, bailing S & Ls out with taxpayer money. It was a brushfire compared to today's global conflagration, making it far harder to contain and effectively teetering all banks on bankruptcy. Considering the damage they've done, it's time to cut them loose and let them survive or fail on their own. And if the latter, it will be a major step toward restoring economic health overall. Banking services can more efficiently be provided than by parasites using us as their food source". The irony is that our economic system is built on an illusion. We have been tricked into believing we are inextricably mired in debt, when the 'debt' was for an advance of 'credit' that was ours all along." It's high time we reclaimed it. _____ The next article focuses on taking back our money power. 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 sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10 am US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13553 http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/reviewing-ellen-browns-web-of-debt-part_13.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 01:36:33 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:36:33 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] Why Socialism? Albert Einstein In-Reply-To: <2042323722.7809781244322390092.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <621530240.7727901244245097087.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <2042323722.7809781244322390092.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid Shniad Date: Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:06 PM Subject: [R-G] Why Socialism? Albert Einstein To: Suzanne de Kuyper http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php Monthly Review May 2009 Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has?as is well known?been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and?if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous?are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?" I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out? It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society?in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence?that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word ?society.? It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished?just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part. Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time?which, looking back, seems so idyllic?is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor?not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production?that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods?may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call ?workers? all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production?although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is ?free,? what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the ?free labor contract? for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from ?pure? capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an ?army of unemployed? almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service. _______________________________________________ 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: 18020 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090607/73f80f7a/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 01:43:11 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:43:11 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] Why Socialism? Albert Einstein In-Reply-To: References: <621530240.7727901244245097087.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <2042323722.7809781244322390092.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: Islam already before Marx tried to install mass socialism, with amazing effect. Which is why the West is basing world conquest on eliminating Islam. Socialism is, as is Islam, death to the predatory instinct of any war empire. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:36 AM Subject: Fwd: [R-G] Why Socialism? Albert Einstein To: The A-List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid Shniad Date: Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:06 PM Subject: [R-G] Why Socialism? Albert Einstein To: Suzanne de Kuyper http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php Monthly Review May 2009 Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has?as is well known?been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and?if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous?are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?" I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out? It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society?in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence?that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word ?society.? It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished?just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part. Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time?which, looking back, seems so idyllic?is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor?not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production?that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods?may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call ?workers? all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production?although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is ?free,? what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the ?free labor contract? for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from ?pure? capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an ?army of unemployed? almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service. _______________________________________________ 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: 18940 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090607/060a9d4b/attachment.txt From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sun Jun 7 09:29:00 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:29:00 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN 2 NWO Camps Fighting for World Domination? Message-ID: <01f83034$39971$0cf44784677662@xnote> ARE TWO NWO CAMPS FIGHTING FOR WORLD DOMINATION? Europeans v. USA MNN. June 5 2009. Why are armed US and Canadian forces holding the Mohawks hostage? We refuse to let the Canada Border Services agents CBSA carry guns in the middle of our community. Like anybody else, members of the Mohawk Nation can speculate about events surrounding us. Europe and the US are both running out of resources. Their economies are crashing. They have to steal what they need from others around the world. The economic meltdown of the US was caused by the European international banks pulling the plug on them. Europe has to destroy the US to take over the world and vice versa. The Western Hemisphere is all Indigenous. The Europeans have always been fighting over it. For a long time France infiltrated Canada through Quebec. During the 1960s French teachers came to Quebec to get involved with the youth. They started the movement to separate Quebec from Canada. In 1967 French President Charles deGaulle visited Quebec and yelled, ?Vive, Quebec libre!? to give momentum to separatism. Quebec Premier Jean Charest made a statement recently that North America belongs to the French. He?s basing it on the Louisiana Purchase by the US from France in 1803 which is 23% of the US. It connected southern US with Quebec. France tried to surround the 13 colonies along the east coast. Spain planned to control the territory west of the Mississippi River. Recently Mexican Americans claimed they were the indigenous people of the US. The Iroquois reminded our brothers and sisters that the territory east of the Mississippi is ours. US said in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that the Western Hemisphere is their sphere of influence and will resist European intrusions. They never mentioned they?re all immigrants to Great Turtle Island and beyond. Certain parties from Germany put out a phony article about the Mohawk issue at Akwesasne, purportedly put out by MNN. All articles by MNN can be verified at www.mohawknationnews.com What is the connection at Harvard between US President Obama and Liberal Party of Canada leader, Michael Ignatieff? Are they part of the European camp? Ignatieff is the son of white Russian nobility whose father was a Canadian diplomat at the UN Security Council Committee on Palestine. In WW II many of the white Russians had their own battalions in the German army because they opposed the Bolsheviks. Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, appears to be with the US camp. The Europeans would like to see an election soon to put their nominee, Michael Ignatieff, in as Prime Minister of Canada. The Europeans have always been infiltrating Canadian government, business and finance as part of ongoing colonialism. The majority of the Canadian military is now mainly in Quebec due to the bilingual policy under former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The only people rising up in the ranks are French speakers. The Germans are now attacking former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a conservative, who brought in the free trade deal. He?s probably with the US camp. Germans wanted to set up a factory to make armaments in Nova Scotia. He was paid but didn?t do it. The Europeans would need to make heavy artillery here to make it easier to move the military and equipment anywhere they?re needed. On May 31 there was a crash of an Air France flight in the Atlantic Ocean. It had about a dozen Thyssen Krupp of Germany and Michelin of France executives aboard. A deal was made for steel production at 11 installations in Brazil. The Germans have been in South America, particularly in Brazil, since the 1800s. Many Nazis fled to South America after WW II. Is the Canada/US border going to be guarded by soldiers posing as CBSA? Are we in the way of some big plans? We have a right to defend ourselves and will remain neutral in the conflict between these competing interests. We will remain steadfast in not having guns at the border. Mohawk communities are strategically located in southern Quebec and southern Ontario. The Europeans may want them for army bases to protect the border should the US invade Canada. US Fort Drum Army Base south of Akwesane would need to come through Awesasne and Kahnawake to take over these populous areas of Canada. Kanehsatake is located where the Ottawa River flows into the St. Lawrence. Tyendinaga is surrounded by numerous Canadian army installations. Six Nations is west of Toronto. Our communities are strategically located in the way of a US invasion. If the US invades Canada, they would want to use our communities to set up their bases. As the people who follow the philosophy of the Kaianereh?ko:wa, Great Law of Peace, we can resolve this matter peacefully between these parties. In the meantime the US camp wants us to stop guns at the border. They aren?t worried about us. They just don?t want guns in the hands of Euro influenced CBSA guards to be aimed at them. These reflections are like throwing an onion into the pot for the flavor! Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Contact Rotiskenrakete 514-269-1400. N. Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Supporters may send comments to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Supporters of Mohawks: MPs Jean Crowder, Indian Affairs critic crowdj at parl.gc.ca ; Anita Neville nevila at parl.gc.ca ; Marc Lemay lemaym at parl.gc.ca ; Sen. Nancy Green; Sen. Gerry St. Germain; From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 14:12:32 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 22:12:32 +0200 Subject: [A-List] [R-G] Has the two-state ship sailed? In-Reply-To: <282929532.36501244404367126.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <1281788239.7811681244323730644.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <282929532.36501244404367126.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jun 7 18:39:26 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:39:26 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Crony capitalism has taken root in America Message-ID: <4A2C5DBE.7090601@ashisuto.co.jp> by Sin-ming Shaw The Japan Times (May 19 2009) For twenty years, Americans have denounced the "crony capitalism" of Third World countries, especially in Asia. But, just as those regions have been improving their public and corporate governance - Hong Kong just witnessed a breakthrough court decision against a telecom tycoon who is the son of the province's richest and most powerful man - crony capitalism is taking root in the United States, a country that the world long considered the gold standard of a level playing field in business. The recently completed "stress tests" of US banks are but the latest indication that crony capitalists have now captured Washington. It is no surprise that stock markets liked the results of the tests that US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner administered to America's big banks, for the general outcome had been leaked weeks before. Indeed, most professional investors trashed the tests as dishonest even as their holdings benefited from a rising market. Even The Wall Street Journal, usually financial markets' loudest cheerleader, openly disparaged the tests' integrity. The government had allowed bankers to "negotiate" the results, like a student taking a final examination and then negotiating a grade. The tests were supposed to reveal the true conditions of banks saddled with unaudited "'toxic assets" in housing loans and derivatives. The reasoning behind the tests seemed unimpeachable. But was it? As any seasoned banker knows, a well-managed bank should undertake internal "stress tests" regularly as a matter of good housekeeping. The financial crisis should have mandated a running stress test to keep senior management up to date daily. Why, then, did the US need the government to conduct a financial exercise that bankers themselves could and should have done far better and faster? The truth is that the tests were not designed to find answers. Both Wall Street's chieftains and the Obama administration already knew the truth. They knew that if the true conditions at many big banks were publicly revealed, many would have been immediately declared bankrupt, necessitating government receivership to stop a tsunami of bank runs. But the Obama administration did not want to be tagged as "socialist" for nationalizing banks, however temporarily, even though experts such as former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker had recommended just that. Moreover, nationalizing banks would have required dismissing Wall Street captains and their boards for grossly mismanaging their firms. Wall Street's titans, however, had convinced Obama and his team that their continued stewardship was essential to getting the world out of its crisis. They successfully portrayed themselves as victims of a firestorm, rather than as accessories to arson. Geithner and Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, share Wall Street's culture as proteges of Robert Rubin, the former treasury secretary who went on to serve as a director and senior counselor at Citigroup. Neither man found it difficult to accept the bankers' absurd logic. The stress tests were meant to signal to the public that there was no immediate threat of bank failures. This message, it was hoped, would stabilize the market so that prices for toxic assets could rise to a level at which bankers might feel comfortable selling them. So far, Geithner seems to have succeeded in his tests, as the stock market has indeed more than stabilized, with prices of bank shares such as Citigroup and Bank of America quadrupling from their lows. The feared implosion of Wall Street seems to have been avoided. But no one ever seriously thought that the US would allow Citigroup and Bank of America, to name just two, to fail. Markets had already factored into share prices the belief that the US government would not allow any more banks to collapse. What the world wanted was an accurate picture of what the banks were worth and "mark-to-market" valuations to guide investors as to how much new capital they needed. The world also wanted to see the US retaking the high road in reinforcing business ethics and integrity so lacking under the Bush administration. As taxpayers had already put huge sums into rescuing failing banks, with the prospect of more to come, a transparent process to reveal how the money was being used was imperative. Substantial public rescue funds have reportedly been siphoned off to foreign banks, Goldman Sachs and staff bonuses for purposes unrelated to protecting public interests. None of this was either revealed or debunked by Geithner's tests. Instead, public servants now appear to be in cahoots with Wall Street to engineer an artificial aura of profitability. Moreover, the value of toxic assets remains as murky as ever. Once-sacrosanct accounting principles have been amended at Wall Street's behest to allow banks to report essentially whatever they want. Now, negotiated stress test results have been released to "prove" that the banks are a lot healthier. Calling this a Ponzi scheme might be too harsh. Few financial professionals have been fooled. Like swine flu, crony capitalism has migrated from corrupt Third World countries to America. Is it any wonder, then, that China is perceived as an increasingly credible model for much of the developing world? _____ Sin-ming Shaw, a former founding chairman of a hedge fund and a private equity fund in Asia, has been a visiting scholar at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Oxford. He blogs at sinmingshaw.blogspot.com. (c) 2009 Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org) (c) The Japan Times. All rights reserved http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/eo20090519a2.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jun 8 05:25:20 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:25:20 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" (5) Message-ID: <4A2CF520.6010201@ashisuto.co.jp> Part Five by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 15 2009) This is the fifth of several articles on Ellen Brown's superb 2007 book titled "Web of Debt", now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free". This article focuses on taking back our money power. Recapturing What's Ours and Turning Scarcity to Abundance In 1952, Norman Vincent Peale (1898 - 1993) first published his most famous book - "The Power of Positive Thinking". It sold about five million copies and was a New York Times bestseller for 186 consecutive weeks delivering messages like: "Never talk defeat. Use words like hope, belief, faith, victory." FDR struck the same theme in saying: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". In 1900, Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" was first published, conveying "the notion that a life of scarcity could be transformed in an instant into one of universal abundance ..." In real life, the secret is by taking back our money power from the private bankers who stole it in 1913, in the middle of the night, two days before Christmas, and kept it ever since. Today's real cause of scarcity is that "somebody is paying interest on most of the money in the world all of the time", and by so doing enslaves nearly everyone in perpetual debt bondage. Meeting America's huge debt burden requires the money supply to keep expanding, "and for that to happen, borrowers must continually go deeper into debt, merchants must continually raise their prices, and the odd men out in the bankers' game of musical chairs must continue to lose their property to the banks". The result - inevitable wars, competition, strife, inflation, deflation, recessions, depressions, debt bondage, poverty, and despair, while at the same time bankers get fabulously richer and more powerful. The obvious solution is to stop "parasitic" banks from "feeding on the world's prosperity", but the "Witches of Wall Street" don't yield easily. Dethroning them will take the process Francis Fox Piven explained in her 2006 book, "Challenging Authority". She quoted Thomas Jefferson responding to the repressive 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts saying: "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles". Disruptive social actions have done it as Piven explained: "ordinary people (have) power ... when they rise up in anger and hope, defy the rules ... disrupt (state) institutions ... propel new issues to the center of political debate (and force) political leaders (to) stem voter defections by proferring reforms. These are the conditions that produce" democratic change. Sidestepping the Debt Web with "Parallel" Currencies Community currencies, for example, that historically rose "spontaneously when national (ones) were scarce, unobtainable", or in the case of Weimar Germany worthless because of hyperinflation. "Hundreds of communities in the United States, Canada and Europe did the same thing during the Depression" when hard times forced creative solutions. "Like the medieval tally, these currencies were simply credits (letting bearers) trade (them) for an equivalent value in goods and services ..." Today, community currencies "operate legally in more than 35 countries ..." and in North America over thirty are available in places like Ithaca, New York where Ithaca HOUR scrip is used, saying on the back: "This is money (entitling) the bearer to receive one hour of labor or its negotiated value in goods and services. Please accept it, then spend it ..." Another example is corporate credits like airline frequent flyer miles entitling holders to free flights and other benefits like lodging, rental cars, restaurant meals and even groceries. Computer technology provides other alternatives as well, without currencies, by facilitating trades electronically. In 1981 after IBM released its XT computer, the first electronic currency system was devised - a Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) for recording transactions and keeping accounts by simply having "an information system for recording human effort". It tallied credits in and debits out, tax and interest free, and stored electronically. Check out these sites for more information: -- ithacahours.com; -- madisonhours.org; -- communitycurrency.org; and -- geog.le.ac.uk/ijccr. The main drawback to these systems is they're small, local, and fail to address the greater problem - "the mammoth debt spider that is sucking the lifeblood from the national economy" and our well-being. Solving that requires national currency reform - returning money creation power to the people who own it from bankers who stole it. Goldbugs vs Greenbackers In 1896 at the Democratic National Convention, William Jennings Byran railed against Goldbugs and their moneyed interests backers in support of Greenbacker farmers and laborers saying: "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold". The arguments went like this: -- Bankers claimed gold was a stable medium of exchange; "sound" or "honest" money in relatively fixed supply that couldn't be inflated by irresponsible governments out of proportion to the demand for goods and services; -- Greenbackers called scarcity a drawback letting governments condone "dishonest" money through fractional reserve banking; they'd be harmed too many previous times not to know it; also, during the 1850s Gold Rush, its supply and consumer prices rose sharply, did again from 1917 - 1920, and during the 1970s when gold rose from $40 an ounce to $800 and inflation along with it. The debate still continues, but today's goldbugs are money reformers, not bankers who have it all going their way so why change. As a medium of exchange, gold has serious drawbacks. In the Great Depression, it left the country, exacerbating deflation that caused the money supply and demand to contract. Another problem is that productivity is linked to its availability, but more practical matters are also relevant like needing gold bars for large purchases, something avoided by paper, checkbook and electronic money. In the 1990s, Harvey Barnard proposed a new currency reform idea that included a national sales tax in lieu of the federal income tax with the aim of zero inflation and a stable economy. The National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act (NESARA) he called it. His idea was for the government to issue currency in three forms - standard silver coins, standard gold ones, and Treasury credit notes or Greenbacks. Treasury notes would replace Federal Reserve ones with the Federal Reserve abolished. NESARA was never introduced in Congress and might work if enacted. But why bother when the central problem is more simply addressed by returning money creation power to the government as the Constitution mandates. Paper currency isn't the problem. A private banking cartel controlling it is what's at issue to fix. By doing it, "the water of a free-flowing money supply can transform an arid desert of debt into the green abundance envisioned by our forefathers". It's there for the taking by simply "eliminating the financial parasite that is draining our abundance away", and there's nothing complicated about doing it. The Federal Debt How to pay it off is the question Congress one day must address. We can't grow our way out, but here's another way - pay it off "by turning (government) bonds into what they should have been all along, legal tender". Economic analyst Al Martin cites a 2001 US Treasury study showing that US debt service may force the government to raise the personal income tax to 65% by 2013, and if interest can't be paid, bankruptcy and economic collapse will follow as well as for global economies within five days. The only alternative at that point would be "through currency (and) military might, or internal military power ..." However, two centuries ago, Alexander Hamilton showed "that Congress could dispose of the federal debt by 'monetizing' it, but Congress made the mistake of delegating that function to a private banking system". It can fix it by "buying back its own bonds with newly-issued US Notes" it can print in limitless amounts - debt and interest free. It's being done now - "not by the government but by the private Federal Reserve". However, doing it leaves the bonds in circulation, with two sets of securities (bonds and cash) instead of one. "This highly inflationary (scheme) could be avoided" if the government just bought back its own bonds and voided them out - a win-win arrangement for the nation and public with only bankers losing out as they should. It's simple to do and would be able to "extinguish the national debt with the click of a mouse". In January 2004, the Treasury did it when it "called" (paid off) a thirty-year bond issue prior to its due date. Paying "in book-entry form" eliminated doing it with paper currencies or checks and turned securities from interest-bearing to non-interest bearing ones. Bondholders had a choice. They could take their redemption amount in cash or not sell and get no interest. By this method, the Treasury "can pay off the entire federal debt ... It just has to announce that it is calling its bonds and other securities, and that they will be paid 'in book-entry form' ". No cash is involved and funds received can be otherwise reinvested. The process can be accomplished gradually as securities come due. It's just a matter of doing it along with restoring money creation power to the government and making America democratic again, unbeholden to bankers. Federal Debt Liquidation without Inflation "Inflation results when the money supply increases faster than goods and services, and replacing government securities with cash would not change the size of the money supply". If government buys its own bonds, they simply convert from interest-bearing notes into non-interest-bearing legal tender (cash). The money supply remains unchanged, and there's no inflationary impact. That's "very different from what happens today" with the Fed buying bonds, not voiding them out, and creating "reserves" for issuing "many times their value in new loans". It adds new cash to the money supply - a "highly inflationary (scheme simply avoided by having) the government buy back its own bonds and (take) them out of circulation". It's also a way to solve the "Social Security crisis". Resolve it by "simply cashing out (of) federal bond holdings (in exchange for) newly-issued US notes" with no inflationary effect because no new money would be created. Bonds would become cash, remain in the fund, and be used for future pay-outs. Fed-held securities could be cashed out the same way and just as benignly. Cash would replace bonds. They'd be voided out. The money supply would be unchanged, and inflation would be avoided. It would work no differently for foreign central bank held debt since bonds and cash are the same thing and either can be held in reserve to support their own currencies or to buy oil per the 1974 OPEC agreement. Already sovereign debt holders are cutting back, reducing their US securities reserves but doing it discretely so as not to be disruptive. However, "the tide is rolling out, and US bonds will be coming back to (our) shores whether we like it or not". At issue is who'll buy them and whether an inflationary or non-inflationary path will be taken. So far it's the former with all the dangers involved. Federal Reserve-Issued "Helicopter" Money Early in the new millennium, deflationary concerns were great enough for Ben Bernanke to deliver a Washington 2002 speech titled: "Deflation: Making Sure 'It' Doesn't Happen Here". He explained that lowering interest rates isn't the sole way to inject new money into the economy. The "US government has a new technology, called a printing press (an electronic one), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost". The government could reflate the economy and buy hard assets at the same time. At issue again is whether government or private bankers do it (or local communities acting independently) and the positive or negative effects of each choice. Today we're banking cartel controlled, and it's "brought the system to the brink of collapse. The privately-controlled Federal Reserve, which was chartered specifically to 'maintain a stable currency', has allowed the money supply to balloon out of control. The Fed manipulates the money supply and regulates its value behind closed doors, in blatant violation of the Constitution and the antitrust laws" with the full faith and blessing of the administration, Congress and courts. It "can't be held to account; it doesn't even have to explain its rationale or reveal what is going on". Imagine the difference if the "banking spider ... could be decapitated, returning national (money creation) sovereignty to the people themselves". In other words, the rightful owner. _____ A final article addresses a people-oriented banking system. 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 sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10 am US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13553 http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/reviewing-ellen-browns-web-of-debt-part_15.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From rasherrs at eircom.net Mon Jun 8 12:32:34 2009 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:32:34 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Taxes Again Message-ID: Hi We are constantly bombarded with the sound byte -- "taxpayers money". This contains the assumption that the revenue collected by the capitalist state in the form of taxation is the money of taxpayers. This obviously implies that the taxpayer in some way owns this money. In the first place the taxpayer is a category that can include all classes since each of the social classes pays taxes. This constitutes an attempt to suggest that there obtains a deep unity between the classes. Assuming that this basis exists then there is only a short way to go towards politically creating an all class alliance. But the point is that state revenue in the form of taxation is just that --state revenue. It is revenue owned and controlled by the state. It is not the revenue of the taxpayers. This is why the expression "taxpayers money" is so misleading in the struggle against capitalism. It misrepresents the class interests of the working class and seeks to subordinate those interests to that of the capitalist class in an all class alliance. The point is that taxation is extracted from the working class by the force of the state. The working class have no choice in the matter within the context of capitalism. The working class has only choice with the context of an alternative --the alternative between capitalism and communism. This means that the workers, to challenge this imposition of tax on it, must mount an attack on the political state as part of an integral programme to attack and detroy capitalism. Paddy Hackett Note: Apologies for repeating this postin. It is just that the other copies were poorly formatted that I felt compelled to do it out again. From Waistline2 at aol.com Mon Jun 8 14:23:17 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 16:23:17 EDT Subject: [A-List] Taxes Again Message-ID: In a message dated 6/8/2009 2:32:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rasherrs at eircom.net writes: Hi We are constantly bombarded with the sound byte -- "taxpayers money". This contains the assumption that the revenue collected by the capitalist state in the form of taxation is the money of taxpayers. This obviously implies that the taxpayer in some way owns this money. In the first place the taxpayer is a category that can include all classes since each of the social classes pays taxes. This constitutes an attempt to suggest that there obtains a deep unity between the classes. Assuming that this basis exists then there is only a short way to go towards politically creating an all class alliance. Comment The vocabulary and language of economics reflects, and in turn dictates, the logic of an economic system. Terms such as money, tax, capital, labor, debt, interest, profits, employment, market, depreciation, employment, job, etc., are conceptualized to describe components of a system created by power politics. The broad use of these terms over time makes an artificial system appear as the product of natural laws, rather than the conceptual components of power politics. Power politics is what beats a person down and make them a slave. In modern society, we know that no one is "just" a slave or a wage slave. Rather, individuals are forced into slavery, including wage slavery. If an individual or class cannot live without selling its labor ability for wages, this social relation is extreme compulsion under the threat of starvation, destitution and jailing by the state authority. Just as monarchism was rationalized as a natural law of politics in the past, the same is true with the market and capitalism today. Taxes are just another conceptual framework and instrument of capital rule and rationale for perpetuating the system of wage slavery. In history, taxes have always been a form of exploitation of labor perpetuated by the propertied (ruling) classes. The workers and everyone else are taught that paying taxes is necessary for the government to pay for its debt. This is not true. Government does not have debt or rather government debt is purely an agreement between capitalists controlling the state, government and relations of production. How can government have debt when it issues currency that can only be converted into more currency? When a state road or public school is built by government, the workers doing the work are paid wages in the form of money - currency. These wages are paid by a capitalist company hiring the workers or paid directly by government. The corporation gets the money for wages from the government. The government prints the money and pays it to the corporation to deploy the services of its wage slaves. When the government pays money to the corporation, what it is actually doing is creating credit and not debt. Money - currency is a credit thing - instrument, and not a debt instrument. Currency is an instrument to settle debt. When a government issues currency is owes no one anything. When you are given currency, you are being given a credit instrument and not a debt instrument. Today, one does not have to touch currency but can have symbols put into their banking account and use a debit card to use this credit for the purchase of commodities. We are taught that the government is creating debt by printing money, extending credit to corporations that in turn use this same credit to game in the market and pay workers or extend them credit that is used to purchase commodities. Modern economics (bourgeois political economy) is a game designed to keep the workers confused and keep them passive as wage slaves. When the government turns around and tax wages and company payrolls, it is not collecting revenue to pay for its debt. Rather, it is taking credit out of the market and economy. As much as I hate the conservative economists on the far right, they are correct to say that taxes distort the market and economy by withdrawing needed credit. At the same time the conservatives are horribly wrong in insisting and defending the market economy as the best form of economy. They are wrong because government can print more money. The market economy is the absolute worse form of economy for a modern society increasing run based on electronic means of production and non convertible currency. That is the currency can only be converted into another currency or more paper - stocks, bonds, fiction capital, etc. Electronic means of production reduces the amount of human labor in a commodity and slowly destroys the price form of commodities because of its greater productiveness. Generations have been taught that extending government credit means debt. This is not so. The benefit of a country having a government backed and printed currency is two fold: first this means the government is not dependent on private banks issues their own currency. When private banks issue currency the only way anyone can get this currency is by following what ever rules the private banks create and enforce. The only way the private banks can enforce their rules is with the blessing and protection of the state, which controls the army, police and jail system. Government serves the capitalist class. Once upon a time in America people went to jail for not paying their bills (debtor prison), or owning debt to the capitalists, or those individuals operating as capitalist. Second, government currency means credit can be extended to anyone and everyone without interest and without government accumulating any debt provided the services one put their labor to is socially useful, build the economy and not used to profit the individual capitalist, who in reality takes more credit out of the system than they put in. By withdrawing credit through taxes, the exploitation of the working class is increased, because more wages are required to consume. Corporations do not pay taxes. Rather, the workers pay all the taxes because corporations do not create value. The workers at General Motors create all the vehicles and this includes all the blue and white-collar workers. The corporation sells the vehicles for a value that is greater than the value paid to the workers in wages. This "greater than the value paid to the workers - surplus value," taken by the capitalist corporations is the source of their profits. What the capitalist system actually does is take a greater value out of the system than the value returned to the workers and society begins to grow poorer while the individual capitalist become wealthier. They capitalist become wealthier because they have pocket the extra value that is more than what is paid to the workers. Things get ugly because no one can spend a trillion dollars on socially useful things the individual needs for themselves and family. Investing I the market is not socially useful. That is why the American workers say the richer get richer. The problem is that the workers do not really understand why and how this takes place and the capitalist do everything in their power to prevent the workers from seeing the system as it actually operates. The government taxes the profits or the surplus value created by the workers through corporate taxes and then taxes the workers. Corporations scream that they are being taxed but what is actually taxed is the surplus value that the capitalist appropriates from the workers. We have been taught that taxes are necessary for the enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure (roads, legal tender, enforcement of contracts, etc.), public works, social engineering, and the operation of government itself. Most modern governments claim to use taxes to fund welfare and public services. These services can include education systems, health care systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and public transportation. Energy, water and waste management systems are also common public utilities. Why does the government need to tax the working class when it prints money? This is a very important question that the communist figured out a long time ago and the subject of Karl Marx writings. All of bourgeois political economy screams "because nothing in society can happen or be created that is not paid for and a school and water system cost money." No it does not. The only thing required to build a school is material, technical know how and labor and then the extension of credit to the workers so they can consume and remain healthy while building the school. Further, the workers can be compensated today - under capitalism, by extending to them "no interest" credit backed by the government. Credit backed by the government means commodities with a price must be surrendered on demand in exchange for currency whose face value matches the price of the item. Currency is a credit instrument you carry in your pocket that is good for paying off all debt public and private. "Government levies taxes not to finance its operations, but to give value to its fiat money as credit instruments. If it chooses to, government can finance its operation entirely through user fees, as some fiscal conservatives suggest. Government needs never be indebted to the public. It creates a government debt component to anchor the debt market, not because it needs money. Technically, government never borrows. It issues tax credit in the form of fiat money. So when President Ronald Reagan said the government does not make any money, only the private sector does, he was merely mouthing a political slogan, with no clear understanding of the true nature of money and credit. Fiat money is all that government makes, freely and without constraint, as Federal Reserve governor Ben S. Bernanke recently warned in a speech on deflation. And only government can make fiat money as sovereign credit. Sovereign debt is a pretend game to make private debts tradable. The relationship between assets and liabilities is expressed as credit or debt, with the designation determined by the flow of obligation. A flow from asset to liability is known as credit, the reverse is known as debt. A creditor is one who reduces his liability to increase his assets, which include the right of collection on the liabilities of his debtors. The state, representing the people, owns all assets of a nation not assigned to the private sector. Thus the state's assets is the national wealth less that portion of private sector wealth after tax liabilities, and all other claims on the private sector by sovereign rights. Privatization generally reduces state assets. As long as a state exists, its credit is limited only by the national wealth. If sovereign credit is used to increase national wealth, then sovereign credit is limitless as long as the growth of national wealth keeps pace with the growth of sovereign credit. Even if the private sector has been assigned all of a nation's tangible assets, the state, by virtual of its existence, can still claim that portion of private sector assets allowed by the constitutional regime. Such claims include the state's power of taxation, nationalization, confiscation, condemnation by eminent domain and the power to grant and revoke monopolies, and above all, the power to issue legal tender by fiat - in other words, the inherent rights of sovereignty. When the state issues money as legal tender, it issues a monetary instrument backed by its sovereign rights, which includes taxation. The state never owes debts except specifically so denoted voluntarily. When a state borrows in order to avoid levying or raising taxes, it is a political expedience, not a financial necessity. When a state borrows, through the selling of government bonds denominated in its own currency, it is withdrawing previously-issued sovereign credit from the financial system. When a state borrows foreign currency, it forfeits its sovereign credit privilege and reduces itself to an ordinary debtor because the state cannot issue foreign currency." The Global Economy in Transition _http://henryckliu.com/page181.html_ (http://henryckliu.com/page181.html) I recommend a thoughtful and careful reading of this article, which is one of the best on politics and economics I have read in many years. Although it was written back in 2003, I constantly return to it for insight and stability in conception. . **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585043x1201462775/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd= JunestepsfooterNO62) From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 15:35:22 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:35:22 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Fw: [Project-Censored-L] Infotainment Society: Junk Food News for 2008/2009 In-Reply-To: <6B4FE655-7C6C-47A1-9A95-8A3014E39D56@sonoma.edu> References: <6B4FE655-7C6C-47A1-9A95-8A3014E39D56@sonoma.edu> Message-ID: <4A2D841A.40809@gmail.com> #! Olympic Medalist Michael Phelps Hits a Bong! Number Uno, with a bonghit! [snigger] OTOH, there's a subversive element to his actions. The semantic of his actions on camera and achievements at the Olympics absolutely blows the 'unmotivated' 'lethargic' 'non-achiever'... blah blah, 'out of the water' (giggle... cough...). Some of us DO eat a lot of junk food though. Leigh Peter Phillips wrote: > > *Infotainment Society: Junk Food News for > 2008/2009 * > > By Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff > > The late New York University media scholar Neil Postman once said > about America, ?We are the best entertained least informed society in > the world." From Jessica Simpson?s weight and Brangelina?s escapades, > to Britney Spears? sister and the Obama?s First Puppy, Americans are > fed a steady ?news? diet of useless information laden with personal > anecdotes, scandals, and gossip. > > Since the middle of the 1980?s, Project Censored at Sonoma State > University has annually researched this phenomenon. Topics and > in-depth reports that matter little to anyone in any meaningful way > are given massive amounts of media coverage in the corporate media. In > recent years, this has only become more obvious. > > For instance, CNN?s coverage of celebrity Anna Nicole Smith?s untimely > death in early 2007 is arguably one of the most egregious examples of > an over abused news story. The magnitude of corporate media attention > paid to Smith?s death were clearly out of synch with the coverage the > story deserved, which was at most a simple passing mention. Instead, > CNN broadcast ?breaking? stories of Smith?s death uninterrupted, > without commercials, for almost two hours, with commentary by lead > anchors and journalists. This marked among the longest uninterrupted > ?news? broadcasts at CNN since the tragic events of September 11, > 2001. Anna Nicole Smith and 9/11 are now strange bedfellows?, > milestone bookends of corporate news culture. > > > While news outlets were obsessing over Smith?s death, most big media > giants were missing a far more important story. The US ambassador to > Iraq misplaced $12 billion in shrink-wrapped one hundred dollar bills > that were flown to Baghdad. This garnered little attention due to the > media?s morbid infatuation with Smith?s passing. This is clearly news > judgment gone terribly awry if not an outright retreat from > journalistic standards. The once trivial and absurd are now > mainstreamed as ?news.? More young people turn to late night comics? > fake news to learn the truth or tune out to so-called reality shows > often scripted as Roman Holiday spectacles of the surreal. Welcome to > the Infotainment Society: American Media in the 21^st century. > > Here are the Top Ten Junk Food News Stories for 2008 and 2009 as > chosen by Project Censored students and the online community via > http://projectcensored.org: > > 1.Olympic Medalist Michael Phelps Hits a Bong > 2. Jessica Simpson Gains Weight > 3. First Lady Michelle Obama's Fashion Sense > 4. The Brangelina Twins > 5. Lindsay Lohan Dating a Woman > 6. The Presidential First Puppy > 7. Heidi Montag "Marries" Spencer Pratt > 8. Barry Bonds Steroid Trial > 9. Jamie-Lynn Spears Gives Birth > 10. The Woes of Amy Winehouse > > The British tabloid News of the World published an exclusive photo of > Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps smoking marijuana from a bong on > Sunday, February 1, 2009, with the headline, ?What a Dope.? The > picture was allegedly taken during a November house party while Phelps > was visiting the University of South Carolina. The incident occurred > nearly three months after the swimmer won eight gold medals for > America at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China. Phelps quickly > apologized to the public for his "regrettable behavior. " The bongs > owner reportedly tried to sell it on eBay for $100,000. In the weeks > following, Phelps lost his sponsorship from Kellogg's cereal. > > Photos of Jessica Simpson performing at a Florida Chili Cook-off > looking a bit heavier than usual surfaced during the week of January > 26, 2009^. The purportedly unflattering shots of a curvier looking > Simpson in an outfit that included "a muffin-top-inducing leopard > belt" immediately made news headlines. Was she pregnant? Was she > picking up eating habits from her NFL star boyfriend? Or was she > simply hungry for publicity? President Obama even noticed Simpson was > ?in a weight battle? during a pre-super bowl interview. > > The US is not only becoming a nation of obese people, but is on the > verge of another phenomenon the equivalent of cultural and mental > obesity. We are a nation awash in a sea of information yet we have a > paucity of understanding. We are a country where over a quarter of > the population know the names of all five members of the fictitious > family from The Simpsons yet only one in a thousand can name all the > rights protected under the first amendment to the US Constitution. > Journalistic values have been sold out to commercial interests and not > even our core, national and constitutionally protected values are > sacred. > > Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University > and Director of Project Censored. Mickey Huff is an Associate > Professor of History Diablo Valley College and Associate Director of > Project Censored. Frances A. Capell, a Project Censored intern, > contributed research. For the full report see: www.projectcensored.org > . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Project-Censored-L mailing list > Project-Censored-L at sonoma.edu > https://mailman.sonoma.edu/mailman/listinfo/project-censored-l > From rasherrs at eircom.net Mon Jun 8 11:26:24 2009 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:26:24 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Taxpayers' Money Message-ID: <65B164F59A49451D8990614AE830F1BC@paddyhacket> We are constantly bombarded with the soundbyte --"taxpayers money". This contains the assumption that the revenue collected by the capitalist state in the form of taxation is taxpayers' money.This obviously implies that the taxpayer in someway owns this money. In the first place the taxpayer is a category that can include all classes since each of the social classes pays taxes.This constitutes an attempt to suggest that there obtains a deep unity between the classes. Assuming that this basis exists then there is only a short way to go to politically creating an all class alliance. But the point is that state revenue in the form of taxation is just that --state revenue. It is revenue that is controlled and owned by the state. It is not the revenue of the taxpayers. This is why the expression "taxpayers' money" is so misleading in the struggle against capitalism. It misrepresents the class interests of the working class and seeks to subordinate those interests to that of the capitalist class in an all class alliance. The point is that taxation is extracted from the working class by the force of the state. The working class have no choice in the matter within the context of capitalism. The working class have only choice within the context of an alternative --the alternative between capitalism and communism. This means that the workers, to challenge this imposition of tax on it, must mount an attack on the political state as part of an integral programme to attack and destroy capitalism. Paddy Hackett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2064 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090608/63142c31/attachment.txt From noreply at coha.org Mon Jun 8 12:53:12 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:53:12 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Lula's Electoral Gambit, Ecuador's Admission into ALBA Message-ID: <20090608185236.019113E46D5@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090608/73b97d7f/attachment.txt From barmy_basket at yahoo.es Mon Jun 8 16:08:35 2009 From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:08:35 +0200 Subject: [A-List] U.S. May Permit 9/11 Guilty Pleas in Capital Cases: In-Reply-To: <4A2D841A.40809@gmail.com> References: <6B4FE655-7C6C-47A1-9A95-8A3014E39D56@sonoma.edu> <4A2D841A.40809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2D8BE3.5080208@yahoo.es> *U.S. May Permit 9/11 Guilty Pleas in Capital Cases: * The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06gitmo.html?_r=3&hp http://webabuser.blogspot.com/ > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jun 8 18:40:47 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:40:47 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Greatest Swindle Ever Sold Message-ID: <4A2DAF8F.5000709@ashisuto.co.jp> Six Ways the Financial Bailout Scams Taxpayers How the Financial Bailout Scams Taxpayers, Subsidizes Wall Street, and Props Up Our Broken Financial System by Andy Kroll Mother Jones (May 26 2009) This story first appeared on the Tom Dispatch website. On October 3rd, as the spreading economic meltdown threatened to topple financial behemoths like American International Group (AIG) and Bank of America and plunged global markets into freefall, the US government responded with the largest bailout in American history. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, better known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), authorized the use of $700 billion to stabilize the nation's failing financial systems and restore the flow of credit in the economy. The legislation's guidelines for crafting the rescue plan were clear: the TARP should protect home values and consumer savings, help citizens keep their homes, and create jobs. Above all, with the government poised to invest hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in various financial institutions, the legislation urged the bailout's architects to maximize returns to the American people. That $700 billion bailout has since grown into a more than $12 trillion commitment by the US government and the Federal Reserve. About $1.1 trillion of that is taxpayer money - the TARP money and an additional $400 billion rescue of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The TARP now includes twelve separate programs, and recipients range from megabanks like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase to automakers Chrysler and General Motors. Seven months in, the bailout's impact is unclear. The Treasury Department has used the recent "stress test" results it applied to nineteen of the nation's largest banks to suggest that the worst might be over; yet the International Monetary Fund as well as economists like New York University professor and economist Nouriel Roubini and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predict greater losses in US markets, rising unemployment, and generally tougher economic times ahead. What cannot be disputed, however, is the financial bailout's biggest loser: the American taxpayer. The US government, led by the Treasury Department, has done little, if anything, to maximize returns on its trillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded investment. So far, the bailout has favored rescued financial institutions by subsidizing their losses to the tune of $356 billion, shying away from much-needed management changes and - with the exception of the automakers - letting companies take taxpayer money without a coherent plan for how they might return to viability. The bailout's perks have been no less favorable for private investors who are now picking over the economy's still-smoking rubble at the taxpayers' expense. The newer bailout programs rolled out by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner give private equity firms, hedge funds, and other private investors significant leverage to buy "toxic" or distressed assets, while leaving taxpayers stuck with the lion's share of the risk and potential losses. Given the lack of transparency and accountability, don't expect taxpayers to be able to object too much. After all, remarkably little is known about how TARP recipients have used the government aid received. Nonetheless, recent government reports, Congressional testimony, and commentaries offer those patient enough to pore over hundreds of pages of material glimpses of just how Wall Street friendly the bailout actually is. Here, then, based on the most definitive data and analyses available, are six of the most blatant and alarming ways taxpayers have been scammed by the government's $1.1-trillion, publicly-funded bailout. 1. By overpaying for its TARP investments, the Treasury Department provided bailout recipients with generous subsidies at the taxpayer's expense. When the Treasury Department ditched its initial plan to buy up "toxic" assets and instead invest directly in financial institutions, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr assured Americans that they'd get a fair deal. "This is an investment, not an expenditure, and there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything", he said in October 2008. Yet the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), a five-person group tasked with ensuring that the Treasury Department acts in the public's best interest, concluded in its monthly report for February that the department had significantly overpaid by tens of billions of dollars for its investments. For the ten largest TARP investments made in 2008, totaling $184.2 billion, Treasury received on average only $66 worth of assets for every $100 invested. Based on that shortfall, the panel calculated that Treasury had received only $176 billion in assets for its $254 billion investment, leaving a $78 billion hole in taxpayer pockets. Not all investors subsidized the struggling banks so heavily while investing in them. The COP report notes that private investors received much closer to fair market value in investments made at the time of the early TARP transactions. When, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in September, the Omaha-based company received securities worth $110 for each $100 invested. And when Mitsubishi invested in Morgan Stanley that same month, it received securities worth $91 for every $100 invested. As of May 15th, according to the Ethisphere TARP Index, which tracks the government's bailout investments, its various investments had depreciated in value by almost $147.7 billion. In other words, TARP's losses come out to almost $1,300 per American taxpaying household. 2. As the government has no real oversight over bailout funds, taxpayers remain in the dark about how their money has been used and if it has made any difference. While the Treasury Department can make TARP recipients report on just how they spend their government bailout funds, it has chosen not to do so. As a result, it's unclear whether institutions receiving such funds are using that money to increase lending - which would, in turn, boost the economy - or merely to fill in holes in their balance sheets. Neil M Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, summed the situation up this way in his office's April quarterly report to Congress: "The American people have a right to know how their tax dollars are being used, particularly as billions of dollars are going to institutions for which banking is certainly not part of the institution's core business and may be little more than a way to gain access to the low-cost capital provided under TARP". This lack of transparency makes the bailout process highly susceptible to fraud and corruption. Barofsky's report stated that twenty separate criminal investigations were already underway involving corporate fraud, insider trading, and public corruption. He also told the Financial Times that his office was investigating whether banks manipulated their books to secure bailout funds. "I hope we don't find a single bank that's cooked its books to try to get money, but I don't think that's going to be the case". Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, suggested to TomDispatch in an interview that the opaque and complicated nature of the bailout may not be entirely unintentional, given the difficulties it raises for anyone wanting to follow the trail of taxpayer dollars from the government to the banks. "[Government officials] see this all as a Three Card Monte, moving everything around really quickly so the public won't understand that this really is an elaborate way to subsidize the banks", Baker says, adding that the public "won't realize we gave money away to some of the richest people". 3. The bailout's newer programs heavily favor the private sector, giving investors an opportunity to earn lucrative profits and leaving taxpayers with most of the risk. Under Treasury Secretary Geithner, the Treasury Department has greatly expanded the financial bailout to troubling new programs like the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) and the Term Asset-Backed-Securities Loan Facility (TALF). The PPIP, for example, encourages private investors to buy "toxic" or risky assets on the books of struggling banks. Doing so, we're told, will get banks lending again because the burdensome assets won't weigh them down. Unfortunately, the incentives the Treasury Department is offering to get private investors to participate are so generous that the government - and, by extension, American taxpayers - are left with all the downside. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-prize winning economist, described the PPIP program in a New York Times op-ed this way: "Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or $200 in a year's time. The average 'value' of the asset is $100. Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a competitive market. It is what the asset is 'worth'. Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only fifty percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership! "Assume that one of the public-private partnerships the Treasury has promised to create is willing to pay $150 for the asset. That's fifty percent more than its true value, and the bank is more than happy to sell. So the private partner puts up $12, and the government supplies the rest - $12 in 'equity' plus $126 in the form of a guaranteed loan. "If, in a year's time, it turns out that the true value of the asset is zero, the private partner loses the $12, and the government loses $138. If the true value is $200, the government and the private partner split the $74 that's left over after paying back the $126 loan. In that rosy scenario, the private partner more than triples his $12 investment. But the taxpayer, having risked $138, gains a mere $37." Worse still, the PPIP can be easily manipulated for private gain. As economist Jeffrey Sachs has described it, a bank with worthless toxic assets on its books could actually set up its own public-private fund to bid on those assets. Since no true bidder would pay for a worthless asset, the bank's public-private fund would win the bid, essentially using government money for the purchase. All the public-private fund would then have to do is quietly declare bankruptcy and disappear, leaving the bank to make off with the government money it received. With the PPIP deals set to begin in the coming months, time will tell whether private investors actually take advantage of the program's flaws in this fashion. The Treasury Department's TALF program offers equally enticing possibilities for potential bailout profiteers, providing investors with a chance to double, triple, or even quadruple their investments. And like the PPIP, if the deal goes bad, taxpayers absorb most of the losses. "It beats any financing that the private sector could ever come up with", a Wall Street trader commented in a recent Fortune magazine story. "I almost want to say it is irresponsible". 4. The government has no coherent plan for returning failing financial institutions to profitability and maximizing returns on taxpayers' investments. Compare the treatment of the auto industry and the financial sector, and a troubling double standard emerges: As a condition for taking bailout aid, the government required Chrysler and General Motors to present detailed plans on how the companies would return to profitability. Yet the Treasury Department attached minimal conditions to the billions injected into the largest bailed-out financial institutions. Moreover, neither Geithner nor Lawrence Summers, one of President Barack Obama's top economic advisors, nor the president himself has articulated any substantive plan or vision for how the bailout will help these institutions recover and, hopefully, maximize taxpayers' investment returns. The Congressional Oversight Panel highlighted the absence of such a comprehensive plan in its January report. Three months into the bailout, the Treasury Department "has not yet explained its strategy", the report stated. "Treasury has identified its goals and announced its programs, but it has not yet explained how the programs chosen constitute a coherent plan to achieve those goals". Today, the department's endgame for the bailout still remains vague. Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, wrote in the Financial Times in May that the government's response to the financial meltdown has been "ad hoc, resulting in inequitable outcomes among firms, creditors, and investors". Rather than perpetually prop up banks with endless taxpayer funds, Hoenig suggests that the government should allow banks to fail. Only then, he believes, can crippled financial institutions and systems be fixed. "Because we still have far to go in this crisis, there remains time to define a clear process for resolving large institutional failure. Without one, the consequences will involve a series of short-term events and far more uncertainty for the global economy in the long run." The healthier and more profitable bailout recipients are once financial markets rebound, the more taxpayers will earn on their investments. Without a plan, however, banks may limp back to viability while taxpayers lose their investments or even absorb further losses. 5. The bailout's focus on Wall Street mega-banks ignores smaller banks serving millions of American taxpayers that face an equally uncertain future. The government may not have a long-term strategy for its trillion-dollar bailout, but its guiding principle, however misguided, is clear: What's good for Wall Street will be best for the rest of the country. On the day the mega-bank stress tests were officially released, another set of stress-test results came out to much less fanfare. In its quarterly report on the health of individual banks and the banking industry as a whole, Institutional Risk Analytics (IRA), a respected financial services organization, found that the stress levels among more than 7,500 FDIC-reporting banks nationwide had risen dramatically. For 1,575 of the banks, net incomes had turned negative due to decreased lending and less risk-taking. The conclusion IRA drew was telling: "Our overall observation is that US policy makers may very well have been distracted by focusing on nineteen large stress test banks designed to save Wall Street and the world's central bank bondholders, this while a trend is emerging of a going concern viability crash taking shape under the radar". The report concluded with a question: "Has the time come to shift the policy focus away from the things that we love, namely big zombie banks, to tackle things that are truly hurting us?" 6. The bailout encourages the very behaviors that created the economic crisis in the first place instead of overhauling our broken financial system and helping the individuals most affected by the crisis. As Joseph Stiglitz explained in the New York Times, one major cause of the economic crisis was bank overleveraging. "[U]sing relatively little capital of their own", he wrote, "[banks] borrowed heavily to buy extremely risky real estate assets. In the process, they used overly complex instruments like collateralized debt obligations." Financial institutions engaged in overleveraging in pursuit of the lucrative profits such deals promised - even if those profits came with staggering levels of risk. Sound familiar? It should, because in the PPIP and TALF bailout programs the Treasury Department has essentially replicated the very overleveraged, risky, complex system that got us into this mess in the first place: in other words, the government hopes to repair our financial system by using the flawed practices that caused this crisis. Then there are the institutions deemed "too big to fail". These financial giants - among them AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America - have been kept afloat by billions of dollars in bottomless bailout aid. Yet reinforcing the notion that any institution is "too big to fail" is dangerous to the economy. When a company like AIG grows so large that it becomes "too big to fail", the risk it carries is systemic, meaning failure could drag down the entire economy. The government should force "too big to fail" institutions to slim down to a safer, more modest size; instead, the Treasury Department continues to subsidize these financial giants, reinforcing their place in our economy. Of even greater concern is the message the bailout sends to banks and lenders - namely, that the risky investments that crippled the economy are fair game in the future. After all, if banks fail and teeter at the edge of collapse, the government promises to be there with a taxpayer-funded, potentially profitable safety net. The handling of the bailout makes at least one thing clear, however: It's not your health that the government is focused on, it's theirs - the very banks and lenders whose convoluted financial systems provided the underpinnings for staggering salaries and bonuses while bringing our economy to the brink of another Great Depression. _____ Andy Kroll is a writer based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He welcomes feedback, and can be reached at his website. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/six-ways-financial-bailout-scams-taxpayers http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Jun 9 01:44:50 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:44:50 +1000 Subject: [A-List] Swine flu and the case for a single-payer healthcare system in the United States | Links Message-ID: <4A2E12F2.10701@greenleft.org.au> Most Americans would shudder to think that the healthcare system in US features some of the same inequities as that of Mexico. However, the United States' privately controlled system now excludes 48 million people (16% of the population), under-insures another 20 million and leads to the death of more than 20,000 people a year from treatable illnesses. Even those who are insured have faced a 117% increase in the costs of healthcare since 1999 as employers shift rising costs onto their workers.(5) Private control has also translated into long wait times for care. In Boston, for instance, it is easier to schedule an appointment for cosmetic surgery than for a skin cancer treatment, the average wait time of which is 73 days.(6) Despite utilising the highest levels of medical technology in the world, healthcare in the US is often inaccessible, costly and features long wait times for necessary procedures. Americans, just as their Mexican counterparts, have adapted to this unjust system by avoiding care. A recent study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 6 in 10 of those polled had delayed or skipped medical treatment in the last year.(7) In this environment of avoidance, chronic conditions can quickly be converted into hazardous public health crises. Diabetes, hypertension and HIV/AIDS infection all continue to spread at alarming rates within the borders of the US.(8) Yet, access to care continues to be dependent on a person?s ability to pay. An airborne virus, such as the swine flu, becomes all the more efficient while filtering through a healthcare system directed by profiteering health insurance companies such as Oxford, CIGNA and Aetna. Both Americans and Mexicans have been left exposed by inefficient health systems. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/1091 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 From suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 01:40:07 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:40:07 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: With rich resources other than humans and history and Islam Palestine would have been ethnicly cleansed generations ago. Small favors are cherished. Suzanne suzanedk at gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:36 AM Subject: Fwd: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws To: "kcourtenay at aol.com" Thank the lord that the only thing that Palestine has is humans and history and Islam. Suzette ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anthony Fenton Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM Subject: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws To: Suzanne de Kuyper http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/global/latin/47043272.html International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws By Rick Kearns, Today correspondent Story Published: Jun 8, 2009 Story Updated: Jun 8, 2009 NEW YORK ? Thousands of demonstrators on two continents have joined the struggle to defend the rights of indigenous peoples in Peru, who have been staging road and pipeline blockades for more than 50 days. Advocates are fighting against a series of Forest Laws that facilitate the seizing of indigenous land by various corporations as part of a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and that criminalize protest and provide immunity to military who kill demonstrators. This year?s demonstrations follow actions staged last year when Peruvian indigenous leaders shut down parts of the country and lifted the strikes weeks later after being promised concessions. The concessions, according to spokespeople, did not materialize and the Inter-ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon or AIDESEP renewed the struggle in April with the help of 40,000 indigenous peoples. As the blockades and counter-measures unfolded, some allies have responded with protests of their own. One of the more highly visible actions took place in New York City May 23 in front of the Peruvian Mission to the United Nations. Indigenous leaders from the U.S., Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and other countries were in New York to attend the eighth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Egberto Tabo, general coordinator for the Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin, read from a statement entitled ?Solidarity with our Peruvian brothers and sisters.? ?As indigenous leaders from the five continents, we are profoundly concerned about current events in the Peruvian Amazon. This past May 9 the Peruvian Government declared a State of Emergency in various districts. ? The State of Emergency is nothing more than a disproportionate response to the legitimate complaints and demands for indigenous rights. ? and is worsening conflicts, criminalizing social protest and putting at even greater risk indigenous peoples rights.? Tabo said COICA, and the 63 other organizations that signed the petition, received support from the UN Permanent Forum. The signatories had a list of requests and denunciations aimed at the Peruvian government. According to the statement, the protestors requested the lifting of the emergency decree and they denounced government press releases sent to Peruvian media that avoided addressing the main concerns of the demonstrations, as well as demanding that the government respect the International Labour Organization treaty 169 ??which has constitutional status in Peru. ? and which both establish that Native peoples should be consulted regarding all actions that impact them.? ?It is clear that the development of the Amazon is being carried out ignoring the wishes of the indigenous people and that the Amazon is seen as having natural riches that should be sold to the highest bidder,? Tabo said. ?We cannot continue to allow a group of transnational companies to divide up the Amazon, as if it were just a business without consideration given to the territory of ancestral peoples, or without taking into account that this is the ?lungs of the world? and the greatest source of fresh water on the continent. We will not permit the continuation of this exploitation.? Among the signers of the statement were the National Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Colombia, and the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia, the Council of All the Lands of Chile and the National Network of Mayan Peoples of Guatemala. The list included indigenous and allied groups from Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Argentina, the U.S., Peru, Kenya, Papua, Suriname, Algeria, South Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Canada (Assembly of First Nations), Venezuela, Brazil, Nepal and India. The U.S. featured several organizations including Amazon Watch, Din? CARE, Environmental Defense Fund, Hawaii Institute for Human Rights, Indigenous Environmental Network, and the Xicana Indigenous Woman?s Network. Tabo presented the statement to a representative of the Peruvian Mission who gave no comment upon receiving the document. In the week after the New York demonstration, allies and sympathizers in Los Angeles, Calif., as well as Lima and Puno, Peru held events to call attention to the struggle of the indigenous peoples of Peru. While UN Permanent Forum officials did not issue a formal response during the New York protest, Chair Victoria Tauli-Corpuz released an official statement June 2, after the meeting. ?The Chair of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues expresses her deep concern on the reports received during the Eighth Session of the UNPFII, regarding the current situation in Peru. According to the information received, a state of siege was decreed by the Peruvian Government on 8 May 2009 in response to the mobilization of indigenous peoples in the Amazon region against extractive industries concessions in the area without the adequate consultations and respect for their free, prior and informed consent. ?The Chair wishes to recall that the Peruvian Government is under the obligation to consult and respect indigenous peoples? rights as a Party to ILO Convention 169. Furthermore, Peru led the negotiations on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and was one of the countries which actively supported the adoption of the Declaration, which calls for the full respect of indigenous peoples? rights, including the rights related to their traditional lands, territories and resources and to their free, prior and informed consent.? According to comments made by AIDESEP President Alberto Pizango in the first week of June, further protest actions in Peru will continue. (One of the protest issues involves criminal charges filed against Pizango for his involvement in the blockades.) _______________________________________________ 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: 8384 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090609/a8f3b80d/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Jun 9 06:02:53 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:02:53 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Reviewing Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt" (6) Message-ID: <4A2E4F6D.6040803@ashisuto.co.jp> Part Six by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 18 2009) This is the sixth and final article on Ellen Brown's superb 2007 book titled "Web of Debt", now updated in a December 2008 third edition. It tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free". This article focuses on establishing a people-oriented banking system. It's high time we had one and reclaimed what's rightfully ours. Restoring National Sovereignty with A Truly National Banking System One serving everyone, not powerful moneychangers alone, the so-called Money Trust cartel of Wall Street bankers looting the national wealth for themselves and heading the country for bankruptcy, tyranny and ruin. Stopping them is Job One, and only mass activist outrage can do it. At the Chicago Democratic National Convention, William Jennings Bryan won the nomination saying: "(W)e believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government ... I stand with Jefferson (and say), as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that banks should go out of the governing business ... (W)hen we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and ... until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished". No Fed existed at that time. If one did and operated like today, Bryan would have said abolish it or make it truly federal. As a US government agency, money created would go directly to the Treasury. But that's only three percent of the money supply. What about the other 97% in the form of commercial loans? Would that put government in the commercial lending business? "Perhaps, but why not. As Bryan said, banking is the government's business, by Constitutional mandate" - at least the part of it involved in creating new money. The rest could be in private hands, like today - through banks and other financial institutions, such as finance companies, pension and mutual funds, insurance companies, and securities dealers. "These institutions do not create the money they lend but merely recycle pre-existing funds". With government printing money, banks would become more equitable recyclers - "borrowing money at a low rate and lending it at a higher one", except for one downside. Some would go bankrupt, but start-ups would replace them under a more stable and equitable system. In 1946, the Bank of England was nationalized in name only and retained its (privately-controlled) money printing power. In 2003, James Robertson and John Bunzl proposed changing it their book titled: Monetary Reform: Making It Happen {1}. They advocated making it illegal for banks to create new money as loans. Only a central bank should do it with commercial banks having to borrow it for relending. Government officials, however, balked at the idea saying the nation would be harmed as banks would go broke having been stripped of their "credit multiplier" capacity - the British version of fractional reserve lending. London banks are second only to Wall Street so rather than risk this fate they'd likely relocate "en masse to the Continent" and force the British economy to collapse. In the 1940s, Representative Jerry Voorhis proposed a similar plan to Congress called "the 100 Percent Reserve Solution", his idea being "to require banks to establish 100 percent reserve backing for their deposits" - done by borrowing from the Treasury to supply what they needed. In The Lost Science of Money (2002), Stephen Zarlenga wrote: "With this elegant plan, all the bank credit money the banks have created out of thin air, through fractional reserve banking, would be transformed into US government legal tender - real, honest money". True enough but at a cost so great that (in 1946) it launched Richard Nixon's political career with a vicious red-baiting campaign accusing Voorhis of Communist Party links. His plan was later revived but never enacted into law. One of its advocates is Zarlenga's American Monetary Institute. It drafted an American Monetary Act to eliminate fractional reserve banking and impose a 100% reserve requirement on all demand deposits, making them unavailable to loan and only for "a (fee-based) warehousing and transferring service". The Fed would be incorporated into the Treasury with the government solely authorized to create new money - to be circulated inflation and deflation-free for purposes such as: infrastructure development, education, health care, job creation, financing local economies, and funding government at all levels. For their part, banks would function traditionally - as intermediaries for deposits loaned out to borrowers. A Monetary Reform Act goes further by requiring: - 100% reserve requirement on all bank deposits, including savings; deposits wouldn't be counted as reserves against which to make loans; they'd be held in trust solely for their depositors' use; - banks servicing depositors could only lend their own money; and - doing it with depositors' funds would require they establish separate institutions, not called banks. If Congress reclaims its money-creation power, banks will have to maintain 100% reserve requirements (available for withdrawals), to "avoid the electronic duplication that is the source of" money supply growth today. It would require them to raise enough money to "fund" all outstanding loans. "The 'credits' (or loans then) become 'deposits' that represent 'liabilities' of the banks, money (they) owe to the depositors". It would be secured (by borrowing) around $6 trillion or more in real money, not the fictitious kind they create today. In turn, they'd have to raise interest rates, pay depositors less, operate on thinner margins, and likely drive customers to more competitive non-bank institutions, already controlling eighty percent of the market. In December 2006, William Hummel proposed an alternative in an article titled "A Plan for Monetary Reform" under which banks could sell their existing loans to investors with ready cash if the federal debt was paid off by monitizing it with government-issued currency. Federal bond holders would need a new home for their savings with a rate of return making up for what they lost. Investment funds would likely create new vehicles for it. They could buy bank loans with investors' money and bundle them as securities for resale with interest. Selling the loans would let banks avoid incurring substantial new debt to meet the new 100% reserve requirement. Bank "balance sheets could be wiped clean and they could start fresh with new loans" - operating traditionally by borrowing low and lending higher. However, these new limitations could prove harmful, "imposing an unfair burden on unsuspecting shareholders, warranting some equitable division of the sale proceeds in compensation". Consider also that if these type restrictions existed, banks "would have little incentive to service the depository needs of the public". A solution would be to transfer its "depository role to a system of (nationwide) bank branches acting as one entity under the (government-run) Federal Reserve". In other words, a government-run public utility. It would make the Fed "the sole depository and only its branches would be called 'banks' ". Others would close down or become private financial institutions in whatever form they'd choose. Robert Guttman explains that basic banking is fairly simple - to provide a safe place to store money and transfer it to others. A government agency could handle it easily. It did earlier through the US Postal System (until shut down in 1967) and can do it again. With the restoration of traditional banks, servicing credit cards would also have to be addressed as banks might be unable to do it. One solution would be to turn credit extension "over to a system of truly national banks (authorized to operate with) the 'full faith and credit of the United States' as agents of Congress", newly empowered to create money. In addition, government banks wouldn't be profit driven enough to charge exorbitant rates. They'd be "reasonable, predictable and fixed". Consider also that old banks (namely existing branches) could be bought to become government-run ones, or if insolvent banking giants were nationalized, their branches alone might do the job. The FDIC could hire new management or have existing ones operate under new guidelines. The difference would be that interest would accrue to the government (and the) 'full faith and credit of the United States' would become an asset of the" country. There's one other limitation as well - 100% reserve requirements would restrict money growth so it would have to expand to meet demand by other means. One way in a system with no federal debt or interest is to let consumer debt be self-regulated as under the LETS system in which "money is created whenever someone pays someone else with 'credits', and it is liquidated when the outstanding credits are used up". Nationwide, "money would come into existence when it was borrowed from the community-owned bank, (then) extinguished as the loans were repaid". It's no different than how money is created now except that communities, not bankers (siphoning off interest in windfall profits), will do it. None of the above systems are perfect, but they're far better than the current corrupted one benefitting bankers, not people. The Question of Interest - Solving the "Impossible Contract" Problem Money controlled by banks only creates the "principle and not the interest" to repay loans. Governments, on the other hand, can "not only lend but spend money into the economy, covering the interest shortfall and keeping the money supply in balance". However, "returning all the interest collected on loans to the government would require nationalizing" all forms of lending at interest, including banks. In the real world, a semi-private, semi-public system might work better as follows: - governments would create money and be its initial lender; - private financial institutions, including banks, "would recycle this money as loans"; - they'd still earn interest, but not as much; - as a result, the money supply would need to expand to cover it, but not as much as now; and - overall it would expand proportionally to demand keeping inflation contained. Vilified today as socialism, it's the very system colonists used successfully to jump-start the country, make it grow, and do it without taxes or inflation. Franklin and Jefferson championed it. So did Jackson, Lincoln, and perhaps Kennedy later on. Early 20th century Australia's Commonwealth Bank created money, made loans, and collected interest at a fraction of what private bankers charged. It worked well enough for the country to have one of the highest standards of living in the world at that time. Once private banks printed money, Australia became heavily indebted, and its living standard fell to a 23rd place ranking. In the 1930s, the Fed printed money. However, FDR empowered the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to provide plenty of cheap credit to build infrastructure, create jobs, and provide emergency loans to states. The US Postal Savings System, Small Business Administration (SBA), Fannie and Freddie initially worked the same way outside the private banking system. After being privatized, these mortgage lenders became corrupted, then bankrupt proving government can be the solution, not the problem, and a cheaper, more efficient one besides. From her own experience as Assistant HUD Secretary, Catherine Austin Fitts states: "The public policy 'solution' has been to outsource government functions to make them more productive. In fact, this jump in overhead (simply subsidizes) private companies and organizations ... regardless of (their) performance. (The scheme) make(s) no sense except for the property managers and owners who build and manage it for layers of fees." It's the same argument used against privatized health care as opposed to cheaper, more efficient universal coverage leaving out insurer middlemen, letting government buy drugs at lower cost, and still leaving lifelong, high quality, comprehensive, and affordable choices in consumers' hands. It's a system begging to be instituted but won't be under Obama. Once again, fear of big government is misguided. It should protect and serve everyone equally - impossible with the Money Trust running it, the way it works now with bankers creating money and extracting the national wealth for themselves. Masquerading as "free enterprise today is a system in which giant corporate monopolies (use) their affiliated banking trusts to generate unlimited funds to buy up competitors, the media, and the government itself, forcing truly independent private enterprise out" - the very system Adam Smith and other classical economists abhorred. Private banks have America and most other nations by the throat. They force governments to pay interest on their own money as well as "advance massive loans to their affiliated cartels and hedge funds, which use the money to raid competitors and manipulate markets". Its Darwinism in the extreme giving power brokers the right to choose who survives and who doesn't with ordinary people faring worst of all. The solution is "publicly-operated police, courts and laws to keep corporate predators at bay" under a nationalized banking system, creating its own money, and serving people, not bankers - a truly equitable, sustainable, efficient and democratic system freed from parasitic financiers. Beating the Robber Barons at Their Own Game Using accepted business practices, the Rockefellers, Morgans, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts et al "deprived their competitors of property" by buying it on the open market through takeovers. Their "slight of hand" was how they funded them - through their own affiliated banks able to create money out of thin air, the same way it's done today for even larger stakes. What banking cartels can do, so can governments - but through a much smaller, fairer and more efficient nationalized banking system operating as a public utility. Private financial institutions could still recycle loans but in the way described above. Another choice would be for government to buy out all banks - a more equitable but unnecessary choice even though it would be quite affordable with the power to create money. What better time than now given the gravity of today's economic crisis leaving world economies close to collapse. According to Murray Rothbard, the entire commercial banking system is bankrupt. It belongs in receivership and their managements jailed for embezzlement. Taxpayers would save a lot of money, and nations would be on the road to recovery and prosperity. One observer says too-big-to-fail banks are already stealth nationalized since taxpayer bailouts stand ready whenever they get in trouble - the idea being that costs are socialized and profits privatized, a process begging to be halted. Taxpayer-supported banks "can and should be made public institutions operated for the benefit of" everyone. Given that major banks today are corrupted and bankrupt, now is the time to do it - not as a temporary measure but irrevocably under a totally restructured system. The Quick Fix - Government that Pays for Itself How much newly created government money would be inflation free? Could income and other taxes be eliminated? Would it "avoid the 'impossible contract' problem by furnishing the money necessary to cover the interest (not) advanced in commercial loans?" If government and not banks created money, the amount needed would be less - "without cutting government programs or adding to a burgeoning federal debt". Inflation would be avoided and income taxes eliminated without sacrificing growth and prosperity in proportion to a larger population. More people would be employed as well compared to over twenty percent out of work today according to economist John Williams when all excluded and distorted categories are included. Imagine an inflation-tax-free economy with enough government-created money for health care, education, infrastructure development, other productive growth, environmental cleanup, scientific research, development of alternative energy sources, and much more. It would be utopian compared to today's unsustainable system devouring people for profits and heading world economies for ruin. Under today's "impossible contract" system, 99% of the money supply is borrowed, all at interest to lenders. It means more of it is owed back in principle and interest than was borrowed. The money supply must continue to expand to keep up and prices along with it. The latter could be avoided if a proportional amount of goods and services are created, not at all the case in America with growing amounts of manufacturing offshored under a financialized economy paying tribute to bankers - "for lending money they never had to lend" in the first place. Roger Langrick solves the "impossible contract" this way: let government "issue enough new money to match the outstanding collective interest bill of the nation" even though it's prohibitive at around $500 billion annually for government debt service alone. Today's public and private debt comes to many tens of trillions so servicing that burden is staggering, yet innovative solutions may handle it, and once done, a brighter tomorrow awaits. Ending Third World Debt Today most of it is held by giant US-based banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase. If they're placed in receivership, the "US government could declare a 'Day of Jubilee' " of debt forgiveness, and if done, it "would not be an entirely selfless act". For America to pay off its international debt, it needs all the goodwill it can get. Forgiving other debts would encourage our creditors to forgive ours as world nations have no interest in seeing major economies collapse. What affects one, harms others. "Our shiny new monetary scheme, rather than appearing to be a slight of hand, could unveil itself as a millennial model for showering abundance everywhere" for the mutual benefit of everyone. It's simple to do - just void out debts on banks' books with a click of a mouse. "No depositors or creditors would lose money, because (none) advanced their own money in the original loans". They were created out of thin air through accounting entries. On banking financial statements, they're liabilities because accounting rules say books must balance. Once old debts are gone, new ones can be avoided by stabilizing national currencies to prevent devaluation by speculators. Bretton Woods protected against this. A new system is now needed, one that "retains the virtues of the gold standard while overcoming its limitations". One now in use is to peg currencies to the dollar but with it comes loss of flexibility to compete in international markets or be able to budget enough for domestic needs - with a fixed money supply. Argentina's "currency board" in the 1990s forced its eventual bankruptcy in 1995 and again in 2001 as earlier mentioned. A global currency is another proposal - one that creates more problems than it solves. The world "is not one nation or one region", and who's to be boss and in charge. Further, if all governments issued the same currency, "the global money supply (would be) vulnerable to irresponsible governments (issuing) too much". Strong ones would end up dominating the weak, and national sovereignty would be weakened, perhaps ended. A "fully dollarized" world is a prescription for trouble enough to make scarcity "the order of the day". Rather than one currency, "a single global yardstick" is needed "against which governments can value their currencies - some independent measure (by) which merchants can negotiate their contracts and be sure of getting what they bargained for". How to do it is the question? A New Bretton Woods Michael Rowbotham picked up on John Maynard Keynes idea of pegging currencies to a basket of commodities, calling it "a profoundly democratic idea". He states: "Today, wheat grown in one country may, due to a devalued currency, cost a fraction of wheat grown in another. This leads to (cheap wheat producers) becoming (heavy exporters) regardless of need, or the capacity to produce better quality wheat in other locations. In addition, currency values can change dramatically and the situation can reverse. Critically, such wheat 'prices' bear no relation to genuine comparative advantage of climate, soil type, geography and even less to indigenous/local/regional needs". Nor does it stabilize production in relation to need. By "imputing value to a nation's produce, and allowing this to determine the value of (its) currency, one is imputing value to its resources, its labourers and acknowledging its own needs". An international trade unit could be established based on a basket of commodities representative enough to fend off speculators - just a "yardstick for pegging currencies and negotiating contracts". Exchange rates would be fixed everywhere but not forever. Changes would "reflect the national market for real goods and services", not currencies. They'd be "no room for speculation or hedging". Various proposals involve "private international currency exchanges, but the same (type) reference unit (could) stabilize exchange rates among official national currencies". One calls for: - a new fixed exchange rate system; - a treaty banning speculation in derivatives; - canceling or reorganizing international debt; and - having governments issue enough "credit" to create full employment, then used for technical innovation and infrastructure development. The plan is for exchange rates to be "based on an international unit of account pegged against the price of an agreed-upon basket of hard commodities". Other plans are around as well, all stressing the same idea - "the urgent need for change" because the current system is corrupted and broken. How then to stabilize national currencies? "The simplest and most comprehensive ... international currency yardstick (measure) seems to be the Consumer Price Index ... modified to reflect" real consumer expenditures, not the quantity of currencies traded in international markets by speculators. Henceforth, currencies "would just be coupons for units of value recognized globally" - stable enough for "commercial traders (to) 'bank' on them". National currencies "would become what (they) should have been all along - (contracts) or promise(s) to return value in goods and services of a certain worth, as measured against a universally recognized yardstick for determining value". Government without Taxes or Debt Only a "radical shift in our concepts of money and banking will save us from the cement wall looming ahead" - an abyss otherwise named. Letting bankers hold "an illusory sum of gold", to be multiplied many times over by fractional reserve alchemy, entraps everyone in debt bondage. "The result was a (giant) Ponzi scheme that has pumped the global money supply into a gigantic credit bubble" now imploding. Everything of value is at risk, including our futures and that of our loved ones - unless we can reverse the corrupted system entrapping us, and think of the benefits: expanded government services and prosperity, inflation and tax free. Today's "web of debt" is based on fraud, deceit, and manipulative sleights of hand, including: - fractional reserve alchemy - pure hocus-pocus witchcraft hokum; - the gold standard of an earlier time letting bankers dangerously inflate the money supply "on the same gold reserves"; - the private banking cartel Federal Reserve owned by major banks in each of twelve Fed districts empowered to create money and charge the government, business, and individuals interest on it - the result being everyone put in permanent debt bondage to world-class predators; - the federal debt and money supply; both continually expand under a highly inflationary scheme; - the federal income tax to pay interest to bankers; - the FDIC and IMF to ensure mega-banks get bailed out no matter what unwarranted risks they take; the IMF is also a sort of knee-cap breaking enforcer for the monied interests - extracting multiple pounds of flesh in as part of a giant extortion racket; - a "free market" for those who own it under a corrupted, manipulated system of socialized risks and privatized profits, enforced by the Pentagon's long arm; - the Plunge Protection Team (PPT) and Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) - created to rig and manipulate markets along with colluding Wall Street bankers bailed out whenever they get in trouble; the notion that markets move randomly is rubbish - about as real as the tooth fairy or Mother Goose; - "floating" exchange rates - for more manipulation and collusion in international currency markets; - short selling - for speculators in all type assets; when used against currencies, it can artificially force them down enough to cause economic havoc the way it was done to Asian Tiger countries in 1997 and many others as well; - "globalization" and "free trade" - a predatory system benefitting America and the West under WTO rules; countries also become vulnerable to speculative assaults when their currencies are convertible and economies opened to "free trade"; - inflation myths - money creation isn't the problem; speculative currency attacks force destructive devaluations, meaning prices rise as a result; American inflation is "caused by private banks inflating the money supply with debt", not by printing money; also by productive growth not keeping up; - the "business cycle" - responsible financial managements produce stable prosperity; when irresponsibly done by a private banking cartel, booms and busts result; it's an unnatural "monetary scheme in which money comes into existence as a debt to private banks for 'reserves' of something lent many times over"; - the home mortgage boondoggle - monetizing home mortgages today creates most money; borrowers think they're using "pre-existing funds, when the bank is just turning one's promise to pay into an 'asset' secured by real property"; when paid off, the interest usually exceeds the original loan, and in cases of default, banks seize the homes; - the housing bubble - it was caused by easy credit in the 1990s and post-2000 by an irresponsible Fed and Wall Street bankers' plan, including massive fraud like issuing up to ten mortgages on a single home when its owner had only one; - adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) - affecting about half of all US ones, it was a scam through subprime lending and low "teaser" rates, later ratcheted to unaffordable levels and catching buyers unawares; - the secret bankruptcy of banks - they gambled hugely on risky derivatives and housing loans, far afield from traditional banking of borrowing low and lending higher for modest, stable profits; the result - all major banks are insolvent with only government bailouts keeping them afloat; - "vulture capitalism" and derivatives - the former amounts to predatory banks and hedge funds "buying out shareholders and bleeding businesses of profits, using loans of 'phantom money' created on a computer screen" out of thin air; the latter turned banks into casinos making huge bets that went sour; and - moral hazard, once called the "Greenspan put"; substitute Bernanke and Geithner now for the maestro of misery; it lets banking giants take outsized risks knowing bailout backups await any that go sour. Conclusion - private commercial banking practices are corrupted, destructive and obsolete, and vulture capitalist investment banks are parasites on productivity, serving their interests at public expense. Congress should and must either close down insolvent banks or put them in receivership as step one. Then "claim them as public assets, and operate them as agencies serving" public depository and credit needs. The federal debt is another problem - at "its mathematical limits, (it's) forcing another paradigm shift if the economy is to survive". We have a choice: let a debt-based house of cards collapse or have it be a wake-up call for radical change. Again, imagine the possibilities: - ending personal income taxes and stimulating stable economic growth at the same time; - eliminating the federal debt entrapping us and future generations in permanent bondage; - returning money creation power to the government as the Constitution mandates with a cornucopia of benefits to follow; - strengthening universal Social Security for everyone in place of disappearing private pensions; - fostering stable, inflation-free prosperity with no booms and busts; - keeping borrowing costs fair and affordable, not subject to private bank manipulation; and - ending destructive currency devaluations and economic warfare for private gain; with stable exchange rates, the "dollar becomes self-sustaining, and the United States and other countries become self-reliant", free from foreign creditors and one-way market rules benefitting the strong over the weak. Impossible? Only for non-believers, but it won't happen magically. It's for organized people to challenge organized money enough for government to reclaim its money creation power. Nothing short of a populist revolution for radical change is needed - bubbling up from the grassroots to an unstoppable force. "Reviving the 'American system' of government-issued money" would return us to our colonial roots, and like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, "we the people would finally have come home". More on that topic in a follow-up article. Note: {1} http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:eJlif1NPL1QJ:www.jamesrobertson.com/book/monetaryreform.pdf+%22Monetary+Reform:+Making+It+Happen%22&cd=1&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp _____ Stephen Lendman is a Research Associates 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 sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10 am US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13641 http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/reviewing-ellen-browns-web-of-debt-part_18.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From miguel.Perez.2005 at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 13:19:29 2009 From: miguel.Perez.2005 at gmail.com (Caso Cementera) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:19:29 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Enumeran Factores De Pobreza En Batey Gonzalo Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5333 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090608/34106474/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:25:59 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:25:59 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws In-Reply-To: References: <8CBB73CAF0A42D3-11C0-7F5@FWM-M43.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: What is seldom connected is that all big U.S. cities and wealthy populations and businesses have been looted systematicly as well and will continue to be. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws To: kcourtenay at aol.com That is what is happening here too after the "File- sharing agreement passed with the EU. More and moreare aware of it. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:13 AM, wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suzanne de Kuyper > To: kcourtenay at aol.com > Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 3:36 am > Subject: Fwd: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian > forest laws > > Thank the lord that the only thing that Palestine has is humans and > history and Islam. Suzette > > > *Unfortunately, they also have (or had) water and natural gas (off the > coast of Gaza). Not that they are allowed to keep either, of course. The > Israelis take nearly all the water, and the Palestinians are not allowed to > exploit the gas reserves. And their archaeological artifacts are stolen > too. > * > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Anthony Fenton > Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM > Subject: [R-G] International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest > laws > To: Suzanne de Kuyper > > > http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/global/latin/47043272.html > > International solidarity protests against Peruvian forest laws > By Rick Kearns, Today correspondent > > > ------------------------------ > Wanna slim down for summer? Go to America Takes it Offto learn how. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3162 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090609/b29f915e/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Tue Jun 9 11:50:01 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:50:01 -0700 Subject: [A-List] What is the "center - right"? Message-ID: We're bombarded with media reports that the "center right" has taken over the European Union, whatever that is. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=European+"center+right" EUROPE NEWS JUNE 8, 2009, 5:07 A.M. ET The European Elections, Country by Country Voters across Europe went to the polls last week, in what is thought to be the biggest transnational vote in history. Votes are continuing to be tallied across the continent. Early results show a continent-wide shift to the right, with some exceptions. See the breakdown of seats in the Parliament and country-by-country results. Austria: The main rightist People's Party made big gains, while the ruling Social Democrats dropped nearly 10% to garner 23.8% of the vote. Belgium: The conservative Christian Democrats won, reinforcing the party's victory in a parallel vote for assemblies of the country's Dutch and French-speaking regions. Bulgaria: The governing Socialists faced defeat as the country's biggest right-wing opposition party won most of the votes. Cyprus: The opposition conservatives narrowly defeated the governing communist-rooted party. Official results gave the Disy party 35.65% of the vote, 0.75% more than Akel, the party of President Dimitris Christofias. Czech Republic: The center-right Civic Democrats of former Premier Mirek Topolanek were set for a close victory. With about 40% of the vote counted, Mr. Topolanek's party was leading the field with 29%, ahead of the center-left Social Democrats with 24%, with about 40% of the vote counted. Denmark: An exit poll said the Danish People's Party, a government ally, will grab one seat in the European assembly. Another EU-skeptical group, the June Movement, will lose its single seat according to the poll, while other parties would maintain their seats. Estonia: The Centre Party gained two seats, while the Social Democratic Party lost its three. Finland: The center-right government coalition partners, the Conservatives and the Centre Party, and the main opposition Social Democrats, lost support in the election for Finland's 13 seats. France: President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing conservatives trounced the Socialists, picking up almost 28% of the vote to the Socialists' 16.48%. The Green Party vaulted to a surprisingly strong third place finish with 16.28%, according to official results. Turnout, at 41%, was the lowest ever in a European election in France. Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives won a lackluster victory, with Ms. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and a regional sister party winning 37.8% of the vote. Their center-left rivals, the Social Democrats, suffered a heavy defeat only months before a national election, winning 20.8% of the vote -- their worst showing since World War II in any nationwide election. The result was enough to boost Ms. Merkel's hopes of ending the left-right "grand coalition" that has led Germany since 2005. Greece: The governing conservatives suffered a defeat in the wake of corruption scandals and with a sharply slowing economy. The main opposition Socialists -- winning their first election battle in nine years -- renewed calls for early general elections. Hungary: The far-right Jobbik party won three of 22 seats. The National Election Office said the main center-right opposition party, Fidesz, won 14 seats, while the governing Socialist Party gained four seats and the Hungarian Democratic Forum won one. Italy: A nearly complete count showed the conservative party of scandal-plagued Premier Silvio Berlusconi lost support, while his anti-immigrant ally made gains in European Parliament voting. With some 97% of vote counted, Mr. Berlusconi's Freedom Party had 34.9%, down from 37.4% in the last European vote in 2004. Ireland: Exit polls suggested government party Fianna Fail is likely to be pushed into second place. Ahead of formal results in all districts, a poll for RTE television projected that Fianna Fail would trail its rival Fine Gael by 23% to 30%. Latvia: Voters looked to an ethnic Russian party to rescue the Baltic state from its economic crisis. Nearly complete results showed the center-left Harmony Party had won two of Latvia's eight seats in the next European Parliament and over one-third of the vote in municipal election in Riga. The result signaled a significant shift in voter sentiment in a country that expects to see its economy contract by 18% this year. Latvia's ethnic Russian parties have fared poorly since the country gained independence in 1991. Many center-right parties took a drubbing in Saturday's double ballot. Lithuania: Exit polls said the conservative Homeland Union-Christian Democrats are leading the vote, with around 25%, followed by the Social Democratic Party, which had 19%. Luxembourg: Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker's Christian Democrats looked set to take three seats, followed by the Socialists and Liberals, both of which would take one seat. Malta: The opposition Labor Party scored a resounding victory, taking 57% of the vote. Netherlands: Geert Wilders' anti-Islamic party took 17% of the vote, or four of 25 seats. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's Christian Democrats held onto five seats, while the center-left Labor party took three. Poland: An exit poll showed Prime Minister Donald Tusk's probusiness Civic Platform party had 45.3% of the vote and the nationalist and conservative opposition Law and Justice party was second with 29.5% -- a shift to the center-right by voters. Portugal: The opposition center-right PPD was predicted to take 10 seats, while Prime Minister Jose Socrates' Socialists were expected to take seven. Romania: Partial results showed the two parties in the coalition government had won most of the votes in European Parliament elections, with the far right also gaining ground. Results from the election authorities released early Monday give the leftist Social Democracy Party about 30.6% of the vote and the centrist Liberal Democratic Party 29.7%. More than 91% of the vote had been counted. The far-right Greater Romania Party was projected as getting 8.7%. In 2008, it was voted out of the Romanian parliament. Slovakia: The ruling Social Democrats won with 32% of the vote. Official results give the center-left Social Democrats five seats, ahead of the opposition center-right Christian Democrats, who won two. Three smaller parties took the other six seats. Slovenia: The center-right opposition won the most votes, dealing a blow to the governing Social Democrats. Spain: The conservative Popular Party won two more seats than the ruling Socialists in preliminary vote tallies. Sweden: Exit polls said the new populist Pirate Party would win a seat, while the main opposition Social Democrats took six seats. The conservative Moderate Party, Sweden's leading party in the center-right coalition government, was expected to take three seats. U.K.: The ruling Labour Party suffered a major defeat, finishing third in the European poll. With nearly all results in on Monday morning, the main opposition Conservative Party won with roughly 29% of the vote. The U.K. Independence Party, which seeks withdrawal from the EU, took second place with about 17%. Labour's share of the vote was around 15%. For the first time, the far-right, anti-immigration British National Party picked up two seats in the European Parliament. Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown's political future is in doubt. Whether he is to be replaced could become clear after a meeting with Labour lawmakers Monday. ?Source: Associated Press Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8045 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090609/49b77ceb/attachment.txt From toddboyle at comcast.net Tue Jun 9 11:49:37 2009 From: toddboyle at comcast.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:49:37 -0700 Subject: [A-List] What is the "center - right"? Message-ID: We're bombarded with media reports that the "center right" has taken over the European Union, whatever that is. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=European+"center+right" EUROPE NEWS JUNE 8, 2009, 5:07 A.M. ET The European Elections, Country by Country Voters across Europe went to the polls last week, in what is thought to be the biggest transnational vote in history. Votes are continuing to be tallied across the continent. Early results show a continent-wide shift to the right, with some exceptions. See the breakdown of seats in the Parliament and country-by-country results. Austria: The main rightist People's Party made big gains, while the ruling Social Democrats dropped nearly 10% to garner 23.8% of the vote. Belgium: The conservative Christian Democrats won, reinforcing the party's victory in a parallel vote for assemblies of the country's Dutch and French-speaking regions. Bulgaria: The governing Socialists faced defeat as the country's biggest right-wing opposition party won most of the votes. Cyprus: The opposition conservatives narrowly defeated the governing communist-rooted party. Official results gave the Disy party 35.65% of the vote, 0.75% more than Akel, the party of President Dimitris Christofias. Czech Republic: The center-right Civic Democrats of former Premier Mirek Topolanek were set for a close victory. With about 40% of the vote counted, Mr. Topolanek's party was leading the field with 29%, ahead of the center-left Social Democrats with 24%, with about 40% of the vote counted. Denmark: An exit poll said the Danish People's Party, a government ally, will grab one seat in the European assembly. Another EU-skeptical group, the June Movement, will lose its single seat according to the poll, while other parties would maintain their seats. Estonia: The Centre Party gained two seats, while the Social Democratic Party lost its three. Finland: The center-right government coalition partners, the Conservatives and the Centre Party, and the main opposition Social Democrats, lost support in the election for Finland's 13 seats. France: President Nicolas Sarkozy's governing conservatives trounced the Socialists, picking up almost 28% of the vote to the Socialists' 16.48%. The Green Party vaulted to a surprisingly strong third place finish with 16.28%, according to official results. Turnout, at 41%, was the lowest ever in a European election in France. Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives won a lackluster victory, with Ms. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and a regional sister party winning 37.8% of the vote. Their center-left rivals, the Social Democrats, suffered a heavy defeat only months before a national election, winning 20.8% of the vote -- their worst showing since World War II in any nationwide election. The result was enough to boost Ms. Merkel's hopes of ending the left-right "grand coalition" that has led Germany since 2005. Greece: The governing conservatives suffered a defeat in the wake of corruption scandals and with a sharply slowing economy. The main opposition Socialists -- winning their first election battle in nine years -- renewed calls for early general elections. Hungary: The far-right Jobbik party won three of 22 seats. The National Election Office said the main center-right opposition party, Fidesz, won 14 seats, while the governing Socialist Party gained four seats and the Hungarian Democratic Forum won one. Italy: A nearly complete count showed the conservative party of scandal-plagued Premier Silvio Berlusconi lost support, while his anti-immigrant ally made gains in European Parliament voting. With some 97% of vote counted, Mr. Berlusconi's Freedom Party had 34.9%, down from 37.4% in the last European vote in 2004. Ireland: Exit polls suggested government party Fianna Fail is likely to be pushed into second place. Ahead of formal results in all districts, a poll for RTE television projected that Fianna Fail would trail its rival Fine Gael by 23% to 30%. Latvia: Voters looked to an ethnic Russian party to rescue the Baltic state from its economic crisis. Nearly complete results showed the center-left Harmony Party had won two of Latvia's eight seats in the next European Parliament and over one-third of the vote in municipal election in Riga. The result signaled a significant shift in voter sentiment in a country that expects to see its economy contract by 18% this year. Latvia's ethnic Russian parties have fared poorly since the country gained independence in 1991. Many center-right parties took a drubbing in Saturday's double ballot. Lithuania: Exit polls said the conservative Homeland Union-Christian Democrats are leading the vote, with around 25%, followed by the Social Democratic Party, which had 19%. Luxembourg: Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker's Christian Democrats looked set to take three seats, followed by the Socialists and Liberals, both of which would take one seat. Malta: The opposition Labor Party scored a resounding victory, taking 57% of the vote. Netherlands: Geert Wilders' anti-Islamic party took 17% of the vote, or four of 25 seats. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's Christian Democrats held onto five seats, while the center-left Labor party took three. Poland: An exit poll showed Prime Minister Donald Tusk's probusiness Civic Platform party had 45.3% of the vote and the nationalist and conservative opposition Law and Justice party was second with 29.5% -- a shift to the center-right by voters. Portugal: The opposition center-right PPD was predicted to take 10 seats, while Prime Minister Jose Socrates' Socialists were expected to take seven. Romania: Partial results showed the two parties in the coalition government had won most of the votes in European Parliament elections, with the far right also gaining ground. Results from the election authorities released early Monday give the leftist Social Democracy Party about 30.6% of the vote and the centrist Liberal Democratic Party 29.7%. More than 91% of the vote had been counted. The far-right Greater Romania Party was projected as getting 8.7%. In 2008, it was voted out of the Romanian parliament. Slovakia: The ruling Social Democrats won with 32% of the vote. Official results give the center-left Social Democrats five seats, ahead of the opposition center-right Christian Democrats, who won two. Three smaller parties took the other six seats. Slovenia: The center-right opposition won the most votes, dealing a blow to the governing Social Democrats. Spain: The conservative Popular Party won two more seats than the ruling Socialists in preliminary vote tallies. Sweden: Exit polls said the new populist Pirate Party would win a seat, while the main opposition Social Democrats took six seats. The conservative Moderate Party, Sweden's leading party in the center-right coalition government, was expected to take three seats. U.K.: The ruling Labour Party suffered a major defeat, finishing third in the European poll. With nearly all results in on Monday morning, the main opposition Conservative Party won with roughly 29% of the vote. The U.K. Independence Party, which seeks withdrawal from the EU, took second place with about 17%. Labour's share of the vote was around 15%. For the first time, the far-right, anti-immigration British National Party picked up two seats in the European Parliament. Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown's political future is in doubt. Whether he is to be replaced could become clear after a meeting with Labour lawmakers Monday. ?Source: Associated Press Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved From annewilliamson at msn.com Tue Jun 9 08:49:20 2009 From: annewilliamson at msn.com (Anne Williamson) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Greatest Swindle Ever Sold In-Reply-To: <4A2DAF8F.5000709@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4A2DAF8F.5000709@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: A libertarian follow-up to Bill's posting of the Andy Kroll article in Mother Jones: http://www.garynorth.com A Regional Central Banker Blows the Whistle Gary North Reality Check June 9, 2009 A REGIONAL CENTRAL BANKER BLOWS THE WHISTLE "In the long run, we are all dead but our children will be left to pick up the tab." -- Thomas Hoenig Thomas Hoenig is the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. In a recent speech, he laid out a scenario for what the Federal Reserve ought to do and what the U.S. government ought to do, and what will happen if they refuse. You can read it here: http://www.garynorth.com/snip/870.htm They will refuse. He did not say this, but it is clear to me that they will refuse, at least for the near term. I hope they won't refuse. Hoenig surveyed what he called "challenges." He said that we -- a crucial word in the speech -- must "begin now to address them genuinely and systematically or we risk repeating past mistakes and creating an environment that leads to our next set of crises. Who are "we"? How will "we" accomplish this? Herbert Hoover could have said as much in 1932. So could Bush 1 in 1991 or Bush 2 in 2001. So could Barack Obama today. They never say anything like this. Neither do Federal Reserve Chairmen, except when they are about to implement past mistakes. He thinks the recession will abate in the second half of this year or in 2010. He did mention housing price declines as a drag on the economy. He did not mention foreclosures. He said that the cause of this new economic growth will be the result of "the significant degree of monetary and fiscal stimulus" that has taken place. He said that "Monetary policy has been enormously accommodative, with the fed funds rate being near zero." This correctly identifies the cause of the fed funds rate at zero: monetary inflation. The FED cannot simply announce a lower fedfunds rate. It has to back this up with fiat money. He identified the main subsidized sectors. The FED has thrown money at housing and the financial markets. It is now buying longer-term assets, including T-bonds. If we count all of the Federal Reserve Banks' balance sheets, the increase has been from $1 trillion to $3 trillion in less than two years (p. 2). Fiscal policy -- the code words for "Federal deficits" -- has matched the FED's expansion of money. There was $700 billion for TARP during the past 8 months. The recent spending package will add another $800 billion in tax cuts, grants to state governments, and jobless benefits. There will be more highways. NO FREE LUNCHES He is a Keynesian. They all are. So, he did not mention that every dime that the Federal government spends in excess of revenues must be borrowed. That is what a deficit means. The only question is: From whom? If from foreign central banks, the dependence of the U.S. government and the economy on foreign central bankers increases. If from the domestic economy, every dime lent to the Federal government must come out of savings that would otherwise have gone into the private sector or local government. Every dime transferred from the private capital markets to the Federal government reduces economic productivity. The private sector jobs that would have been created become government jobs. If from the Federal Reserve System, fiat money will spread into the economy. If from commercial banks, this will come at the expense of either private producers or consumers, or through moving funds presently kept at the FED as excess reserves. The fractional reserve process will then take over: more money through the money multiplier, which will at last go positive. Hoenig mentioned none of this. There are no free lunches. There are no free loans. There are always costs attached. He is cautiously optimistic. He thinks the recovery will be modest. This is becoming the standard opinion. He added this word of warning: Our financial institutions remain fragile and will require significant additional amounts of capital to regain their stability.He did not say how this capital is going to be raised. THE OLIGARCHY OF INTERESTS He said that the U.S. financial system very nearly collapsed in 2008. Then he did what they all do. He announced that we "need a better set of incentives within the industry and better oversight by the regulatory institutions if we are to avoid a repeat of these events in the future." This raises a few questions. 1. Why were the regulators blind before? 2. For how long? 3. Why are they better able to see now? 4. What kind of incentives motivate them? 5. Who applies these incentives? 6. What about disincentives? 7. Who applies these? He understands this. "Unfortunately, I'm afraid we are witnessing some regulatory malpractice now" (p. 4). That is exactly what we are seeing. We are seeing the financial regulatory structure being handed over to the Federal Reserve System. This was the source of the bubble in the first place. Greenspan denied that anyone can identify a bubble in the making. What if we do not get the reforms we need? His answer is amazing for its candidness: ". . . we will perpetuate an oligarchy of interests that will fail to serve the best interests of business, the consumer and the U.S. economy." Notice the key word: "perpetuate." It is an admission of the existence of such an oligarchy. It has been with us ever since the Civil War. It has consolidated its hold on the economy ever since the Federal Reserve began operations in 1914. Why will this change now? He never said. Today, the FED has created the legal basis of massive monetary inflation -- unprecedented. How will it police the financial system? He said that before "we" spend time reforming the system, "we should first determine which rules of conduct should be reintroduced and enforced to provide for better outcomes." How inspiring! But who are "we," and how will "we" make these assessments? How will "we" get the existing oligarchy to consent to its suicide? We have heard all this before, but never from a sitting president of a regional Federal Reserve Bank. TOO BIG TO FAIL He called for policy-makers to abandon this doctrine (p. 5). The policy is anti-capitalistic, he said. Indeed, it is. That is the reason why the Federal Reserve System was created by the big bank oligarchy in 1913. He said the bailouts create moral hazard. Senior managers take extreme risks, looking for easy profits from high leverage, knowing that if their companies get in trouble, the government or the FED will bail them out. To warn against "moral hazard" at this late date is naive. The concept was first named and discussed in the 1870's. It is well enough known by now that a Nashville financial planner has created a country music alter ego named Merle Hazard. He sings more sense than the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve has yet to announce. If you doubt me, listen for yourself. http://GaryNorth.com/public/4964.cfm Hoenig did not outline exactly what this new, improved "let 'em die" system should look like. He did not say how Congress will implement it. He did not say why, at this late date, the oligarchy will consent to it. This is standard fare. Nobody in authority says what needs to be done or how it will ever come to pass. Economists tell us that incentives are everything. Then, when they call for financial reform, they refuse to discuss incentives. How does the fractional reserve banking process not create booms and busts? How can regulators overcome the booms that fiat money produces, or the busts that monetary stabilization later produces? ECONOMIC IMBALANCES He identified several. One is the balance of payments problem. We borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from abroad. But who are "we"? He did not identify the major lenders: Asian central banks. He did not mention why they do this: to increase their exports of goods to the United States. How? By lowering the dollar- denominated value of their currencies. These central banks buy dollars with their own recently created fiat money. The balance of payments deficit is mainly a product of mercantilist economics in Asia and Keynesian economics in the United States. Mercantilism and Keynesianism are the mutually dependent twins of modern trade. Asian central banks buy mainly Treasury debt and Federal agency debt. The imbalance problem stems from governments on both sides of the transactions. Until very recently, the personal savings rate has fallen, he said (p. 6). Quite true. Now that it is rising again, the Federal government is running a $1.8 trillion deficit to get Americans to spend, spend, spend. The Federal Reserve has lowered the fedfunds rate to zero. Lend, lend, lend! The joint policies of the government and the FED are designed to increase spending. The lower capital gains rate will expire in 2010. That will reduce thrift. Then there are the unfunded liabilities of the Federal government: Social Security and Medicare (p. 7). These are permanent imbalances. They have grown up over decades. Why would Hoenig imagine that Congress will reverse itself and start funding these sinkholes? With what? Congress will not invest in the private markets. It buys Treasury debt and spends the money. It always has. Where are the new incentives that will change Congress? Who will impose them? Hoenig's whole exercise is utterly utopian. It is an economists' fantasy: a world devoid of political incentives to correct the imbalances. Government created these imbalances for political purposes: buying votes, expanding power, deferring a day of reckoning. It has been successful. Why change now? Someday, he said, "investment will slow and cause lower productivity." What does he mean, someday? We are there. The whole Western world is there. Every government and central bank has pursued the same policies. Every government is now trapped. Every central bank has lowered the overnight interest rate. Every central bank has inflated. INTEREST RATES WILL RISE He finally gets down to the real world (p. 8). He said that interest rates will rise. He actually predicted monetary deflation. "As the economy recovers, even at a modest pace, resource demands will begin to increase. At that point, the current level of monetary accommodation will need to be withdrawn to avoid introducing inflationary impulses." This is true. But if this is done, unemployment levels will remain high, he said. If this happens, he predicted, "there will be considerable pressure on the central bank to 'help out' in easing the adjustment process by keeping interest rates low for an extended period" He's got that right! This would lead to "high inflation and an actual worsening of an economy's long-term performance." Correct again! Conclusion: "We face difficult adjustments that must be made. The process will not be free of pain." The FED has more than doubled its balance sheet over the past two years (p. 9). The FED must now remove this stimulus "carefully." What does he mean, "carefully"? The FED either removes it or else it doesn't. He refused to say the obvious: to maintain today's rate of price inflation, the FED will have to sell all of the toxic assets, all of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt, and all of the T-bonds that it has bought. In short, it will have to collapse the already fragile financial system. How likely is this scenario? The monetary base has more than doubled. This allows a doubling of bank loans. This will double the money supply. If the FED does nothing, we will see 100% price inflation when the banks finally lend all of the money they legally can lend today. So, at some point, he is right. The FED must sell those assets, or else raise bank reserve requirements to sterilize the assets it has bought. I think the latter is more likely. If the FED does not sell assets or raise reserve requirements, then mass inflation is guaranteed. This is not just America's problem. This is the whole world's problem, MORE OF THE SAME It has finally become acceptable to blame Alan Greenspan for his policy of lowering short-term rates. The problem today is this: the central banks have inflated at a rate that makes Greenspan look like a hard-money man. They have lowered short- term rates to unprecedented levels. They have out-Greenspanned Greenspan. Now what? The supposed green shoots of recovery will persuade solvent banks lending again. The M1 money supply will rise without being offset by a negative money multiplier, as has happened so far. If banks refuse to lend, then interest rates will go up. This will cut short the recovery. Imagine what the real estate market would look like if the FED ever unloaded its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, and mortgages went to 7% or 8%. If you think the Case-Shiller index of urban housing prices in 20 cities looks like Niagara Falls today, just wait. I think the FED will continue to buy T-bonds. It will not unload its assets until the political repercussions of 30% price inflation finally force it to stop buying. Then rates will soar. CONCLUSION The FED is on the back of the tiger. Hoenig sees this. He knows the financial system remains fragile. I presume that he knows that the only way to keep it solvent is for the FED to refuse to sell its assets to the general investment community. Bernanke knows this, too. No matter how carefully the FED sells off debt, this policy will reverse the recovery. I mean the hoped-for recovery. It is nowhere in sight yet. The FED will continue to support the T-bond market. It will not allow T-bond rates to rise dramatically. It will ignore corporate bond rates. Get ready for a bumpy ride. ? 2005-2009 GaryNorth.Com, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 15649 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090609/79cdab1d/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Jun 9 18:56:40 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:56:40 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Securitization: The Biggest Rip-off Ever Message-ID: <4A2F04C8.1030100@ashisuto.co.jp> Financial Deregulation has Opened Up A Pandora's box by Mike Whitney Global Research (June 05 2009) Is it possible to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits on securities that are backed by nothing more than cyber-entries into a loan book? It's not only possible; it's been done. And now the scoundrels who cashed in on the swindle have lined up outside the Federal Reserve building to trade their garbage paper for billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded loans. Where's the justice? Meanwhile, the credit bust has left the financial system in a shambles and driven the economy into the ground like a tent stake. The unemployment lines are growing longer and consumers are cutting back on everything from nights-on-the-town to trips to the grocery store. And it's all due to a Ponzi-finance scam that was concocted on Wall Street and spread through the global system like an aggressive strain of Bird Flu. The isn't a normal recession; the financial system was blown up by greedy bankers who used "financial innovation" game the system and inflate the biggest speculative bubble of all time. And they did it all legally, using a little-known process called securitization. Securitization - which is the conversion of pools of loans into securities that are sold in the secondary market - provides a means for massive debt-leveraging. The banks use off-balance sheet operations to create securities so they can avoid normal reserve requirements and bothersome regulatory oversight. Oddly enough, the quality of the loan makes no difference at all, since the banks make their money on loan originations and other related fees. What matters is quantity, quantity, quantity; an industrial-scale assembly line of fetid loans dumped on unsuspecting investors to fatten the bottom line. And, boy, can Wall Street grind out the rotten paper when there's no cop on the beat and the Fed is cheering from the bleachers. In an analysis written by economist Gary Gorton for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta?s 2009 Financial Markets Conference titled, "Slapped in the Face by the Invisible Hand; Banking and the Panic of 2007" {1}, the author shows that mortgage-related securities ballooned from $492.6 billion in 1996 to $3,071.1 in 2003, while asset backed securities (ABS) jumped from $168.4 billion in 1996 to $1,253.1 in 2006. All told, more than $20 trillion in securitized debt was sold between 1997 to 2007. How much of that debt will turn out to be worthless as foreclosures skyrocket and the banks balance sheets come under greater and greater pressure? Deregulation opened Pandora's box, unleashing a weird mix of shady off-book operations (SPVs, SIVs) and dodgy, odd-sounding derivatives that were used to amplify leverage and stack debt on tinier and tinier scraps of capital. It's easy to make money, when one has no skin in the game. That's how hedge fund managers and private equity sharpies get rich. Securitization gave the banks the opportunity to take substandard loans from applicants who had no way of paying them back, and magically transform them into Triple A securities. "Abra-kadabra". The Wall Street public relations throng boasted that securitization "democratized" credit because more people could borrow at better rates since funding came from investors rather than banks. But it was all a hoax. The real objective was to turbo-charge profits by skimming hefty salaries and bonuses on the front end, before people found out they'd been hosed. The former head of the FDIC, William Seidman, figured it all out back in 1993 when he was cleaning up after the S&L fiasco. Here's what he said in his memoirs: "Instruct regulators to look for the newest fad in the industry and examine it with great care. The next mistake will be a new way to make a loan that will not be repaid." (Bloomberg) That's it in a nutshell. The banks never expected the loans would be paid back, which is why they issued them to ninjas; applicants with no income, no collateral, no job, and a bad credit history. It made no sense at all, especially to anyone who's ever sat through a nerve-wracking credit check with a sneering banker. Trust me, bankers know how to get their money back, if that's their real intention. In this case, it didn't matter. They just wanted to keep their counterfeiting racket zooming ahead at full-throttle for as long as possible. Meanwhile, Maestro Greenspan waved pom-poms from the sidelines, extolling the virtues of the "new economy" and the permanent high plateau of prosperity that had been achieved through laissez faire capitalism. Now that the securitization bubble has burst, forty percent of the credit which had been coursing into the economy has been cut off triggering a 1930s-type meltdown. Fed chief Bernanke has stepped into the breach and provided a $13 trillion dollar backstop to keep the financial system from collapsing, but the broader economy has continued its historic nosedive. Bernanke is trying to fill the chasm that opened up when securitization ground to a halt and gas started exiting the credit bubble in one mighty whooosh. The deleveraging is ongoing, despite the Fed's many programs to rev up securitization and restore speculative bubblenomics. Bernanke's latest brainstorm, the Term Asset-backed securities Lending Facility (TALF), provides 94 percent public funding for investors willing to buy loans backed by credit card debt, student loans, auto loans or commercial real estate loans. It's a "no lose" situation for big investors who think that securitized debt will stage a comeback. But that's the problem; no one does. Attractive, non recourse (nearly) risk free loans have failed to entice the big brokerage houses and hedge fund managers. Bernanke has peddled less than $30 billion in a program that's designed to lend up to $1 trillion. It's been a complete bust. To understand securitization, one must think like a banker. Bankers believe that profits are constrained by reserve requirements. So, what they really want is to expand credit with no reserves; the equivalent of spinning flax into gold. Securitization and derivatives contracts achieve that objective. They create a confusing netherworld of odd-sounding instruments and bizarre processes which obscure the simple fact that they are creating money out of thin air. That's what securitization really is; undercapitalized junk masquerading as precious jewels. Here's how economist Henry C K Liu sums it up in his article "Mark-to-Market vs Mark-to-Model": "The shadow banking system has deviously evaded the reserve requirements of the traditional regulated banking regime and institutions and has promoted a chain-letter-like inverted pyramid scheme of escalating leverage, based in many cases on nonexistent reserve cushion. This was revealed by the AIG collapse in 2008 caused by its insurance on financial derivatives known as credit default swaps (CDS) ... "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve jointly allowed banks with credit default swaps (CDS) insurance to keep super-senior risk assets on their books without adding capital because the risk was insured. Normally, if the banks held the super-senior risk on their books, they would need to post capital at eight percent of the liability. But capital could be reduced to one-fifth the normal amount (twenty percent of eight percent, meaning $160 for every $10,000 of risk on the books) if banks could prove to the regulators that the risk of default on the super-senior portion of the deals was truly negligible, and if the securities being issued via a collateral debt obligation (CDO) structure carried a Triple-A credit rating from a 'nationally recognized credit rating agency', such as Standard and Poor?s rating on AIG. "With CDS insurance, banks then could cut the normal $800 million capital for every $10 billion of corporate loans on their books to just $160 million, meaning banks with CDS insurance can loan up to five times more on the same capital. The CDS-insured CDO deals could then bypass international banking rules on capital." {1} The same rule applies to derivatives (CDS) as securitized instruments; neither is sufficiently capitalized because setting aside reserves impairs one's ability to maximize profits. It's all about the bottom line. The reason credit default swaps are so cheap, compared to conventional insurance, is that there's no way of knowing whether the dealer has the ability to pay claims. It's fraud, on a gigantic scale, which is why the financial system went into full-blown paralysis when Lehman Brothers defaulted. No one knew whether trillions of dollars in counterparty contracts would be paid out or not. There are simply more claims on wealth than there is money in the system. Bogus mortgages and phony counterparty promises mean nothing. "Show me the money". The system is underwater, and it cannot be fixed by more of the Fed's presto liquidity. Here's what Gary Gorton says later in the same article: "A banking panic means that the banking system is insolvent. The banking system cannot honor contractual demands; there are no private agents who can buy the amount of assets necessary to recapitalize the banking system, even if they knew the value of the assets, because of the sheer size of the banking system. When the banking system is insolvent, many markets stop functioning and this leads to very significant effects on the real economy ..." Indeed. The shadow banking system has collapsed, not because the market is "frozen" or because investors are in a state of panic after Lehman, but because derivatives and securitization have been exposed as a fraud propped up on insufficient capital. It's snake oil sold by charlatans. That's why European policymakers are resisting the Fed's requests to create a facility similar to the TALF to start up securitization again. Here's a revealing clip from the Wall Street Journal which explains what's going on behind the scenes: "Bankers are pushing European policy makers to consider a US-style program to aid the region's economy by reviving the moribund market for bundled consumer loans. Officials at the European Securitisation Forum, a trade group representing banks and other market participants, said Tuesday that central bankers should consider stepping in with a program similar to the US Federal Reserve's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, which provides loans to private investors who buy new securities tied to consumer loans ... "After suffering heavy losses on securities stuffed with poorly made loans, investors are reluctant to wade back in, and Europe lacks big players like the Pacific Investment Management Company in the US, whose buying can mobilize other investors ... The market also faces uncertainty over how European regulators will change the rules of the game, in part by imposing tougher capital requirements on banks, the main buyers of securitized assets in Europe. "One European Commission proposal would dramatically hike the capital required of banks holding a securitized asset if the originator allowed its share of that asset to fall below a five percent threshold ... "Paul Sharma of Britain's Financial Services Authority said regulatory action is likely to shrink the investor base for ABS, in part by increasing the capital cushions banks will have to hold against ABS holdings in their trading books. He also argued that ABS were inappropriate for banks to hold as liquid assets, because they have proven difficult to sell in a market crisis. " 'There is very much a query in the minds of regulators as to whether there is a significant future for securitization', said Mr Sharma, though he added his own view was that the market did have a future role." See? In Europe regulators still do their jobs and make sure that financial institutions have money before they create trillions of dollars in credit. They don't stick with their heads in the sand while crooked bankers fleece the public. Bernanke's job is to step in and put an end to the hanky-panky, not add to the problems by restoring a credit-generating regime that transferred hundreds of billions of dollars from hard-working people to fatcat banksters and Wall Street flim-flammers. Notes: {1} http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/CONFEREN/09fmc/gorton.pdf {2} Henry C K Liu, "Mark-to-Market vs Mark-to-Model" - http://www.henryckliu.com/page191.html {3} "In Europe, a US Way To Fix ABS Market?" by Neil Shah and Stephen Fidler, Wall Street Journal _____ Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mike Whitney: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Mike&authorName=Whitney Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Mike Whitney, Global Research, 2009 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=13863 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 23:02:00 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:02:00 -0700 Subject: [A-List] The Greatest Swindle Ever Sold In-Reply-To: References: <4A2DAF8F.5000709@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <4A2F3E48.4060800@gmail.com> Anne Williamson wrote: > *A libertarian follow-up to Bill's posting of the Andy Kroll article > in Mother Jones: > > http://www.garynorth.com* > > "In the long run, we are all dead but our children will be left to > pick up the tab." -- Thomas Hoenig Exactly why Abbie Hoffman said "America is scared of it's children" America ripping off it's children is not new, it's just coming to a head. (...and there are enough nihilistic teenage junkies, speed freaks, and alcoholics all across the class divide to show for it too. "Lucky" 'counter-culturals' like myself get to do the 'social work' with these kids... I'd rather be smashing the state, but the kids come first.) Leigh From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Jun 9 23:18:14 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:18:14 +1000 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: GM, Marta Harnecker, El Salvador, Racism in Australia, Via Campesina, Venezuela nationalisations, Philippines, Malaysia, Tiananmen massacre, Nigeria Message-ID: <4A2F4216.3030408@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: GM, Marta Harnecker, El Salvador, Racism in Australia, Via Campesina, Venezuela nationalisations, Philippines, Malaysia, Tiananmen massacre, Nigeria * * * 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/. * * * Rick Wolff: GM -- The system strikes back; Michael Moore: `Convert the factories to build trains, buses, windmills' By Rick Wolff June 5, 2009 -- The greatest tragedies among many in the collapse and bankruptcy of General Motors (GM) concern what is not happening. There are those solutions to GM's problems not being considered by Obama's administration. There are the solutions not being demanded by the United Auto Workers Union (UAW). There are all the solutions not even being discussed by most left commentators on the disaster. Finally there are crucial aspects of GM's demise not getting the attention they deserve. * Read more El Salvador: New FMLN president declares: `Change begins now!' Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, June 3, 2009 -- On June 1, Mauricio Funes and Salvador Sanchez Cer?n were sworn in as president and vice-president of El Salvador at the Feria Internacional Convention Center in San Salvador. It was a magical day for the Salvadoran people, social movement organisations, and the leftist Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), which Funes and Sanchez Cer?n represent. * Read more World farmers' alliance V?a Campesina challenges food profiteers (excerpt from new pamphlet) The following review is an excerpt from a new pamphlet, La V?a Campesina: Farmers North and South Confront Agribusiness, by John Riddell and Adriana Paz, published by Socialist Voice in Canada. Review by John Riddell La V?a Campesina: Globalization and the Power of Peasants by Annette Aur?lie Desmarais. Fernwood Publishing, 2007. May 31, 2009 -- The neoliberal assault that has driven labour into retreat over the last two decades has also sparked the emergence of a peasants' international, La V?a Campesina. Based in 56 countries across five continents, this alliance has mounted a sustained and spirited defence of peasant cultivation, community and control of food production. * Read more (or download pamphlet) Nationalisations and workers' control in Venezuela: 'When the working class roars, capitalists tremble' By Federico Fuentes June 1, 2009 -- Addressing the 400-strong May 21 workshop with workers from the industrial heartland of Guayana, dedicated to the "socialist transformation of basic industry", Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez noted with satisfaction the outcomes of discussions: "I can see, sense and feel the roar of the working class." "When the working class roars, the capitalists tremble", he said. Chavez announced plans to implement a series of radical measures, largely drawn from proposals coming from the workers' discussion that day. The workers greeted each of Chavez's announcements with roars of approval, chanting "This is how you govern!" Chavez said: "The proposals made have emerged from the depths of the working class. I did not come here to tell you what to do! It is you who are proposing this." * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #5 -- Minorities can be right [This is the fifth in a series of regular articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series . Please return to Links regularly read the next articles in the series.] By Marta Harnecker Democratic centralism implies not only the subordination of the minority to the majority, but also the respect of the majority towards the minority. * Read more Philippines: `Let us now begin the Revolution for Change' Opening talk by Sonny Melencio to the "Pagbabago! No More Trapos in 2010!" forum June 1, 2009 -- On behalf of Partido Lakas ng Masa (Party of the Labouring Masses), I would like to extend our thanks to our two guests here who will be speaking together with me in this forum. One has already symbolised the struggle against the trapo [elite politicians], and I refer to Among Ed. Among Ed has in fact defeated not only the three Gs that have come to symbolise the ``guns, goons and gold'' wielded by the trapos. In Pampanga, Among Ed has beaten the five Gs - which includes two more Gs representing Philippines President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the gambling lords. The other one symbolised the call for change, in fact the call for the ouster of the Arroyo regime, during the Manila Peninsula rebellion on November 29, 2007. He is not with us today, because he's still in detention, but he is represented by his lawyer Attorney Trixie Cruz-Angeles, who's going to give us the message from Brigadier General Danilo Lim. * Read more Assaults on Indians in Australia: Globalisation, recession and renewed racism By the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation June 4, 2009 -- The continuing spate of attacks and violence against Indians and Indian students in particular in Australia has once again exploded the much-touted myth that globalisation promotes and respects pluralism and multiculturalism. The response of the Australian government has been shockingly muted, trying to cover up and even deny the racist dimensions of the attacks, terming them as just routine robberies and muggings. If so, why do Indians constitute a disproportionate share of the victims -- 30% in Melbourne? * Read more China: Looking back on the 1989 democracy movement and the Tiananmen Square massacre To mark the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal reproduces an excerpt from an analysis by an eyewitness to the 1989 democratic upsurge that preceded the brutal attack. The writer was an Australian socialist who was studying in China at the time. It first appeared in Green Left Weekly on June 26, 1996. By Liang Guosheng On June 4, 1989, troops, armoured personnel carriers and tanks of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) forced their way through human and constructed barricades into central Beijing, taking control of Tiananmen Square. In the process, according to an estimate by Amnesty International soon afterwards, approximately 1000 unarmed protesters were gunned down or otherwise killed. * Read more New pamphlet: The Tamil Freedom Struggle in Sri Lanka The Tamil Freedom Struggle in Sri Lanka By Chris Slee, Brian Senewiratne, Vickramabahu Karunarathne Published by Resistance Books 2009, 40pages Click HERE to order. Nigeria: The video Shell does not want you to see June 1, 2009 -- A pre-trial conference scheduled in the potentially landmark lawsuit brought by Nigerian plaintiffs against oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has been delayed until June 3. The conference was announced following the decision by the presiding judge in the US Southern District Court in New York to delay indefinitely the actual trial. Jury selection in the trial itself had been meant to start April 27, but was put off the day before. No new date was set. Shell is accused of complicity in the 1995 hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa, a renowned writer and activist, and other leaders of a movement protesting alleged environmental destruction and other abuses by Shell against the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta. * Read more Malaysian socialists call for communist veteran Chin Peng to be allowed home May 31, 2009 -- The Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM, Parti Sosialis Malaysia) became the latest party to urge the government to allow former Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) chief Chin Peng to return home for good. The PSM said the government must honour the peace accord that it signed with the Communist Party of Malaya in 1989 and allow former CPM leader Chin Peng to return. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #4 -- Should we reject bureaucratic centralism and simply use consensus? [This is the fourth in a series of regular articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series . Please return to Links regularly read the next articles in the series.] By Marta Harnecker, translated by Federico Fuentes For a long time, left-wing parties operated along authoritarian lines. The usual practice was that of bureaucratic centralism, influenced by the experiences of Soviet socialism. All decisions regarding criterion, tasks, initiatives, and the course of political action to take were restricted to the party elite, without the participation or debate of the membership, who were limited to following orders that they never got to discuss and in many cases did not understand. For most people, such practices are increasing intolerable. * 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: 16676 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090610/69c68e4f/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jun 10 03:19:38 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:19:38 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Ending Today's Economic Crisis Simply and Easily Message-ID: <4A2F7AAA.9040703@ashisuto.co.jp> in America and Globally by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 27 2009) Some of the best ideas are often the simplest. When applied to the global economic crisis, the solution is easier than imagined. What's hard, in fact a Gordian Knot, is the political will to embrace it. But even matters that great can be solved by a bold stoke, and according to legend, Alexander the Great's "Alexandrian solution" was achieved with one stroke of his sword, cutting the Knot in half. Applied to the global economic crisis, it means addressing it with effective policies, not ones wrecking America and other troubled nations worldwide. Economist Michael Hudson explains that "debt leveraging is what caused our economic collapse", so piling on more ("The Recovery Plan from Hell" he calls it) makes things worse, especially the way it's done: - in America, by a private banking cartel Federal Reserve bailing out its members to enrich them - the key giant ones referred to as Wall Street; and - the US Treasury doing the same thing; it let the federal debt skyrocket to stratospheric levels and affirmed Adam Smith's dictum in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that no country ever repaid its debts, surely not huge ones in a private banking cartel run state, and therein lies the problem - easily solved with a bold stroke, thus far not taken nor will it without mass public action demanding it. Which is why this article is written, inspired by the work of others. Economist Michael Hudson for one. Global Research.ca editor Michel Chossudovsky another, and noted author and writer Ellen Brown for her extraordinary book titled Web of Debt (2007) and her explanation of how "Cash-Starved States Need to Play the Banking Game" the same way as North Dakota. If done at state and federal levels, it can save the economy from Wall Street's predation - by removing the debt overhang through debt write-downs as well as funding sustainable, inflation-free prosperity. It's not a pipe dream. It's real. It happened before and can again. Short of that, according to Hudson: "debt service will (keep) crowd(ing) out spending on goods and services and there will be no recovery. Debt deflation will drag the economy down while assets are transferred further into the hands of the wealthiest ten percent of the population (mainly the top one percent), operating via the financial sector." Eventually the economy will collapse, but Wall Street will profit hugely - aided and abetted by corrupted public officials allied with the private parasitic Federal Reserve turning America into what Hudson calls a "zombie economy" and banana republic. What Works for North Dakota Can Work for the Other States, America, and Everywhere On March 2, Brown explained North Dakota's "Banking Game" and asked: "What does the State of North Dakota have that other states don't ... its own bank" - and therein lies its uniqueness and strength. When only four of the fifty states are solvent, North Dakota runs surpluses, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it's expected to have them in Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010. In his January 2009 State of the State address, governor John Hoeven explained: "Since 2000, the State of North Dakota has gained jobs, and now we are gaining population, as well. "Personal income has grown by 43 percent - nearly fifteen percent faster than the national average. In fact, our per capita income has moved up twelve places, from 38th to 26th among all the states (despite a tiny 641,481 population, according to 2008 US Census Bureau figures). "Wages have grown 34 percent, compared to just 26 percent for the rest of the country. "Our gross state product since 2000 has grown by nearly $10 billion, from $17.7 billion to more than $27 billion last year - a 56 percent increase - again, faster than the nation. "And our foreign exports have grown by 225 percent since 2000, breaking the $2 billion mark for the first time in North Dakota history. "Furthermore, our economic growth and diversification, along with the good financial stewardship, has enabled us to build a surplus and a solid financial reserve for the future ... the state of our state is strong (at a time) our nation's economy is in a down-cycle..." On May 23, The Bismark Tribune and other state papers reported that North Dakota has the nation's lowest unemployment rate at four percent. Clearly, it has a leg up on the other states, something all their governors and legislators should note along with federal officials in Washington. What works for North Dakota can work everywhere. The Bank of North Dakota is the only state-owned bank in the nation - established in 1919 by its legislature "to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men", according to Brown quoting management consultant Charles Fleetham in a February 2009 article published in his home state, Michigan. Brown continues: "Three elected officials oversee the bank: the governor, the attorney general, and the commissioner of agriculture. The bank's mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry (and operate) as a bankers' bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses." Also to students and private individuals in the state at low affordable rates. Key though is how it operates and stays solvent when so many of the nation's banks are financially strapped and face bankruptcy. As Brown explains: "Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do ... create 'credit' with accounting entries on their books". It turns money into credit by what's called "fractional reserve banking" that multiplies each dollar deposited magically into about ten in the form of loans or computer-generated funds. It's literally money created out of thin air so that banks can re-lend it many times over, and the more deposits, the greater the amount of lending. At issue is whether credit should be private or public, and as Brown wrote in a December 29 article titled "Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul: The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme called Fractional Reserve Banking": "Readily available credit has made America 'the land of opportunity' ever since the days of the American colonists", with more on that below. "What has transformed this credit system into a Ponzi scheme that must continually be propped up with bailout money is that the credit power has been turned over to private bankers who always require more money back than they create" because they charge high interest rates to make a profit. When governments lend their own money, profit isn't at issue so rates can be low and affordable to businesses, farmers, and private individuals, and for their own and municipality needs, it's interest-free. Brown and others have explained that "fractional reserve banking" dates from the 17th century, done then mainly in gold and silver coins. Early bankers soon realized it was simpler to use deposit receipts (called notes) as a means of payment. They then began creating money by making loans through promises to pay, and more could be issued than the amount of coins on hand as only enough were needed to service redemptions - today's idea of a reserve requirement. What began earlier as notes, today are accounting entries that literally create money out of thin air. And it works the same for government as for privately-owned banks, except for the following. As publicly-run institutions, their mandate is entirely different: - they don't have to earn profits; - they're not beholden to Wall Street or shareholders; and - only the state's creditworthiness matters, and so far, in over 230 years, no state ever went out of business and virtually none ever default on their debt, even when poorly governed. Further, they can lend to themselves and municipalities interest-free, and to businesses, farmers, and individuals at low affordable rates to create internal growth and sustainable prosperity. And the more often loans are rolled over, the more debt-free money is created - without fear of inflation. As long as new money produces goods and services, inflation can't occur. Only imbalances cause problems - "when 'demand' (money) exceeds 'supply' (goods and services)". Price stability is assured when both increase proportionally, and that's exactly how it worked in colonial America and under Lincoln during the Civil War as Brown explained in Web of Debt. In 1691, Massachusetts became "the first local government to issue its own paper money ..." called scrip. Other colonies followed, Pennsylvania most effectively by issuing new money without inflation or need for taxes. For over 25 years, it collected none, and at the same time, its population grew and commerce prospered. The "secret was in not issuing too much (credit), and in recycling the money back to the government in the form of principal and interest on government-issued loans". In other words, keeping everything proportionally in balance and not having to pay interest to predatory private lenders - the very system wrecking America today and other economies run by private central banks. Lincoln did the same thing in spite of assassination threats before his inauguration as well as "treason, insurrection, and national bankruptcy" during his first year in office. Considering what he faced, his accomplishments were remarkable, including: - building the world's largest army; - defeating the South; - turning the country into the world's "greatest industrial giant"; - launching the steel industry, a continental railroad system, and a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools; - establishing free higher education; - giving settler ownership rights and encouraging land development through the Homestead Act; - having government support all branches of science; - standardizing methods of mass production; - increasing labor productivity by fifty to 75%; and - still more "with a Treasury that was completely broke and a Congress that hadn't been paid". He did it by nationalizing control over banking so government could print its own money - interest free without paying usurious rates that private bankers demanded, from 24 to 36%. As a result, "the economy was jump-started with a 600 percent increase in government spending and cheap credit directed at production" - done with government-issued Greenbacks. They financed the war, paid the troops, and spurred the nation's growth - free from the system wrecking the country today to let parasitic private banks prosper. In Web of Debt, Brown explained that early 20th century Australia operated under a publicly-run bank as well - its Commonwealth Bank that created money, made loans, and collected interest at a fraction of what private bankers charge. It worked well enough for the country to have one of the highest living standards in the world at the time. Once private bankers took over, Australia became heavily indebted, and its living standard fell to a 23rd place ranking - clearly showing the destructive power of private bank-created money and overwhelming benefits possible when governments print their own. America today can have the same advantages instituted by: - its colonists; - Lincoln; - early 20th century Australia; - the Middle Ages, falsely portrayed as a backward and impoverishing era only saved by industrial capitalism; in fact, under its banker-free tally system, it prospered for hundreds of years; and - China for thousands of years before the era of private banking, and today because Beijing directs The People's Bank of China (its semi-independent central bank) to grow the nation's economy and create millions of jobs for its burgeoning population. America and world economies can be just as prosperous but only with determined effort enough to replace their corrupted systems with one that's fairest and works best . A publicly-run banking system benefits everyone by using deposits for sustainable internal growth and government needs - at the state and local levels. And for the federal government, by printing its own money interest-free for the same purpose. This writer and Brown believe that credit should be a public utility under a nationalized banking system, creating its own money at the federal level and with deposits into state-run banks - to serve people, not predator bankers. It would be the most equitable, sustainable, efficient and democratic system, free from parasitic lenders, and it would work equally well at the federal, state and community levels with local branches of government banks serving municipalities, their businesses, and residents at affordable costs. Under the privately-run Federal Reserve and parasitic giant banking system, corporate monopolies run America and use "their affiliated banking trusts to generate unlimited funds to buy up competitors, the media, and the government itself, forcing truly independent private enterprise out" - the very system classical economists abhorred. Private banks hold nations hostage by making them pay interest on their own money as well as "advanc(ing) massive loans to their affiliated cartels and hedge funds, which use the money to raid competitors and manipulate markets". In America, it's an extreme form of Darwinism with the federal government and 46 of the fifty states insolvent - and small businesses and ordinary people faring worst. Another way is essential to keep the nation, individual states, local communities, and most people from becoming "zombies" and America transformed into Guatemala. With federal, state, and community banks made a public utility under a nationalized banking system, consider the benefits: - personal and payroll taxes could be eliminated; - stable, sustainable economic growth could be generated; - America's manufacturing base could be rebuilt; - vital infrastructure projects could be undertaken on a scale never before imagined, including cleaning up the environment and developing alternate, sustainable, clean, safe, and affordable energy sources; - many millions of new good-paying jobs could be created, putting an end to unemployment for everyone willing and able work; and for those willing but unable, aid could be provided; - home foreclosures would end, and the dream of home ownership would be in reach for everyone because mortgages would be plentiful, cheap, and not designed to scam the unwary; - inflation could be ended; - booms and busts would be a thing of the past; - destructive currency devaluations and economic warfare for private gain would no longer be a threat; - private pensions, savings, and investments would be secure; and - federal, state, and local debt could be eliminated. Imagine the following: Weeks back, Bloomberg and others reported that from $12 to 14 trillion in bailouts and stimulus have been allocated or spent, while the Fed can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions. Why? Because of unprecedented willful fraud given a wink and nod by the highest officials in Washington partnered with criminal bankers to loot the Treasury and fleece the public. Now imagine if $1 trillion of the total looted went to publicly-run banks for productive purposes. "Fractional reserve" magic would create $10 trillion. If around half of it went there (remember already allocated or spent), an astonishing $70 trillion could be used productively, not wasted, used to buy damaged assets cheap for greater consolidation, or for speculation at the risk of a severe future inflation. Then envision a new future: - the federal debt could be eliminated; - all unfunded liabilities, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would be secure in perpetuity; - the nation and all fifty states would become solvent and on their way to comfortable surpluses; and - a sustainable, inflation-free, prosperous future would result with essential social benefits for everyone, including affordable or perhaps free health care, education, and the end of poverty because a guaranteed minimum income could be assured. Overall, it would be nothing short of a revolutionary new America, only rhetorically addressed up to now, with all winners and no losers - except the private predator banks and their corrupted public sector partners. And remember, newly created money isn't inflationary as long as imbalances are avoided and it's productively used for new goods and services. That's the kind of America to work for and not quit until achieved. If not now, when? If we don't do it, who will? If not done soon enough, it may be too late. If that's not incentive enough, what is? _____ 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 sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10 am US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13720 http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/ending-todays-economic-crisis-simply.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 08:46:15 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:46:15 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Warring out of depression, Stan Goff Feral Scholar Message-ID: <4A2FC737.3060508@gmail.com> Warring out of depression The iresistible, if not totally accurate, comparisons of Obama?s administration with that of the lionized FDR ought to include the decisive masterstroke of the cunning patrician Franklin Roosevelt to leave behind the Great Depression once and for all: war. We always hear about the Works Progress Administration and other quasi-socialist measures taken by Roosevelt?s government, but the real exit strategy from that bout with general deflation was to build the US military-industrial complex, financing it through indebting other war-weakened allies. Under their own circumstances, the New Dealers had the good fortune to enter the war by phases; first letting others take the brunt of the war ? Europe as a battleground, and in particular the USSR, which would surrender around 27 million souls to the charnel house of WWII to debilitate the Wehrmacht ? second, becoming the supplier of materiel, thereby indebting the rest of the Allied world while enriching the US prior to actual participation in combat, then finally, entry into the war against a bled-out Germany and Japan to ensure the US would be occupying key terrain in Europe and Asia as a preface to filling the vaccum left in the wake of the imperial collapse of UK and France. Everybody loves Obama, because he sounds more reassuringly intelligent than George W. Bush even as Obama retains many of the very worst aspects of the Bush regime. Hey, he is the first Black Prez, he picked Carolina as this year?s basketball champs, and he could charm a badger. But Obama is planning to use war as his /deus ex machina/, too. His war is to be the Pakistan-Afghan-Iran War, with Iraq stuck to his shoe. (He is /not/?withdrawing? from Iraq; and has stated that he hasn?t the least intention of doing so, unless one considers a force of 30,000 troops to be a non-occupation.) Roosevelt used Keynesianism at home and war abroad to save capitalism. But Obama is not inheriting Roosevelt?s circumstances; his war will fail, and his ?Keynesian? measures remain so contaminated with neoliberalism?s residues that it will leave the US domestic economy in a shambles that his dangerous (potentially nuclear) military adventures will only exacerbate. Obama is applying an anachronism in his emulation of FDR, and compounding his foolishness by taking a page or two from the LBJ/Nixon playbooks for Vietnam, as we see in his nomination of the smooth-talking torture-chief and ?unconventional? warfare commander, Stanley McChrystal, to head up the Afghanistan-Pakistan surge, coming soon to a theater near you. The Phoenix Program redux? writ larger still. I shouldn?t blame Obama; and I don?t really. But he?s the name and address where the buck stops these gray days as the foundations of the Empire crack: pyramiding debt, weakening dollar hegemony, and the myth of American military invincibility unmasked. He gets to be at the helm during that ambiguous phase where he is subordinate to domestic political forces that are still in place but threatening to go under ? Wall Street on the one hand, and an increasingly anxious Suburbia that delivers votes for the candidates and policies that Wall Street approves. He?s mortgaged the future of the great political bloc of Suburbia in order to rescue Wall Street ? from his perspective, and the perspective of all Chief Executives of the US state, an inevitable decision. It is that inevitability that defines Obama?s powerlessness? and the powerlessness of us all here in the wounded core nation. The lethal cross-border attack on the Abi Talib mosque in Iran week before last, launched from Pakistan?s volatile Balochistan (on the Iranian side, called Sistan-Balochistan province), demonstrates the ethnic permability of political borders in the region, and why Iran will inevitably be drawn into the Obama?s Laos-Cambodia gambit. (There was another attack in Peshwar yesterday, on a hotel.) Obama is gambling on Balochistan, even if the press completely ignores it. He needs his war (now called ?Overseas Contingency Operations,? which should cause the Bush spin-meisters to blush with envy) as a means of bootstrapping the American economy; and the case for Balochistan is overdetermined by several factors. From Balochistan and the New World Order (2006): Balochistan has only four percent of Pakistan?s population, though it occupies 44% of Pakistan?s land mass. Like its neighbor, Afghanistan, it is populated by religiously conservative ethnic Pashtuns living in extremely rugged and mountainous terrain. Like its neighbor, Iran, it possesses a geologic relic in abundance: fossil fuel, in this case the Sui natural gas field that produces 45% of Pakistan?s supply. It also contains a warm water port ? Gwadar ? only 70 kilometers from the Iranian border? ?there are suggestions that well-armed Balochi nationalists will soon be assisting in a fresh Taliban offensive against NATO occupation forces. And so Obama enters the Great Game. But it will yield neither pacific compliance from Southwest Asia nor the war-profit at home. Those ships sailed a long time ago. As America needs most desperately to re-tool its entire environment from our current abject dependence on peripheral loot (including fossil hydrocarbons), the political establishment ? dominated in the end by demagogues ? will continue with the equivalent of enabling addicts with comforting lies and provision of the drugs of choice. That the drugs will run out ? and this is sure ? is the decisive reality that ensures Obama?s failure. But failure ? terrifying as it may be ? is not nearly so awful as the unintended consequences latent in fueling war in this highly strategic and volatile situation. While the world stands breathless before Obama after his speech in Cairo, one where a head of the US state (atypically) acknowledged the basic humanity of a billion Muslims, reviving hope of some new direction for the world, this war that could even make eventual allies of Iran and the US is already rippling through the fragile demographic and political condition of Pakistan, where nuclear weapons are readied in their bunkers, and anti-Muslim Hindutva nationalism threatens a hostile resurgence in nuclear-neighboring India. The world?s second largest nation-state, India, is awash in Hindutva reactionaries who identify their masculinity with ?The Hindu Bomb.? (For a more in-depth look, albeit slightly dated, see ?India Takes the Stage? ? Part 2 Part 1 and .) While the Abi Talib attack and increasaingly frequent acts of political nihilism by violent Islamists have redirected Pakistani ire, for the moment, away from the US over its drone attacks, with their terrible civilian casualties, and against the Taliban-aligned forces; this will not last. The US will inevitably encounter the limits of unmanned aerial attacks ? both in cold-blooded efficacy and in the thresholds of tolerance for a people who watch the civilian casualties mount from this technological war of moral cowardice. War is the economic recovery package of last resort for superimperialism (now morphing into exterminism). It is already on the table. Plenty of changes. Not a lot of hope. From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 08:52:58 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:52:58 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Snapshot Of The New American Depression Message-ID: <4A2FC8CA.9000902@gmail.com> 5 job hunters for each opening in April Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, June 10, 2009 There were more than five job hunters for every job opening in April, according to a new U.S. Labor Department report that looks at employment in a different light. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover survey, released Tuesday, estimates how many U.S. firms are hiring in a given month. These detailed figures usually come about 30 days after the monthly unemployment rate is released. Tuesday's report said there were 2.5 million job openings in April, the lowest number on record since this survey began in December 2000. Given that approximately 13.7 million Americans were unemployed in April, that works out to nearly 5.5 job seekers for every job opening that month. When the recession began in December 2007, employers posted 4.4 million job openings and there were just 1.7 unemployed people competing for each listing, according to Heidi Shierholz with Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "Unemployed workers are facing an increasingly uphill battle in the search for work," she noted Tuesday. The U.S. unemployment rate was 8.9 percent in April. It rose to 9.4 percent in May and the economy lost 345,000 jobs, suggesting that the odds facing job-seekers will worsen when the next report on openings is released. California's unemployment rate is higher than the nation's and stands at 11 percent. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/09/BUM1183NC5.DTL So... What to do? WARMONGER See my forward from Stan Goff, Feral Scholar (Forgot the link: http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2009/06/10/warring-out-of-depression/ ) From pbond at mail.ngo.za Wed Jun 10 08:57:46 2009 From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:57:46 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Warring out of depression, Stan Goff Feral Scholar In-Reply-To: <4A2FC737.3060508@gmail.com> References: <4A2FC737.3060508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> A different argument - one made by David Harvey - is that the main way the war worked to get the world economy out of depression, was by devalorising the huge mass of overaccumulated 'real' capital in Japan and Europe. The destruction of the economic deadwood was a prerequisite for the rebuilding process and restart to accumulation. Such analysis distinguishes Marxist from Keynesian approaches to analysis. If so, this isn't going to do any good (not for the reasons Goff provides), as there's not much overaccumulated capital to be destroyed (although raising the price of oil by messing with Iran would have a similar effect, to be sure): Leighm wrote: > Warring out of depression > ... > But Obama is planning to use war as his /deus ex machina/, too. His > war is to be the Pakistan-Afghan-Iran War, with Iraq stuck to his > shoe. (He is /not/?withdrawing? from Iraq; and has stated that he > hasn?t the least intention of doing so, unless one considers a force > of 30,000 troops to be a non-occupation.) > > Roosevelt used Keynesianism at home and war abroad to save capitalism. > But Obama is not inheriting Roosevelt?s circumstances; his war will > fail, and his ?Keynesian? measures remain so contaminated with > neoliberalism?s residues that it will leave the US domestic economy in > a shambles that his dangerous (potentially nuclear) military > adventures will only exacerbate. > > > From rasherrs at eircom.net Wed Jun 10 15:45:24 2009 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:45:24 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable In-Reply-To: <4A2FC8CA.9000902@gmail.com> References: <4A2FC8CA.9000902@gmail.com> Message-ID: "The Mayans simply ran out of resources. They cut down all the trees to transport rocks from the quarries to make their ornate temples. Competing nobility, with each chief trying to show he was the biggest, got involved in what could only be described as an ''arms race'' to build the most splendid palace. This involved huge amounts of labour, which were taken from the farms and massively reduced the amount of farmers available to keep their agriculture going. They also cut down huge amounts of wood, causing massive soil erosion and flooding. The mad dash to build the most ornate palace used up enormous quantities of materials. To support this madness, the cities needed to produce enormous amounts of food and water, and they needed to pay for it. This was the ancient equivalent of people consuming far more than they could afford and getting into a monumental ''keeping up with the Joneses'' battle, which would ultimately bankrupt them. Interestingly, the Mayan currency was devalued during all this." (Moral of the Mayan meltdown; June 7th 2009; Sunday Business Post page 23). The above passage has been essentially lifted from Jared Diamond's work. If you read Jared's interesting book Collapse you will see this. David McWilliam makes no reference at all to Jared Diamond or his work in the article of his. This plagiarism by David damages his credibility and the credibility of its publisher The Sunday Business Post. Paddy Hackett From rasherrs at eircom.net Wed Jun 10 16:29:46 2009 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:29:46 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Warring out of depression, Stan Goff Feral Scholar In-Reply-To: <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> References: <4A2FC737.3060508@gmail.com> <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: But the problem, Patrick, is that there is an enormous oversupply of capital. The problem is that capitalism is too scared and even contradictory to follow its own logic and let the economic crash really crash. Instead it panics and pours billions of credit money into the economy. And what will be the outcome? A bubble even more inflated than any preceding bubbles. ("I am forever blowing bubbles") But even a depression on the scale of 1929 would not do the trick. Capitalism has become such a problem that it needs an inter-imperialist war to provide adequate profitability conditions. The business cycle turns into the war cycle. Paddy Hackett My blog's address: http://patrickhackett.blogspot.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Bond" To: "The A-List" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [A-List] Fwd: Warring out of depression, Stan Goff Feral Scholar A different argument - one made by David Harvey - is that the main way the war worked to get the world economy out of depression, was by devalorising the huge mass of overaccumulated 'real' capital in Japan and Europe. The destruction of the economic deadwood was a prerequisite for the rebuilding process and restart to accumulation. Such analysis distinguishes Marxist from Keynesian approaches to analysis. If so, this isn't going to do any good (not for the reasons Goff provides), as there's not much overaccumulated capital to be destroyed (although raising the price of oil by messing with Iran would have a similar effect, to be sure): Leighm wrote: > Warring out of depression > ... > But Obama is planning to use war as his /deus ex machina/, too. His > war is to be the Pakistan-Afghan-Iran War, with Iraq stuck to his > shoe. (He is /not/?withdrawing? from Iraq; and has stated that he > hasn?t the least intention of doing so, unless one considers a force > of 30,000 troops to be a non-occupation.) > > Roosevelt used Keynesianism at home and war abroad to save capitalism. > But Obama is not inheriting Roosevelt?s circumstances; his war will > fail, and his ?Keynesian? measures remain so contaminated with > neoliberalism?s residues that it will leave the US domestic economy in > a shambles that his dangerous (potentially nuclear) military > adventures will only exacerbate. > > > From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Jun 10 17:21:19 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:21:19 +1000 Subject: [A-List] =?windows-1252?q?United_States=3A_Solidarity_sometimes_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28exclusive_excerpt_from_Steve_Early=92s_new_book=2C_Em?= =?windows-1252?q?bedded_With_Organized_Labor=29_=7C_Links?= Message-ID: <4A303FEF.2010406@greenleft.org.au> With the permission of Monthly Review Press, /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ is publishing an exclusive excerpt from Steve Early?s new book, /Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home/. /Embedded With Organized Labor/ describes how trade union members in the United States have organised successfully, on the job and in the community, in the face of employer opposition now and in the past. Steve Early has produced a provocative series of essays -- an unusual exercise in ?participatory labor journalism? useful to any reader concerned about social and economic justice. As workers struggle to survive and the labour movements try to revive during the current economic crisis, this book provides ideas and inspiration for trade union activists and friends of labour alike. Steve Early has been an organiser, strike strategist, labour educator and lawyer. He recently retired from his job as national staff member of the Communications Workers of America. Early's articles, reviews and op-ed pieces have appeared in /The Nation/, /New Politics/, /CounterPunch/, /The Progressive/, /American Prospect/, /WorkingUSA/, /New Labor Forum/, /the New York Times/, /Wall Street Journal/, /Los Angeles Times/, /Boston Globe/ and many other publications. He is currently completing a book on the role of 1960s activists in US unions. Excerpt at http://links.org.au/node/1092 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 From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Jun 10 17:28:29 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:28:29 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable In-Reply-To: References: <4A2FC8CA.9000902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9F5AEBA89D024A0EB1FCFAB9DE48BA8C@TonyPC> Paddy, I looked through 'Collapse' but couldn't find such a passage...Indeed, I didn't expect to given the clumsiness of the writing which suggests that such a passage could not have come from Diamond. That, of course, these *ideas* are to be found in Diamond's book is uncontroversial, and that the author likely gleaned them from reading 'Collapse' is highly probable, if not almost certain....but strictly speaking, such is not 'plagiarism'. The author should, naturally, have referenced Diamond but, again, technically these ideas can likely be found in other books and amongst a raft of scholarly journals. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paddy Hackett" To: "The A-List" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:45 PM Subject: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable > "The Mayans simply ran out of resources. They cut down all the trees to > transport rocks from the quarries to make their ornate temples. > > Competing nobility, with each chief trying to show he was the biggest, got > involved in what could only be described as an ''arms race'' to build the > most splendid palace. This involved huge amounts of labour, which were > taken > from the farms and massively reduced the amount of farmers available to > keep > their agriculture going. > > They also cut down huge amounts of wood, causing massive soil erosion and > flooding. The mad dash to build the most ornate palace used up enormous > quantities of materials. To support this madness, the cities needed to > produce enormous amounts of food and water, and they needed to pay for it. > > This was the ancient equivalent of people consuming far more than they > could > afford and getting into a monumental ''keeping up with the Joneses'' > battle, > which would ultimately bankrupt them. Interestingly, the Mayan currency > was > devalued during all this." (Moral of the Mayan meltdown; June 7th 2009; > Sunday Business Post page 23). > > The above passage has been essentially lifted from Jared Diamond's work. > If > you read Jared's interesting book Collapse you will see this. David > McWilliam makes no reference at all to Jared Diamond or his work in the > article of his. This plagiarism by David damages his credibility and the > credibility of its publisher The Sunday Business Post. > > Paddy Hackett > > > > From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Jun 10 17:49:44 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:49:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Montenegro: World's Newest Mini-State Targeted By NATO Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: rwrozoff at yahoo.com To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:12 AM Subject: [stopnato] Montenegro: World's Newest Mini-State Targeted By NATO http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1244581321.98 Agence France-Presse June 9, 2009 NATO, EU membership is Montenegro's goal: PM PODGORICA - Membership of NATO and the European Union will be a strategic goal of Montenegro's new government, the tiny republic's veteran Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic said Tuesday. "The strategic goals remain unchanged for the new government," Djukanovic told parliament before presenting his cabinet which is expected to be approved on Wednesday. Djukanovic, the architect of Montenegro's independence, was given another mandate to form a government following a landslide victory for his coalition in March elections. Djukanovic's "European Montenegro" coalition won 48 seats in the 81-member parliament. The cabinet will be sixth led by Djukanovic, who has been in power since 1991. Only six newcomers are expected to be appointed in the new 20-member government, including Svetozar Marovic, former president of the union of Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegro, wedged between mountains and the Adriatic Sea with only 650,000 inhabitants, broke away from the union with Serbia in 2006 after a historic referendum. It applied to join the EU in December, while also pledging to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which last year invited the country to begin a dialogue on its membership aspirations. =========================== 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 3New 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 Wed Jun 10 17:50:50 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:50:50 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Swedish Anti-War Activists Arrested During NATO Exercise Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: rwrozoff at yahoo.com To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:11 AM Subject: [stopnato] Swedish Anti-War Activists Arrested During NATO Exercise http://www.thelocal.se/19984/20090610/ The Local June 10, 2009 Activists arrested during NATO exercise Five people were arrested on Wednesday morning after entering a bombing range in northern Sweden being used as a part of a major NATO training exercise. Police say those arrested are between 21- and 27-years-old and include four men and one women, reports the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper. Ofog, a network of peace activists committed to demilitarization, confirmed in a statement that at least four of its members had gained access to a bombing range near the Vidsel Air Base in Norrbotten. The base is one of two Swedish bases involved in Loyal Arrow, a NATO-led military exercise involving forces and equipment from ten countries, including Sweden. ?Yes, it was members of Ofog who were in the area,? said Ofog member Kajsa Sjoblom to the TT news agency. ?And we have new groups on the way to the area.? The point of the Ofog action was ?to stop the preparation of war crimes? and ?prevent NATO from bombing the area further?, the group said in a statement. After the Ofog activists had entered the bombing range, the group informed officials at the Vidsel base that civilians were in the area and that bombing exercises should be halted as a result. According to Ofog, the activists were in the restricted area for five hours before being apprehended by security guards at the base and handed over to police. ?They are on their way to Lulea for questioning. We don?t know any more at this time,? said Norbotten police spokesperson Ulf Suup to TT. ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=973064&lang=eng_news Associated Press June 10, 2009 Sweden: 5 protesters arrested during NATO exercise Police say five people have been arrested at a military base in northern Sweden after entering a protected zone during a NATO exercise. Police said Wednesday the four women and one man claim to be members of Swedish anti-NATO group OFOG. Police spokeswoman Anna-Lena Jonsson says the suspects are being questioned to establish what they were doing at the base. OFOG said on its Web site the action was a protest against the military alliance, which it claims is the "west's tool to retain an unfair world order." Sweden is not a member of NATO but allows exercises to be carried out on its land. The air exercise Loyal Arrow runs June 8-16. Ten NATO countries including the U.S., the U.K. and Germany are taking part. =========================== 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 3New 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 ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Wed Jun 10 14:33:18 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:33:18 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Don't bring your guns to town, boys! Message-ID: <01fda43a$39974$0cda6897792708@xnote> MOHAWKS SAY: DON?T BRING YOUR GUNS TO TOWN, BOYS! More food for thought. MNN. June 9, 2009. The cards have been thrown on the floor. This is how they are landing, whether accidental or intentional. It?s a businessmen?s war and they want to sacrifice the people. Mohawks telling the world to put their guns down is throwing a big monkey wrench into the works. The capitalist war thugs are having a hard time calling us terrorists if we don?t want guns or bombs or the arms race. Canada?s Minister of Public Safety, Peter Van Loan, told the Mohawks of Akwesasne, ?We won?t remove the blockade around you until you let us come in with our guns?. Peter, you sound like the president of the National Rifle Association. Why don?t you get a job selling guns at Wal Mart? There?s something odd going on here. People are asking, ?How many Canada Border Services Agents CBSA have been shot or killed?? None! How many Indigenous have been abused by border agents at Akwesasne? Hundreds! We, the Haudenosaunee are the legal sovereigns of Great Turtle Island. Canada has no jurisdiction over us or our territory. It?s a nation-to-nation issue which they have to respect if they are to act legally. The US and Europe have always maintained their power through stealing the resources of other people. Their decline is the result of losing their colonies. They want to become world powers again by starting new colonial empires through selling sophisticated military equipment. Control is by supplying armaments and technicians to military and para military forces in the worldwide market. The need for arms is being created by maintaining that there are terrorist threats around everywhere. They don?t want harmony between nations. US and Europe, the two main war economies, are competing for customers. Trillions of dollars are at stake to build jets, tanks and armaments. The US had a monopoly on making and selling arms around the world until their economic decline. They are losing their clout, customers and credibility. They can?t let anybody else sell war equipment to their cartels, especially in South America. They?re struggling to maintain control over a high population of Indigenous who are resisting exploitation. The Germans went to South America about 150 years ago when Krupp went there to build railroad and steel works. After WW II the Nazis fled there en masse. Their prot?g?s have formed a connection between Europeans and South Americans. Canada is being propositioned by many military hardware salesmen by offering incentives. Buy one and get one free! The Germans tried to cut in on the US arms market by bribing former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to help them set up a factory in Nova Scotia to make armaments. Mulroney double-crossed them. The French make the vaunted Exocet missiles and Mirage jets. They work closely with the Germans and Canadians. The French have a big share of the nuclear industry from uranium mining to nuclear waste management which is used in making weapons. Canada?s a big target due to their need for uranium. Two former presidents, Bill Clinton and George Bush, recently showed up in Toronto to let the world know that the Israelis, Americans and Canadians are on one team. Canada wants guns at the border. They?ll start with pistols, then bazookas and then tanks and surveillance towers. 1,500 armed soldiers could be put along the Canada/US border. Supplying armaments and building walls on the borders is a multi billion dollar business. It?s meant to create an atmosphere of fear between countries. Mohawks are caught in the middle. It?s strange that our message that there shall be no guns is seen as repugnant. It goes against their agenda to demonize us. History repeats itself. The colonists used the military to exploit us, kill us off and take everything we had. Now they want to do it worldwide. Natural resources are getting scare. Any place they can find it, they will get it, by hook or mostly by crook. Anyone who criticizes these new world order scumbags is attacked by their agents. The two NWO camps, the US and Europe, are preparing to fight each other to make trillions of dollars, or to come to terms and work together. The Mohawks are true to the legacy and heritage of our people. Long ago, Dekanawida, the peacemaker, brought a message to the Rotino?shonni:onwi to stop all warfare. He was born into warring nations. He helped bring the message of peace. Mohawks are showing colonial society for what they are, a corrupt power that intimidates and has no compassion. They want a worldwide police state where only government agents, military and para-military forces have guns and military equipment to control and shoot people. Politicians in Parliament are chanting, ?We want guns?. ?We want guns?! The Mohawks say, ?There will be no guns. There will be no guns!?. So we are blocked in by armed force. Someone wants to make a barrier between Canada and US. The border guards won?t go back to work. They?re cracking up. They will be replaced by hardened ruthless soldiers who are trained to create dangerous situations so they can shoot to kill. This situation is created by the arms dealers who control the governments. They are interested in selling guns. In the meantime, MNN is being attacked by German and French agents for putting out this message. They think we are blocking the sale of arms and getting in the way of world domination by a few. They are demanding that MNN post their messages or else! Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Contact Rotiskenrakete 514-269-1400. N. Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Supporters may send comments to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Supporters of Mohawks: MPs Jean Crowder, Indian Affairs critic crowdj at parl.gc.ca ; Anita Neville nevila at parl.gc.ca ; Marc Lemay lemaym at parl.gc.ca ; Sen. Nancy Green; Sen. Gerry St. Germain; From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Jun 10 18:36:56 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:36:56 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Team Obama / Cult Obama Message-ID: <4A3051A8.3010709@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Blum antiempirereport.blogspot.com (June 09 2009) The praise heaped on President Obama for his speech to the Muslim world by writers on the left, both here and abroad, is disturbing. I'm referring to people who I think should know better, who've taken Politics 101 and can easily see the many hypocrisies in Obama's talk, as well as the distortions, omissions, and contradictions, the true but irrelevant observations, the lies, the optimistic words without any matching action, the insensitivities to victims. Yet, these commentators are impressed, in many cases very impressed. In the world at large, this frame of mind borders on a cult. In such cases one must look beyond the intellect and examine the emotional appeal. We all know the world is in big trouble - Three Great Problems: universal, incessant violence; financial crisis provoking economic suffering; environmental degradation. In all three areas the United States bears more culpability than any other single country. Who better to satisfy humankind's craving for relief than a new American president who, it appears, understands the problems; admits, to one degree or another, his country's responsibility for them; and "eloquently" expresses his desire and determination to change US policies and embolden the rest of the world to follow his inspiring example. Is it any wonder that it's 1964, the Beatles have just arrived in New York, and everyone is a teenage girl? I could go through the talk Obama gave in Cairo and point out line by line the hypocrisies, the mere platitudes, the plain nonsense, and the rest. ("I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States". - No mention of it being outsourced, probably to the very country he was speaking in, amongst others ... "No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons". - But this is precisely what the United States is trying to do concerning Iran and North Korea.) But since others have been pointing out these lies very well I'd like to try something else in dealing with the problem - the problem of well-educated people, as well as the not so well-educated, being so moved by a career politician saying "all the right things" to give food for hope to billions starving for it, and swallowing it all as if they had been born yesterday. I'd like to take them back to another charismatic figure, Adolf Hitler, speaking to the German people two years and four months after becoming Chancellor, addressing a Germany still reeling with humiliation from its being The Defeated Nation in the World War, with huge losses of its young men, still being punished by the world for its militarism, suffering mass unemployment and other effects of the great depression. Here are excerpts from the speech of May 21 1935. Imagine how it fed the hungry German people. --------------------- I conceive it my duty to be perfectly frank and open in addressing the nation. I frequently hear from Anglo-Saxon tribes expressions of regret that Germany has departed from those principles of democracy, which in those countries are held particularly sacred. This opinion is entirely erroneous. Germany, too, has a democratic Constitution. Our love of peace perhaps is greater than in the case of others, for we have suffered most from war. None of us wants to threaten anybody, but we all are determined to obtain the security and equality of our people. The World War should be a cry of warning here. Not for a second time can Europe survive such a catastrophe. Germany has solemnly guaranteed France her present frontiers, resigning herself to the permanent loss of Alsace-Lorraine. She has made a treaty with Poland and we hope it will be renewed and renewed again at every expiry of the set period. The German Reich, especially the present German Government, has no other wish except to live on terms of peace and friendship with all the neighboring States. Germany has nothing to gain from a European war. What we want is liberty and independence. Because of these intentions of ours we are ready to negotiate non-aggression pacts with our neighbor States. Germany has neither the wish nor the intention to mix in internal Austrian affairs, or to annex or to unite with Austria. The German Government is ready in principle to conclude non-aggression pacts with its individual neighbor States and to supplement those provisions which aim at isolating belligerents and localizing war areas. In limiting German air armament to parity with individual other great nations of the west, it makes possible that at any time the upper figure may be limited, which limit Germany will then take as a binding obligation to keep within. Germany is ready to participate actively in any efforts for drastic limitation of unrestricted arming. She sees the only possible way in a return to the principles of the old Geneva Red Cross convention. She believes, to begin with, only in the possibility of the gradual abolition and outlawing of fighting methods which are contrary to this convention, such as dum-dum bullets and other missiles which are a deadly menace to civilian women and children. To abolish fighting places, but to leave the question of bombardment open, seems to us wrong and ineffective. But we believe it is possible to ban certain arms as contrary to international law and to outlaw those who use them. But this, too, can only be done gradually. Therefore, gas and incendiary and explosive bombs outside of the battle area can be banned and the ban extended later to all bombing. As long as bombing is free, a limitation of bombing planes is a doubtful proposition. But as soon as bombing is branded as barbarism, the building of bombing planes will automatically cease. Just as the Red Cross stopped the killing of wounded and prisoners, it should be possible to stop the bombing of civilians. In the adoption of such principles, Germany sees a better means of pacification and security for peoples than in all the assistance pacts and military conventions. The German Government is ready to agree to every limitation leading to abandonment of the heaviest weapons which are especially suitable for aggression. These comprise, first, the heaviest artillery and heaviest tanks. Germany declares herself ready to agree to the delimitation of caliber of artillery and guns on dreadnoughts, cruisers and torpedo boats. Similarly, the German Government is ready to adopt any limitation on naval tonnage, and finally to agree to the limitation of tonnage of submarines or even to their abolition, provided other countries do likewise. The German Government is of the opinion that all attempts effectively to lessen tension between individual States through international agreements or agreements between several States are doomed to failure unless suitable measures are taken to prevent poisoning of public opinion on the part of irresponsible individuals in speech, writing, in the film and the theatre. The German Government is ready any time to agree to an international agreement which will effectively prevent and make impossible all attempts to interfere from the outside in affairs of other States. The term 'interference' should be internationally defined. If people wish for peace it must be possible for governments to maintain it. We believe the restoration of the German defense force will contribute to this peace because of the simple fact that its existence removes a dangerous vacuum in Europe. We believe if the peoples of the world could agree to destroy all their gas and inflammable and explosive bombs this would be cheaper than using them to destroy one another. In saying this I am not speaking any longer as the representative of a defenseless State which could reap only advantages and no obligations from such action from others. I cannot better conclude my speech to you, my fellow-figures and trustees of the nation, than by repeating our confession of faith in peace: Whoever lights the torch of war in Europe can wish for nothing but chaos. We, however, live in the firm conviction our times will see not the decline but the renaissance of the West. It is our proud hope and our unshakable belief Germany can make an imperishable contribution to this great work. {1} -- End of speech excerpts -- How many people in the world, including numerous highly educated Germans, reading or hearing that speech in 1935, doubted that Adolf Hitler was a sincere man of peace and an inspiring, visionary leader? _____ Note: The entire speech can be found at: http://members.tripod.com/~Comicism/350521.html Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned. http://antiempirereport.blogspot.com/ http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From Waistline2 at aol.com Wed Jun 10 18:38:45 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:38:45 EDT Subject: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable Message-ID: Within professional academia . . . no. Outside . . . . yes. The bottom line issue is accuracy of conceptions and their partisan political character. WL. **************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell?s full line of laptops. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222008777x1201444407/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566094%3B3786435 8%3Bv) From tal1 at cogeco.ca Wed Jun 10 18:56:40 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:56:40 -0400 Subject: [A-List] On the anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty Message-ID: <44AB8D251E7F4A178D505E24B0793C12@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony B." Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:56 PM Subject: On the anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty > > ...Many of you will already have been apprised of this event..but if not, > the documentary tagged below is well worth watching..(50 min). ..if only > as a witness to 'history'. > > Tony > > > >> >> Apparently, Hilary Clinton is threatening >> Iran with an "Iraq-like" attack. >> >> On whose behalf? >> >> Coincidentally, yesterday was the anniversary >> of the attack and near-sinking of the >> USS Liberty by America's "closest ally" >> in the Middle East. >> >> A story every American should know and >> very, very few do. >> >> Details: >> >> http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/18.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/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0LBycjKwsnA== >> >> > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 21:53:47 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:53:47 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Warring out of depression, Stan Goff Feral Scholar In-Reply-To: <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> References: <4A2FC737.3060508@gmail.com> <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <4A307FCB.9020208@gmail.com> Patrick Bond wrote: > A different argument - one made by David Harvey - is that the main way > the war worked to get the world economy out of depression, was by > devalorising the huge mass of overaccumulated 'real' capital in Japan > and Europe. The destruction of the economic deadwood was a > prerequisite for the rebuilding process and restart to accumulation. > Such analysis distinguishes Marxist from Keynesian approaches to > analysis. I believe much of current war-making policy is driven by the long-term need for continually expanding market in the region and extractive resources (with the Horn of Africa containing a similar mix of resources as a fallback if Western troops are forced out of C. Asia) as opposed to destroying property to create a market for 'replacement parts' so to speak. That's Soooo 20th century (giggle) Afghanistan NEEDS iPods (like a hole it their Yurt during winter) and xtian proselytizing soldiers will bring them. Here's an interesting note from a COIN (Counter Insurgency) blog that I peek at occasionally: The power brokers in the Afghan government stand to make millions and millions and millions of dollars off our counterinsurgency efforts. There is no profit for them in peace; if we eliminate the poppy, bring a decent standard of living to the Afghans and go home Afghanistan would become a country with a GDP around $175.00. The money pipeline would dry up for the powerful and connected and money is all they really care about. I could be reading this wrong mind you.. but I doubt it. http://blog.freerangeinternational.com/?p=1726 (Good map of which coalition forces are where in Afghanistan too... The US has pretty much a monopoly on the Pakistani border ) Hard to sell iPods to people who average $175us/Yr, so, for now, war it is... Leigh > > If so, this isn't going to do any good (not for the reasons Goff > provides), as there's not much overaccumulated capital to be destroyed > (although raising the price of oil by messing with Iran would have a > similar effect, to be sure): > > Leighm wrote: >> Warring out of depression >> ... >> But Obama is planning to use war as his /deus ex machina/, too. His >> war is to be the Pakistan-Afghan-Iran War, with Iraq stuck to his >> shoe. (He is /not/?withdrawing? from Iraq; and has stated that he >> hasn?t the least intention of doing so, unless one considers a force >> of 30,000 troops to be a non-occupation.) >> >> Roosevelt used Keynesianism at home and war abroad to save >> capitalism. But Obama is not inheriting Roosevelt?s circumstances; >> his war will fail, and his ?Keynesian? measures remain so >> contaminated with neoliberalism?s residues that it will leave the US >> domestic economy in a shambles that his dangerous (potentially >> nuclear) military adventures will only exacerbate. >> >> >> > > From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 22:33:51 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:33:51 -0700 Subject: [A-List] What Does The Archipelago Of Palau Have To Do With Guantanamo? Message-ID: <4A30892F.6060509@gmail.com> 20090610 Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: What Does The Archipelago Of Palau Have To Do With Guantanamo? That's Where America, In It's Fear, Is Going To Send A Group Of Guantanamo *Non-Combatants* Along With MILLIONS Of American Dollars Also, other articles and linkage about this topic on page: ArchiveDotOrg: http://www.archive.org/details/tth_090610-2 Razed By Wolves: http://razedbywolves.blogspot.com/2009/06/20090610-2-commentary-what-does.html From rasherrs at eircom.net Thu Jun 11 02:26:38 2009 From: rasherrs at eircom.net (Paddy Hackett) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:26:38 +0100 Subject: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79474A0F760741FF85F6822F18ECA388@paddyhacket> Why only within professional academia? Why the privileging? Paddy Hackett ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:38 AM Subject: Re: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable Within professional academia . . . no. Outside . . . . yes. The bottom line issue is accuracy of conceptions and their partisan political character. WL. **************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell?s full line of laptops. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222008777x1201444407/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566094%3B3786435 8%3Bv) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jun 11 03:58:59 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:58:59 +0900 Subject: [A-List] The Money that Prays Message-ID: <20090611185859.b1687bc2.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Jeremy Harding London Review of Books (April 30 2009) Last September, as dust and debris from the tellers' floors began raining onto the empty vaults below, a note of satisfaction was sounded by bankers in the Arab world. Financial institutions sticking to the tenets of Islam, they announced, were largely immune from the debt crisis. Devout Muslims may lend and borrow under certain conditions; they can even buy and sell debt in the form of 'Islamic' bonds, but most other kinds of debt trading are frowned on. Al Rajhi Bank, based in Saudi Arabia, and the Kuwait Finance House posted impressive profits in 2008. Both have come under some nervous scrutiny in 2009 but their ability to weather the recession that has set in behind the credit crunch is not at issue. Unlike most banks in the Middle East, Al Rajhi Bank and KFH are 'sharia-compliant' businesses, which means simply that they try to abide by the evolving body of rules known as the sharia - 'the path to the headwater' - which govern the lives of Muslims. The sharia serves mostly as a guide to personal conduct, though some rules are drafted into the legal codes of majority-Muslim states. It's founded, we're always told, on revealed truth from the Koran and exemplary stories from the Hadith, the sayings and doings of the Prophet. But the real influence of the sharia lies in the way this material is constantly read and recast by modern Islamic scholars, reinventing old traditions or asserting new ones. Whatever they take it to be, growing numbers of Muslims are keen to stay on the path when it comes to banking and finance. The global Muslim population is upwards of 1.3 billion - roughly one in every five people on earth - and, with a religious revival of twenty or thirty years' standing, the way of Islam is now a crowded thoroughfare. It is plied by a great diversity of travellers from different parts of the world; some have money to burn, others next to none, but anybody with a modicum of wealth is nowadays a potential opportunity for banks offering sharia-compliant retail services: current accounts, straightforward financing schemes and home-ownership plans. The term 'Islamic finance' wrests a lot of activities down to a catch-all definition. The same is true, in the financial universe, of the words 'sharia' and 'Islam' itself. Sharia is not a single, coherent jurisprudence for Muslims; there are various schools of interpretation and marked disagreements within each of them. 'Islam', a broad term of convenience for most non-Muslims, is a power-point word in the City: it tells bankers and traders that every day for a few minutes they should shut out the din of the money that merely talks and tune in to the money that prays. But why bother, given that sharia-compliant finance is probably worth less than one per cent of the total value of the world's stocks, bonds and bank deposits? This was reckoned at about $170 trillion in 2007; it's much less than that now of course, but even so, with a value of around $700 billion, Islamic stocks, bonds and bank deposits remain a minority affair, just as Muslims remain a minority in global terms. What fascinates the markets about Islamic finance, however, is its dramatic growth in recent years and confident predictions that it's set to expand at fifteen to twenty per cent every year. Its allure for moderately prosperous, pious Muslims - and quite a few non-Muslims recoiling from the debt crisis in anger and disgust - is different. They admire what they see as a promise to achieve stability and transparency, and a sense of proportion about money: look it in the eye, tell it you like it, but admit that you have lingering doubts about the transcendent value of paper. That's an unsophisticated position, but since the credit crunch not many people trust the sophisticated keepers of the modern money culture; in this sense the rise of sharia-compliant products is also a challenge to the unofficial, polytheist faith of offshore Britannia: the worship of markets in general and financial markets in particular. One of the central differences between the Islamic and conventional approaches to finance is that our own cults - which may well see a revision before the end of this crisis - ascribe supernatural powers to money. Cult specialists are at great pains to understand and control how it works, but admit that it does so in magical ways that go beyond the effects of human commerce (for the markets, too, have magical attributes, including innate goodness). Whatever we want from money, we suspect, as devotees, that in the end it will always behave as it sees fit. Our awe of it is a bit like a rapt meditation on the way the shower of gold behaves - shimmering and falling - when it cascades over Danae in her cloister in Argos. In the story, it's merely the form chosen by Zeus for her seduction, but in our meditation, there is no Olympian in disguise and no intention to seduce, just the metal shimmering and falling, in consummate self-expression, as deity and dogma. Islamic approaches - there are quite a few - are much closer to Nonconformist and Anglican traditions, where the divinity stands to the side of money, reminding the faithful that he is one thing and mammon another. Money, in this view, is an object of caution rather than superstition - and, in spite of its dangers, a useful tool for anyone who wants to build a respectable world, with God's instructions pinned to the wall above the workbench. Maybe this is why sharia-compliant products have been gaining popularity among British Muslims, even if they differ only slightly from conventional ones. Take the home-ownership scheme offered by HSBC's sharia-compliant range, Amanah (amanah means 'trust' in the moral and legal sense). Muslims are forbidden to pay or receive interest and troubled by conventional lending, because it appears to put the burden of risk on the borrower not the lender: in the Islamic view, no transaction is ethical unless risk is fairly distributed between the parties. HSBC Amanah's scheme is based on an Islamic contract known as 'diminishing musharaka' and it's approved, like all HSBC Amanah's services, by a board of sharia scholars. A would-be home-owner must put up forty per cent of the cost price (much less before the credit crunch); the property is registered in a trust (amanah) as a jointly owned asset, with the bank's majority ownership diminishing over an agreed period, as regular payments are made; the customer promises to buy the bank's share, and the bank promises to sell it to the client. The property is envisaged as a set of units and the customer's payments as twofold: one part is rental, for the right to live in it, another is a form of unit-acquisition. The trust keeps a tally of the bank's diminishing ownership and the growing share to the customer. At term, the trust is dissolved and the home passes to the customer. In the meantime, no interest has been charged. But the rental payments received by HSBC Amanah for its willingness to share a risk will have been reviewed - and therefore been subject to change, much like the interest charge on a variable-rate mortgage - at regular intervals. Indeed, rental charges are likely to track changes in a conventional interest rate, for instance Libor, the London Interbank Offered Rate. In the eyes of some Muslims, the resemblance of the rental element to an interest charge casts doubt on the 'Islamic' nature of the scheme; others are happy to say that even when two things are alike, this does not make them identical. The questions of likeness and difference, and what constitutes real compliance, are hotly debated among Muslims throughout the world. As regards risk-sharing, HSBC Amanah's scheme seems little different from those of other lenders when customers fail to keep up payments ('default' is not a sharia-compliant word). The bank will pursue a customer if it thinks the reasons for the failure were 'avoidable', because this would constitute a breach of the promise to buy. But it claims not to handle a genuine misfortune the way conventional mortgage providers deal with a default. Both parties share any losses according to the proportionate ownership at the time. The bank can seize the contents of a customer's current account to offset some of its own losses, but there the matter ends. No question of a debt-collecting agency taking up where the bank left off. Most mortgage companies in the US also draw a line under default, but among Islamic home-ownership providers in Britain this approach has encouraged prudence. Amjid Ali, who heads HSBC Amanah's UK operation, told me that in the first five years of its sharia-compliant home-ownership scheme, he had processed applications to the value of GBP 700 million, of which, after judicious sifting, more than half had come good. He knew of only one case that hadn't worked out: the customer was given eighteen months' grace, at the end of which the house was sold. Devout Muslims who think the HSBC Amanah approach is uncomfortably close to the way a conventional default is handled must surely have had their views confirmed by the government's insistence to mortgage lenders, since the recession set in, that patience with people in difficulty would put a floor under falling house prices and send out a 'caring' signal (reluctant bankers call it empathy). But perhaps the same Muslims derive a certain satisfaction from the fact that conventional mortgage lenders are beating a path to the headwater. A home-buyer signing up to a diminishing musharaka would have to take out buildings insurance with a clause that covered the bank as well. But Islamic tradition is uneasy with conventional insurance. First, there's contractual uncertainty (the devilish detail of insurance policies); second, a risk has been bought by another party, and this is scarcely ever acceptable; third, far from looking like circumspection, conventional insurance has every appearance of a punt, with croupier and client sizing up the odds - and gambling is forbidden. An Islamic option, now available in the UK, allows devout Muslims to subscribe regular payments to a managed mutual fund and think of the process as an exercise in solidarity. This arrangement, known as takaful, was on offer from HSBC Amanah until the end of last year, when it realised that customers found the costs too high: ethical products, like principles, are more expensive, and less profitable, than off-the-shelf alternatives. Collective underwriting was the main feature of the retired model, shared with other takaful services clinging on in a difficult market. The sharia board instructed HSBC that if the fund was underspent by more than GBP 25 per subscriber in a given year, members could have money back or make it over to the launch of a micro-credit scheme in Pakistan. Rising costs are the reality of most insurance, but for takaful members they are mitigated by the concept of 'donation'; subscribers may be grudging or disgruntled, but tradition urges them to see the cost of mutuality as part of their obligation to share risk with their fellow members. If it seems unacceptably high, and there are enough takaful co-operatives around, they're free to chase down a better option. Takaful cover has its origins in Arab seafaring mutuals (not unlike the whaling mutuals, centuries later, of the Quaker communities in New Bedford and Nantucket). It is a small sector of the global insurance business, already thriving in Malaysia and said by its advocates to be growing throughout the world. In Britain, which prides itself on its multiculturalism and its financial services in almost equal measure, takaful has been endorsed by the minister for trade and investment, the Chartered Insurance Institute and the lord mayor of the City of London. Like all sharia-compliant products in the UK - and everywhere, as far as I know - it's available to non-Muslims. One Muslim scholar told me that they already account for sixteen to twenty per cent of the clientele for Islamic retail products in Britain. No need to recite the shahada if you want a sharia-compliant loan from the Islamic Bank of Britain, Lloyds TSB or a UK branch of the Arab Banking Corporation. The idea of conventional insurance as a wager is taken seriously, and sometimes to extremes. Until he was denied the right to re-enter the UK in 2005, Omar Bakri Muhammad, the Syrian radical, was said to drive around uninsured on the grounds that a third-party policy with Kwik Fit or the AA was an abomination in the eyes of God. As a proselytiser for Hizb ut-Tahrir and later a star of Al-Muhajiroun, Bakri had a headstrong attachment to the sharia, even when he was a guest of the Home Office. Many British Muslims, pleased to see the back of him, thought that the danger he courted by refusing to take out cover was itself a gamble in which he wagered his faith against the laws of his host country. Perhaps, if he'd still been around, he'd have joined the first British sharia-compliant car insurance scheme, Salaam Halal Insurance, when it was launched last summer (call centres handle inquiries 'in English, Arabic, Bengali, Gujarati or Urdu'). It isn't just in Britain, and it isn't only in the retail banking sector, that sharia-compliance is catching on. The last ten years have also seen a surge in sharia-compliant securities available to corporate and institutional investors in many parts of the world who want to stick to the rules of the faith. It's a new impulse: in the 1970s, when the oil-producing states were awash with money, there weren't too many worries about petrodollars flooding into the purchase of US Treasury bonds, even though they bore interest, and there were few alternatives to conventional securities. This isn't the case any longer. Malaysia is rich with opportunities for investors in compliant bonds; in Europe, the German Land of Saxony-Anhalt issued the first 'Islamic' government bond in 2004; the British Treasury has also looked into the possibility of issuing sharia-compliant bills. Meanwhile there's no shortage of choice in equities. The Dow Jones Islamic Market (DJIM) started up in 1999: it now has dozens of indices and lists hundreds of companies whose products are approved by its board of sharia scholars. Nation-states may decide to devalue their currencies or privatise their telecommunications, but the odds are against them adopting full sharia-compliance. A few years ago Sudan had a unitary sharia banking system, but since the peace deal between Khartoum and the non-Muslim SPLA in 2005, conventional banking has become the norm in southern Sudan. That leaves Iran as the only country that boasts a banking system operating fully on Islamic principles (the evils of interest, it argues, obtain only if the borrower and lender are wholly distinct, and since Iranian banks are nationalised, the country's interbank lending rate is regarded as a family foible). All other Muslim-majority states have conventional or dual systems; in all cases, the central banks behave conventionally. Conversion to sharia would be ruinous for a wealthy city-state like Dubai, thriving - until the crunch - on Western finance and the 'conventional' lifestyles of expatriates. At the end of last year, the monthly retail-purchase interest on a Platinum Visa card issued by the National Bank of Dubai was 2.99 per cent, while Dubai's sovereign debt stood at 148 per cent of GDP - both well out of order for a conscientious Muslim. Dubai has been on the ropes since last September, but even in better times, the ruling family, like the government of Malaysia, had encouraged sharia-financing across a range of state-funded development projects. Gulf regimes are keenly aware of the changes in fashion that have driven demand for sharia-compliance. So is the private sector. Many innovative sharia-compliant instruments have been theorised - and some of them applied - by companies whose interest in Islam is decidedly recent, among them Deutsche Bank as well as HSBC. Their idea is to access the large amounts of cash swilling around to no great avail in the Gulf: an ambition reciprocated by the owners of this money, who want to put it to work. The difference between now and 1973 is not one of quantity: liquidity in the Gulf has been high again, partly as a result of oil prices, partly because billions of dollars were repatriated from the West by worried owners after 9/11, but also because the Islamic revival has left many Muslims doubting the wisdom of conventional investment. The diffusion of sharia-compliant financial products has opened new routes for their money. For a while some of it headed towards Malaysia and, until the end of last year, plenty was creeping westward again. The appetite for world markets remains strong, but it now answers more closely to the will of God. The prohibitions for Muslims are puzzling to the modern commercial mind. The first obstacle for a pious Muslim trading and banking in conventional economies is interest, the term I've been using for the Arabic riba, though its literal sense is closer to 'excess' and it is sometimes translated as 'usury'. Often, in the Hadith and even more in recent proselytising on the internet, riba is said to be 'eaten'. One of the objections to riba is its propensity to up-end the social order. A person who consumes riba bungles the proper management of need - his own and his debtor's - whereupon the grand plan of give and take, sufficiency for rich and poor alike, begins to come apart. This, as Charles Tripp explains in Islam and the Moral Economy (2006), is also a challenge to 'the balance and proportion of God's ordering of the universe', which must be reflected in 'human relations'. Islamic tradition warns that riba is likely to lead to injustice and exploitation. There's a categorical objection, too: that money may not be conjured up from money to generate like from like. The goods that served (we're told) as currency in Islamic tradition - gold, silver, salt, grain and dates - can only be exchanged 'hand to hand', that is, in a spot transaction, without deferment; and only at parity, one quantity for its exact equivalent, no more, no less. It's not clear why you'd want to swap something - a gold weight, say - for its identical other, but the point here is probably that units of currency, unlike the shirt or the saddle for which they're exchanged, must be beyond any cavilling with regard to value for the system to hold up: an Islamic marker set down fourteen centuries ago against arbitrage. In a story told by Abu Said al Khudri, one of Muhammad's younger companions, the Prophet describes the transaction of a greater number of low-grade dates for a smaller number of quality dates as riba. The most famous chapter and verse on riba is in sura two of the Koran. It warns that dealing in riba will bring on madness or 'torment' (via 'Satan's touch'), and that if you're not prepared to waive a mark-up on a debt, war will be waged against you by God and the Prophet. One sharia-compliant banker I met last year told me that's about as bad as it gets. There is also an injunction to forgive debt in a broader sense: 'If the debtor is in difficulty, then delay things ... Still, if you were to write it off as an act of charity, that would be better for you, if only you knew' (the rules followed by HSBC Amanah try to catch something of this). The charging of riba, it follows, is always a missed opportunity to act generously, to give where a gift is in order, a gesture highly prized in Islamic tradition. In a faith embodied by a trader prophet and espoused by an impressive trading community for which, at its height, knowledge was a key commodity, believers are admonished not to confuse riba with trade. From the second sura, again: 'God has allowed trade and forbidden usury'. In Economics, Ethics and Religion (1997) Rodney Wilson went through the 6226 verses of the Koran and found that 1400 refer to 'economic issues'. It follows that there is a vast body of scholarly opinion dealing with money. A fatwa about charging for debt, or any financial matter, issued by a group of experts such as the Fiqh Academy in Jeddah can carry great weight for certain Muslims, and less for others. In the sharia, like any code which hasn't ossified, the element of interpretation is crucial and within each of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, there are divergent views, especially between conservatives and modernisers and especially about money. Yet not all the source material under interpretation is stable or straightforward. In the Hadith, for instance, it's said that the Prophet warned against seventy different forms of riba. These have decayed and combined under the pressures of modernity, but there's still room for doubt. Modern nuance can be as puzzling to a non-Muslim (maybe even a Muslim) as the founding inventories: Wilson records a sharia ruling in the United Arab Emirates which found that simple interest was permissible and only compound interest forbidden. Riba catches many non-Muslims out. After a long study of Islamic finance, the anthropologist Bill Maurer couldn't settle on 'interest' as the perfect translation: it seemed clear at first but became streaky as he looked closer. 'Usury' is the obvious alternative, but are we to rely on the older sense of the term - any charge, however small, for the use of borrowed money - or on the way it's understood today, as extortionate interest only? Wilson, a professor in the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham who is intrigued by 'the influences of religious belief on economic behaviour', holds that riba is usury in the first sense. That's the view of most practising Muslims; it seems to echo the meaning of the word in Deuteronomy, where Moses instructs the people of Israel not to lend to their own kith and kin at a rate: 'Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury'. Very close to 'interest' after all then. Yet if, like Melanie Phillips, you believe Islamic banking in the UK merely hastens the day when a green flag is raised over Westminster, it's important to think of 'usury' in the later sense, in order to insist that Muslim law is either deluded or deceitful: 'The whole issue of sharia finance', Phillips wrote last year, 'is based on a fabrication ... sharia does not proscribe interest. It proscribes usury.' Were riba just a term for exploitative lending, however, one or two countries might have shuffled nearer to a unitary sharia banking system. But the sharia has few attractions for exchequers and central banks in a modern economy, where the interest rate is a basic tool of monetary policy. The appeal of sharia-compliant banking and investing is in essence to the individual conscience. The emphasis on risk-sharing in HSBC Amanah's products - and all Islamic products - is related to the prohibition on interest: it's obvious to the devout Muslim that collecting interest on a debt involves no risk worth the name; all that's required, in this view, is for a creditor to sit back and wait. The exposure involved in the mere lending of money - self-evident to a non-Muslim - is an unticked box in Islamic tradition, while savings, for which non-Muslims see interest as a fair reward, give rise to worries about hoarding: money should be out there doing the work that enables trade to flourish. A Treasury expert would say Islamic tradition approves of narrow money; a historian would remember Bacon's essay 'Of Seditions and Troubles' and his famous dictum that muck is 'not good except it be spread'. (The essay goes on: 'This is done chiefly by suppressing, or at the least keeping a strait hand upon the devouring trades of usury'.) Risk-sharing, like generosity, puts human relations on an even keel in the Islamic view. A capitalist can weigh a risk but shouldn't accept a promise from a partner to eliminate it: that would be 'risk-transfer', which denies the inherent truth of risk. (In the eyes of sharia scholars it also opens up a vista of potential exploitation, especially when risk is passed on in unknowable ways, say in the form of a mortgage-backed security with a dodgy rating.) No one must guarantee investors' money, except against fraud. Interest and risk-evasion are largely absent, Islamic investors believe, from the world of stocks and shares. To invest in a company is to sign up to joint ownership and collective risk, while ordinary shares pay dividends not interest. Even so, there are constraints. It is forbidden to invest in companies that have anything to do with gambling and you're unlikely to find a business listed in the Dow Jones Islamic Markets indexes with more than a toehold in this area of the leisure industry. In sura two of the Koran, the evils of drinking and gambling are deemed to outweigh their benefits - though these are granted - and maisir (the drawing of arrows, like straws, to divine a course of action or simply to bet) is condemned in sura two. There are other exclusions for devout shareholders. Clearly breweries and distilleries are off-limits, along with pork products. Pornography offends on three overlapping counts: shame, obscenity and baghi, loosely speaking, 'transgression', 'injustice' or 'trespass', anything intrusive then, from a misunderstanding of privacy to a foreign occupation. The DJIM indexes exclude most media businesses but also hotel chains, where minibars and adult channels lower the tone (basement gaming rooms too). Critically, daily trading in debt and riba makes almost all conventional financial institutions, including banks, unacceptable. The way companies that survive this triage are run must next be examined closely. Sharia scholars are unlikely to approve of a firm whose clients owe it large amounts of money - 'accounts receivable' - or one that depends on high returns from interest. The bigger question, though, is a company's financial structure - how much of its capital it has raised by borrowing and how much by selling its performance or potential in the form of share distributions. The DJIM board of sharia advisers screens out any company whose debt is higher than one third of its market capitalisation (a valuation based on the total number of shares issued times the prevailing share price). Debt is a problem in its own right. Borrowing on a regular, matter-of-fact basis is open to question since sharia scholars are wary of conventional banking's dependence on interbank borrowing. The ideal Islamic bank, Rodney Wilson told me, is financed entirely by its depositors' money. In practice, there is plenty of imperfection, but a compliant bank will want to stay as close as possible to this model. Like riba, debt also raises fears about poverty and injustice (some Muslim NGOs are as evangelical about Third World debt as their Christian and secular counterparts). In the Hadith, debt presents a troubling face once the possibility of deferment arises, as it might with a debtor in difficulty. Is it a good thing or a bad thing to put off repayment? Does it matter whether the debtor is wealthy or poor? Bad faith is always threatening to break in on the relationship between a debtor and a creditor: a debtor says he can pay back a loan but how can he be sure? All this drags human relations into the realm of uncertainty - gharar - from which faith, the discourse of absolute certainty, was supposed to protect them. In commerce, gharar is best avoided. Whence the persistence of doubts about contracting for things that don't (yet) exist: tradition might allow for a joiner taking orders on furniture he hadn't yet made, but it disqualified the sale of a foal that was still in the body of the mare. Even the benign, textbook version of the forward contract - a farmer and a miller agreeing a grain price ahead of the harvest - brings a sense of uneasiness. The concept of gharar doesn't just apply to goods whose status is in doubt, but to bargains whose terms are ambiguous and contracting parties whose liability is vague. Though it's often translated as 'hazard', it's not the same as risk, which Muslim societies understand as well as anyone. Business risk is unavoidable and begins when a cargo plane taxis towards the runway. Gharar has more to do with the commercial imagination running ahead of itself: speculation still troubles Islamic scholars; many take a dim view not just of credit derivatives, the villains of the banking crisis, but of any instrument whose value is based on a contract for an underlying asset rather than the asset itself. This is changing, slowly, as a growing number of experts wrestle with intellectual tradition till they get to a place where derivatives, some in any case, appear acceptable. But no sharia adviser would approve of an Islamic financial institution bundling toxic mortgage debts into securities and packing them off to market, still less buying them up. To a conscientious Muslim, this is the perfect storm, in which opaque liabilities, the unknown nature of the underlying debt, fair-weather forecasts by ratings agencies, plus risk transfer and riba, conspire to wreck large parts of the fleet. Is there anyone clinging to the flotsam, post-9/15, who disagrees? Non-Muslims will recognise the process of screening companies out of a portfolio: many charities and individuals have been doing it for years. The fashion in the West for Socially Responsible Investment (SRI), which gained ground in the 1980s and 90s, has become a model for Muslims. That's the view of Mufti Barkatulla, a scholar trained in Uttar Pradesh, and now an adviser on several sharia boards in the UK, among them the Islamic Bank of Britain and Lloyds TSB. He points out that sharia scholars (including the ones who advise the DJIM) rule against investments in tobacco companies and arms manufacturers, even though Islam has no quarrel with either. The sharia is strictly speaking a matter of law, but sharia-compliance and SRI are, in Barkatulla's sense of it, largely about the intimate decisions of prosperous individuals and the grandiose 'ethical' claims of big business. Sharia-compliance doesn't have the boycott component that turns SRI from a sum of personal choices into a self-conscious movement. Opting away from a conventional current account is hardly the same as refusing to buy sugar grown by slaves, as the Quakers did in the 1790s, or divesting from companies with links to apartheid, as American universities did in the 1980s. Even so, it's sometimes seen as a front for Islamic supremacists scheming to overrun the West. The crusader-jihadist wars are a favourable habitat for this kind of idea, which feeds off suspicion and a regular diet of incidental detail. Eccentric Islamists announce that they hope to see Britain under a caliphate; angry groupuscules and male covens dabble in jihadist ideology and scour explosives websites; the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks aloud on Radio 4 about the sharia as 'an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them' and congratulates Muslims 'on the faithful completion of Ramadan' as though he were handing round the sherry on Easter Sunday. With all this and years of high-profile terrorist attacks, from New York to Lahore, plus two wars that have not gone well, a person in Birmingham seeking a fee-based home loan begins to look like the enemy. Before the surge of Islamic banking, many devout Muslims shied away from banks: for the poorly educated, everything, even a non-interest-bearing current account, came under the general heading haram - 'impermissible'. Banks dealt with interest, therefore Muslims shouldn't deal with banks. Mufti Barkatulla told me he'd had to mediate in several cases where police raids had turned up large sums of money stashed in people's homes. Sometimes, he remembered, people were holding GBP 30,000 or more. To the police, this was deeply suspicious; in fact people were hoarding their way out of riba. One of the changes that sharia-compliant banking is bringing in Britain, Barkatulla believes, is that working-class Muslims, older ones especially, are at last shifting 'from a cash-based to a cashless society', as Muslim professionals and businessmen did years ago. If Muslims can't take part in a conventional economy without breaking the rules, at least they can compromise by keeping track of their infringements and 'purifying' the balance by charitable giving equivalent to the amounts in question. These self-administered transfusions are payable over and above the mandatory deduction, known as zakat, that devout Muslims must make and donate to charity in the space of a year. The most common zakat payment is 2.5 per cent per annum on cash, savings and investments less liabilities. (It can be a finicky piece of accounting; the 'zakat calculator' at http://www.ramadhanzone.com is worth a visit.) Unbelievers who worry that Muslims may not wish them well - a complicated piece of projection, but not wholly fantastic right now - should put a yellow highlight over the word zakat, and another over 'purification'. Successful Muslims in the West remitting to the 'poor' and 'needy', as the rules require, are the worry here. Their money may well go to families of the unemployed in Bradford, NGOs in Kuala Lumpur or prosthetics clinics in Sarajevo, but it can also be headed in the direction of people under fire in the West Bank, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir. At the beginning of last year the Pakistani cleric Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani was a member of the sharia supervisory board at DJIM. A scholar, judge, financial expert and prolific writer, Usmani was also involved with a sharia-compliant mutual in Illinois which Dow had allowed to manage its 'Islamic' fund. But there were internet murmurings about Usmani and in the spring, the McCormick Foundation and the ultra-con Center for Security Policy held an anti-sharia finance workshop in Illinois where his published views about jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers came under scrutiny. Media attention now turned to the Illinois mutual. In 2007, somewhere in the sprawling paperwork for a federal 'terror-funding' trial in Dallas, it had been named by the government as an 'un-indicted co-conspirator' - one of about three hundred - with alleged links to the US Muslim Brotherhood. These, apparently, were forged via the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a US-based charity at the centre of the investigation. Usmani's thoughts on the obligations of jihad - in the CPS presentation, they were non-ecumenical to say the least - have done sharia-compliant finance in the US very few favours; he's no longer a DJIM adviser. As for the Illinois mutual, it's had to call in the American Civil Liberties Union to help it restore its damaged reputation. Last year, after a mistrial in 2007, a jury in Dallas found the HLF and five of its members guilty of funding Hamas to the tune of $12 million or more, even though the prosecution conceded that the money was spent on medical facilities and good works. But in the US, charitable gifts, purifications and zakat simply cannot go to Palestinians without donors risking a federal investigation. As David Feige explained in Slate after the mistrial, the HLF was accused of 'aiding a terrorist organisation by helping it spread its ideology and recruit members. Translation: even those who support good works are guilty of terrorism if the good works make the terrorists look good.' Governments may strive in their own jurisdictions to compound the hardships of the Palestinians; freedom-loving think tanks may vent their dismay (verging on disgust) about the rise of sharia-compliant mechanisms in the West; but it is too late to quarantine Islamic finance. Alongside the notional clash of civilisations and the real collisions, a very different encounter with Islam has taken place in the worlds of banking and finance. The constant exchange of money and ideas, the morphology of ingenious instruments that can accommodate a different philosophy of wealth-creation, the familiarity with Islamic tradition among conventional financiers and lawyers who draw them up - all this suggests a convergence both more real and less visible than anything that multiculturalism in the arts, the media or interfaith groups was meant to bring about. The old imperatives of trade and profit are at work here, but so is the recent radical style of the money culture itself. The 1980s may have mourned the death of avant-gardes in the arts, but there was a thriving avant-garde in the City, which became a magnet for cadres of bright, ambitious, untried people with remote horizons, dealers sans fronti?res. By the end of the 1990s, this gilded bohemia had a good grasp of sharia-compliance and the breadth of modern, secular trading it could offer Muslims with qualms about the way their money had been doubled back in the 1970s. There were fortunes to be made, and an intellectual challenge in the air. The idea that Islamic finance was out to hobble Western values - 'financial jihad', as the Center for Security Policy calls it - was greeted with scepticism, even a subversive 'So what?' Radical innovation was the watchword and the search was on for complex products that could lock more and more transactions into a compliant framework. Since last September, the dangers of innovation have become clear and the ideal of reckless creativity has taken a hammering. The world of sharia-compliant finance is largely unscathed: Islamic banks in the Middle and Far East have not followed the low collateral/high borrowing regimes favoured by their conventional competitors at home and abroad; Islamic principles have denied investors any real access to shares in the banking sector and thus any exposure to toxic debt. Yet there is still a hunger for access and experimentation - what Mufti Barkatulla describes, enthusiastially, as a willingness to take risks with interpretation itself; 'sharia risk', as he calls it - and a fascination with the sums of money that have been made on markets forbidden to Muslims. To that extent, convergence is still the order of the day, as sharia-compliancy wizards, Muslim and non-Muslim, seek to open up the trade in derivatives to the small but growing number of devout investors who can be persuaded to bid for a calf while the camel is still in labour. _____ The second part of Jeremy Harding's piece on high finance in the Islamic World can be read here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n09/hard01_.html Jeremy Harding is a contributing editor at the LRB. His versions of Rimbaud's poetry are published by Penguin along with John Sturrock's translation of the letters. Other articles by this contributor: Kosovo's Big Men ? Jeremy Harding talks to KLA officers and an 'official government source' in Kosovo The Great Unleashing ? The End of Jihad Europe's War ? Kosovo Afternoonishness ? Syd Barrett Behind the Sandwall ? Morocco's Shame Disaffiliate, Reaffiliate, Kill Again ? Regis Debray Saved and Depoliticised at One Stroke ? the Dangers of Intervention Jeremy Harding goes to Beirut to meet the novelist Elias Khoury ? 'Before everything else, a writer of stories' ISSN 0260-9592 Copyright (c) LRB Ltd, 1997-2009 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n08/hard01_.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From noreply at coha.org Wed Jun 10 12:42:56 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:42:56 -0400 Subject: Chávez Versus Globovisión; Colombia's Contribution to World Culture: False Positives Message-ID: <20090610184202.AD1BA3E4B84@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7006 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090610/d20f6ae5/attachment.txt From tboyle at rosehill.net Wed Jun 10 17:05:02 2009 From: tboyle at rosehill.net (Todd Boyle) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:05:02 -0700 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: Warring out of depression, Stan Goff Feral Scholar In-Reply-To: <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> References: <4A2FC737.3060508@gmail.com> <4A2FC9EA.7010409@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: Arguably, the human population doesn't need all this steenkin' pro- duction anyway. We are always trying to rest and enjoy our brief existence on this planet. But we fall under the lash of the hyper-greedy ones. So, arguably, there was never any "depression". There was a momentary period of normalcy. We got enough to eat as a result of the industrial revolution... i.e. things were working so well that the surplus couldn't be destroyed or wasted fast enough to prevent a general affluence. So we kicked back and stopped obeying our bosses and overseers. Think villages, think pastoral.. Think bovine. I'm there. I am not onboard the American project anymore. I just need a modest food supply. Honestly I don't even need shelter or anything else (already have enough tools, clothing, shelter, etc. to last the rest of my life) Todd At 07:57 AM 6/10/2009, Patrick Bond wrote: >A different argument - one made by David Harvey >- is that the main way the war worked to get the >world economy out of depression, was by >devalorising the huge mass of overaccumulated >'real' capital in Japan and Europe. The >destruction of the economic deadwood was a >prerequisite for the rebuilding process and >restart to accumulation. Such analysis >distinguishes Marxist from Keynesian approaches to analysis. > >If so, this isn't going to do any good (not for >the reasons Goff provides), as there's not much >overaccumulated capital to be destroyed >(although raising the price of oil by messing >with Iran would have a similar effect, to be sure): > >Leighm wrote: >>Warring out of depression >>... >>But Obama is planning to use war as his /deus >>ex machina/, too. His war is to be the >>Pakistan-Afghan-Iran War, with Iraq stuck to >>his shoe. (He is /not/???withdrawing??? from >>Iraq; and has stated that he hasn???t the least >>intention of doing so, unless one considers a >>force of 30,000 troops to be a non-occupation.) >> >>Roosevelt used Keynesianism at home and war >>abroad to save capitalism. But Obama is not >>inheriting Roosevelt???s circumstances; his war >>will fail, and his ???Keynesian??? measures >>remain so contaminated with neoliberalism???s >>residues that it will leave the US domestic >>economy in a shambles that his dangerous >>(potentially nuclear) military adventures will only exacerbate. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2607 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090610/055abd15/attachment.txt From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Thu Jun 11 05:24:05 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:24:05 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Six Nations March against guns at Akwesasne Message-ID: <02077045$39975$0cd53083881829@xnote> Six Nations Unity March on REDHILL Expressway UNITY MARCH AGAINST ARMS AND VIOLENCE AT AKWESASNE THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009, 7:00 AM Unity March Against Armed Canadian Border Services Agents CBSA Why: To promote a message of peace, unity & no guns at Akwesasne What: Canada currently has Customs at Cornwall closed and a bridge connecting the territory of Akwesasne blocked. The Mohawks are being blocked in by both Canada and US Customs for resisting the arming of the CBSA border guards. Human Rights are being violated and International Laws are being broken by CANADA and US. When: 7:00 am Start at Queenston Road Stoney Creek, Ont. to Lincoln Alexander Parkway to Hwy 403 to final destination Victoria Park in Brantford, Ontario. Who: the women of Six Nations and peaceful supporters Contact: Jessie Anthony 519-761-7194 DubbleJ71 at aol.com Tyendinaga Mohawks at Skyway Bridge Contact 613-848-6968 - 613-813-1017 613-391-5132 Your comments to: city at thestar.ca ; ckonfm at yahoo.com ; daltonmcguinty at on.mpp.ca ; dave.maclean at jus.gov.on.ca ; dbleakney at cupw-sttp.org ; dbrown at thespec.com ; dmagee02 at sympatico.ca ; dwalker at chchnews.ca ; dmcguinty.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org ; editor at mohawknationdrummer.com ; editor at tor.sunpub.com ; expnews at theexpositor.com ; edoor at axess.com ; fgunn at cp.org ; indiantime at westel.com ; info at chmontreal.com ; info at cp.org ; info at ganienkeh.net ; jburman at thespec.com ; jimsheppard at ont.ca ; jmccarten at cp.org ; jmckenna at chchnews.ca ; jmckenna at chtv.ca ; julian.fantino at jus.gov.on.ca ; programming at k103radio.com ; kbest at dunnvillechronicle.ca ; kbissett at cp.org ; konwathontatye at sympatico.ca ; jus.g.sgcs.webmaster at jus.gov.on.ca ; maindesk at cp.org ; ndevries at ctv.ca ; nelson.marissa at gmail.com ; newstips at chtv.ca ; newstips at chchnews.ca ; plegall at thespec.com ; pm at pm.gc.ca ; prentice.j at parl.gc.ca ; scotnews at express.co.uk ; msonnenberg at bowesnet.com ; stopthe424 at gmail.com ; swhite at cp.org ; pgraham at png.canwest.com ; hawk98 at mohawknationradio.ca ; wccc_98 at hotmail.com ; westcot at muss.cis.mcmaster.ca Posted by MNN www.mohawknationnews.com From Waistline2 at aol.com Thu Jun 11 10:15:38 2009 From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:15:38 EDT Subject: [A-List] Is plagiarism acceptable Message-ID: In a message dated 6/11/2009 4:27:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _rasherrs at eircom.net_ (mailto:rasherrs at eircom.net) writes: Why only within professional academia? Why the privileging? Paddy Hackett ---------- `Anti plagiarism" within professional academia is considered a "quality control standard" aimed at getting to the history and root of a theory, proposition, idea or theorem. And also an intellectual property right. There are times I have found it inappropriate to identify a proposition as originating with Karl Marx. For instance, the materialist conception of history or "society moves in class antagonism." I do agree that there is a property (privileging) and political aspect to how plagiarism is defined and applied to individuals. Plagiarism and anti-plagiarism is used as a weapon of cultural aggression by the ruling class and historical ruling people in attempts to control history narrative. Then, I have read many communist pamphlets and books over the years, that did not have an index. Plagiarism is acceptable in the wide field of "propaganda." For instance Mao ZeDong's two booklets, "On Practice" and "On Contradictions" are basically condensed version of the 1939 "A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy" prepared by the Leningrad Institute of Philosophy under the direction of M. Shirokov. I do not consider either of Mao's book an act of plagiarism, simply communist propaganda under difficult conditions. WL. **************Dell Deals: Don?t miss huge summer savings on popular laptops starting at $449. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221770187x1201425153/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566131%3B37864407%3B i) From noreply at coha.org Thu Jun 11 11:00:15 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:00:15 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Cuba's Oil Embargo and Washington's Prospects Message-ID: <20090611170013.C35EA3E4416@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5073 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/b26f9543/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 12:36:03 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:36:03 +0200 Subject: [A-List] Fwd: [R-G] Anti-immigrant right win 15% of Dutch vote in European elections In-Reply-To: <778871218.850021244581610577.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <1292719934.534461244501393362.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> <778871218.850021244581610577.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: This is a mirror image of the closet haters that propelled Bush and Cheney to the top twice. Steven Speilberg and the Hollywood machine are greatly to blame for the world believing that facicsm come from comes in only one or two colors and is not natural to the human animal. Holland never confronted as Germany had to, how many Dutchmen were Nazi by choice as well as those that were forced to by horrible fear to profess that belief. That is true of other countries as well far larger than Holland. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sid Shniad Date: Jun 9, 2009 11:06 PM Subject: [R-G] Anti-immigrant right win 15% of Dutch vote in European elections To: Suzanne de Kuyper http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/05/european-elections-the-netherlands-far-right The Guardian 5 June 2009 Anti-immigrant right win 15% of Dutch vote in European elections ? Exit polls predict Freedom party to take second place ? Leader Geert Wilders faces prosection for hate speech Ian Traynor in Brussels The Dutch anti-immigrant maverick, Geert Wilders, scored his biggest victory yesterday, seizing 15% and second place in European elections for the Netherlands , according to exit polls last night. The bleached blond populist, barred from Britain and facing prosecution at home for hate speech, led his Freedom party to win four of the Netherlands' 25 seats in the European parliament at the first attempt, pushing the Labour party of the coalition government's finance minister, Wouter Bos, into third place. Wilders wants the European parliament abolished, Bulgaria and Romania kicked out of the EU, the mass deportation of immigrants from the Netherlands, and a minimum say for Brussels over Dutch policy. The virulence of his anti-Islam and anti-immigrant activities saw him barred from entering Britain earlier this year, while the Dutch authorities are prosecuting him for inciting hatred. He is also under 24-hour security amid intense hostility to his statements on Islam, likening the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf and making a film depicting Islam as a vehicle of violence and terrorism. Last night's estimate of 15% represented a big increase on the 6% he took in the last general election in 2006, despite fielding a list of unknowns for seats in the European parliament. "Geert Wilders' onward march in Dutch politics continues," said the newspaper, De Telegraaf. The Christian Democrats of prime ?minister Jan Peter Balkenende won the election, according to the television exit poll, but dropped 4 points and lost two seats. Its coalition partner, the Labour party, took 4 seats, like Wilders, but dropped 10 points and forfeited three seats. Wilders will take further encouragement from a mock election staged among 15,000 pupils in 140 schools in the Netherlands this week which gave him more than 19% support, ahead of all other parties. Only two of 27 EU countries, Britain and the Netherlands, voted yesterday. The election climaxes on Sunday with elections in 18 countries. The Dutch bent the rules governing the world's biggest trans-national ballot by releasing reliable partial results and exit polls late last night, despite a ban on announcing the election outcome until after the vote ends on Sunday evening. National politicians and senior EU ?officials appealed for people to use their vote, amid fears that the turnout would fall well below 40% to the lowest level of the seven elections in the last 30 years. Turnout in the Netherlands was around 40%, similar to five years ago and half the level of the general election in 2006. Some 375 million people are eligible to vote for 736 seats in the chamber which alternates between Brussels and Strasbourg. With unemployment across the EU nudging 10%, the highest level in a decade, according to figures released this week, the recession, jobs, and worries for the future are key issues. Apathy and anger are likely to cause a low turnout, as well as protest voting that will hit mainstream parties and benefit extremists, according to analysts. _______________________________________________ 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: 4994 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/061174df/attachment.txt From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Jun 11 20:28:44 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:28:44 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Lagging Recognition Message-ID: <20090612112844.bb122822.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 (June 08 2009) Through the tangle of green shoots and sprouting mustard seeds, a certain nervous view persists that the arc of events is taking us to places unimaginable. The collapse of General Motors and Chrysler signifies more than the collapse of US car manufacturing. It spells the end of the motoring era in America per se and the puerile fantasy of personal liberation that allowed it to become such a curse to us. Of course, many Nobel prize-winning economists would argue that it has only been a blessing for us, but that only shows how the newspapers are committing suicide-by-irrelevance. And if other societies, such as China's late-entry industrial start-up, want to adopt a similar fantasy, they will only find themselves all the sooner in history's garage with a tailpipe in their mouths. Here in the USA, we will mount the most strenuous campaign to keep the motoring system going - in fact, we're already doing it - but it will fail just as surely as two (so far) of the "big three" automakers have failed. It will fail because car-making is only one facet of a larger network of systems that is coming undone, namely a revolving debt cheap energy economy. Americans will never again buy as many new cars as they were able to do before 2008 on the terms that were normal until then: installment loans. Our credit system is completely broken. It choked to death on securitized debt engineered by computer magic and business school hubris. That complex of frauds and swindles coincided with the background force of peak oil, which meant, among other things, that economic growth based on ever-increasing energy resources was over, and along with it ever-increasing credit. What it boils down to now is that we can't service our debt at any level, personal, corporate, or government - and that translates into comprehensive societal bankruptcy. The efforts of our federal government to work around this now, to cover up the "non-performing" debt and to generate the new lending necessary to keep the old system going, is a tragic exercise in futility. I'm not saying this to be a "pessimistic" grandstanding doomer pain-in-the-ass, but because I would like to see my country make more intelligent choices that would permit us to continue being civilized, to move into the next phase of our history without a horrible self-destructive convulsion. Another consequence of the debt problem is that we won't be able to maintain the network of gold-plated highways and lesser roads that was as necessary as the cars themselves to make the motoring system work. The trouble is you have to keep gold-plating it, year after year. Traffic engineers refer to this as "level-of-service". They've learned that if the level-of-service is less than immaculate, the highways quickly enter a spiral of disintegration. In fact, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported several years ago that the condition of many highway bridges and tunnels was at the "D-minus" level, so we had already fallen far behind on a highway system that had simply grown too large to fix even when we thought we were wealthy enough to keep up. Right now, we're pretending that the "stimulus" program will carry us over long enough to resume the old method of state-and-federal spending based largely on bonding (that is, debt). The political dimension of the collapse of motoring is the least discussed part of problem: as fewer and fewer citizens find themselves able to buy and run cars, they will feel increasingly aggrieved at the system set up to make motoring virtually mandatory for all the chores of everyday life, and their resentments will rise against the elite that can still manage to enjoy it. Because our car-dependency is so extreme, the reaction of the dis-entitled classes is liable to be extreme and probably delusional to an extreme, too. You can already see it being baked in the cake. Happy Motoring is so entangled in our national identity that the loss of it is bound to cause a national identity crisis. In places like the American south, the old Dixie states, motoring lifted more than half the population out of the dust, and became the basis of the New South economy. The sons and grandsons of starving sharecroppers became Chevy dealers and developers of suburban housing tracts, malls, and strip malls. They don't have any nostalgia for the historical reality of hookworm and fourteen-hour-days of serf labor in hundred-degree heat. Theirs is a nostalgia for the present, for air-conditioned comfort and convenience and the groaning all-you-can-eat Shoney's breakfast buffet off the freeway ramp. When it is withdrawn from them by the mandate of events, they will be furious. Given the history of the region and the predilections of its dominant ethnic group, one might imagine that they will want to take out their gall and grievance on the half-African politician who presides over the situation. Among the ever-expanding classes dis-entitled from the so-called American Dream, the crisis is only marginally different in other regions of the nation. Mr Obama faces a range of awful dilemmas, and it is painful to see them go unrecognized and unacknowledged by his White House. It's hard to imagine that the president and his elite advisors are blind to these equations, but as the weeks tick by they seem stuck in a box of limited perception. We're in a strange hiatus for now. "Hope" levitates the legitimacy of the dollar, the stock markets, and the authority of leadership. In the background, implosion continues, debt goes unpaid, banks ignore bad loans to keep them off their books, jobs and incomes vanish, cars and other things go unsold, and a tragic wishfulness strains to sustain the unsustainable. Our expectations are inconsistent with what is happening to us. It will be very painful for us to walk away from the car-centered life. Half the population faces the ugly obstacle of being hopelessly over-invested in a suburban house and all the life-ways associated with it. There will be no easy way out for them, whatever they chose to do politically, whatever noise they make, whomever they scapegoat, whatever fantasies they cultivate about what the world owes them, or who they think they are. Mr Obama should not waste another week pretending that we can keep this old system going. The public needs to know that we will be making our livings differently, inhabiting the landscape differently, and spending our days and nights differently - even while we suffer our losses. The public needs to hear this from more figures than Mr Obama, too, from leaders in the state capitals, and the agencies, and business and education and what remains of the clergy. But somebody has to set in motion the chain of recognition, or events will soon do it for us. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/06/lagging-recognition.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Thu Jun 11 22:50:17 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:50:17 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Afghan Taliban Respond to Obama's Cairo Speech Message-ID: Afghan Taliban Responds To Obama`s Cairo Speech By Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Posted June 09, 2009 In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. ?????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? (??????:204) US President Obama has been trying to restore the dignity and credibility that America has lost since his election (as US president). Now he has turned to the Muslim world. Besides other preparations for this visit, the western media has been trying to mentally prepare Muslims for Obama`s speech for some weeks. The contents of the speech, which he delivered under the title "Address to the Muslim World" on Thursday afternoon (4 June) in Cairo, did not have anything which could play a crucial role in reducing the hatred between America and Muslims. Obama`s speech lasted for 48 minutes. However, he failed to deliver a clear and true message to the Muslim world. Obama`s speech mainly consisted of symbolic and political terms and its body was vague. Contrary to expectations, there was no sign of practical change in the hostile policy of America towards Muslims. The Supreme Council of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan regards Obama`s speech to the Muslim world as part of the US` misleading slogans and gives the following explanations about it: 1. Barack Obama claims good-will and tolerance towards Muslims at a time when their occupation forces are committing mass murder and disturbing and imprisoning Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. They violate their legal rights and mercilessly martyr them to defend their rights. They put them in the most hateful prisons of the world. Given these wild and illegal actions by Americans, Obama`s baseless speech has no importance. 2. As a groundless claimant, Barack Obama justified the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by Americans in his meaningless speech. He said the ongoing efforts of their crusader forces against the Muslim nations of these countries were a legitimate struggle to secure US interests. According to national and international laws, the occupation of independent countries and hostile war against their free nations cannot be called a legitimate war. 3. Barack Obama wants to create divisions among Muslims and the Muslim world and to separate Muslims from their real protectors and defence force (mojaheddin) (as published) in line with his hostile policy through such speeches. These Muslim nations have willingly trained and strengthened them (mojaheddin) with their support. He is trying to create divisions among Muslims and to exploit the divisions among them. However, the religious beliefs and relations of Muslims are not so weak that they can be broken by a few words of the supreme commander of the occupation forces like Obama. Today, all vigilant Muslims are engaged in jihad in one way or the other. Therefore, the US war against the mojaheddin is considered a war against all Muslim nations and Islam. 4. He claimed that Americans were not trying to permanently remain and establish military bases inside Afghanistan in Islamic countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and that it did not want to betray the nations of the world. This claim runs counter to the current facts and realities in the region because Americans are currently busy establishing major military bases and airports. They have established 12 new military airports. Some of them are very large where any kind of large military planes can land. This large number of airports and countless number of military bases are established at a time when they do not need even half of them given the number of their forces and daily military flights. This shows that Americans are intending to permanently remain in and occupy the region. Therefore, it is sending additional forces to the region. The countries and nations of the world, particularly the region should stay vigilant to foil their destructive plans in a timely fashion. 5. Obama said that the continuation of war in Afghanistan was costly and politically difficult for him and, therefore, if peace is ensured in the region, American forces will happily leave Afghanistan. It is quite funny that he links the end to the US occupation to the restoration of security in the region. The presence of Americans is the main cause of violence and the current problems in the region. Jihad and resistance against American forces will continue as long as they are present in Afghanistan. If Obama truly wants peace to be ensured in Afghanistan and the region, he should put an end to the (US) military presence and illegal occupation to pave the way for restoration of security. If foreign forces leave (Afghanistan), Afghans will have no intention to harm anyone. No one can use Afghanistan`s soil against the international community. 6. The issues of Middle East, particularly Palestine, were also part of Obama`s address. In his address to the Muslim world, he tried to change the mindset of Muslims (Pashto: la sara warozi) regarding Israelis. He emotionally started the story of the innocence of the Jews. He described Israel as the most innocent and worthy nation of the world and that Muslims, particularly Palestinians, should officially recognize it. He spoke on the holocaust and the massacre of 6m Jews. However, he summarized the nearly 70-year crises in Palestine in a few misleading words. Mass murders are committed every moment (in Palestine). He also instructed Arab leaders to improve their ties with Israel. However, he did not speak about those surrounded in Gaza or about the supply of medicines and basic food items to them. It seems that Obama did not come to the Muslim world with a friendly message, but with an arrogant notion to give instructions (to the Muslim world). He told Muslims what they should do in order to secure the interests of America and Israel. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan believes that Muslims` hatred will steadily rise towards America until a fundamental and true solution is found to these problems and practical steps are taken. This speech by Obama is another failed attempt to mislead the Muslim world. We call on the entire Muslim nation, particularly the oppressed (Pashto: mostazafo) Muslims to stress continuation of jihad against Americans to defend their soil and religious places. They should fight the infidel forces until they achieve their real freedom and independence. It is worth pointing out that US President Barack Hasayn Obama delivered a long speech, entitled "A New Beginning" in the capital of Egypt, Cairo, yesterday (4 June) in which he stressed the fight against the Taleban and Al-Qa`idah in Afghanistan. By reading out a few verses from the Koran, he tried to persuade Muslims of the world that the ongoing US war is not against Islam, but terrorists. A number of Islamic countries and organizations have called Obama`s speech a positive step. However, a number of Islamic organizations of the world are suspicious of his intentions. Obama became the US president on 20 January 2009. He said he would change the international mindset regarding America during his election campaign. However, no practical step has been taken yet to truly change the world`s, particularly Muslims`, mindset about America because there are still US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people are being killed daily there. Observers believe that America should take practical steps on Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure peace in the region and help people achieve their independence and freedom in practice. The Supreme Council of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan May God give us strength. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jun 12 04:40:01 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:40:01 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Islam and the Armies of Mammon Message-ID: <20090612194001.8cc871ba.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Jeremy Harding returns to the subject of high finance in the Islamic World by Jeremy Harding London Review of Books (May 14 2009) The rules that govern Islamic banking and finance are non-negotiable, cast in tradition, as good as stone. A finance house that sticks to the plot will not come to grief in a credit crisis; neither will its clients. Yet once large sums are involved - sums beyond the reach of modest customers - Islamic entrepreneurs, corporate and institutional investors take risks with the principles that sharia-compliant finance is meant to embody, by colonising conventional areas where the promise of riches and power looks irresistible but the path is forbidden. The challenge here is technical as much as moral. Faith-accountable fund managers and devout privateers in Malaysia and the Gulf may want a stake in Western wealth creation, but they must try to stick to Islamic principles when they intrude on the money. 'Leveraging', 'derivatives', 'shorting': the ambient glamour of these operations, like the terminology itself, seems dangerous in the new light of day, yet cautious capitalists still find them serviceable and inventive theorists of sharia-compliance are intrigued by them. In the Square Mile, compliant financing techniques are available if enough money and intellectual resources are put into a project. In 2007 there was a star turn: a sharia-compliant leveraged buy-out of Aston Martin Lagonda, then part of Ford, and a glamorous accessory in the not so compliant 007 range. (The cars themselves are 'compliant', someone involved in the deal assured me.) For the purposes of the acquisition, two investment management companies in Kuwait formed a third company with Aston Martin's CEO and a retired British rally driver. The financial gadgetry involved was impressive, though by the standards of Bond's MI6 boffin, the phlegmatic Q, hardly spectacular. AML was bought for about GBP 480 million. To work around the problem of interest payable on the money that had to be raised - from banks - the buyers pressed a compliant dashboard button known as the 'commodity murabaha': rather than lending money directly to a borrower, a bank agrees to buy a commodity and sell it on to him (immediately) with a fee added into the sale price; the borrower sells the commodity in the markets (immediately), but his repayment to the bank for the commodity it bought on his behalf is deferred for a period of time agreed by the parties. The Kuwaitis had already raised the bulk of the money for the purchase; the remainder, in the order of GBP 200 million, was put up by a syndicate of banks, led by the London office of the German commercial bank WestLB, which bought on the London Metal Exchange to the value of the sum required, sold the metal warrants to the purchasing company on the same day, with a mark-up, after which the company sold them on, as the model requires. The deal committed the new owners of AML to a single repayment, five to eight years later. Phased debt repayments, the norm in this kind of arrangement, were avoided, as was the distinction between senior debt (which gets priority repayment) and subordinate debt; Islam is unhappy with different classes of debt, as it is with different classes of stock. Five to eight years seems a long time, but the timing was based on an analysis of AML's business cycle - high-end toys like Aston Martins are slow earners - and found favour with the Kuwaitis, the banks and the sharia advisers. Two of the WestLB people who handled the buy-out were satisfied by the impression it made in the City and in the Gulf. It was evidently a lot of work for Eva Bigalke, the bank's executive director of Islamic Finance, who managed the legal underpinnings of the deal. These were vast as well as intricate: when I asked her for an idea of the size of the legal file, she raised her hand some way from the table, not far short of Proust. It seemed to her that this was the moment when sceptics had to concede that sharia-compliance could find a way to the real money, which was only accessible to conventional entrepreneurs a few years ago. The AML deal is scarcely mind-boggling; around $25 billion was raised for the acquisition of RJR Nabisco at the end of the 1980s and, as Bigalke's colleague Harvey Hoogakker remarked, the Alliance Boots buy-out in 2007 involved about GBP 12 billion. Both were the work of the private equity monster Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, with whom a couple of flush Kuwaiti investment companies bear no comparison. Hoogakker, WestLB's executive director of leveraged finance, described the Aston Martin buy-out as a modest 'mid-market deal', whose significance, he felt, had to do with an 'emerging' trend having finally, startlingly emerged. There was, Bigalke added, a thoroughgoing change in the way the Middle East was thinking about its wealth. The sudden repatriation of Islamic money after 9/11, and the long period that preceded it, when wealthy Arabs would invest away from petrochemicals only if they saw a real-estate opportunity - anywhere from Knightsbridge via Dubai to the property showrooms of Kuala Lumpur - is over. In its place is a more inquisitive, aggressive approach to non-Islamic wealth creation, and a wish to see it customised in compliant forms. The AML deal, Bigalke reports, was approved by 'a large constituency' in the world of Islamic finance as an acceptable customisation of a conventional technique. Clearly it opens up an array of possibilities to devout entrepreneurs, including asset-stripping - and how devout is that? The commodity murabaha can be used to organise currency swaps or profit swaps between institutions, but many futures and options pose a bigger challenge because Islam is cautious about the buying and selling of contracts. A contract that can be sold on, or one that confers a right, rather than an undertaking to buy, introduces the worry of uncertainty. A contract for a contract, which is what many derivatives amount to, is a sign for a sign, not a sign for a thing; it introduces clutter and congestion into the realm of signs - a realm of solemnity for practising Muslims - and erodes consensus on the value of underlying assets, just as riba (or interest) earned on a principal, like on like, turns money from a counter into an agent, to the detriment of authentic counters and legitimate agents. Islam's reticence about derivatives means that investors have difficulty reaping the benefits (and incurring the risks) of exposure to hedge funds. The sticking point here is the indispensable feature of the short sale: most sharia scholars agree you can't sell a thing you don't own. Then, too, there's the fact that selling short is a gamble, and you stand to lose if the price of your chosen security starts to rise. The first step, for Muslims who wish to come to terms with the paradox of the halal (or permissible) derivative, is to admit that even if money isn't all in the mind, that's where it likes to spend its time in the West. It's no use pretending that this is an entirely worthless and precarious arrangement: virtual money may or may not be its own undoing one day, but it isn't threatened yet by dissident peoples huddling in the forest with their tangible assets. The next step is to find an instrument that makes it possible to go around a haram (or prohibited) transaction and reach the desired consequence by a different route, a bit like avoiding an open drain, with obedience to your faith intact. One might think of this as cynicism or hypocrisy, but the process is not so different from drawing up a complicated legal agreement, and the results can be quite impressive to sharia scholars with a taste for intellectual risk. You might, for example, invest in a fund that uses your money to buy up shariacompliant shares. That fund then swaps the returns on the shares for the returns on a conventional fund tied, say, to the performance of a stock-market index. The intention of the compliant swap is to give a little moral leeway to the pious client. Even conscientious Islamic investors, the argument goes, have to draw a line under their misgivings at some point, just like investors in a secular Socially Responsible Investment fund, who know that no returns on their capital are squeaky clean given that the companies in any fund portfolio operate in a non-SRI trading environment. An agreement to swap the returns of one fund for those of another might look something like this: the manager of the fund invested in sharia-compliant securities promises to sell x number of shares valued at GBP 1000 on 1 September 2009, the day the promise is made, to a conventional party (another fund, a bank or a trader) at a predefined price on a predefined future date, say 1 September 2010. The trader makes a promise to the compliant fund to buy those shares at that predefined price on that same date. The future price is indeed 'predefined', but it is not known as a figure: the fund manager and the conventional party agree only that it will be determined by the value of a given index, say the Dow Jones Industrial Average, on the day of settlement. Imagine that on the date the promises are made, with the relevant halal shares worth GBP 1000, the Average stands at 8000 points. Then imagine that a year later, the value of the shares has remained the same but the Average has increased in value by ten per cent and stands at 8800. The conventional party will not want to hold the compliant fund to its promise to sell, but the compliant fund will hold the conventional party to its promise to buy, and make a profit of ten per cent on the sale. If the value of the shares in the course of the year remains the same but the Average has fallen by ten per cent, the conventional party will hold the compliant fund to its promise to sell, because it can acquire the compliant shares at less than their going rate. This mechanism was pioneered by Deutsche Bank in 2007: the bank itself sets up the compliant fund with investors' money while acting both as investment manager and as the other, conventional party with whom the compliant fund exchanges the promises. As a result, devout investors gain exposure to the movement in a conventional index even though they haven't bought a single haram security or signed a forward contract: they've merely made a promise to sell what they own for a predefined price. The forbidden component of gharar - uncertainty - which seems to be brought into play by virtue of the final figure being unknown at the time the promises are made is probably closer to permissible 'risk'; the real danger of gharar is ambiguity, which is absent, since the promises and the terms defining the settlement price are crystal clear. This structure allows investors to pit a basket of compliant shares that may not have gained much value in the space of a year against an index which may perform better, and make a profit on the rise in the index - or a loss on its fall - just as investors in a tracker fund would. All this is monitored by a sharia board appointed by the bank. As DB predicted, the two-promises formula was well received in some quarters and has many potential applications, though all of them have one aim: access to the reservoirs of virtual exchange for anyone who wants an alternative to open water and the old ways of doing things. Several investment banks are using DB's model of the two promises to ease their Muslim clients into derivatives and sketch out a model for 'Islamic' hedge funds. DB itself announced last autumn that it would be launching a 'sharia hedge fund' facility in the Middle East, and recently in London, Bindesh Shah, a partner in Amiri Capital, showed me how the promises could be used to replicate the process of shorting without the sale of borrowed shares taking place. Among Islamic scholars, resistance is mounting to this kind of mechanism, in which the technical requirements of the sharia are met but the spirit of the code seems to them to be traduced. Another kind of objection has come from Western security agencies keen to follow Islamic money wherever it leads. Sharia-compliance fell under suspicion long before 9/11, because mandatory regulations (for example, rates of return on deposits), which made it hard for Islamic banks to set up in Western countries, forced them offshore. In the 1990s the anthropologist Bill Maurer found several operating 'in the international tax havens in the Caribbean' which 'provided, as one Islamic finance professional put it, a "safe haven" for Islamically acceptable banking practices'. It has become easier since those days for sharia-compliant banks in the West, but the shadow of the tax haven culture is long and so is the folk-memory of the regulators, who hear the expression 'Islamic finance' and still scroll up to the collapse of Agha Hasan Abedi's Bank of Credit and Commerce International in 1991 - not that BCCI was sharia-compliant or complied with anything very much, but it did have funds from a number of Islamic banks on deposit. The association of BCCI with sharia banking became a commonplace for a time, along with its 'links' to the Abu Nidal group, which opened an account at BCCI's Sloane Street branch in the 1980s. Sharper security concerns about Islamic banking focus on its readiness to replace a single conventional process (which might involve interest or a conspicuous lack of shared risk) by several processes, making money harder to track: consider the commodity murabaha used for the AML buy-out, which required three transactions involving metal warrants instead of a single cash transfer. This reliance on 'degrees of separation' is shared by the money-laundering industry: a flurry of deals where one would do is standard procedure for concealing money of dubious character, just as disguising an interest charge as a fee in conventional finance is a useful way to conceal a debt. In 2005 Mahmoud El-Gamal, a professor of economics at Rice University in Texas, prepared a statement for a committee hearing at the US Senate on 'terror financing' in which he conceded that 'degrees of separation through superfluous trades and leases ... make regulation and law enforcement more challenging'. He also felt that it was 'rather naive to think that a group intent on committing criminal activities would favour Islamic financial venues, especially since they are likely to come under closer scrutiny in that domain following the terrorist attacks of 9/11'. Only a sublimely confident security establishment would take its eye off potential conduits on the grounds that they were too obvious. Other branches of government, especially in Britain, reach out with unseemly enthusiasm to Islamic finance: it's money, after all, and good public relations with minorities at home on the part of a regime at war in two Muslim-majority states. The Treasury has been keen for some time to see Islamic finance expand in the UK: in 2004 it joined in the fanfare for the launch of the first independent sharia bank, Islamic Bank of Britain (60,000 accounts by the end of 2008, according to the sharia scholar Mufti Barkatulla); it chased up the FSA to write new rules for shariacompliant banking; it reviewed the status of products that attract more tax than their conventional counterparts and removed the burden of double stamp duty for Islamic home-ownership plans involving the back-to-back sale of a property; it endorsed sharia-compliant Child Trust Funds and did all it could, as Ed Balls put it in 2007 when he was still a junior Treasury minister, 'to help the Islamic finance industry go from strength to strength' and 'cement London as one of the global centres for Islamic finance'. The government's big idea, mooted in 2007, was to issue sharia-compliant bonds, known as sukuk. Other administrations, in the Gulf and Malaysia, have done this with some success: the government creates a special-purpose company and sells it a piece of state-owned property; the company issues certificates to investors, leases the property back to the government and uses the rental return to pay dividends to the investors, whose money it holds in trust on their behalf. When the bond reaches maturity the company sells the asset back to the government and uses the return to pay certificate holders, who may not be the original owners. The transparency of the arrangement and its anchorage to an asset means that it's permissible to buy and sell sukuk: it's the only significant form of tradeable debt in the world of Islamic finance. It isn't clear what asset the British government had in mind to underpin an issue of non-interest-bearing bills, but the project, which seemed so promising until last September, was put on hold in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report on the grounds that 'it would not offer value for money at the present time'. For the moment, the credit crunch and the Ed Balls Cement Company, which busily sang the praises of the FSA for its 'risk-based' approach, have buried the sukuk project, and much else in London, under a layer of rubble. Rodney Wilson, one of the consultants brought in to advise on the scheme - well disposed to it too - told me it 'might not look so attractive after all the talk.' At WestLB, Bigalke and Hoogakker felt the Treasury was less concerned to attract money from Malaysia and the Gulf, which is how it spun sukuk to the media, than with keeping the Islamic finance sector in the UK in a state of good health. To date there are few compliant sterling instruments to trade: a GBP 2 billion issue of tradeable sukuk would have notched up the temperature for the Islamic sector - worth about GBP 12 billion in the UK by recent estimates - and kept the pious money in London. Instead we have quantitative easing, which offers nothing in particular to devout Muslims - but then neither did credit derivatives. One of the reasons top of the range Islamic investors can afford to navigate away from the safe haven of sharia-compliance, which has shored up Islamic banks against loss, has to do with the solid ballast of Islamic investment, and available money in the Gulf. It's easy to imagine the thrust of a halal portfolio, once you've subtracted conventional banking, financial services, media, leisure and large swathes of the food and drink industry. It resembles a steady as you go selection, put together for a comfortable client in Basingstoke in the 1950s by a broker with offices in Finsbury Circus: mining, energy, manufacture; housing, property, engineering, construction and telecommunications; chemicals, pharmaceuticals and healthcare; government bonds (in compliant form). Clearly, when Muslim investment began charting a course towards derivatives and hedge funds, it did so from a position of relative strength, knowing it could afford to lose a sail or two. It's hard to say how quickly that's changing in the bleak new environment, but any downturn will please opponents of sharia-compliance. Well-informed researchers at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, opinion-mongers at the Daily Mail and ruddy yeomen like Edward Leigh, the Member for Gainsborough, are not the only people waging the struggle: their enemy's enemies are just as passionate and they've done their homework with a lot more diligence. Tarek El Diwany, author of The Problem with Interest (2003), believes that many sharia-compliant financial instruments, like the murabaha used for the AML buy-out, are 'interest in Islamic clothing'. In El Diwany's way of thinking, a financier who provides money now in return for more money later is charging interest, however you describe it. Islamic bankers may argue that their financial products earn a profit rather than interest, but often the profits are calculated on the basis of Libor, the London Interbank Offered Rate. El Diwany, a UK accounting and finance graduate who went on to work in the London capital markets as an options dealer for Fulton Prebon, began taking Islam seriously in the early 1990s. Persuaded by a combination of reason and faith, he argues that economies in which wealth transfer predominates over wealth creation are destined for poverty, because 'real' wealth - food, medicine, bricks and mortar, high and low technology goods - is consumed or decays and has to be renewed. Exchange on its own, however vigorous, is unable to do this renewing. A farm or a factory producing electronic parts is more desirable than a casino, even if they all put resources and people to work. It's a coarse fundamentalist view of economies - except that El Diwany is neither coarse nor an economic fundamentalist; he is an experienced trader with a fierce parti pris, ready, he told me, to ditch Western financial methodologies 'where they've clearly failed'. In his view, 'the purpose of exchange and modern economic activity in general cannot be to maximise profit' He also finds the theory and practice of the sharia-compliant derivative highly questionable. He looks back at his earlier line of work - dealing options - as a mire of uncertainty. In the Square Mile, many derivatives transactions, he came to feel, were being used to mystify petitioners and enrich the oracles. 'XYZ bank', he remembers from his days as a dealer, 'would lure the poorly paid treasury manager at the Kingdom of Somewhere-or-Other into a complex swap deal that only a PhD in nuclear physics could properly value. So the bank would book a multi-million-dollar profit the very day the deal was closed and the Kingdom's officers would never know any better.' Derivatives departments began to swarm around sovereign and corporate clients, he recalls, 'like bees around a honeypot'. El Diwany does not accept the longstanding argument for derivatives - that they shield investors from the instability of markets - because 'many such remedies address risks that do not need to exist in the first place'. In 2001, two years before Warren Buffett warned that derivatives were 'financial weapons of mass destruction', El Diwany identified them as a likely cause of 'serious breakdown in the financial system'. He could find no honest 'Islamic' approach to these instruments; like an observer of marginal peoples moving round their compounds exchanging beads, or promising to do so, but negligent when it came to crops and livestock - what city traders think of as 'the underlying' - El Diwany saw a will to extinction in communities where derivatives were in the ascendant. The new prestige of sharia-compliant products, and the caveats coming from scholars and thinkers, present potential clients with a dilemma. Mohammed Abdul Ashik, a thirty-something programmer at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, is a good example. 'If I wasn't married and about to have children', he said when we met in Docklands, 'renting would be a no-brainer' - much preferable to paying off a conventional mortgage, with its haram interest component. All the same, having already taken out his standard mortgage and gone on to explore the fee for changing to an Islamic product (GBP 1500) as well as the marginally higher costs of a shariacompliant home-ownership scheme, he's uncertain: extra outlay is a deterrent, especially since the onset of the debt crisis. But so is the worry that what looks like sharia-compliance may be a conscience salve or a fraud: that these products feature in so many websites, online discussions and blogs accessed by members of the new internet ummah (iMuslims as they're known) makes them the focus of an impressive intellectual input, including much scepticism. Ashik, like El Diwany, came late to piety and made up for lost time, drawing on his days as a non-practising Muslim to refine his passion for Islam. He blogs on a website called 'Greater Jihad', where he posts his views about sharia-compliant products. (Greater jihad - sometimes called 'internal jihad' - is the struggle to live the life of a good Muslim.) After plenty of Googling and a couple of meetings with banks, he's not sure that Islamic lending products 'comply' as well as they should. Sharia facilities, or 'windows', offered by conventional banks are a recurring worry: how can customers know for a fact that the sharia accounts will be kept entirely separate from mainstream business? Worse still, is sharia-compliance a piece of outright duplicity? Can a product available in the West - a home-purchase scheme, for example - be presented to the regulators, for accounting purposes, as a conventional mortgage and to a devout client, in the sales pitch, as a halal instrument? Mahmoud El-Gamal, who testified to the Senate, was sure that it could: a sharia product is only a conventional product that's been tweaked for religious users by someone who's spotted a sensibility gap between two markets, like the arbitrageur who's identified a price-gap. El-Gamal uses the expression 'sharia arbitrage' to describe the re-engineering and sale of conventional products as 'Islamic' ones; where sharia scholars approve Islamic 'windows' in the conventional high street, he sees nothing more than an elaborate exercise in window-dressing. If devout people with money to invest believed that an Islamic product was simply a conventional one presented in a different way they would probably avoid it, but they tend instead to see a halal product that is very close to a haram one, which leaves them having to ascertain whether they are happy - on the road to home-ownership, say - going by a route that follows the infidel freeway so closely. Some people are comfortable with fees that simulate interest (or promises that replicate a short sale): a vegetarian burger or a decaffeinated coffee falls short of the thing on which it's modelled; many laws that forbid an activity do not forbid its likeness. Others mistrust the resemblance of the permissible to the forbidden; they also suspect that if an Islamic instrument can achieve the same results as a conventional one, something must be wrong. Prohibitions on interest, excessive debt, uncertainty and the rest were not devised as an obstacle course: a stable world of exchange, as transparent as possible, is the end in view. The question of overall purpose heightens Ashik's queasiness about what he calls 'fatwa shopping': doing the rounds among the scholars until you find one who approves of your project - for example, acquiring a liquor licence for an Asian restaurant. There are many Islamic scholars around the world, but many more banks and financial institutions in need of advisory boards. Except in Malaysia, which has tightened up the rules, influential consultants can have several of these well-paid sinecures. It's nonetheless likely, in the view of Muslim sceptics, that sooner or later a company with an idea for an Islamic product will find a scholar to authenticate it. How do devout individuals decide that his endorsement puts it within reach of their conscience? By knowing which school of jurisprudence he belongs to and reading every fatwa he has issued, possibly, or keying in to internet hearsay. It's often a case of hit and miss in a world where, as Ashik believes, sharia-compliance is a 'bandwagon' and there's money to be made by thinking up products or approving them. (Discussing the Aston Martin deal, Hoogakker and Bigalke mentioned bandwagons too: theirs was creaking with corporate lawyers and accountants suddenly intrigued by sharia-compliant transactions and the handsome commissions entailed.) After we'd met, Ashik emailed saying he wasn't sure that fatwa shopping was as low as he'd made out. What was wrong with Muslims changing their positions when they came across different scholarly opinions? 'The important thing', he wrote, 'is not to ... choose the easiest option/opinion'. Thinking about how your money behaves when you bank it or part with it became a minority habit in Britain more than two hundred years ago; the legacy of that reflection is the Socially Responsible Investment movement. How a money culture thinks of you and asks you to misbehave is another minority preoccupation and Muslims take it seriously. Whatever the Center for Security Policy has to say, sharia-compliant retail banking falls within the scope of greater jihad rather than jihad in the narrow, militarist sense; its market penetration in the West is not a blow against the free world. As the financial crisis persists, there are fewer claims for the sturdiness of the compliant banking system as a whole. Big expansions envisaged last year, like that of Noor Islamic Bank in the Gulf, are on hold in the name of consolidation. The astonishing growth of sukuk has also slowed up. One reason is a lingering controversy about their compliance. Doubts were raised in 2008, when Sheikh Taqi Usmani announced that as far as he could see eighty per cent of the sukuk in circulation were not 'Islamic' because of the growing practice among borrowers of guaranteeing sukuk investors' returns: the bond-issuer, having sold a piece of real estate in order to fund the issue, pledges to buy it back at a price that may be less than it's worth by the time the sukuk mature, thereby guaranteeing the value of the certificates. You might have thought this was a bulwark against gharar; in fact it offends by eliminating much of the investors' risk. The approach to risk - it occurs to me, after months trying to get a feel for these unfamiliar products - defines the difference between Islamic and conventional finance more sharply than interest. Whether or not it's dodged in reality, the willingness to acknowledge risk in every aspect of exchange is reasonable. In Britain, for years now, investment products have had to spell out a warning that our holdings may go down ('as well as up'): Thatcherism and the radical turn may have claimed to do away with the nanny state but it left many of us in the nursery. A doctrine which reminds us that there's no such thing as a guaranteed return speaks eloquently of the risk we need to understand when we invest to the best of our ability (in a pension, for example) and the risk that bankers and fund managers, backed by governments, have played down in order to market their products. Advocates of Islamic retail banking may be right to say that it will weather the crisis, but the sharia-compliant experiment with derivatives has reached a delicate point, largely because of the global recession. Even so, it's hard to imagine the laboratory closing down: sharia-compliance has been an extraordinary adventure for the pioneers and designers of these products, on both sides of the religious divide, who are ready to put their ideas on the line, where money is made or lost. The ideas will still be in the air even if the money goes to ground, but there's a far bigger question about the real penetration of Islamic finance, not just among the moderately wealthy and the mega-rich, but among less prosperous Muslims. This is the point made by Adeel Malik, a lecturer in economics in the Department of International Development at Oxford: however solid the Islamic approach to banking might be, it hasn't done a great deal for the poor. You can get a rough picture of poverty in Muslim-majority countries by crunching statistics from the 57 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Their economies could not be more different - Chad, Djibouti and Afghanistan, on the one hand; the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar, on the other - but between them they contain forty per cent of the world's inhabitants living in absolute poverty, on what's recently been reckoned at something between $1.25 and $1.45 a day. Of the total OIC population itself, the poor also constitute around forty per cent, with high concentrations in about fifteen countries. India, which has the largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia and Pakistan, is not a member. Only half of India's Muslim women can read and write, a quarter of children between six and fourteen are not in school and 31 per cent of all Indian Muslims live below the national poverty line, unable to access 650 grams of grain a day. What is the value of compliant derivatives for Muslims who never come within range of an investment opportunity; or of compliant banking for people who have no money in the first place? Microfinance, with its emphasis on small loans to associations of borrowers, contains the germ of a solution, but it's only available to a small number of impoverished Muslims worldwide, while its Islamic variant reaches even fewer. After a survey in 2007, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, a microfinance advocacy and research centre in Washington, estimated that fewer than 400,000 people are beneficiaries of low-level Islamic credit initiatives - that's a fraction of the number, about half a per cent, of global recipients of all microfinance, conventional and sharia-compliant. CGAP found, too, that the narrow range of products available through Islamic micro-lending schemes aroused suspicions, much as compliant products in general do, that the fee for a loan was too close to an interest charge. In Bangladesh, the world's microfinance leader, the market-share held by the Islamic variant is closer to one per cent of the total, according to CGAP: still very low for a population of 159 million, more than eighty per cent of them Muslim and many of those impoverished. Perhaps the presence of the Grameen Bank, founded by Muhammad Yunus in the 1980s, has held back Islamic microcredit in Bangladesh. Despite its immense success - Yunus was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006 - Grameen was still unable to reach the wholly unbankable, partly because it started to filter out what we'd now think of as sub-prime applicants. Its emphasis on 'social collateral' - loans to a group of borrowers are guaranteed by members - has the advantage, from an Islamic viewpoint, of mutuality, but this is offset, as Adeel Malik points out, by the fact that a 'social' asset does not amount to a tangible asset in the sharia-compliant universe. Pious Muslims also disparaged Grameen for its conventional, interest-based charges and, almost certainly, for its tendency to identify women as reliable, creative borrowers, even though their husbands were sometimes the people with their hands on the money: the bank's projects and personnel have been targeted by Islamists on several occasions. There is government backing for microcredit schemes in Malaysia and Indonesia, the latter busily licensing rural banks and training up staff: loans on offer from these village-store facilities are higher than anything from non-compliant counters, but a great deal of ground remains to be covered. 'When Islam is about social justice, it starts to get interesting', Malik told me, but he went on to ask how sharia-compliant microcredit could hope to solve the structural disadvantages of the rural poor. Sharia finance scholars look on land reform in Bangladesh or Pakistan in much the same way as the Vatican regarded peasant struggles in Latin America. Sharia-compliance is a profitable conversation between Islam and the armies of mammon, but hardly an outline for the widespread redistribution and creation of wealth that Muslim-majority countries need. An impressive tension forces up the heartrate of Islamic finance nonetheless: on the one hand, there is a fascination with Western models that seem to promise money and modernity, on the other, a reluctance to subscribe to the methods and a suspicion of the ideology, especially in its recent, neoliberal expression. In the Gulf, the rich have straddled this contradiction for many years, but the wave of newcomers is harder to read. Advocates of sharia-compliant products are not afraid to lift ideas - and instruments - from the repertoire of Western finance and graft them onto Islamic principles, while their Muslim opponents disdain both the repertoire and the products. The steady rhythms of the faith, which begin with a prayer before dawn and end with another at dusk, mark out the daily round of injustice and poverty for anyone who wants to see it that way. If the vogue for Islamic finance could restore the balance that's been upset, as Islamists tend to argue, by an invasive, secular capitalism, many more of them would have set aside their objections. _____ Jeremy Harding is a contributing editor at the LRB. His versions of Rimbaud's poetry are published by Penguin along with John Sturrock's translation of the letters. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n09/hard01_.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Jun 11 19:48:33 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:48:33 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Nicaragua Network Hotline--June 9, 2009 Message-ID: Nicaragua Network Hotline--June 9, 2009 Nicaragua Network Hotline www.nicanet.org TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP June 9, 2009 1. Decisions on international aid approach 2. Assembly passes law to govern Nicaragua's coasts 3. Opposition marches in Masaya and condemns limits on foreign funding 4. Pellas salutes pact with unions; National Workers Front (FNT) condemns union pact 5. Nicaragua exporting beans and cattle to Venezuela Topic 1: Decisions on international aid approach On June 10 the United States government will make the decision about whether to resume Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) aid to Nicaragua that was suspended in December due to controversy about the November municipal elections. Ambassador Robert Callahan said last week that "Nothing has changed so I fear that unless we have something new soon, it will be truly difficult [for aid to be renewed]." The MCA has funded jobs and projects in western Nicaragua for: 1) development of rural/agricultural businesses; 2) building and repairing roads; and 3) land titling. Juan Sebastian Chamorro, director of the MCA in Nicaragua, said that US$110 million has already been contracted and will continue, but US$64 million may be cancelled. The cuts would harm only the poor. Other US aid programs have continued. Prosecutor General Hernan Estrada said that the property titling program will continue with or without US aid. He said, "With respect to the titles, not only are we going to continue, but halfway through President Daniel Ortega's term, we have exceeded the number of property titles given out by the administrations of Presidents Aleman and Bola?os during their entire terms." He said that if the MCA money is cancelled, "we have funds now promised through ALBA [the Bolivarian Alternative for Our Americas cooperation agreement]." Mendel Goldstein, the European Commission's ambassador to Nicaragua, said on June 1 that the European Union would not turn over "a blank check to the president nor to the people; we're not going to give out money any which way; that's not possible." Amazingly he added, "Without us, where would this country be?" He noted that aid from the European Commission (EC) and members of the European Union totaled US$3.31 billion between 2000 and 2007. The Budget Support Group, which also suspended some of its aid in December, is composed of the EC, several European countries and the World Bank. On June 11 it will make its decision about whether to renew budget support aid. Edwin Castro, coordinator of the Sandinista bench in the National Assembly, said Goldstein's statements were "unfortunate." He added that if Goldstein really made them it would mean that "we would be returning to colonial times, but we became independent from Europe in 1821 and we are a sovereign country." On June 5, the government reiterated that it will not accept political conditions from the donor community. Topic 2: Assembly passes law to govern Nicaragua's coasts On June 4, the National Assembly unanimously passed the Law on Development of Coastal Zones which had been under discussion for over four years. The Law's Article 19 allows public use of ocean beaches 50 meters above the average high tide mark, a provision opposed by members of the Superior Council of Private Enterprise (COSEP). COSEP promoted the position of private property owners and national and investors who wanted a public access limited to 30 meters. Business leaders were pleased that the law supersedes a 1917 law which established an area of public access of two kilometers. What effect the law will have on disputed ownership and use of Caribbean Coast islands such as the Pearl Cays is unknown. Public access to lakes will be limited to five meters. Members of the indigenous community of Salinas de Nahualapa of Tola in the Department of Rivas announced that they are considering filing suit against the legislation because it does not take into account the land grants that indigenous groups received from the Spanish crown in the 1600s. Topic 3: Opposition marches in Masaya and condemns limits on foreign funding Opposition groups marched without incident in Masaya on June 7 to protest alleged fraud in last November's municipal elections and to demand the removal of magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Council. Because a Sandinista march was announced for the same day, there were fears of violent encounters similar to those that have taken place in the past, but the fears proved unfounded. At the Sandinista rally, the 30th anniversary of the death of eleven young people in Masaya during the final offensive of the 1979 revolution was commemorated and Education Minister Miguel de Castilla officially declared Masaya free of illiteracy. Membership cards in the Sandinista Party were handed out to new members as part of a national campaign to build membership. The opposition march was organized by the Union of Citizens for Democracy, a coalition of 16 groups. Benjamin Lugo of the Movement for Nicaragua, a group created and funded by the US International Republican Institute, calculated that some 4,000 people attended. Politicians such as losing presidential and Managua mayoral candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, and Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) leader Edmundo Jarquin attended the march. The Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC) which maintains an "on again, off again" pact with the Sandinista Party did not participate. Also on the agenda for many groups was concern over the leaked draft of government regulations of non- governmental organizations (NGOs) which would establish that international NGOs with a presence in Nicaragua "must abstain from any participation in political activities of a partisan character." Specific activities of Nicaraguan NGOs that are funded by international groups must not be political in nature either. The US regulates NGOs in a very similar manner. Nicaraguan Democratic Bench member, Maria Eugenia Sequeira, said that this prohibition constitutes a "blockade" of democracy. She said that, "More than ever, now that we have a dictatorial government, we need the support of friendly countries to promote democracy among our people." Jarquin of the MRS called Ortega's government "a low intensity dictatorship" and said that it "is invading all the spheres of life." Montealegre said that the regulations are a blow against democracy and part of "a pattern that is being followed in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia and now they want to implement it here and in Honduras." While the Nicaragua Network is not surprised that the "bought and paid for" Nicaraguan right-wing supports US intervention in Nicaragua's internal affairs, it is disappointing to hear former revolutionaries such as Jarquin echo the calls in favor of foreign electoral manipulation. Ana Quiroz, director of the Center for Health Information and Consultancy Services (CISAS), speaking at a National Assembly hearing, noted that the Nicaraguan Constitution establishes that citizens can organize in the form they find most convenient and for the reasons they find convenient with no limitations except those provided for in the law. She pointed out that the Electoral Law clearly states which activities can receive foreign funding, and among those activities are advising and training, thus the government may need to change the law. Topic 4: Pellas signs pact with unions; FNT condemns unions that supported Pellas Manipulating workers' fear for their jobs in light of an international boycott of Nicaragua's famed Flor de Ca?a rum, Carlos Pellas, president of Nicaragua's largest business group, signed an accord with three of the country's major labor federations which "guarantees" jobs for the more than 7,000 workers at the National Liquor Company and Nicaragua Sugar Estates, Ltd. in exchange for the unions criticizing the International Union of Food Workers (UITA) which is working on behalf of former workers poisoned on the Pellas sugar plantations. The unions include the Sandinista Workers Central (CST), the Confederation of Union Unity (CUS), and the Autonomous Confederation of Union Unity (CUS- A). Chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) has killed several thousand sugar workers in recent years. Survivors and their widows have been camped in downtown Managua for several months demanding negotiations with Pellas. Apparently the Pellas Group is beginning to feel the pressure. Last week Pellas announced that he would help build a hospital to treat kidney disease and work with the government to study the disease. The Nicaraguan Workers Front (FNT) strongly condemned the three unions for supporting the Pellas Group. The FNT said that it was a "vile action to put a brake on the claims of hundreds of workers who suffer from chronic renal insufficiency as a result of the indiscriminate use of agricultural toxins, the application of which is banned internationally because of their impact on human health." Meanwhile, a joint commission composed of members of the National Assembly committees on Health and Labor, and the Ministries of Labor and Health, the Social Security Institute, and affected former sugar workers, met to examine policy options with relation to the problem. Gustavo Porras, a physician who is General Secretary of the FNT and chair of the Health Committee, said, "This is a grave problem and it doesn't make sense to do a study to find out the causes of CRI when everybody know that it is linked to the use of agro-toxins and the farming practices that have been used, earlier with cotton and now with sugar." He went on to say, "We have to write a law that establishes new forms of healthy farming." Topic 5: Nicaragua exporting beans and cattle to Venezuela Two hundred and fifty small farmers in the Department of Carazo planted 870 acres of black beans, all for export to Venezuela, and the national cattle industry will export 1,100 head of cattle there as well this month, part of the Ortega government's efforts to find new markets under the Bolivarian Alternative for Our Americas (ALBA) cooperative fair trade agreement. The black beans were planted under contract with Nicaragua Food, Inc. (ALBALINISA), which made a commitment to purchase all that was produced. The cattle shipment was part of an agreement to export 5,500 head to Venezuela. Small farmers received 80 pounds of seed and 200 pounds of fertilizer and technical assistance which enabled them to produce 1,437 pounds of beans per acre cultivated. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAGFOR) now plans to expand the program to 17,400 acres, all for export under ALBA to Venezuela. Nicaragua's cattle industry has generated US$11 million under ALBA, according to National Assembly Deputy Douglas Aleman. That is expected to rise by the end of the year. Aleman also said that 6,000 tons of beef will be shipped to Venezuela in July as part of the ALBA agreements. He said that he expected that in the coming weeks a second accord will be signed to raise the amount of beef exported to Venezuela to 12,000 tons. Aleman also said during a celebration of International Milk Day and the Week of the Child, that the proposed Law for the Promotion of the Dairy Sector will, among other things, establish that all children under 12 years old should have a glass of milk a day in school. Promoted by the dairy industry and the government, the law is expected to easily pass the National Assembly. 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 Forward email This email was sent to chuck at afgj.org by nicanet at afgj.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribeT | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by Nicaragua Network | 1247 E St. SE | Washington | DC | 20003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ LAsolidarity mailing list LAsolidarity at lists.mutualaid.org http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/lasolidarity free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/ To unsubscribe, send a blank email to LAsolidarity-unsubscribe at lists.mutualaid.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 32633 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/77dac055/attachment.txt From nscchicago at igc.org Thu Jun 11 21:47:41 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:47:41 -0500 Subject: [A-List] BAD GMO EUCALYPTUS BAD IMF BAD MONSANTO BAD PERU Message-ID: Tom Baker here, friends, and - Eucalyptus GMO are coming to the USA They bad - IMF Showdown They bad and you can help - Monsanto is bad - Peru bad government uses live bullets against peaceful indigenous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1204 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/0e559e32/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/20090611/0e559e32/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Global Justice Ecology Project" Subject: Genetic Eucalyptus Trees Threaten U.S. South Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:44:00 -0500 Size: 21332 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/0e559e32/attachment-0004.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Mark Weisbrot, CEPR" Subject: Washington Showdown Over IMF Money Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Size: 27999 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/0e559e32/attachment-0005.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: mary whalen Subject: [AmeriConscience] Sowing Seeds of Starvation: Monsanto Hype in Growing Food Crisis [3 Attachments] Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Size: 35745 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/0e559e32/attachment-0006.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Kaufman" Subject: [LASolidarity] FW: Urgent: Indigenous Peruvians Killed While Protesting Bad Trade Deal Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:19:41 -0400 Size: 30740 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090611/0e559e32/attachment-0007.eml From nscchicago at igc.org Fri Jun 12 10:25:35 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:25:35 -0500 Subject: [A-List] Fw: [socialist_youth] Luis Posada Carriles ... and when will Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out? Message-ID: Luis Posada Carriles ... and when will Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out? Tom Baker here and they say that W-DC is capital of the world and Miami is capital of the hemisphere. It's been reported that Congresspeople and congressional staff people regularly touch base in Miami. If you wondered now you got some names and insight as to who and what "runs the World". Dictatorship makers and dictatorship cronies. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cort Greene Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:50 AM Subject: [socialist_youth] Luis Posada Carriles ... and when will Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out? Published: Thursday, June 11, 2009 Bylined to: Jean-Guy Allard Luis Posada Carriles ... and when will Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out? GRANMA (Jean-Guy Allard): Despite being denounced, and calls from Venezuela for his extradition, Luis Posada Carriles, the most dangerous terrorist in the hemisphere, is still conspiring to murder with his accomplices without any intervention from US legal authorities. Miami continues to have a strong nucleus of right extremists from various Latin American countries, who consider this city and the United States as a sanctuary for their activities, given that hundreds of fugitives, presidents and henchmen of dictatorial regimes have found a safe refuge there over the years. Since his arrival in the United States and his arrest by officials reluctant to bother him, Luis Posada Carriles has received the treatment of the feared member of the brotherhood of killers whose seal as untouchables dates back more than half a century. Freed by a judge (an accomplice to the intelligence apparatus) in El Paso after delay tactics orchestrated by corrupt district attorneys from the Bush era, Posada has met -- many times publicly -- with terrorist elements during the last few months and Latin American newspapers have reported the reactivation of his Central American network. Once again at liberty, the old conspirator has reconstituted, most notably in El Salvador, the network that he bragged about years ago in his book 'The Way of the Warrior,' the true confession of a psychopath paid by the yanki government. In this pamphlet promoting terror, he confides that "he can count on a private army." Cuban researcher Jose Luis Mendez Mendez commented on this subject, "He is a man highly trained in the use of explosives, in the use of arms; in capacity and techniques for killing, disappearing, kidnapping, which is recorded at great length as he narrates how he organized and structured the services he directed, besides bragging about his successes." ALWAYS SURROUNDED BY KNOWN KILLERS The height of this self-confessed CIA hit man's arrogance came when he recently appeared in the Alpha 66 offices surrounded by known terrorists with past police and even FBI files. In April, Posada Carriles participated in an assembly of known terrorists organized by Angel De Fana Serrano and covered by the press. Serrano took part in the 1997 plot masterminded by Posada to assassinate Cuban President Fidel Castro during an Ibero-American Summit on Margarita Island, Venezuela. At the end of February, also at the initiative of Posada and De Fana, Miami terrorists and Cuban American mafiosi met with Venezuelan coup plotters headed by traitorous military officers, without any interference from US authorities. On the front line of that conspiracy was Patricia Poleo, a fugitive from Venezuelan justice in the case of the assassination of district attorney Danilo Anderson. Qualified as a star agent by the CIA for her actions against Venezuela, which she directed from the United States, the daughter of millionaire editor Rafael Poleo also has links to Cuban terrorists, the Colombian right and her Venezuelan coup-supporting family. She is behind a number of operations against the Bolivarian Revolution from the US embassy in Caracas. The Venezuelan conspirators participating in that meeting included none other than Army Colonel Gustavo Diaz, Pedro Carmona's aide-de-camp during the coup against President Chavez in 2002. Also present was the traitor Captain Javier Nieto Quintero of the National Guard, linked to a 2004 case involving Colombian paramilitaries, and Lieutenant Jose Antonio Colina Pulido, responsible for bomb attacks on Spanish and Colombian diplomatic offices in Caracas in 2003. To illustrate the level of conspiracy more fully, in January 2008, Cuban-American De Fana was invited to speak to the press at an Miami event organized by Petr "Peter" Kolar, the Czech ambassador, together with Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Caleb McCarry, at that time head of the Bush Plan for the annexation of Cuba; Orlando Gutierrez Boronat, millionaire member of the Cuban Democratic Directorate; and Mauricio Claver Carone, director of the US-Cuba Democracy PAC, the Miami lobby group in Washington. Despite all the denunciations and with the complicity of the press, since his release Posada has been making regular appearances before those nostalgic for the Batista dictatorship. In Miami's Big Five Club, he shared an exhibition with another killer, Jose Dionisio "Pool of Blood" Suarez Esquivel, sentenced for the assassination of former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and pardoned by George W. Bush a few days before 9/11. The US magazine Salon also revealed that he took part, with terrorists Pedro Remon and Reinol Rodriguez (two of his most servile killers) in a public Alpha 66 activity in the Miami Havana Restaurant in Westchester. "Pool of Blood," Pedro Remon and Reinol Rodriguez are members of the operatives circle closest to Posada. TORTURER AND KILLER LOPEZ SISCO IN THE FRONT LINE From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Jun 12 06:54:28 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:54:28 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: interference and with the inertia or help of the authorities -- the = reactivation of his infernal operations with the complicity of several = of his old buddies, all well known to the US intelligence agencies.=20 According to a number of sources, former Venezuelan Captain Henry Lopez = Sisco has also been pointed to as one of Posada's accomplices in the San = Salvador plot. He has just been condemned in Venezuela as responsible = for the massacres that occurred in that country in the 1970s and 80s. = Henry Lopez Sisco was chief of operations at the Directorate of = Intelligence & Prevention Services (DISIP) and one of the most repugnant = figures in Posada's circle of friends in Venezuela.=20 A Secret police torturer and killer under Carlos Andres Perez, Lopez = Sisco is tied to a long succession of murders, disappearances and abuses = unleashed in the 1970s to eliminate groups of young rebels. He headed = the meetings between representatives from Carlos Andres Perez' = government and the head of Pinochet's DINA in August of 1975, and = organized an attack on the Cuban Embassy on April 12, 2002, during the = failed coup against Chavez.=20 Lopez Sisco belongs to the same Cuban-American network as Francisco = Pimentel, an accomplice in the 1997 Havana attacks; Nelis Rojas, a = terrorist who took refuge in Miami; and Hermes Rojas, who tortured = people with Posada in El Salvador. Other suspects include Pena Exclusa, = the Venezuelan fascist leader who has been in El Salvador for some = months as an aide to the presidential campaign of ARENA -- the party = responsible for the assassination of Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero. = Pena has also been designated as a conspirator in the recent = assassination attempt on Bolivian President Evo Morales by the gang of = neo-Nazis that dominate the city of Santa Cruz.=20 a.. Another name pointed to in the San Salvador conspiracy is = Venezuelan Vice Admiral Molina Tamayo, one of the plotters of the coup = that took place on April 11, 2002. He is currently in Central America, = along with several other traitors to the Bolivarian Revolution. ALL THE CONSPIRACIES LEAD TO THE NORTH In the last few weeks, a number of events reveal renewed activity in = terrorist circuits in contact with US intelligence mechanisms. Among = others, Bolivian authorities have identified a phony NGO, the Human = Rights Foundation (HRF), based in the New York Empire State Building, as = a key player in the conspiracy to assassinate President Evo Morales. The = plot was thwarted on April 16 in Santa Cruz. The HRF is directed by = Cuban-American Armando Valladares, who served time in a Cuban prison for = placing explosive devices in stores and movie theatres in 1960. He began = to work again with the CIA after he left the island.=20 The Bolivian District Attorney's Office has identified Hugo Acha Melgar, = the representative of HRF in Bolivia, as the financer of the terrorist = gang of Hungarian and Croat neo-Nazis. Hugo Acha and his accomplice = Alejandro Melgar are still at large in the United States with the = complicity of immigration authorities. Valladares is an old = Cuban-American mafiosi whose ties of friendship with the Bush-Reagan = clan are praised by terrorist capos in Miami.=20 Not only have US anti-terrorist agencies ignored the exposure of those = acts, but HRF representatives traveled to Honduras to participate as an = accredited NGO at the OAS Summit, in company with other CIA front = agencies implicated in interference operations in Latin America, among = them Vivanco's biased Human Rights Watch. MIAMI FBI: WHO'S GIVING ORDERS TO TOLERATE THIS? The mafia apparatus in Miami is so well protected that Republican = Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen attended a public meeting on April 6, = 2008 at which Posada was present, organized by a terrorist association = linked to the CIA. The federal government and the state of Florida spend = millions of dollars annually on multiple-crime operations under the = leadership of various state "commandos" of specialists in the war on = terrorism in the Florida peninsula.=20 a.. However, this enormous anti-terrorist apparatus has never shown = any interest in the Miami gangs launching terrorist campaigns against = Cuba and Venezuela.=20 The Miami FBI is scandalously associated with the impunity awarded to = the terrorist network represented by Posada. Luis Posada Carriles' file = was even spirited away from the archives of this agency in 2003, while = the international criminal was in prison in Panama. Months after the = administration change in Washington, nothing seems to have changed in = the banana republic where the monstrous Orlando Bosch, the pediatrician = killer, sleeps peacefully in his bed. Composed of individuals known for = their links with anti-Cuban mechanisms in the US intelligence services, = the Posada network is a product of the old mechanism created in Miami = over the last few decades -- beginning with the gigantic CIA JM-WAVE = station -- that nobody dares to touch.=20 More than ever before, Miami continues to be the great continental trash = can for all the defeated oligarchies. http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/junio/juev11/Miami.html __._,_.___ Post at socialist_youth at yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe at socialist_youth-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com =20 Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional=20 Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)=20 Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to = Fully Featured=20 Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe=20 __,_._,___ ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C9EB50.818A3800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Luis Posada Carriles = ... and when=20 will Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out?
Tom Baker here and they say that W-DC is capital of = the world=20 and Miami is capital of the hemisphere.
It's been reported that Congresspeople and = congressional staff=20 people regularly touch base in Miami.
If you wondered now you got some names and insight = as to who=20 and what "runs the World".
Dictatorship makers and dictatorship cronies.=20  
 
----- Original Message -----=20
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:50 AM
Subject: [socialist_youth] Luis Posada Carriles ... and when = will=20 Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out?

Published: Thursday, June 11, 2009
Bylined to: Jean-Guy = Allard=20
 
Luis = Posada Carriles ...=20 and when will Miami's terrorist nest be cleared out?
 
GRANMA (Jean-Guy Allard): = Despite being=20 denounced, and calls from Venezuela for his extradition, Luis Posada = Carriles,=20 the most dangerous terrorist in the hemisphere, is still conspiring to = murder=20 with his accomplices without any intervention from US legal=20 authorities.
 

Miami continues to have a = strong nucleus=20 of right extremists from various Latin American countries, who consider = this=20 city and the United States as a sanctuary for their activities, given = that=20 hundreds of fugitives, presidents and henchmen of dictatorial regimes = have found=20 a safe refuge there over the years.

Since his arrival in the = United States=20 and his arrest by officials reluctant to bother him, Luis Posada = Carriles has=20 received the treatment of the feared member of the brotherhood of = killers whose=20 seal as untouchables dates back more than half a century.
 
Freed by a judge (an accomplice to = the=20 intelligence apparatus) in El Paso after delay tactics orchestrated = by=20 corrupt district attorneys from the Bush era, Posada has met -- many = times=20 publicly -- with terrorist elements during the last few months and = Latin=20 American newspapers have reported the reactivation of his Central = American=20 network. Once again at liberty, the old conspirator has reconstituted, = most=20 notably in El Salvador, the network that he bragged about years ago in = his book=20 'The Way of the Warrior,' the true confession of a psychopath = paid by the=20 yanki government. In this pamphlet promoting terror, he confides that = "he can=20 count on a private army."
 

Cuban researcher Jose Luis = Mendez Mendez=20 commented on this subject, "He is a man highly trained in the use of = explosives,=20 in the use of arms; in capacity and techniques for killing, = disappearing,=20 kidnapping, which is recorded at great length as he narrates how he = organized=20 and structured the services he directed, besides bragging about his=20 successes."

ALWAYS SURROUNDED = BY KNOWN=20 KILLERS
The height of = this=20 self-confessed CIA hit man's arrogance came when he recently appeared in = the=20 Alpha 66 offices surrounded by known terrorists with past police and = even FBI=20 files. In April, Posada Carriles participated in an assembly of known = terrorists=20 organized by Angel De Fana Serrano and covered by the press. Serrano = took part=20 in the 1997 plot masterminded by Posada to assassinate Cuban President = Fidel=20 Castro during an Ibero-American Summit on Margarita Island, Venezuela.=20

At the end of February, also at = the=20 initiative of Posada and De Fana, Miami terrorists and Cuban American = mafiosi=20 met with Venezuelan coup plotters headed by traitorous military = officers,=20 without any interference from US authorities. On the front line of that=20 conspiracy was Patricia Poleo, a fugitive from Venezuelan justice in the = case of=20 the assassination of district attorney Danilo Anderson. Qualified as a = star=20 agent by the CIA for her actions against Venezuela, which she directed = from the=20 United States, the daughter of millionaire editor Rafael Poleo also has = links to=20 Cuban terrorists, the Colombian right and her Venezuelan coup-supporting = family.=20 She is behind a number of operations against the Bolivarian Revolution = from the=20 US embassy in Caracas.

The Venezuelan conspirators = participating=20 in that meeting included none other than Army Colonel Gustavo Diaz, = Pedro=20 Carmona's aide-de-camp during the coup against President Chavez in 2002. = Also=20 present was the traitor Captain Javier Nieto Quintero of the National = Guard,=20 linked to a 2004 case involving Colombian paramilitaries, and Lieutenant = Jose=20 Antonio Colina Pulido, responsible for bomb attacks on Spanish and = Colombian=20 diplomatic offices in Caracas in 2003.

To illustrate the level of = conspiracy more=20 fully, in January 2008, Cuban-American De Fana was invited to speak to = the press=20 at an Miami event organized by Petr "Peter" Kolar, the Czech ambassador, = together with Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Caleb McCarry, at that = time head=20 of the Bush Plan for the annexation of Cuba; Orlando Gutierrez Boronat,=20 millionaire member of the Cuban Democratic Directorate; and Mauricio = Claver=20 Carone, director of the US-Cuba Democracy PAC, the Miami lobby group in=20 Washington.

Despite all the = denunciations and with the=20 complicity of the press, since his release Posada has been making = regular=20 appearances before those nostalgic for the Batista dictatorship. In = Miami's Big=20 Five Club, he shared an exhibition with another killer, Jose Dionisio = "Pool of=20 Blood" Suarez Esquivel, sentenced for the assassination of former = Chilean=20 Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and pardoned by George W. Bush a few = days=20 before 9/11.

The US magazine Salon also = revealed that=20 he took part, with terrorists Pedro Remon and Reinol Rodriguez (two = of his=20 most servile killers) in a public Alpha 66 activity in the Miami = Havana=20 Restaurant in Westchester. "Pool of Blood," Pedro Remon and Reinol = Rodriguez are=20 members of the operatives circle closest to Posada.

TORTURER AND KILLER = LOPEZ SISCO=20 IN THE FRONT LINE
From = Miami,=20 Posada and his gang of killers have achieved -- without interference = and with=20 the inertia or help of the authorities -- the reactivation of his = infernal=20 operations with the complicity of several of his old buddies, all well = known to=20 the US intelligence agencies.

According to a number of = sources, former=20 Venezuelan Captain Henry Lopez Sisco has also been pointed to as one of = Posada's=20 accomplices in the San Salvador plot. He has just been condemned in = Venezuela as=20 responsible for the massacres that occurred in that country in the 1970s = and=20 80s. Henry Lopez Sisco was chief of operations at the Directorate of=20 Intelligence & Prevention Services (DISIP) and one of the most = repugnant=20 figures in Posada's circle of friends in Venezuela.

A Secret police torturer and killer under Carlos Andres = Perez,=20 Lopez Sisco is tied to a long succession of murders, disappearances and = abuses=20 unleashed in the 1970s to eliminate groups of young rebels. He headed = the=20 meetings between representatives from Carlos Andres Perez' government = and the=20 head of Pinochet's DINA in August of 1975, and organized an attack on = the Cuban=20 Embassy on April 12, 2002, during the failed coup against Chavez. =

Lopez Sisco belongs to the = same=20 Cuban-American network as Francisco Pimentel, an accomplice in the 1997 = Havana=20 attacks; Nelis Rojas, a terrorist who took refuge in Miami; and Hermes = Rojas,=20 who tortured people with Posada in El Salvador. Other suspects include = Pena=20 Exclusa, the Venezuelan fascist leader who has been in El Salvador for = some=20 months as an aide to the presidential campaign of ARENA -- the party = responsible=20 for the assassination of Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero. Pena has also = been=20 designated as a conspirator in the recent assassination attempt on = Bolivian=20 President Evo Morales by the gang of neo-Nazis that dominate the city of = Santa=20 Cruz.

  • Another name pointed to in = the San=20 Salvador conspiracy is Venezuelan Vice Admiral Molina Tamayo, one of = the=20 plotters of the coup that took place on April 11, 2002. He is = currently in=20 Central America, along with several other traitors to the Bolivarian=20 Revolution.

ALL THE = CONSPIRACIES LEAD TO THE=20 NORTH
In the last few weeks, a number = of events=20 reveal renewed activity in terrorist circuits in contact with US = intelligence=20 mechanisms. Among others, Bolivian authorities have identified a phony = NGO, the=20 Human Rights Foundation (HRF), based in the New York Empire State = Building, as a=20 key player in the conspiracy to assassinate President Evo Morales. The = plot was=20 thwarted on April 16 in Santa Cruz. The HRF is directed by = Cuban-American=20 Armando Valladares, who served time in a Cuban prison for placing = explosive=20 devices in stores and movie theatres in 1960. He began to work again = with the=20 CIA after he left the island.

The Bolivian District = Attorney's Office=20 has identified Hugo Acha Melgar, the representative of HRF in Bolivia, = as the=20 financer of the terrorist gang of Hungarian and Croat neo-Nazis.  = Hugo Acha=20 and his accomplice Alejandro Melgar are still at large in the United = States with=20 the complicity of immigration authorities. Valladares is an old = Cuban-American=20 mafiosi whose ties of friendship with the Bush-Reagan clan are praised = by=20 terrorist capos in Miami.

Not only have US anti-terrorist agencies = ignored the=20 exposure of those acts, but HRF representatives traveled to Honduras to=20 participate as an accredited NGO at the OAS Summit, in company with = other CIA=20 front agencies implicated in interference operations in Latin America, = among=20 them Vivanco's biased Human Rights Watch.

MIAMI FBI: WHO'S = GIVING ORDERS TO=20 TOLERATE THIS?
The = mafia apparatus=20 in Miami is so well protected that Republican Representative Ileana = Ros-Lehtinen=20 attended a public meeting on April 6, 2008 at which Posada was present,=20 organized by a terrorist association linked to the CIA. The federal = government=20 and the state of Florida spend millions of dollars annually on = multiple-crime=20 operations under the leadership of various state "commandos" of = specialists in=20 the war on terrorism in the Florida peninsula.

  • However, this enormous = anti-terrorist=20 apparatus has never shown any interest in the Miami gangs launching = terrorist=20 campaigns against Cuba and Venezuela.

The Miami FBI is = scandalously associated=20 with the impunity awarded to the terrorist network represented by = Posada. Luis=20 Posada Carriles' file was even spirited away from the archives of this = agency in=20 2003, while the international criminal was in prison in Panama. Months = after the=20 administration change in Washington, nothing seems to have changed in = the banana=20 republic where the monstrous Orlando Bosch, the pediatrician killer, = sleeps=20 peacefully in his bed. Composed of individuals known for their links = with=20 anti-Cuban mechanisms in the US intelligence services, the Posada = network is a=20 product of the old mechanism created in Miami over the last few decades = --=20 beginning with the gigantic CIA JM-WAVE station -- that nobody dares = to=20 touch.

More than ever before, = Miami continues=20 to be the great continental trash can for all the defeated=20 oligarchies.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/junio/juev11/Miami.html<= /A>




__._,_.___


Post=20 at socialist_youth at yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe at=20 socialist_youth-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com





Your=20 email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change=20 settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via = email: Switch=20 delivery to Daily Digest | Switch=20 to Fully Featured
Visit=20 Your Group | Yahoo! = Groups Terms=20 of Use | Unsubscribe=20

__,_._,___
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C9EB50.818A3800-- From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 15:50:57 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:50:57 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Ahmadinejad Leads Mousavi in Preliminary Results Message-ID: If the trend holds, Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, the only Western outfit that conducted a pre-election survey of Iranian voter preferences of the four candidates (see it at ), can claim foresight. -- Yoshie Ahmadinejad leads Mousavi in preliminary results Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:59:18 GMT Official preliminary results show that Iran's incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is leading the polls with 69.04 percent of the ballots that have so far been counted. In a surprise press briefing, Iran's Election Commission Chief, Kamran Daneshjoo, announced that 19.42 percent of the votes were counted until 23:54 local time (20:24 GMT). According to Daneshjoo, Ahmadinejad is leading in the polls, followed by Mir-Hossein Mousavi who has 28.42 percent of the votes. Preliminary results show that Mohsen Rezaei has won 1.62 percent of the votes and Mehdi Karroubi has grabbed 0.9 percent. According to Press TV's correspondent at the Election Commission Headquarters, Gissoo Ahmadi, more than 32 million people have cast their ballot in the election that saw a massive turnout on Friday June 12. Our correspondent added that the briefing was unexpected and that the reporters were surprised by the announcement, which was not due until dawn. The press briefing came after Mousavi claimed victory with 54 percent of the vote in a separate news conference. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Jun 12 17:06:48 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:06:48 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the Industrial Age Message-ID: <20090613080648.127b1a80.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Or: Is It "Mean" to Tell Someone Their House is on Fire? by Suzanne Duarte Culture Change (May 13 2009) You can never awaken using the same system that put you to sleep in the first place. - Gurdjieff Dearest Ones of Future Generations, I thought you might find it interesting to hear what I'm observing of those people I know about who are just waking up to what the state of the planet is. Last month saw Earth Day, an international day of observance for the Earth. For nearly forty years, it has been a day when environmentalists have had a chance to provide a reckoning of the damage that industrial civilization has been inflicting on the natural world. It is usually a time when print media make some obligatory gesture of recognition that humans live on a planet that we depend upon and that needs our attention. This year the statements were a little more urgent than usual, especially about climate change, which is increasingly referred to as "climate emergency". The reason that we are in a climate emergency - in fact, a biological holocaust, as it was identified over twenty years ago - is that the dominant Western, globalized culture has been in a "cultural trance", drunk on oil, living in a delusional bubble for about sixty years. Now, the question is, is it unkind or rude or unskillful to try to wake people up from their cultural trance and point out that we are endangering the future of our species, and many others, to remain asleep? Is it "mean" to wake somebody up to tell them that their house is on fire? A lot of people seem to think so. I've lost friends by trying to wake them up. Waking up at this time of the Great Turning from the industrial growth society to a life-sustaining way of life is painful. Many people still don't want to know, don't want to think, because it would entail facing painful truths and making hard choices. They can stand to think about it only briefly on one day out of the year. This is the reason I write letters to the future. I feel that beings of the future need and deserve an explanation for the destruction caused by my generation. And I can be more straightforward with you than with my contemporaries, for the aforementioned reasons. In the last resort, perhaps I am writing only to my future incarnations to remind them of what this lifetime was like, remind them of the dismay, frustration and pain of not being able to wake people up so that the future might be more livable. In any case, this missive is about what I observe to be the difficult stages of waking up at this time of crisis and danger. There is complex inner terrain to traverse before we can identify the opportunities and the adventure that await us if we have the courage to wake up and make the Great Turning. The challenge is that the Great Turning requires a psychological transformation from childlike dependence on external authorities and their outworn belief systems, to a mature, individuated, authentic sense of responsibility for oneself and one's effects on the world. This is a major transformation, much more than is normally implied when we, at this time, speak of 'growing up'. It seems that the hardest part of waking up at this time is facing the fact that it is too late to avoid the pain, suffering and loss that could have been forestalled, had humans collectively heeded the warnings. The warnings were and are rational and scientifically based. The denial of the warnings was and is irrational, based on false beliefs. Pointing out that the denial was collective and irrational causes some people to point the 'shame and blame' finger at those who make this point. Instead of allowing themselves to evaluate the truth of the statement, they whine, 'You're shaming and blaming us. That's not healing. You're being apocalyptic. We don't want to hear it, and it's your fault for not giving us the message of hope that we need.' This is a common shoot-the-messenger response, in which people who don't like the message blame, or 'shoot', the messenger. The message of 'hope' that is demanded is the hope that we don't have to take responsibility for ourselves and our world by changing how we live, and what we preoccupy ourselves with. The hope that many people want is very conditional. They can only take hope if they are reassured that things will continue as they have been during these very extraordinary last few decades. The cultural trance prevents people from recognizing that the reality of living on Earth is unconditional. Our survival depends upon facing the reality of the larger living system we depend upon, and that larger living system doesn't make deals. We can't bargain with it. We live within its jurisdiction. The Earth has been very patient. It has put up with a lot of abuse, but the biological life of living systems is quite fragile, very vulnerable to damage by machines. Living systems have limits and tipping points beyond which breakdown and/or evolution can occur. The limits to which we can push living systems have been in view for decades. Because the limits were ignored, we are now seeing and experiencing the tipping point stage, and systemic chaos can therefore be expected. The reality is that, not only do we have to change the way we live, but we need to recognize our part in creating this necessity. In order to survive we need to own this responsibility and grow up, so that we don't repeat our mistakes again. That this message is taken as an insult is an ego-based default response, which is irrational and childish. This is the crux of the reason that humanity needs to grow up. Growing up resets these immature default settings. Growing up means accepting responsibility, taking the blame upon oneself, acknowledging one's blind spots, and one's dysfunctional social conditioning. Growing up means getting honest and feeling remorse for the consequences of one's childishness and self-deception. This is the point where we are right now, collectively. The minority of visionary Cassandras is turning out to be correct. But that is small comfort since they/we are still facing the wrath - and the consequences - of the majority who rejected foresight, and want to blame somebody, scapegoat somebody. The stages of grief have to be worked through in the process of waking up: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. Coming out of denial, the next reaction for most people is anger. But I hope you of future generations can have some sympathy and compassion for those who are just waking up, because the discrepancy between the dream they are coming out of and the reality they must face is quite enormous. Some people talk about how "we need a new story", a new cosmology, and this is true as far as it goes. But there are two facts that belie the simplicity of that statement. One is that the new story is still in gestation and isn't yet a 'live birth'. The other is that the gap between the cultural trance of the old story and the unfolding reality of the world has never - in the history of our species - been so wide as it has become in Western civilization. The American Dream, in particular, has been so disconnected from the reality of the Earth that waking up from it is truly a 'rude awakening', as we say, that can seem traumatic. Although waking up may be most difficult for Americans, that dream has also entranced much of the rest of the world. However, since I am an American, I can identify with the difficulty of waking up from the American Dream. I know from experience that it entails working through layers and layers of collective delusion: the sense of entitlement and security of being a citizen within the "greatest country the world has ever known"; the sense that our country is superior and can do no wrong, and that it is 'exceptional' and will not collapse like other civilizations and empires; the sense that America is entitled to take what it wants from the rest of the world - by force if necessary; the sense that living in the United States is an unsurpassable blessing for which we should be grateful; the sense that 'we' (Americans) are the best people; and the sense that loyalty to our country demands that we turn a blind eye to its wrongdoings and faults. These are the delusions of the citizens of empire, carried over from ancient tribalistic habitual patterns. Just to wake up to the injustices, lies, and crimes of our empire, and to realize that our arrogant assumptions of entitlement and superiority are baseless, takes a lot of courage; for to face these things means we must step out of the herd, and leave the herd mentality of the majority behind. This is a necessary part of growing up. But once we've woken up to the injustices of our empire, the next step in growing up and facing reality is the realization that our empire is faltering and failing; in fact, it is disintegrating. At this stage one peeks over the edge of the cloud or the cliff and begins to comprehend how far it is to the ground - how far we have to fall. This is where we truly begin to realize that we are living in a former empire at the end of the industrial age, and that 'progress' as we've known it is over. Then we begin to comprehend that the glories of the way of life we've taken for granted - the glamour, ease and convenience of the industrial age - can never, ever be repeated, because our civilization has stripped the Earth of the resources that are accessible through the use of fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are going away. As Richard Heinberg has detailed for us, we have reached Peak Everything (2007) and after the peak, the only way is down. This Long Descent (2008) or Long Emergency (2006) - as John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler, respectively, have described it - is the future that the majority of citizens of former empires have not yet been able to face. I don't mean just Americans. I live in another former empire, the Netherlands. Here is what I recently observed of the masses in this overcrowded country:- Queens Day, April 30, 2009 With the sun shining and temperatures in the low sixties, boats and barges full of people wearing bright orange, often standing up shoulder-to-shoulder, float by on the canal, blaring loud music. The Dutch make a lot of noise celebrating their Dutchness on this national holiday, celebrating the chance to take a day off in the sunshine after a long, dark winter. This is the way the Dutch have 'fun': they crowd together in the streets and on barges and boats, and make a lot of noise. They wear their national color, orange, to show their nationalistic solidarity. They play popular music at high volume and wave their arms in the air to express themselves. They get drunk and do crazy things. Today a driver drove his car into a crowd of people, and four people died. My Dutch husband said it was simply 'mania', a mania he reported seeing on the streets yesterday as people prepared to 'celebrate'. The Dutch are prone to do crazy things when they have an excuse to relax their habitual stiffness. I catch myself looking at these people unkindly. I am not only detached, but arrogantly so. Yet I immediately recognize that my arrogance is a cover for the sadness I feel, knowing that the loud display of color and sound is a cover for a psychological condition, of which the Dutch are in stubborn denial. I think about all the petroleum that is being wasted to power these people around and around the canals of the city, trying so hard to have a good time. What is behind this frivolity? Why do people waste time, energy and resources on such frivolity, if it isn't an avoidance mechanism - an avoidance of the truth? Do they know at some level that they live in a former empire at the end of the industrial age? Is this the subconscious awareness, the anxiety that is fueling their manic 'fun'? I am reminded of the drunken parties of the Nazi elites, portrayed in many films, just before the fall of Berlin and Hitler's suicide, which marked the end of World War Two. This kind of frivolous abandon - also evoked by the image of the mad emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned - seems to be a compensatory measure of resistance to facing a reality that cannot be faced. The drunken parties precede suicide. Not far from the Dutch geographically or politically is another former empire, Britain. Both the UK and the Netherlands have supported the American empire in its military adventures to control the supply of oil. But the Brits seem to be expressing their anxiety slightly less frivolously - by attacking each other for policies that are meant to maintain the status quo and the illusion that economic recovery is possible. (The British are much better at publicly arguing with each other than the Dutch are.) However, things seem to be in a more advanced stage of economic and social breakdown in the UK than in Holland, and grassroots movements - notably Transition initiatives - are far more robust in the UK than in Holland. In fact, they started there. I attribute the Transition movement's birth in the UK to the deeper spiritual connection with the natural world that people traditionally have had in the British Isles, and also a deeper understanding of the dark side of industrialism. After all, the industrial revolution started in England, which provoked several opposition movements - the Romantic poets, the Arts and Crafts movement, and the Luddite protests against machines, not to mention many novels. It's almost as though something in the British cultural psyche has been waiting and preparing for the end of the industrial age since it began. Waking up to living in a former empire at the end of the industrial age brings gravitas to one's outlook, as Kurt Cobb suggests in Does understanding complexity beget a tragic view of life? {1} One does not and cannot celebrate as the Dutch were celebrating outside my window. That kind of frivolous abandon is no longer possible once one has worked through the cultural trance, come down to Earth, and accepted responsibility. Then celebration takes on a decidedly more sober, mindful, even reverential tone. But, dear ones of the future, few people in this former empire, Holland, or in America (which will soon be globally recognized as a former empire) have acquired the gravitas - the groundedness in reality - to prepare for the end of cheap oil, or any of the other circumstances that will radically change our supposedly 'non-negotiable' way of life. So, if you can, try to see the wastefulness and triviality that are so prevalent at this time as the desperation of an immature culture, which is resisting the necessity of a rite of passage that only those capable of growing up are likely to survive. The ones who do survive are likely to be your ancestors. They will probably be the ones who woke up in time and prepared for the end of the industrial age and climate change. With love and compassion for all future beings, Suzanne Link {1} http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-understanding-complexity-beget.html _____ Suzanne Duarte has been teaching Buddhadharma, Deep Ecology, and Ecopsychology for over thirty years, including Peak Oil since 2005. Later this year she will launch her new website, Dharmagaians.org and its blog. This essay will be the kind of thing that will appear on her Dharmagaians blog. http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=422&Itemid=1 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From noreply at coha.org Fri Jun 12 12:05:30 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:05:30 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Cuba Goes Environmental, Indigenous Uprising In Peru Message-ID: <20090612180519.776463E50AB@mx-out.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6108 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090612/65bcfafc/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 19:22:17 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:22:17 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Ahmadinejad Won Message-ID: They still haven't counted all the votes (32 million votes in total), but, given the official results based on nearly 26 million votes counted so far, Ahmadinejad (16,974,382 votes so far counted for him) defeated Mousavi (8,124,690 votes for him so far). Yoshie From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Fri Jun 12 14:50:18 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:50:18 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Are Mohawks going to be invaded??? Message-ID: <012f74cc$39976$046c7015925463@xnote> ARE AKWESASNE MOHAWKS BEING SET UP FOR AN INVASION? OPP attack Tyendinaga supporters MNN. June 15, 2009. It was one year since two grandmothers were brutally attacked by CBSA border agents at Akwesasne. One was almost killed by a trauma induced heart attack. We are trying to anticipate the strategy of the colonists. These corporatist forces recently attacked our brothers in the Amazon rainforest. Helicopters flew overhead and shot and bombed them, massacring over a hundred unarmed untouched natives who still live in the rainforest, cut off from modern life, as their ancestors always did. With only spears for weapons they weren?t a threat. Their bodies were taken away and the blood was quickly cleaned up. Here, the plan is to create situations where Mohawks are falsely seen as unruly or as terrorists. Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to declare he has no choice but take control of our ?reserves?, put us under third party management, expropriate our communities and hand them over to his corporate backers. He wants to hand over multi billion dollars of real estate to them. Akwesasne would be turned over to outsiders for resorts, casinos, condos and creating a playground for the elite. Cornwall Island would become part of a NAFTA super highway complex. We would be removed. An American would be able to come into Canada without having to pass through a border checkpoint. Kahnawake would become part of Montreal. Six Nations would become part of surrounding municipalities. Harper has to do this before he gets kicked out of office. This morning at 6:45 am the OPP came to the Skyway Bridge which the Mohawks of Tyendinaga had never closed down. They slowed down traffic giving out information to support the Mohawks of Akwesasne. The OPP and the band council Mohawk Police shut it down and kept the public off the bridge. A squad of 150 to 200 cruisers and SUVs came in and practically massacred our people. There was blood everywhere, which was quickly mopped by the OPP, using fire hoses to immediately wash down any evidence. 14 were hurt. The Shiprider Agreement was signed by Canada and US on May 26, 2009 to escalate the North American Union and martial law. All law enforcement, intelligence, military and border patrol come under the Pentagon. RCMP and armed US Coast Guards can enter each others waterway, in particular, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, which is Haudenosaunee Territory. Obviously, Harper without Parliamentary approval has relinquished sovereignty over the colony of Canada. These executive decisions never went through Parliament or Congress because they say it?s to pursue terrorists and criminals. NORAD [North American Air Defense] covers air space. Shiprider covers the naval aspect. Land integration is not yet signed. The combined forces could come in to attack the Mohawks, with the excuse that they are pursuing terrorists. The Nazi in WW II used this same tactic. German soldiers dressed as Polish soldiers blew up railroads in Germany. This justified the Germans attacking Poland. US fascists are doing the same thing. On June 1, 2009, the Canadian border guards were supposed to start carrying guns. They knew well in advance that the Mohawks would resist. US and Canada blocked the bridges onto the Cornwall Island portion of Akwesasne. We have no choice but to travel by our boats to take our kids to school, go to work and do normal family activities. It?s only a matter of time before the coast guard will start arresting and taking us to holding facilities nearby. No trial. No habeas corpus. No legal rights just like Guantano. It?s martial law because the military is involved. What threat will the US and Canada make as an excuse to launch this invasion? The US military choppers have been flying over the MNN office and followed a Mohawk woman to Cornwall courthouse yesterday. NorthCom coordinates this under US Homeland Security at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado. The US took illegal jurisdiction of Great Turtle Island to launch military domination of the world. Canada is central because of resources like ore, oil, uranium, raw materials and water. Canada has accepted US immigration, anti-terrorist laws, police state, racist policies, ethnic profiling and arbitrary arrests of anti-war activists. Canada?s Public Safety is part of US Homeland Security. All civilian police, judicial and intelligence structures, militarization of government bodies and agencies are integrated under the Pentagon. US military bases can be built in Canada. Big Brother Data Bank is operated by Homeland Security, FBI and CIA. They have security, confidential information, tax and medical records, credit card, banking, educational, employment data, travel, internet, email, phone and fax info. Code Red Alerts from a Canadian municipality could bring in US troops or special forces. The flu panemic has raised the alert level, although there appears to be few victims. CBC stated the natives in the north who don?t travel are dying of this pandemic. Law enforcement and military are being set up to intervene. Canadian companies support the US initiative. They want lucrative multi million dollar contracts for war reconstruction. Most Canadian weapons producers are affiliates of US defense conglomerates. Big contracts are expected by General Dynamics, Bell Helicoptor Textron, General Motors Defense, CAE, Bombardier, SNC Lavalin Group and others. The goal of war economies such as Canada, US and Mexico is complete integration in trade, finance and investment, under the control of US corporatist war lords. Harper desperately needs to push us out of the way while he has power. He wants his multinational supporters to rape our land. The Jay Treaty 1794 cannot be rescinded unless there is a terrorist threat. They created a myth. For some reason a small group of women, children and grandmothers are the emergency! The CBSA border guards are so scared they even interrogated an 18-month baby as a terrorist threat! Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Contact Rotiskenrakete 514-269-1400. N. Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Tyendinaga: 613-848-6968, 613-813-1017, 613-391-5132 Supporters may send comments to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, London, SQ1A UK; President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Comments: 202-456-1111, Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461; The Governor General of Canada, M. Michaelle Jean, 1 Rideau Drive, Ottawa info at gg.ca; Alain Jolicoeur, President, CBSA, Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8, 613-952-3200, 613-957-0612; General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Lance Markell, District Director, Northern Office ? Customs, St. Laurent Blvd., Ottawa Ont. K1G 4K3, CBSA 613-930-3234, 613-991-1214, General inquiries CBSA-ASFC at canada.gc.ca; Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Operator Number: 202-282-8000, Comment Line: 202-282-8495, Jayson P. Ahern, A/Commissioner, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229 Chief Counsel (202) 344-2990; Marco A. Lopez, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Customs, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229; Prime Minister Stephen Harper; House of Commons, Ottawa, harper.s at parl.gc.ca; Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of Commons, Ottawa; Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8; Attorney General of Ontario, 720 Bay St., 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5G 2K1; Hon. Yvon Marcoux, Minister of Justice and A.G.O., Louis-Phillipe-Pigeon Bldg., 1200 Rue d l'Eglise, 9th Floor, St. Foy G1V 4M1; Hon. Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs, 10 Wellington St., Hull, Que. K1A 0H4 Strahl.c at parl.gc.ca; Premier Dalton McGuinty, Province of Ontario, Queens Park, Toronto ON; Premier Charest, Province of Quebec, Legislature, Quebec City; British High Commission, 80 Elgin St., Ottawa, ON K1P 5K7; Canadian Human Rights Commission, 344 Slater St., 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1; United Nations, 405 E 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017; The Hague, Anna Paulownastraat, 103, 251 BBC, The Netherlands; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, c/o WFM, 708 3rd Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Supporters of Mohawks: MPs Jean Crowder, Indian Affairs critic crowdj at parl.gc.ca ; Anita Neville nevila at parl.gc.ca ; Marc Lemay lemaym at parl.gc.ca ; Sen. Nancy Green; Sen. Gerry St. Germain; From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jun 13 02:21:40 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:21:40 -0400 Subject: [A-List] NATO threatens to keep bombing.... Message-ID: <5F5249CED0054E3EB7C3CC2B3689FC20@TonyPC> To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:53 PM Subject: [stopnato] NATO threatens to keep bombing.... For immediate release. Contact: +46 733 815361 NATO Threatens to Keep Bombing as 6 More Peace Activists Enter Bombing Range NATO has threatened to continue a live-fire bombing exercise in Swedish Lapland despite the presence of six (6) peace activists in the bombing area. The activists, all members of the Swedish anti-militarist network Ofog, aim to disrupt the exercise and prevent NATO from practising for war. The exercise involves 10 countries and around 2000 soldiers, 1000 of which are based aboard the British aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious. This is the third day running that Ofog has entered the restricted military area being use for the exercise. The first group of three people entered shortly before midnight and remain at large in the bombing range 15 hours later. The second entered around midday. ?NATO is the worlds biggest war machine and nuclear weapons club. This aerial exercise in northern Sweden is their largest this year and is designed to make the NATO Response Force even more able to attack wherever they want. 90% of those who are killed in NATO's wars are civilians. It is our responsibility as human beings to do all we can to stop this exercise.? said Miriam Cordts from V?ster?s in Sweden, one of the activists in the bombing range. The NATO response to the activists presence was first to attempt to deny that the activists were there (despite photos proving otherwise on the Ofog website) and then to claim that they will continue bombing anyway. ?We have not been given any restrictions on continuing the exercise from FMV, who are responsible for the firing range? said Sara Burlage, information officer at the F21 base co-ordinating the exercise, to Swedish TV news program Nordnytt. ?We know that NATO bombs civilians, but this is the first time they have threatened to bomb civilians in Sweden? said an Ofog spokesperson. ?This is the third time this week that a group from Ofog has gone into the military area. We have never lied about going in. It is a safety issue. It is NATO who are dropping bombs so it is NATO who must be able to guarantee that there are no civilians in the firing range.? ?NATO is a nuclear weapon alliance who through threats and violence strives to maintain and extend its control of the worlds natural resources. We are just some of many who oppose that. I see it as my duty as a human being to do all I can so that no-one gets better at dropping deadly bombs.? said Henrik Olsson, one of the activists inside the firing range. For more information contact +46 733 815361 or info at ofog.org We can reply to queries in either English or Swedish. __._,_.___ 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 4New 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 Sat Jun 13 02:27:10 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:27:10 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Ukraine: Parliament Blocks NATO Troops For War Games Message-ID: <24FF12EB2D824984B5DB100CA119BE6B@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:57 AM Subject: [stopnato] Ukraine: Parliament Blocks NATO Troops For War Games http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=46632&cid=219&p=12.06.2009 Voice of Russia June 12, 2009 Parliament of Ukraine has blocked a debate to allow the presence of foreign troops The Communist Party and the Party of Regions in the Parliament of Ukraine have blocked a debate on a presidential motion to allow the presence of foreign troops for joint exercises. The presidency says the blockage has derailed plans for this year?s Sea Breeze exercise with the United States on Ukrainian territory. Ukraine planned as many as 11 joint wargames with foreign powers this year. =========================== 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 4New 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 Sat Jun 13 02:28:19 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:28:19 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Arctic: Pentagon Launches Large-Scale War Games In Alaska Message-ID: <3C04E8A9F7D44C47ADEFA4017552C047@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:33 PM Subject: [stopnato] Arctic: Pentagon Launches Large-Scale War Games In Alaska http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/12/alaskas-biggest-military-exercise-means-booming-bu/ Fairbanks Daily News-Miner June 12, 2009 Alaska's biggest military exercise means booming business for fighter pilots By Chris Freiberg -More than 200 aircraft, including B-52s, F-16s and Blackhawk helicopters are involved in this year?s Northern Edge....In addition, the USS John C. Stennis and its carrier strike group will be operating out of the Gulf of Alaska during the exercises. The nuclear-powered supercarrier has an air wing of more than 70 aircraft and a crew of 5,000 sailors. FAIRBANKS ? Alaska?s largest military exercise of the year is set to begin today. More than 9,000 troops from all branches of the U.S. military, stationed in nine different time zones, will participate in Northern Edge 2009. Northern Edge is scheduled to last through June 26. ?The exercises allow us to train in a joint environment and practice tactics and procedures in air and sea engagements,? said Capt. Uriah Orland, an Air Force spokesman based at Elmendorf Air Force Base. More than 200 aircraft, including B-52s, F-16s and Blackhawk helicopters are involved in this year?s Northern Edge, which traces its origins back more than three decades to much smaller Arctic exercises. The military hosts the exercises in Alaska because the state offers more than 120,000 square miles of air space. Many planes participating in Northern Edge are temporarily stationed at Eielson Air Force Base, while some additional helicopters are calling Fort Wainwright home for the next two weeks. In addition, the USS John C. Stennis and its carrier strike group will be operating out of the Gulf of Alaska during the exercises. The nuclear-powered supercarrier has an air wing of more than 70 aircraft and a crew of 5,000 sailors. As for what those living near Eielson should expect, Orland said there will be additional noise from planes taking off and landing at various points between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. While there will be sonic booms, they are restricted to higher altitudes and less-populated areas, and should not pose a danger to the public. ?We?re extremely pleased to be allowed the practice we need to train to defend the country,? Orland said. =========================== 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 4New 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 Sat Jun 13 02:28:44 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:28:44 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Russia Insists On Halt To US Missile Shield In Eastern Europe Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:08 AM Subject: [stopnato] Russia Insists On Halt To US Missile Shield In Eastern Europe http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=97799§ionid=351020602 Press TV June 11, 2009 Russia insists on halt to US missile shield Russia says that the US must halt its plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe before the two countries can start a dialogue on missile defense. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko, also insisted that Moscow would not cooperate in the Pentagon's plans to site an anti-missile radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland. "We cannot agree to cooperate on the creation of sites which in their essence are designed to oppose Russia's strategic deterrent forces. No one will do something that harms himself," Nesterenko said. "Only a US withdrawal from plans to place the so-called third position area of strategic missile defense in Europe can allow full-fledged dialogue to start on issues of cooperation in the reaction to probable missile threats." The term "third position area" refers to the US plans in Eastern Europe. The previous two areas of the planned multibillion-dollar missile shield are in the US states of Alaska and California. Nesterenko's comments on Thursday were in response to Russian media reports that the two countries had made progress on the issue and that the United States might even situate elements of its missile shield in Russia. The reports, which appeared in a number of Russian newspapers, were based on testimony by the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week before US senators. Moscow has reacted angrily to the US missile defense plans, saying they are a threat to Russian security. =========================== 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 4New 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 Sat Jun 13 05:13:46 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:13:46 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Out of the Ashes of General Motors Message-ID: <20090613201346.012fce3d.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Phoenix of Renewable Energy by Ellen Brown webofdebt.com (June 10 2009) It may be prophetic that among the brands GM chose to kill was the Pontiac Firebird, a classic hot car of the 1960s sporting the fabled Phoenix on its hood. In mythology, the Phoenix was a colorful bird that incinerated itself in its nest, then rose from the ashes as its own offspring. GM too, says Michael Moore, could be reborn as something else. In a June 1 eulogy of sorts, he wrote {1}: "So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold, and I find myself filled with - dare I say it - joy. It is not the joy of revenge against a corporation that ruined my hometown ? Nor do I, obviously, claim any joy in knowing that 21,000 more GM workers will be told that they, too, are without a job. But you and I and the rest of America now own a car company!" What would we want with a car company? Moore suggests that the bankrupt mega-builder of obsolete gas guzzlers can be transformed into a mega-builder of things we need more - mass transit vehicles, including bullet trains, light rail mass transit lines, energy efficient clean buses, hybrid or all-electric cars {2}, and alternative energy devices {3} such as batteries, windmills, and solar panels. The factories that built the cars that helped destroy the environment can become the tools for cleaning it up. This would, of course, take some investment; but Moore suggests that to pay for it all, the government could impose a two-dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline. It sounds good right up to the gas tax, a regressive tax that would hit hardest in the wallets of the poor and would raise alarm bells for politicians, the oil lobby, and voters. Isn't there some way to fund the plan without driving up the tax burden or the national debt? In fact, there is. To Put Our New Car Company to Good Use, We Just Need to Own a Bank The federal government could create its own credit with its own government-owned lending facility, on the model of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation {4} used by President Roosevelt to fund the New Deal. But instead of merely recycling borrowed money as Roosevelt did, the new facility could actually create credit on its books. Its capital base could be leveraged into many times that sum in loans, in the same way that private banks routinely create money (or "credit") today {5}. Assuming a reserve requirement of ten percent, if the $300 billion or so that remains of the TARP money were deposited in the new bank, this money could be leveraged into $3 trillion in loans. If the money were counted as capital, at an eight percent capital requirement it could become $3.75 trillion in loans, or 12.5 times the original sum. Indeed, it is the sovereign right of governments to create the national money supply, but few governments exercise that right today. The only money the US government now issues are coins, which compose only about one ten-thousandth of the US M3 money supply. The rest is created by private banking institutions when they make loans. This includes the privately-owned Federal Reserve, which creates Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) and lends them to the government and to commercial banks. Federal Reserve Notes compose only three percent of the money supply. All of the rest consists merely of credit created on the books of private banks. Many authorities have attested that banks simply create the money {6} they lend as accounting entries on their books. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas states on its website {7}: "Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here's how it works {8}: Most of a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank ? holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times." This was confirmed recently by President Obama himself. In a speech at Georgetown University {9} on April 14, he said: "[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks - 'where's our bailout?' they ask - the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth". The money generated by banks through the multiplier effect comes at a heavy cost in interest. One advantage of a government-owned bank {10} is that it could fund public projects interest-free or nearly interest-free, cutting production costs dramatically. Interest comprises as much as 77% of the cost of goods and services {11}, such as public housing, that require large amounts of capital. The cost of interest is lower for labor-based services such as garbage collection, for which it makes up only about twelve percent of the cost. Averaging them all together, the overall cost of interest has been estimated to be about half the cost of everything we buy. If money for infrastructure development were issued interest-free, projects currently considered unsustainable because of the burden of interest could become not only self-sustaining but actually profitable for the government. In The Modern Universal Paradigm (2007), Rodney Shakespeare gives the example of the Humber Bridge, which was built in the UK at a cost of GBP 98 million. Every year since the bridge opened in 1981, it has turned an operating profit; that is, its running costs (basically repair, maintenance, and staff salaries) have been exceeded by the fees it receives from travelers crossing the river Humber. But by the time the bridge opened in 1981, interest on its construction loans had driven its cost up to GBP 151 million; and by 1992, only ten years later, the debt had shot up to a breath-taking GBP 439 million. The UK government was forced to intervene with sizeable grants and writeoffs to save the local residents from bearing the brunt of these costs. If the bridge had been financed with interest-free, government-issued credit, these costs could have been avoided and the bridge could have funded itself. In March of this year, Congressman Chris Van Hollen introduced a bill to establish a Green Bank {12} aimed at catalyzing clean energy and energy efficient projects. The proposed bank would be an independent, tax-exempt, wholly owned corporation of the United States, with the exclusive mission of providing a comprehensive range of financial support to qualified clean-energy and energy-efficiency projects in the US If this Green Bank were operated on the fractional reserve system, its initial capital base could be leveraged many times as loans. The loans could then be paid off with the income generated by the projects, preventing inflation and allowing additional loans to be made. Unlike the bank bailouts that have eaten up so much of the government's revenues, green projects create real goods and services and real profits; and the projects could be particularly profitable if they were created without the burden of interest. Historical Precedents Funding public projects with government-issued credit is not a new idea. It has a long and successful history, including these notable examples: * In the early eighteenth century, the colony of Pennsylvania {13} issued money that was both lent and spent by the local government into the economy, producing an unprecedented period of prosperity. This was done without producing price inflation and without taxing the people. * When Abraham Lincoln {14} needed money to fund the American Civil War, rather than paying 25 to 36 percent interest charges, he avoided going into debt by printing Greenback dollars that were "legal tender" in themselves. The ploy not only allowed the North to win the Civil War but helped fund a period of unusual national expansion and development. * The island state of Guernsey {15}, located in the Channel Islands, used government-issued money to fund roads, bridges, and other needed infrastructure throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries, without price inflation and without incurring government debt. * The Bank of North Dakota {16}, founded in 1919, is a wholly state-owned bank that creates credit on its books just as private banks do. This credit is used to serve local needs, and the interest on loans is returned to the government. Not coincidentally, North Dakota has a $1.2 billion budget surplus at a time when 47 of fifty states are insolvent, an impressive achievement for a state of isolated farmers battling challenging weather. * During the First World War, when private banks were demanding six percent interest, Australia's publicly-owned Commonwealth Bank {17} financed the Australian government's war effort at an interest rate of a fraction of one percent, saving Australians some $12 million in bank charges. After the First World War, the bank's governor used the bank's credit power to relieve the depression conditions in other countries by financing production and home-building, and lending funds to local governments for the construction of roads, tramways, harbors, gasworks, and electric power plants. The bank's profits were paid back to the national government. * A successful infrastructure program funded with interest-free "national credit" was also instituted in New Zealand after it elected its first Labor government in the 1930s. Credit issued by its nationalized central bank allowed New Zealand to thrive at a time when the rest of the world was struggling with poverty and lack of productivity. According to a book titled State Housing in New Zealand, published by the Ministry of Works in 1949: "To finance its comprehensive proposals, the Government adopted the somewhat unusual course of using Reserve Bank credit, thus recognizing that the most important factor in housing costs is the price of money - interest is the heaviest portion in the composition of rent ? This action showed ? it was possible for the State to use the country's credit in creating new assets for the country". The Inflation Objection The objection invariably raised to proposals for government self-funding is that the result would be dangerously inflationary. Addressing that issue in the Winter 2004 edition of the New Zealand Guardian Political Review, Stan Fitchett explored whether the New Zealand government's 1930s approach would create price inflation today. He confirmed with bank officials that 97 percent of the New Zealand money supply is now created by commercial banks when they make loans. The year he was writing, the money supply increased by 18,527 million New Zealand dollars, or 16.8 percent; and 97 percent of this increase came from commercial bank lending. Fitchett confirmed with banking experts that if the Reserve Bank had created 100 million New Zealand dollars to build new houses in New Zealand, the sum would have had no noticeable impact on inflation, since it was only one-half of one percent of what was already being added to the money supply annually by private commercial banks. Similar ratios apply in the United States and other countries. If it is dangerously inflationary for public banks to create money, then it is dangerously inflationary for private banks to do it; but we don't hear economists and politicians clamoring for the private credit machine to be shut down. To the contrary, a flood of money is being poured into that choking and sputtering machine in a desperate attempt to get its pistons firing again. A more efficient solution to the credit crunch would be for the government to abandon its old Tin Lizzie-model credit machine and create a shiny new public Firebird model; and the first thing the new credit engine might be tested on are green energy projects of the sort proposed by Mr Moore. Out of the ashes of a failed GM could arise not only a new, clean way of traveling but a new way of funding government and the services we expect from it. Links: 1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/goodbye-gm_b_209603.html 2 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=2282 3 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3325 4 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3162 5 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3499 6 http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php 7 http://www.dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html 8 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3499 9 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/politics/14obama-text.html 10 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=3361 11 http://www.mkeever.com/kent.html 12 http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/industry-coalition-hails-congress-green-bank-act/ 13 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200208/ai_n9106543/ 14 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3394 15 http://www.prorev.com/sovreign.htm 16 http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=3361 17 http://web.archive.org/web/20010714001752/http:/dkd.net/davekidd/politics/money.html _____ Originally posted on YesMagazine.org on June 9 2009. Ellen Brown, JD, wrote this article in June 2009, for Path to a New Economy, a collection of online articles for YES! Magazine, on economic and financial solutions. Ellen 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 eleven books include the bestselling 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.webofdebt.com/articles/gm.php http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Sat Jun 13 13:25:27 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:25:27 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The coming collapse of the US middle class Message-ID: <2E8F8D0C9D614C92AB55F3A09539E632@TonyPC> An illuminating lecture from March, 2007 (i.e. prior to the economic meltdown) illustrating in detail the erosion/collapse of the American middle class... T. > The American dream... > > If you think things have changed for American > families in the last 30 to 40 years, you're right. > > Saving rates have gone from nearly 10% to > less than zero. > > Fixed costs like housing and medical care > have skyrocketed. > > Income volatility has exploded as job > security has imploded. > > One sign of the times is that Americans are going > bankrupt in record numbers. > > But the full story is even bleaker than even these > numbers reveal. > > Details: > > http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/642.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/?zAxs7OwctMwcLIysjIzMtEa0LJwMLAwMrA== > > From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Jun 13 17:52:11 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:52:11 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Does understanding complexity beget a tragic view of life? Message-ID: <20090614085211.0bd3fe01.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Kurt Cobb Resource Insights (April 26 2009) Sheer exuberance is often enough to carry the young into the most daunting and dangerous of endeavors. But as we age, experience can make us more hesitant. Many people discover that the universe can sometimes be arbitrary, that completely unforeseen events can ruin careers and even end lives, that, in short, life is tragic. But paradoxically the tragic view of life doesn't beget mere glumness. Instead, it teaches prudence which can be a good thing and occasionally a lifesaver. It actually inculcates a more profound appreciation of those moments of happiness and bliss, for the tragic view of life cautions us that these are not the products of will and planning, but rather mostly the result of serendipity. Those with the tragic view do not believe that everything must end in tragedy; rather, they believe that tragic endings are an ever present possibility. As we mature we are ushered into the complexities of life. But when the willingness to accept these complexities is blunted or eliminated, maturity never arrives. Many remain in an adolescent state preferring an optimistic gloss on a simple-minded model of the world. As Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote recently: Collectively we have been behaving like adolescents - believing we're invulnerable, living for today while ignoring tomorrow, and sneering at anything that smacks of prudence. And, we have behaved this way when it comes to the financial legerdemain which has brought the world economy to its knees. The high priests of finance had the adolescent exuberance for trading and making money, but none of the appreciation for the hazards embedded in the complex financial instruments they were selling. The tragic view of life teaches humility in the face of complexity. That humility is notably lacking in the world of neoclassically trained economists, the ones who run the houses of finance and public policy in nearly every Western economy. The levers and pulleys of the economy seem plainly obvious to them. And, the idea that we could fail to understand the risks we are taking with our financial system or find ourselves dangerously short of critical commodities needed to run modern society is labeled preposterous. (These economists sound a little like the adolescents Homer-Dixon describes above.) But a deeper understanding of the complexities of a world society embedded in a vastly complex biogeochemical system called the Earth requires a more sober assessment. Homer-Dixon says in his book, The Upside of Down (2006), that the emphasis on efficiency over resilience in our various human systems has left us vulnerable to the multiple threats of climate change, energy depletion and biodiversity destruction. Joseph Tainter, author of The Collapse of Complex Societies (1990), posits that increasing complexity in society eventually leads to diminishing and then negative returns and results in a society more vulnerable to collapse. Jared Diamond, author of Collapse (2005), focuses on the environmental damage which led to the disappearance of previous societies including Greenland Norse settlements, Easter Island, the Anasazi in what is now called the American southwest, and the Mayans. Our complex relations with and dependence on the natural world give Diamond concern about the future of modern industrial civilization. Tainter warns that previous collapses were visited on discreet societies separated by vast distances from others that continued to thrive. The next collapse, he believes, must be worldwide since we have now essentially created one planetary society tightly linked by finance, commerce, technology, and travel. By contrast the careless optimism of the technologists and the economists is predicated on simple-minded models of society and its relationship to the natural world. We often hear the following: "We've always found substitutes for critical materials which were running out. Prices rise for the scarce commodity, and substitutes are developed and introduced." Jared Diamond would beg to differ that this is always the case. But economists' thinking doesn't include the complication of history. And, for the technologists the focus is on the idea that the natural world can be engineered both to help it regain its equilibrium - geoengineering the climate is just one example - and to provide ever increasing resources from its lowest grade deposits - seawater is often invoked as a source for important minerals such as uranium. The fact that there is currently no method of extracting uranium from seawater that gives us more energy than we expend doesn't phase the technologists. "We will figure it out", they say. "It is inevitable". Well, very few things are inevitable. In addition, the notion that we could make a mistake in trying to engineer something as complex and poorly understood as world climate and thereby create worse problems barely enters their heads. It is hubris borne of simplistic thinking. It is not the role of those who adopt the tragic view of life merely to predict tragedy. Tragedies, by definition, will continue to occur no matter what we do. Instead, these prudent thinkers are busy identifying trends that could possibly be forestalled and reversed so as to prevent tragic consequences. But it takes a tragic view of life to imagine such scenarios in the first place. The simpleminded optimists can dazzle us only so long as they are lucky and skirt tragic failures. Their triumphs - at least so far as population and economic growth are concerned - have gone on for a very long time. But the debt that is building up in the natural world in the form of resource depletion, climate change, pollution and destruction of biodiversity and also in society in the form of overoptimized systems vulnerable to breakdown, can only be appreciated by those who seek to understand complex systems. Also required is the humility to accept that we will never fully understand such systems and must therefore act with a very wide margin of safety. There are still opportunities to prevent societal collapse, the complexity theorists believe. But without swift and thoroughgoing changes in our current practices and priorities, we may all too soon suffer the fate of many societies before us, but on a scale never before seen. http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-understanding-complexity-beget.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jun 14 06:40:21 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:40:21 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Manipulation Message-ID: <20090614214021.5df2cca0.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> How Markets Really Work by Stephen Lendman sjlendman.blogspot.com (May 29 2009) Wall Street's mantra is that markets move randomly and reflect the collective wisdom of investors. The truth is quite opposite. The government's visible hand and insiders control markets and manipulate them up or down for profit - all of them, including stocks, bonds, commodities and currencies. It's financial fraud or what former high-level Wall Street insider and former Assistant HUD Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts calls "pump and dump", defined as "artificially inflating the price of a stock or other security through promotion, in order to sell at the inflated price", then profit more on the downside by short-selling. "This practice is illegal under securities law, yet it is particularly common", and in today's volatile markets likely ongoing daily. Why? Because the profits are enormous, in good and bad times, and when carried to extremes like now, Fitts calls it "pump(ing) and dump(ing) of the entire American economy", duping the public, fleecing trillions from them, and it's more than just "a process designed to wipe out the middle class. This is genocide (by other means) - a much more subtle and lethal version than ever before perpetrated by the scoundrels of our history texts." Fitts explains that much more than market manipulation goes on. She describes a "financial coup d'etat, including fraudulent housing (and other bubbles), pump and dump schemes, naked short selling, precious metals price suppression, and active intervention in the markets by the government and central bank" along with insiders. It's a government-business partnership for enormous profits through "legislation, contracts, regulation (or lack of it), financing, (and) subsidies". More still overall by rigging the game for the powerful, while at the same time harming the public so cleverly that few understand what's happening. Market Rigging Mechanisms - The Plunge Protection Team On March 18 1989, Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12631 created the Working Group on Financial Markets (WGFM) commonly known as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT). It consisted of the following officials or their designees: - the President; - the Treasury Secretary as chairman; - the Fed chairman; - the SEC chairman; and - the Commodity Futures Trading Commission chairman. Under Section 2, its "Purposes and Functions" were stated as follows: "Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider: "(1) the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events (pertaining to the) October 19 1987 (market crash and consider) recommendations that have the potential to achieve the goals noted above; and "(2) ... governmental (and other) actions under existing laws and regulations ... that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations." In August 2005, Canada-based Sprott Asset Management (SAM) principals John Embry and Andrew Hepburn headlined their report on the US government's "surreptitious" market interventions: "Move Over, Adam Smith - The Visible Hand of Uncle Sam" to prevent "destabilizing stock market declines. Comprising key government agencies, stock exchanges and large Wall Street firms", this group "is significant because the government has never admitted to private-sector membership in the Working Group", nor is it hinting that manipulation works both ways - to stop or create panic. "Current mythology holds that (equity) prices rise and fall on the basis of market forces alone. Such sentiments appear to be seriously mistaken ... And as official rhetoric continues to toe the free market line, manipulation has become increasingly apparent ... with the active participation of selected investment banks and brokerage houses" - the Wall Street giants. In 2004, Texas Hedge Report principals Steven McIntyre and Todd Stein said "Almost every floor trader on the NYSE, NYMEX, CBOT and CME will admit to having seen the PPT in action in one form or another over the years" - violating the traditional notion that markets move randomly and reflect popular sentiment. Worse still, according to SAM principals Embry and Hepburn, "the government's unwillingness to disclose its activities has rendered it very difficult to have a debate on the merits of such a policy", if there are any. Further, "virtually no one ever mentions government intervention publicly ... Our primary concern is that what apparently started as a stopgap measure may have morphed into a serious moral hazard situation". Worst of all, if government and Wall Street collude to pump and dump markets, individuals and small investment firms can get trampled, and that's exactly what happened in late 2008 and early 2009, with much more to come as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression plays out over many more months. That said, the PPT might more aptly be called the PPDT - The Plunge Protection/Destruction Team, depending on which way it moves markets at any time. Investors beware. Manipulating markets is commonplace and as old as investing. Only the tools are more sophisticated and amounts involved greater. In her book, Morgan: American Financier (1999), Jean Strouse explained his role in the Panic of 1907, the result of stock market and real estate speculation that caused a market crash, bank runs, and hysteria. To restore confidence, J P Morgan and the Treasury Secretary organized a group of financiers to transfer funds to troubled banks and buy stocks. At the time, rumors were rampant that they orchestrated the panic for speculative profits and their main goals: - the 1908 National Monetary Commission to stabilize financial markets as a precursor to the Federal Reserve; and - the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting where powerful financial figures met in secret for nine days and created the private banking cartel Federal Reserve System, later congressionally established on December 23 1913 and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson. Morgan died early that year but profited hugely from the 1907 Panic. It let him expand his steel empire by buying the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for about $45 million, an asset thought to be worth around $700 million. Today, similar schemes are more than ever common in the wake of the global economic crisis creating opportunities to buy assets cheap by bankers flush with bailout cash. Aided by PPT market rigging, it's simpler than ever. Wharton Professor Itay Goldstein and Said Business School and Lincoln College, Oxford University Professor Alexander Guembel discussed price manipulation in their paper titled "Manipulation and the Allocational Role of Prices". They showed how traders effect prices on the downside through "bear raids", and concluded: "We basically describe a theory of how bear raid manipulation works ... What we show here is that by selling (a stock or more effectively short-selling it), you have a real effect on the firm. The connection with real value is the new thing ... This is the crucial element", but they claim the process only works on the downside, not driving shares up. In fact, high-volume program trading, analyst recommendations, positive or negative media reports, and other devices do it both ways. Also key is that a company's stock price and true worth can be highly divergent. In other words, healthy or sick firms may be way-over or under-valued depending on market and economic conditions and how manipulative traders wish to price them, short or longer term. The idea that equity prices reflect true value or that markets move randomly (up or down) is rubbish. They never have and more than ever don't now. The Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) The 1934 Gold Reserve Act created the US Treasury's ESF. Section 7 of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreements made its operations permanent. As originally established, the Treasury ran the Fund outside of congressional oversight "to keep sharp swings in the dollar's exchange rate from (disrupting) financial markets" through manipulation. Its operations now include stabilizing foreign currencies, extending credit lines to foreign governments, and last September to guaranteeing money market funds against losses for up to $50 billion. In 1995, the Clinton administration used the fund to provide Mexico a $20 billion credit line to stabilize the peso at a time of economic crisis, and earlier administrations extended loans or credit lines to China, Brazil, Ecuador, Iceland and Liberia. The Treasury's web site also states that: "By law, the Secretary has considerable discretion in the use of ESF resources. The legal basis of the ESF is the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. As amended in the late 1970s ... the Secretary (per) approval of the President, may deal in gold, foreign exchange, and other instruments of credit and securities." In other words, ESF is a slush fund for whatever purposes the Treasury wishes, including ones it may not wish to disclose, such as manipulating markets, directing funds to the IMF and providing them with strings to borrowers as the Treasury's site explains: " ... Treasury has often linked the availability of ESF financing to a borrower's use of the credit facilities of the IMF, both to support the IMF's role and to strengthen assurances that there will be timely repayment of ESF financing". The Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) Established in 1999 in the wake of the Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis, it manipulates markets to benefit giant Wall Street firms and high-level insiders. According to one account, it was to curb future crises by: - letting giant financial institutions collude through large-scale program trading to move markets up or down as they wish; - bailing out its members in financial trouble; and - manipulating markets short or longer-term with government approval at the expense of small investors none the wiser and often getting trampled. In August 2008, CRMPG III issued a report titled "Containing Systemic Risk: The Road to Reform". It was deceptive on its face in stating that CRMPG "was designed to focus its primary attention on the steps that must be taken by the private sector to reduce the frequency and/or severity of future financial shocks while recognizing that such future shocks are inevitable, in part because it is literally impossible to anticipate the specific timing and triggers of such events". In fact, the "private sector" creates "financial shocks" to open markets, remove competition, and consolidate for greater power by buying damaged assets cheap. Financial history has numerous examples of preying on the weak, crushing competition, socializing risks, privatizing profits, redistributing wealth upward to a financial oligarchy, creating "tollbooth economies" in debt bondage according to Michael Hudson, and overall getting a "free lunch" at the public's expense. CRMPG explains financial excesses and crises this way: "At the end of the day, (their) root cause ... on both the upside and the downside of the cycle is collective human behavior: unbridled optimism on the upside and fear on the downside, all in a setting in which it is literally impossible to anticipate when optimism gives rise to fear or fear gives rise to optimism ... "What is needed, therefore, is a form of private initiative that will complement official oversight in encouraging industry-wide practices that will help mitigate systemic risk. The recommendations of the Report have been framed with that objective in mind." In other words, let foxes guard the henhouse to keep inventing new ways to extract gains (a "free lunch") in increasingly larger amounts - "in the interest of helping to contain systemic risk factors and promote greater stability". Or as Orwell might have said: instability is stability, creating systemic risk is containing it, sloping playing fields are level ones, extracting the greatest profit is sharing it, and what benefits the few helps everyone. Michel Chossudovsky explains that: "triggering market collapse(s) can be a very profitable undertaking. (Evidence suggests) that the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulators have created an environment which supports speculative transactions (through) futures, options, index funds, derivative securities (and short-selling), et cetera (that) make money when the stock market crumbles ... foreknowledge and inside information (create golden profit opportunities for) powerful speculators" able to move markets up or down with the public none the wiser. As a result, concentrated wealth and "financial power resulting from market manipulation is unprecedented" with small investors' savings, IRAs, pensions, 401ks, and futures being decimated from it. Deconstructing So-Called "Green Shoots" Daily the corporate media trumpet them to lull the unwary into believing the global economic crisis is ebbing and recovery is on the way. Not according to longtime market analyst Bob Chapman who calls green shoots "Poison Ivy" and economist Nouriel Roubini saying they're "yellow weeds" at a time there's lots more pain ahead. For many months and in a recent commentary he refers to "the worst financial crisis, economic crisis and recession since the Great Depression ... the consensus is now becoming optimistic again and says that we are going to go from minus six percent growth to positive growth in the second half of the year ... my views are much more bearish ... The problems of the financial system are severe. Many banks are still insolvent." We're "piling public debt on top of private debt to socialize the losses; and at some point the back of (the) government('s) balance sheet is going to break, and if that happens, it's going to be a disaster". Short of that, he, Chapman, and others see the risks going forward as daunting. As for the recent stock market rise, they both call it a "sucker's rally" that will reverse as the US economy keeps contracting and the financial system suffers unexpected or manipulated shocks. Highly respected market analyst Louise Yamada agrees. As Randall Forsyth reported in the May 25 issue of Barron's Up and Down Wall Street column: "It is almost uncanny the degree to which 2002 to 2008 has tracked 1932 to 1938, 'Yamada writes in her latest note to clients'". Her "Alternate Hypothesis" compares this structural bear market to 1929 to 1942: - "the dot-com collapse parallels the Great Crash and its aftermath", followed by the 2003 to 2007 recovery, similar to 1933 to 1937; - then the late 2008 to early March 2009 collapse tracks a similar 1937 to 1938 trajectory, after which a strong rally followed much like today; - then in November 1938, the market dropped 22% followed by a 26% rise and a series of further ups and downs - down 28%, up 23%, down 16%, up 13%, and a final 29% decline ending in 1942; - from the 1938 high ("analogous to where we are now", she says), stock prices fell 41% to a final bottom. Are we at one today as market touts claim? No according to Yamada - top-ranked among her peers in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 when she worked at Citigroup's Smith Barney division. Since 2005, she's headed her own independent research company. She says structural bear markets typically last thirteen to sixteen years so this one has a long way to go before "complet(ing) the repair process". She calls the current rebound "a bungee jump", very typical of bear markets. Numerous ones occurred during the Great Depression, eight alone from 1929 to 1932, some deceptively strong. Expect market manipulators today to produce similar price action going forward - to enrich themselves while trampling on the unwary, well-advised to protect their dollars from becoming quarters or dimes. _____ 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 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. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13720 http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/05/manipulation-how-markets-really-work.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From nscchicago at igc.org Sun Jun 14 09:10:01 2009 From: nscchicago at igc.org (NSC WORKERS COOP) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:10:01 -0500 Subject: [A-List] SOLIDARITY ACTIONS: PERU NICARAGUA CUBAN FIVE STOP FTA Message-ID: <5BE2DE4D865F4E2D9D84BBAF688EEDDD@NSCCHICAGO> Tom Baker here with ACTION PASS ON because this information is not from where the oligarchy is coming from. -Nicaragua and the SOA. C'mon, Daniel. We know who is the SOA, and you know Somoza. - Peru - hammer the consulates. STOP IT! - FTA Colombia the People Say NO. FTAs don't work anyway. En solidaridad -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO BE DELETED FROM THIS LIST, PLEASE REPLY TO NSC WORKERS COOP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1591 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090614/78d31f9d/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/20090614/78d31f9d/attachment-0001.jpeg -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Chuck Kaufman" Subject: [LASolidarity] LASC Colombia Alert: Call Congress Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:10:18 -0400 Size: 430172 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090614/78d31f9d/attachment-0004.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: stansfield smith Subject: [M20all] Alexander Cockburn on the Cuban 5 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Size: 20997 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090614/78d31f9d/attachment-0005.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "atlatl at riseup.net" Subject: [LASolidarity] Week of Action in Solidarity with Indigenous Peoples in Peru June 15-19 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:01:49 -0700 Size: 10575 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090614/78d31f9d/attachment-0006.eml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Hendrik Voss, SOA Watch" Subject: [LASolidarity] Sign the petition asking Nicaragua to withdraw from the School of the Americas! Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:40:01 +0000 Size: 17134 Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090614/78d31f9d/attachment-0007.eml From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Sun Jun 14 07:29:16 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:29:16 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Fantino's Skyway Bridge blood bath Message-ID: <012f76ae$39978$05de3953313079@xnote> FANTINO?S SKYWAY BRIDGE BLOOD BATH TO GET EVEN WITH MOHAWKS ? Is martial law here? MNN. June 13, 2009. Commissioner Julian Fantino of the Ontario Provincial Police has a longstanding personal grudge against the Mohawks of Tyendinaga. He wanted to show his power and what he?ll do to anybody who stands up to fascism. The OPP struck suddenly early Thursday morning on June 11th. No news coverage. No pictures. It was calculated to splatter blood everywhere to send a message on how he will treat Mohawks, Indigenous or anyone who wants to demonstrate peacefully. The premeditated plan was to hurt people, draw blood and wash it down quickly. What sharp deadly instruments did they use to draw so much blood? Where have they hidden them? Dissent has been outlawed in Ontario. They don?t want a public inquiry. They want the OPP to be exonerated. The cops came from outside the area so the locals could not recognize them. They could be special forces or commandos trained to maim and inflict injuries that terrorize the victims. This is worse than being tasered or beaten by a baton. Their orders came from some outside agency untraceable to politicians or Parliamentary scrutiny. Did it come from the Pentagon or Camp Petawawa or Fort Drum in NYS? Are elite soldiers using us to train on how to strike quickly and leave without a trace? The Ipperwash inquiry established the principle that politicians cannot order such attacks. An unsigned letter from the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs or a press communiqu? from the Tyendinaga Council or a letter from the Akwesasne Council are political. Using them as official authorization is illegal. The police can only enforce the law, not to push the orders of a politician. The Mohawks were passing out information to support our people at Akwesasne who don?t want gun toting agents in our communities. They were standing side by side with the police at the Skyway Bridge. The police had blockades at both ends of the Skyway Bridge. The squad knew we had no weapons. Chief Tim Thompson of Akwesasne went to Ottawa to speak on Parliament Hill. Minister of Indian Affairs Chuck Strahl, NDP leader Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois were there. Jim Potts wrote a report on how to deal with us called, Nonce: Policing and Aboriginal Occupations and Protests, 2005. We are viewed as criminals for questioning their authority and jurisdiction. The key ingredient is for the police and other military organizations to stand back at first. Different people in the community are recruited to be liaisons with the police and military, and to keep tabs on the people for them. They articulate the cops? position of wanting everybody to tow the line and walk in lock step with the totalitarian regime that is being set up. Blame and suspicion are cast on community members. It?s a how to on how cops can brutalize people and not be prosecuted. It?s to stop people from exercising their legal rights to peaceful demonstrations, which is a basic right in a democracy. Apparently the government is worried that our greater well-being and higher education will generate a greater level of sensitivity that the state wants to keep in check. More sophisticated Indigenous can articulate our grievances. The government and police are looking for other ways to suppress us. Brute force has become a main option. At Tyendinaga the armed para-military officers arrived en masse by the hundreds. They carried out a military style ?shock and awe? attack against unarmed civilians. No questions asked and no qualms about inflicting bodily harm. Military goons sent in to beat us up is illegal. Has secret legislation been passed to do this? Was this a military decision because the government has designated us as insurgents and terrorists? This operation was meant to eliminate dissent as part of martial law. People will not be allowed to protect themselves in the new world order. According to the Smart Borders agenda and other agreements under NorthCom, the Canadian police and military are controlled by the Pentagon. Is that why Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff is afraid to speak? Can he or anybody be designated as an insurgent for not going along with the program? The message is that when the roundup is done, those who question the Prime Ministers Office could be taken away in the paddy wagon. In 1997 the New York State Troopers wanted blood at Onondaga. They attacked over 100 people during a tobacco ceremony. The state searched for those troopers who hate Indians so much that they volunteered to smash heads, including women, children and even a baby in a stroller. 12 years later we refuse to take money to settle. We want the trial of the NYS troopers and the NYS handpicked pseudo Confederacy Chiefs who sent them in. How many OPP or soldiers were questioned as to their level of anger and innate prejudice against Indigenous? Were they offered extra money as mercenaries to smash our heads or just because they hate us? Did Fantino find them? Or were they soldiers who came to search and destroy? Some kind of law suit should be taken against this brutality. If no one holds them accountable, they will start smelling blood. They will only be satisfied when they see more. A handpicked hired gun was sent in to murder Dudley George at Ipperwash in 1995. Now, like vampires they want to drink Mohawk blood so they can sprout wings and terrorize everybody. Watch out! The police state has arrived. [See photos of attack http://letstalknativepride.blogspot.com/] Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, www.mohawknationnews.com kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com Go to MNN ?BORDER? category for more stories; Contact Rotiskenrakete 514-269-1400. N. Benedict 613-551-5421 613-938-8145 nbenedict at akwesasne.ca, go to www.akwesasne.ca. Chief Wesley Benedict 613-551-2573; Larry King 613-551-1930; Chief Joe Lazore 613-551-5292. Tyendinaga: 613-848-6968, 613-813-1017, 613-391-5132 From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Jun 14 19:06:09 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:06:09 +0900 Subject: [A-List] As economy worsens, neighbors buy and share gear Message-ID: <20090615100609.49a4eee8.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Caryn Rousseau realclearmarkets.com (May 19 2009) Twice a year, in the spring and again in the autumn, six families on Vicki Matranga's tree-lined Oak Park block go to one neighbor's garage and bring out the $1,200 woodchipper they all pitched in to buy. Then they gather around and feed it dead branches gathered from their yards. "We chip up our branches and make our own mulch out of it", Matranga said. "There are a couple of passionate gardeners on our block. Many of us who contributed to this machine, we've lived on this street together for twenty years." Financially, it was worth it for Matranga and her neighbors to pool their dollars and buy a big-ticket item that none would use regularly but all still needed yearly, she said. "We were happy to share the cost and storage of the machine", Matranga said. "We all made photocopies of the warranty and the instruction manual. It resides in somebody's garage." This one small example of neighbors sharing an item is part of a trend as the economy worsens, experts say. People are turning to sharing and trading - using community toy, bicycle and tool libraries, swapping vegetables online or checking out exotic cake pans from libraries, instead of buying their own. "With the economy tanking, there are even more people doing it now, and it's more visible", said Jeff Ferrell, a sociology professor at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, who studies sharing networks. Rob Anderson in Portland, Oregon, launched the Web site Veggietrader.com, which allows registered users to sell, buy or trade fresh produce. Users punch in their ZIP code to find other local gardeners. More than 1,000 people have signed up since the site was launched in March. "People are looking for ways to save money. If you have too many tomatoes and I have too many oranges, wouldn't it be great if we can meet each other?" Anderson said. At the library in Galesburg, Illinois., a dozen cake pans shaped like hearts, dinosaurs or footballs sit behind the counter, available for checkout. Karen Marple, the children's librarian, keeps track of the pans, which she buys on sale or at yard sales for library cardholders to share. "They don't want to spend so much money on a cake pan that they're going to use one time", Marple said. "It's free. It's economics." Elsewhere around the country, dozens of municipalities and nonprofit groups have community tool sheds, where citizens can borrow hand or power tools for projects. These types of sharing and swapping systems aren't all that different from the way society worked through the mid-twentieth century, when family members lived near one another, said Rosemary Hornak, a psychology professor at Meredith University in Raleigh, North Carolina. "It wasn't uncommon that Aunt Jane is the one who has the good mixer and someone else has the lasagna pan", Hornak said. But once we became a more mobile society, "the idea of sharing the lasagna pan - you weren't going to ship it across the country. It was cheaper to buy your own." That individualistic attitude worked fine until the economic downturn, Ferrell said. Now, he said, "the stigma you might have witnessed for reusing things has been reimagined as a rediscovery of American values". "Sharing only means that you have to buy less and I have to buy less", Ferrell said. "Sharing also knits communities together. Sharing is good for social life." Jessica Jurca, 22, an industrial design major at the Cleveland Institute of Art, joined the trend by designing a communal bread maker. It won a prize from the International Housewares Association this spring. The bread maker has a digital screen that displays recipes other bakers have downloaded into the machine. It also has special handles to make it easier to pass the machine from one person to another. Jurca envisions a line of similar kitchen appliances. Bread makers are "so expensive, but you don't use them every day", she said. "When the economy started falling apart, I thought, 'This is necessary'". Sharing household items requires a level of trust that many Americans aren't used to anymore, said Robin Avni of the cultural-trend research firm Iconoculture, based in Minneapolis. "I'm going to go back and I'm going to trust the community", she said. "I'm going to trust the people who touch my life everyday. I can count on that." While the economy may improve in the coming months, such cultural changes are likely to remain, experts say. "A lot of what you're seeing is being driven by the economy, but there are social changes", said Susan Yashinsky, marketing vice president at the consulting firm Sphere Trending, in Waterford, Michigan. "A lot of these DIY trends or community trends, we think are going to have long-term impact". ___ On the Net: Veggie Trader: http://www.veggietrader.com The Associated Press http://www.realclearmarkets.com/news/ap/finance_business/2009/May/19/as_economy_worsens__neighbors_buy_and_share_gear.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jun 15 03:05:02 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:05:02 +0900 Subject: [A-List] Humanity in the Capitalist Cul-de-sac Message-ID: <20090615180502.94034730.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> As a result of 200 years of capitalism, humanity is deep in a very dangerous cul-de-sac which could result in barbarism on an unprecedented scale by Daniel Tanuro climateandcapitalism.com (June 05 2009) Climate change is a major challenge for humanity and the environment. Thirty percent of animal and vegetable species could disappear in a few decades, due to rapid changes in rainfall, temperature, acidity, et cetera. Hundreds of millions of people live under the threat of rising sea-levels, droughts, floods and disease. Billions more could suffer water scarcity. The poor are the most exposed, especially in Africa, where the productivity of non irrigated agriculture could decline by as much as fifty percent, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Can a catastrophe be avoided? It depends on where you're living. The people of Tuvalu {1} for instance, will probably have to move before the end of this century. Climate change is a reality, affecting millions of people on Earth. It must be mitigated, but some adaptation to its effects is unavoidable and necessary. The more quickly and radically we address the basic causes of global warming to mitigate it, the less we will have to adapt. On the other hand, the less we mitigate, the more we will have to adapt, and the more the poor will suffer the negative consequences. At a certain point, though, adaptation will become practically impossible. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report proposes six climate stabilization scenarios. The most radical requires a cut in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by fifty to 85% before 2050, with a peak before 2015. Because the "developed world" is historically responsible for more than seventy percent of global warming, it should reduce its own emissions by eighty to 95%, if it follows the IPCC {2}. But this is not enough: the situation is so serious now that no escape can be found without the participation of countries like Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Mexico. The main GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2); the main cause of its accumulation in the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and this burning provides the world with eighty percent of its energy. As a consequence, a radical reduction in GHG emissions in forty years would require a herculean effort, with ominous social, technical and economic implication. But there is simply no alternative: even the most radical IPCC scenario foresees a temperature rise of between two percent and 2.4 percent Celsius. This is above the threshold where climate change is thought to have dangerous human and environmental consequences {3}. Can we make that effort? From a scientific point of view, the answer is: "yes, we can". We can stop burning finite supplies of fossil fuels and use renewable, mostly solar, energy sources (wind energy, energy of the oceans, biomass, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, geothermal power et cetera). The technical potential of these sources is seventeen times the global energy demand in 2001 {4}. By the way, this potential could improve very quickly if a clear political priority was given to the research on renewable energy, instead of nuclear, or even fossil energy. In other words, humanity is not doomed to energy scarcity and the societies in the South are not doomed to poverty and underdevelopment . How could we make this effort? The answer is mainly social and political, not technological, for three reasons: 1. Renewable sources are still more expensive than fossil sources and this situation will prevail for 25 to thirty years. 2. The global distribution of wealth has to be dealt with in order to provide poor countries, and the poor in general, with the considerable means necessary for the clean development and adaptation of these resources. 3. The energy transition is complex. It doesn't boil down to the replacement of one fuel with another in the same energy system: a different energy system is necessary, with different infrastructure and equipment. There will be a transitional period in which the building of new infrastructure will require an increase in conventional energy consumption . This will necessitate reductions in consumption elsewhere. However, a new system in place would be one in which there is a new way to satisfy human needs, even another view of these needs and another way to determine them. In short, another society. To clarify this point, let us take the example of the transportation sector. The easiest and cheapest way to replace petrol is to produce agrofuels. But agrofuels compete with crop production, and therefore with the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. As we have experienced over the last few years, we risk seeing the poor starving because wheat, maize, cassava, palm oil and other crops fundamental to people's lives are used to produce "green petrol". Massive agrofuel production for export intensifies speculative pressure on the land (at the expense of traditional communities) and has very negative environmental impacts in terms of pollution and biodiversity. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Jun 12 06:54:28 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:54:28 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: 1. The need for personal mobility can no longer be satisfied by producing individual cars 2. The way that commodities are transported must be questioned radically (the "just in time" delivery by planes and trucks on global competitive markets is nothing less than criminal) 3. We have to ask whether we really need all these commodities; what purpose they serve. On the one hand, billions of people want essential goods and services to fulfill very basic human needs. The capitalist system cannot satisfy them because it permanently needs masses of unemployed people - "an industrial reserve army", as Marx called them - in order to exert permanent pressure on wages, thus maximizing its profits. On the other hand, the capitalist way of satisfying needs - the production of commodities for profit by competitive businesses, the tendency always to sell more goods and services to those who can afford them - entails the constant creation of new artificial needs, on a mass scale. Overproduction and consumption, mass poverty and massive waste, unfufilled needs and permanent frustration, exploitation of labour and the destruction of natural resources are indivisible aspects of this system. The burning of cheap fossil fuels is a key condition for its functioning. Of course, fossil fuel stocks are limited, but the reserves are more than sufficient to provoke catastrophic climate change. It is highly unlikely that capitalism will decide not to use these reserves, especially in the present context of world depression and fierce competition. It is even more unlikely that it will end its addiction to fossil fuels in time to respect the physical constraints that are necessary for climate stabilization. As a result of 200 years of capitalism, humanity is deep in a very dangerous cul-de-sac which could result in barbarism on an unprecedented scale. The escape route is clear. Globally, we must use less energy, produce less material goods, and transfer clean technologies to the South: these are key conditions in order to make the transition to renewable sources possible within forty years. Simultaneously, we must satisfy fundamental human needs, especially in the developing world. The problem is that none of these objectives can be achieved within the framework of a system which, because its objective is profit, can only consider avoiding a catastrophe if the investment is "cost effective". The achievement of these objectives requires an anticapitalist perspective, translated into concrete measures such as an economic plan, reduction of working time without loss of income, nationalization of the energy sector, and nationalization of the bank and credit sector. The fight against climate change is a matter for the class struggle. It is more than that: it is a question of civilization. _____ Daniel Tanuro is a Belgian ecosocialist and journalist. This article was published in the June-July issue of the South African magazine Amandla. References [1] A Pacific Ocean island half way between Hawaii and Australia [2] IPCC 2007, WG3, page 776 [3] The danger threshold has never been determined by any official body except the European council, which estimated it at plus two degrees Celsius. This decision was taken in 1996, on the basis of the IPCC 2nd Assessment Report. Since then, scientists have established that climate change is much more dangerous than was thought. On the basis of the 4th report, it would be wise to adopt plus 1.5 degrees Celsius as the danger threshold. [4] WEA 2001, Chapter 5, table 5.26. The technical potential indicates the amount of energy that can be delivered with the existing technologies, independently of their costs. Copyright (c) 2007 Climate and Capitalism http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=695#more-695 http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 15 04:08:51 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:08:51 -0400 Subject: [A-List] The Iranian People Speak Message-ID: The Iranian People Speak By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty Monday, June 15, 2009 The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead. Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi. Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups. The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud. Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society. Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings. Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China. Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted. Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups' May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error. From cb31450 at gmail.com Mon Jun 15 12:43:40 2009 From: cb31450 at gmail.com (c b) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:43:40 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Venezuela, broke? Message-ID: <5c2e4d230906151143l12d4637cs9af0fd30b994093e@mail.gmail.com> From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Jun 12 06:54:28 2009 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:54:28 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Venezuela, broke? The following economic analysis was written, in Portuguese, by Brazilian economist Luciano Wexell Severo in May. Since almost all privately-owned and English-language media are painting a dark picture of Venezuela=92s post oil-boom economic conditions and development policies, we thought it was worthwhile to translate and publish this much brighter take. By Luciano Wexell Severo The majority of analyses about the current situation of the Venezuelan economy is based on three ideas: 1. That the Ch=E1vez administration received a dollar rain during the past years, as a result of high oil prices. 2. That the Ch=E1vez government doesn=92t know how to invest these huge resources to stimulate diversification of production, practicing a disastrous economic policy based on handouts, via the Social Missions, and 3. That now, with the oil price at a low, Venezuela and state oil company PdVSA are =93broke.=94 We will try to demonstrate in this article that these three allegations are quite incorrect. Between 1999 and 2008, the Venezuelan economy went through five stages: 1. Ch=E1vez=92 political ascent, in February 1999, facing an adverse economic, political and institutional scenario (the country was choking on the heritage of periods of disinvestment and de-industrialization of the 1980s and 1990s, and the price of oil was on its lowest level since 1973); 2. The adoption of interventionist measures and more development-oriented policies, beginning in the second half of 1999; 3. The coup and =93economic sabotage=94 applied by the opposition, between the fourth quarter of 2001 and the third quarter of 2003, as a reaction to the increase of state intervention in the economy; 4. The economic recovery starting in the fourth quarter of 2003, from a base already quite above the previous situation. The state began to interfere in a more decisive way in economic questions (particularly PdVSA); 5. The =93sowing oil=94 policy and advance towards =93Bolivarian Socialism,=94 the effort for productive diversification, for a new industrialization process, for the payment of the high social debt accumulated during decades, and the expansion of state and people power into strategic economic sectors. A study performed by the ministry of finance in 2004 shows that the per capita dollar value of oil exports was, at least until mid-2005, lower than during previous administrations: 26 percent that of the value received during the first administration of Andr=E9s P=E9rez (1974-79), 35 percent of that received by Herrera Campins (1979-84), 56 percent of that received by Lusinchi (1984-89), 49 percent that during the second mandate of P=E9rez (1989-93), and 85 percent of that received during the second mandate of Caldera (1994-98). It is necessary to take into account two factors: 1. That the comparison prices must be expressed in constant values, and 2. That the population of Venezuela more than doubled between 1973 and 2005. For that reason, the study concluded that the Ch=E1vez government did not enjoy a petrodollar =93rain=94 =97 quite the contrary. In spite of that, social spending =97 according to a 2008 study by Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval =97 rose from 8.2 percent of GDP in 1998 to 13.6 percent of GDP in 2006. Taking into account the contributions made by PdVSA, social spending reached 20.9 percent of GDP. In per-capita terms, it quadrupled since 1998. The dynamism of the Venezuelan economy has been a direct =97 but not exclusive =97 result of the rise of oil prices to a record $135.2 per barrel Brent in July 2008 (as of December, prices plummeted to $43.3; currently it is back up to $59). Oil is and will continue for a long time to be the base of the Venezuelan economy. In the meantime, there are two pieces of news: 1. In 2003, the Venezuelan state recovered control over the oil industry, reducing the drain of resources leaving the country and the domestic concentration of income; and 2. Since then, the country has been depositing increasing installments of oil revenues in productive sectors, in the structuring and strengthening of the domestic market, in a process of sovereign industrialization (with majoritarily Venezuelan capital, acquisition of technology, local workforce training, and increasing incorporation of national Gross Value Added). Therefore, the notion that Venezuela has adopted an artificial and miserably subsidized economy is mistaken. The main mechanisms used by the Venezuelan government to stimulate economic growth and productive diversification were, among others: 1. The rescue of PdVSA under state control, because since its creation in 1976, the company functioned like a state within a state. This first action enabled in great measure the application of others; 2. Currency exchange, capital and price controls, which have been effective in slowing the deterioration of the national currency and capital flight, be that via international speculation with the Bol=EDvar, profit transfer abroad, or superfluous imports; 3. The nationalization, via indemnization payments, of strategic companies in the communications, electricity, food production and construction sectors, in addition to financial institutions; and 4. The reform of the Central Bank of Venezuela Law, which established an annual ceiling for international reserves; the amounts that exceed the fixed ceiling must be transferred to a National Development Fund =97 Fonden =97 whose objective it is to finance sectors such as heavy industry, transformational industry, agriculture, petrochemical industry, gas, infrastructure, transportation and housing, among others. Since its creation in 2005, just PdVSA transferred close to $21.8 billion to Fonden, according to the Venezuelan government. Venezuela not only designed and put into practice initiatives to =93seed oil,=94 it even turned into one of the countries in the world that invest most: The share of Gross Fixed Capital Formation of GDP comes close to 30 percent; according to the United Nations=92 Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Latin American average is 20 percent. There are currently several large-scale projects under construction: New oil refineries, cement factories, aluminum laminate plants, paper and cellulose plants, specialized steel mills, oil pipeline tube manufacturing, rail and wagon plants, iron ore processing plants, appliance manufacturing, automobile and tractor assembly, dairy processing plants, saw mills, agricultural supply production, as well as infrastructure megaprojects: Ports, airports, bridges, subway lines, railroads, roads, thermoelectric plants, hydroelectric plants, gas pipelines, fiberoptic networks, water distribution networks, to mention just a few. These initiatives are geographically distributed throughout all states, with the objective of decentralizing the population that lives essentially along the Caribbean coast and occupying other areas of the national territory. The companies created as part of this effort are financed both by public and private capital, both Venezuelan and foreign (especially from China, India, Russia, Belorus, Iran, Cuba and Brazil, but also from the United States and Japan, among others). In most of these undertakings, the state maintains at least 51 percent of the shares. Despite the fall of the oil price, the government has reaffirmed its commitment for the continuation of some of these projects, as well as for social programs, of low unemployment (close to 7.3 percent in March), and of workers=92 salaries. We will see whether this is possible. Some liberal =93analysts=94, flaunting a supposed concern with fiscal performance, have suggested in recent years that the increase of public spending in Venezuela represents an =93unsustainable=94 tendency. The reality shows the opposite. While public spending grew from 21.4 percent of GDP in 1998 to 30 percent in 2006, the increase of state receipts was even higher: from 17.4 percent to 30 percent of GDP. This means that, despite the occurrence of fiscal deficits, income rose faster than expenses; which, in turn, guarantees fiscal sustainability. The decisive factor in reaching these results was the application of the Hydrocarbons Law (which increased state taxation of foreign oil companies), and the role of the National Integrated Customs and Revenue Administration (SENIAT) has been important. In addition, the annual budgets were calculated using as base an oil price much below the actual price. For example, in 2005 a price of $23 per barrel was used, when the actual price was $41. In 2007, a base of $29 was used, when the real price was $65. In 2008, despite high prices, it was estimated at $35. In 2009, a base of $60 was used and later, reacting to the crises, it was re-set at $40. This way, a considerable amount of special receipts were accumulated, that were used to feed international reserves, and successively Fonden. Therefore, the bases used to predict the =93bankruptcy of PdVSA=94 and the =93breakdown of the Venezuelan economy=94 are exceedingly simplistic. These analyses arise from two true observations, but they reach two mistaken conclusions: It=92s true that 1. Venezuela depends on oil exports, responsible for more than 90 percent of total sales abroad, and that 2. International oil prices dropped from nearly $140 to less than $40, within just five months. However, these facts have no relation with the conclusions: 1. That Venezuela wasted again, as it had done in the 1970s, the chance to diversify its economy and to break its excessive dependency on oil, and 2. That it won=92t have sufficient dollars to maintain the commitments assumed with the Social Missions, the only measure of the =93populist=94 government. It=92s crucial to take into account that the country obtained elevated trade surpluses with the world between 2004 and 2008, totaling more than $155 billion. At the same time, the current-account balance also accumulated a surplus of more than $100 billion in the past three years. While international reserves dropped during the =93oil sabotage=94 of 2002-03 to come close to $13 billion, currently they exceed $80 billion (including official reserves of the Banco Central de Venezuela =97 $30 billion =97 and resources of Fonden, PdVSA, the national treasury and the China-Venezuela Heavy Fund). In recent years, Venezuela built up a cushion of resources and adopted measures to protect the economy from international financial speculation, such as currency exchange and capital controls. These measures will be very important to confront the current international situation. The government=92s actual orientation is to face the crisis by increasing spending, investments, and public debt. That=92s possible thanks to the fact that public debt, both foreign and domestic, were quite small as a percentage of GDP in 1998, when they represented 25.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively. In 2003, at the height of the political and economic crisis produced by the opposition, they reached stratospheric levels: 29.7 percent and 17.9 percent, respectively. In 2007, both were already reduced: External debt (of nearly $52.9 billion, according to ECLAC) represented 12 percent, and internal debt 7.3 percent of GDP. In 2008, the public debt total represented 14.3 percent of GDP, quite below the levels of 1989 (83.6 percent), 1995 (69.2 percent), 1999 (29.5 percent) and 2003 (47.6 percent). The current level is the lowest of the past 30 years, and one of the lowest in the region. Between the fourth quarter of 2003 and the fourth quarter 2008, the GDP grew 94.7 percent: The Venezuelan economy aggregated 21 consecutive quarters of growth, at an average rate of 13.5 percent. Since 2004, the non-petroleum GDP has been growing at rates significantly above the petroleum GDP. Equally significant was the acceleration of the manufacturing GDP between 2004 and 2008, as tracked by electricity consumption, and sales of vehicles, cement, construction equipment, steel, iron and aluminum, among others. Within manufacturing, the areas that grew most were food and drinks, tobacco, leather and footwear, editing and print, nonmetal minerals, rubber and plastic products, automotive assembly, and production of machines and equipment. This performance must improve even more when the impact of important government measures aimed at stimulating domestic private enterprise are fully felt. According to a study published by Weisbrot in February 2009, =93in spite of the expansion of government during the Ch=E1vez years, the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.=94 The current oil price level has triggered a reduction in economic growth of approximately 8 to 4 percent =97 recently ECLAC forecasted a GDP rise of 1 percent for 2009, still above the regional median of -0.3 percent. According to Weisbrot and Sandoval (2008), at a price below $45 per barrel for Venezuelan oil, the country would begin to register current-account deficits. However, given that Venezuela has approximately $82 billion in reserves, it could finance a modest current-account deficit for some time =97 even if the oil price would remain at the current low levels during the next two years. Both authors sustain that the negative forecasts about the Venezuelan economy are based on quite fragile arguments. In the case of PdVSA, many =93analysts=94 don=92t recognize or forget that in 2007, the company finished the year as the most solid oil company in Latin America. At that moment, it counted with $107 billion worth of total assets, and consolidated global equity of $53.8 billion, guaranteeing a debt/asset ratio of 14.96 percent and a debt/ equity ratio of 29.72 percent. Until September 2008 (before the crisis), the financial indicators of the company had improved, according to PdVSA figures: Total assets grew 32.7 percent, consolidated global equity rose 29.9 percent, and debt dropped by 7.4 percent. With that, the debt/asset ratio diminished to 10.45 percent, and the debt/equity ratio dropped to 20.36 percent. The numbers for the fourth quarter 2008 have not been published; but while they must indicate a worsening of the situation, there is no =93bankruptcy=94 of the company. It is important to de-mistify the idea spread by big media =97 closely related to oil multinationals, private banks and the corrupt meritocracy that managed PdVSA until 2003 =97 that the Ch=E1vez government weakened the company. Quite the contrary, beyond Pd- VSA having been put to the service of the interests of Venezuela and Venezuelans, it has been made more robust since then. The current negotiations with domestic and foreign suppliers, so insistingly reported over the past weeks, reflect neither a =93bankruptcy=94 nor a major weakness of the state company, but the utilitzation of the crisis as an opportunity to do what all companies in the world are trying to do: Renegotiate their debt. In addition to striving to deposit oil resources into productive diversification, the Venezuelan government has invested in the =93Social Missions.=94 According to data from the National Institute of Statistics (INE) and ECLAC, poverty continues to decline in Venezuela, one of the countries that stand out most in compliance with the =93Millenium Goals.=94 The Human Development Index (HDI) improved a lot over the 10 years of the Ch=E1vez government. The last data published by the United Nations Development Program, regarding the year 2006, shows that in Venezuela, the HDI reached 0.826, while in 2004 it was 0.810, and in 2000 it was 0.776. It is interesting to observe that Venezuela=92s HDI grew considerably more than that of other oil exporting countries with similar HDI. More relevant information: The UNPD Human Development Report for 2007-08 shows that between 1975 and 1980 =97 a period of high oil prices =97 Venezuela=92s HDI grew only from 0.723 to 0.737. In other words, the current results are telling: More than 2.3 million Venezuelans emerged from poverty. On the other hand, the Gini coefficient dropped from 0.4865 in 1998 to 0.4200 in 2007, as a result of diminishing disparities in the concentration of income in the Venezuelan society. Let=92s conclude with a statement from the current minister of economy and finance of Venezuela, Al=ED Rodr=EDguez Araque: =93The Bolivarian Revolution neither emerged because oil prices were very high, nor did it maintain itself mainly because they were high. Precisely, the government of President Hugo Ch=E1vez began at a moment of profound depression for oil prices. So, the Bolivarian Revolution doesn=92t begin with high oil prices, and it won=92t end because oil prices drop.=94 Luciano Wexell Severo is an economist and master=92s student of international political economy. ________________________________ Novo Internet Explorer 8: mais r=E1pido e muito mais seguro. Baixe agora, =E9 gr=E1tis! From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jun 15 16:03:41 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:03:41 -0700 Subject: [A-List] LiveTweeting The Post-Election 'Festivities' In Iran Message-ID: <4A36C53D.1040008@gmail.com> http://trunc.it/egni If only Americans had that much spunk! Hmmmn, I seem to remember once upon a time, we did... Must be the fluorides in the water. Name Parham Doustdar Location Tehran, Iran Bio An iranian, blind computer geek who makes an attempt to make his life intresting by holding on to his twitter account! Most recent (newest to older: # However, if this has been the plan, it seems to have backfired on them. #IranElectionhalf a minute ago from web # Opinion: this might've all been a trick to get a lot of people to vote. Some people suspect this too. (Continued) #IranElection1 minute ago from web # The main door of the university is smashed by anti-riot forces holding clubs. God help them. #IranElection10 minutes ago from web # The anti-riot forces attacking those in tehran uni were smiling and saying, I like it when you get beaten. Reason is unknown #IranElection15 minutes ago from web # Fights have happened in Tehran, Yazd, Isfahan, Rasht, and Gorgan, in uni's. Anti-riot forces attacked those inside the uni. #IranElection16 minutes ago from web # @10thSpeedWriter Very true. But as they say, The greater the change, the more the sacrifices. #IranElection21 minutes ago from web # Personal Opinion: if there was a determined and skilled leader, this could very easily turn into a revolution. #IranElection30 minutes ago from web # Thank you all for your heart-thrilling answers to me last night. I felt so happy when I read every one of them. Thank you. #IranElection42 minutes ago from web # Going to sleep. Sorry all. Will keep you posted after my exam tomorrow. Thanks for your support! #IranElectionabout 10 hours ago from web http://twitter.com/parhamdoustdar Also search the 'hashtag': #Iranelection (caveat emptor) http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iranelection In the ten minutes I've been on that page there have been 418 new 'tweets' (count shown in an active ticker) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Jun 15 17:51:38 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:51:38 +0900 Subject: [A-List] It's Official Message-ID: <20090616085138.6aec6e5a.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Era Of Cheap Oil Is Over by Michael T Klare TomDispatch.com (June 12 2009) Every summer, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy issues its International Energy Outlook (IEO) - a jam-packed compendium of data and analysis on the evolving world energy equation. For those with the background to interpret its key statistical findings, the release of the IEO can provide a unique opportunity to gauge important shifts in global energy trends, much as reports of routine Communist Party functions in the party journal Pravda once provided America's Kremlin watchers with insights into changes in the Soviet Union's top leadership circle. As it happens, the recent release of the 2009 IEO has provided energy watchers with a feast of significant revelations. By far the most significant disclosure: the IEO predicts a sharp drop in projected future world oil output (compared to previous expectations) and a corresponding increase in reliance on what are called "unconventional fuels" - oil sands, ultra-deep oil, shale oil, and biofuels. So here's the headline for you: For the first time, the well-respected Energy Information Administration appears to be joining with those experts who have long argued that the era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a close. Almost as notable, when it comes to news, the 2009 report highlights Asia's insatiable demand for energy and suggests that China is moving ever closer to the point at which it will overtake the United States as the world's number one energy consumer. Clearly, a new era of cutthroat energy competition is upon us. Peak Oil Becomes the New Norm As recently as 2007, the IEO projected that the global production of conventional oil (the stuff that comes gushing out of the ground in liquid form) would reach 107.2 million barrels per day in 2030, a substantial increase from the 81.5 million barrels produced in 2006. Now, in 2009, the latest edition of the report has grimly dropped that projected 2030 figure to just 93.1 million barrels per day - in future-output terms, an eye-popping decline of 14.1 million expected barrels per day. Even when you add in the 2009 report's projection of a larger increase than once expected in the output of unconventional fuels, you still end up with a net projected decline of 11.1 million barrels per day in the global supply of liquid fuels (when compared to the IEO's soaring 2007 projected figures). What does this decline signify - other than growing pessimism by energy experts when it comes to the international supply of petroleum liquids? Very simply, it indicates that the usually optimistic analysts at the Department of Energy now believe global fuel supplies will simply not be able to keep pace with rising world energy demands. For years now, assorted petroleum geologists and other energy types have been warning that world oil output is approaching a maximum sustainable daily level - a peak - and will subsequently go into decline, possibly producing global economic chaos. Whatever the timing of the arrival of peak oil's actual peak, there is growing agreement that we have, at last, made it into peak-oil territory, if not yet to the moment of irreversible decline. Until recently, Energy Information Administration officials scoffed at the notion that a peak in global oil output was imminent or that we should anticipate a contraction in the future availability of petroleum any time soon. "[We] expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century", the 2004 IEO report stated emphatically. Consistent with this view, the EIA reported one year later that global production would reach a staggering 122.2 million barrels per day in 2025, more than fifty percent above the 2002 level of 80.0 million barrels per day. This was about as close to an explicit rejection of peak oil that you could get from the EIA's experts. Where Did All the Oil Go? Now, let's turn back to the 2009 edition. In 2025, according to this new report, world liquids output, conventional and unconventional, will reach only a relatively dismal 101.1 million barrels per day. Worse yet, conventional oil output will be just 89.6 million barrels per day. In EIA terms, this is pure gloom and doom, about as deeply pessimistic when it comes to the world's future oil output capacity as you're likely to get. The agency's experts claim, however, that this will not prove quite the challenge it might seem, because they have also revised downward their projections of future energy demand. Back in 2005, they were projecting world oil consumption in 2025 at 119.2 million barrels per day, just below anticipated output at that time. This year - and we should all theoretically breathe a deep sigh of relief - the report projects that 2025 figure at only 101.1 million barrels per day, conveniently just what the world is expected to produce at that time. If this actually proves the case, then oil prices will presumably remain within a manageable range. In fact, however, the consumption part of this equation seems like the less reliable calculation, especially if economic growth continues at anything like its recent pace in China and India. Indeed, all evidence suggests that growth in these countries will resume its pre-crisis pace by the end of 2009 or early 2010. Under those circumstances, global oil demand will eventually outpace supply, driving up prices again and threatening recurring and potentially disastrous economic disorders - possibly on the scale of the present global economic meltdown. To have the slightest chance of averting such disasters means seeing a sharp rise in unconventional fuel output. Such fuels include Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, shale oil, liquids derived from coal (coal-to-liquids or CTL), and biofuels. At present, these cumulatively constitute only about four percent of the world's liquid fuel supply but are expected to reach nearly thirteen percent by 2030. All told, according to estimates in the new IEO report, unconventional liquid production will reach an estimated 13.4 million barrels per day in 2030, up from a projected 9.7 million barrels in the 2008 edition. But for an expansion on this scale to occur, whole new industries will have to be created to manufacture such fuels at a cost of several trillion dollars. This undertaking, in turn, is provoking a wide-ranging debate over the environmental consequences of producing such fuels. For example, any significant increase in biofuels use - assuming such fuels were produced by chemical means rather than, as now, by cooking - could substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, actually slowing the tempo of future climate change. On the other hand, any increase in the production of Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, and Rocky Mountain shale oil will entail energy-intensive activities at staggering levels, sure to emit vast amounts of carbon dioxide, which might more than cancel out any gains from the biofuels. In addition, increased biofuels production risks the diversion of vast tracts of arable land from the crucial cultivation of basic food staples to the manufacture of transportation fuel. If, as is likely, oil prices continue to rise, expect it to be ever more attractive for farmers to grow more corn and other crops for eventual conversion to transportation fuels, which means rises in food costs that could price basics out of the range of the very poor, while stretching working families to the limit. As in May and June of 2008, when food riots spread across the planet in response to high food prices - caused, in part, by the diversion of vast amounts of corn acreage to biofuel production - this could well lead to mass unrest and mass starvation. A Heavy Energy Footprint on the Planet The geopolitical implications of this transformation could well be striking. Among other developments, the global clout of Canada, Venezuela, and Brazil - all key producers of unconventional fuels - is bound to be strengthened. Canada is becoming increasingly important as the world's leading producer of oil sands, or bitumen - a thick, gooey, viscous material that must be dug out of the ground and treated in various energy-intensive ways before it can be converted into synthetic petroleum fuel (synfuel). According to the IEO report, oil sands production, now at 1.3 million barrels a day and barely profitable, could hit the 4.4 million barrel mark (or even, according to the most optimistic scenarios, 6.5 million barrels) by 2030. Given the IEA's new projections, this would represent an extraordinary addition to global energy supplies just when key sources of conventional oil in places like Mexico and the North Sea are expected to suffer severe declines. The extraction of oil sands, however, could prove a pollution disaster of the first order. For one thing, remarkable infusions of old-style energy are needed to extract this new energy, huge forest tracts would have to be cleared, and vast quantities of water used for the steam necessary to dislodge the buried goo (just as the equivalent of "peak water" may be arriving). What this means is that the accelerated production of oil sands is sure to be linked to environmental despoliation, pollution, and global warming. There is considerable doubt that Canadian officials and the general public will, in the end, be willing to pay the economic and environmental price involved. In other words, whatever the IEA may project now, no one can know whether synfuels will really be available in the necessary quantities fifteen or twenty years down the road. Venezuela has long been an important source of crude oil for the United States, generating much of the revenue used by President Hugo Chavez to sustain his social experiments at home and an ambitious anti-American political agenda abroad. In the coming years, however, its production of conventional petroleum is expected to fall, leaving the country increasingly reliant on the exploitation of large deposits of bitumen in the eastern Orinoco River basin. Just to develop these "extra-heavy oil" deposits will require significant financial and energy investments and, as with Canadian oil sands, the environmental impact could be devastating. Nevertheless, successful development of these deposits could prove an economic bonanza for Venezuela. The big winner in these grim energy sweepstakes, however, is likely to be Brazil. Already a major producer of ethanol, it is expected to see a huge increase in unconventional oil output once its new ultra-deep fields in the "subsalt" Campos and Santos basins come on-line. These are massive offshore oil deposits buried beneath thick layers of salt some 100 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro and several miles beneath the ocean's surface. When the substantial technical challenges to exploiting these undersea fields are overcome, Brazil's output could soar by as much as three million barrels per day. By 2030, Brazil should be a major player in the world energy equation, having succeeded Venezuela as South America's leading petroleum producer. New Powers, New Problems The IEO report hints at other geopolitical changes occurring in the global energy landscape, especially an expected stunning increase in the share of the global energy supply consumed in Asia and a corresponding decline by the United States, Japan, and other "First World" powers. In 1990, the developing nations of Asia and the Middle East accounted for only seventeen of world energy consumption; by 2030, that number, the report suggests, should reach 41%, matching that of the major First World powers. All recent editions of the report have predicted that China would eventually overtake the United States as number one energy consumer. What's notable is how quickly the 2009 edition expects that to happen. The 2006 report had China assuming the leadership position in a 2026 to 2030 timeframe; in 2007, it was 2021 to 2024; in 2008, it was 2016 to 2020. This year, the EIA is projecting that China will overtake the United States between 2010 and 2014. It's easy enough to overlook these shifting estimates, since the reports don't emphasize how they have changed from year to year. What they suggest, however, is that the United States will face ever fiercer competition from China in the global struggle to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet national needs. Given what we have learned about the dwindling prospects for adequate future oil supplies, we are sure to face increased geopolitical competition and strife between the two countries in those few areas that are capable of producing additional quantities of oil (and undoubtedly genuine desperation among many other countries with far less resources and power). And much else follows: As the world's leading energy consumer, Beijing will undoubtedly play a far more critical role in setting international energy policies and prices, undercutting the pivotal role long played by Washington. It is not hard to imagine, then, that major oil producers in the Middle East and Africa will see it as in their interest to deepen political and economic ties with China at the expense of the United States. China can also be expected to maintain close ties with oil providers like Iran and Sudan, no matter how this clashes with American foreign policy objectives. At first glance, the International Energy Outlook for 2009 hardly looks different from previous editions: a tedious compendium of tables and text on global energy trends. Looked at another way, however, it trumpets the headlines of the future - and their news is not comforting. The global energy equation is changing rapidly, and with it is likely to come great power competition, economic peril, rising starvation, growing unrest, environmental disaster, and shrinking energy supplies, no matter what steps are taken. No doubt the 2010 edition of the report and those that follow will reveal far more, but the new trends in energy on the planet are already increasingly evident - and unsettling. _____ Michael T Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (2004). A documentary version of that book is available at bloodandoilmovie.com. His newest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (2009), was recently published by Metropolitan Books. To listen to a TomDispatch audio interview in which Klare discusses the future of oil in 2009 and beyond, click here: http://tomdispatch.blogspot.com/ (c) 2009 TomDispatch.com http://www.countercurrents.org/klare120609.htm http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From tal1 at cogeco.ca Mon Jun 15 20:43:11 2009 From: tal1 at cogeco.ca (Tony B.) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:43:11 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Final Bell To Sound For US "School Of Assassins"? Message-ID: <4D5AC36FA29D443F84EF92FE90954F15@TonyPC> ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff To: stopnato at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:56 AM Subject: [stopnato] Final Bell To Sound For US "School Of Assassins"? http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-06-15/Final_bell_to_sound_for_US__School_of_Assassins_.html/print Russia Today June 15, 2009 Final bell to sound for US ?School of Assassins?? Jonathan Stibbs Pressure is mounting on the US school that has trained some of Latin America?s worst human rights abusers. Legislation may see the School of the Americas close after 63 years of controversy. The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) has had many names but is best known as the School of the Americas. However, the end may be nigh for the ?School of Assassins?, as it is also known. The US House of Representatives is debating the suspension of the US training establishment for Latin American and Caribbean military. If passed, the Latin America Military Training Review Act will also investigate the institution?s torture and extrajudicial-killing training manuals, and accusations of human rights abuses connected to it. It began life in Panama as the Latin American Training Center-US Ground Forces at start of the Cold War in 1946. Since then, more than 60,000 of the cream of Latin America?s and the Caribbean?s military personnel have passed through its doors. In 1984 it moved to its present home in Fort Benning, Georgia. By then its reputation was tarnished: then-President of Panama Jorge Illueca called it: ?The biggest base for de-stabilization in Latin America? and a Panamanian newspaper gave it the moniker ?School of Assassins?. Since then, its reputation deteriorated following the 1996 release of school manuals condoning torture. Human rights hit curriculum After a curriculum rewrite, democracy and human rights within US customs are now stressed in each course. This is an attempt to safeguard the future of the school. Former students had taken their skills and perpetrated some of the troubled continent?s worst human rights abuses. Amnesty International estimates that hundreds of rights abusers graduated from the school. Dictators and senior officers of Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama and Peru all trained at the ?Nursery of Death Squads?. Between them, they are implicated in the torture, rape, killing, ?disappearance? and making into refugees of hundreds of thousands of their citizens. Together, they represent a Who?s Who of the Dirty War in the southern cone and the civil war years of Latin America. Former students recently in the news include two Colombian generals charged with collaborating with criminal paramilitaries. In June, Brigadier General Latorre and Del Rio were charged with laundering money and colluding with paramilitary groups responsible for atrocities. Abusers linked to US training Critics, such as the School of the Americas Watch (SOA Watch), claim the school?s education is the link between the students and human rights abuses some subsequently commit. In its defense, WHINSEC emphasizes its support for democracy and human rights. It also rails against SOA Watch?s claims of a ?false cause-and-effect relationship between training at the now-closed US Army School of the Americas and WHINSEC, and the criminal acts of a few who have attended the school?s programs in the distant past.? Recently, the continent?s shift to the left has seen a fall in countries sending their finest to Fort Benning. Argentina and Uruguay are the latest to join Bolivia and Venezuela as nations not taking up training at the US taxpayers? expense. SOA Watch lobbies other countries not to send students to the academy. It is focusing on the new government of El Salvador, which has a special significance to the organization. It was founded by a Catholic priest, Roy Bourgeois, after four US churchwomen were raped and killed by Salvadorian soldiers in 1980, and six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter were murdered in 1989. The perpetrators of the priests? killings were found to have trained in the US at the school. ?The light of our movement was switched on in El Salvador, where the killings of the priests helped open our eyes to the way the US army was using our taxes,? Lisa Sullivan, SOA Watch?s Latin America coordinator, told IPS. School as a moral symbol As politicians debate the future of the school, the views of US President Barack Obama are unknown. Having defined his presidency with the goal of retrieving US moral credibility, he has been uncharacteristically quiet. The school has had close scrapes with closure in the past. Now, under a new name and a new curriculum, it is likely the more unpalatable training goes on elsewhere. However, the school remains symbolic of a US still tarnished by Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay. How the House of Representatives votes under Obama?s leadership will speak volumes about US military and human rights aspirations in Latin America. =========================== 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 I Make $350 per Day. Learn how I make 10k a month after I Got Fired!. How Many Triangles? 92.6% of Americans Fail this Question!. 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 Find helpful tips for Moderators on the Yahoo! Groups team blog.. __,_._,___ From the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com Mon Jun 15 21:46:23 2009 From: the.buffalo.in.the.midst at gmail.com (Leighm) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:46:23 -0700 Subject: [A-List] For the Corporatist in Every Man - Italy's new fascist-chic National Guard uniforms Message-ID: <4A37158F.6020202@gmail.com> Timeless fashion. Foreign Policy Passport: http://trunc.it/fj9s From ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com Mon Jun 15 16:46:17 2009 From: ioriwase at mail.mohawknationnews.com (Mohawk Nation News) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:46:17 -0400 Subject: [A-List] MNN Booby Trapped Road to Fascism Message-ID: <0211b7c8$39979$0cd87821425579@xnote> BOOBY TRAPPED ROAD TO FASCISM MNN. June 14 2009. Fascism is when the oligarchs put together enough force to enslave society in the interests of a few. It starts with fervent nationalism. Scapegoats are picked. Genocide is planned. Properties, authority and resources are seized. Territory is expanded. THE LEADER is charismatic and backed by huge corporations. He?s an ideologue with an uncompromising belief system. He seizes power and directs the state to implement his ideas on how the world should operate. He becomes the supreme commander of the armed forces and the high court until a new election is called, if ever. A strong central government is created under a hard line paternalistic leader. Appointees must submit to him. Rivals are silenced or eliminated through wild unfounded accusations and smear campaigns. Members of the government vote in favor of these measures in return for protection. Otherwise they could be barred from attending sessions. The constitution is suspended by declaring emergencies. Checks and balances are removed. No questions can be asked. Power is exercised through emergency decrees blamed on an unworkable parliament or congress. Laws and decrees are passed to protect the dictator from criticism, corruption charges, criminal activities and abuse of power. His term becomes indefinite. Other parties are banned or dissolved. State and provincial governments are abolished. MILITARY AND PARA MILITARY power takes over the national police and military. Old army officers and reserves are called into service. Stockwell Day suggested that all agents and government employees wear uniforms. SCAPEGOATS are created. Some are attacked and almost beaten to death. Public anger and frustration are focused on one target who have been labeled terrorists or insurgents to cause hysteria. The military takes them out of the civil court system, i.e. Guantanamo Bay. Their communities are boycotted. Agents are sent in to vandalize their properties and make them look bad. Strict penalties are set for anyone who conducts alleged phony ?economic sabotage? such as protecting the environment, resources and territories. PROPAGANDA is brainwashing to support the views of the fascists. The occult or forced conversion to one world religion causes confusion, conformist thinking and escapism. Non-followers can?t get jobs or food or services. Media and access to information is controlled. Small groups are infiltrated, especially the youth. Obama has created a youth corps to keep an eye on their parents and neighbors. A snitch line has been set up like the 911, Crime Stoppers and hot lines to spy on anyone anonymously. Party supporters are sent out to distribute information and to recruit. Frequent meetings are held to feed into the frightened state of mind in troubled times. Public meetings are stormed. Declarations are made. Destruction of opponents is demanded. Suggestions are made to set up or support a new strict government. Organizers cause dissention inside dissident groups. Agents set up a coup-like atmosphere like marches and demonstrations. They wear out the people and give police and military practice in controlling and scaring the public. The state makes decisions over peoples? lives and gathers information from the cradle to the grave. Microchips from central data banks contain information on medical records, licenses, education, social services, travel, etc. AN ECONOMIC depression is created. If the head of Bank of Canada or Bank of America disagree with the emperor, they are replaced. Local business interests are forced to cooperate with the fascists. Large multinational companies like Wal Mart are brought in to destroy small businesses. Appeals are made to the working class, petit bourgeois like bank clerks, middle management and those who are ambitious. They see fascism as a way to rise up in the system and become heads in the new regime. Industrialists, monarchists and the monied class fanatically support fascism. Foreign collaborators, rich authoritarians, opportunists, media moguls and business men finance the party. Labor unions are brought under control or wiped out. Economic engineering includes debt flotation and military expansion. Financing is based on currency manipulation including credit debts. High unemployment is maintained. Arms production is accelerated. Built are dams, highways, railroads and civic works like prisons, labor camps and holding facilities for indefinite periods. More cops are hired. Court workers and judicial officers are increased. Legal aid, social assistance, housing and other social services are cut. Child welfare agencies are given more power to seize children. Prison sentences are longer. Control mechanisms include more probation officers, judicial supervision, conditional sentences and supervisory court orders. Women stay home. The state takes the kids. The Fuhrer becomes their father. The standard of living is kept down. Wages are reduced. People are told to make sacrifices for the mother land. AGGRESSIVE LAW AND ORDER campaigns are started to keep the fascists in power. Periodic demonstrations like the Nuremberg rallies are set up so the head honcho can give long confusing public speeches. HABEAS CORPUS is suspended. Freedom of speech and assembly are suppressed. REVOLUTIONARY DEALS are kept secret. The people have to be kept asleep so they don?t ask questions. PRETEXT EVENTS are staged like 911 to justify bringing in anti terrorism laws and repressive measures to take away liberty in the name of security. FOOD RATIONING is established. Hydroponic centers chemically produce food to replace farmers. EUGENICS - Get rid of ?Useless eaters?, anyone who refuses to become part of the laboring or slave class is dispensed with. Pressure is put on people by limiting access to their needs. WAR - Adjacent territories are taken over and become protectorates as part of empire building. Everybody becomes a citizen of the world under one global order. Cultures and languages are wiped out. Americans and their supporters declare themselves to be carrying out their manifest destiny. Government must appear to be moderate. Everybody else is being stubborn. While they call for peace, these inhuman tyrants start small local conflicts before going into a large war. If you think this is a conspiracy theory, it?s already happening. Look for yourself! 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 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 noreply at coha.org Mon Jun 15 14:12:02 2009 From: noreply at coha.org (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:12:02 -0400 Subject: [A-List] Part Two Colombia "False Positives, " U.S. - Bolivian Relations, Recent COHA Citations Message-ID: <20090615201125.0113E3E43F4@mx-out2.daemonmail.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7247 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090615/35c721ea/attachment.txt From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Jun 15 18:13:52 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:13:52 +1000 Subject: [A-List] Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #8 -- The left must attempt to set the agenda for struggle | Links Message-ID: <4A36E3C0.9060106@greenleft.org.au> [This is the eighth in a series of regular articles. *Click HERE for other articles in the series *. Please return to /Links/ regularly read the next articles in the series.] By *Marta Harnecker*, translated by *Federico Fuentes* for /Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ 1. In the previous article, we stated that a large section of the party left has found it very difficult to work with social movements and develop ties with the new social forces in recent decades. This has been due to several factors. 2. While the right wing has demonstrated great political initiative, the left tends to be on the defensive. While the former uses its control of the institutions of the state and the mass media, as well as its economic influence, to impose its new model, subservient to financial capital and monopolies, that has precipitated privatisations, labour deregulation and all the other aspects of the neoliberal economic program, to increase social fragmentation and foment anti-partyism, *the party left, on the other hand, has almost exclusively limited its political work to the use of current institutionality, subordinating itself to the rules of the game imposed by the enemy, and hardly ever taking them by surprise*. The level of absurdity is such that the calendar of struggle of the left is set by the right. Foll article at http://links.org.au/node/1102 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2399 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20090616/6bf95612/attachment.txt From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Jun 16 00:39:28 2009 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:39:28 +1000 Subject: [A-List] What's new at Links: European election & left unity, Nepal, New Zealand & left unity, DSP & Tamils, Ireland, Marta Harnecker, left unity in Australia, Steve Early, US health Message-ID: <4A373E20.5090806@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: European election & left unity, Nepal, New Zealand & left unity, DSP & Tamils, Ireland, Marta Harnecker, left unity in Australia, Steve Early, US health * * * 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/. * * * European election: `An alarm is ringing' -- time `to build the broadest possible left unity' Statement by Socialist Resistance (Britain) ... The dog which hardly barked in Britain was the radical left, which paid the price for years of division.... The radical left have to see these elections as a massive wake-up call for reorganisation and unity in advance of the general election. It's clear enough what the agenda of a Tory government will be if it gets a clear mandate... The task now, therefore, is to build the broadest possible unity for the general election. This will not be easy after the events of recent years but it is an imperative of the first order. * Read more Nepal: Maoist student leader -- `It is still a fight to establish a democratic republic, for establishing a socialist system' Ben Peterson interviewed Manushi Bhattarai. She is part of the Maoist team that won student elections at Tribhuvan University -- Nepal's largest university. Q: The All Nepal National Independent Student Union (Revolutionary) (ANNISU(R)) won the student elections at Tribhuvan University. What did the campaign involve, and what are some of your policies as a revolutionary student union? * Read more European election: 60% abstain; gains for the right; revolutionary left wins seats in Portugal and Ireland There was a broad popular abstention in the European elections. Nearly 60% of voters did not vote. Because of this, only a deformed vision of the real relationship of forces in Europe is possible. But it confirms the crisis of legitimacy of the European Union and of the governing parties that implement their policies within this framework, writes Fran?ois Sabado. Other tendencies emerge, initially a rise of the right across Europe. * Read more European election: British left discusses urgent need for left unity By Phil Hearse The outcome of the county council and European parliament elections means that the British left -- the left to the left of New Labour -- has to wake up and break out of its dire sectarian, bureaucratic and factional mindsets. Nothing is more shameful than the lack of of united left slate, around a minimal set of demands in the interets of the working class, in these elections. The near absence of the left from the electoral field was one important reason -- though far from the only one -- that such a large number of the protest votes against the main parties went to the hard-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the fascist British National Party (BNP). It is shameful that the left abandons so much of the electoral field to the far right because of nothing more than hardened, bone-headed, factional idiocy -- topped off by bureaucratic exclusions and anathemas. * Read more New Zealand: Responding to the crisis -- Broad left unity to mobilise masses of people By Vaughan Gunson Unity, May 2009 -- Facing the left today are incredible challenges. The global economic meltdown, combined with the nightmare scenarios of runaway climate change and resource depletion, looms as a human disaster of an unimaginable scale. The question we are all asking ourselves: is how can we organise ourselves and grassroots people into a movement that has the strength and vision to set the world on a different course? Over the last decade Socialist Worker-New Zealand, a small Marxist organisation, has moved towards the realisation that we need to be building alongside other activists a broad left party which has the breadth and reach to give leadership to masses of people. And that we need to begin now, not later. * Read more DSP reiterates support for the right of self-determination for the Tamil people Democratic Socialist Perspective (Australia) statement in response to the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka June 12, 2009 -- The Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) -- a Marxist organisation affiliated to the Socialist Alliance of Australia -- supports the right of Tamils to self-determination. We have campaigned in solidarity with the Tamil people for several decades. For example, at the time of the 1983 massacre the DSP worked with the Tamil community in Australia to organise protests. This year too, the DSP, Socialist Alliance and Resistance worked closely with Tamil communities, including helping organise rallies, to highlight the calls for a ceasefire and for self-determination. * Read more Ireland: Socialist Workers Party calls for a `broad radical left party' By the Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) June 11, 2009 -- The election of Joe Higgins as MEP and the defeat of Fianna Fail in Dublin indicates that the political landscape is changing. The recent elections represent a seismic shift in Irish politics. Ever since 1927, Fianna Fail has dominated the working-class vote but this has now changed -- most probably forever. * Read more Uniting the socialist left: the Australian experience Peter Boyle is national secretary of the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP), a Marxist tendency in the Socialist Alliance in Australia. He was interviewed by Socialist Voice (Canada) co-editor Roger Annis. Socialist Voice: The Australian left founded a project of left unity and activism in 2001. Can you describe the early years of that project and what it achieved? Peter Boyle: The Socialist Alliance was formed in 2001 on the back of great optimism about the prospects for left revival in the wake of the rise of a movement at that time against capitalist globalisation. Some 20,000 people had participated in a three-day long blockade of a summit of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne the previous year. That was Australia's "Seattle" and it was followed up on May 1, 2001 with mass blockades of the stock exchanges in all the capital cities of the country. * Read more Marta Harnecker: Ideas for the struggle #7 -- Reasons for popular scepticism concerning politics and politicians [This is the seventh in a series of regular articles. Click HERE for other articles in the series . Please return to