From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Sep 1 03:12:54 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:12:54 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] At JFK Airport, Denying Basic Rights Is Just Another Day at the Office Message-ID: <48BBB216.3070204@attglobal.net> by Emily Feder AlterNet (August 18 2008) I arrived at JFK Airport two weeks ago after a short vacation to Syria and presented my American passport for re-entry to the United States. After 28 hours of traveling, I had settled into a hazy awareness that this was the last, most familiar leg of a long journey. I exchanged friendly words with the Homeland Security official who was recording my name in his computer. He scrolled through my passport, and when his thumb rested on my Syrian visa, he paused. Jerking toward the door of his glass-enclosed booth, he slid my passport into a dingy green plastic folder and walked down the hallway, motioning for me to follow with a flick of his wrist. Where was he taking me, I asked him. "You'll find out", he said. We got to an enclosed holding area in the arrivals section of the airport. He shoved the folder into my hand and gestured toward four sets of Homeland Security guards sitting at large desks. Attached to each desk were metal poles capped with red, white and blue siren lights. I approached two guards carrying weapons and wearing uniforms similar to New York City police officers, but they shook their heads, laughed and said, "Over there", pointing in the direction of four overflowing holding pens. I approached different desks until I found an official who nodded and shoved my green folder in a crowded metal file holder. When I asked him why I was there, he glared at me, took a sip from his water bottle, bit into a sandwich, and began to dig between his molars with his forefinger. I found a seat next to a man who looked about my age - in his late 20s - and waited. Omar (not his real name) finished his fifth year in biomedical engineering at City College in June. He had just arrived from Beirut, where he visited his family and was waiting to go home to the apartment he shared with his brother in Harlem. Despite his near-perfect English and designer jeans, Omar looked scared. He rubbed his hands and rocked softly in his seat. He had been waiting for hours already, and, as he pointed out, a number of people - some sick, elderly, pregnant or holding sobbing babies - had too. There were approximately seventy people detained in our cordoned-off section: All were Arab (with the exception of me and the friend I traveled with), and almost all had arrived from Dubai, Amman or Damascus. Many were US citizens. We were in the front row, sitting a few feet from two guards' desks. They sneered at each bewildered arrival, told jokes in whispers, swiveled in their office chairs and greeted passing guards who stopped to talk - guards who had a habit of looping their fingers into their holsters. One asked his friend how many nationalities were represented in the room. "About twenty. Some of everything today." No one who had been detained knew precisely why they were there. A few people were led into private rooms; others were questioned out in the open at desks a few feet from the crowd and then allowed to pass through customs. Some were sent to another section of the holding area with large computer screens and cameras, and then brought back. The uninformed consensus among the detainees was that some people would be fingerprinted, have their irises scanned and be sent back to the countries from which they had disembarked, regardless of citizenship status; others would be fingerprinted and allowed to stay; and the unlucky ones would be detained indefinitely and moved to a more permanent facility. There was one British tourist in the group. Paul (also not his real name) was traveling with three friends who had passed through customs soon after their plane landed and were waiting for him on the other side of the metal barrier; he suspected he had been detained because of his dark skin. When he asked if he could go to the bathroom, one of the guards said, "I wouldn't". "What if someone has to?" I asked. "They will just have to hold it", the guard responded with a smile. Paul began to cry. I watched as he, over the course of four hours, went from feeling exuberant about his trip to New York to despising the entire country. "I speak the Queen's English", he said to me. "I'm third-generation British. I came to America because I've always wanted to come here, and now they've got me so scared that all I want to do is go home. We're paying for your stupid war anyway." To be powerless and mocked at the same time makes one feel ashamed, which leads quickly to rage. Within a few hours of my arrival, I saw at least ten people denied the right to use the bathroom or buy food and water. I watched my traveling companion duck under a barrier, run to the bathroom and slip back into the holding section - which, of course, someone of another ethnicity in a state of panic would be very reluctant to do. The United States is good at naming enemies, but apparently we are even better at making them, especially of individuals. I don't know if it's worse for national security - and more embarrassing for Americans - that this is the first experience tourists have of our country, or that some US citizens get treated this way upon entering their own country. The guard who had been picking his molars for hours quietly mispronounced the names of people whose turn it was to be questioned, muttering each surname three times and then moving on. When he called Omar from City College to his desk, I moved closer to hear the interview. "Where did you go?" the officer asked. "What is your address in the United States? Is your brother here illegally? Do you support Hezbollah? What do you think of Hezbollah in general? How do you pay for your life here? How many people live with you? Are you sure it's just you and your brother? Who are your friends?" Omar answered respectfully and emphatically; he was then asked to wait by the side of the desk, from which he was ushered toward one of the rooms. After four hours, I finally demanded to speak to the guards' supervisor, and he was called down. I asked if the detainees could file a formal complaint. He said there were complaint forms (which, in English and Spanish, direct one to the Department of Homeland Security's Web site, where one must enter extensive personal information in order to file a "Trip Summary") but initially refused to hand them out or to give me his telephone number. "The Department of Homeland Security is understaffed, underfunded, and I have men here who are doing fourteen-hour days". He tried to intimidate me when I wrote down his name - "So, you're writing down our names. Well, we have more on you" - and asked me questions about my address and my profession in front of the rest of the people detained. I pointed out a few of the families who had missed their flights and had been waiting seven hours. His voice barely controlled, his lip curled into a smirk, he explained slowly, condescendingly, that they need only go to the ticket counter at Jet Blue and reschedule so they could fly out in an hour. One mother responded with what he must have already known: Jet Blue goes to most destinations only once or twice a day and her whole family would have to sleep in the airport. A large crowd began to gather. Everyone wanted to voice complaints. I explained to the supervisor that his guards had been making people afraid. He flipped through the green files, tossing the American passports to the front of the pile. "You should have gone first, before these people. American citizens first - that's how it should be." In the face of dozens of requests and questions, he turned and left. The guards processed me then, ignoring the order of arrivals, if there ever had been one. They refused to distribute more complaint forms or call the supervisor back down at the request of Arab families. One officer threatened, "I'm talking politely to you now. If you don't sit down, I won't be talking politely to you anymore." One announced that because "the American girl" had gotten angry, the families would have to wait a few more hours. "The supervisor is not coming back". I reassured my Homeland Security interrogator that I did not make any connections with Hezbollah or with anyone I knew to be associated with such an organization. I am not a member of any terrorist group. In fact, my visit to Syria had been so apolitical and touristy that I felt an embarrassing affinity with the pastel-shirted families waiting by the Air France baggage carousels in the distance, whom I knew I would eventually join. As I walked out of the enclosure, some people thanked me, squeezing my arm and putting their hands on my shoulders. It was shocking that briefly standing up to someone overseeing an abuse of civil rights - in JFK airport, in the United States, where we supposedly have laws and a democratic judicial system - could be perceived as heroic. I had nothing to lose, but the other people being detained had everything to lose. In the past five years I have worked for human rights and refugee advocacy organizations in Serbia, Russia and Croatia, including the International Rescue Committee and USAID. I have traveled to many different places, some supposedly repressive, and have never seen people treated with the kind of animosity that Homeland Security showed that night. In Syria, border control officers were stern but polite. At other borders there have been bureaucracies to contend with - excruciating for both Americans and other foreign nationals. I've met Russian officials with dead, suspicious looks in their eyes and arms tired from stamping so many visas, but in America, the Homeland Security officials I encountered were very much alive - like vultures waiting to eat. (c) 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/95351/ 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/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Mon Sep 1 08:41:38 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:41:38 +0000 Subject: [R-G] Ms Palin -- by INDIANZ Message-ID: Indianz.Com. In Print. http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/010583.asprad-green at lists.econ.utah.edu McCain picks Alaska governor for running mate Monday, September 1, 2008 Filed Under: Politics Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) surprised the nation by announcing little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) as his running mate on Friday. Palin is under investigation in Alaska for her abrupt firing of Walt Monegan, the state's first Alaska Native public safety commissioner. He said he was repeatedly pressured by Palin's aides and members of her family -- including her husband, Todd, who is Alaska Native -- to fire a state trooper who was married to Palin's younger sister. Sarah Palin has denied wrongdoing and Todd Palin said he never asked Monegan to fire the trooper. Having served as governor for less than two years, Palin does not have a major record on Alaska Native issues. Earlier this year, she failed to re-appoint the only Native on the state Board of Game and instead chose someone who opposed Native subsistence rights. Alaska Natives protested the move and Palin ended up appointing another Native when her original pick dropped out. Palin's administration is suing the Interior Department for its decision to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska Natives link climate change to the loss of habitat for animals like the polar bear. Palin supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where Arctic Slope Regional Corp., an Alaska Native regional corporation, owns mineral rights. ASRC supports development but the Gwich'in Nation is opposed out of fear it will hurt caribou in the refuge. Palin is the first woman to run on the Republican presidential ticket though she was preceded by Geraldine Ferraro, who ran for vice president for the Democrats in 1984, and Winona LaDuke (Ojibwe), who ran for vice president for the Green Party in 1996 and 2000. Sen Hillary Clinton (D-New York) ran for president this year. Get the Story: Democrats Say Palin Initially Backed Bridge (The Washington Post 9/1) Username: indianz at indianz.com, Password: indianz Account of a Bridge?s Death Slightly Exaggerated (The New York Times 8/31) Username: indianzcom, Password: indianzcom Related Stories: Sen. McCain to announce vice presidential pick (08/28) Alaska lawmakers to probe firing of Native top cop (7/29) Controversy continues over new Alaska top cop (7/25) New Alaska top cop was accused of harassment (7/23) Probe sought into firing of Alaska Native top cop (7/22) Fired Alaska Native cop cites pressure from governor (7/21) Alaska governor defends firing of Native top cop (7/18) First Alaska Native public safety official fired (7/14) Alaska Native appointed to state game board (2/11) No Natives named to Alaska Board of Game (2/7) HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Sep 1 18:03:32 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:03:32 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] FBI Seeks Sweeping New Powers Message-ID: <48BC82D4.20804@attglobal.net> by Aziz Huq www.thenation.com (August 22 2008) Lame-duck administrations with abysmal poll ratings and no legislative agenda attract little attention. But to ignore the Bush Administration at this point is perilous: in its waning days, the Administration is turning the Federal Bureau of Investigation into a domestic intelligence agency with sweeping powers to profile and spy on law-abiding Americans. In July, the Associated Press reported that Attorney General Michael Mukasey was overhauling rules that govern when the FBI can begin an investigation. In a speech last week in Portland, Mukasey acknowledged this and explained that the new guidelines would yield a "more flexible, more proactive, and more efficient" bureau. FBI guidelines matter because Congress has never enacted a comprehensive statute governing the bureau, even though the FBI last month marked its hundredth anniversary. The FBI's birth in 1908 was an accident unanticipated by Congress: it was born because Attorney General Charles Bonaparte, frustrated by a Congressional appropriations rider precluding him from borrowing agents from Treasury to conduct investigations, hired ten former US Secret Service agents as investigators. For the next hundred years, the bureau staved off efforts by Congress to create a constraining legislative framework. After the Church Committee investigations of the 1970s revealed massive FBI surveillance of civil rights leaders and activists, Congress seriously debated such a statute. But then-Attorney General Edward Levi pre-empted that effort by issuing guidelines defining what facts could trigger an investigations, when confidential informants could be sent in and other hot-button questions. Political will on the Hill for confrontation evaporated. While the Levi guidelines have been watered down by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II attorneys general, they nevertheless still provide a critical brake on the bureau: by giving rules to trigger an investigation, deciding when incognito FBI agents can attend public meetings, and for informants' usage - all matters the Constitution does not regulate. The rules provide the sole barrier between the people and open-ended surveillance. While the new guidelines have yet to be released, Mukasey's Portland speech raises serious concerns. The new rules, for example, would allow the FBI to open an investigation based on a person's race plus his or her travel history. In his Portland speech, Mukasey made much of the fact that no investigation can begin "simply based on somebody's race, religion, or exercise of First Amendment rights". But this is cold comfort if the bureau focuses on Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities, whose members frequently travel overseas (as anecdotal evidence and common sense suggest); for these groups, the new rules discards any restraint on surveillance. Moreover, the new rules would allow the FBI to open investigations based on its own threat assessment {1} and profiles constructed from public databases and informants' tips. This invites the targeting of dissident groups - a trend already visible {2} at the state and local level. Simultaneously with the guidelines changes, the Administration is stealthily unfurling a gamut of other regulatory changes to shift federal and local law enforcement dramatically from an investigative to an intelligence-gathering role. In past year, the Administration has injected upward of $2 million to develop a network of 15,000-plus informants {3} in the United States. It has ramped up its internal data-mining efforts {4}, and taken a forward-leaning position on its authority to conduct secret searches {5}, or black-bag operations, in the United States. Compounding these concerns, the bureau is aggressively recruiting local and state law enforcement into its open-ended data collection efforts. In June, the bureau issued guidance {6} to local law enforcement agencies about "suspicious activity" to be recorded and shared with federal authorities. The list includes First Amendment-protected activities, such as expressing "extremist views" and "affiliation" with "extremist organizations". Proposed new regulations {7} would loosen limits on federal-state information sharing by eliminating the requirement that agencies state a reason to know information. Further, as a pair of superlative reports by the ACLU (here and here) demonstrate, the federal government has recently initiated the creation of a nationwide network of "fusion centers," where federal and state law enforcement authorities sit together and share information. Any one of these changes can get lost in the hype of convention season. Standing alone, any one change might seem innocuous, even sensible. Marshaled together, however, these stealth changes portend a dramatic redirection of America's law enforcement agencies--the inking of a new national surveillance state with tendrils trailing down into every precinct and station house of the land. Links: 1. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/03/%20ap_impact_race_profiling_eyed_for_terror_probes/ 2. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.spy18jul18,0,%203787307.story 3. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-proposes-bu.html 4. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/exclusive_fbi_d.html 5. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/as_part_of_its_.html 6. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/%20mccarecommendation-06132008.pdf 7. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-17519.pdf 8. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31993prs20070927.html 9. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/36185prs20080729.html _____ Aziz Huq directs the liberty and national security project at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. He is co-author of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror (New Press, 2007) He is a 2006 recipient of the Carnegie Scholars Fellowship and has published scholarship in the Columbia Law Review, the Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, and the New School's Constellations Journal. He has also written for Himal Southasian, Legal Times and the American Prospect, and appeared as a commentator on Democracy Now! and NPR's Talk of the Nation. Copyright (c) 2008 The Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080901/huq/ 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/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Sep 2 04:00:44 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:00:44 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war Message-ID: <48BD0ECC.7050602@attglobal.net> Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan by John Laughland The Guardian (August 02 2004) If proof were needed that Tony Blair is off the hook over Iraq, it came not during the Commons debate on the Butler report on July 21, but rather at his monthly press conference the following morning. Asked about the crisis in Sudan, Mr Blair replied: "I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can". This last phrase means that troops might be sent - as General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff, immediately confirmed - and yet the reaction from the usual anti-war campaigners was silence. Mr Blair has invoked moral necessity for every one of the five wars he has fought in this, surely one of the most bellicose premierships in history. The bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, the 74-day bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999, the intervention in Sierra Leone in the spring of 2000, the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001, and the Iraq war last March were all justified with the bright certainties which shone from the prime minister's eyes. Blair even defended Bill Clinton's attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus grounds that it was really manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin. Although in each case the pretext for war has been proved false or the war aims have been unfulfilled, a stubborn belief persists in the morality and the effectiveness of attacking other countries. The Milosevic trial has shown that genocide never occurred in Kosovo - although Blair told us that the events there were worse than anything that had happened since the second world war, even the political activists who staff the prosecutor's office at the international criminal tribunal in The Hague never included genocide in their Kosovo indictment. And two years of prosecution have failed to produce one single witness to testify that the former Yugoslav president ordered any attacks on Albanian civilians in the province. Indeed, army documents produced from Belgrade show the contrary. Like the Kosovo genocide, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as we now know, existed only in the fevered imaginings of spooks and politicians in London and Washington. But Downing Street was also recently forced to admit that even Blair's claims about mass graves in Iraq were false. The prime minister has repeatedly said that 300,000 or 400,000 bodies have been found there, but the truth is that almost no bodies have been exhumed in Iraq, and consequently the total number of such bodies, still less the cause of their deaths, is simply unknown. In 2001, we attacked Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and to prevent the Taliban from allegedly flooding the world with heroin. Yet Bin Laden remains free, while the heroin ban imposed by the Taliban has been replaced by its very opposite, a surge in opium production, fostered by the warlords who rule the country. As for Sierra Leone, the United Nations human development report for 2004, published on July 15, which measures overall living standards around the world, puts that beneficiary of western intervention in 177th place out of 177, an august position it has continued to occupy ever since our boys went in: Sierra Leone is literally the most miserable place on earth. So much for Blair's promise of a "new era for Africa". The absence of anti-war scepticism about the prospect of sending troops into Sudan is especially odd in view of the fact that Darfur has oil. For two years, campaigners have chanted that there should be "no blood for oil" in Iraq, yet they seem not to have noticed that there are huge untapped reserves in both southern Sudan and southern Darfur. As oil pipelines continue to be blown up in Iraq, the west not only has a clear motive for establishing control over alternative sources of energy, it has also officially adopted the policy that our armies should be used to do precisely this. Oddly enough, the oil concession in southern Darfur is currently in the hands of the China National Petroleum Company. China is Sudan's biggest foreign investor. We ought, therefore, to treat with scepticism the US Congress declaration of genocide in the region. No one, not even the government of Sudan, questions that there is a civil war in Darfur, or that it has caused an immense number of refugees. Even the government admits that nearly a million people have left for camps outside Darfur's main towns to escape marauding paramilitary groups. The country is awash with guns, thanks to the various wars going on in Sudan's neighbouring countries. Tensions have risen between nomads and herders, as the former are forced south in search of new pastures by the expansion of the Sahara desert. Paramilitary groups have practised widespread highway robbery, and each tribe has its own private army. That is why the government of Sudan imposed a state of emergency in 1999. But our media have taken this complex picture and projected on to it a simple morality tale of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They gloss over the fact that the Janjaweed militia come from the same ethnic group and religion as the people they are allegedly persecuting - everyone in Darfur is black, African, Arabic-speaking and Muslim. Campaigners for intervention have accused the Sudanese government of supporting this group, without mentioning that the Sudanese defence minister condemned the Janjaweed as "bandits" in a speech to the country's parliament in March. On July 19, moreover, a court in Khartoum sentenced six Janjaweed soldiers to horrible punishments, including the amputation of their hands and legs. And why do we never hear about the rebel groups which the Janjaweed are fighting, or about any atrocities that they may have committed? It is far from clear that the sudden media attention devoted to Sudan has been provoked by any real escalation of the crisis - a peace agreement was signed with the rebels in April, and it is holding. The pictures on our TV screens could have been shown last year. And we should treat with scepticism the claims made for the numbers of deaths - 30,000 or 50,000 are the figures being bandied about - when we know that similar statistics proved very wrong in Kosovo and Iraq. The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur, since the beginning of the conflict in 2003, is not greater than 1,200 on all sides. And why is such attention devoted to Sudan when, in neighbouring Congo, the death rate from the war there is estimated to be some two or three million, a tragedy equalled only by the silence with which it is treated in our media? We are shown starving babies now, but no TV station will show the limbless or the dead that we cause if we attack Sudan. Humanitarian aid should be what the Red Cross always said it must be - politically neutral. Anything else is just an old-fashioned colonial war - the reality of killing, and the escalation of violence, disguised with the hypocritical mask of altruism. If Iraq has not taught us that, then we are incapable of ever learning anything. _____ John Laughland is an associate of Sanders Research Associates jlaughland at sandersresearch.com http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/02/sudan.oil 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/ From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Sep 2 11:08:58 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:08:58 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Why Its Iraqi "Client" Blocked U.S. Long-Term Presence Message-ID: <3CA712A3-5181-4773-BC20-2026D1DAD9EE@shaw.ca> POLITICS: Why Its Iraqi "Client" Blocked U.S. Long-Term Presence Analysis by Gareth Porter* http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43753 WASHINGTON, Sep 1 (IPS) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signaled last week that that all U.S. troops -- including those with non-combat functions -- must be out of the country by the end of 2011 under the agreement he is negotiating with the George W. Bush administration. That pronouncement, along with other moves indicating that the Iraqi position was hardening rather than preparing for a compromise, appeared to doom the Bush administration's plan to leave tens of thousands of military support personnel in Iraq indefinitely. The new Iraqi moves raise the obvious question of how a leader who was considered a safe U.S. client could have defied his patron on such a central U.S. strategic interest. Al-Maliki declared Aug. 25 that the U.S. had agreed that "no foreign soldiers will be in Iraq after 2011". A Shiite legislator and al- Maliki ally, Ali al-Adeeb, told the Washington Post that only the Iraqi government had the authority under the agreement to decide whether conditions were conducive to a complete withdrawal. He added that the Iraqi government "could ask the Americans to withdraw before 2011 if we wish." It was also reported that al-Maliki has replaced his negotiating team with three of his closest advisers. These moves blindsided the Bush administration, which had been telling reporters that a favourable agreement was close. The Washington Post reported Aug. 22 and again Aug. 26 that the agreement on withdrawal would be "conditions-based" and would allow the United States to keep tens of thousands of non-combat troops in the country after 2011. The administration had assumed going into the negotiations that al- Maliki would remain a U.S. client for a few years, because of the Iraqi government's dependence on the U.S. military to build a largely Shiite Iraqi army and police force and defeat the main insurgent threats to his regime. But that dependence has diminished dramatically over the past two years as Iraqi security forces continued to grow, the Sunni insurgents found refuge under U.S. auspices and the Shiites succeeded in largely eliminating Sunni political-military power from the Baghdad area. As a result, the inherent conflicts between U.S. interests and those of the Shiite regime have been become more evident. Contrary to the administration's claims that it was helping the regime remain independent of Iran, al-Maliki was far closer to Tehran than to Washington from the beginning. As a team of McClatchy newspaper reporters revealed last April, the choice of al-Maliki as prime minister was the direct result of the mediation by Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, in the negotiations within the coalition that had won the December 2005 parliamentary election. Washington didn't learn that Suleimani had slipped into the green zone until later, according to the McClatchy report. Al-Maliki has hardly hidden his opposition to U.S. ambitions to maintain a major long-term role in Iraq. One of his first moves was to propose negotiating a timetable for complete U.S. withdrawal with the Sunni insurgents. He soon clashed with U.S. officials over their determination to launch a campaign against Shiite cleric Moqtada al- Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr had been a key political ally of al-Maliki, and the Mahdi Army was an important asset in a broader Shiite campaign to eliminate Sunni political-military power in Baghdad. The Iraqi leader angered U.S. officials in late October 2006 by intervening to call off a U.S.-Iraqi cordon and search operation against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. When Bush met with al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan on Nov. 30, 2006, to discuss a possible U.S. troop increase, he had hoped to get approval for U.S. troops to occupy Sadr City. As Michael Gordon revealed in his Aug. 31 account of Bush policymaking on the surge, however, al-Maliki told Bush he wanted U.S. troops to stay out of the centre of the capital. In the end, al-Maliki and the U.S. command reached a compromise on a carefully conditioned U.S. occupation of Sadr City. But al-Maliki continued to maintain ties with the Sadrists. In 2007, Gen. David Petraeus's project to form Sunni militias, mostly from former armed resistance veterans, became a new source of tension between the Bush administration and al-Maliki. An associate of al- Maliki told Associated Press in July 2007 that he once threatened in a discussion with President Bush to counter the arming of Sunnis by arming Shiite militias. The Iraqi leader halted progress on political concessions to the Sunni community. As the U.S. command turned its attention increasingly to attacking the Mahdi Army, the Bush administration began talking in June 2007 about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq, based on the "Korean model". Al-Maliki's responded by declaring that U.S. troops should leave and turn over security to Iraqi forces. In August, Bush publicly distanced himself from al-Maliki, apparently hoping he would be replaced by a more cooperative figure. In late August, the Sadrists were fighting against both U.S. troops in Baghdad and security forces loyal to the pro-Iranian Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council in the south. With al-Maliki's obvious encouragement, Iran intervened to arrange the first of a series of accommodations between its Iraqi clients and Sadr. On Aug. 26, 2007 the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, asked why nothing had been done to arrange "reconciliation" between the two Iraqi groups, said Iran "always used its influence to create unity between the different groups in Iraq". Three days later, Sadr announced a unilateral ceasefire. The main beneficiary of the ceasefire, which ended attacks on the green zone and intra-Shiite fighting, was the al-Maliki regime, and Iraqi officials credited Iranian policy for having made it happen. The Mar. 7 U.S. draft of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the U.S. military drive in Shiite territory brought the conflict of interests between the al-Maliki regime and the Bush administration to a head in 2008. In mid-March, Al-Maliki rejected a Petraeus plan for a massive joint operation against the Sadrists in Basra, which would have increased Iraqi dependence on U.S. troops. Instead, al-Maliki launched his own operation in Basra that was planned to last only a few days. Then, in a move that appears to have been prearranged with Suleimani, Iraqi officials were dispatched to Iran to get Suleimani's help in mediating a peace agreement with Sadr. The result was a Sadrist retreat from Basra, even though Iraqi security forces had not been able to cope with the Mahdi Army resistance. That headed off a major U.S. troop presence in the Shiite south and strengthened al-Maliki's position in negotiations with Washington. The Basra agreement set the stage for the subsequent accord between al- Maliki and Sadr, again reached with Iranian mediation, for a ceasefire in Sadr City on May 12. The agreement prevented the U.S. command from getting the large-scale U.S. campaign in Sadr City for which it had been pushing for more than a year. The carefully calculating Sadr had been convinced to trade short-term military success for the prospect of a U.S. military retreat. Al-Maliki began pushing for "significant changes" in the SOFA only after the May agreement, but he was only returning to the position he had embraced two years earlier. This al-Maliki record of opposition to U.S. political-military interests apparently failed to shake the Bush administration's belief that he would yield to U.S. demands in the end. That faith appears to reflect the official military triumphalism associated with Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy -- a residual faith in the power of the U.S. military's presence in Iraq to sweep away all local obstacles to U.S. victory. *Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. (END/2008) From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Sep 2 13:10:29 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:10:29 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Amy Goodman & Two Democracy Now! Producers Arrested at RNC Protest Message-ID: <9F7A9E41-B5DC-4C68-A9A9-539DBF6D23C6@shaw.ca> Amy Goodman & Two Democracy Now! Producers Arrested at RNC Protest More than 280 people were arrested here in St. Paul Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Among them were several journalists covering the protests in the streets, including three of us at Democracy Now! Amy was detained trying to question police officers about the arrests of Democracy Now! producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. [includes rush transcript] http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Sep 2 13:18:55 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:18:55 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Crude Future: 'The Oil Sands that Bind' & 'We'll never run out' Message-ID: <447BF429-3EFE-4DFF-9AAB-C687655F0540@shaw.ca> [FYI - these two articles appear side by side in the 2 September 2008 edition of the National Post, pg. A15, "First of a Series"] The oil sands that bind As concern about the future of oil mounts, the Post looks at the world's most-talked-about commodity. Today, Adam Waterous explains how the oil sands strengthen Confederation and Donald Boudreaux explains why running out of oil is a virtual economic impossibility Adam Waterous, National Post Published: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=760790 A significant portion of recent media coverage on the Alberta oil sands has centered on two themes: the rise of the Canadian dollar tied to increasing oil prices and environmental issues. However, there is another side of oil sands development that has not received as much attention, but has the potential to provide a lasting benefit to Canadians: the way oil sands strengthening the bonds of Confederation. Direct benefits include an increase in job creation and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- not just in Alberta, but right across the country --and greater transfer payments from Alberta. Our oil sands are an important strategic asset for all Canadians. We have the advantage of being a resource-rich country in an increasingly resource-short world. Our nation has a wealth of sought-after commodities, such as uranium, potash, iron ore, natural gas, hydro- electricity and, notably, oil, given Alberta's massive oil sands reserves. Canada boasts the world's second largest oil reserves at 179 billion barrels -- second only to Saudi Arabia's 264 billion barrels. Of Canada's total proven and recoverable reserves, 97% are found in Alberta's oil sands. And, while efforts are escalating to build up renewable power sources, the world will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels for the next few decades. In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency concluded that most of the anticipated increase in non-OPEC production after 2015 would be from non-conventional sources, mainly Canadian oil sands. Currently, energy export receipts are sustaining Canada's positive merchandise trade balance. Our current and potential oil production is supporting the Canadian dollar, but there are other factors behind our dollar's rise, including low inflation and substantial fiscal repair. The strength of our dollar when central Canada's manufacturing sector is already grappling with a stumbling U. S. economy, intense overseas competition and high oil prices, is certainly difficult. Yet potential adjustments for Ontario's and Quebec's manufacturers, such as exploring new global markets and increased investment to become more productive and energy-efficient, will be easier to accomplish when the Canadian economy is in forward gear. Massive oil sands investments, estimated by the Alberta government in April at close to $170-billion within the next decade, will be key to national growth. A stronger Canadian dollar offers consumers and business increased purchasing power in the global marketplace and highlights Canada as a stable theatre for investment. Just as employee turnover is typically lower at highly profitable companies compared to poorly performing enterprises, low unemployment and a rising currency should give Canadians confidence in their country. The economic impact of the oil sands stretches across Canada. A study in October, 2005, by the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimated that of the total increase in GDP from development and production activities, 89% remained in Canada. Within that 89% share, Ontario's portion was 11%, Quebec's 1%. In terms of employment generated, 83% remained within Canada, with 16% in Ontario and 2% in Quebec (not to mention the opportunities for many Quebec workers who have chosen to move to Alberta). Moreover, their calculations indicated that the federal government claimed 41% of total revenues, and Alberta 36%. Money can, in part, be the glue that helps keep a country together. And Alberta is a major contributor to our federation. The latest data available, for 2005, indicate that Alberta contributed $30-billion to federal coffers and received $17-billion back in federal expenditures, resulting in a $13-billion net contribution. Though Ontario's net contribution in 2005 was larger, at nearly $21-billion, on a per capita basis each Albertan's net contribution was almost $4,000, compared with just less than $1,700 from each Ontario resident. Moreover, Alberta's net contribution has climbed steadily, rising from just $500 per capita in 1995. As economic power has become more dispersed in Canada, Albertans have contributed to strengthening the federal transfer system. This rise in Alberta's financial strength should improve Canadian unity because dispersing economic power in large countries can increase political stability. Up until the rise of the oil sands, for the entire history of Canada, two provinces dominated not only the political, but also economic agenda of the country. Far flung unions or federations that are dominated by relatively small geographic centres have failed for centuries. Just look at the Roman Empire, the British Empire and the Soviet Union (although Canada's political institutions are dramatically different). Frequently, the outlying regions rebel over time against the economic and political centres. Conversely, the United States has enjoyed tremendous national unity in part because of its geographically diverse economic power. The U. S. has four corners of economic power (New York, east; California, west; Illinois, north and Texas, south). The top 10 Fortune 500 companies ranked from largest to smallest, are located in Arkansas, Texas, California, Michigan, Texas, Connecticut, Michigan, New York, West Virginia and Texas. In Canada, the economic migration over the last decade from east to west, driven largely by the oil sands, has been breathtaking. Assuming BCE is privatized, for the first time in history, more than 50% of the equity value of the Toronto Stock Exchange will be headquartered in the west. If you type in "Alberta Oil Sands Environment" on Google, about 700,000 items appear, with eight of the first ten focusing on the project's negative potential impact on the environment. However, in recent years, environmental concerns have prompted significant progress, with policies restricting water use, recycling waste materials and capping toxic emissions. With respect to the oil sands' impact on the native landscape, oil sands leases are being reclaimed with ultimately the vast majority of the land returned to native vegetation. According to Rick George, CEO of Suncor, the oil sands have removed only 0.01% of Canada's boreal forest. Without a doubt, developing the oil sands in a low carbon environment will be challenging. Alberta's Climate Change Plan recognizes that its GHG emissions will rise in the near-term with the increase in oil sands production planned. To minimize this increase, Alberta, as of mid-2007, requires its largest emitters to reduce their GHG emissions intensity by 12%, or if this is not possible, to purchase credits in Alberta-based environment offset projects or contribute to the Province's Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund. Longer-term, a variety of solutions to reduce the oil sands' carbon footprint are being pursued. Most notable are the efforts to develop carbon capture and sequestration on a feasible, commercial scale with the support of all levels of government and industry. In fact, CCS, as it is known, may eventually prove to be another area of global leadership for Canada. Yes, challenges remain on the development of the oil sands. But it is important to keep these challenges in perspective. Alberta's burgeoning oil sands industry is a driving force in the Canadian economy, key to our nation's future. The oil sands are an incredible gift, not only to Alberta, but for all of Canada. - Adam Waterous is vice chairman & president of Scotia Waterous. [...] We'll never run out Donald J. Boudreaux, National Post Published: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=760789 Are we running out of oil? The question seems silly. "Yes" is the obvious answer. Or is it? That there is less oil in the ground today than there was yesterday is true. That there was less oil in the ground yesterday than there was in 1870 is also true. But "running out of oil" is not as much a question of physics as it is one of economics. And economics assures us that we will never run out of oil. My colleague Russ Roberts explains why in his book The Invisible Heart. Imagine, Russ says, a room full of pistachio nuts. You love pistachios and can eat all that you wish as long as you throw each empty shell back into the room whenever you eat a nut. You might suppose that you'll eventually devour all of the nuts in the room. Their number, after all, is finite. But some thought reveals this conclusion to be, well, nutty. At the start it's easy to find pistachio shells containing nuts. The more you eat, though, the more difficult it becomes to find uneaten nuts among the increasing number of empty shells. Eventually, it will not be worth the time and effort required to search amidst the empty shells for the relatively few remaining nuts. You'll voluntarily leave uneaten pistachios in the room. And so it is with oil. As we continue using oil, getting more of it becomes increasingly difficult. This increasing difficulty of finding and extracting oil is reflected in its higher price -- a phenomenon that prompts consumers to consume oil more carefully and prompts producers to explore for alternatives. Of course, advances in technology often render reality richer than this simple story. For example, if a new, lower-cost technique for extracting oil is invented, then oil that yesterday was too costly to get might today be profitably extracted and sold. It's highly doubtful, though, that the cost of extracting oil will ever fall so low -- or that the demand for it will ever rise so high -- that we will find it worthwhile to extract literally the Earth's last barrel of petroleum. The economic limits on the supply of oil clearly differ from its physical limits. Even oil's physical limits, though, are unknown. Because exploring for oil is very costly, no one has incentives to search for more than a few years' worth of supplies. Just as you don't stock your pantry with more than a few weeks worth of food -- just as you go to the supermarket only when your existing food supplies run low -- oil companies sensibly explore only for enough oil to satisfy their expected needs over the next few years. Also, just as it would be absurd to estimate your household's lifetime supply of food based only upon the stock in your pantry, it's absurd to estimate the world's long-term supply of oil based only upon today's proven reserves of that resource. There simply is no good way to know how much oil exists in the Earth beyond the always-limited amounts that oil producers have proven to exist through their economically constrained explorations. Nevertheless, doesn't physics tell us that this amount is limited? Yes -- but physics cannot tell us the economic relevance of this fact. Consider two scenarios. Scenario One: You're a mosquito on the surface of a balloon containing as much blood as an Olympic-size swimming pool contains water. You, hungry mosquito that you are, inject your proboscis into the balloon and enjoy a meal. By doing so you negligibly reduce the volume of blood in the balloon. Whether you know it or not, you can gorge yourself on blood from this balloon for the rest of your life and there will still be ample blood remaining to feed countless generations of your offspring. Scenario Two: You're a mosquito on a balloon the size of a pea. You eat a meal. The size of your meal relative to the blood-contents of the tiny balloon is large; you significantly reduce the contents. I don't know if our relationship to oil is like that of the mosquito in scenario one, but I'm confident that it's not like that of the mosquito in scenario two. Perhaps we're in some intermediate scenario -- say, like a mosquito on a blood-filled balloon the size of a large beach ball. Point is, we could be like the mosquito in scenario one. That mosquito needn't know that she's atop a quantity of blood that's practically limitless. If she's informed that the amount of blood in her balloon is finite, she might needlessly worry that she'll run out of blood. She might pointlessly reduce her consumption to avoid a mythical "end of blood." Again, I don't know that we're like the mosquito in scenario one -- but no one knows that we're not. A resource physically finite might be economically inexhaustible. -Donald J. Boudreaux is professor of economics at George Mason University. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 2 14:06:15 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:06:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Rising public outrage over civilian casualties in Afghanistan Message-ID: <200809022006.m82K6GLT004664@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080902/94a35632/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 2 14:06:58 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:06:58 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Hottentot Morality Message-ID: <200809022006.m82K6wZc005941@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080902/ab20bc73/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Sep 2 17:39:59 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:39:59 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Coup de Grace Message-ID: <48BDCECF.1010209@attglobal.net> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (September 01 2008) As I write at 6:30 Eastern Daylight Time, Hurricane Gustave grinds out of the Gulf of Mexico to make landfall on the Louisiana Coast at Port Fourchon, the marshalling yard for the oil and gas industry - where the oil companies move people and equipment to the rig zone offshore. The storm spent the wee hours of the morning chewing through a wad of offshore drilling platforms and, perhaps more importantly, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (or LOOP), where all the oil supertanker ships from Middle East come to offload their cargos. It will probably be days before we know what was chewed up out there - not to mention the spaghetti-like network of pipelines that run all over the shallow bottom to carry the oil and gas from the platforms to the refineries just up the Mississippi corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. So, at this hour nobody knows yet what the outcome will be, either for the city of New Orleans and its suburbs, or for the oil and gas industry. My guess is that enough oil and gas will come off-line, be shut-in, or get disrupted to severely affect the normal operations of America for a couple of weeks. At the least, our just-in-time gasoline and diesel supply system will take a forced time-out. Those refineries on-shore are in the path to get hit. If they are damaged then we'll probably see shortages of motor fuels all over the eastern US. If we see a shortage of motor fuels, we may also get a disruption of trucking for the just-in-time food delivery system that keeps the supermarkets stocked. So, there is a possibility that Americans will experience both fuel and food shortages this back-to-school week - and in some places it may be the not-back-to-school week if there is any trouble getting fuel for the yellow bus fleets. There has also been chatter about possible far-reaching damage to the old-and-fragile electric grid if this storm trips just the right switches, but that's in the category of idle talk for now. All the above is unknown so far, and I won't even venture to guess what may happen in the city of New Orleans itself - except that the morale of its citizens must be badly strained as three years of re-building gets undone and the long-term future becomes an even more dubious proposition. Projected damage estimates on CNN early this morning ran into about the $30-billion range. This hit, and the potential disruptions to the everyday economy, could be the shot that finally pushes the long-teetering banking system over the edge. Surely the insurance industry, which is tied to banking and its worthless alphabet securities, will not be in position to cover all its billions of dollars in payouts. This may be what finally stops the game of musical chairs in which insolvent banks pretend to be capitalized by showing up for loans at the Federal Reserve's teller cages. For instance, when last seen before the Labor Day hiatus, Lehman Brothers was desperately scrambling for life-support from anybody and anything with a few billion spare bucks. As the hiatus ends and real-life reasserts itself, Lehman may finally find itself free-falling into the abyss, and the chain of mutual obligations, cross-collateralizations, and Ponzi plays connecting it to the other banks could break, bringing on a domino fall of insolvent banks and institutions. All the hurricane action has come at a bad time for the Republican Party. The roll-out of John McCain's ridiculous and cynical choice of a running mate, complete with pompom pumping cheerleaders, will remain front and center in the public's consciousness now while the party delegates go through a few procedural motions in Minneapolis - taking it light on the funny hats, and the other usual festive hijinks, which would only seem indecent against the background of a profound natural disaster. Despite the poll numbers currently showing a fairly close race between Obama and McCain, the Republicans are well on-track to being regarded as "the party that wrecked America". So it's fitting that their quadrennial meeting should be solemn and restrained. This official last day of summer, Labor Day Monday, with roughly twenty percent of America's oil production getting chewed up, and the financial markets shut down, and the public in other places than the Gulf states kicking back with weenies and burgers, or watching the hurricane on TV, may be the last day of seeming normality in this country for quite a while to come. I will come back to this week's blog later this afternoon or evening when more is known about the outcome of Hurricane Gustave. Update, 7:30 pm Eastern Daylight Time, September 1: Hurricane Gustave has now moved away from New Orleans and is stumbling northwest through the backwaters of Louisiana toward Texas. Damage to the city of NOLA seems to be minimal at this time. But there is something very strange about coverage coming across on the cable news networks. While trumpeting the "dodged bullet" story-line, and the triumph of post-Katrina government bureaucracy, there have been absolutely no reports of what's happened to the oil-and-gas platforms offshore, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), or the tangle of pipelines running along the sea floor from these things to the onshore terminals and refineries. I'm quite sure we will not get any comprehensive news about these things for days, because it will require a huge effort of up-close inspection. Gustave roared over that area as a category three storm. It is possible that a great deal of damage has been sustained and that we may still look forward to trouble with gasoline, diesel, and methane gas supplies in the weeks ahead. Playerz on the oil-and-gas futures markets must have been watching CNN and MSNBC all day - and have no idea whether we actually have a problem out in the rig zone. ____________________________________ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/09/as-i-write-at-630-eastern-daylight-time-hurricane--gustave-grinds-out-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-to-make-landfall-on-the--lo.html 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/ From mstainsby at resist.ca Tue Sep 2 19:22:19 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:22:19 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Tribe recognizes same-sex marriage Message-ID: <48BDE6CB.5010607@resist.ca> Fw: Forwarded from seattlepi.com: Tribe recognizes same-sex marriage http://seattlepi.nwsource.com:80/local/376329_gaymarriage25.html Tribe recognizes same-sex marriage Last updated August 24, 2008 8:56 p.m. PT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS PORTLAND -- The Coquille Indian Tribe, based on the southern Oregon coast, recently adopted a law recognizing same-sex marriage, and its first such wedding is set for next spring. Oregon voters amended the state constitution in 2004 to prohibit gay marriage. But as a federally recognized sovereign nation, the tribe is not bound by the Oregon Constitution. Native Americans are "sensitive to discrimination of any kind," said Ken Tanner, chief of the Coquilles. "For our tribe, we want people to walk in the shoes of other people and learn to respect differences. Through that, we think we build a stronger community," he told The Oregonian. The Coquilles are believed to be the first tribe to legalize same-sex marriage. Becky Flynn, regional director of Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights advocacy group, said the impact of the Coquille law is likely to be minimal beyond the couple and the tribe. The federal government has the legal right to deny recognition to same-sex marriages under the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. The first couple to get married under the new law is expected to be Jeni and Kitzen Branting, whose maiden name is Doyle and who legally adopted Jeni's last name three years ago. Kitzen is a member of the tribe; Jeni is not. ? 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Sep 3 04:24:48 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:24:48 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Pop 'til We Drop? Message-ID: <48BE65F0.7020400@attglobal.net> by John Feffer Foreign Policy In Focus (August 19 2008) According to the overpopulation crowd, the current food crisis is the latest evidence that the world has become too heavy with us all. We are currently at 6.6 billion and expected to approach nine billion some time before 2050. Mother Earth is mad as hell and isn't going to take us anymore. We've heard this all before. In 1798, to be precise, when economist Thomas Malthus predicted in his essay on population that humanity would increase more rapidly than our food supply. The mathematical logic seemed inescapable. But Malthus didn't predict how much bird excrement - and later chemical fertilizer - would increase agricultural production. Nevertheless, his fears have resurfaced every generation or so. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich dropped his Population Bomb (1968) on the reading public with its forecast of mass famine in the 1970s and 1980s. Certainly people died of hunger then - as, inexcusably, they do today - but again increases in food production exceeded the rate of population increase and mass famine never materialized. And now, eager to find new evidence to prove their hardy thesis, the neo-Malthusians have latched on to the food crisis. In a recent article I wrote on rising food prices, I failed to mention overpopulation as a key factor. I've never received so many responses to an article before, and ninety percent of these comments chided me for failing to see "the elephant in the room". As one letter writer put it, "Try to remember: Hunger, poverty, injustice, environmental destruction, and global warming are just the symptoms: OVERPOPULATION IS THE DISEASE". I don't want to minimize the challenge of what demographers call "carrying capacity", that is, the number of people that the earth can comfortably accommodate without triggering climate chaos, large-scale drought, and mass extinctions. In a provocative analysis of the then-current wisdom on this subject a decade ago, Bill McKibben conceded that Malthus would always be with us: "The idea that we might grow too big can be disproved only for the moment - never for good". Jared Diamond, meanwhile, has chronicled the rise and fall of a number of societies, such as Easter Island, because of the locust-like tendency of humans to breed, devour everything in sight, and then die. If we can do it on an island in the sea, we can do it on an island in the galaxy. That said, the current food crisis has very little to do with overpopulation. In fact, the current food crisis isn't really about a crisis in production. We still produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. More pertinent than how we procreate is how we farm: whether we use the land for biofuels, whether we depend on industrial agriculture, whether we cut down the rainforests, whether we devote large portions of land and grain production for livestock. If we don't change the way we farm, we will still reach our approaching limits - of energy, land, and carbon emissions - at current or even lower population levels. Our systems of production are set up in a way to produce this crisis, regardless of whether there are six billion people or three billion people who need to eat. Of course, with fewer people, the onset of the crisis wouldn't be as rapid. But if we don't change the systems, the crisis will come nevertheless. Overpopulation, in other words, is an aggravating factor, not a driving factor. The irony, of course, is that industrial agriculture helped us leave the era of mass famine behind. Our ability to coax so much food out of the soil short-circuited nature's rather cruel method of population control. By absorbing so much water (for irrigation), energy (for fertilizer), and land (for livestock and biofuels), our agricultural system now threatens to hoist us by own petard. Compared to oil, water, land, and carbon emissions, population is the only positive "peak" that we are approaching. The number of human beings will level off in this century - perhaps in 2070, perhaps 2050 - and the sooner we get there the better. My own guess is that we might see a peak before then, because of rather unexpectedly rapid declines in fertility in countries like South Korea. It's not that we have the population issue under control. But we have figured out that rising living standards and/or concerted government policies eventually bring down family size. We must address hunger and injustice first as a way of addressing the problem of carrying capacity, not the other way around. And that means that people living in countries with large consumption "footprints" - regardless of how low their fertility rate - must shoulder the burden instead of pointing the finger at countries with smaller footprints but bigger families. A Malthusian future of famine may still await us. But it will be less because of the way we continue to populate the world than because of the way we continue to think about the world. Links: David Simcox, "Population: An Unacknowledged Presence at World Food Crisis Talks", Negative Population Growth, July 22 2008; http://www.npg.org/07222008davesimcox.html John Feffer, "Mother Earth's Triple Whammy", TomDispatch/Foreign Policy In Focus; http://www.fpif.org/fpifoped/5306 Bill McKibben, "A Special Moment in History", The Atlantic, May 1998; http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm Jared Diamond, "Easter Island's End", Discover Magazine, August 1995; http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html _____ Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) fpif.org: a think tank without walls Copyright (c) 2008, Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.fpif.org/fpifzines/wb/5475 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/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Wed Sep 3 07:59:37 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:59:37 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Independence Party / Sagebrush Rebellion Message-ID: <005001c90dcd$4f37e610$0400a8c0@computer> There seems to be increasing mention in much media about the pro-secessionist Independence Party [Alaska] and possible ties of the Palins thereto. Ms Palin has denied this, although she does seem to have spoken at one of their assemblies. Mainline media reports indicate her husband, Todd, [himself one-quarter Alaskan Native], belonged to it for awhile. It remains to be seen how important this aspect of the Palin's interesting odyssey will be seen as time goes on. To make the Independence Party dimension more comprehensible, it has to be placed in the context of the waxing and waning [and waxing] Sagebrush Rebellion which seeks privatization of public lands, corporate takeovers of such, and abrogation of Native treaty rights and related agreements. No matter how much this nefarious "crusade" may occasionally wane, it consistently breaks out yet again like a resurgent forest fire. There are about 200 million acres of public lands -- mostly Federal -- in Alaska. About 40 million other acres are held by Native nations, via the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. If, in the event, Alaska could effect secession, the public lands would immediately lose their direct and indirect Federally protected status -- and Native lands would be at considerable risk as well. Ultimately, corporate interests already circling the pristine lands of Alaska like vultures and buzzards would land for The Feast. This scenario is not likely -- in Alaska or in the targeted regions in the continental Western states. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility, at least in the sense of cunningly maneuvered checkerboard land/resource seizures. Good friends and neighbors of ours who are U.S. Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service officials keep an eye -- always -- on these things. And so should we all. [Hunter] Here is a substantial excerpt from a post of mine on the basic Sagebrush Rebellion thrust and the dangers it poses: NATIVE LANDS, PUBLIC LANDS, GREEDY CORPORATIONS -- AND THE LATEST INCARNATION OF THE "SAGE BRUSH REBELLION" [Hunter Gray 12/24/01] Note by Hunter Bear: . . . .This so-called "House Western Caucus" -- focused greedily, among other things, on our national forests [Forest Service] and park lands [Park Service] and other public Federal lands [Bureau of Land Management] and on Indian lands and resources as well, is simply the newest in a very long series of land and resource grabbing schemes. [Much of this, BTW, has roots in the East and even abroad.] As always, these things warrant continual, ever-vigilant scrutiny. ["Ride the fence-lines, folks!"] I should say at the outset that I am not against all lumbering or metal mining by any means [ how could I be, I've worked in those settings --although I'm certainly completely against any uranium mining, milling, refining. ] My Anglo mother came out of an old Western ranching family. There are ways of doing these things -- essentially reasonable ways. [But bona fide socio-economic democracy, of course, is the most reasonable context of all!] Given the historic and currently voracious appetites of the corporations, their traditional relationship with public lands/resources -- and with Indian lands -- has at best been an armed truce. And, for at least the past two or three generations, it's been more and more of an open war. If the Clinton administration was, despite its friendly-media hype, a fair-weather friend of the Native people and conservationists et al., the Bush entourage is obviously an open foe. In addition to just plain grassroots Native power, Indian country -- Indian lands -- are mostly protected [albeit uneasily] by the special Federal treaty/trust relationship grounded on Article 1, Section 8 ["commerce clause" and general Federal primacy in Indian affairs] and Article 6, Section 2 [ all treaties made by the US government are part of "the supreme law of the land"] of the US Constitution; by the general exclusion of state jurisdiction via Worcester v. Georgia 1832 [Cherokee Nation] and a myriad more of comparable decisions -- and embodied [for better and worse] in the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. But, despite all of these bulwarks and more, Indian land and resources are under constant attack [ and the Bush administration is, as I've just noted, an open foe of Native interests ] -- and Indian people and our allies are constantly maintaining extreme vigilance. Lately, our enemies have focused mostly on trying to block land-claims cases brought by various tribal nations -- and the generally paltry "settlements" eventually secured. In all of this, too, the foes have generally been unsuccessful -- but constant Native scouting and scrutiny in this realm are also the absolute rule. The enemies have been somewhat more successful in trying to impede Native water rights [guaranteed in treaties and via the almost century old Winter v. US decision] by blocking and diverting the water when its respective headwaters and initial flow are located in non-Indian lands. But the most open goal right now -- as discussed in the following news piece -- are the public lands of the West. The major coveting interests are not so much the small or middle-sized ranchers. [Grazing and water leases are now generally 25 years, in contrast to the 99 years of the obviously much older Taylor Grazing Act.] The basic enemies are the mineral corporations -- e.g., oil and gas, metal, coal; the lumber and sawmill and pulp outfits; the big "recreational" and "development" companies. None of these are -- or ever have been -- content with "reasonable" solutions. They want it all. And fast. It's an on-going fight and the Native Americans and the Real Westerners and the Real People generally -- in contrast to these greedy predatory outfits and their allies in Washington -- can use all the help we-all can get in protecting these very vital sections of our turf. It's an intensive fight -- always. As I entered my teen years in Northern Arizona, a big kid, I had no difficulty at all in that laid-back era in representing myself as 18 years old when I was years short of that point. No problems -- people "in the know" simply grinned -- and one of the arenas I went into full-force in the years before I entered the Army was fire-fighting for the US Forest Service. [ A great many Indian people have traditionally worked in that dramatic and well-paying endeavour. It's also egalitarian: a forest fire really doesn't care one way or another about your respective ethnicity. And the woodsmoke and ash make everyone look very, very black.] At 17, I ran a major fire and radio lookout on the Coconino National Forest. Close friends of mine had fathers who were regular USFS employees. But I can remember when, at the obvious instigation of two lumber companies -- Saginaw and Manistee, and Southwest -- an excellent district ranger and a dedicated conservationist was suddenly transferred out of the Coconino into the "Siberia" of USFS Region 3: the old Apache National Forest. That ranger, half a century ago, had been a sharp and effective foe of ruthless lumber company expansion. "They" did a hatchet job on him -- but he certainly continued his vigorous conservationist activities on the Apache. The predatory scope and the ruthlessness are now far, far greater than they were 'way back in those far-away days -- infinitely more so. I should add that Bureau of Land Management turf -- public turf -- begins only a good stone's throw from my present back door here in Idaho. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 08:24:56 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:24:56 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Iran and the Left in Latin America Message-ID: Sep 4, 2008 Iran and the left in Latin America By Kaveh L Afrasiabi Bolivian President Evo Morales is in Tehran this week, ushering in a new chapter in his country's economic and strategic cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has promised a hefty investment in Bolivia's energy sector and other joint ventures, some involving other Latin and Central American countries, such as Venezuela and Nicaragua, not to overlook Cuba. In a joint communique, Morales and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad have signed off on the need for "concrete political steps against every type of imperialism", while also condemning the intervention of the United Nations Security Council in Iran's nuclear program as "lacking any legal or technical justification". Bolivia may be a poor country, but it is strategically located and represents an important ally for Iran that can act as a catalyst in enhancing Iran's growing cooperation with other Latin nations, especially those considered leftist or populist. In his visit to Bolivia last year, Ahmadinejad promised that Iran would make a US$1 billion investment in Bolivia's underdeveloped oil and gas sector and the two sides are now much closer in turning this into reality. Certainly, Morales' decision to set aside any hesitation and fully support Iran's position in the current nuclear standoff goes a long way in cementing Iran-Bolivia friendship. From intnsred at golgotha.net Wed Sep 3 08:36:15 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:36:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Independence Party / Sagebrush Rebellion In-Reply-To: <005001c90dcd$4f37e610$0400a8c0@computer> References: <005001c90dcd$4f37e610$0400a8c0@computer> Message-ID: <200809031036.15956.intnsred@golgotha.net> On Wednesday 03 September 2008 09:59, Hunter Gray wrote: > There seems to be increasing mention in much media about the > pro-secessionist Independence Party [Alaska] and possible ties of the > Palins thereto. Ms Palin has denied this, although she does seem to have > spoken at one of their assemblies. Mainline media reports indicate her > husband, Todd, [himself one-quarter Alaskan Native], belonged to it for > awhile. The Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) claims that Sarah Palin was a member in 1994. During the AIP's conference in 2008 which as governor Palin made a video for, the AIP claimed her as a supporter. Go to http://www.youtube.com and type in "AIP" in the search box and you can watch the videos. Myself, I have no problem with Palin's being an Alaskan secessionist. After all, secession is the right of the states according to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. New York, Rhode Island and Virginia only approved of the Constitution specifically on the condition that those three states retained the right of secession. (Of course, that didn't help Virginia in the US Civil War.) Several states in the US have active secession movements, with Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont being the most organized, largest and active. What appalls me about the is the hypocrisy. Palin is running for a *national* office as a (former?) secessionist. That's inconsistent and needs explanation. -- Fast fact: More money is spent by the U.S. gov't on nuclear weaponry in one year than was spent on housing from 1980-1992. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 09:49:31 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:31 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?La_gestion_de_l=27eau=2C_un_d=E9fi_pour_de?= =?windows-1252?q?main_=E0_traiter_aujourd=27hui?= Message-ID: La gestion de l'eau, un d?fi pour demain ? traiter aujourd'hui LE MONDE | 03.09.08 | 14h24 ? Mis ? jour le 03.09.08 | 17h21 MONTPELLIER ENVOY?E SP?CIALE Les soci?t?s humaines doivent r?former rapidement leur gestion des ressources en eau douce, sur lesquelles p?sent des pressions de plus en plus importantes. Sans changements, la s?curit? hydrique, alimentaire et ?nerg?tique de certaines r?gions du monde serait compromise. Tel est, en substance, le message des organisateurs du 13e congr?s mondial de l'eau, qui a lieu ? Montpellier du lundi 1er au jeudi 4 septembre. "Pendant longtemps, la ressource en eau a ?t? disponible, en grande quantit?, et de bonne qualit?. Elle ?tait consid?r?e comme in?puisable, r?sume Cecilia Tortajada, pr?sidente de l'Association internationale des ressources en eau (IWRA), co-organisatrice du congr?s. Ce n'est plus le cas, nous approchons maintenant des limites. Notre objectif est de g?n?rer de la connaissance sur ce sujet, et de pousser les d?cideurs ? anticiper les d?fis ? venir." Le congr?s de Montpellier, ? dominante scientifique, se tient quelques mois avant la r?union du Forum mondial de l'eau, fix? en mars 2009 ? Istanbul, qui rassemblera politiques, industriels et organisations non gouvernementales. Quelque 260 communications sont pr?vues en H?rault : ?volution du d?bit des fleuves ouest-africains, impact du r?chauffement climatique sur l'irrigation du riz en Chine, gestion des conflits entre usagers en Espagne, etc. Toutes explorent les multiples facettes d'une m?me r?alit? : au moment o? la population mondiale s'accro?t, l'eau se fait plus rare. Premi?re cause de d?s?quilibre : le r?chauffement climatique. La temp?rature augmentant, l'?vaporation de l'eau des fleuves et des rivi?res est plus importante, donc la quantit? d'eau disponible dans l'environnement moindre. Le r?gime des pluies ?tant aussi affect?, les disparit?s entre r?gions du monde, d?j? consid?rables, devraient ?tre accentu?es. SUREXPLOITATION Le deuxi?me grand facteur de rar?faction est l'accroissement des pollutions d'origine urbaine, industrielle ou agricole. "Tr?s peu de pays traitent correctement leurs eaux us?es, remarque Cecilia Tortajada. A Mexico, le principal cours d'eau est tellement pollu? que la ville doit aller pr?lever son eau potable ? des kilom?tres." La salinisation des eaux douces, due ? la surexploitation des nappes phr?atiques c?ti?res ou des fleuves, les rend ?galement impropres ? la consommation sans de co?teux traitements pr?alables. Or les besoins en eau augmentent. La croissance de la population mondiale, qui a lieu essentiellement dans des m?gapoles, concentre la demande dans l'espace, ce qui complique l'approvisionnement en eau potable. Mais ce sont surtout les volumes n?cessaires pour assurer l'alimentation de la population mondiale ? l'avenir qui inqui?tent. Aujourd'hui, 70 % en moyenne du volume d'eau douce pr?lev? dans le monde vont au secteur agricole. "Les cultures irrigu?es ont un rendement deux ? trois fois sup?rieur aux cultures pluviales, explique Michel Jarraud, secr?taire g?n?ral de l'Organisation m?t?orologique mondiale (OMM). L'irrigation devra ?tre d?velopp?e, mais son efficacit? dans l'utilisation de l'eau devra s'accro?tre." Le choix des plantes cultiv?es devra ?galement tenir compte de la moindre disponibilit? en eau, selon M. Jarraud. De plus, l'augmentation du prix de l'?nergie et la lutte contre les ?missions de gaz ? effet de serre incitent les Etats ? d?velopper les ressources alternatives, comme l'hydro?lectricit?, mais aussi les centrales thermiques ou nucl?aires, qui ont besoin de gros volumes d'eau pour leur refroidissement, ou les agrocarburants, eux aussi consommateurs d'eau. Ces ?volutions imposent des r?ponses tous azimuts : meilleure connaissance des ressources, cr?ation d'infrastructures de stockage et de traitement des eaux us?es, ma?trise de la consommation et des pollutions, r?examen des politiques agricoles, nouvelles m?thodes d'arbitrage entre des usagers qui entreront de plus en plus en conflit... Les participants au congr?s de Montpellier l'ont martel? : ces r?ponses doivent ?tre ?labor?es par les Etats, les collectivit?s locales et les usagers concern?s. "En mati?re d'eau, chaque situation est particuli?re. Et, contrairement au p?trole, l'eau ne peut pas ?tre transport?e sur de longues distances, rappelle Pierre Chevallier, directeur de l'Institut languedocien de recherche sur l'eau et l'environnement (IDEE) et pr?sident du comit? d'organisation du congr?s. La correspondance entre les quantit?s disponibles et les usages ne peut se trouver qu'au niveau local." Ga?lle Dupont Chiffres R?serves d'eau. En 2025, 8 milliards d'habitants devront se partager la m?me quantit? d'eau douce qu'aujourd'hui. Les r?serves s'?l?veront en moyenne ? 4 800 m3 par an et par habitant, contre 7 300 en 2000 et 16 800 en 1950. Eau disponible. L'Am?rique du Sud dispose du quart de l'eau disponible dans le monde, mais n'accueille que 6 % de la population. A l'oppos?, 60 % des habitants de la plan?te vivent en Asie, qui ne d?tient qu'un tiers de l'eau disponible. P?nurie d'eau. 30 % de la population mondiale dispose de moins de 2 000 m3 par an et par habitant. Les r?gions les plus expos?es par la p?nurie d'eau sont le Sahel, la M?diterran?e, le Moyen-Orient, le sud des Etats-Unis et l'Asie. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 10:01:43 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:01:43 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Argentina to Repay $6.7 Billion in Paris Club Debt Message-ID: Argentina to Repay $6.7 Billion in Paris Club Debt Move Seeks to Allay Investor Concerns Of Another Default By JOHN LYONS September 3, 2008; Page A12 Argentina, which committed the world's biggest debt default in 2001, said it will repay $6.7 billion it owes to foreign governments in an attempt to allay investor fears that it is headed for another economic meltdown. Argentina's populist president, Cristina Kirchner, described the payment as evidence that the South American nation was committed to avoiding a second debt crash -- a commitment that some investors had come to doubt in recent months. The move highlights rising problems for Mrs. Kirchner, who succeeded her husband, Nestor Kirchner, in power but has seen her approval ratings drop after an attempt to raise taxes on soy exports caused a farmers strike. The country bounced back from its 2001 crash as it stiffed creditors, instituted unorthodox policies such as price controls, and profited from high global commodity prices. Recent commodity-price declines could worsen Argentina's economic outlook, and moving to restore the country's credibility with lenders could broaden Mrs. Kirchner's options. Argentina will use part of its $47 billion in foreign-currency reserves to pay the debts, owed to a group of creditor nations including France, the U.S. and Japan that are known together as the Paris Club. Argentina defaulted on the debts during its last crisis and the outstanding obligations have remained a sticking point for other possible lenders. Clearing the marker may encourage private companies and state-run lenders to extend credit to Argentina's energy industry and other sectors, though not directly to the government, observers said. While investors said the announcement was a positive signal, market reaction reflected a view that the payment won't fundamentally alter Argentina's sovereign-debt predicament. Default insurance on Argentine bonds in the credit-default swap market -- already among the world's costliest to insure -- was essentially unchanged Tuesday after the announcement. To be sure, many analysts say Argentina can meet debt payments through next year -- on paper anyway. But while Argentina has amassed big international reserves as its commodity-rich economy has benefited from an export-led expansion, its outlook is tricky. Credit-ratings firm Standard & Poor's cut its Argentina rating last month, and domestic confidence in the banking system has slipped amid concerns Mrs. Kirchner will devalue the peso to energize the economy. Even though Argentina lopped off around 70% of its debt load in a hard-nosed restructuring following its 2001 default, the South American country is once again facing a daunting pile of debt notices coming due. Argentina's financing needs will double to at least $12 billion next year, according to the investment bank Morgan Stanley. But while Argentina was a darling of the international lending community the last time around, its list of willing lenders has shrunk -- in large part because of skepticism about the policies of Mrs. Kirchner and her husband. Argentina is essentially shut out of the international bond markets because of legal tangles with investors still trying to get money returned from the 2001 default. Argentina's once-thriving domestic market for inflation-linked bonds is also closed because bond investors believe that Argentina's official inflation numbers are fudged. Argentina claims its inflation rate is around 9%, while economists believe that it is well over 20%. The Kirchners have shunned the International Monetary Fund, which wouldn't lend to Argentina until questions about its inflation data are cleared up. Indeed, Argentina's main source of funding in recent years has been Venezuela. But even Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez appears to be growing wary. Venezuela charged Argentina a stiff 15% interest rate on its last $1 billion bond purchase. Write to John Lyons at john.lyons at wsj.com Argentina to Repay $6.7 Billion in Paris Club Debt (Update3) By Eliana Raszewski and Bill Faries Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Argentina will repay its $6.7 billion of defaulted debt with the Paris Club group of creditors, seeking to ease companies' access to financing as growth slows in South America's second-biggest economy. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said she signed a decree allowing the central bank's international reserves to be used to pay the Paris Club, an informal association of creditors that includes the U.S., Germany, Italy and Japan. ``This reaffirms Argentina's willingness to pay its international commitments,'' Fernandez said today at the presidential palace in Buenos Aires. ``This payment puts companies that can get financing abroad in the pole position, which they haven't had before this decision.'' An accord with the Paris Club would help shore up investor confidence in the country as economic growth slumps. Gross domestic product will expand 6.8 percent this year and 3.2 percent in 2009, a slowdown from more than 8.5 percent in each of the past five years amid a recovery from a default and currency devaluation in 2001 and 2002, according to a report today by Merrill Lynch & Co. Xavier Musca, president of the Paris Club, said he welcomed Argentina's decision. Musca, speaking in a telephone interview, said the organization is working out details of the decision with Argentine Finance Secretary Hernan Lorenzino and plans to discuss the payment at its Sept. 15 meeting. Corporate Credit The move may smooth access to international investment credits for companies in Argentina, Cristiano Rattazzi, president of Fiat Argentina SA, told reporters at the presidential palace. Argentina received just 5.4 percent of the $105.9 billion in foreign direct investment in Latin America and the Caribbean last year. Brazil got 33 percent, Mexico 22 percent and Chile 14 percent, according to the United Nations. The central bank's foreign reserves swelled to $47.1 billion as of Sept. 1, recovering from a low of $8.2 billion in January 2003. The country has increased reserves thanks to a boom in agriculture commodity prices that helped the government increase tax revenue. ``This will have some positive impacts, but it will also raise more questions about how the government uses central bank reserves,'' said Daniel Marx, a former finance secretary, in a telephone interview in Buenos Aires. Central bank President Martin Redrado said Argentina's foreign reserves will remain ``robust'' after the debt payment. Reserves This is the second time since 2006 that Argentina has used central bank reserves to pay off international lenders. In January 2006, Fernandez's husband and predecessor Nestor Kirchner used central bank reserves to pay the International Monetary Fund $9.5 billion in a move he said would allow the country to reclaim its ``autonomy.'' Kirchner renegotiated $95 billion in defaulted debt in 2005, offering investors 30 cents on the dollar. Since then, the government has refused to open talks with the holders of about $20 billion in defaulted debt who rejected the government's offer. ``This shows the government is trying to make amends with the market,'' said Eduardo Levy-Yeyati, head of Latin American research at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York. ``The negative side is that given all the concerns about the country's financing needs, using reserves to pay off this debt means they'll have fewer liquid reserves to meet those future needs. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's not a big positive either.'' Net borrowing needs will climb to at least $11.3 billion next year from $6.1 billion, according to Barclays. `First Step' Robert Shapiro, co-chair of American Task Force Argentina, a group that represents some of the bond holdouts, said via e-mail that the Paris Club payoff should be a ``first step'' in efforts to repay all defaulted debt. Argentina's 8.28 percent dollar bonds due in December 2033 were unchanged on the news. The country's main stock index, the Merval, fell 1.1 percent to 1757.94. Shares of Argentine banks including Grupo Financiero Galicia SA and Banco Hipotecario SA surged more than 3.8 percent. ``This decision doesn't change Argentina's global situation,'' said Silvia Marengo, who manages about $130 million of emerging-market bonds at Clariden Leu in London. ``The problems that the government must face are not related to this debt. Those problems are high inflation, the energy infrastructure and a possible new conflict with farmers, and these problems remain.'' To contact the reporter on this story: Eliana Raszewski in Buenos Aires eraszewski at bloomberg.net; Bill Faries in Buenos Aires wfaries at bloomberg.net Last Updated: September 2, 2008 18:49 EDT From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 10:46:53 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:46:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Huge sections of northern ice shelf lost in August, researchers report Message-ID: <672268DB-4A70-42B2-8E96-F43A44CCA220@shaw.ca> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080903.ICE03//TPStory/Science ENVIRONMENT Huge sections of northern ice shelf lost in August, researchers report MATTHEW CAMPBELL September 3, 2008 Massive pieces of Canada's northern ice shelf broke away in early August, a team of researchers reported yesterday. The 50-square- kilometre Markham shelf, located on the northern coast of Ellesmere Island, is now floating free in the Arctic ocean along with a larger portion of the Serson shelf. Meanwhile, remnants of the Ward Hunt ice shelf, which attracted international publicity when it collapsed in July, continue to float away from the Ellesmere shore. Collapses like those this summer worry scientists since shelf ice, unlike more ephemeral sea ice, can be as much as 4,500 years old and 40 metres thick. Dr. Derek Mueller, the Roberta Bondar Fellow in Northern and Polar Studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ont., said recent losses of shelf ice - totalling 214 square kilometres this summer in the Canadian north - are almost certainly the result of global warming. Print Edition - Section Front Section A Front Enlarge Image The Globe and Mail "You just can't have ice shelves in a warm climate," Dr. Mueller said. "You can't link any one event to climate change, but we can certainly link patterns." Satellite photographs show that the extent of sea ice around Ellesmere Island has also been significantly reduced. Where once Arctic waters were frozen right up to the edge of the island, there is now a substantial expanse of open water. The news that large pieces of shelf ice have been lost comes just after Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tour of the high Arctic, where he has promised to expand Canada's military presence and boost natural resource exploration. But Dr. Mueller said that would-be Arctic explorers should tread carefully, if only for their own safety. "Until it melts," he said, "floating ice is a hazard to navigation." From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 10:48:52 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:48:52 -0500 Subject: [R-G] BENIN: rising sea levels threaten to wipe out parts of Cotonou Message-ID: COTONOU, 2 September 2008 (IRIN) - Rising sea levels have destroyed hundreds of homes, hotels, roads and harvests, and threaten to engulf large areas of Cotonou, Benin's capital. A government-commissioned study about a year ago recommended urgent action to hold back the rising tides, and save the city's ports, airport, and coastal communities, but political infighting has blocked funding. Residents of the city, with a population of about three million people, say little has changed - except the advancing sea. Accountant Finagnon Dossa said storms in March 2007 caused over US$3,000 of damage to his property, 500 metres from the coast in the east Cotonou district of Donaten. His retired fisherman neighbour, Jacques, has lived by the sea for 20 years: "There is only one explanation. It is coastal erosion. It is a problem all over the world. We want to leave," he said. However, both Jacques and Dossa said they did not have the money to find other lodgings inland. Vacation homes and government buildings dot Benin's 125-km coastline, but most of the 100,000 people in east Cotonou - the most vulnerable to sea damage from coastal erosion - can ill-afford the advancing sea. Coastal erosion in the Gulf of Guinea, including Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Nigeria, has been linked to climate change, and in turn to rising sea levels, flooding, and waterborne diseases. (For a recent IRIN report on the disappearance of West Africa's coastline, click here) Threat to industry, tourism, fishing Benin's Urban Planning Ministry estimates the sea may rise by up to 59m, in a worst- case scenario, by the year 2100. A 2007 study by the UK-based non-profit International Institute for Environment and Economic Development (IIED) found coastal erosion could wipe out Benin's eastern districts of Donaten, Tokplegbe, Finagnon, Akpakpa-Dodomey and JAK, if nothing is done to stop the sea's advance. IIED mapped out roads, drainage, pavement and coconut plantations that have begun to disappear. Researchers said coastal erosion could kill off Benin's industrial, fishing and tourism sectors, and wipe out buildings, ports, and the airport, as well as other infrastructural facilities. Pumping of sand banned Cotonou, which sits on alluvial sand at most four metres deep, drives most of Benin's economy, in addition to being a regional trade hub. Its port brings in most of the country's customs revenue, and its Danktopa market earns over US$750 million annually, according to the IIED. Until recently, it was legal for companies in Benin to pump sand from the beach for construction projects, further shrinking the coast. The government banned this practice in September 2007, but locals say they still see companies hauling away sand. Gilbert Medje, president of the Benin non-profit organisation, Front United Against Coastal Erosion, said the city could not spare the sand, or the time. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 10:51:43 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:51:43 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Neocons paint Putin as modern-day Hitler Message-ID: <213BC0BF-F0E7-41A7-8689-42546AF0A3BC@shaw.ca> http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_5161.shtml Neocons paint Putin as modern-day Hitler By Daniel Luban Updated Sep 2, 2008, 03:13 pm WASHINGTON (IPS/GIN) - Just days after the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia, the debate in Washington over how to view the crisis historically became nearly as contentious as the debate over how to respond to it politically. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Photo: MGN Online Prominent neoconservatives and other foreign policy hawks portrayed Russia?s offensive into Georgia as an echo of 1930s Nazi expansionism? an interpretation that has been hotly contested by a number of liberals and conservative realists. But the question of what sort of concrete action the U.S. should take in the Caucasus has proved far messier, as both camps remain split about the proper response to the Russian offensive. Since Aug. 12, when Russia sent troops into the restive Georgian region of South Ossetia, neoconservatives in the U.S. compared Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin with Adolf Hitler, and the Russian incursion with Germany?s 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland. ?The details of who did what to precipitate Russia?s war against Georgia are not very important,? began a column in the Washington Post by prominent neoconservative Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for a New American Century. ?Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany?s invasion of Czechoslovakia?? British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain?s famously unsuccessful attempt to appease Mr. Hitler by ceding the Sudetenland in the 1938 Munich Agreement has become a central reference of neoconservative foreign policy doctrine. ?Appeasement,? ?Munich,? and Prime Minister Chamberlain?s name itself are often taken as code words signifying the ineffectiveness of compromise and diplomacy?and the necessity of military force?in dealing with the U.S.?s enemies. Republican presidential candidate John McCain also seemed to be alluding to the lessons of Munich in a Aug. 12 speech. Mr. McCain claimed that the U.S. had ?learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked.? Mr. McCain is advised by Mr. Kagan and joined him in proposing a League of Democracies to counter powers such as Russia and China. At a panel held Aug. 13 at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Munich analogies abounded. Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and prominent foreign policy hawk, mocked the Aug. 13 peace agreement between Russia and Georgia brokered by French President Nicholas Sarkozy. ?President Sarkozy has landed in Paris holding in his hand a piece of paper guaranteeing peace in our time,? Mr. Peters said, eliciting widespread laughter from the audience. Once again, the reference was to a statement of Prime Minister Chamberlain?s following the Munich conference. Mr. Peters ended his remarks by making the Putin-Hitler analogy explicit. The Hitler and Chamberlain analogies have long been staples of neoconservative rhetoric, but their application to the situation in Georgia has triggered a backlash. Joe Klein, a prominent centrist political pundit who has become involved in a series of rancorous disputes with neoconservatives in recent months, mocked Robert Kagan?s use of the Sudetenland analogy. ?When a column begins like this ? the author has got to be a neoconservative pushing for the next war,? he wrote in a blog post entitled ?It?s Raining Nazis.? Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, advocated U.S. assistance to the Georgian regime in the National Interest, a journal which is today known as a bastion of foreign policy realism. But Mr. Simes urged policymakers to ?disregard the hysterical diatribes of (Georgian President Mikheil) Saakashvili?s American champions, who protest too much?perhaps because their irresponsible encouragement of the Georgian president was a contributing factor on the road to the war.? At the American Enterprise Institute panel, Mr. Peters was blistering in his criticism of the U.S. response to the war but stopped short of calling for direct military action. He recommended measures such as expelling Russia from the G-8 and World Trade Organization and revoking Russia?s right to host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 3 11:46:04 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:46:04 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Spanish judge probes Franco-era disappearances Message-ID: <200809031746.m83Hk4TT027226@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080903/a5d0ab67/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 3 12:00:38 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:00:38 -0700 Subject: [R-G] How Globalization Works Message-ID: <200809031800.m83I0cI4000524@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080903/3253c594/attachment.txt From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 13:19:27 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:19:27 -0700 Subject: [R-G] ZNet Book Interview: Demystifying Obama Message-ID: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18670 ZNet Book Interview: Demystifying Obama September 03, 2008 By Paul Street Paul Street, Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008) ISBN: 978-1-59451-631-3 URL: www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=186987 "All those interested in truth rather than seduction should read urgently this wise book by Paul Street, who peels away the mask of the ?Obama phenomenon' and reveals power as it is, not as many of us wish it to be." ?John Pilger, Director of the film, "The War on Democracy." 1. Can you tell ZNet, please, what "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics" is about? What is it trying to communicate? The book is an attempt to demystify Barack Obama and understand his emergence and candidacy in the context of U.S. political culture and history. Everybody knows that the rise of Obama is loaded with relevance for American social and political history. But what is "the Obama phenomenon," exactly? Its nature and meaning remain shrouded in fantasy, wishful thinking, projected aspirations, and (on the right) preposterous neo-McCarthyite accusation. My book situates Obama firmly within the United States' longstanding corporate-dominated and militaristic U.S elections system and political culture. It provides an overdue in-depth investigation form the left of the Obama phenomenon's substantive content and limits in relation to corporate power (a key subject in Chapter 1), class inequality (also in Chapter 1), institutional racism (Chapter 3), and imperial U.S. foreign policy (Chapter 4 - please see the Table of Contents at the end of this interview). I find that the Obama campaign epitomizes three core essences of American politics: (1) "the manipulation of populism by elitism" (the still-Left Christopher Hitchens' phrase in 1999); (2) the privileging of corporate-crafted, mass marketed candidate image (branding) over substantive matters of policy and ideology; (3) the absence of serious left options within the American "winner-take-all" party system. "Brand Obama," I argue, is no special exception to the basic essence of American presidential politics. Every four years, many Americans invest their hopes and dreams in an electoral process that does not deserve their trust. These voters hope that a savior can be installed in the White House - someone who will raise wages, roll back war and militarism, provide universal and adequate health care, rebuild the nation's infrastructure, produce high-paying jobs, fix the environmental crisis, reduce inequality, guarantee economic security, and generally make daily life more livable. The dreams are regularly drowned in the icy waters of historical and political "reality." In the actuality of American politics and policy, the officially "electable" candidates are vetted in advance by what Laurence H. Shoup calls "the hidden primary of the ruling class." By prior Establishment selection, all of the "viable" presidential contenders are closely tied to corporate and military- imperial power in numerous and interrelated ways. They run safely within the narrow ideological and policy parameters set by those who rule behind the scenes to make sure that the rich and privileged continue to be the leading beneficiaries of the American system. After examining the historical meaning of the Obama phenomenon, my book explains Obama's remarkable ascendancy. The fifth chapter is titled "Obama Nation: Sixteen Reasons" and gives a concise treatment of why Obama emerged when it did. Here are some of the key sub- headings in that chapter: "Deception," "Media Love Matters," "The Novelty Premium," "Skin Color and the Illusion of Greater Liberalism," "Managing Mass Hope and Euphoria From the Top Down," "The Emperor's New Clothes?," "The Power of American Exceptionalism," and "Little That Seems Viable to His Left." I should add that the book's introduction gives a short history of exactly how Obama came to be an "overnight" sensation. It traces Obama's career from his short community organizing period through his early vetting (in late 2003 and early 2004) by the national political, business, and lobbying class, his celebrated (and militantly centrist)Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic Convention and the publication of his second book ("The Audacity of Hope"), which kicked off his presidential campaign in late 2006. Last but not least, my book suggests ways in which left progressives and others might respond productively to both the limits and the opportunities of the Obama phenomenon. The book's Afterword, written after Obama secured the Democratic nomination, is titled "Imagining a Progressive Future." It discusses what a real progressive "change" agenda would look like whether or not Obama wins in November. The book is designed to help citizens and activists distinguish fuzzy myth from harsh reality in understanding the meaning of the "ruling class candidate" (as a Denver convention protestor accurately described him last week, prior to being arrested) Barack Obama. I agree with the Left political scientist Adolph Reed Jr., who says the following on the back of the book: "progressive agendas will not be advanced through vesting hopes and aspirations in candidate-centered politics." As Reed elaborates, "there is no quick or easy substitute for the task of building a serious, institutionally grounded working- class based political movement..." At the same time, my book cautiously holds out the possibility that the Obama phenomenon could help (in Charles Derber's words on the back of the book) "oxygenate the grassroots movements that are the true architects of change." It cautiously recommends that voters select Obama to block the dangerous and extremist John McCain in contested states, though I must add that I penned this advice before Obama lurched further to the right in dramatic ways during July and August of 2008. The book also suggests that there could be some radical potential in Obama's lofty and more progressive-sounding rhetoric, which has channeled and raised some expectations we can expect an Obama candidacy and a possible Obama White House to disappoint. The historian Barrington Moore once noted that rising and dashed expectations are critical ingredients in the making of modern revolutions. (2) Can you tell ZNet something about writing the book? Where does the content come from? What went into making the book what it is? I guessed Obama would be a presidential candidate sooner rather than later when I saw him give his Keynote Address. When John ("I am NOT a Redistribution Democrat") Kerry got beat, I thought that a good chunk of the ruling class and a fair portion of the Democratic electorate would find Obama irresistible. I set aside a couple file drawers for Obama stories and speeches. When it was clear he was running for the White House, I figured I had the makings of a decent political monograph. I started drafting proposals and ended up back with my first publisher, Paradigm. Last February, we planned a volume that would situate Obama within the deeper history of the (corporate- imperial) Democratic Party and the American party system and political tradition. Paradigm was encouraged by the fact that I have been in good places to see the rise of Obama up close. I was an urban social policy researcher producing project studies on various Illinois issues Obama deliberated upon (chiefly campaign finance and welfare "reform") in the Illinois state legislature during the late 1990s. Between 2000 and 2005, I was the research director at a predominantly black civil rights and social service agency located in the historical heart of Chicago's South Side black ghetto. I occasionally worked with black legislators and had some very marginal involvement with state senator Obama. I organized a fall 2002 conference where he spoke on incarceration and job issues, referring to a study I did on racially disparate mass imprisonment and felony-marking. I managed a project study (on school technology) he funded through the state. I knew the Obama phenomenon before it hit the national scene and I knew it from within the black community (white though I may be), where it was common to see Obama as excessively "bourgeois" and as too close to the Chicago (Richard M. Daley) Machine and to other centers of white, political, corporate, and academic power. Between August 2007 and January 3rd 2008, I did (largely at the instigation of a close relative) a fair amount of volunteer work for the semi-progressive John Edwards presidential campaign. This was a little odd given by own left-Marxist/anarchist background and sympathies (still intact), but it was a good move, book-wise. It afforded me a lot of voter contact with Obama supporters in Iowa City (where I live) and in Muscatine County in eastern Iowa. There's nothing like Iowa when it comes to seeing the presidential campaign, for better or worse. And Iowa City was sort of an Obamanist "ground zero." I had a number of strange conversations with privileged white Obama "progressives" - something that set off some alarms and helped spark me to write this book. Fighting the Obama campaign (in what I rightly figured was a losing battle) block-by-block and house-by-house for votes (Caucusers) forced me to keep tabs on Obama's statements, speeches, and supporters in ways that turned out to be useful for writing about the Obama phenomenon. It was also a great deal of fun. Paradigm publisher Dean Birkenkamp wanted a book that would be more than a quick Left hit job --- a radical version of what "Jerome Corsi, Ph.D" has recently done from the right in his atrocious book "The Obama Nation." Dean wanted a serious readable but academically respectable study that would place the Obama phenomenon within the larger context of American political history and hold value beyond the current election. I really think I did that here. Amusingly enough, my original title (ultimately rejected but briefly mocked up for a draft cover) was "Obama Nation." (3) What are your hopes for Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics? ]? What do you hope it will contribute or achieve politically? Given the effort and aspirations you have for the book, what will you deem to be a success? What would leave you happy about the whole undertaking? What would leave you wondering if it was worth all the time and effort? I hope this book will help citizens and activists shed illusions about Obama's "progressive" claims. I hope it will spark them to remember that Democratic Party politicians and presidents soften their attachment to capitalism and war only when challenged (as in the 1930s and 1960s) by popular rebellion from below. I hope it will encourage readers to differentiate between (i) the secondary question of how to respond to the limited "choices" offered by the corporate-managed electoral "democracy" and (ii) the more urgent problem of rebuilding and expanding grass roots social movements and changing the political culture across and between election cycles. I hope it will help clarify critical differences between (i) Obama and the Democratic Party's persistent corporate-imperial centrism and (ii) an actual Left, true-progressive change agenda. If Obama wins, I hope my book will encourage an organized and outraged citizenry to put regular powerful and guilt-free pressure on an Obama White House and (more significantly) to develop alternative popular power centers and democratic capacities beneath and beyond electoral politics. I hope it will help readers understand a President Obama's likely "progressive" failures and betrayals in light of his repeatedly demonstrated allegiance to dominant domestic and imperial hierarchies and doctrines. John McCain is a profoundly dangerous presidential candidate representing an extremist, arch-plutocratic and messianic-militarist party. Still, Obama is attractive to a large section of the U.S. power elite because he promises to pacify and co-opt angry citizens and activists and re-establish confidence in the legitimacy of the current political order by reinforcing the argument that "the system" still "works." Our current corporate-managed and imperial democracy doesn't work for any but the privileged Few. It is a grave threat to human survival and peace and justice at home and abroad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right forty years ago when he called for the "radical reconstruction" of society and the "radical redistribution of political and economic power" in the U.S. The path of that reconstruction is long and leads well past my own time on this planet, but it is clear to me that millions of people in the world's most powerful nation are being dangerously hypnotized and repressively de-sublimated yet again by the false hopes and colored lights of the narrow-spectrum corporate-run election extravaganza. If Obama loses, and he could (racism would be the main reason, I think), it will be important for progressively inclined citizens and activists to understand that it was corporate-imperial centrism, not the Left and not the People, that got defeated. They must not interpret an Obama defeat to mean that the People and/or the Left tried and failed and that it is therefore okay for them to give up and retreat into private experience and concerns. If he wins, citizens and activists need to understand the severe limits of what triumphed and be prepared to fight and organize on a daily basis beneath and beyond quadrennial candidate-centered and corporate-crafted election spectacles. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface (p. ix) Introduction: "A Man for All Seasons?" The Dark Essences of American Politics (p.xvii) Chapter 1: Obama's "Dollar Value" (p. 1) Chapter 2: The Other Hidden Primary (p. 59) Chapter 3: How "Black" is Obama? Color, Class, Generation, and the Perverse Racial Politics of the Post-Civil Rights Era (p.73) Chapter 4: How "Antiwar"? Obama, Iraq, and the Audacity of Empire (p. 123) Chapter 5: Obama Nation: Sixteen Reasons (p. 165) Chapter 6: Beyond the Narrow Spectrum: Citizens, Politicians, Change, and the Obama Phenomenon (p. 183) Afterword: Imagining a Progressive Future (p. 207) Appendix A: Americans' Progressive Policy Attitudes (p. 223) Appendix B: Barack Obama's "Shift to the Center" in June of 2008 (p. 227) Notes (pp. 228-272) ENDORSEMENTS (Back Cover) "Street punctures widely held myths in this unflinching and unsentimental account of Obama's centrist, corporate-friendly policies. But Street offers some saving grace here: a new Obama administration may oxygenate the grassroots movements that are the true architects of change, opening up space for hope." ?Charles Derber, Coauthor of Morality Wars and The New Feminized Majority "All those interested in truth rather than seduction should read urgently this wise book by Paul Street, who peels away the mask of the ?Obama phenomenon' and reveals power as it is, not as many of us wish it to be." ?John Pilger, Director of the film, The War on Democracy "That the Obama phenomenon is of considerable significance in American social and political history should hardly be in doubt. But what exactly is it, and where might it lead? This lucid and penetrating book situates it firmly within the ?corporate-dominated and militaristic U.S. elections system and political culture,' explores in depth its substantive content and its limits, and draws valuable lessons about how these might be transcended in the unending struggle to achieve a more just and free society and a peaceful world. It is a very welcome contribution in complex and troubled times." ?Noam Chomsky "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics is a much needed burst of clear, brisk conceptual air that cuts through the fog of fantasy and wish-fulfillment. His meticulously researched, carefully argued analysis of Obama's career and his politics performs an important task of demystification. It is also an eloquent and bracing reminder that progressive agendas will not be advanced through vesting hopes and aspirations in candidate-centered politics, that there is no quick and easy substitute for the task of building a serious, institutionally grounded, working-class based political movement ?from the bottom up and top down." ?Adolph Reed Jr., University of Pennsylvania From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 13:23:05 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:23:05 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: The Dominion's August in Review References: <2ad0cf040809012044t3161409fta324b88a11954227@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear reader, Here is The Dominion's Month in Review for August, a selection of underreported news and updates from social movements. You can read it online here: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2018 -- Montreal police shot three unarmed men during a confrontation in a park in North Montreal. Fredy Villanueva, an 18-year-old Honduran immigrant, died shortly after he was shot. Residents in the area, which is among Montreal's poorest, have complained about systemic racially-based police harassment in the community. Montreal's Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COPB) said that the Montreal police force and Quebec provincial police have a history of exonerating police officers who kill. Of 43 cases researched by COPB, the collective says that only two resulted in charges, and both officers were acquitted. Four days after the shootings, the police involved had yet to be questioned by investigators. Hundreds of Bangladeshi garment workers attacked 15 factories, setting fire to several, vandalizing others, and blocking highways. Protests demanding unpaid back wages had gone unanswered, and several workers were beaten and shot at by private security forces. Sixty factories were closed down by the fighting, and some workers were paid their back wages. Trade Unionists from Canada and Brazil met in Thompson, Manitoba, to discuss ways to support each other in negotiations withVale, a Brazilian mining multinational company. In 2006, Vale acquired Inco, Canada's second largest mining company, for $18.9 billion. "We discovered that we have several issues in common with our brothers and sisters in Brazil, including concerns around compensation... the environment and relationships with local communities, and health and safety," said one United Steelworkers representative. Vale, the world's largest producer of iron ore, announced second quarter profits of $5.01 billion. The Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) criticized a government move to limit "fast-tracking" of citizenship applications for "certain classes" of temporary foreign workers. "By restricting this benefit to only professional, technical and skilled occupations, the government is setting up a permanent underclass of unskilled temporary foreign workers," said AFL President Gil McGowan. A massive chunk of arctic ice broke off of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in Canada's arctic, which scientists said is part of an ongoing, irreversible weakening of arctic ice brought on by climate change. Two large tornado-like waterspouts formed in the Saint Lawrence River near Montreal. Waterspouts usually occur in tropical regions. The river also saw increased levels of red algae, likely caused by heavy rainfall, and which contributed to the deaths of marine life, including seabirds, Beluga whales and sturgeon. California-based researchers reported that populations of frogs and other amphibians have declined precipitously, in some cases by as much as 98 per cent. They cited climate change as one cause among many. Rainfall also spurred growth in the earwig population in New Brunswick, where a state of emergency was declared during several major floods. Farmers on Prince Edward Island reported several cases of blight, a crop-damaging fungus that thrives in humid conditions. Cape Breton farmers feared losing crops if heavy rainfall did not subside. In Quebec, it was a disastrous year for strawberries, but wet condition led to a bumper crop of blueberries. A report released by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) estimated that 700,000 Canadians will die prematurely in the next two decades due to illness caused by poor air quality. This year, 21,000 Canadians will die as a result of polluted air, the CMA estimated. Mohawk traditionalists and a group of Quebec farmers formed a coalition to opposefight the expansion of Quebec's Autoroute 30. Critics say the highway expansion will destroy land, raise dependence on the automobile, and increase pollution. US-based agribusiness giant Monsanto divested from its bovine growth hormone (recombinant bovine somatotropin) products. The move comes after Monsanto's attempts to ban the labeling of milk as "hormone- free" was met with resistance from citizens at the state level. Violence in Afghanistan was at its worst level since US forces invaded in 2001. Aid agencies reported that 260 Afghan civilians were killed in July. Two Canadian aid workers were killed in a Taliban ambush. The US Secretary of Defense endorsed a $20 billion plan to double the size of Afghanistan's army. The New York Times reported that the Taliban have demonstrated "a resilience and a ferocity" that is "raising alarm" in Washington and "other NATO capitals." Fighting between Islamic separatists and government forces in the Philippines displaced over 130,000 refugees, and could lead to a humanitarian disaster. Documents that show that the RCMP spied on feminist groups from the 1960s through the 1980s were discovered. Among the personalities appearing in RCMP reports was Maritime singer-songwriter Rita MacNeil. US Congress reported that two thirds of US corporations paid no income tax in 2007 by manipulating data and using loopholes. Watchdog group Public Citizen also released research showing that oil companies avoided paying more than $1.3 billion in royalties due to a "bureaucratic oversight." A group of cyclists began a 1,000 km trek from tar sands operations near Fort McMurray, Alberta, to Calgary to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of the tar sands. First Nations leaders and conservationists met for the Keepers of the Water conference, where they developed strategies to protect the Athabasca watershed, which has been heavily polluted by tar sands operations. Communities downstream from tar sands strip mines and plants have reported alarming increases in cancer rates. Saskatchewan's government partially avoided the ire of protesters when they opted not to accept any of the bids for oil sands permits in the province. The government said the oils sands bids were not high enough, but accepted $243 million in conventional oil bids. New oil exploration in BC and Saskatchewan exceeded that of Alberta, where most of the oil patch rights have been sold. Palestinian poet, politician and author Mahmoud Darwish died at the age of 67. Anticommunist dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyndied at 89. Singer, actor and creator the Shaft theme Isaac Hayes died at 65. Comedian and actor Bernie Mac died at 50. Pentagon Papers researcher Anthony Russo died at 71. The oldest Orca Whale on BC's south coast, known as Lummi, was missing and presumed dead at 98. The food crisis in Haiti continued, where cakes made of mud have become a staple food, eaten for their temporary filling effect if not for their nutritional value. According to the UN, over half of Haiti's population is at risk of starvation, due to rising food costs and the decimation of the country's food production by International Monetary Fund-imposed reforms in the 1990s. US hospitals are deporting immigrants after they are discharged, the New York Times reported. Companies like MexCare are providing hospitals with "medical repatriations," which are happening with "varying degrees of patient consent," the Timesreported. The Conservative Government's cuts to arts grants worth $40 million drew sharp criticism across Canada, with artists and promoters calling the move "disastrous" and signaling a potential "death knell" of local music industries. Australia's government announced it would end its policy of jailing all asylum seekers. Six hundred Canadian military personnel carried out Operation Nanook in Nunavut. The yearly military exercise is in part designed as a sort of "sovereignty patrol," according to Lt.-Col. Gino Chretien. The armed forces also held a panel discussion as part of the operation. According to Inuk Lawyer Aaju Peter, "I wanted to hear what the military and the police were doing with this whole assertion of sovereignty and how they were going about it. I also wanted to go to see how much Inuit representation there would be and what kind of questions that were going to be posed at this meeting. Unfortunately, I was on the only Inuit there." Investigative journalists working for Mother Jones outed Mary Sapone, aka Mary McFate, a spy with National Rifle Associationconnections, who was active as a gun control and anti-gun advocate for years. Evo Morales won an important victory in a recall referendum in Bolivia, giving him a strong mandate to continue with his party's political program. Prior to the referendum, violent protests by Morales' opponents, including clashes with police, forced Hugo Chavez and Cristina Kirchner from meeting with the Bolivian president in the city of Tarija. Exxon Mobil reported record breaking profits of $11.7 billion in the second quarter of 2008. The US Supreme Court still has not ruled on whether or not Exxon will have to pay interest on the $507 million punitive award granted to the victims of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. The decision regarding the interest payment has been sent to a lower court. With interest, the payout would be closer to $1 billion. Chevron and a consortium of oil companies signed an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams to develop the offshore Hebron-Ben Nevis heavy-oil project. Days later it was announced that Chevron "stepped aside" as project operator, leaving that job to Exxon Mobil. Statistics Canada reported that 55,000 jobs were lost in Canada during the month of July. According to economist Jim Stanford, "National productivity hasn't grown at all in the over two years since Harper came to power - the worst productivity performance for any administration in Canada's post-war history." Parks Canada defended their July 29 decision to allow the reopening of an historic zinc mine next to the Nahanni National Park Reserve. The Prairie Creek mine site is on a tributary of the South Nahanni River. The Dehcho First Nation, which has been negotiating with Parks Canada to expand the park to include the entire Nahani River watershed, was not consulted in the agreement made between the federal agency and the Canadian Zinc Corp. Ehud Olmert resigned as Prime Minister of Israel, prompting calls for an early election from Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud Party. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez announced plans to nationalise the Bank of Venezuela, currently owned by Spain's Grupo Santander. Other sectors slated for nationalisation include cement and telecommunications. Stephen Harper apologized for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914, when 376 Indians, including many Sikhs, were not allowed to disembark from their ship and were eventually forced to return to India, where 20 of the passengers were massacred by colonial police. The apology took place in Surrey, BC, and was immediately rejected by the 8,000 strong crowd and Sikh leaders, who demanded that an official apology be made in the House of Commons. Speculation mounted that CanWest Global may take the company private. The company, which owns the National Post, daily papers across Canada and Global TV, has seen its share price decline 83 per cent over the last 18 months, and is carrying a debt of over $3 billion. US scientist Bruce Ivans died in an apparent suicide after learning that he was to be indicted on charges relating to the anthraxthat was mailed to members of US congress in late 2001, killing five people. The state of Texas executed a Mexican citizen, Jos? Medellin, and a Honduran man, Heliberto Chi. The execution of Chi was the sixth so far this year in Texas. Alfred Heinz Reumayr, from New Westminister, BC, was sentenced in a New Mexico court to 13 years in prison, after pleading guilty to one count of terrorism for plotting to blow-up the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Reumayr was in custody for nine years, during which time he was extradited to the US, and is required to serve another four years. In Mauritania, the army carried out a coup against the government of Hamdi Ould Mohamed el-Hacen, ending a one year period of democracy in the West African country. The coup was condemned by the African Union. The International Criminal Court confirmed that they would open an investigation into the links between paramilitaries and government officials in Colombia as well as the extradition of Colombian paramilitaries to the US. Death threats against the Nasa people in Colombia's southwestern department of Cauca generated fear in Santander de Quilichao, where more than 25 people have been assassinated over the past two weeks. A bomb exploded at a street festival in Ituango, in the department of Antioquia, killing seven and seriously injuring 17. In Guatemala, two masked men swerved in front of Amilcar Pop's car, drew guns and banged on the windows while yelling death threats. Pop is the president of the Guatemalan Association of Mayan Lawyers. Fernando Lugo was inaugurated president of Paraguay, officially ending 62 years of rule by the Colorado party. Mauricio Funes, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) candidate and front-runner in the presidential race in El Salvador, announced that he would restore diplomatic relations with Cuba if he is elected in the March 2009 vote. Canadian border services ordered Jeremy Hinzman and his family to leave Canada by September 23. Hinzman was the first US war resister to seek asylum in Canada. Pervez Musharraf stepped down as president of Pakistan, in order to avoid impeachment and following pressure from the US and other western countries. Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal), a Maoist leader, was elected prime minister by lawmakers in the Constituent Assembly inNepal. Prachanda is a teacher and the former head of the armed insurgency in Nepal, which lasted 10 years and ended with a 2006 peace agreement. The Constituent Assembly abolished the monarchy in May of this year. One hundred people were arrested and 46 charged in week-long protests against the Kingsnorth coal-fired power plant inEngland. German-owned Kingsnorth will be the first new coal-fired plant to open in England in more than 30 years. About 1,500 people took part in the protests; police presence was estimated to have equaled the number of protesters. Twelve employees of SNC-Lavalin in Algeria were killed and fifteen injured in a car bomb attack near Bouira, 150 kilometres southeast of Algiers. The attack took place while the employees were on a bus traveling to the Koudiat Acerdoune water-treatment plant, being built by the Montreal-based corporation. The Montreal Gazette reported that it "was the first terrorist attack on SNC-Lavalin employees in 50 years of operating all over the world." China hosted the 2008 Olympics and spent $12 billion on security, installing thousands of cameras and high-tech surveillance systems. Olympic organizers admitted to faking part of the fireworks and having a child lip-sync the national anthem on the television broadcast of the opening ceremonies. Lefty sportswriter David Zirin called the Games "the Olympics the West wanted: games where the grandest prize is not a gold medal but a glittering entree to China's seemingly endless army of potential consumers." Forty homeless people were moved from Oppenheimer Park to three Vancouver hotels after BC Premier Gordon Campbell faced critical questions from Chinese media about homelessness in the city during his visit to the Olympics in Beijing. Housing advocatesquestioned Campbell's assertion that Vancouver will overcome its homelessness problem by 2010. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty denounced the choice of the City of Toronto's "Streets to Homes" program as a finalist for a World Habitat Award, calling it "a cover for an agenda of social exclusion in the service of upscale urban redevelopment." Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama stated, "finishing the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban" in Afghanistan and potentially also Pakistan "is a war that we have to win?. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites." Obama announced that he will share the Democratic ticket with Delaware Senator Joe Biden. Glenn Greenwald, remarked at Salon.com, "Biden is a reliable supporter of virtually every prevailing bit of conventional wisdom within the American elite political consensus, which is why his selection has been widely praised by the establishment." Republican candidate John McCain announced Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. The choice of Palin came as a surprise, leading to the media once again labeling McCain as a maverick. But criticism about Palin's limited experience came quickly. The two leading Alaskan newspapers questioned McCain's decision, with the Anchorage Daily Newsquoting a Republican official as asking, "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" McCain, former chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, also offended Great Plains tribal leaders when he attended a rowdy motorcycle rally in South Dakota instead of responding to their invitations for discussion. Tribal concerns included the disrespect to nearby sacred site Bear Butte Mountain by rowdy events involving alcohol. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort, permitting artificial snowmaking using treated wastewater and the expansion of the resort on the San Francisco Peaks, sacred to many indigenous nations. The Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and the US EPA, along with other federal agencies, outlined a five-year plan to clean up 520 abandoned uranium mines and contaminated water in Dineh territory. Indigenous demonstrators took over oil and gas installations in Peru, demanding that Congress revoke a law that facilitates the purchase of collectively owned land by mining and energy corporations. A week later, the Peruvian government issued a decreefor three provinces, allowing it to send in the armed forces. Norwegian Knighthood was bestowed upon Nils Olav, a penguin, at the Edinburgh Zoo and mascot of the Norwegian King's Guard. In Killorglin, Ireland, a mountain goat was crowned King of Ireland for three days. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 3 15:11:27 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:11:27 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Israel of the Caucasus Message-ID: <200809032111.m83LBRxB021051@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080903/882f1cf4/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 3 15:28:15 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:28:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Three soldiers dead, five wounded in Afghanistan Message-ID: <200809032128.m83LSF6r028481@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080903/23fb86e7/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 3 15:54:51 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:54:51 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia's Collective Farms: Hot Capitalist Property Message-ID: August 31, 2008 The Food Chain Russia's Collective Farms: Hot Capitalist Property By ANDREW E. KRAMER PODLESNY, Russia ? The fields around this little farming enclave are among the most fertile on earth. But like tens of million of acres of land in this country, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they literally went to seed. Now that may be changing. A decade after capitalism transformed Russian industry, an agricultural revolution is stirring the countryside, shaking up village life and sweeping aside the collective farms that resisted earlier reform efforts and remain the dominant form of agriculture. The change is being driven by soaring global food prices (the price of wheat alone rose 77 percent last year) and a new reform allowing foreigners to own agricultural land. Together, they have created a land rush in rural Russia. "Where else do you have such an abundance of land?" Samir Suleymanov, the World Bank's director for Russia, asked in an interview. As a result, the business of buying and reforming collective farms is suddenly and improbably very profitable, attracting hedge fund managers, Russian oligarchs, Swedish portfolio investors and even a descendant of White Russian ?migr? nobility. Earlier reformers envisioned the collective farms eventually breaking up into family farms. But the new business model rests on a belief that Russia's long, painful history of collectivization is destined to end in large corporate factory farms. These investments are also a gamble in a country accustomed to government control of business. Some officials have hinted at the prospect of a government takeover of the farming industry reminiscent of the Soviet era. And Russia's minister of agriculture, Aleksey Gordeyev, speaks often of food in terms of national security. "Russia is very often perceived throughout the world as a major military power," he told a food summit in Rome early in his tenure. "At the same time, and perhaps above and beyond anything else, Russia is a major agrarian power." Russia occupies an unusual niche in the global food chain. Before the Russian Revolution and the subsequent forced collectivization of farming under Stalin, it was the largest grain exporting nation in the world. Today, roughly 7 percent of the planet's arable land is either owned by the Russian state or by collective farms, but about a sixth of all that agricultural land ? some 35 million hectares ? lies fallow. By comparison, all of Britain has 6 million hectares of cultivatable land. Even excluding the slivers of land contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster or by industrial pollution, Russia also has millions of acres of untouched, pristine land that could be used for agriculture. Yields in Russia, however, are tiny. The average Russian grain yield is 1.85 tons a hectare ? compared with 6.36 tons a hectare in the United States and 3.04 in Canada. (A hectare is about two and a half acres.) If Russia could regain its old title of leading grain exporter, it would significantly relieve strained world markets and reduce prices, Mr. Suleymanov said. It could also reduce malnutrition and starvation. What is more, a significant expansion of farming capacity could add to Russia's heft as a world power, much as its prowess in oil and natural gas aided its resurgence in recent years. "The great story of this land is how big it is," said Kingsmill Bond, chief analyst at the Troika Dialog brokerage in Moscow. Troika is closely watching the transformation of the Russian countryside into an investment opportunity. "You can't buy anything like it anywhere else in the world," he said. Analysts say the new companies dedicated to breaking up and reforming collective farms hope to bring huge tracts of land into production ? tracts that can take advantage of economies of scale. Financiers See Potential The last attempt at decollectivization, under the government of President Boris Yeltsin, failed in part because collective farms devolved into small holdings. Those who made the leap to become private farmers failed. The rest remained in the collective farms. Some trade and agriculture experts say there is still a danger that a country like today's Russia, which jealously guards its natural resources, could one day renationalize farms or form a cartel that dictates to landowners. Clearly, that fear is not foremost in investors' minds. Land prices have roughly doubled in the last two years, according to Troika. The average price a hectare was $570 in 2006 and is now $1,000, Mr. Bond said. One of the first investors to see value in the Russian countryside was Michel Orloff, a former director of the Carlyle Group's Moscow office and the scion of a White Russian noble family. He said a visit to Argentina in 2004 inspired him. He saw large landowners making profits without government subsidies, and envisioned a similar model for Russia that would hark back to the noble estates of his family history, only lubricated by modern finance. "In Moscow, they said I was crazy for going into agriculture," Mr. Orloff recalled on a visit to one of his factory farms outside Podlesny ? formerly the Sunrise of Communism collective farm. "Now, they all envy us." His model rested on the idea that the collective farms should not be broken up into smaller plots but consolidated into larger factory farms, able to achieve economies of scale. (He calls the new corporate farms "clusters.") Using John Deere tractors and Western-trained agronomists, he has nearly doubled yields. Last year, Black Earth Farming fields yielded 3.3 tons of wheat a hectare, and the company says it is on track this year to reap 4.4 tons a hectare. To be sure, this is Russia. Though many investors are piling in, their investments remain small relative to the size of the huge agricultural sector. Black Earth, Razgulai and Cherkizovo are large public companies involved in buying and reforming collective farms. (Many Russian oligarchs and regional elites have bought land, too, but their holdings are not generally public.) While Westerners have invested in the companies, the businesses are all local, requiring a Russian connection, as most Russian commodity investment does. That requirement, as well as the possibility that Russia could become a bigger supplier of food, gives pause to some Europeans. They are concerned about Russia's new assertiveness diplomatically and militarily. Provincial Attitudes Even before the recent discord between Russia and the West, the obstacles to tapping Russia's vast farmland were substantial. The rural population has declined precipitously as young people fled to the cities. The title to land, after the failed decollectivization of the Yeltsin era, is often unclear. Rural Russians' work ethic has been shaped by decades on collectivized farms that offered little reward for individual effort. "We see an increasing number of entrepreneurs coming to us with business plans trying to convert this land," Mr. Bond said. "Some will be successful, but most will not be able to do it." Some investors have resorted to hiring psychologists to untangle the village culture and determine how best to instill a work ethic. The best way to motivate the Russian farmer, according to one investor, is not higher salaries for individuals, which tend to create resentment, but rewards emphasizing the team nature of the work, like group bonuses. Outside this village of log homes with decorative wooden trim, with piles of birch firewood in the yard, and where investors have bought several surrounding collective farms, a drunken man slept on a pile of sawdust one recent afternoon. A cow meandered nearby munching grass. Specter of State Control This latest headlong wave of privatization has gone too far and too fast for some in government here. Officials, as is often the case these days, have floated the idea of forming a state monopoly. They would create a Soviet-style grain trading company out of an existing regulatory agency, a notion that has alarmed agricultural experts, though the seriousness of the idea is unclear. Such a monopoly could control domestic grain prices by limiting exports, benefiting low-income consumers but discouraging investment in agriculture. That is not stopping entrepreneurs ? yet. Mr. Orloff's model is spreading quickly. By this year, about 14 percent of Russia's agricultural land had undergone this process of greater consolidation, according to an analysis by Vedemosti, the business newspaper. "In 10 or 15 years, Russia will be the leading force in world agriculture, just because of its mass," Mr. Orloff said. That is if the land rush does not bring muscular government intervention from Moscow or set off rural resentments here. For instance, each member of the Sunrise of Communism collective farm was offered about $100 a hectare. Three years later, the land is worth about $1,100 a hectare, based on Black Earth Farming's stock market value. Mr. Orloff said the collective farmers did not own title to the land, and that the value of management expertise and capital outlays were included in the valuation of his company. Still, Vasili I. Kapechnikov, who sold his shares to Mr. Orloff, considers himself to have been on the losing side of the transaction. Interviewed outside the village store, he explained what he did with the money he received for his land: "I bought a new pair of pants." From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Sep 3 17:31:21 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:31:21 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The McCain Plan Message-ID: <48BF1E49.5090103@attglobal.net> Homer Simpson without the Donut by Greg Palast www.gregpalast.com (August 06 2008) I'm guessing it was excessive exposure to either radiation or George Bush, but Senator John McCain's comments from inside a nuclear power plant in Michigan are so cracked-brained that I fear some loose gamma rays are doing to McCain's gray matter what they did to Homer Simpson's. On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican candidate descended into the colon of a nuke to declare we need to build 45 new nuclear plants - that this is the way out of our energy crisis. Nuclear power, declared the senator, is a "safe, efficient [and] inexpensive" alternative to oil. Really? We can argue all day about whether nuclear plants are safe (they aren't - period). But there can be no argument whatsoever that these giant radioactive tea-kettles are breathtakingly expensive. Nuclear plants are cheap until you actually try to build one. Not one of the last 49 nuclear plants cost less than $2 billion apiece. I'm looking down the road at the remainders of the Shoreham nuclear plant which took nearly twenty years to build at a cost of $8 billion - or close to $7,000 per customer it was supposed to supply. When I say "supposed to", it was closed for safety reasons after operating just one single day. We're told that the new generation of plants will be different. Just like an alcoholic child-beater, the nuclear plant builders promise us that, "This time it will be different". Sure. And McCain believes them. I don't. Maybe that's because I headed the government racketeering investigation of the Shoreham nuclear plant's builders. Stone & Webster Engineering and its partner paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle the civil racketeering claim over the evidence we found of fraud and perjury. Now Stone & Webster (a division of Shaw Group Inc) will cash in big-time under Plan McCain. The other big builder which will hit the jackpot under the McCain scheme is KBR, the one-time subsidiary of Halliburton, whose best known project is the rebuilding of Iraq. (Halliburton dumped KBR last year. Can't blame them.) KBR has built many nukes - not one within a mile of its promised cost. But that doesn't bother McCain. So who is McCain getting his energy advice from? I'm looking at a photo of the perplexed senator inside the control room, looking like Homer without a donut, getting a lecture on the wonders of nuclear energy from a power company CEO, one Tony Early. Early is the former President of LILCO, the very corporation the Feds and State of New York charged with civil racketeering. (We did not name Early as a co-conspirator. When the government got him on the witness stand, it was clear the guy was too clueless to recognize he was in the midst of a billion-dollar swindle. McCain's got quite some team.) Now, you Obamaniacs might not want to read this next paragraph: While McCain is pushing nuclear power, a Senator from Illinois who shall remain nameless (skinny, just gave up smokes), was already embracing radiation as the solution to pollution. This Senator voted for George Bush's energy bill, a law which contained massive giveaways to nuclear energy, legislation which diss'es and dismisses conservation. Indeed, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate has been derided as the "Senator from Commonwealth Edison", the Chicago division of Exelon Corp., the nation's largest operator of nuclear plants - and whose executives were the money backbone to his early presidential campaign. So, we've got both candidates hawking the nuclear snake oil. But there is one difference between them. A big big BIG difference. McCain's ready to spend a hundred billion dollars on nuclear power, no questions asked. But Barack Obama puts a crucial condition on his approval for building new nukes: an affordable method of disposing the new plants' radioactive waste. That's not small stuff. While The New York Times reporters following McCain repeated his line about "inexpensive" nuclear power without question, a buried wire story on the same day noted that the Energy Department is putting the unfunded bill for disposing nuclear plant waste at $96.2 billion - nearly a billion dollars per plant operating today. And no one even knows exactly how to do it, or where. Obama has the audacity to ask about the nuclear waste's cost. "Can we deal with the expense?" he said on Meet the Press. McCain's plan to spend endless billions on nuclear plants without a waste disposal system in place is like building a massive hotel without toilets. D'oh! I suppose you can always tell the guests to poop in buckets until someone comes up with a plan for plumbing. But the stuff piles up. And unlike the fecal droppings of tourists, nuclear waste will stay hot and dangerous for a thousand generations. So there you have our election in a nutshell. We have two candidates who rise above their parties - only to agree on a ludicrous pro-nukes energy plan. But at least Senator Obama, when confronted with an economic question, doesn't have to take off his shoes to add up the facts. _____ Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2002) and Armed Madhouse: Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild (2006). http://www.gregpalast.com/the-mccain-plan-homer-simpson-without-the-donut/ 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/ From gmeyerson at triad.rr.com Wed Sep 3 18:20:25 2008 From: gmeyerson at triad.rr.com (gregory meyerson) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:20:25 -0400 Subject: [R-G] thorium breeder reactors (MSRs) Message-ID: <9ebe3394fe0ebc804d81d6178a881093@triad.rr.com> does anyone know anything about the viability and sustainability of those nukes in my subject line? g From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 21:58:36 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:58:36 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Canada's Tar Sands Lobbyists Focus on Democrats Message-ID: <8476246D-9473-4B6F-BA0F-CD02BB00E67D@shaw.ca> POLITICS-US: Canada's Tar Sands Lobbyists Focus on Democrats By Chris Arsenault http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43765 VANCOUVER, Sep 2 (IPS) - As the U.S. election campaign kicks into overdrive, Canadian politicians and oil executives are stepping up lobbying efforts to make sure whoever controls the White House keeps purchasing notoriously dirty oil from the Alberta tar sands. Executives from Nexen energy, which has major investments in northern Alberta's heavy oil industry, and Tony Clement, chair of a Canadian cabinet committee on energy security, met with Democratic candidate Barack Obama's top energy advisor Jason Grumet late last week to cement the "energy partnership" during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. The closed-door meeting comes on the heels of comments made by Grumet and other Obama officials which sent shivers through board rooms in Calgary and backhoes in Ft. MacMurray, the epicentres of Canada's oil industry. In June, Grumet told reporters, "The amount of energy that you have to use to get that [tar sands] oil out of the ground is such that it actually creates a much greater impact on climate change." "We [Obama's team] are going to support resources... that meet our long-term obligations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. And I think it's an open question as to whether or not the Canadian resources are going to meet those tests," said Grumet, prior to meeting the Canadian delegation at the DNC. Currently, Canada is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States, sending more than one million barrels of oil per day to its southern neighbour, about half of which originates from Alberta's tar sands. "Clearly the oil sands is the most high-impact oil available," Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, an environmental watchdog, told IPS. "The oil sands are three times as greenhouse gas-intensive as regular oil," said Dyer, adding that roughly three barrels of water are required to process one barrel of heavy oil. Tar sands production is set to increase from its current 1.2 million barrels of oil per day, to some 3.0 million barrels per day by 2018, most of which is slated for export to the United States. Tony Clement, the Canadian cabinet minister, told reporters at the DNC that: 'We [the Conservative government] have to be more aggressive in representing Canadian values and interests in the American political scene." Spokespersons for Nexen Energy and Minister Clement's office did not return phone calls from IPS requesting comment. "The Canadian government is trying to deal through the back room rather than dealing with the environmental impacts of the oil sands," Simon Dyer told IPS. "Emissions from the oil sands are going to triple [by 2020] and that's inconsistent with the world's desire to lessen climate change." In addition to official political pressure from Canadian cabinet ministers attempting to force Obama's hand on the tar sands, the oil industry has hired high-powered lobbyists of its own. Gordon Giffin, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada, is now a registered lobbyist in Washington for the energy firm Nexen. Canadian oil executives attending the Democratic National Convention issued thinly veiled threats to the Obama campaign, stating that tar sands oil would be shipped to China if a new administration in Washington imposed restrictions. "If you don't like the oil sands oil, what companies will do [in Canada] is build a bigger pipeline to the west coast and export it to China and India," stated Nexen Energy's Dwain Lingenfelter, the company's vice president of government relations and a former deputy premier of Saskatchewan province. "If the U.S. didn't want the oil, it'll go into the oil market anyway. So they have to be very careful about looking at the whole picture," Lingenfelter, the politician turned oil industry lobbyist, told the Toronto Star. As competition for energy resources between China and the United States intensifies, Lingenfelter's lobbying may sound convincing, but his analysis shouldn't be taken seriously, according to the Pembina Institute's Simon Dyer. "A potential pipeline to Asia [via the Pacific port of Prince Rupert] would have to cross the territory of 40 First Nations, where land claims and treaty rights are still hotly contested," said Dyer. "There is growing opposition to pipelines and growing oil sands opposition across the country, so those pipelines [to China] are by no means a done deal." While pipeline routes out of Alberta will be a major topic of controversy for years to come, there is no doubt that Canadian oil is among the world's most climate unfriendly fuels. During his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, Obama promised to end U.S. dependence on Middle East oil within 10 years, while stating that "government must lead on energy independence". Environmentalists in Canada and the U.S. contend that closed-door meetings with oil executives aren't the best way to foster energy independence. The current Canadian government, which draws its political and financial support from petroleum-producing regions in the West, is not seen as independent from oil interests. In July alone, oil sands companies held a total of 36 meetings with Canadian ministers and government officials, according to recently disclosed lobbying reports. Meanwhile, environmental groups only held seven lobbying sessions and these were usually with ministerial assistants and other lower level officials. (END/2008) From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 3 22:10:53 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 21:10:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] US confirms raid inside Pakistan Message-ID: <25D01D0E-B58C-4BDD-89F4-FA8B8666E70D@shaw.ca> US confirms raid inside Pakistan By PAUL ALEXANDER ? http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIE0IUn4WIiaMBpjG8SI_6H5RXzgD92VKAO00 ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) ? American forces launched a raid inside Pakistan Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known foreign ground assault in Pakistan against a suspected Taliban haven. The government condemned an incursion that it said killed at least 15 people. The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, told The Associated Press that the raid occurred on Pakistani soil about one mile from the Afghan border. The official didn't provide any other details. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry launched a protest, saying U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the attack on a village. An army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups. The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri. U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan. "You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said. Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two al-Qaida commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks. But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier. Circumstances surrounding Wednesday's raid weren't clear, but U.S. rules of engagement allow American troops to chase militants across the border into Pakistan's lawless tribal region when they are attacked. They may only go about six miles on the ground, under normal circumstances. U.S. rules allow aircraft to go 10 miles into Pakistan air space. In other signs of Pakistan's precarious stability three days before legislators elect a successor to Pervez Musharraf as president, snipers shot at the prime minister's limousine near Islamabad and government troops killed two dozen militants in another area of the restive northwest. Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity. The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish." Prior to the U.S. military confirming the U.S. raid, Pakistan government and military officials had insisted that either the NATO force or the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan ? both commanded by American generals ? were responsible. The army's spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan. "We cannot afford a huge uprising at the level of tribe," Abbas said. "That would be completely counterproductive and doesn't help the cause of fighting terrorism in the area." A spokesman for NATO troops in Afghanistan denied any involvement in the raid. The Pakistani anger threatens to upset efforts by American commanders to draw Pakistan's military into the U.S. strategy of dealing harshly with the militants. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met last week with Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief. Mullen said he came away encouraged that Pakistanis were becoming more focused on the problem of militants using the country as a safe haven. However, Abbas, the army spokesman, said Wednesday that cross-border commando operations were not discussed and he reiterated Pakistan's position that its forces should be exclusively responsible for operations on its territory. Pakistani officials say the U.S. and NATO should share intelligence and allow Pakistani troops to execute any raids needed inside Pakistan. However, Washington has accused rogue elements in Pakistan's main intelligence service of leaking sensitive information to militants. American officials say destroying militant sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal regions is key to defeating Taliban-led militants in Afghanistan whose insurgency has strengthened every year since the fundamentalist militia was ousted for harboring bin Laden. But there has been debate in Washington over how far the U.S. can go on its own. Citing witness and intelligence reports, Abbas said troops flew in on at least one big CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, blasted their way into several houses and gunned down men they found there. He said there was no evidence that any of those killed were insurgents or that the raiders abducted any militant leader, but he acknowledged Pakistan's military had no firsthand account. There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed. Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said he heard helicopters, then an exchange of gunfire. "Later, I saw 15 bodies inside and outside two homes. They had been shot in the head," Wazir said by phone. He claimed all the dead were civilians. Near Islamabad, meanwhile, snipers fired at a motorcade near the capital as it headed to the airport to pick up the prime minister, hitting the window of his car at least twice, officials said. Neither Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani nor his staff were in the vehicles. Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the banned militant organization Tahrik-e- Taliban, claimed responsibility and pledged more attacks in retaliation for army operations in tribal areas and the Swat Valley along the border with Afghanistan. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined to comment on the claimed cross-border raid, but she said the U.S. would continue to work with Gilani's government. "I am relieved, of course, that the incident aimed at the Pakistani prime minister did not succeed," Rice said. "We're going to be in continued contact with the Pakistanis as we both try to help them to build a strong economic foundation, to build a strong democratic foundation and to fight the terrorists who are a threat not just to the United States and to Afghanistan but to Pakistan as well." Associated Press writers Pamela Hess, Pauline Jelinek and Matthew Lee in Washington, Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan, Munir Ahmad and Stephen Graham in Islamabad and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report. From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 02:35:34 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:35:34 +0200 Subject: [R-G] The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am unable to download this book. Could the e-mail instructions that are part of the message be resent please? Thank you. Suzanne dek On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Suzanne de Kuyper wrote: > Free Book and what a book! Thanks. Suzanne > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi < > critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Look, a free book! >> >> >> The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: >> Oil Window to the West >> >> Edited by S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell >> >> 150 pages, $15. Free, downloadable PDF files are available below. >> >> For ordering information, please see bottom of page. >> >> To download the entire book in PDF format, [2,5MB file] click here >> >> >> Contents >> >> 0. Contents and Contributor pages >> pp. 1-6 >> >> >> 1. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: School of Modernity >> S. Frederick Starr >> pp. 7-16 >> >> >> 2. Geostrategic Implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline >> Svante E. Cornell, Mamuka Tsereteli and Vladimir Socor >> pp. 17-38 >> >> >> 3. Economic Implications of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline >> Jonathan Elkind >> pp. 39-60 >> >> >> 4. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Azerbaijan >> Svante E. Cornell and Fariz Ismailzade >> pp. 61-84 >> >> >> 5. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Georgia >> Vladimer Papava >> pp. 85-102 >> >> >> 6. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Turkey >> Zeyno Baran >> pp. 103-118 >> >> >> 7. Environmental and Social Aspects of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline >> David Blatchford >> pp. 119-150 >> >> >> This book is published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk >> Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center. >> All rights reserved. >> >> To order hard copies, please send a check or money order of $15 >> payable to The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute as well as mailing >> information to one of the following addresses: (If unable to send a >> check or money order please contact one of the Centers offices or use >> the electronic version) >> >> For the U.S., Canada and Latin America: >> Att: BTC book >> c/o Andriy Proshschenko >> Central Asia-Caucasus Institute >> Johns Hopkins University-SAIS >> 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW >> Washington, DC 20036 >> USA >> >> For Europe and Asia: >> Att: BTC book >> c/o Emin Poljarevic >> Silk Road Studies Program >> Uppsala University >> Box 514, SE-75120 Uppsala University >> Sweden >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rad-Green mailing list >> Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu >> To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green >> > > From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 4 03:04:32 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 02:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Act now to stop new nuke subsidies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <587818.49882.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> ALERT: BILLIONS IN NUCLEAR POWER SUBSIDIES MAY BE ADDED TO OIL DRILLING/ENERGY BILLS WHEN CONGRESS RETURNS CONTACT YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES NOW: NO MORE NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES! Dear Sustainable Energy Advocates: When Congressmembers return to Washington after Labor Day, we expect fast action in both the Senate and House on new energy legislation. Exactly what that new energy legislation will be is not clear at this point, but behind-the-scenes, nuclear industry advocates are gearing up for a new push for billions of dollars in new taxpayer subsidies for new reactor construction and other industry wish list items. It is important to contact both of your senators, and your representative now, before they return to Washington and things begin moving quickly. Most Congressmembers are back in their home districts so it is worth contacting both their Washington offices and local offices. It is also a good idea to meet them on the campaign trail and bring up nuclear subsidies at campaign events. The Capitol Switchboard is 202-224-3121. You can also look up your House member?s direct contact information here: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml#va and your Senators? information here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm The message to your Congressmembers is simple: No More Nuclear Subsidies! Do Not Include ANY Nuclear Subsidies in any energy bills. Public opinion polls continue to show that nuclear power is just about the least popular energy option, while renewable energy sources continue to be the most supported by the public. For example, a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released August 20 found that 72% believe developing ?alternative? (i.e. renewable) energy sources could ?accomplish a great deal.? Only about 40% said that of new nuclear power. Similarly, an August 9 ABC News poll found only 44% support new reactor construction. Congress shouldn?t fall for the nuclear industry?s self-serving pronouncements about the need or public support for new nuclear power. Please contact your Congressmembers today. Thanks for all you do. Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet at nirs.org; www.nirs.org; 301-270-6477 Background information In early August, 10 senators?five Democrats and five Republicans?released a ?compromise? energy plan to allow for some offshore oil drilling. The group has been dubbed the Gang of 10. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated he is likely to allow a vote on an energy bill in September. However, the Gang of 10 have not yet put their compromise into legislative form, so there is no bill number or exact language. While the Gang of 10?s plan has been widely reported on, few have noticed that their plan includes $80+ to $160+ Billion in new subsidies for the nuclear power industry. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated she too is likely to allow a vote on some sort of energy bill in September. Again, no specific bill language has yet been announced. However, a group of predominately Republican House members have introduced what they call the ?All of the Above? energy bill (HR 6384) which would include about $120 billion in new nuclear subsidies. While neither the Gang of 10?s nor the All of the Above proposals are likely to be voted on as is, the threat that massive new nuclear subsidies will be added to an energy package is very real. That?s why it?s so important to contact your Members now, before a final energy bill is introduced. Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility has provided the following list of items that currently are in the two main proposals so far: Billions of Dollars of Nuclear Subsidies Hidden in Proposed Offshore Drilling Bills New Energy Reform Act of 2008 (Not in legislative form yet; bill number not available) TOTAL subsidies for nuclear power: $87.8 billion - $166.7 billion ? Increases Number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff: Increases NRC staff to process applications for new reactors and to further streamline the licensing process. In FY08, NRC has budgeted $216.9 million for 587 full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff to review 12 new reactor applications. This is an increase of $124.3 million for 283 additional FTE staff compared to FY07. The cost to taxpayers will be $12.4 million in FY08. As many as 8 additional applications are expected in FY09. ? Funds Nuclear Workers Training Program: Authorizes $100 million over 5 years for the Department of Labor to implement training programs for nuclear workers. ? Creates Working Group to Promote US Nuclear Manufacturing: Creates interagency working group to promote a domestic manufacturing base for nuclear components and equipment. ? Builds Reprocessing Facility: Authorizes funding and directs DOE to begin construction on a reprocessing R&D facility within one year. According to DOE in March 2006, such a facility would cost $1.5 billion. ? Authorizes DOE to Enter Into Risk Insurance Contracts: Allows DOE to enter into contracts for ?standby support? (i.e. ?risk insurance? to pay the industry for delays in obtaining NRC approval to turn on a constructed reactor). EPACT 2005 authorized $2 billion for this subsidy to cover 6 new reactors. ? Authorizes Unlimited Loan Guarantees (estimated cost: $84.2 billion to $163.1 billion*): o Expands the definition of ?project costs? to include startup and financing costs, which puts billions more taxpayer dollars at risk. o Provides for a combination of appropriations and project sponsor funding to pay for the administrative and subsidy costs (currently this funding is to come only from the project sponsor). o Exempts the loan guarantee program from Sec. 504(b) of FCRA. Under this section of FCRA, DOE is required to obtain congressional budget authority before committing to loan guarantees. This provision would eliminate this requirement, thereby allowing DOE to give out unlimited guarantees without congressional authorization. o Clarifies that the loan guarantees can cover 80% of 100% of the project costs (unclear from summary whether it actually requires this, but likely). * The nuclear industry is proposing 34 new reactors. Current estimates per reactor (without cost overruns) range from $6.2 billion to $12 billion per reactor. Unlimited loan guarantees that cover 80% of the 34 projects would guarantee $168.6 billion to $326.4 billion. The nuclear industry expects to pay $100 million in fees. Assuming these reactors have the 50% default rate as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, the taxpayer cost would be $84.2 billion to $163.1 billion. Americans for American Energy Act of 2008 (HR 6384) TOTAL subsidies for nuclear power: > $120 billion ? Subsidizes Reprocessing of Spent Fuel (Sec. 501): Authorizes the use of the Nuclear Waste Fund to make grants to or enter into contracts with companies for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (Sec. 501). There is currently about $20 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund, far less than would be needed to reprocess spent fuel in the U.S. According to the National Academy of Sciences, reprocessing only the spent fuel that we have today would cost at least $100 billion. ? Fast-Tracks and Subsidizes Rulemaking for Reprocessing Facilities (Sec. 502): Requires the NRC to complete a rulemaking for reprocessing facilities within 2 years and authorizes Nuclear Waste Fund money to cover NRC?s costs. This is extremely premature because DOE does not know the full complement of necessary technologies will be or if they would ever work. ? Takes the Nuclear Waste Fund ?Off-Budget? ? Takes the Nuclear Waste Fund ?off-budget? so that expenditures from the Fund are not counted as part of Congress? spending or the national deficit (Sec. 503). Currently, Congress must approve expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund annually in an appropriation bill and these expenditures are counted as part of the federal deficit. This change would allow $20 billion of nuclear ratepayers? money to flow unchecked into the troubled Yucca Mountain Project to develop a nuclear waste repository in Nevada and into restarting the failed nuclear waste reprocessing effort of the 1970s. ? Codifies Waste Confidence (Sec. 504) ? Prevents the NRC from being able to deny a license or permit application on the grounds that there is nowhere for nuclear waste to go. The NRC?s ?waste confidence rule,? states that there will be a repository for spent fuel ?in a timely manner? and therefore the agency does not need to consider the problem of waste piling up at nuclear reactor sites as part of its review of license extensions or new license applications. This provision would codify this rule by forbidding the NRC from denying an application on the grounds that there is not sufficient capacity. Given that the only proposed site for a permanent geologic repository has not yet begun the NRC?s licensing process and that the site is more than 20 years from accepting waste even if it is licensed, it is unlikely that waste will be moving from reactor sites ?in a timely manner.? This measure would bypass what should be a scientific and technical determination and sets up the federal government for additional lawsuits by the nuclear industry for failing to meet its commitment to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. ? Gives Tax Break for Nuclear Components Certification (Sec. 505) ? Gives a 15% tax credit to companies for ASME nuclear component certification or for increasing capacity to construct, assemble, or install nuclear components from 2008 to the end of 2019. A large number of parts used to build a nuclear reactor must be certified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), which costs between $25,000 and $35,000 per certification. This tax break, valid until 2019, would cost taxpayers as much as $5,250 per certification. ? Authorizes Nuclear Science and Engineering Scholarships (Sec 1109): Requires that the Department of Energy award at least 65 grants of 400,000 over 4 years to undergraduate institutions to provide scholarships to students studying nuclear science and engineering. This program would cost taxpayers at least $26 million. ? Requires Recommendations on Nuclear Workforce Development (Sec. 1110) ? Requires that within 120 days the Department of Energy provide Congress with recommendations for developing the nuclear workforce in the U.S. Gives Away Cash Prize for Technologies to Store Spent Fuel (Sec. 1203) ? Requires the Department of Energy to award undetermined amounts of cash prizes to advance innovative energy technologies and new energy sources, including awards for storing spent nuclear fuel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can support NIRS and the Nuclear Pushback Campaign on our secure website here. Your tax-deductible contributions will help us buy blog ads, monitor and respond to the media, and help turn around the current energy debate! Please make a donation of $5, $10, $25 or any amount you choose?your donations will be put to good use! And if you haven?t done so yet, don?t forget to sign the statement on nuclear power and climate at www.nirs.org (but please don?t sign more than once!). If you?ve already signed, please ask your friends and colleagues to sign! We?ve passed 7750 7830 7930 8,130 8,330, 8400 8500 signatures, let?s get to 10,000! And just let us know at nirsnet at nirs.org if you want more paper copies of the statement to gather signers at events, concerts, conferences, etc. We?re adding paper signers as fast as we can (but seem to be always a few hundred behind?.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to nirsnet at nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet at nirs.org From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 4 03:23:36 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 02:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] "Trouble the Water": An Inside Look at Hurricane Katrina In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <141571.60395.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I want to tell you about a powerful new documentary that I helped produce:"Trouble the Water". This remarkable film takes you inside Hurricane Katrina in a way that you have never seen before. "Trouble the Water" will have special meaning for all of us in the UNITE HERE family, and that's why I am writing to invite you to see "Trouble the Water" as soon as you can. "Trouble the Water" is the moving personal story of two young people in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans as they struggle to survive the crisis of Hurricane Katrina and help out others on the way. But it is more than just a personal story -- it's the story of the crisis that poor and working people face in America. It's a powerful illustration of why we, as UNITE HERE activists, must continue to struggle everyday to fight for a different America. "Trouble the Water" begins as Katrina makes landfall, just blocks away from the French Quarter but far from the New Orleans that tourists know. Kimberly Rivers Roberts turns her video camera on herself and her Ninth Ward neighbors trapped in the city. "It's going to be a day to remember," Kim says into her new camera as the storm is brewing. As the hurricane begins to rage and the floodwaters fill their world and the screen, Kim and her husband Scott continue to film, documenting their harrowing voyage to higher ground and dramatic rescues of friends and neighbors. After the hurricane, Kim and Scott started walking out of New Orleans, with hundreds of thousands of poor and injured people. On the way they encountered Brooklyn filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin, who had traveled to New Orleans right after the hurricane. Carl and Tia immediately saw the power of Kim and Scott's story, and started following them as they searched for food, shelter and assistance, and as they picked up homeless people, old women, and children along the way. With Kim and Scott's amateur home video, and with their relentless spirits, Carl and Tia have created a film that you will never forget. When the hurricane struck the Gulf and the floodwaters rose and tore through New Orleans it did not turn the region into a Third World country -- it revealed one. "Trouble the Water" opens up a meaningful space to examine critical and pressing issues that have remained unaddressed and unresolved since the Katrina disaster three years ago. It is a necessary film for a necessary change. The message of "Trouble the Water" is our message about the crisis of poverty in America, about the critical failure of imagination of our government, and about the creative solutions we need to build a better America for everyone. I need your help to get Trouble the Water's message out far and wide. The film will only be a success if it does well at the box office THIS WEEK. That's why I need all UNITE HERE members to "Trouble the Water" this week. "Trouble the Water" is currently playing at the IFC Center in New York City, the Sunset 5 in Los Angeles, and the Edwards Westpark 8 in Irvine, CA. For other listings, please visit www.troublethewaterfilm.com Get a group of friends together to see "Trouble the Water" this week, and send me an email at dglover at unitehere.org to let me know what you think of the film. Danny -------------------------------------------------- Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. http://action.unitehere.org/join-forward.html?domain=heregetactive&r=YpqeBl5qOXBi If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for UNITE HERE e-Activism at: http://action.unitehere.org/heregetactive/join.html?r=YpqeBl5qOXBiE -------------------------------------------------- From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Sep 4 03:46:35 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:46:35 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] What's So Heroic? Message-ID: <48BFAE7B.7010601@attglobal.net> About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians by Liliana Segura AlterNet (August 21 2008) This post originally appeared in PEEK's blog. Confession: I have not yet read all six (short, illustrated, large type) chapters of Mike's Election Guide 2008, Michael Moore's, latest work of jaunty political opinion. Am I supposed to discuss it with him on "Meet the Bloggers" tomorrow? Yes. But I'm not worried. It's a breezy read, has already made me laugh out loud, and besides, I may have already found the best part in Chapter One. The title is "Ask Mike!" and, in it, ordinary voters, old and young, pose questions about politics and current events. Some are more serious than others ("If Iran has weapons of mass destruction, we should invade, right?"), which does not make Moore's answers any more subtle. ("Excuuuuuse me? Did you say the words, 'weapons of mass destruction'? Take it back. I SAID TAKE IT BACK!") Of course, the "questions" are really satirical jabs at the media - "When a Republican wears a little American flag lapel pin, what is he trying to say?" "If Obama can't bowl, can he govern?" - but there's one in particular that is worth paying attention to - especially if you happen to be a member of the press and have been utterly unwilling to take McCain's supporters and opponents alike to task for perpetuating a narrative that would be central to a McCain victory, and which has already become a dominant theme in this election: The McCain as War Hero canard. The "question" is posted thusly: "Why did the Vietnamese shoot down John McCain and put him in prison for five years? He seems like such a nice guy". ANSWER: I'm guessing, in spite of his anger management issues, he is a nice guy. He has devoted his life to this country. He was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our nation. And for that, he was tortured and then imprisoned in a North Vietnamese POW camp for nearly five-and-a-half years. That's the set-up. It gets better. Moore proceeds, not to question, as Wesley Clark recently did to so many shrieks of criticism, whether McCain's capture really makes him qualified to be president of the United States - the answer, any thinking person realizes, is "no" - but whether the Vietnam war was a conflict that can really be said to have produced the breed of "American hero" McCain is so often celebrated as. "Sadly", he writes, "McCain's sacrifice had nothing to do with protecting the United States. He was sent to Vietnam along with hundreds of thousands of others in an attempt to prop up what was essentially an American colony, South Vietnam, which was being run by a dictator whom we installed." Lest we forget, the Vietnam War represented a mass slaughter by the United States government on a scale that sought to rival our genocide of the Native Americans. The US Armed Forces killed more than two million civilians in Vietnam (and perhaps another million in Laos and Cambodia). The Vietnamese had done nothing to us. They had not bombed or invaded or even sought to murder a single American. President Johnson and the Pentagon lied to Congress in order to get a vote passed to put the war in full gear. Only two senators had the guts to vote "no". But the parallel between Iraq and Vietnam is not the only point Moore is making. He makes it personal. John McCain flew 23 bombing missions over North Vietnam in a campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. During this bombing campaign, which lasted for almost 44 months, US forces flew 307,000 attack sorties, dropping 643,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam (roughly the same tonnage dropped in the Pacific during all of World War II). Though the stated targets were factories, bridges, and power plants, thousands of bombs also fell on homes, schools, and hospitals. In the midst of the campaign, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that we were killing 1,000 civilians a week. That's more than one 9/11 every single month - for 44 months. What's not heroic about that? Is it any wonder all politicians speaking in public about John McCain are required to preface their remarks with a fawning admiration for his war service? Alas, McCain does have some regrets about Vietnam. As Moore points out, in his memoir Faith of Our Fathers (Random House, 1999), McCain called it "illogical" and "senseless" that he was limited to bombing only military targets. "I do believe", McCain wrote, "that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed". In other words, McCain believes we could have won the Vietnam War had he been able to drop even more bombs. When McCain was shot down, on October 26 1967, he was busy bombing what he would describe as a "heavily populated part of Hanoi". What follows is a a rather entertaining passage in which Moore then asks what you would do to a man who "fell out of the sky" after dropping bombs on you or your children. But the most important question comes at the end: John McCain is already using the Vietnam War in his political ads. In doing so, it makes not just what happened to him in Vietnam fair game for discussion, but also what he did to the Vietnamese ... I would like to see one brave reporter during the election season ask this simple question of John McCain: "Is it morally right to drop bombs and missiles in a 'heavily populated' area where hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians will perish?" Of course, no member of the "mainstream" media is going to ask John McCain that question. (And given his famous quips on "Bomb-bomb-bomb-ing Iran" or, when asked to comment on the US exporting cigarettes to the country, on the speculation that "Maybe that's a way of killing them", the answer may be too disturbing to bear.) Regardless, this is the same press that obligingly calls McCain a "maverick" and McCain's campaign bus the "Straight-talk Express". Going after his war hero credentials? Why, that would be ... un-American. Luckily, in the absence of an effective media - or one that takes its cues from Michael Moore - there are some people who are uniquely qualified to ask tough questions about the war hero John McCain, and they can't all be considered "surrogates" for Barack Obama. One of them is a man named Phillip Butler, who, on AlterNet today, has an article whose point, really, is laid out in the title: "I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button" Originally published on Military.com, it's a scathing, point-by-point indictment of McCain that punctures the war hero mythology he has so successfully insulated himself in. It is part fact-check ("Was he tortured for five years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first two years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969"), part much-needed perspective ("Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda"). But perhaps its most compelling characteristic is that it is written by a former POW of a misbegotten war, who has seen the death and destruction firsthand, and who is fearful of what McCain would do as commander in chief. "I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button." Now that's a quote. Maybe it's time for a new three am ad. Liliana Segura is a staff writer and editor of AlterNet's Rights and Liberties and War on Iraq Special Coverage. (c) 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/95906/ 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/ From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Sep 4 07:53:36 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 06:53:36 -0700 Subject: [R-G] UN Military Base Expanding: What is Washington Up to in Cite Soleil References: <20080904082503.T32956@pop.webster.edu> Message-ID: <4D37A6E6-BA36-495E-AAC3-F9AEA4229117@shaw.ca> From: K M Ives This Week in Haiti" is the English section of HAITI LIBERTE newsweekly. For the complete edition with other news in French and Creole, please contact the paper at (tel) 718-421-0162, (fax) 718-421-3471 or e-mail at editor at haitiliberte.com. Also visit our website at . HAITI LIBERTE "Justice. Verite. Independance." * THIS WEEK IN HAITI * September 3 - 9, 2008 Vol. 2, No. 7 UN MILITARY BASE EXPANDING: WHAT IS WASHINGTON UP TO IN CITE SOLEIL? by Kim Ives The U.S. government plans to expropriate and demolish the homes of hundreds of Haiti's most impoverished by expanding the U.N. military occupation force's outpost in the giant shantytown of Cite Soleil. The infamous U.S. government contractor DynCorp, a quasi-official arm of the Pentagon and the CIA, is responsible for expanding the base named "Konbit pou lape" (Get Together for Peace), which houses the soldiers of the U.N. Miss ion to Stabilize Haiti (MINUSTAH) in the most bullet-ridden battleground of the foreign military occupation that began after U.S. Special Forces kidnapped President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his wife from their home and flew them into exile on Feb. 29, 2004. According to Cite Soleil mayor Charles Joseph and a DynCorp foreman at the site, funding for the base expansion is provided by the State Department's U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a very unorthodox use of development aid. Lawyer Evel Fanfan, the president of the Association of University Graduates Motivatd For A Haiti With Rights (AUMOHD), says that about 155 buildings would be razed if the base expansion goes forward. "They started working without saying a word to the people living there," Fanfan said. "The authorities have not told them what is being done, if they will be relocated, how much they will be compensated or even if they will be compensated." Most of the buildings targetted are homes, but one is a church. "They have begun to build a wall around the area to be razed," explained Eddy Michel, 37, an assistant to Pastor Isaac Lebon who heads the Christian Church of the Apostle's Foundation, which serves some 300 parishioners. "They have already built a 10-foot high L- shaped wall, which cuts us off from the road. Once they complete the rest of the wall, the remaining 'L', we will be completely enclosed and we fear the destruction will begin." Alarmed residents of the area formed the Committee for Houses Being Demolished (KODEL), which contacted AUMOHD. Fanfan put out a press release and KODEL held a press conference. "MINUSTAH soldiers came to our press conference and told us to get a lawyer to talk to the American Embassy because the American Embassy is responsible for the work," said Eddy Michel. "Legally, the Haitian government has not authorized anybody to do anything," said Fanfan. " The Cite Soleil mayor [Charles Joseph] supposedly, between quotation marks, authorized the construction, but there is no paper, no decree, no order which authorizes it." The use of DynCorp to build the base is particularly telling. DynCorp International, offering, as its website says, "Global Integrated Solutions," belongs to a select group of behemoth corporations like Blackwater, Brown & Root, and Halliburton that exist mainly to carry out U.S. government strategic projects and programs. Founded in 1946 and based in Reston, VA near CIA headquarters in Langley, DynCorp was the principal contractor deployed in Colombia to carry out Washington's supposed war on drugs called "Plan Colombia" in 2000. It conducted aerial dusting of supposed coca fields, a practice which resulted in 10,000 Ecuadorian farmers and the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), an AFL-CIO affiliate, lodging a class-action lawsuit against then DynCorp CEO Paul V. Lombardi in 2001. The dusting caused illness and death, the suit charged. Lombardi tried to intimidate the plaintiffs, writing to individual members of ILRF's board to warn that the "politically charged litigation" was inappropriate after the events of Sep. 11, 2001. One of the ILRF's board members, Bishop Jesse DeWitt, responded to DynCorp's Lombardi. "Imagine that scene for a moment," Dewitt wrote. "You are an Ecuadoran farmer, and suddenly, without notice or warning, a large helicopter approaches, and the frightening noise of the chopper blades invades the quiet. The helicopter comes closer and sprays a toxic poison on you, your children, your livestock and your food crops. You see your children get sick, your crops die. Mr. Lombardi, we at the International Labor Rights Fund, and most civilized people, consider such an attack on innocent people terrorism. Your effort to hide behind September 11 is shameful and breathtakingly cynical." On May 12, 2000, Colombian police also captured a small bottle of liquid being sent from DynCorp's Colombia headquarters to one of its airbases in Florida. The bottle contained $100,000 worth of heroin. No prosecution was ever conducted. Two years earlier, ten DynCorp employees were shipped out of Colombia when it was discovered that they were illegally trafficking amphetamines. No prosecution was ever conducted. Also in 2001, a 29-year-old DynCorp paramedic had a heart attack and was taken to a hospital in Florencia, in southeastern Colombia, where he died. "Forensic tests conducted at the time revealed that the cause of death was a cocaine overdose," writes Robert Lawson in the article "DynCorp: Beyond the Rule of Law," published by the Information Network of the Americas' online journal Colombia Report. "Mysteriously, when the Colombian Central Office of Prosecutions took an interest in the death and requested more information, all related documents, such as the legal medical reports, vanished." Lawson notes that a high ranking Colombian police official, who had followed DynCorp since it arrived in Colombia in 1993, told Semana magazine: "No authority, whether the Civil Aviation Authority, police or army, is authorized to search DynCorp's planes. Nobody knows what they carry on their return to the United States because they are untouchable." DynCorp has been an important "private" player in other U.S. wars around the globe, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. "Dyncorp (...) has garnered a reputation as a shadowy company with a spooky pedigree, rumored to be a CIA 'cutout,' or front company, for the Agency's dirty tricks," writes Uri Dowbenko in "Dirty Tricks, Inc.:The DynCorp-Government Connection" in 2002. "Using high-level government insider connections, DynCorp provides a range of 'services' one would expect to facilitate fraud and money laundry activities, acting like a virtual conduit between the corporate (private) and government (public) worlds. According to DynCorp, the US Government is its biggest client, accounting for more than 95% of its revenues." What so interests the U.S. government and DynCorp in Cite Soleil? First, as Port-au-Prince's largest, poorest, and most pro-Aristide slum, it has been a hotbed of anti-occupation resistance for the past four years. Although most of the popular organizations carrying out armed struggle were dismantled in early 2007, unrest still continues there, particularly with Haiti's (and the capitalist world's) worsening economic crisis. Hence, military domination of this important northern flank of Haiti's capital is critical. Furthermore, Haiti's bourgeoisie and Washington's strategists have for some years coveted the prime real-estate on which Cite Soleil sits. The quadrant has a port, is close to the airport, sits on the main road to the north, and is ringed by factories and the old Haitian American Sugar Company complex (HASCO). Rumors are continually afoot that Haiti's economic and political powers want to level this shantytown of 300,000 to replace it with more factories, office buildings, and other business development. As Haiti reels under the devastation brought by Hurricanes Gustav and Hanna as well as ever deepening hunger, it is ironic that Washington is spending money to expand a foreign military base and uproot Haiti's poorest of the poor. But Cite Soleil's residents are not easily steam- rolled. For example, on Aug. 31, President Rene Preval and new prime minister Michele Pierre-Louis toured Cite Soleil to view new drainage canals. During the visit, residents got their hands on Cite Soleil's second mayor Benoit Gustave, accusing him of selling off Cite Soleil for bribes, specifically in the case of the base expansion, and of doing nothing for the people. He was pelted with slaps, kicks and spit. DynCorp's expansion of MINUSTAH's base seems more likely to rile Cite Soleil's citizenry than pacify it. Once again, as in its other misadventures around the globe, Washington seems to have, as the Krey l proverb says, "byen konte, mal kalkile": counted well, but badly miscalculated. All articles copyrighted Haiti Liberte. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED. Please credit Haiti Liberte. -30- From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 08:38:08 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:38:08 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Iranian_Women=92s_Rights_Advocates_Score_S?= =?windows-1252?q?tunning_Victory?= Message-ID: Iranian Women's Rights Advocates Score Stunning Victory Rebecca Schiel Sep 04, 2008 Washington DC - After experiencing severe criticism and opposition from women's rights advocates, the "Family Protection Bill" was sent indefinitely back to the Judiciary Commission of the Iranian Parliament. It looks as though in this battle, Iran's women's rights activists have been triumphant. The bill was originally introduced in last August and was passed in July of this year before being sent back to the parliament for further reconsideration due to considerable protest from women's rights activists. In a shift from the polygamy laws of the past which allowed a man to have up to four wives as long as there was consent from the first wife, this new bill did away with that restriction. Article 22 provides for temporary marriages without registration, a move which would leave both women and the children who are products of these marriages bereft of both legal and financial protection under the law. According to experts, articles 23 and 24 are financially discriminatory in that they tax the dowry that a woman is paid upon marriage and they do not require a husband to have the financial resources necessary before taking another wife. Amid other stipulations, this bill would make it more difficult for women to secure a divorce and it would become criminal for a woman to marry a foreigner without the necessary approval. In what has been described as a stunning victory for Iran's women's movement, the Majlis has agreed to consult with women's rights activists before resubmitting the changed bill to parliament. Iran, however, remains one of the few states that have not signed the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).. Iran stands out even when compared to its neighbors in that regard - countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt are all signatories of CEDAW. From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Sep 4 09:30:05 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:30:05 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Rage Against the Machine go a capella at RNC protest after cops shut down PA References: Message-ID: <31CA7DC7-CD98-4891-8B2C-049684B3CE26@shaw.ca> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYwzW2QFnwo Rage Against the Machine go a capella at RNC protest after cops shut down PA When the police shut down the PA on Rage Against the Machine at an anti-RNC concert, the band took to the turf with a megaphone and performed a capella, delivering inspiring commentary between songs. This is must-see youtube -- some of the most heartening protest footage I've seen in years. Rage Against the Machine RNC - 09.02.08 (Performs Acapella in Crowd)(Thanks, Shahryarrakeen!) Update: Xopl adds, "Rage Against the Machine had a scheduled legal concert in the Target Center in downtownMinneapolis tonight. Police and media where sitting and waiting outside during the whole concert in heavy numbers just waiting for something to happen when the show got out. The police got what they wanted. Police pepper spraying going on right now." Twitter 1, Twitter 2 Boing Boing / Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:43:37 GMT From mstainsby at resist.ca Thu Sep 4 11:26:40 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:26:40 -0600 Subject: [R-G] The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C01A50.2060906@resist.ca> Everything ever posted to the Rad Green list exists in the RG archives. Here: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green as a reminder for people both who get this list in the Digest and for those (especially in the so-called third world) who still run their internet providers on a dial-up modem, please snip and cut out all materials from the email you are replying to, except those parts needed for re-posting. Thanks. Suzanne de Kuyper wrote: > I am unable to download this book. Could the e-mail instructions that are > part of the message be resent please? > Thank you. Suzanne dek From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 4 12:37:13 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:37:13 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Pakistan slams US for strike as shots miss PM Message-ID: <200809041837.m84IbDDp011450@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080904/e395fe06/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 4 12:52:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:52:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Gazas shocking devastation Message-ID: <200809041852.m84IqjVe018446@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080904/514320ea/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 4 12:53:53 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:53:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Cheney to Take Aim at Russias Gas Clout Message-ID: <200809041853.m84IrrDZ022412@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080904/3c5dcaff/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 4 12:53:17 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:53:17 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Torture As Official Israeli Policy Message-ID: <200809041853.m84IrHag020334@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080904/c7eb7fef/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 4 12:54:24 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:54:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] CNN interview with Vladimir Putin Message-ID: <200809041854.m84IsOgU024796@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080904/721b9c77/attachment.txt From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Sep 4 16:02:33 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:02:33 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?The_making_of_=93the_news=94?= Message-ID: REVIEW The making of ?the news? Review by Phil Shannon 30 August 2008 http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/765/39491 Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion & Propaganda in the Global Media By Nick Davies Chatto & Windus, 2008 408 pages, $54.95 (hb) Just another day at the news factory ? short-staffed on the production line, re-packaging press releases to meet the next deadline. This is the life of the ?churnalist?, writes Nick Davies in Flat Earth News, his report on the dismal state of modern journalism. In the trade for thirty years, Davies conducts an insider?s forensic dissection of the falsehood, distortion and propaganda that passes for news today. The ?commercial logic? of the cost-cutting corporate news merchants, argues Davies, has turned journalists into time-poor, de-skilled word operatives. Barely 10% of news stories are generated from research and investigation by journalists themselves ? the rest of their pressured time, they recycle (verbatim or with thin paraphrase) press releases, becoming passive processors of unchecked and politically or commercially self-interested public relations material, producing unreliable and frequently false ?Flat Earth news?. One of the main conveyor belts of PR are the ?wire agencies? (a virtual monopoly of Associated Press and Reuters), which feed in raw material whose sole virtue is the accuracy of its quotations, not its truth; reporting truly what is said, not the truth of what is said ? ?If the Prime Minister says there are chemical weapons in Iraq, that is what the good news agency will report?. Internet news websites in particular (upon which 60% of US adults rely) are PR sponges for wire-agency product, their hunger for ?breaking news? contributing heavily to the ?daily mass production of ignorance?. Davies identifies a suite of rules embedded in ?churnalism? that have evolved to meet the logistics of mass production and commodification of news, and that act as ?a kind of quality control system which instantly rejects any raw material which does not meet the factory?s requirement?. So, the ?churnalist? must avoid stories that are expensive, time- consuming and troublesome to government or powerful interests, choosing instead those that are low cost, low risk and deadline- friendly. They select ?safe? facts ? those asserted by official authorities (US military, prime minister?s office, puppet government) and rejecting those denied by said authorities. Deference to the powerful includes bending before Zionist lobby groups, which orchestrate floods of vicious emails and letters to journalists who report Palestinian casualties or mention Israel?s ethnic cleansing of 1948. The BBC, for example, ?regularly gives more space and time to Israeli voices than to Palestinian and focuses more frequently on Israeli victims than on Palestinians?. The ?safe facts? are corralled by safe moral and political values, the undeclared assumptions and prejudices favouring the world view of the powerful. Davies cites Neil Sheehan, the New York Times Vietnam War journalist, who reflected on the safety of the ?common sense? of ?consensus? ? if a journalist had ever questioned ?the justice and good sense of US intervention in those years, they would have been fired as ?subversive??. If non-official voices ever get a hearing, they are neutered by the ?churnalism? rule of ?balance?, a stone-chiselled commandment particularly rife in the state media. If an orthodox and utterly bogus consensus (Iraq?s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD], for example) was ever challenged, it was immediately chaperoned by official counter-claims. ?Balance?, however, is a one-way street ? official assertions of WMD never warranted a mandatory view from the other side. ?Balance?, says Davies, is the ?coward?s compromise? aimed at quick copy with which no one in a position of authority will argue. Rounding out the rules of the ignorance factory are ?giving the punters what they want? (the deluge of trivia and celebrity pseudo-?news?) and brain-death by a thousand sound-bites (important and often complex issues glibly minced into small chunks of cliche and slogan to feed an ever shorter attention span ? the ADHD of the modern media). The rules of ?churnalism? reflect the conservative political status quo, says Davies. The sins of omission (what is not covered) are powerfully news-distorting, providing only marginal and superficial coverage of the ?unworthy? victims of global poverty and inequality in developed nations, the white-collar crimes of multinational corporations, etc. The sins of commission (what is covered, through retailing questionable or false facts) render the news safe to powerful interests. All journalists select what to cover and how, and their choices, governed by the unwritten rules of ?churnalism?, are overwhelmingly safe and wrapped in the self-delusional protective bubble of ?objectivity?, the ?myth that a journalist simply collects and reproduces the objective truth?. What journalists in fact promote, says Davies, is not objectivity but at best neutrality (no evaluation or critique of contending views) or, more commonly, the conservative hegemony of ruling ideas. Corporate ownership of the media (in its right-wing or liberal guise), and its state media auxiliary, will not permit news that undermines their political framework (corporate rule of society). One flaw with Davies? approach is that it can portray the overworked journalist as a noble political agnostic beset by not only right wing flat-earthers but also the green-left. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, says Davies, are guilty of a PR scam, ?cranking up the anxiety? about the danger of global warming and the risks of nuclear energy, stifling what Davies says is a ?fascinating dispute? about the safety of nuclear energy. Well, no ? there is no substantive debate, rather a PR offensive by the nuclear industry opportunistically cashing in on the ominous reality of global warming. Despite this stumble, Davies? diagnosis of the political culture metastasising under the ?corporate media system? ? a world where ?market and commercial values overwhelm notions of democracy and civic culture, a world where depoliticisation runs rampant, and a world where the wealthy few face fewer and fewer threats of political challenge? ? has the hands-on authority of a journalist who has had enough of the corruption of ?the news? by those rich enough to own the ?free? press. From: Cultural Dissent, Green Left Weekly issue #765 3 September 2008. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 4 16:34:41 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:34:41 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Reflections by Comrade Fidel: A NUCLEAR STRIKE Message-ID: <200809042234.m84MYf8O000388@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080904/494c11f0/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Sep 4 17:59:13 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:59:13 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Manufactured Famine Message-ID: <48C07651.5080302@attglobal.net> A new wave of food colonialism is snatching food from the mouths of the poor. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (August 26 2008) In his book Late Victorian Holocausts (2001), Mike Davis tells the story of the famines that sucked the guts out of India in the 1870s. The hunger began when a drought, caused by El Nino, killed the crops on the Deccan plateau. As starvation bit, the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. While Lytton lived in imperial splendour and commissioned, among other extravangances, "the most colossal and expensive meal in world history", between twelve and 29 million people died {1}. Only Stalin manufactured a comparable hunger. Now a new Lord Lytton is seeking to engineer another brutal food grab. As Tony Blair's favoured courtier, Peter Mandelson often created the impression that he would do anything to please his master. Today he is the European trade commissioner. From his sumptuous offices in Brussels and Strasbourg, he hopes to impose a treaty which will permit Europe to snatch food from the mouths of some of the world's poorest people. Seventy per cent of the protein eaten by the people of Senegal comes from fish {2}. Traditionally cheaper than other animal products, it sustains a population which ranks close to the bottom of the human development index. One in six of the working population is employed in the fishing industry; some two-thirds of these workers are women {3}. Over the past three decades, their means of subsistence has started to collapse as other nations have plundered Senegal's stocks. The European Union has two big fish problems. One is that, partly as a result of its failure to manage them properly, its own fisheries can no longer meet European demand. The other is that its governments won't confront their fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats. The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to West Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal's marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country's waters fell from 95,000 tons to 45,000 tons. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997 {4}. In a recent report on this pillage, ActionAid shows that fishing families which once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice. As the price of fish rises, their customers also go hungry. The same thing has happened in all the west African countries with which the EU has maintained fisheries agreements {5, 6}. In return for wretched amounts of foreign exchange, their primary source of protein has been looted. The government of Senegal knows this, and in 2006 it refused to renew its fishing agreement with the EU. But European fishermen - mostly from Spain and France - have found ways round the ban. They have been registering their boats as Senegalese, buying up quotas from local fishermen and transferring catches at sea from local boats. These practices mean that they can continue to take the country's fish, and have no obligation to land them in Senegal. Their profits are kept on ice until the catch arrives in Europe. Mandelson's office is trying to negotiate economic partnership agreements with African countries. They were supposed to have been concluded by the end of last year, but many countries, including Senegal, have refused to sign. The agreements insist that European companies have the right both to establish themselves freely on African soil, and to receive national treatment. This means that the host country is not allowed to discriminate between its own businesses and European companies. Senegal would be forbidden to ensure that its fish are used to sustain its own industry and to feed its own people. The dodges used by European trawlers would be legalised. The UN's Economic Commission for Africa has described the EU's negotiations as "not sufficiently inclusive". They suffer from a "lack of transparency" and from the African countries' lack of capacity to handle the legal complexities {7}. ActionAid shows that Mandelson's office has ignored these problems, raised the pressure on reluctant countries and "moved ahead in the negotiations at a pace much faster than the [African nations] could handle". If these agreements are forced on West Africa, Lord Mandelson will be responsible for another imperial famine. This is one instance of the food colonialism which is again coming to govern the relations between rich counties and poor. As global food supplies tighten, rich consumers are pushed into competition with the hungry. Last week the environmental group WWF published a report on the UK's indirect consumption of water, purchased in the form of food {8}. We buy much of our rice and cotton, for example, from the Indus Valley, which contains most of Pakistan's best farmland. To meet the demand for exports, the valley's aquifers are being pumped out faster than they can be recharged. At the same time, rain and snow in the Himalayan headwaters have decreased, probably as a result of climate change. In some places, salt and other crop poisons are being drawn through the diminishing water table, knocking out farmland for good. The crops we buy are, for the most part, freely traded, but the unaccounted costs all accrue to Pakistan. Now we learn that Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, are securing their future food supplies by trying to buy land in poorer nations. The Financial Times reports that Saudi Arabia wants to set up a series of farms abroad, each of which could exceed 100,000 hectares. Their produce would not be traded: it would be shipped directly to the owners. The FT, which usually agitates for the sale of everything, frets over "the nightmare scenario of crops being transported out of fortified farms as hungry locals look on". Through "secretive bilateral agreements", the paper reports, "the investors hope to be able to bypass any potential trade restriction that the host country might impose during a crisis" {9}. Both Ethiopia and Sudan have offered the oil states hundreds of thousands of hectares{10, 11}. This is easy for the corrupt governments of these countries: in Ethiopia the state claims to own most of the land; in Sudan an envelope passed across the right desk magically transforms other people's property into foreign exchange {12, 13}. But 5.6 million Sudanese and ten million Ethiopians are currently in need of food aid. The deals their governments propose can only exacerbate such famines. None of this is to suggest that the poor nations should not sell food to the rich. To escape from famine, countries must enhance their purchasing power. This often means selling farm products, and increasing their value by processing them locally. But there is nothing fair about the deals I have described. Where once they used gunboats and sepoys, the rich nations now use chequebooks and lawyers to seize food from the hungry. The scramble for resources has begun, but - in the short term at any rate - we will hardly notice. The rich world's governments will protect themselves from the political cost of shortages, even if it means that other people must starve. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Mike Davis, 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. Verso, London. 2. ActionAid, 11th August 2008. SelFISH Europe. http://www.illegal-fishing.info/uploads/ActionAidSelFISHEurope.pdf 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. Vlad M. Kaczynski and David L. Fluharty, March 2002. European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Marine Policy, Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 75-93. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X{01}00039-2 6. Tim Judah, 1st August 2001. The battle for West Africa's fish. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1464966.stm 7. UNECA, EPA Negotiations: African Countries Continental Review, African Trade Policy Centre, February 2007. Quoted by ActionAid, ibid. 8. Ashok Chapagain and Stuart Orr, August 2008. UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK's food and fibre consumption on global water resources. Volume one. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_uk_footprint.pdf 9. Javier Blas and Andrew England, 19th August 2008. Foreign fields: Rich states look beyond their borders for fertile soil. Financial Times. 10. ibid. 11. Barney Jopson and Andrew England, 11th August 2008. Sudan woos investors to put $1bn in farming. Financial Times. 12. For discussions of how landrights in Africa are overruled, see: Lorenzo Cotula, September 2007. Legal empowerment for local resource control. International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/12542IIED.pdf and: 13. Camilla Toulmin, 2006. Securing Land and Property Rights in Africa: Improving the Investment Climate. Chapter 2.3 of the Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum, Switzerland. Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/26/manufactured-famine/ 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/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Sep 4 17:59:31 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:59:31 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Manufactured Famine Message-ID: <48C07663.2000908@attglobal.net> A new wave of food colonialism is snatching food from the mouths of the poor. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (August 26 2008) In his book Late Victorian Holocausts (2001), Mike Davis tells the story of the famines that sucked the guts out of India in the 1870s. The hunger began when a drought, caused by El Nino, killed the crops on the Deccan plateau. As starvation bit, the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. While Lytton lived in imperial splendour and commissioned, among other extravangances, "the most colossal and expensive meal in world history", between twelve and 29 million people died {1}. Only Stalin manufactured a comparable hunger. Now a new Lord Lytton is seeking to engineer another brutal food grab. As Tony Blair's favoured courtier, Peter Mandelson often created the impression that he would do anything to please his master. Today he is the European trade commissioner. From his sumptuous offices in Brussels and Strasbourg, he hopes to impose a treaty which will permit Europe to snatch food from the mouths of some of the world's poorest people. Seventy per cent of the protein eaten by the people of Senegal comes from fish {2}. Traditionally cheaper than other animal products, it sustains a population which ranks close to the bottom of the human development index. One in six of the working population is employed in the fishing industry; some two-thirds of these workers are women {3}. Over the past three decades, their means of subsistence has started to collapse as other nations have plundered Senegal's stocks. The European Union has two big fish problems. One is that, partly as a result of its failure to manage them properly, its own fisheries can no longer meet European demand. The other is that its governments won't confront their fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats. The EU has tried to solve both problems by sending its fishermen to West Africa. Since 1979 it has struck agreements with the government of Senegal, granting our fleets access to its waters. As a result, Senegal's marine ecosystem has started to go the same way as ours. Between 1994 and 2005, the weight of fish taken from the country's waters fell from 95,000 tons to 45,000 tons. Muscled out by European trawlers, the indigenous fishery is crumpling: the number of boats run by local people has fallen by 48% since 1997 {4}. In a recent report on this pillage, ActionAid shows that fishing families which once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice. As the price of fish rises, their customers also go hungry. The same thing has happened in all the west African countries with which the EU has maintained fisheries agreements {5, 6}. In return for wretched amounts of foreign exchange, their primary source of protein has been looted. The government of Senegal knows this, and in 2006 it refused to renew its fishing agreement with the EU. But European fishermen - mostly from Spain and France - have found ways round the ban. They have been registering their boats as Senegalese, buying up quotas from local fishermen and transferring catches at sea from local boats. These practices mean that they can continue to take the country's fish, and have no obligation to land them in Senegal. Their profits are kept on ice until the catch arrives in Europe. Mandelson's office is trying to negotiate economic partnership agreements with African countries. They were supposed to have been concluded by the end of last year, but many countries, including Senegal, have refused to sign. The agreements insist that European companies have the right both to establish themselves freely on African soil, and to receive national treatment. This means that the host country is not allowed to discriminate between its own businesses and European companies. Senegal would be forbidden to ensure that its fish are used to sustain its own industry and to feed its own people. The dodges used by European trawlers would be legalised. The UN's Economic Commission for Africa has described the EU's negotiations as "not sufficiently inclusive". They suffer from a "lack of transparency" and from the African countries' lack of capacity to handle the legal complexities {7}. ActionAid shows that Mandelson's office has ignored these problems, raised the pressure on reluctant countries and "moved ahead in the negotiations at a pace much faster than the [African nations] could handle". If these agreements are forced on West Africa, Lord Mandelson will be responsible for another imperial famine. This is one instance of the food colonialism which is again coming to govern the relations between rich counties and poor. As global food supplies tighten, rich consumers are pushed into competition with the hungry. Last week the environmental group WWF published a report on the UK's indirect consumption of water, purchased in the form of food {8}. We buy much of our rice and cotton, for example, from the Indus Valley, which contains most of Pakistan's best farmland. To meet the demand for exports, the valley's aquifers are being pumped out faster than they can be recharged. At the same time, rain and snow in the Himalayan headwaters have decreased, probably as a result of climate change. In some places, salt and other crop poisons are being drawn through the diminishing water table, knocking out farmland for good. The crops we buy are, for the most part, freely traded, but the unaccounted costs all accrue to Pakistan. Now we learn that Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, are securing their future food supplies by trying to buy land in poorer nations. The Financial Times reports that Saudi Arabia wants to set up a series of farms abroad, each of which could exceed 100,000 hectares. Their produce would not be traded: it would be shipped directly to the owners. The FT, which usually agitates for the sale of everything, frets over "the nightmare scenario of crops being transported out of fortified farms as hungry locals look on". Through "secretive bilateral agreements", the paper reports, "the investors hope to be able to bypass any potential trade restriction that the host country might impose during a crisis" {9}. Both Ethiopia and Sudan have offered the oil states hundreds of thousands of hectares{10, 11}. This is easy for the corrupt governments of these countries: in Ethiopia the state claims to own most of the land; in Sudan an envelope passed across the right desk magically transforms other people's property into foreign exchange {12, 13}. But 5.6 million Sudanese and ten million Ethiopians are currently in need of food aid. The deals their governments propose can only exacerbate such famines. None of this is to suggest that the poor nations should not sell food to the rich. To escape from famine, countries must enhance their purchasing power. This often means selling farm products, and increasing their value by processing them locally. But there is nothing fair about the deals I have described. Where once they used gunboats and sepoys, the rich nations now use chequebooks and lawyers to seize food from the hungry. The scramble for resources has begun, but - in the short term at any rate - we will hardly notice. The rich world's governments will protect themselves from the political cost of shortages, even if it means that other people must starve. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Mike Davis, 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. Verso, London. 2. ActionAid, 11th August 2008. SelFISH Europe. http://www.illegal-fishing.info/uploads/ActionAidSelFISHEurope.pdf 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. Vlad M. Kaczynski and David L. Fluharty, March 2002. European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Marine Policy, Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 75-93. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X{01}00039-2 6. Tim Judah, 1st August 2001. The battle for West Africa's fish. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1464966.stm 7. UNECA, EPA Negotiations: African Countries Continental Review, African Trade Policy Centre, February 2007. Quoted by ActionAid, ibid. 8. Ashok Chapagain and Stuart Orr, August 2008. UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK's food and fibre consumption on global water resources. Volume one. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_uk_footprint.pdf 9. Javier Blas and Andrew England, 19th August 2008. Foreign fields: Rich states look beyond their borders for fertile soil. Financial Times. 10. ibid. 11. Barney Jopson and Andrew England, 11th August 2008. Sudan woos investors to put $1bn in farming. Financial Times. 12. For discussions of how landrights in Africa are overruled, see: Lorenzo Cotula, September 2007. Legal empowerment for local resource control. International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/12542IIED.pdf and: 13. Camilla Toulmin, 2006. Securing Land and Property Rights in Africa: Improving the Investment Climate. Chapter 2.3 of the Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum, Switzerland. Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/26/manufactured-famine/ 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/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Sep 5 07:03:44 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:03:44 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Strange Fruit Message-ID: <48C12E30.2030901@attglobal.net> A hard commercial logic dictates that the only way to get good fruit today is to grow your own. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (September 02 2008) I feel almost shy about writing this column. It contains no revelations, no call to arms. No one gets savaged: well, only mildly. The subject is almost inconsequential. Yet it has become an obsession which, at this time of year, forbids me to concentrate for long on anything else. Though we still subsist largely on junk, even bilious old gits like me are forced to admit that the quality and variety of most types of food sold in Britain has improved. But one kind has deteriorated. You can buy mangoes, papayas, custard apples, persimmons, pomegranates, mangosteens, lychees, rambutans and god knows what else. But almost all the fruit sold here now seems to taste the same: either rock hard and dry or wet and bland. A mango may be ambrosia in India; it tastes like soggy toilet paper in the UK. And the variety of native fruits on sale is smaller than it has been for 200 years. Why? Most people believe it's because the supermarkets select for appearance not taste. This might be true for vegetables, but for fruit it's evidently wrong. Green mangoes, Conference pears, unripe Bramley, Granny Smith or Golden Delicious apples look about as appealing as a shrink-wrapped stool. Appearance has nothing to do with it. What counts to the retailer is how well the variety travels. Take the Egremont Russet, for example. It's a small apple that looks like a conker wrapped in sandpaper. But it has one inestimable quality. It can be dropped from the top of Canary Wharf, smash a kerbstone and come to no harm. This means it can be trucked from an orchard at Land's End to a packing plant in John O'Groats, via Sydney, Washington and Vladivostock, then back to a superstore in Penzance (this is the preferred route for most of the fruit sold in the UK) and remain fit for sale. The supermarkets must have had some trouble shifting it because of its strange appearance, so they promoted it as a connoisseur's apple. Such is our suggestibility that almost everyone believes this, though a dispassionate tasting would show you that it's as sweet and juicy as a box of Kleenex. For the same reason, we are assaulted with Conference pears, most of which resemble some kind of heavy ordnance, rather than any one of a hundred exquisite varieties such as the Durondeau, Belle Julie, Urbaniste, Glou Morceau, Ambrosia, Professeur du Breuil or Althorp Crasanne. It is because these pears are so delicious that they cannot be marketed. They melt in the mouth, which means they would also melt in the truck before it left the farm gate. As the best pears, plums, peaches and cherries are those which go soft and juicy when ripe, the grocers ensure that we never eat them. To compound the problem, the supermarkets demand that fruit is picked long before it ripens: it doesn't soften until it rots. This makes great commercial sense. It also ensures that no one in his right mind would want to eat it. But, happily for the retailers, we have forgotten what fruit should taste like. The only way to find out is either to travel abroad or (the low-carbon option) to grow your own. I find myself becoming a fruit evangelist, a fructivist, whose mission is to show people what they are missing. When I lived in Oxford, at a time when allotments were underused, I spent a week in the Bodleian library reading Hogg and Bull's Herefordshire Pomona, a massive book of apples and pears, written in the 1870s (you can now buy it on CD from the Marcher Apple Network). Then I cleared two and a half plots and planted the best varieties I could find. I left just as the trees were ready to fruit. But land here in mid-Wales is cheap. I bought half an acre and have started planting a second orchard. When I first tried to place an order, I caused great excitement among the nurseries I phoned. Where had I seen these apples? Who recommended them? Two of them, I discovered, had been extinct for at least fifty years. So I have had to settle for second best, by which I mean breeds which still exist. I began by planting a Ribston Pippin and an Ashmead's Kernel. These apples, both exquisite when fully ripe, can be stored from October till May. To spread the fruit as far through the year as possible, I have ordered an apple called the Irish Peach, which ripens in early August; a St Edmund's Pippin (September) and a Wyken Pippin (December to April). After a long search I think I have pinned down the apple I once tasted and loved in a friend's garden. I'm pretty confident that it was a Forfar, also know as the Dutch Mignonne, so I've bought one of those too. If I'd had more space, I would also have planted a Catshead, a Boston Russet, a Sturmer Pippin and a Reinette Grise. I have bought two pears - a Seckle and a Beurre Rance - a green plum (the Cambridge Gage), a fig, a medlar, a peach, currants, gooseberries, raspberries, loganberries and blueberries. But what excites me most are the suggestions made by a man called Ken Fern. Once a London bus driver, Fern has spent most of his life cataloguing and growing the edible species of fruit and vegetable which can survive in this country. His list now extends to 7000, some of which are featured in his book Plants for a Future (2000). I've decided to buy an Arnold Thorn (Crataegus arnoldiana), which belongs to the same genus as the hawthorn, but grows sweet juicy fruits the size of cherries, and to replace my hedge with Eleagnus x ebbingei, which produces sweet red berries with edible seeds, in (uniquely) April and May. This means, if it works out, that I can eat fresh fruit all the year round. I can store apples and Beurre Rance pears until the Eleagnus fruits, then my strawberries should be ready more or less when it stops. One day when I can afford it I will buy more land and plant a few dozen of the weird species Fern has found. Most people have less space than I do, but even a tiny garden can support half a dozen apple trees, if you grow them as cordons (single stems with short spurs) eighty centimeters apart against a wall. If you have room for only a couple of pots, you could grow blueberries, strawberries, cranberries or some of the little shrubs Ken Fern recommends, such as Vaccinium praestans and Gaultheria shallon. Or you could become a guerilla planter or guerilla grafter, growing fruit on roadsides, on commons and in parks and wasteland. Apple twigs of any kind can be grafted onto crab trees. Medlars and one breed of pear (a delicious variety called Josephine des Malines) can be grafted onto hawthorn. Kiwi fruit, passion fruit and a vine called Schisandra grandiflora will climb into trees of any kind. It's not just the produce I love. When you start growing fruit, you enter a world of recondite knowledge, accumulated over centuries of amateur experiments. You must choose the right rootstocks and pollinators and learn about bees, birds and caterpillars. But above all you must learn patience. Growing fruit forces you to think ahead, to imagine a sweeter future and then to wait. Perhaps it is this, as much as the forgotten flavours, that I have been missing. www.monbiot.com Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/09/02/strange-fruit/ 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 09:23:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:23:02 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Moscow Forced to Shore Up Rouble + Russia Reviews Trade Deals after Conflict Message-ID: Moscow forced to shore up rouble By Charles Clover in Moscow and Peter Garnham in London Published: September 4 2008 20:37 | Last updated: September 4 2008 20:37 Russia's central bank intervened heavily to support the rouble on Thursday as analysts said $21bn of foreign capital might have been pulled out of the country as Moscow paid the price for its conflict with Georgia. The rouble fell as low as R30.41, its weakest level since the Russian central bank adopted its euro/dollar basket in February 2007. The central bank governor admitted there had been capital outflows since the war but said the amount was much lower. The currency intervention was the first since the height of the war with Georgia at the beginning of August. Before the conflict the central bank's interventions in the market were aimed at stemming the rise of the rouble, which it manages to a basket weighted 55 per cent in dollars and 45 per cent in euros. The attractions of resource-rich Russia, a net foreign creditor with sustainable trade and fiscal surpluses and the third-largest foreign exchange reserves, had made the rouble a one-way upward bet. However, the rouble has suffered as foreign investors have pulled money out of Russia. The outflow of capital from Russia has slowed markedly from its pace in the middle of August, when capital flight was $21bn in the two weeks to the end of August 22, according to Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, and foreign currency reserves fell at their most precipitous rate since the 1998 currency crisis. Capital outflows in the week ending August 29 were a much lower $1.7bn, though over the past two days the value of the rouble against the dollar and euro sank 2 per cent indicating renewed capital flight. To stop the rouble falling further, the central bank sold $3.5bn-$4bn in reserves, currency dealers were reporting. Dealers at MDM Bank in Moscow believe the central bank sold up to $4.5bn in an effort to halt the rouble's fall, said Mikhail Galkin an MDM analyst. The rouble sell off is a sign that in spite of the stabilisation of the conflict in Georgia, and the absence of tough sanctions on Russia, investors still perceive political risk. Russia's Rts stock market index fell 3.94 per cent after dropping 4.25 per cent on Wednesday. The central bank said that the capital outflow from Russia last month, when unnerved investors headed for the exits, was $5bn. "According to very preliminary estimates, the outflow [in August] totalled around $5bn," said Russian news agencies quoting Sergei Ignatyev, central bank chairman. Ivan Tchakarov, a vice-president of emerging markets research at Lehman Brothers, said: "We find CBR claim that only $5bn has left Russia in August highly unlikely ... In our view, August capital outflows may amount to at least $15bn-$20bn." Russia's central bank still has an impressive war chest to defend its currency. Its reserves measured in this week at $582bn, the third-largest foreign currency reserves in the world. Russia reviews trade deals after conflict By Alan Beattie in London and Luke Peterson in New York Published: September 3 2008 22:31 | Last updated: September 3 2008 22:31 The collateral damage from Russia's dispute with Georgia over the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has spread to encompass its trading relations with the rest of the world. In the past week Moscow has announced it will suspend agreements to import pork and chicken, banned 19 US companies from exporting poultry to Russia and blocked Turkish trucks at customs posts. This week it announced it would review its trade agreement with Ukraine, which allows free passage of most goods into Russia. Moscow said that Ukraine, having joined the World Trade Organisation this year, could become a transhipment point for cheap exports from other WTO member countries to enter Russia. The announcement underlines the potential for international trade to become embroiled in politics. Analysts said warnings by the US and others that Russia's actions had endangered its own application to join the WTO had encouraged a show of defiance from Moscow. Joe Guinan, a trade analyst at German Marshall Fund think-tank in Brussels, said: "It is unfortunate the US approach over Russia's WTO membership has provoked this reaction. Tit-for-tat trade wars don't help anyone." Given the global supply shortages of food and oil, two of its biggest exports, Russia's trading partners have limited scope to punish it with trade sanctions. Indeed, one of the EU's conditions for Russia to join the WTO was an agreement not to block its own sales of raw materials abroad. Mr Guinan said high commodity and energy prices had strengthened Russia's hand. "Objective circumstances in the global economy have maximised their leverage," he said. Russia's dispute with Georgia could also hamper the resolution of disputes involving companies that have been active in both countries, which arose after the Mikheil Saakashvili government came to power. Georgia is locked in a dispute with Itera, a big player in the Russian natural gas market, which supplied gas to Georgia from 1996 until 2002. In the months before the 2003 rose revolution in Georgia, Itera says that it struck a gas delivery deal with Georgia's ministry of energy for $46.4m. Itera claims payments are overdue. However, the Saakashvili administration disputes the agreement's validity, leading Itera to sue in a Moscow arbitration court. In legal papers filed in Florida, where Itera has its headquarters, Georgia exp?ressed suspicion of the timing of the agreements. It speculated that Itera and its allies feared a loss of "influence in Georgian government circles" following any regime change. The ministry also alleged that the contested agreements "bear certain indicia of fraud". As yet, the Moscow arbitration court has not given a ruling. The proceeding was suspended in 2006 when a Russian travel embargo prevented Georgian officials from representing themselves in Moscow. The current hostilities could complicate Georgia's defence. Itera has also filed an arbitration claim at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes accusing Georgia of breaching investment protection treaties with the US and the Netherlands. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 09:24:13 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:24:13 -0400 Subject: [R-G] BP Makes Deep Concessions in Agreement with Russian Partner Message-ID: September 5, 2008 BP Makes Deep Concessions in Agreement With Russian Partner By ANDREW E. KRAMER MOSCOW ? In a deal that will allow BP to keep a crucial asset, but at a cost of ceding some control, the company came to an agreement with its Russian partners Thursday over its joint oil venture here, ending months of acrimony and threats. In the end, BP agreed to dismiss the American chief executive it had appointed to head the joint venture and give some board seats to its Russian partners. In exchange, BP will retain its stake in the joint venture, TNK-BP, and with it, access to the large oil fields of Siberia. Although BP ceded to every demand from its partners, analysts said the outcome could have been worse for the company. Indeed, for months it looked as if BP would lose all or part of its Russian assets in a forced sale to a state company. Now that prospect looks less likely. But the relief is relative. "Just like when somebody comes and puts a gun to your back and says, 'Your wallet or your life,' and you are glad you got out with your life," Caius Rapanu, chief analyst at Kit Finance in Moscow said in a telephone interview. Both the Russian oil giant Yukos and Shell's Sakhalin Island development were part of forced sales to state companies. BP's stock climbed more than 3 percent on news of the compromise. Though BP was compelled to make concessions, senior Russian officials were quick to cast the deal as a positive signal to Western investors in the wake of the war in Georgia, in a move meant to counter a slide in the Russian stock market and in investor confidence. But the resolution of the conflict ? for now at least ? also underlines Russia's significant sway over Western interests, 17 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its joining the world economy. Like China, another country that sometimes falls from favor politically, trade has made it integral to the profits of many American and European companies, even outside oil and gas. Boeing and Airbus, for example, rely on Russia for more than 50 percent of the titanium in their airplanes, including such critical parts as the landing gear on the new 787 Dreamliner, scheduled to make its maiden flights this fall. "Russia wants to have an open economy, believe it or not," Roland Nash, head of research at Renaissance Capital, said. "Russia really wants to have foreign investment." Since the war in Georgia, though, relations with the West have grown increasingly contentious. The first warnings of a possible trade war came soon after the guns went quiet. Russia bowed out of negotiations to join the World Trade Organization and will remain the world's largest economy that is not part of the group. Frozen chicken thighs, a major American export to Russia, quickly rose to the attention of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who said suppliers including Tyson Chicken of Arkansas would be banned, ostensibly on health grounds. The Bush administration signaled it would halt work on a deal to allow Russia to export nuclear reactor fuel to the United States. Yet current customers of Russian nuclear reactor fuel, including Switzerland, France and Germany, did not raise the prospect of halting this business. Russia's Tvel company supplies 17 percent of the world's low-enriched uranium fuel, mostly to Eastern Europe, China and India. Thanks to globalization, Avisma, a formerly closed military plant in the Ural Mountains, now supplies titanium to both Boeing and Airbus, and is a major supplier to the jet engine makers Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls-Royce. "Severing the business would be catastrophic for either side," Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an industrial analyst at Renaissance Capital in Moscow, said. "There is mutual dependence." The European Union, which has a generally softer line on Russia than the United States does, accounts for 50 percent of Russia's trade, principally gas and oil; the United States accounts for 5 percent. But Russia's vulnerabilities are longer term. The country is pursing an economic diversification plan called 2020, hoping to escape the boom and bust commodity cycles that plagued the Soviet Union and Russia for decades. To do so, its businesses must both globalize and attract foreign investment and expertise into Russia. Energy revenue now accounts for 70 percent of exports and 60 percent of the budget. The oil wealth, however, has made Russia a major buyer of dollar bonds for its Central Bank and sovereign wealth funds, including bonds of mortgage backed securities. The country has the largest reserves after China and Japan, and dumping these bonds could weaken an already troubled American banking system. "I don't think Russia would suffer much," Ivan Tchakarov, vice president for emerging market research at Lehman Brothers, said in a telephone interview of the outcome of any trade war after the real war. "The West would suffer more." Under the BP deal, the American chief executive, Robert Dudley, will resign before the end of the year. He will be replaced by a director nominated by BP and approved by the board under a memorandum of understanding BP signed with the consortium of Russian billionaires that owns 50 percent of the joint venture, known as TNK-BP. In addition, there will be three independent seats on the board, though how they will be appointed is unclear. BP and the Russians partners will each appoint four other representatives. The value to BP of retaining the licenses held by the joint venture could hardly be overestimated at a time when oil companies are struggling to find new reserves. TNK-BP is Russia's third-largest oil producer and accounts for about a quarter of BP's worldwide oil output. It is also one of Russia's most high-profile foreign investments. Russian authorities said flatly the deal should signal to investors that Russia welcomes their business. "The participants in the talks arrived at an agreement on the level of shareholders, without the involvement of third parties, such as the government," deputy prime minister Igor I. Sechin said in a statement released by the Russian partners. "This is the right signal to the whole market." Mr. Sechin, when he was a member of Mr. Putin's presidential administration, was seen as instrumental in the dismantling of Yukos. To be sure, businesses are still on edge. The RTS stock market dropped to a two-year low on Thursday. And the government's bellicose tone is spooking investors, at a time when dropping oil prices are already making Russia a less attractive investment case. "They've thrown the rule book out the window," said one banker, who did not want to be quoted criticizing the government. "Now they say, 'If you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?' " Many big investors were skeptical that this dispute was really over. "It's a neat compromise, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating," said Alan Beaney, a senior fund manager at Principal Investment Management in Sevenoaks, England, said of the BP settlement. "Whether the new C.E.O. will satisfy both sides is a big question," he added. "In essence it's a good company, but do you want to be caught in between those two sides? I don't think we've seen the end of it yet." From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 5 10:52:02 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:52:02 -0700 Subject: [R-G] An open letter to the Russian leadership Message-ID: <200809051652.m85Gq2Tw008207@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080905/705e91d7/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 5 10:52:35 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:52:35 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Government issued notice to stop Afghanistan reports Message-ID: <200809051652.m85GqZwO009876@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080905/7ee9e83e/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 5 10:51:29 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:51:29 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Only Good Muslim is the Anti-Muslim Message-ID: <200809051651.m85GpTQt006124@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080905/57f424c1/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 5 10:50:52 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:50:52 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Palestinians: Warehousing a surplus people Message-ID: <200809051650.m85Goq1K004447@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080905/0c2a5624/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 5 10:53:18 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:53:18 -0700 Subject: [R-G] How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy Message-ID: <200809051653.m85GrIol011923@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080905/b3d5cfcd/attachment.txt From internacional at pcdob.org.br Fri Sep 5 15:17:16 2008 From: internacional at pcdob.org.br (=?Windows-1252?Q?PCdoB_-_Secretaria_de_Rela=E7=F5es_Internacionais?=) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:17:16 -0300 Subject: [R-G] Fw: PCdoB - Article about Paraguay , by Ronaldo Carmona Message-ID: <041501c90f9c$c7aa9590$0e05a8c0@mh> Estimados Camaradas Recebam em anexo, em portugu?s e ingl?s, o artigo Pela solidariedade antigolpista ao povo do Paraguai , escrito por Ronaldo Carmona, membro da Comiss?o de Rela??es Internacionais do Comit? Central do Partido Comunista do Brasil - PCdoB e publicado no portal Vermelho (www.vermelho.org.br) Sauda??es Fraternas Maria Helena D' Eugenio p/ Secretaria de Rela??es Internacionais do CC do PCdoB (11) 30541822 ou 00 ======================== Dear Comrades, Please find attached in Portuguese and English languages, the article In solidarity with the people of Paraguay against any coup attempts, by Ronaldo Carmona, Member of the PCdoB's International Relations Commission and published in website Vermelho (Red) (www.vermelho.org.br). Fraternal greetings, From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 5 15:35:41 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:35:41 -0700 Subject: [R-G] PCdoB - Article about Paraguay, by Ronaldo Carmona Message-ID: <200809052135.m85LZf3f021734@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080905/11008894/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Sep 5 17:35:32 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:35:32 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Post-Petroleum Job Ads Message-ID: <48C1C244.5000700@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (September 03 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society The mismatch between the narratives of sudden apocalypse that shape so much of today's debate about the future, on the one hand, and the sluggish pace at which the predicament of industrial society unfolds in the real world, on the other, found a poster child of sorts last weekend. During the days of uncertainty before Hurricane Gustav's arrival on the Louisiana coast, some enthusiastic soul posted claims to the peak oil newsblog The Oil Drum that the hurricane would bring industrial civilization itself crashing down in ruins. I was pleased to note that this announcement seems to have fallen on unsympathetic ears. The Oil Drum's forte is shrewd technical analysis, and its staff - if I may so describe the loose association of regular posters and commenters who give that excellent site its tone and direction - set aside such speculations and did their usual exemplary job, mapping out the oil platforms and refineries likely to be affected by Gustav and posting damage estimates that turned out to be fairly close to the picture now emerging on the ground. Gustav was a moderately strong storm; it forced the evacuation of nearly every offshore and coastal petroleum facility in the Gulf of Mexico, causing substantial short-term production losses; the long-term effects of the storm will not be clear for weeks, but all by itself, $30 billion or so in estimated damage piled atop an already faltering economy will certainly have an impact. The difference between the fantasy of sudden collapse and the reality of one more localized jolt piling additional burdens on a stumbling society is well worth keeping in mind. Like the proverbial frog in the saucepan, those who think of apocalyptic collapse as the only way industrial civilization can break down are far less likely to notice the gradual changes in their environment that are leading in the same direction, just more slowly. It's as though, to shift stories, the boy who cried wolf was convinced that immense armies of wolves would suddenly swoop down and eat up all the sheep in the world at once, and mistook every whistle of wind in the trees for the distant howling of the wolf pack to end all wolf packs; meanwhile, practically under his nose, real wolves - scruffy, undersized, and quite depressingly few in number compared to the massed uber-wolves of the fantasy - were picking off a sheep or two each day from the fringes of the flock. As both these metaphors suggest, the fixation on sudden collapse has practical disadvantages. If you're a frog in a saucepan, and the only idea of heat you're willing to consider involves all the water in the saucepan suddenly flashing into steam, you probably won't jump while your legs are still uncooked enough to do so; if you're guarding sheep from wolves, and groups of wolves numbering fewer than fifty are beneath your notice, your sheep are going to be eaten. In the same way, there are plenty of practical steps that can be taken here and now by individuals, that will likely make the slow unraveling of industrial society much less horrific than it might otherwise be. Most of those steps would be, or at least appear to be, irrelevant in the face of sudden global catastrophe, and in fact it's not uncommon to find believers in some such catastrophe dismissing these practical steps in exactly those terms. Mind you, there are other reasons why those steps are easy to dismiss. Every one of them has a price tag of some sort, denominated in money, labor, comfort, convenience, or unimpeded access to the smorgasbord of distractions today's industrial civilization offers its inmates. By contrast, our culture's two dominant narratives about the future - the narrative of apocalypse and its twin and shadow, the narrative of inevitable progress - are popular at least in part because they push the necessity and the costs of change onto somebody else: the "they" who are expected to think of something just in time to keep progress on track, for example, or the supposedly faceless billions who are expected to hurry up and die en masse so that the flag of some future utopia can be pitched atop their graves. I've talked about some of the steps in question already on this blog, but today I'd like to turn to something a bit different from those previous discussions: the question of how people will make a living during the long unraveling of the industrial age. That's a question that has received surprisingly little attention in recent years, and a good deal of that neglect, I think, can be laid at the door of the apocalyptic narrative. According to that narrative, after all, nothing much changes until everything does; you keep on punching the timeclock at your present job until the day that civilization falls apart, and then, if you happen to be among the survivors, you step into whatever new role the apocalypse has ordained for you - subsistence farmer, tribal hunter-gatherer, protein source for the local cannibal population, or what have you. At the same time, the absence of a nine-to-five routine on the far side of apocalypse is likely to be an important source of the narrative's popularity; I'm far from the only person who noticed, during the runup to the Y2K noncrisis, how many people predicting imminent doom seemed exhilarated by the notion that they would not have to go to work on January 2 2000. If I'm right and the descent into the deindustrial future unfolds over generations, though, that enticing prospect is not in the cards. Rather, the vast majority of us will need to earn our livings in a world that, while it will be changing around us, is extremely unlikely to change in ways that will make that process any easier than it is now. During the period I've described in other posts as the age of scarcity industrialism, something like today's money economy will likely remain firmly in place, though the household economy and other forms of production and exchange outside the money economy will likely play a steadily growing role. During the age of salvage economies that I expect to follow the twilight of the industrial system, money of some sort will likely remain in use on a small scale, as it does in most dark ages, but most day-to-day transactions will take place via barter or other systems of exchange outside the money economy; again, that's standard practice in dark ages. In both periods, though, people will work for their livings - and will likely work a good deal harder than many Americans do today. Nor will their jobs be the same as the ones that employ most Americans nowadays. The flood of cheap abundant energy that surged through the industrial world during the twentieth century reshaped every dimension of the economy in its image, and nearly all the things we have grown up considering normal and natural are artifacts of that highly abnormal and unnatural state of affairs. Very few people in the industrial world today spend their workdays producing goods or providing necessary services; instead, pushing paper has become the standard employment, and preparation for a paper-pushing career the standard form of education. The once-mighty archipelago of trade schools that undergirded the rise of America as an industrial power sank with barely a trace in the second half of the twentieth century. I once lived three blocks away from the shell of one such school; it had been engulfed by a community college, and classrooms that once hummed with the busy noises of machine-shop equipment and the hiss of hot solder were being used to train a new generation of receptionists, brokers, and medical billing clerks. The postindustrial economy proclaimed by Daniel Bell many years ago, and accepted as an accurate description of economic reality since then, was never much more than a shell game. The societies of the industrial world were every bit as dependent on industry as they had ever been; they simply exported the industries to Third World countries where labor was cheap and environmental regulation nonexistent, and continued to reap the benefits back home. Those arrangements only worked, however, because cheap abundant energy made transport costs negligible, and systematic distortions in patterns of exchange pumped wealth from the Third World to a handful of industrial nations, providing the latter with the wherewithal to pay a very large fraction of their populations to do jobs that don't actually need to be done. As energy becomes scarce and expensive again, and the imperial systems that concentrated the world's wealth in a minority of nations are shredded by the rise of new centers of power, those arrangements will break down. As that happens, a great many goods and necessary services now done offshore will need to be done at home once again, and a great many professions that produce no goods and provide no necessary services will likely drop off the economic map. Prophecy is a risky business at the best of times, but it's worth hazarding some guesses about the jobs that will fill the post-petroleum job ads here in America over the next generation or so, through the years of the Great Recession and the disintegration of America's overseas empire. Farmers are among the most likely candidates for the top of the list. By this I don't mean subsistence farmers in rural ecovillages - their time is much further in the future, if it ever comes at all. Rather, market farmers tilling what is now suburban acreage to feed the dwindling cities, and rural farmers producing grains and other bulk crops for foreign exchange, will likely be in high demand, along with support professions such as agronomists. Engineers form another set of trades likely to do well in the generation to come, especially those who know their way around energy production and distribution and the design, building, and maintenance of low-tech transportation networks. In the not too distant future, rail and canal transport will have to take over much of the work now done by trucks, and energy networks will have to cope with a fractious mix of alternative resources, dwindling fossil fuels, and massive conservation programs. The people who actually put the plans of engineers into effect, from skilled machinists all the way down to the gandy dancers who lay the rails, will also be able to count on steady paychecks. Another suite of professions likely to do well barely exists today, though demolitions experts, junkyard workers, and people who run recycling and composting operations represent tentative forays into the territory. A huge fraction of America's potential wealth in the postpeak years consists of manufactured objects that can either be refurbished and put back into circulation, or stripped of raw materials for reuse. When the electricity needed to power elevators and run heating and cooling systems is dizzyingly expensive when it can be had at all, for example, skyscrapers will be worth more as sources of refined metal than as buildings, and most of them will come down. On the other end of the spectrum, a great many consumer products that are now consigned to landfills when they break will be worth salvaging, repairing, and reselling once the cost of the necessary labor is cheaper than the cost of the energy and raw materials for a new model - a state of affairs that existed in America until the 1960s and will likely exist again within a decade or two. The salvage industries, as we may as well call them, may well turn out to be one of the major growth industries of the twenty-first century. Other professions have their own possibilities. It's a useful exercise to locate a city directory from the first half of the twentieth century and flip through the pages, noting the businesses that existed then but are nowhere to be found today. Those that meet actual needs, however unpopular they are as career tracks today, are likely to be more viable and more lucrative in a deindustrializing future than many professions fashionable today. The pundits and publicists of our economic system never seem to tire of explaining that tomorrow's jobs will not be the same as today's, and I suspect they may just be right; what they don't expect, and I do, is that many of tomorrow's hottest jobs will have more than a little resemblance to the careers of yesterday. Those people who make preparations now to move into such jobs as they come open will be doing themselves and their communities alike a favor of no small worth. These preparations need to begin soon - while the time, resources, and knowledge base for many necessary skills are still readily accessible - and this requires, once again, some sense of the way civilizations actually fall, and a willingness to apply that slow, stumbling, unromantic but realistic model to the events going on around us right now. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/08/no-different-this-time.html 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/ From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 6 00:10:55 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Friends Digest Vol. 2, No. 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <618124.44140.qm@web50807.mail.re2.yahoo.com> "Cowardice asks the question -- Is it safe? Expediency asks the question --Is it politic? Vanity asks the question -- Is it popular? But conscience asks the question -- Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'* * Birthday Party for Leonard in Fargo * You are invited to join his family and friends to celebrate Leonard Peltier's 64th Birthday. ON: September 12, 2008 LOCATION: Lindenwood Park, Fargo, ND TIME: 5:00 - 7:00 PM The LP-DOC is providing a birthday cake, Indian Tacos and beverages. You are welcome to bring food or drink to share. Those gathered will share food, stories and prayers for Leonard's freedom. Remember to wear your Peltier T-shirts. Don't have one yet or need a new one? The LP-DOC will have new T-shirts, bumper stickers, and buttons available for purchase. Directions to Lindenwood: From I-94, take exit 351 to University Drive. Go North on University Drive to 17th Ave S. Go East on 17th Ave. S to 5th St.. The entrance to Lindenwood Park is located at the S 5th Street and 17th Avenue intersection. Meet at Shelter #4. * Birthday Cards * Leonard has requested that any birthday cards sent to him be free of signatures. He is into recycling. He has asked that any messages or special greetings you want to convey be written on a sheet of paper (signed and self-addressed) and inserted into his card. Mail your cards and letters to: Leonard Peltier #89637-132, USP Lewisburg, PO Box 1000, Lewisburg, PA 17837. Monetary gifts should be sent to Leonard's commissary account in the form of a U.S. Postal Service money order (made payable to Leonard Peltier #89637-132). Mail money orders to: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Leonard Peltier #89637-132, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50747-0001. * Peltier Statement * The following is Leonard's statement for the Political Prisoners March and Rally today, August 25, Denver, CO (on the occasion of the Democratic National Convention). Read here: * Graywolf Show: Interview with Ben Carnes * Ben Carnes on AIM and Leonard Peltier on August 26, 2008 (Tuesday evening) at 9:00 PM CST. To listen, go to . The Call-in Number for the show is (347) 996-3652. * LP-DOC Update * Activities, newsletter, fundraising... Read here: . *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'* "Never cease in the fight for peace, justice, and equality for all people. Be persistent in all that you do and don't allow anyone to sway you from your conscience." -- Leonard Peltier *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'* ----- Please circulate to family and friends and otherwise widely post our listserv announcements. Also frequently visit our Blog at or receive our blog postings by Web feed (download a free newsfeed reader at ): Atom: RSS: Or register to receive e-mail announcements. It's easy. Go to our homepage at . Scroll down the page until you see "Join Us" on the left sidebar. Enter your e-mail address in the text box. Then point to and click on "Subscribe". Or send a blank e-mail message to . You also can Bookmark our home page and/or blog. Click on the Bookmark button provided at each of these sites to use any program you wish by which to save the sites to your list of browser favorites. Visit us often to learn more about efforts to win Leonard's freedom and find out what you can do to help. We encourage other sites to link to our Web site and blog. No prior permission is required. Feel free to use one of our banner ads at to link to our resources. Visit us on MySpace () and Facebook (), too. Disclaimer: Listserv postings from sources other than "Friends of Peltier" are made for the purpose of information dissemination. Views expressed by secondary sources may not reflect the views of "Friends of Peltier," and posting of information doesn't imply endorsement. ----- Time to set him free... Because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Friends of Peltier http://www.FreePeltierNow.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to freepeltiernow-on at mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to freepeltiernow-list-owner at mail-list.com mail-list.com 1302 Waugh Dr. #438 Houston, Texas 77019 USA From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 02:55:11 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 04:55:11 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Uneasy Reliance on Russia Likely to Persist + Brussels Told to Pursue Azerbaijan Pipe Dream + Etc. Message-ID: Uneasy reliance on Russia likely to persist By Ed Crooks, energy editor Published: September 5 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 5 2008 03:00 The American and British governments have been holding out hopes this week of the European Union curbing its reliance on Russian gas. Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, and Gordon Brown, prime minister, have stressed the importance of alternative energy supply routes following Russia's clash with Georgia last month. Gas industry experts, however, believe hopes of making a significant difference to the EU's need for Russian gas are likely to be in vain. As Simon Blakey of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, the research company, says: "The scale of the inter-dependence is so huge it is really not possible to make a major difference to it even over the space of two decades." US concern about western Europe's dependence on Russia for energy supplies dates back to the cold war. In 1982, following the crackdown on the Solidarity movement in Poland, Ronald Reagan's administration tried to stop the Soviet Un-ion increasing its gas exports to Europe. Worried that Europe's reliance on Russian energy would make it ever more susceptible to Soviet influence, the US blocked exports of equipment for gas production and transport to the Soviet Union and tried to limit west European countries' purchases of Russian gas to 30 per cent of their consumption. Today, the European Union buys about a quarter of its gas from Russia, but that proportion is set to grow. It is likely that the old 30 per cent limit will be exceeded in the next decade. Demand for gas in Europe is likely to rise for another decade, at least. Old nuclear and coal-fired power stations will be going out of use as they end their productive lives. Gas-fired plants are the quickest and cheapest ways to replace them. The EU's emissions trading scheme, which will reward power generators that have lower carbon emissions, will also favour cleaner, gas-fired generation in the next decade. EU countries have agreed demanding targets for increasing the proportion of their energy that is derived from renewable sources to 20 per cent by 2020. But even if that policy succeeds, which many experts doubt, and there is substantial fresh investment in nuclear power, gas demand then will be about the same as it is now, according to Cera. Europe's domestic gas production, meanwhile, is in steep decline. By 2020, it is likely to be only about half of 2006's output of 218bn cubic metres, Cera believes. Russia, with the world's biggest gas reserves on the EU's doorstep, is the obvious place to look to fill that gap. There are alternatives, but all of them have their difficulties. Several European countries have been building new terminals for the import of liquefied natural gas: super-cooled gas carried in tankers. But strong Asian demand and delays in big LNG developments have created a very tight market and pushed up prices. Frank Harris of Wood Mackenzie, another research company, said: "The ability of Europe to diversify away from Russian gas with LNG is strictly limited in the short to medium term." Long term, after 2015 or so, there is potential for more imports of LNG to come from countries such as Nigeria, Egypt and Libya. But in many countries with large gas reserves, their willingness or ability to export is curtailed by strong growth in their domestic demand. Nordine Cherouati, the director of Algeria's hydrocarbons agency, told a conference in Slovenia this week: "We cannot export gas while the needs of the domestic population are unmet." Other countries supply the EU with gas through pipelines, most notably Norway and Algeria. The EU has high hopes for the proposed Nabucco pipeline to bring gas from the Caspian region to Austria and the rest of Europe. Algeria hopes to build a pipeline for gas from Nigeria. But all these countries are subject to the same problems of competing demand for limited resources. Nabucco, for example, is heavily dependent on gas from Azerbaijan, which has plans to increase its production to 40bn cubic metres a year by the end of the next decade. However, its ambitions are viewed sceptically by some analysts. As is widely appreciated in continental Europe, the EU cannot simply cut itself off from Russian gas, or even reduce demand. At the same conference in Slovenia, R?diger Freiherr von Fritsch, the German foreign office's directorgeneral of economic affairs, stressed the "mutual dependence" of Russia and the EU. Geography and economics dictate that the EU is dependent on Russia for gas, whether politicians like it or not. Energy: Brussels told to pursue Azerbaijan pipe dream ? Commissioner pushes for route through Georgia ? Line would reduce energy dependency on Russia * David Gow in Brussels * The Guardian, * Friday September 5 2008 The EU must redouble its efforts to build the $12bn Nabucco gas pipeline and reduce its dependence on imports from Russia in the wake of the Georgian crisis, its energy commissioner said yesterday. The conflict in the Caucasus has led many experts to dismiss Nabucco, the planned 3,300km pipeline from Azerbaijan to Europe via Georgia and Turkey. But Andris Piebalgs said the aim of diversifying energy sources and routes was even more important now. "We need more political engagement to remove all the political obstacles to Nabucco to bring gas from the Caspian basin to the EU," he said in the face of evidence that the ambitious project to bypass Russia is foundering. Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, has already offered to buy Azeri gas at world prices and has put its weight behind two alternative pipelines, Nord Stream and South Stream, to Europe. Piebalgs won backing from Nabuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy Agency, who said alternative import routes would enhance the EU's energy security and reduce its dependence on Russia. Russia provides 42% of the EU's overall gas imports and 30% of its oil but accounts for up to 80% of energy imports in some countries. Moscow and Gazprom have succeeded in dividing the EU by signing bilateral supply deals, notably with Germany, Italy and Austria, and by persuading member states to take part in its own sponsored transnational pipelines even when they are already involved with Nabucco. But Tanaka, presenting the IEA's first review of EU energy policies, said Russia's dependence on Europe was much higher, with the EU taking 70% of its oil and gas exports. "It's more and more important to have a single European energy market and a single EU voice," he said. "In the long run countries conducting relations on a bilateral basis will lose out." The 220-page IEA report adds: "Speaking with one voice and acting in a consistent and unified manner will be crucial to moving towards closer relationships between the EU and the external suppliers on which it will increasingly depend in the future." The ultimate aim of the six partners in the Nabucco project and the EC is to import gas from the Middle East, including Iraq, via the pipeline. The IEA also urges the EU to step up its efforts to promote renewable sources of energy if it is to reach its 20% target of consumption by 2020 and combat climate change. Tanaka said that an extra $45tn (?25tn) of investment in renewables and other green technologies would be required globally by 2050 if the world were to cut carbon emissions by a half - the EU's own long-term goal. This would be on top of the $22tn required globally to reach interim targets. The agency endorsed the EU's "bold and innovative" energy and climate change policies but said continued use of nuclear power "is almost certainly going to be necessary" to achieve its goals. Nabucco backers remain composed By Haig Simonian Published: September 5 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 5 2008 03:00 The backers of the Nabucco pipeline, an ambitious 3,300km scheme to ship gas from central Asia to Europe, remain confident the project is on track, in spite of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Christened at a dinner in 2002 after the project's founders had seen the Verdi opera of the same name, Nabucco has been backed strongly by the European Union and the US, keen for Europe to access gas supplies without Russia. Under the ?7.9bn ($11.63bn, ?6.38bn) project, due to start construction in 2010 and ship gas supplies three years later, a new pipeline will run from Baumgarten in Austria to Turkey and on to the Georgian and Iranian borders. That will provide access to new fields in Azerbaijan, due to come on stream in 2013, sufficient to fill Nabucco's initial capacity of 8bn cubic metres a year. Subject to a separate link across the Caspian, Nabucco could go up to 31bn cu m annually via supplies in Turkmenistan. Further links could involve Iran, Kazakhstan, Iraq or even Egypt. "The Georgian conflict has no impact on Nabucco or its planning, which envisages first deliveries in 2013, so there is enough time to solve the political issues," says Reinhard Mitschek, chief executive of the six-nation project. A top manager at OMV, the Austrian energy group that is one of Nabucco's backers, Mr Mitschek is a veteran of the gas infrastructure industry. "We are focused on developing the project properly. Nabucco is on track and all partners are determined and fully committed to realise it," he says. Nabucco, which forms part of the EU's Trans European Network programme, has gained strategic importance as concerns about energy dependence on Russia have grown. Planned to traverse Turkey, rather than Russia or Ukraine, the scheme should improve Europe's energy security. As head of a six-nation consortium, Mr Mitschek is reluctant to discuss the intricacies of Russian foreign policy or aims. "We are watching the situation closely, but prefer not to comment on the political issues. Looking back, we've always had a long-term and stable energy partnership with Russian companies and we have no doubt that matters will stay like that. Russia, the Caspian region and Europe have close common links: everyone has something to offer the other." But cost inflation has made the pipeline a more expensive venture than when it started out and despite announcements of promises from Caspian countries, Europe has yet to secure the gas it needs. Nabucco executives reject reports that the project is late, that supplies are not certain, or that some partners are having second thoughts. A market survey last month suggested "huge demand" for Nabucco's capacities. "More than 100 per cent booking from day one in 2013 shows huge demand," says Mr Mitschek. He dismisses fears that Russian plans for a roughly parallel pipeline, to be called South Stream, could reduce Nabucco's appeal. "South Stream and Nabucco are not competing projects. Europe is facing a strong rise in gas demand in the next 20 years. Our own European gas production is declining, so we will need different projects and additional routes. "It's not a question of South Stream or Nabucco: we will need both." Iran objects to Caspian seabed pipelines Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:38:27 GMT Five countries border the Caspian Sea Iran has questioned plans to lay pipelines on the seabed of the Caspian Sea, saying the move would cause environmental pollution. The Caspian Sea is the largest enclosed body of water in the world and is of crucial importance as its littoral states-- Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan-- enjoy vast oil and gas reserves. The body of water, however, is polluted by industrial emissions, toxic and radioactive wastes, agricultural run-off, sewage and oil leaks resulting from extraction and refining. The Caspian environment has also been plagued by a proposal to build The Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline to transfer energy to Europe. In cooperation with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the five littoral states signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea in 2003. Article 2 of the convention calls for the protection of the Caspian environment from all sources of pollution, including "the protection, preservation, restoration and sustainable and rational use of the biological resources of the Caspian Sea." The parties to the convention are therefore urged to prevent and reduce seabed activities and dumping. A particular challenge for littoral countries will be addressing the potential consequences of the recent growth in oil and gas production. In 2004, regional oil production reached roughly 1.9 million barrels per day, and other oil supplies transit the region via ship and pipeline. A senior Iranian official, however, responded to plans to increase seabed activities in the Caspian Sea on Thursday and declared that Tehran opposes any action that pollutes the environment. "Since suitable conditions for energy transit through Iran and Russia exist, there is no need to jeopardize the Caspian Sea ecology by building pipelines on the seabed," asserted Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari. He was speaking on the sidelines of the 23rd working group meeting of the Caspian Sea littoral states in Baku. The working group has been set up to discuss the legal regime of the Caspian Sea. The Caspian Sea legal regime is based on two agreements signed between Iran and the former Soviet Union in 1921 and 1940. The three littoral states established after the collapse of the former USSR - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan - do not recognize the prior treaties and have sparked a debate on the status of the world's largest lake. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 03:03:48 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:03:48 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Francis Fukuyama: "Russia and a New Democratic Realism" Message-ID: Russia and a new democratic realism By Francis Fukuyama Published: September 2 2008 19:34 | Last updated: September 2 2008 19:34 One idea that you will never hear expressed by either Barack Obama or John McCain in this presidential race is the notion that a chief task of US foreign policy in the next administration will be to gracefully manage an adversely shifting global power balance and significantly diminished US influence. This is not a hypothetical issue, but one that stares us in the face today. The failure to recognise this shift in power has been all too evident in the events leading up to the Russian intervention in Georgia. Since the Yeltsin years, the US has had a series of policy differences with the Russians, including Nato expansion, the Balkans, missile defence, policy towards Iran and human rights in Russia itself. Diplomacy, such as it was, consisted of persuading Russia to accept all of the items on our list and telling them their fears and concerns were groundless. The US never regarded the relationship as a bargaining situation in which it would give up things it wanted in return for things the Russians wanted. Like the proverbial Englishman speaking to a foreigner, we thought we could make them understand us by repeating ourselves in a louder voice. This posture by the Bush administration reflected the balance of power that existed in the 1990s, when Russia was weak and had few cards to play. But that has changed. The contrast between Moscow's intervention in Chechnya in 1994 and Georgia in 2008 is dramatic: much as the US did not like Russian behaviour in crushing Chechen separatism, the Russian military operation was so incompetent that it seemed to set few ominous precedents. Today, all thoughts are on where Russian power will be used next. If we could roll the clock back to before February when Kosovo declared independence with US support, the elements of a bargain were there. Of the desiderata on the American list, the most expendable were anti-ballistic missile defence and support for Kosovo independence. The former was a pointless irritant to the Russians who never believed the US story that it was a response to a threat from Iran. Kosovo independence does not improve the security of Kosovars, but sets an unhappy precedent of legitimising separatism, which explains why Nato members such as Spain did not back it. A more difficult choice was Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. These democratic countries deserve strong US support. But Angela Merkel, German chancellor, is right in believing that the core of the Nato alliance is its Article V guarantee that an attack on one member should be regarded as an attack on all. This means that the US should be prepared to station forces on a permanent basis to defend any alliance member under threat, as it did on the inter-German border during the cold war. Nato membership is not a talisman that magically confers protection. It requires operational planning and expensive defence commitments. The Bush administration was not and could not have been serious about Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine to the extent that it meant providing not just arms and advisers, but real security guarantees of US forces. To the extent that that was so, leading the Georgians on to believe that we would get them into the club soon was a big mistake. An understanding that may have been possible a year ago is not workable now. The Bush administration has turned Kosovo independence and ABM defence in Poland into faits accomplis, making them unusable as bargaining chips. And rushing to accommodate Moscow while Russian troops are still occupying parts of Georgia proper is unthinkable. In saying this, I do not want to be seen as apologising for Moscow's behaviour. Russia is not justified in holding on to Georgian territory or trying to overturn a democratically elected regime. Mr Putin's talk about Georgian "genocide" and US conspiracies is unsettlingly reminiscent of the "big lie" of Soviet times. The fact that Russian feelings of resentment are understandable does not make them morally right. As Kishore Mahbubani of the National University of Singapore pointed out on this page (August 21), one of the chief ways that US power has been diminished in this decade is in its moral credibility. After the Russian intervention, US officials asserted that "21st century powers don't violate the sovereignty of other countries to overturn regimes". Adding the qualifier "in Europe" reduced the snickering only marginally. Democracy promotion ? a good thing ? has been deeply tainted by its association with the Iraq war and US security interests. The past two US administrations could assume American hegemony in both economics and security. The next administration cannot, and a critical task will be for it to better balance what we want with what we can realistically achieve. This does not mean giving up on idealistic goals such as promoting democracy. But the next president will have to "detoxify" (in the phrase of Tom Carothers from the Carnegie Endowment) the very concept of democracy promotion. We will have to think of ways of supporting Georgia and Ukraine other than by new alliance commitments. And we need to plan in concrete terms how to defend existing Nato members ? particularly Poland and the Baltic states ? from an angry and resurgent Russia. The writer is professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, most recently, author of 'After the Neocons' (Profile, 2006) From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 03:12:15 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:12:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] U.S. Letter Incites Push to Oust India Leader + Protests Halt India's Plant for Cheapest Car Message-ID: September 5, 2008 U.S. Letter Incites Push to Oust India Leader By HEATHER TIMMONS NEW DELHI ? Indian opposition parties are once again calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, saying that a secret letter from the State Department, made public on Tuesday, shows he lied about a controversial deal that would allow India to buy nuclear fuel and technology on the world market to generate nuclear power. The State Department's letter to Congress said that the United States could immediately halt nuclear sales to India if India conducted any nuclear tests and that the United States planned to withhold technology that poses a security risk. The letter was released by Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Singh told lawmakers last year that "the agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary." India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a press release on Wednesday that "we do not as a matter of policy comment on the internal correspondence between different branches of another government." The deal has caused troubles for Mr. Singh and his Congress Party for months; in July the Communist Party dropped out of the governing coalition in opposition to the deal, which the party says would strengthen a strategic relationship with the United States. Mr. Singh later survived a confidence vote that he called in Parliament. The Communist Party was among those who called for the prime minister's resignation this week, as did the Bharatiya Janata Party, the main opposition party. Prakash Javdekar, spokesman for the B.J.P., said Mr. Singh should "immediately quit and hold elections, as he lied to Parliament and the people on the deal." The release of the letter comes at an awkward time for the Bush administration as it pushes to win approval for the deal. The 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs international nuclear commerce, is meeting this week on the agreement, which some countries have opposed, and a vote could come as early as Friday. The administration is hoping for approval from the group soon so that Congress can vote before adjourning to campaign for elections in November. India's Congress Party said the letter was insignificant to India's nuclear plans, and political analysts said calls for Mr. Singh's resignation were unlikely to have much effect. It may be a decade or more before India needs to test another nuclear weapon, several Congress Party officials said Thursday evening during separate appearances on television news shows. At that point, they said, India will have reserves of any nuclear material it may need and will be able to get nuclear supplies and technology from other countries, like France, if the United States cuts ties. The United States imposed economic and military sanctions on India in 1998 after India tested a nuclear weapon, but the Bush administration lifted the sanctions in 2001. September 3, 2008 Protests Halt India's Plant for Cheapest Car By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS MUMBAI, India ? This country's project to build the world's cheapest car has driven into a quintessentially Indian ditch. On Tuesday, the automaker Tata Motors said that political protests over land had compelled it to stop building the plant in eastern India for its much-awaited Nano model. The car was scheduled to go on sale next month for 100,000 rupees, or about $2,250, less than the cost of the optional surround sound system and DVD player on the Lexus LX 570 sport utility vehicle. Late Tuesday, an executive with knowledge of Tata's deliberations said the company would still begin making Nanos in October, under a backup plan to shift production to other sites. For the first two months, Tata will produce 10,000 cars a month instead of the planned 40,000, said the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company. The Nano has been dogged from the beginning by one of India's most wrenching problems: how to create space for industry by moving farmers off their land and compensating them adequately. In a tale rich with incongruities, the Communist-run government of West Bengal State invited the Tata Group, a symbol of Indian capitalism, to set up its plant in an area called Singur. It acquired 1,000 acres from farmers on the company's behalf. As the project advanced, some farmers who had sold their land demanded it back. The main state-level opposition party, the Trinamool Congress, led protests demanding that the land be returned. Most people sympathetic to Tata accused the opposition of inducing the farmers to protest, while Tata's critics said the farmers had legitimate grievances. The issue simmered for months. But in recent days, protesters began surrounding the plant, blocking roads and preventing Tata workers from reaching the plant. "The existing environment of obstruction, intimidation and confrontation has begun to impact the ability of the company to convince several of its experienced managers to relocate and work in the plant," Tata said in a statement on Tuesday. The halt to the plant has caused many Indian business people to warn of a chilling effect on investment in the country. It is also unclear how Tata will be able to keep the Nano's cost so low, since part of the affordable price reflects the company's savings on the land in Singur. "It's a slap on the face for Brand India," said Suhel Seth, a longtime adviser to the Tata Group and the managing partner of Counselage, a strategic branding firm in New Delhi. "Which foreign company will want to come in when India's most respected group cannot set up industry in a state?" With its briefcase-size trunk, hollow steering-wheel shaft and a rear-mounted German engine that is no stronger than many lawn mowers', the car has been called a "generational leapfrog in terms of cost reduction" by Daryl Rolley of Ariba, a company that helps global automakers find suppliers for parts and did work on the Nano project. Critics say that an ultracheap car is being built for roads that have no space, under a sky already too thick with smog. They complain that Tata received a secret deal from the government and say that it took land from the poor to build cars for a swelling middle class that does not need government help. Abhirup Sarkar, an economist at the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta, said, "The compensation paid for the land is measly," according to Reuters. "It should be three to four times higher." But Tata rebutted such arguments on Tuesday, saying that it had trained workers in the area and built medical facilities, and that at its peak, the project had employed about 4,000 people, including many local residents. "Operation successful, patient dead," said Mr. Seth, the Tata adviser. "You had a successful political operation, but you've killed the aspirations of people, subverted the process of law and told politicians you can do what you will." From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 03:18:15 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:18:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia's Role in the Iran Crisis Message-ID: Russia's role in the Iran crisis By Ray Takeyh and Nikolas Gvosdev | September 6, 2008 IT IS ONE of the rites of passage of the fall - every September, the Bush administration returns to the United Nation for another sanctions resolution against Iran. However, this time there is much consternation in Washington that Russia's invasion of Georgia - and the subsequent chill that has descended on relations between Russia and the West - has ended any possibility of cooperation between the United States and Russia in dealing with Iran's nuclear imbroglio. Such fears are overblown. Russia's assault on Georgia may produce no measurable change of its Iran policy. Indeed, President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia made it clear that, despite the harsh rhetoric that has been exchanged between Moscow and Washington, Russia continues to support efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The primary reason for the continuity is that both Iran and Russia are essentially satisfied with existing US-European policy of applying incremental and largely symbolic UN sanctions on Tehran. Moscow feels that as long as the diplomatic process remains in play, America is in no position to launch a military strike that could destabilize the Middle East. At the same time, the theocratic regime has increasingly adjusted to a sanctions policy whose impact is negated by increasing oil prices. Although Tehran would be grateful for a Russian veto of any future sanctions resolutions, it does seem content with a Russian policy that waters down UN mandates while deepening its commercial ties with Iran. On the one hand, Moscow has supported three previous Security Council injunctions against Iran, yet it has also signed lucrative trade deals and expanded its diplomatic representation in Iran. The incongruity of today's situation is that Russia rebukes Iran for its nuclear infractions while providing technical assistance to the Bushehr plant, which is a critical component of Iran's atomic industry. For its part, Russia is happy with the standoff between Iran and the United States. Not only does it destabilize international oil markets - keeping prices higher than they ought to be - but Iran's large natural gas reserves are effectively off-limits for European use, reinforcing the continent's dependency on Moscow. At the same time, as Iran strengthens its economic links with key Asian powers, it makes it more dependent on Russia and China for its critical trade and investments. Russia can only benefit from Iran's gradual reorientation toward the East. All this is not to suggest that Iran has not benefited from the Russian-Georgian conflagration, but that those advantages have been subtle. Tehran is using the Georgian crisis as a cautionary lesson to the Persian Gulf states. From its podiums and platforms, the message emanating from the Islamic Republic is that the Georgians mistakenly accepted American pledges of support only to pay a heavy price for their naivet?. The Gulf sheikdoms who similarly put much stock in US security assurances would be wise to come to terms with their populous and powerful Persian neighbor. In a region where America is viewed as unpredictable and unreliable, this message has a powerful resonance. The contours of Russia's policy became obvious in the recent meeting of the Shanghi Cooperation Organization. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was unable to persuade Moscow and its partners to extend security guarantees to Tehran, or to gain Russian support for switching oil pricing from dollars to euros. Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov continued to urge Iran to be flexible and negotiate a restraint on its nuclear activities. Yet, Moscow also declared support for Iran's nuclear activities that were designed for peaceful purposes. Given the fact that technologies employed for civilian use can be the basis of a military program, it is hard to see the utility of Russia's latest pronouncement. What this means? Russia is not interested in playing an active role in resolving the Iran crisis on terms America will find acceptable. If the next president is going to solve the Iranian nuclear conundrum, he must appreciate that the UN process has reached its limits, and that the only manner of moving forward is for Washington to engage in direct negotiations with Tehran. Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Nikolas Gvosdev is a member of the faculty of the US Naval War College. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Sep 6 03:42:34 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:42:34 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Obama and the Mining Cartel Message-ID: <48C2508A.4020308@attglobal.net> The Senator's Golden Western Strategy by Steve Conn www.counterpunch.org (August 23-24 2008) A few days ago, Fairbanks Mayor Jim Whitaker co-authored an Anchorage Daily News piece in favor of the mining industry's $6 million to $8 million war to put down ballot measure Proposition 4. Then he was invited to speak at the Democratic National convention. It is no coincidence that Obama invited Whitaker to the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week. More than Whitaker's Republican credential is at play. Obama has made friendship with Big Mining part of his Western state strategy. There's gold in them there hills! Political gold for Obama! As every reader of the Alaska Dispatch knows, Proposition 4 targets the Pebble Mine and its monstrous proposal to build earthquake-proof dams bigger than Hoover or Grand Coulee from mine tailings to hold back toxic lakes that could poison the Bristol Bay fishery. Proposition 4, by its language, would ban large metal mines from discharging harmful amounts of toxic chemicals into salmon streams or drinking water supplies. Proposition 4, by its language, would ban large metal mines from discharging harmful amounts of toxic chemicals into salmon streams or drinking water supplies. {1} This insane project is opposed by Alaska environmentalists, bringing as it does to the Great Land, Alaska's own version of what they call in West Virginia, "mountaintop removal". But the mining industry, apparently flush with cash, looks beyond this travesty. It sees Proposition 4 as a nefarious plot to restrict mining everywhere in the state, and it now is flooding the airwaves and print media with a torrent of red herrings, from an attack on the rich boys who use the area as a playground with their own secret, six-figure slush fund, to the measure's unknown fate on future jobs and future mining projects. State and federal candidates are mostly silent. Both NANA Corporation and Willie Hensley, father of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, are adamant that the initiative could devalue claims settlement land and Red Dog's expansion. Subsistence and commercial fishing are pawns. Mayor Whitaker was invited to speak at the Obama-orchestrated Democratic convention as part of Obama's strategy to slide Alaska into his electoral pocket, a winning national strategy, this after Ann Hayes's IBEW-funded poll that showed the presidential race to be a close one. But contributions from friends of mining and the Native corporations to aid his national campaign could be a secondary benefit, win or lose in Alaska. More than a Republican-turned-Obama supporter, Obama has recruited a spokesperson for the mining industry's effort to crush the initiative, it with a mere two year shelf-life, against a strip mine and a toxic threat to a world-class fishery. Where does Obama really stand on mining and its costly aftermath? Research (apparently not accomplished by Seattle-based Timothy Egan in Thursday's New York Times op-ed on Obama and his strategy to woo Western voters) shows that Obama curried favor with miners in both Nevada and Idaho during primary season by opposing statutory amendments proposed to a 1872 giveaway tax law (long termed "corporate welfare" by both Ralph Nader and the Cato Institute). The federal government gets zilch from mining on its land, not even enough to cover clean up costs. The General Mining Law of 1872, wrote Ralph Nader, "is a relic of efforts to settle the West allows mining companies to claim federal lands for $5 an acre or less and then take gold, silver, lead or other hard-rock minerals with no royalty payments to the public treasury. Thanks to the anachronistic 1872 Mining Act, mining companies, including foreign companies, extract billions of dollars worth of minerals a year from federal lands, royalty free. Change is regularly blocked by Western lawmakers." Now Obama has joined the club long peopled by the likes of Don Young. In late 2007, according to CBS, A House-passed bill would have imposed a royalty of four percent of gross revenue on existing hard-rock mining operations and eight percent of gross revenue on new mining operations. The reform bill would have put new environmental controls on hard-rock mining, set up a cleanup fund for abandoned mines and permanently ban cheap sales of public lands for mining, according to CBS. CBS reported: "Obama said the legislation, favored by environmentalists, 'places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs'. He also opposes the proposed fees." Just as he has shifted his position on offshore drilling, he has telegraphed his willingness to be negotiable on mining. He appears to assume that environmentalists will forgive and forget, both in Alaska and nationally, if his chosen symbol of Alaskan Republican support at the Denver convention is also a shill for an Alaskan environmental disaster waiting to happen. After all, the "Vote No to Ballot Initiative 4" is backed with mining dollars for votes far in excess of mining contributions to the presidential race of either candidate {2}. Links: {1} A description by Anchorage Daily News's Bluemink is a must read:- http://eyeonpebblemine.org/wp-content/uploads/pebble-proposes-vast-dams-for-waste.pdf {2} http://www.opensecrets.org/ _____ Steve Conn is a retired professor of justice at the University of Alaska, and former director of Alaska Public Interest Research Group. He lived in Alaska from 1972 to 2007 and is now based in Point Roberts, Washington. He recently helped collect more than 5,900 signatures from Alaskan voters to put Ralph Nader on the 2008 Alaska Presidential ballot. He can be reached at: steveconn at hotmail.com. http://www.counterpunch.org/conn08232008.html 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 03:43:52 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:43:52 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Ukraine's Coalition Splits Over Powers, Georgia War Message-ID: Excellent. -- Yoshie Ukraine's Coalition Splits Over Powers, Georgia War (Update2) By Daryna Krasnolutska Sept. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's party quit the ruling coalition in a move that may lead to new elections with a campaign focused on reaction to Russia's conflict with Georgia. Yushchenko's allies have accused his one-time political partner Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko of "treason'' for failing to condemn Russia, which has a naval base in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. Timoshenko yesterday joined pro-Russian former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych's party in a vote to curtail presidential powers. The president today condemned the two leaders and accused them of staging a "political, anti-constitutional coup.'' Russian designs on Ukraine became an increasing concern in the West after it rolled over Georgia's army and recognized the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia last month. The U.S. suggested that Russia may next pose a threat to Ukraine, a conduit for natural gas exports to Europe, which wants to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union. "The coalition collapse may bring on early national elections as all of the big parties may see some benefits,'' said Oleksandr Lytvynenko, a political analyst at Kiev-based Razumkov Center in a phone interview today. "We may also see a new coalition, formed by Timoshenko and Yanukovych and that might explain Timoshenko's neutral position on the Russian-Georgian conflict.'' 'Territorial Integrity' Timoshenko, who is due to meet Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Moscow this month, has said she supports Georgia's "territorial integrity,'' though her party refused to back a resolution condemning Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. That prompted Yushchenko to issue a statement demanding "Ukraine's parliament give a clear view on what happened in Georgia,'' a former Soviet republic like Ukraine. Yushchenko and Timoshenko swept to power in the 2004 Orange Revolution promising to forge deeper ties with the West and become less dependent on Russia. The two have since had a series of disputes over the sale of state assets and ways to fight inflation. Yushchenko first appointed Timoshenko as prime minister in 2005. He fired her several months later, saying economic growth slowed under her rule. Yushchenko tried to make a deal with Yanukovych in August 2006 but then dissolved parliament, accusing the pro-Russian politician of trying to oust him. Timoshenko returned as prime minister in December 2007 after her block and Yushchenko's party won a combined 228 seats in the 450-member parliament in an election in the nation of 46 million people that is similar in size to France. Legal Moves Timoshenko and Yanukovych's lawmakers voted yesterday to strip Yushchenko of the right to reject a candidate for the post of prime minister, the right to appoint a head of the State Intelligence Service and loosened presidential impeachment procedures. "Every law that was voted in the parliament contradicts Ukraine's constitution,'' Arseniy Yatsenyuk, speaker of parliament and a member of Yushchenko's party, said yesterday in a statement on parliament's Web site. "Unfortunately, we faced collusion. Political forces made a new configuration.'' Timoshenko today rejected the accusation of betrayal in a statement on her party's Web site. Under the constitution, the president can dissolve the legislature and call general elections if parties fail to form a coalition within a month. "The vote shows Timoshenko's strategy is to make her government independent ahead of 2010 presidential elections,'' said Lytvynenko. All three party leaders are expected to run in the next presidential election and officials in Yushchenko's office have said Timoshenko is trying to secure Russian support before the presidential election, a charge she denies. Ukraine's eastern region and Crimean peninsula are dominated by Russian-speakers who oppose Yushchenko's goal of leading the country into NATO. To contact the reporter on this story: Daryna Krasnolutska in Kiev at dkrasnolutsk at bloomberg.net. Last Updated: September 3, 2008 06:01 EDT Ukraine's coalition on brink of collapse By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev Published: September 3 2008 10:04 | Last updated: September 3 2008 20:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysts have said, and polls have shown, that in the event of an election now, Our Ukraine would lose seats, while both Tymoshenko's Bloc and the [Moscow-leaning] Regions party would gain. Fears for Ukraine as pro-west coalition fails By Roman Olearchyk and Stefan Wagstyl Published: September 4 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 4 2008 03:00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An early parliamentary poll could cost Mr Yushchenko's party dearly as it is far behind the Tymoshenko and Yanukovich parties in opinion polls. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 03:55:02 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:55:02 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Burma's Junta Gave Best Help in Cyclone, Says UN Message-ID: Burma's junta gave best help in cyclone, says UN By Andrew Jack in London Published: September 4 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 4 2008 03:00 The Burmese authorities were by far the greatest providers of medical assistance to its population after cyclone Nargis despite the widespread international criticism of a poor response by the military junta, according to an analysis released yesterday. A report summarised in the latest issue of the World Health Organisation's Bulletin says government doctors, nurses and midwives were far more active in offering treatment and medicines to cyclone survivors than non-governmental organisations and individual volunteers. The findings partially contradict perceptions based on the reluctance of the Burmese authorities to reveal the extent of the crisis and its slowness in allowing foreign official and private charitable assistance to help with relief operations. While there were widespread unmet medical needs after the cyclone in May, Richard Garfield from the WHO's health and nutrition tracking service, who co-ordinated the study, said: "We discovered to our surprise because of such bad PR that there was large-scale mobilisation by government around the country." Although the study was conducted on behalf of the Burmese authorities, the UN and Asean, Mr Garfield insisted that the findings were objective. The study, which covered nearly 3,000 households most affected by Nargis in south-west Burma, also identified that among the survivors, diarrhoea and the common cold were by far the most widespread problems, rather than trauma, wounds and more serious infectious diseases such as cholera, as some experts had warned. Of the 85,000 estimated killed and a further 54,000 missing after the cyclone last May, there were twice as many women who died as men. That confirms for the first time anecdotal evidence never previously quantified from other natural disasters, including the 2004 Asian tsunami which claimed more than 200,00 lives. Mr Garfield said the reasons included the fact that many women in the region had never learned to swim, were killed while trying to save their children, or were too weak to hold on to trees and other objects to keep them safe over long periods until water levels dropped. He said one set of lessons from Nargis should be the introduction of swimming lessons for women, and family evacuation training designed to encourage men to look after older children - which requires greater strength - while women should care for babies. The study also found that the most effective assistance came from countries near Burma. "It was more culturally appropriate and got there in time," he said. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 09:41:27 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:41:27 -0700 Subject: [R-G] St.Paul War Zone, My experiences tonight Message-ID: <200809061541.m86FfRbc008076@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/381bc526/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 09:43:12 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:43:12 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Muslims feel like 'Jews of Europe' Message-ID: <200809061543.m86FhChx009870@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/e67596c1/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 09:42:05 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:42:05 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Lessons: New Orleans Battles Mutant American Government Message-ID: <200809061542.m86Fg5Qa008961@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/9d623c66/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 09:44:34 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:44:34 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Is this the way? Message-ID: <200809061544.m86FiYWN010856@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/05cca5cd/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 14:37:26 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:37:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Amy Goodman talks about her arrest outside Republican convention Message-ID: <200809062037.m86KbQYb009629@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/515bf57e/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 14:42:49 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:42:49 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Urgent! Demand Phony Charges Against RNC protesters be dropped immediately! Message-ID: <200809062042.m86Kgna4015357@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/5d051a1b/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 6 15:07:31 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:07:31 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Democracy Now! Journalists Facing Charges for Reporting on the Republican National Convention (fwd) Message-ID: <200809062107.m86L7VpF008000@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080906/3f1a5ca0/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Sep 6 20:22:17 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:22:17 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy Message-ID: <48C33AD9.50100@attglobal.net> An Interview with Michael Hudson by Mike Whitney www.counterpunch.com (August 29 2008) Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist specializing in the balance of payments and real estate at the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase & Company), Arthur Anderson, and later at the Hudson Institute (no relation). In 1990 he helped established the world's first sovereign debt fund for Scudder Stevens & Clark. Dr Hudson was Dennis Kucinich's Chief Economic Advisor in the recent Democratic primary presidential campaign, and has advised the US, Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new edition, Pluto Press, 2002) Mike Whitney: The United States current account deficit is roughly $700 billion. That is enough "borrowed" capital to pay the yearly $120 billion cost of the war in Iraq, the entire $450 billion Pentagon budget, and Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Why does the rest of the world keep financing America's militarism via the current account deficit or is it just the unavoidable consequence of currency deregulation, "dollar hegemony" and globalization? Michael Hudson: The United States Treasury presently owes $3.5 trillion to foreign central banks. There is no way it can pay this off, even if it had any intention of doing so. So foreign sales of exports - and also of their companies and technology - is a gratis gift to the United States, as is foreign receipt of the dollars thrown off by our international military spending. As I explained in Super Imperialism, central banks in other countries buy dollars not because they think dollar assets are a "good buy", but because their currencies will rise against the dollar if they do NOT recycle their trade surpluses and US buyout spending and military spending by buying US Treasury, Fannie Mae and other bonds. A currency rise would price their exporters out of dollarized world markets. It is this threat of beggar-my-neighbor currency depreciation that enables the United States to spend abroad and get a free international ride without constraint. Other countries do have an array of economic responses available, to be sure. These include: (1) capital controls to block further dollar inflows (foreign central banks would have to approve sales of domestic firms to US buyers or major exports to dollar-area payers); (2) floating tariffs against imports from dollarized economies (the tariff would be equal to the dollar's depreciation against their own currency; this is how the United States protected itself from low-priced German exports when that nation's currency buckled in 1921 as a result of its reparations tribute); (3) buyouts of US investments in dollar-recipient countries (Europe and Asia would use their central bank dollar holdings to buy out US private investments at book value); and (4) subsidized exports to dollarized economies with depreciating currency These are the kind of similar responses that the United States would adopt if it were in the position of a payments-surplus economy facing payments from a fiat-currency country. In a symmetrical world, Europe and Asia would treat the United States in much the way that its Washington Consensus boys treat Third World debtors: buy out their raw materials and other key sectors, including their basic infrastructure, their export plantations, and their government policy makers as well. Whitney: Economist Henry Liu said in his article "Dollar hegemony enables the US to own indirectly but essentially the entire global economy by requiring its wealth to be denominated in fiat dollars that the US can print at will with little in the way of monetary penalties ... World trade is now a game in which the US produces fiat dollars of uncertain exchange value and zero intrinsic value, and the rest of the world produces goods and services that fiat dollars can buy at 'market prices' quoted in dollars". Is Liu overstating the case or have the Federal Reserve and western banking elites really figured out how to maintain imperial control over the global economy simply by ensuring that most energy, commodities, and manufactured goods are denominated in dollars? If that's the case, then it would seem that the actual "face-value" of the dollar does not matter as much as long as it continues to be used in the purchase of commodities. Is this right? Hudson: Henry Liu and I have been discussing this for many years now. We are in agreement, and his Asia Times articles provide a running analysis of dollar hegemony. The paragraph you quote is quite right. Whitney: What is the relationship between stagnant wages for workers and the current credit crisis? If workers wages had kept up with the rate of production, isn't it less likely that we would be in the jam we are today? And, if that is true, then shouldn't we be more focused on re-unionizing the labor force instead looking for solutions from the pathetic Democratic Party? Hudson: The credit crisis derives from "the magic of compound interest", that is, the tendency of debts to keep on doubling and redoubling. Every rate of interest can be expressed as a doubling time. (See the "Rule of 72".) No "real" economy's production and economic surplus can keep up with this tendency of debt to grow even faster. So the financial crisis would have occurred regardless of wage levels. For example, in today's economic march into debt peonage, running up mortgage debt to afford the inflated price of home ownership tends to absorb all the homebuyer's disposable personal income. If wages would have risen more rapidly, the price of housing would simply have risen faster, because employees would have had more take-home pay to pledge to carry larger mortgages. The silver lining of stagnant wages was to help keep the price of houses down to merely stratospheric levels, not ionospheric ones. Labor unions haven't been much help in solving the housing crisis. In Germany where I am right now, unions have sponsored co-ops at low membership costs, as they used to do in New York City. So housing only absorbs about twenty percent of German family budgets, compared to twice that in the United States. Imagine what could be done if pension funds had put their money into housing for their contributors instead of into the stock market to buy and bid up prices for the stocks that CEOs and other insiders were selling. "Labor capitalism" via pension-fund capitalism (which seems to be a "final stage" of finance capitalism) has been a failure, especially now that you see private and public-sector pension funds folding. The idea that pension funds could help workers by promoting finance capitalism in destroying industrial capitalism and its employment functions was one of the great deceptions of our epoch. Whitney: When politicians or members of the foreign policy establishment talk about "integrating" Russia or China into the "international system"; what exactly do they mean? Do they mean the dollar-dominated system governed by the Fed, the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO? Do countries compromise their national sovereignty when they participate in the US-led economic system? Hudson: "Integrating" means absorbing - something like a parasite integrating a host into its own control system. WTO and IMF rules prohibit other countries from getting rich in the way that the United States did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Only the United States is permitted to subsidize its agriculture, thanks to its unique right to grandfather in its price supports. Only the United States is free from having to raise interest rates to stabilize its balance of payments, so that only it can devote its monetary policy to promoting easy credit and asset-price inflation. And only the United States can run a military deficit, obliging foreign central banks in dollar-recipient countries to give it a free ride. In other words, there is no free lunch for other countries, only for the United States. Other countries do indeed give up their national sovereignty by joining the US-sponsored globalization institutions as they become more neocon and neoliberal. The United States never has adjusted its economy to create equilibrium with other countries. But to be fair, this is simply because only the United States is acting fully and totally in its own self-interest. Other countries simply are not "playing the game". That is the problem. They are not acting as real governments. When one party gets a free ride it takes two to tango - an enabler as well as an abuser. The leading foreign governments have become enablers of US economic aggression. Whitney: What do you think the Bush administration's reaction would be if a smaller country, like Switzerland, had sold hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless mortgage-backed securities to investment banks, insurance companies and investors in the United States? Wouldn't there be litigation and a demand that the responsible parties be held accountable? So, how do you explain the fact that China and the EU nations, that were the victims of this gigantic swindle, haven't boycotted US financial products or called for reparations? Hudson: International law is not clear on financial fraud. Caveat emptor is still the rule. Foreign investors took a risk in trusting a deregulated US financial market that makes it easiest to make money via financial fraud. Ultimately, foreign countries joined their US counterparts in putting their faith in neoliberal deregulation. England is now in the same mess. Financial accountability was supposed to lie with US accounting firms and credit rating agencies. But what they wanted was to maximize profits, and this was done by "giving the customers what they want". And they wanted to promote the economic fiction of solvency, just as the United States wants to pretend that foreign dollar holdings are payable, while cities and states here pretend that they can pay the pensions they have offered their public-sector workers. Foreign investors were so ideologically blinded by free market rhetoric (imposed at gunpoint in countries like Chile where the free-market boys had the strongest hand) that they actually believed the fantasies being promoted about "self-regulation" and self-regulating markets tending toward equilibrium, rather than the real-world tendency toward financial and economic polarization in which fraud was the fastest way to wealth and? "Behind every great fortune is a great crime", as Honore de Balzac put it. In other words, most foreign investors lack a realistic body of economic theory to match that of French novelists a century ago. The United States may simply argue that they should take responsibility for their bad investment, just as US pension funds and other investors are told to do. Whitney: The Congress recently passed a bill that gives Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson the unprecedented authority to use as much money as he needs to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvent. Paulson assured the Congress that he wouldn't need more than $25 billion but, the 400 page bill allows him to increase the national debt by $800 billion. How will the Fannie/Freddie bailout affect the dollar and the budget deficit? Are interest rates likely to skyrocket because of this action? Hudson: Interest rates are not going to skyrocket, because the Fed can flood the economy with money, Alan Greenspan-style, and other countries don't want to see the market value of their bonds and stocks reduced by high discount rates. At this point nobody really knows what will happen to FNMA and Freddie Mac's stock, but their bonds and packaged mortgages will be supported. The Fed already has provided over $5 trillion of credit guarantees, as I've explained in my Counterpunch articles. In conjunction with the $2 to $3 trillion costs of the Oil War in Iraq, this attempt to reflate real estate and financial markets should put in perspective the government's absurd claims that there is no money to pay Social Security because in another half century or so the system will run up a (mere) $1 trillion deficit. That being said, it looks like the mortgage and financial crisis will get much, much worse over the coming year. We are just heading into the storm where adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) are scheduled to reset at higher rates, and where US banks have to roll over their existing debts in a market where foreign investors fear (quite correctly) that these banks already have no net worth left. The principle at work here is "Big fish eat little fish". Wall Street will be bailed out, and banks will be allowed to "earn their way out of debt" as they did after 1980, by exploiting retail customers, above all credit-card customers and individual borrowers. There will be many bankruptcies, and people will suffer more than ever before because of the harsh pro-creditor bankruptcy law that Congress (under Joe Biden's sponsorship, along with that of McCain advisor Phil Gramm) passed at the behest of the bank lobbyists. Whitney: A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial which said that they could imagine two nightmare scenarios if the current credit crisis was not handled properly; either there would be a run on the dollar causing a sudden plunge in its value, or the unexpected failure of a major financial institution could send the stock market crashing. Last week, the former head of the IMF Kenneth Rogoff triggered a sell-off on Wall Street when he said, "We're not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we're going to see a whopper; we're going to see a big one - one of the big investment banks or big banks". What happens if Rogoff is right and Merrill, Citi or Lehman go belly up? Is that enough to send the stock market freefalling? Hudson: Not necessarily. Citibank could well be nationalized, then sold off. The principle should be that if a bank is "too big to fail", it should be broken up. Even Citibank shareholders think that it has a greater breakup value than overall market value at this point. Reform should start with a repeal of the Clinton Administration's repeal of Glass-Steagall. "Small is beautiful" is as true for the financial sector as for the rest of the world. Lehman Brothers may be given the Bear Stearns treatment and sold off, probably to a hedge fund. Merrill is much larger, but it also could be parceled out. The stock market's financial index would plunge, but not necessarily industrial stock prices. Whitney: According to MarketWatch: "In the three months from April to June, banks posted their second worst earnings performance since 1991 ... Earnings for the quarter totaled just $5 billion, compared with $36.8 billion a year ago, a decline of 86.5%". Also, according to a front page article in the Wall Street Journal: "financial institutions will have to pay off at least $787 billion in floating rate notes and other medium term obligations before the end of 2009". How are the banks going to pay off nearly $800 billion ($200 billion by December!) when they only earned a measly $5 billion in the quarter! And how can the Federal Reserve keep the banking system functioning when earnings don't even cover current liabilities? Do the banks have some secret source of revenue we don't know about or is the system headed for disaster? Hudson: The banks don't have a secret source of revenue. It's right out in the open. They will take their junk mortgages to the Federal Reserve and borrow the money at full face value. The government will be left with the junk. In this way the traditional way to pay debt is with yet MORE debt. The interest due is simply added on to the principal, so that the debt grows exponentially. This is the real meaning of "the magic of compound interest". It means not only that savings left to accumulate interest keep on doubling and redoubling, debts do too, because the savings that are lent out on the "asset" side of the creditor's balance sheet (today, that of America's wealthiest ten percent) become debts on the "liabilities" side of the balance sheet (America's "bottom ninety percent"). The government can either take over an insolvent bank, as the Bank of England did with Northern Rock when it went bankrupt early this year, or it can let the bank "earn" money by stiffing its customers some more. Guess which solution the lobbyists are paying Congressmen to approve! Whitney: From 2000 to 2006, the total retail value of housing in the United States doubled, going from roughly $11 trillion to $22 trillion in just six years. For the last 200 years, housing has barely kept pace with the rate of inflation, usually increasing two to three percent per year. The Federal Reserve's low interest rates were the main cause of this unprecedented housing bubble and, yet, ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan still denies any responsibility for what The Economist calls "the largest bubble in history". Did Greenspan understand the problems he was creating with his "loose" monetary policies or was there some ulterior motive to his actions? Hudson: Greenspan simply didn't care about the financial depth charges he was laying. He saw his job as what it had been when he was a Wall Street consultant-for-hire: a cheerleader for special interests seeking to get rich fast. These had been his major clients in his years on Wall Street, and he saw himself as their servant, like a pilot fish for sharks. Mr Greenspan's idea of "wealth creation" was to take the line of least resistance and inflate asset prices. He thought that the way to enable the economy to carry its debt overhead was to inflate asset prices so that debtors could borrow the interest falling due by pledging collateral (real estate, stocks and bonds) that were rising in market price. This required an official Fed policy of asset-price inflation - a financial free ride. To Mr Greenspan's petty bourgeois Ayn-Rand view of the world, any given way of making money was as economically and socially productive as any other way of doing so. Buying a property and waiting for its price to inflate was deemed as productive as investing in new means of production. If balance-sheet assets rose faster than debts, then net worth rose - "wealth creation". Ever since his days as co-founder of NABE (the National Association of Business Economists), Greenspan has looked at GNP and the national balance sheet as the two key economic indicators. Alas, they are fatally "value-free". This is his intellectual and conceptual limitation. He wanted to provide a way for savvy investors to get rich, and the easiest way to get rich is to be passive and get a free lunch. His ideology led him to believe the "free market" patter talk about the financial sector being self-regulating and hence acting honestly. The reality is that he opened the floodgates to financial crooks. His set of measures did not distinguish between Countrywide Financial getting rich (Mr Mozilo became the seventh-highest paid CEO in America) and Enron getting rich, as compared to General Motors or other industrial companies expanding their means of production. The economy was being hollowed out under his watch, but this didn't appear in the measures he watched from his perch at the Federal Reserve. So just as journalists and the mass media proclaim every market downturn as "surprising" and "unexpected", Mr greenspan was as clueless as a lemming running headlong over the cliff. It's an inherent instinct for free-market boys. To see a problem is like being a "premature anti-fascist" was in the 1930s - not what team players want to do. Whitney: The housing market is freefalling, setting new records every day for foreclosures, inventory, and declining prices. The banking system is in even worse shape; undercapitalized and buried under a mountain of downgraded assets. There seems to be growing consensus that these problems are not just part of a normal economic downturn, but the direct result of the Fed's monetary policies. Are we seeing the collapse of the Central banking model as a way of regulating the markets? Do you think the present crisis will strengthen the existing system or make it easier for the American people to assert greater control over monetary policy? Hudson: What do you mean "failure"? Your perspective is from the bottom looking up. But the financial model has been a great success from the vantage point of the top of the economic pyramid looking down. The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest ten percent now own 85% of the nation's wealth. Never before have the bottom ninety percent been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy by comparison. From their point of view, their power has exceeded that of any time in which economic statistics have been kept. You have to realize that the economy's financial managers are trying to roll back the Enlightenment, reverse the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They're not trying to make the economy more equal. Their focus is short-term, because finance always lives in the short run, and their greed is (as Aristotle noted long ago) infinite. What you see as a violation of traditional values is actually a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it's the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies to free a new feudal-type elite from oversight. The former Soviet Union provides a model of what the neoliberals would like to create here. Not only in Russia but also in the Baltic States and other former Soviet republics, they created local kleptocracies. In Russia, the kleptocrats founded a Pinochetista party, the Party of Right Forces ("Right" as in right-wing), with made-in-America neoliberal rhetoric and euphemisms. For the American people or any other people to assert greater control over monetary policy, they need to have a doctrine of just what a good monetary policy is and would be. Early in the 19th century the followers of Saint Simon in France began to develop such a policy. By the end of that century most of Central Europe implemented this policy, mobilizing the banking and financial system to promote industrialization, in consultation with the government (and catalyzed by military and naval spending, to be sure). But this has disappeared from the history of economic thought, which no longer is taught to economics students. The Chicago Boys have succeeded in censoring any alternative to their free-market rationalization of asset stripping and economic polarization. I would like to make central banks part of the Treasury instead of what it is at present - the board of directors of a rapacious commercial banking system. I think Henry Liu has come to a similar conclusion in his Asia Times articles. Whitney: Do you see the Federal Reserve as an economic organization designed primarily to maintain order in the markets via interest rates and regulation, or a political institution whose objectives are to impose an American-dominated model of capitalism on the rest of the world? Hudson: Shirley you jest! The Fed has turned "maintaining order" into a euphemism for consolidating power by the financial sector and the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) over the "real" economy of production and consumption. Its leaders see their job as being to act on behalf of the banking system to enable it to make money off the rest of the economy. It acts as the Board of Directors to fight regulation, support Wall Street, block any revival of anti-usury laws, and to promote "free markets" almost indistinguishable from outright financial fraud, to decriminalize bad behavior. But since Mr Greenspan the Fed's job has been to inflate the price of property relative to the wages of labor and even relative to the profits of industry. The class war is back in business. Internationally, the Fed's job is not really to impose the Washington Consensus on the rest of the world. That's assigned to the World Bank and IMF, coordinated via the Treasury (most notoriously by Robert Rubin in Russia, under Clinton) and AID, along with the covert actions of the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy. You don't need monetary policy to do this - only massive bribery, euphemized as "lobbying" and the promotion of democratic values via NGOs whose job is to fight any government's power to regulate or control finance. Financial power is inherently cosmopolitan and, as such, antagonistic to the power of national governments. The Fed and other government agencies, Wall Street and the rest of the economy form part of an overall system. Each agency must be viewed in the context of this system and its dynamics - and these dynamics are polarizing, above all from financial causes. So making the "magic of compound interest" systemic involves expanding to promote "free" credit creation and arbitraging. None of this appears in the academic curriculum. The silence of the major media to address it or even to acknowledge it means that it is invisible except to the beneficiaries who are running the system. http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney08292008.html 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/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sun Sep 7 06:37:40 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 06:37:40 -0600 Subject: [R-G] A little on Movement writing [e.g. Taylor Branch and the civil rights struggle] Message-ID: <001401c910e6$8623b7a0$0400a8c0@computer> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: I've been having a friendly exchange with a younger person interested in the treatment of the Civil Rights Movement by writers -- with especial reference to Taylor Branch. This my summing-up on that dimension. Among other sources, I referred him to these links on our website: http://hunterbear.org/jackson.htm http://hunterbear.org/MOVEMENT%20WRITING%20IDAHO%20TO%20DIXIE.htm http://hunterbear.org/MOVEMENT%20WRITING%20YET%20AGAIN.htm Thanks for the note, M,, and I am glad I was able to connect despite the limitations of AOL. I think I've probably said about all I can -- at least at this point -- regarding Taylor Branch and his work. The webpage links I initially gave you sum up my view -- and that of some others -- pretty well. As I indicated, I have a good deal of Southern Movement material on our large website -- some of it listed on the upper region of our Directory/Index. Among other things, there is stuff on Medgar Evers -- and also a rather long and detailed "life interview" with me on my organizing work in many settings over many decades. That interview has much detail on the Jackson Movement. And there is much more on our large site. I think, in sum, that Taylor Branch is focused primarily on "publicly recognized" "bigger" names -- especially Martin King and the Kennedys. He was/is also wary of left radicialism in general -- that's quite obvious. I think he was/is definitely committed to a "respectable" treatment of those turbulent times and it worked in the sense that that approach sold many books and drew positive reviews from mainline media. But, since he had neither personal involvement as participant or participant observer, and he carried his inhibitions, his work is limited [in the opinion of many of us, anyway] as far as value and certainly enduring value. If you take his approach as a kind of introductory -- but limited -- overview, then -- again in my opinion anyway -- you are on solid ground. He misses much, probably some inadvertently and even more deliberately. He certainly gave the Jackson Movement, and its many profound ramifications, at best a mere sketch -- missing its very rich and significant internal life. I think you are on solid ground in looking at other books and I'd suggest oral histories -- especially the words of people who actually "did" things. A rough analogy in this matter would be the American labor movement and its treatment. The books by the actual organizers are the ones that have endured over the many decades. Anyway, good luck and all the best. As Ever, Hunter [Hunter Bear] HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 07:52:49 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 09:52:49 -0400 Subject: [R-G] White House Unveils $1 Billion Georgia Aid Plan Message-ID: September 4, 2008 White House Unveils $1 Billion Georgia Aid Plan By STEVEN LEE MYERS BAKU, Azerbaijan ? President Bush proposed $1 billion in humanitarian and economic assistance on Wednesday to help rebuild Georgia after its short, disastrous war with Russia last month, but he stopped short of committing the United States to re-equipping its battered military. Mr. Bush announced the infusion of aid as Vice President Dick Cheney arrived here in what he described as a demonstration that the United States had "a deep and abiding interest" in keeping Georgia and other neighboring states free from a new era of Russian domination. The aid ? along with Mr. Cheney's high-profile visit to a region the Russians call "the near abroad" ? is sure to inflame tensions further. Russia's leaders have openly accused the United States of having provoked the conflict by providing Georgia weapons and training for its armed forces, while encouraging its aspirations to join the NATO alliance. The new package of aid, which requires additional approval from Congress, significantly expands assistance to a country that has become ardently pro-American in recent years, though at the cost of the worst relations between the United States and Russia since the end of the cold war. The aid would dwarf the $63 million the United States provided to Georgia last year, roughly a third of it for training its soldiers, police officers and border guards. Excluding Iraq, the infusion would make Georgia one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid after Israel and Egypt. The United States has provided about $1.8 billion over all in the 17 years since Georgia gained independence from the collapsing Soviet Union. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, appearing in Washington, said that $570 million of the aid would be made available this year, while the rest would depend on approval by a new administration and a new Congress. It does not include any military aid, she and other administration officials said. The initial money, Mr. Bush said in a statement, would be used to feed and shelter tens of thousands of Georgians displaced during the fighting that began on the night of Aug. 7 when Georgia tried to establish control over a breakaway region, South Ossetia, only to be driven back by Russian forces. Mr. Bush also pledged to support its transition to a democratic market economy. "Georgia has a strong economic foundation and leaders with an impressive record of reform," Mr. Bush said in his statement. "Our additional economic assistance will help the people of Georgia recover from the assault on their country and continue to build a prosperous and competitive economy." President Dmitri A. Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin have already complained that humanitarian supplies delivered by the American Navy and Air Force were a disguise for delivering new weapons, accusations that administration officials have dismissed as baseless. The American military has so far delivered $30 million in emergency aid, including 1,200 tons of food and relief supplies like tents, delivered by 61 Air Force jets and two Navy ships plying the Black Sea. Mr. Bush also ordered federal agencies to expand trading opportunities between the United States and Georgia and to provide maritime insurance for ships docking in Georgia. "The free world cannot allow the destiny of a small independent country to be determined by the aggression of a larger neighbor," Ms. Rice said in Washington. She also took the occasion to deride the Russian recognition of South Ossetia and the other breakaway Georgia region, Abkhazia, noting that few countries had followed the Russian example. "It isn't really an impressive list to have Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognize each other," she said. The new announcement followed a pledge by the European Union this week to contribute funds to Georgia's reconstruction, and an agreement by the International Monetary Fund to provide Georgia with $750 million in financing. All of those steps have demonstrated broad international support for Georgia's government and its president, Mikheil Saakashvili, whom Mr. Medvedev called "a political corpse" this week. Still, there seemed to be little pressure the United States and European countries could exert to persuade Russia to back down in its confrontation with Mr. Saakashvili's government. Many administration officials worry that overthrowing Mr. Saakashvili's government is Russia's unwavering intention. While the administration has made its political, diplomatic and economic support for Georgia abundantly clear, however, it has yet to settle on what steps, if any, it will take to punish Russia. It has failed to do so even as American and European officials vehemently protest that Russia continues to violate a French-brokered agreement to end the fighting and withdraw Russian troops from Georgian territory. The administration is expected to announce soon that it will withdraw its support for an agreement with Russia on civil nuclear cooperation, a linchpin of Mr. Bush's nonproliferation policies, officials said, though one cautioned that a final decision had not been made. That agreement already faced skepticism in Congress, though it would still be a significant step to scuttle an international agreement that Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin hailed as an important achievement. Georgia has also pressed the administration to move quickly to rebuild its armed forces. While officials have acknowledged considering that, they have also indicated that they have reservations about adding fuel to a conflict that is far from resolved. An expanded package of humanitarian and economic assistance is not likely to face significant opposition in Congress. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee and now the Democratic vice presidential candidate, has already expressed support for a sizable aid package. Mr. Cheney directly challenged Russia's dismissal of Georgia's elected leader here in Azerbaijan on Wednesday, the first of three stops to bolster the resolve of countries in the face of a newly assertive and much larger neighbor. Mr. Cheney is the highest-ranking American to visit Azerbaijan since its independence in 1991. He is scheduled to visit Georgia on Thursday, followed by Ukraine. "We met this evening in the shadow of the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, an act that has been clearly condemned by the international community," Mr. Cheney told Azerbaijan's president, Ilham Aliyev, in a meeting at the presidential residence in Zagulba Baglari on the Caspian coast. "President Bush has sent me here with a clear and simple message to the people of Azerbaijan and the entire region: The United States has deep and abiding interests in your well-being and security." Azerbaijan, like Georgia, is a former Soviet republic that has sought closer ties to the West and the United States, and it is a vital crossroads for oil and gas from the Caspian Sea and beyond that from Central Asia. Underscoring the point, Mr. Cheney's first meetings here in Baku were with representatives of two international oil companies: William Schrader of BP Azerbaijan and Robert Dastmalchi of Chevron, according to a spokeswoman, Megan M. Mitchell. Those meetings came a day after Mr. Putin announced plans for a new natural gas pipeline from Central Asia to Russia, a route that would increase Russia's role in providing natural gas to Europe. Mr. Cheney, who in 2006 accused Russia of using its natural resources as "tools of intimidation or blackmail," expressed the administration's strong support for seeking alternate routes for oil and natural gas from Central Asia and the Caspian. "The United States strongly believes that, together with the nations of Europe, including Turkey, we must work with Azerbaijan and other countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia on additional routes for energy exports that ensure the free flow of resources," he said. "Energy security is essential to us all, and the matter is becoming increasingly urgent." Peter Baker contributed reporting from St. Paul, and Helene Cooper from Washington. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Sep 7 08:13:07 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:13:07 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Pipsqueak creates crisis Message-ID: <48C3E173.2080501@attglobal.net> Georgia's attack on South Ossetia sets Russia and the US on a dangerous course by Eric Margolis www.torontosun.com (August 31 2008) Pipsqueak Georgia's harebrained and disastrous attack on tiny South Ossetia has produced a full-blown crisis pitting the US and NATO against Russia. In an act fraught with danger, US and NATO warships are delivering supplies to Georgia, watched by Russian men of war. The US Congress may soon vote $1 billion for America's embattled Georgian satellite. The western powers have resorted to fierce Cold War rhetoric. They are playing with fire. Russia has some 6,600 strategic nuclear weapons, mostly aimed at North America and Europe. Besides the US, which invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose air force just killed ninety Afghan civilians, sixty of them children, is in no position to lecture Moscow about aggression. France's conservative president, Nicolas Sarkozy, blasted Russia and shortly will hold a European summit over Georgia in Brussels. As usual, the Harper government faithfully echoed Washington's words. Poland agreed to emplace a US anti-ballistic missile system only 184 kilometers from Russia's border, provoking Moscow's fury. Ukraine and Poland are loudly backing Georgia. Russia's chief of staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky, warns his nation has the right to launch a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" against enemies, in line, he tartly noted, with the Bush administration's own policies. Topping off this war of words, two of Senator John McCain's closest right wing allies, senators Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, went to Georgia and called for "tough" measures against Moscow. They urged isolating Russia for "aggression" and admitting Ukraine and Georgia to NATO. McCain Preview McCain's allies give a good preview of what his foreign policy would look like. Lieberman and Graham, leading proponents of the US occupation of Iraq, had the chutzpah to insist, "Russia must not be allowed to control energy supplies". This ugly mess recalls how the great powers blundered into both the first and second world wars over obscure locales such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Danzig Corridor. The obvious lesson: Act with extreme caution. Few are listening as rhetoric sharpens. The Bush administration - most likely VP Dick Cheney - almost certainly planned or knew about Georgia's attack on Russian-backed South Ossetia launched under cover of the Beijing Olympics. Whether the White House was trying to inflict a quick little military victory over Moscow, or whipping up war fever at home to boost John McCain's prospects in the presidential election, is uncertain. This crisis over a mere 70,000 South Ossetians and 18,000 Abkhazians could have been resolved quietly by diplomacy. Instead, the Bush administration turned it into a major confrontation by accusing Russia of aggression. Washington, which rightly recognized the independence of Kosovo's Albanians from Serb repression, denounced Russia's recognition of Abkhaz and South Ossetian independence from Georgian repression. Meanwhile, Moscow, which crushed the life out of Chechnya's independence movement, piously claimed to be defending Ossetian independence. Things may get worse. The US is pressing Ukraine to join NATO, though half of its 48 million citizens oppose doing so. Ukraine's constitution mandates a neutral state. Russia allowed Ukraine to decamp from the Soviet Union with the understanding it would never join NATO, and allow Russia's Black Sea Fleet to operate from Crimea. Russian political expert Sergei Markov rightly notes that Washington and NATO see Ukraine as a rich new source of troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, wars from which he says NATO leaders cannot withdraw their soldiers without committing "political suicide". "Old Europe" is trying to avoid a clash with Moscow, while "new Europe" - Georgia, Poland, the Czechs, and Balts - frightened of Russia's growing power, eggs on the US-Russia confrontation. Not only did the clumsy US attempt to expand its influence into Moscow's backyard backfire badly, Washington's childish, petulant response is as inflammatory as it is powerless. The Georgian crisis and empty threats against Russia have aroused strong nationalist passions in Russia, which sees itself increasingly isolated and surrounded by the US and NATO. Nationalist hysteria, jingoism, and fevered rhetoric are coming from both sides. We saw such lunacy before: In August 1914, and September 1939. http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/08/30/pf-6619621.html 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 08:32:47 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:32:47 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Obama Says Pakistan Used U.S. Aid to Prepare for War against India Message-ID: Especially when it comes to Pakistan, Obama is as dangerous as Bush and McCain. He only encourages the Indian Right. -- Yoshie Reuters Blogs Pakistan: Now or Never? Perspectives on Pakistan September 6th, 2008 Obama says Pakistan used U.S. aid to prepare for war against India Posted by: Myra MacDonald Senator Barack Obama has accused Pakistan of misusing U.S. military aid meant to help it fight al Qaeda and the Taliban to prepare for war against India. In an interview with Fox News [LINK: ] he also says the United States must put more pressure on Pakistan to crack down on Islamist militants, hold it accountable for increased military support, and be prepared to act aggressively against al Qaeda; "if we have bin Laden in our sights, we target him and we knock him out," he says. However he adds that "nobody talked about some full-blown invasion of Pakistan." The latter part of his comments is not that new, nor indeed that different from the policies of the current U.S. administration. But it is his comment about India that has been seized upon by the media in South Asia. "We are providing them military aid without having enough strings attached. So they're using the military aid that we use, to Pakistan, they're preparing for war against India," he says. You can see the stories in The Times of India and Dawn here [LINK: ] and here [LINK: ]. Obama's charge against Pakistan serious: BJP Special Correspondent NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party on Saturday said the United States presidential nominee Barack Obama's charge against Pakistan was a serious issue and the Manmohan Singh government should take it up with the Pakistan High Commissioner here. Mr. Obama had accused Pakistan of misusing American aid for preparing for a war against India. BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad said it was known that terror attacks in Kashmir had increased recently and Bangladesh had become the new nerve centre for Islamic fundamentalists. Now Mr. Obama had made a specific charge against Pakistan. Now that Asif Ali Zardari had been elected Pakistan President, the government must take up the issue and point out that in an agreement with India, Pakistan had said it would not allow its territory to be used for terrorist activity against New Delhi. Pakistan must implement that agreement, Mr. Prasad said. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 08:44:12 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:44:12 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Venezuela, Russia to Hold Joint Military Exercises in Venezuelan Waters Message-ID: What's next? A joint naval exercise with Iran in the Persian Gulf? -- Yoshie Russian, Venezuelan navies to hold manouvers in Caribbean 07.09.2008, 06.15 CARACAS, September 7 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's warships will visit Venezuela from November 10 to November 14, the Globovision television channel reported with reference to the Venezuelan Navy on Saturday. "Russian and Venezuelan navies will hold joint manouvers in the Caribbean Sea, which will contribute to stronger friendship and cooperation," the source said. Rear Admiral Salvatore Cammarata of the Venezuelan Navy Staff stressed that the Venezuelan-Russian exercise to be held for the first time in history "is of great importance for Latin America." Venezuela, Russia to hold joint military exercises in Venezuelan waters www.chinaview.cn 2008-09-07 10:12:12 CARACAS, Sept. 6 (Xinhua) -- Venezuela and Russia will hold joint military exercises in mid-November, the first of its kind in the Americas, the Venezuelan military announced on Saturday. The Venezuelan navy and air force, together with four Russian warships with some 1,000 soldiers aboard, will participate in the exercises scheduled for Nov. 10-14 in the Venezuelan territorial waters, according to a statement from the Venezuelan military. Since Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took office, Venezuela has boosted its military cooperation with Russia. In August, Chavez said his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev planned to send a Russian fleet to visit Venezuela. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 09:15:24 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:15:24 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Sunday Times: "Vladimir Putin Set to Bait US with Nuclear Aid for Tehran" Message-ID: The Sunday Times article probably isn't true because its reports on Iran, Russia, etc. have always been full of psychological warfare based on leaks from anonymous sources. As for S-300, the threat to sell it to Iran and Syria is something the Russians have been willing to use, but if they actually sold it, they could no longer use it as a bargaining chip with the West, so they probably won't do so easily. But they may actually do so, as well as cutting the Russian route to supply NATO forces in Afghanistan, if the West doesn't cease and desist from its military advancement toward Russia. After all, Russia is holding its first joint naval exercise with Venezuela (cf. ). -- Yoshie From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 7 10:43:21 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:43:21 -0700 Subject: [R-G] It's time for some campaignin' Message-ID: <200809071643.m87GhLs9008731@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080907/03bfaba5/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 11:03:29 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:03:29 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Dick Cheney Goes to Baku, But "Ilham Aliyev Is in No Hurry to Support the Nabucco Project" Message-ID: Sep. 05, 2008 Dick Cheney Mistakenly Staked on Caspian // Ilham Aliyev is in no hurry to support the Nabucco project U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney finished his tour of the South Caucasus, which was intended to strengthen Washington's positions in its struggle for Caspian energy resources. The visit he paid to Tbilisi yesterday went smoothly as expected. However, the talks he held in Baku Wednesday failed. According to the information of Kommersant, Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev gave his American guest a cold welcome and sent a clear message that Baku won't support the idea to redirect the energy resources pipelines so that they would omit Russia. He came to that conclusion watching the developments in the neighboring Georgia. Money instead of tanks Yesterday at 11 a.m. Dick Cheney arrived from Baku in Tbilisi, where Georgia's Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze. Before the meeting of the U.S. Vice President with Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili Georgian Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaya revealed the talks' agenda to Kommersant. "First, Dick Cheney wants to demonstrate the U.S. support to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine," he said. "Second, during the negotiations the parties will discuss the security of communication lines that allow shipping the Caspian energy resources to the West omitting Russia." After the talks in the new residence of Georgia's head-of-state, Mikheil Saakashvili stated at the joint press-conference, "Georgia feels the U.S. support, which is strong as never before." The journalists had a chance to assess the strength of that support following Dick Cheney's address. The U.S. Vice President said that Washington allocates $1 billion to restore the Georgian economy. "We stand in solidarity with the people of Georgia. After your nation won its freedom in the Rose Revolution, America came to the aid of this courageous young democracy. We are doing so again, as you work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory - and an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force that has been universally condemned by the free world," the Vice President stated. "Russia's actions have cast grave doubt on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner - not just in Georgia but across this region and indeed throughout the international system." Besides, Dick Cheney reiterated that Washington fully supports Georgia's NATO ambitions. "Georgia will be in our alliance," he claimed. Nevertheless, according to the sources of Kommersant in the Georgian Chancellery, the talks of Mikheil Saakashvili and Dick Cheney didn't go as smoothly as their press-conference did. The discussion mainly focused on the security of the existing pipelines, which were laid in Georgia omitting Russia, and the project of the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline Nabucco. Dick Cheney made no secret of the fact that the U.S. is ready to provide the security of these pipelines using political methods only. So, Georgia won't get military assistance from the U.S. now. By the way, Wednesday, U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice made this position public. "It is not yet time to look at the questions of assistance on the military side," she stated in Washington. However, Mikheil Saakashvili declared ready to further support American energy projects in the region. According to the sources of Kommersant, he promised to Dick Cheney that Tbilisi will support the Nabucco project "whatever" in case the U.S. gets the approval of Georgia's neighbors, Baku, first of all. The Baku emissary Meanwhile, according to the information of Kommersant, Dick Cheney's visit to Azerbaijan he made on Wednesday turned out complete failure. The guest of honor, who came in Baku for the first time, was met neither by President Ilham Aliyev nor Prime Minister Artur Rasizade. Instead, First Deputy Prime Minister Yagub Eyubov and Foreign Office Chief Elmar Mammadyarov met Dick Cheney in the airport. As to Ilham Aliyev, he was in no hurry to receive Mr Cheney. That's why the U.S. Vice President first went to a meeting with BP President in Azerbaijan Bill Schrader and Chevron Azerbaijan top managers. Then he visited the U.S. Embassy in Baku and held a meeting with Ambassador Anne E. Derse. It was not earlier than in the evening that Dick Cheney went to the residence of Azerbaijan's President. According to the sources of Kommersant with the Office of Azerbaijan's President, the talks turned out pretty tough, in spite of the fact that Dick Cheney and Ilham Aliyev have had close ties since Mr cheney worked with Halliburton and Mr Aliyev was SOCAR (Azerbaijan's state-run oil company) Vice President. They discussed the war in Georgia and the prospects of constructing the Nabucco gas pipeline. According to the information of Kommersant, Dick Cheney informed Ilham Aliyev that the U.S. will support its allies in the region and intends to promote the project of the gas pipeline omitting Russia. Nonetheless, Ilham Aliyev sent a clear message that although he appreciates the relations with Washington, he is not going to have a row with Moscow. In fact it meant that under the present circumstances Baku decided to bide its time without fostering the Nabucco project. Kommersant interlocutors with the Presidential Office said that Dick Cheney was irritated by the outcome of the discussion ? he even refused to attend a banquet in his honor. Ilham Aliyev's reluctance to support Washington quarreling with Russia is easy to explain. Baku regrded Tbilisi's definitively losing of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well as Russia's tanks entering Georgia as a signal to everyone in the region who is willing to join NATO. Azerbaijan's budget incurs great losses: because of the explosion at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline on August 12 ? Turkey put the blame on the Kurdistan Workers Party ? and the pauses of the work of the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline and Baku-Supsa oil pipeline, energy carriers export from Azerbaijan in the western direction was suspended. At the same time Baku has no claims to Russia. Moreover, according to the information of Kommersant, Azerbaijan's authorities expressed their gratitude to the Russian Federation because during the military operation and bombardments of the Georgian territory no BTC-related facilities were destroyed. Nevertheless, Baku can't overhaul its stance towards the pipelines on the territory of Georgia. Azerbaijan is said to have increased the workload of the Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipeline. It concluded that in the present situation it's more secure to transport gas to Europe via Russia, rather than Georgia and Turkey. Even more so in June Gazprom offered to buy Azerbaijan's gas at any volumes according to the European pricing formula. During his visit to Baku in July Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ilham Aliyev agreed to launch negotiations concerning the matter. It seems the talks will be accelerated, just like the pace of Baku and Moscow's developing closer relations. The Russian leaders have already started work in this direction. In the evening after the talks of Dick Cheney and Ilham Aliyev finished, Dmitry Medvedev called Azerbaijan's President. Sources in the Kremlin explained to Kommersant the necessity of the telephone conversation with Dmitry Medvedev's desire to bring home to Ilham Aliyev, one of the region's most influential players, Russia's position regarding Georgia. Even more so Azerbaijan has a territorial dispute with Armenia, which remains unresolved. "Armenian leader Serzh Sargsyanhas recently visited Moscow and discussed the situation over South Ossetia and Abkhazia during his talks with Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian President thought it important to discuss those matters with the Azerbaijani party as well because Baku belongs neither to SCO nor CSTO ? the organizations Russia has intensified contacts with," a source in the Kremlin told Kommersant. In her turn, Press-Secretary of the Russian President Natalya Timakova told Kommersant that during their conversation the leader of Russia and Azerbaijan discussed a possibility of a meeting in the near future. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 7 11:06:59 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:06:59 -0700 Subject: [R-G] John Stewart on the Republican convention Message-ID: <200809071706.m87H6xCH027999@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080907/eb79ce0d/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 7 11:10:04 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:10:04 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Slavery Haunts America's Plantation Prisons Message-ID: <200809071710.m87HA4e4001152@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080907/87641288/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 7 11:08:53 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:08:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Impasse: Are we nearing the end of the corporate globalization era? Message-ID: <200809071708.m87H8rDq000004@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080907/0780b19a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 7 11:09:31 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:09:31 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Israel deliberately forgets its history Message-ID: <200809071709.m87H9Vpm000581@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080907/1facf85e/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 7 11:09:47 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:09:47 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Real World Order Message-ID: <200809071709.m87H9lLU000835@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080907/c1efd948/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 12:17:58 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 14:17:58 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Robert Bryce on "Energy Independence" Message-ID: March 7, 2008 First Chapter 'Gusher of Lies' By ROBERT BRYCE The Persistent Delusion Americans love independence. Whether it's financial independence, political independence, the Declaration of Independence, or grilling hotdogs on Independence Day, America's self-image is inextricably bound to the concepts of freedom and autonomy. The promises laid out by the Declaration ? life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ? are the shared faith and birthright of all Americans. Alas, the Founding Fathers didn't write much about gasoline. Nevertheless, over the past 30 years or so ? and particularly over the past 3 or 4 years ? American politicians have been talking as though Thomas Jefferson himself warned about the dangers of imported crude oil. Every U.S. president since Richard Nixon has extolled the need for energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised it could be achieved within 6 years. In 1975, Gerald Ford promised it in 10. In 1977, Jimmy Carter warned Americans that the world's supply of oil would begin running out within a decade or so and that the energy crisis that was then facing America was "the moral equivalent of war." The phrase "energy independence" has become a prized bit of meaningful-sounding rhetoric that can be tossed out by candidates and political operatives eager to appeal to the broadest cross section of voters. When the U.S. achieves energy independence, goes the reasoning, America will be a self-sufficient Valhalla, with lots of good-paying manufacturing jobs that will come from producing new energy technologies. Farmers will grow fat, rich, and happy by growing acre upon acre of corn and other plants that can be turned into billions of gallons of oil-replacing ethanol. When America arrives at the promised land of milk, honey, and supercheap motor fuel, then U.S. soldiers will never again need visit the Persian Gulf, except, perhaps, on vacation. With energy independence, America can finally dictate terms to those rascally Arab sheikhs from troublesome countries, with their burkawearing wives and dubious social values. Energy independence will mean a thriving economy, a positive balance of trade, and a stronger, better America. The appeal of this vision of energy autarky has grown dramatically since the terrorist attacks of September 11. That can be seen through an analysis of news stories that contain the phrase "energy independence." In 2000, the Factiva news database had just 449 stories containing that phrase. In 2001, there were 1,118 stories. By 2006, that number had soared to 8,069. The surging interest in energy independence can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that in the post?September 11 world, many Americans have been hypnotized by the conflation of two issues: oil and terrorism. America was attacked, goes this line of reasoning, because it has too high a profile in the parts of the world where oil and Islamic extremism are abundant. And buying oil from the countries of the Persian Gulf stuffs petrodollars straight into the pockets of terrorists like Mohammad Atta and the 18 other hijackers who committed mass murder on September 11. Americans have, it appears, swallowed the notion that all foreign oil ? and thus, presumably, all foreign energy ? is bad. Foreign energy is a danger to the economy, a danger to America's national security, a major source of funding for terrorism, and, well, just not very patriotic. Given these many assumptions, the common wisdom is to seek the balm of energy independence. And that balm is being peddled by the Right, the Left, the Greens, Big Agriculture, Big Labor, Republicans, Democrats, senators, members of the House, George W. Bush, the opinion page of the New York Times, and the neoconservatives. About the only faction that dismisses the concept is Big Oil. But then few people are listening to Big Oil these days. Environmental groups like Greenpeace and Worldwatch Institute continually tout energy independence. The idea has long been a main talking point of Amory Lovins, the high priest of the energy-efficiency movement and the CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute. One group, the Apollo Alliance, which represents labor unions, environmentalists, and other left-leaning groups, says that one of its primary goals is "to achieve sustainable American energy independence within a decade." Al Gore's 2006 documentary about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, implies that America's dependence on foreign oil is a factor in global warming. The film, which won two Academy Awards (for best documentary feature and best original song) contends that foreign oil should be replaced with domestically produced ethanol and that this replacement will reduce greenhouse gases. (In October 2007, Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.) The leading Democratic candidates for the White House in 2008 have made energy independence a prominent element of their stump speeches. Illinois senator Barack Obama has declared that "now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence." In January 2007, in the video that she posted on her Web site that kicked off her presidential campaign,New York senator Hillary Clinton said she wants to make America "energy independent and free of foreign oil." Former North Carolina senator John Edwards believes the U.S. needs "energy independence from unstable and hostile areas of the world." The Republicans are on board, too. In January 2007, shortly before Bush's State of the Union speech, one White House adviser declared that the president would soon deliver "headlines above the fold that will knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence." In February 2007, Arizona senator and presidential candidate John McCain told voters in Iowa, "We need energy independence. We need it for a whole variety of reasons." In March 2007, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani insisted that the federal government "must treat energy independence as a matter of national security." He went on, saying that "we've been talking about energy independence for over 30 years and it's been, well, really, too much talk and virtually no action. . . . I'm impatient and I'm single-minded about my goals, and we will achieve energy independence." On April 26, 2007, another Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, used the Jerusalem Post's e-mail list to conflate the issues of oil, terrorism, Israel, and energy independence in a fund-raising appeal for his presidential campaign. The e-mail message, which showed a large picture of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asked several questions, including "Do you believe that those who support terrorism against America and against the state of Israel should be held accountable?" The next question: "Do you agree that we must become energy independent and stop sending $1 billion a day to nations like Iran and Syria who use that money against us?" (Syria exports modest amounts of crude oil.) The Democratic Party, which won control of the House and Senate in the November 2006 elections, has made energy independence into a key talking point. About the time of the elections, Nancy Pelosi, the congresswoman from San Francisco who became Speaker of the House, issued the Democrats' "New Direction" agenda. The third point on that list ? right after raising the minimum wage and repealing certain tax incentives ? is "invest in research and development to promote energy independence." It says the Democrats will achieve energy independence "within ten years. We should be sending our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East. America's farmers will fuel America's energy independence." A Democratic think tank, the Center for American Progress, which was created by a group of politicos from the Clinton administration, has launched a campaign called "Kick the Oil Habit," an effort that seems to imply America can quit using oil with the same ease that a smoker might give up cigarettes. In May 2006, the group's lead spokesman, actor Robert Redford, appeared on TV talk shows and wrote opinion pieces in which he said the U.S. should quit using oil altogether so that it can get away from "dictators and despots." The solutions proposed by Redford and the Democrats: more ethanol, biofuels, and hybrid vehicles. During an appearance on CNN's Larry King Live, Redford said that he supported corn ethanol production because "it's cheaper. It's cleaner. It's renewable. And you know what? It's American because we grow it." In January 2007,Andy Grove, the former chairman of giant computer-chip maker Intel Corp., penned an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in which he decried the lack of progress toward energy independence: "Even though the importance of the energy independence issue has been recognized and emphasized by every president since 1974, our vital national objective is vanishing like a mirage in the distance." Grove went on to claim that our use of foreign energy "gives great power to other nations over our destiny." In September 2007, S. David Freeman, a longtime advocate of renewable energy who once chaired the Tennessee Valley Authority and has headed several other electric utilities, released a book called Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How. Freeman's book calls for a multidecade effort to close America's older coal and nuclear power plants while focusing on more efficient plug-in hybrid cars. A press release publicizing the book says that "Freeman charges that the reason we aren't already using more renewable energy is that the oil companies and electrical utilities have waged a slick campaign to deceive Americans." In late October 2007, a book with a similar theme ? Freedom from Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States' Oil Addiction ? rose to number 8 on the Washington Post's bestseller list. The book, by David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former official in the Clinton administration, touts the potential of plug-in hybrid cars, biofuels, and fuel efficiency to cut America's oil consumption. The front cover of the book has a blurb from Al Gore which says that when Sandalow "writes about energy and the environment, we should all pay close attention." Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans are worried about foreign oil. A March 2007 survey by Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy found that 93 percent of respondents said imported oil is a serious problem and 70 percent said it was "very" serious. That finding was confirmed by an April 2007 poll by Zogby International, which found that 74 percent of Americans believe that cutting oil imports should be a high priority for the federal government. And a majority of those surveyed said that they support expanding the domestic production of alternative fuels. The energy independence rhetoric has become so extreme that some politicians are even claiming that lightbulbs will help achieve the goal. In early 2007,U.S. Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat, introduced a bill that would essentially outlaw incandescent bulbs by requiring all bulbs in the U.S. to be as efficient as compact fluorescent bulbs. Writing about her proposal in the Huffington Post, Harman declared that such bulbs could "help transform America into an energy efficient and energy independent nation." While Harman may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, there's no question that the concept of energy independence resonates with American voters and explains why a large percentage of the American populace believes that energy independence is not only doable but desirable. But here's the problem, and the reason for this book: It's not and it isn't. Energy independence is hogwash. From nearly any standpoint ? economic, military, political, or environmental ? energy independence makes no sense. Worse yet, the inane obsession with the idea of energy independence is preventing the U.S. from having an honest and effective discussion about the energy challenges it now faces. This book focuses on the need to acknowledge, and deal with, the difference between rhetoric and reality. The reality is that the world ? and the energy business in particular ? is becoming ever more interdependent. And this interdependence will likely only accelerate in the years to come as new supplies of fossil fuel become more difficult to find and more expensive to produce. While alternative and renewable forms of energy will make minor contributions to America's overall energy mix, they cannot provide enough new supplies to supplant the new global energy paradigm, one in which every type of fossil fuel ? crude oil, natural gas, diesel fuel, gasoline, coal, and uranium ? gets traded and shipped in an ever more sophisticated global market. Regardless of the ongoing fears about oil shortages, global warming, conflict in the Persian Gulf, and terrorism, the plain, unavoidable truth is that the U.S., along with nearly every other country on the planet is married to fossil fuels. And that fact will not change in the foreseeable future, meaning the next 30 to 50 years. That means that the U.S. and the other countries of the world will continue to need oil and gas from the Persian Gulf and other regions. Given those facts, the U.S. needs to accept the reality of energy interdependence. The integration and interdependence of the global energy market can be seen by looking at Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil producer on the planet. In 2005, the Saudis imported 83,000 barrels of gasoline and other refined oil products per day. It can also be seen by looking at Iran, which imports 40 percent of its gasoline needs. Iran also imports large quantities of natural gas from Turkmenistan. If the Saudis, with their 260 billion barrels of oil reserves, and the Iranians, with their 132 billion barrels of oil and 970 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, can't be energy-independent, why should the U.S. even try? An October 2006 report by the Council on Foreign Relations put it succinctly: "The voices that espouse 'energy independence' are doing the nation a disservice by focusing on a goal that is unachievable over the foreseeable future and that encourages the adoption of inefficient and counterproductive policies." America's future when it comes to energy ? as well its future in politics, trade, and the environment ? lies in accepting the reality of an increasingly interdependent world. Obtaining the energy that the U.S. will need in future decades requires American politicians, diplomats, and businesspeople to be actively engaged with the energy-producing countries of the world, particularly the Arab and Islamic producers. Obtaining the country's future energy supplies means that the U.S. must embrace the global market while also acknowledging the practical limits on the ability of wind power and solar power to displace large amounts of the electricity that's now generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors. The rhetoric about the need for energy independence continues largely because the American public is woefully ignorant about the fundamentals of energy and the energy business. It appears that voters respond to the phrase, in part, because it has become a type of code that stands for foreign policy isolationism ? the idea being that if only the U.S. didn't buy oil from the Arab and Islamic countries, then all would be better. The rhetoric of energy independence provides political cover for protectionist trade policies, which have inevitably led to ever larger subsidies for politically connected domestic energy producers, the corn ethanol industry being the most obvious example. But going it alone with regard to energy will not provide energy security or any other type of security. Energy independence, at its root, means protectionism and isolationism, both of which are in direct opposition to America's long-term interests in the Persian Gulf and globally. Once you move past the hype and the overblown rhetoric, there's little or no justification for the push to make America energy-independent. And that's the purpose of this book: to debunk the concept of energy independence and show that none of the alternative or renewable energy sources now being hyped ? corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, wind power, solar power, coal-to-liquids, and so on ? will free America from imported fuels. America's appetite is simply too large and the global market is too sophisticated and too integrated for the U.S. to simply secede. Indeed, America is getting much of the energy it needs because it can rely on the strength of an ever-more-resilient global energy market. In 2005, the U.S. bought crude oil from 41 different countries, jet fuel from 26 countries, and gasoline from 46. In 2006, it imported coal from 11 different countries and natural gas from 6 others. American consumers in some border states rely on electricity imported from Mexico and Canada. Tens of millions of Americans get electricity from nuclear power reactors that are fueled by foreign uranium. In 2006, the U.S. imported the radioactive element from 8 different countries. Yes, America does import a lot of energy. But here's an undeniable truth: It's going to continue doing so for decades to come. Iowa farmers can turn all of their corn into ethanol, Texas and the Dakotas can cover themselves in windmills, and Montana can try to convert all of its coal into motor fuel, but none of those efforts will be enough. America needs energy, and lots of it. And the only way to get that energy is by relying on the vibrant global trade in energy commodities so that each player in that market can provide the goods and services that it is best capable of producing. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 12:52:47 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 14:52:47 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Oil Groups Face Capital Stagnation in Spite of Price Rises Message-ID: Oil groups face capital stagnation in spite of price rises By Ed Crooks Published: September 4 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 4 2008 03:00 Everyone knows that oil companies are making spectacular profits. Even John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has described their earnings as "obscene". That popular impression, however, is deeply misleading. While company profits have indeed risen to record highs as the price of oil has soared, their profitability as measured by return on capital employed has stagnated. The IHS Herold/Harrison Lovegrove study of oil and gas companies' upstream businesses found their average return on capital last year was just 1 percentage point higher than in 2004, even though the average price of oil during the year was $30 a barrel higher. With the price of oil already almost $40 a barrel off its peak over the summer, and quite possibly headed lower, the profitability of the industry could signal trouble ahead. "I think we are on the brink of some very dramatic changes," says Bob Gillon of IHS Herold, a research firm. "Demand growth has exceeded supply growth for the past four or five years, leading to a decline in the margin of spare supply capacity. If demand weakens, it will probably weaken the price of oil, and that will put the industry into a very different investment environment from the one it has been in for the past five years." Oil companies' revenues have, of course, soared in line with commodity prices over the course of the decade. But much of the benefit of those soaring revenues has not flowed through to their shareholders. Capacity shortages in the supply chain, in everything from drilling rigs to steel pipes to skilled staff, have sent costs rising in line with revenues. Services companies, which work for the oil producers, have typically done much better out of the boom in the industry. Since the start of 2004 shares in ExxonMobil, the world's biggest quoted energy company, have risen by 89 per cent. Shares in Schlumberger, the biggest quoted oil services group, are up 231 per cent. The other big winners from rising commodity prices have been the governments of resource-rich countries. Governments from Algeria to the UK have been tightening the terms on which they deal with oil companies, through tax increases, contract renegotiations, and in the most extreme cases forced transfers of assets. The IHS Herold/Harrison Lovegrove study found the companies' average revenue per barrel was $13 in 2007, the same as in 2006. Even after giving the service companies and the governments their bigger slice, oil company profits have still been rising to record levels. Their return on capital has been limited however, by the massive investment programmes these companies have been undertaking. Exxon will spend $25bn this year. David Thomas of Citigroup points out that much of the spending oil companies have been making has been on projects that are not yet in production. "These companies have been playing catch-up after the oil price collapse at the end of the 1990s. Low oil prices caused many of them to cut their capital spending, and now they are realising that to maintain production, they need to spend more. So a higher proportion of their capital is now non-productive." As the price of oil falls, some of the pressures that have squeezed profits on the way up will ease. New drilling rigs are coming into service, new engineers are being trained. But Rodney Schmidt, a managing director of Standard Chartered bank, which owns Harrison Lovegrove, warns that that may not be enough to stop profits falling. "Costs do tend to follow commodity prices, but the question is: what is the lag time," he says. "The government take has also increased around the world, and it tends to be stickier on the way down than on the way up." Colin Smith of Dresdner Kleinwort believes that as expectations about future oil prices decline, forecasts of oil companies' earnings will be cut back. High rewards Big oil companies' prospects have for years been overshadowed by their problems in getting access to resources to enable them to grow. If the oil price keeps falling, and the squeeze on profits continues, the pressure for change could be enough to prompt another round of restructuring. Mr Gillon says: "It is an industry in transition. None of the managements of the larger companies are content with zero production growth, so they are looking for ways to change their businesses. "I can see aggressive spending on organic growth, and organic spending on acquisitions." The highest returns in the world for oil and gas companies are to be found in the Asia Pacific region, Russia and the Caspian, and Africa and the Middle East, according to the IHS Herold/Harrison Lovegrove study. The lowest are in Canada, which includes the oil sands and the US. In part this may be a reflection of the risk-reward trade-off. Returns need to be higher in Russia, for example, to persuade companies to invest there when there is the risk of having assets forcibly taken over, as happened to Royal Dutch Shell with its Sakhalin II oil and gas project. However, the study's authors believe the figures also reflect the privileged positions enjoyed by companies operating in countries where resources are plentiful and costs are relatively low. Bob Gillon, of IHS Herold, said: "The high returns in some of these regions look like evidence of the profit potential available for companies with a legacy position in those areas. "It speaks to the lack of access to opportunities in the most attractive locations. Everybody would like to have more access to oil in the Middle East, but how can they get it?" From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 13:02:04 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:02:04 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Dependence on "Aid" Message-ID: How donors should cap aid in Africa By Adrian Wood Published: September 3 2008 18:41 | Last updated: September 3 2008 18:41 Ministers from developed and developing countries are gathered this week in Accra, Ghana's capital, for the latest high-level forum on aid effectiveness. Learning from past successes and failures, reformers are pressing for more ownership by developing countries of aid relationships, more predictability of aid flows and less fragment?ation of aid delivery. This agenda is important. If implemented, these reforms would give the taxpayers of rich countries better value for money and increase the benefits of aid to people in poor ones. Aid cannot on its own cause development, but if properly delivered and well used it can be enormously beneficial. However, one can have too much of a good thing. Some developing countries, most of them in Africa, have had high levels of aid dependence ? in excess of 10 per cent of gross domestic product, or half of government spending ? for decades. It is questionable whether this has been helpful. There are various reasons to be concerned about high aid dependence, but the most worrying is the undermining of good governance by distortion of political accountability. Governments that are highly dependent on aid pay too much attention to donors and too little to their citizens. This might not matter if the interests of citizens and donors were identical. But all donors have some non-developmental motives and, even when they seek to promote development, they have their own priorities. The result is confused and shifting policies, volatile aid and spending and, as a result, slower growth. I therefore propose that donors collectively set an upper limit on the amount of aid they give to any developing country. This limit should be 50 per cent of the amount of tax revenue that the aid-receiving government raises from its own citizens, by non-coercive means and excluding revenue from oil and minerals. This would keep the governments of non-mineral countries dependent for revenue mainly on their citizens, and thus give them incentives to pay attention mainly to what citizens want, not donors. It would also encourage governments to raise more taxes from their citizens, since every extra dollar of tax raised would attract a matching increase of 50 cents of aid. Higher taxes would help because there is strong evidence that the tax relationship is vital for accountable government. "No taxation without representation," said the early Americans, and the converse also applies. Budget legislation is central to the political process, forcing governments to justify their actions in open debate. At the micro level, tax collection obliges governments to be in direct contact with most of their citizens and companies. The limit should perhaps be below 50 per cent and certainly not higher. Operating such a limit would raise many technical questions. How should aid and taxes be defined for the purposes of calculating this percentage? Who would monitor and validate the data? Who would determine whether taxes were non-coercive? But practical details of this kind could be sorted out with a bit of effort and ingenuity. More challenging would be how to phase in this limit. About 30 countries with populations over 1m, of which more than 20 are in Africa, now get aid above this limit and in about half of them aid is more than 100 per cent of taxes. Instant cuts in aid or increases in taxes to get down to the limit of 50 per cent would be damaging, so implementation would need to be gradual, over a period of anything up to a decade. Much further ahead would be the issue of how to phase out the aid, as countries ceased to be poor. Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is whether donors, even if most of them agreed on a limit, would be able to act collectively to implement it. There are many donors with different motives, separate delivery mechanisms and no set of common rules ? these being among the problems that the Accra meeting is trying to tackle. To get donors to act collectively to cap the amount of aid that they gave to a particular country would not be easy. Yet the idea is worth exploring. A lot of countries, including some in Africa, still get too little aid ? well below my 50 per cent limit and below what they could put to good use ? so part of the agenda should still be to increase aid. But the dangers to development of too much aid for too long are sufficiently serious that donors also need to think strategically about upper limits. The author is professor of international development at the University of Oxford and in 2000-05 was chief economist of the UK's Department for International Development From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Sep 7 13:54:26 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:54:26 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Oil Groups Face Capital Stagnation in Spite of Price Rises In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C43172.2090804@resist.ca> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > That popular impression, however, is deeply misleading. While company > profits have indeed risen to record highs as the price of oil has > soared, their profitability as measured by return on capital employed > has stagnated. This is a direct result of two things: The collapse of the value of the $US and the lack of new, easy/free energy discoveries and the peaking of oil; that leads to the twin problems of higher operating costs based on the lack of access to cheap, easy to access crude and that lack makes for the construction of new technologies and materials (steel, labour, energy inputs for production) much more expensive. Tar sands used to be break even at les than $40 a barrel, now estimates are over $70. This is clearly not because of environmental regulations-- these are being negotiated downwards from Utah to Alberta to Africa. The costs are associated with everything from food prices to construction going up, making production not only more difficult but much more expensive. > The IHS Herold/Harrison Lovegrove study of oil and gas companies' > upstream businesses found their average return on capital last year > was just 1 percentage point higher than in 2004, even though the > average price of oil during the year was $30 a barrel higher. > > With the price of oil already almost $40 a barrel off its peak over > the summer, and quite possibly headed lower, the profitability of the > industry could signal trouble ahead. This is somewhat illusory, in terms of whether or not the lack of profitability will lead to a death of energy resources itself. This or that corporation may not be able to find it feasible to continue exploration, but it is impossible for the heavy, expensive and ecocidal projects such as the tar sands to become uneconomic to the point of disappearing. Simply put, tar sands are so vastly integrated into global supplies that if the price dropped to the point that such oil was uneconomic then all of that production would come off the grid only long enough for the shortening of supply to drive the price almost instantaneously back up. For the first time in history, we have such a tight market globally that the temporary disruption of even less than a million barrels a day has an incredible impact on the price. Destructive, dirty and expensive oil is simply too integrated into the world system for this to ever occur. *snip* while this next paragraph is roughly true, the following one is more indicative: > Capacity shortages in the supply chain, in everything from drilling > rigs to steel pipes to skilled staff, have sent costs rising in line > with revenues. > > Services companies, which work for the oil producers, have typically > done much better out of the boom in the industry. > > Since the start of 2004 shares in ExxonMobil, the world's biggest > quoted energy company, have risen by 89 per cent. Shares in > Schlumberger, the biggest quoted oil services group, are up 231 per > cent. The other big winners from rising commodity prices have been the > governments of resource-rich countries. Those who are "downstream" in the industry, i.e., the refiners-- are the ones who have the most to gain and the least to lose from this process. And among those is Sunoco, formerly the owner of Suncor, who now supply them with tar sands mock crude and who also fund the Pew Foundation and their satellite "groups" such as the Canadian Boreal Initiative. Using their money to set up front groups who blunt opposition is now the order of the day, and their profits are massive and not in the same flux as their suppliers, who are a lot more vulnerable on the market. > Governments from Algeria to the UK have been tightening the terms on > which they deal with oil companies, through tax increases, contract > renegotiations, and in the most extreme cases forced transfers of > assets. Ultimately, without any other intervention, nationalization will start to be a wave globally soon as a way out of the market constraints, at least for the producers at the deposits and reserves themselves. This will do nothing to undo the worst damages yet to come as a result of industrialization on the grandest scale yet, and as such would only be the most temporary advance-- unlike the results of nationalization of high industry in almost all other cases. Human and planetary health is simply too vastly disturbed to make it a realistic "alternative" to only nationalize these plants. *snip* > Even after giving the service companies and the governments their > bigger slice, oil company profits have still been rising to record > levels. Their return on capital has been limited however, by the > massive investment programmes these companies have been undertaking. > Exxon will spend $25bn this year. This trend is impossible to overturn, as capital costs cannot come down in either terms of geology or market principles and values. > David Thomas of Citigroup points out that much of the spending oil > companies have been making has been on projects that are not yet in > production. The tar sands are nowhere near full production in Aberta; just the already approved and in construction mines (not counting the 70% of the tar sands deposits that are "In Situ" or SagD produced)are producing oer 1.3 million barrels a day and yet they will (without any other projects being brought in) get to over 3 million in less than a decade. These construction plans already have capital outlays that total just under $200 BILLION, and that number is before any mock oil is synthesized from the earth. > "These companies have been playing catch-up after the oil price > collapse at the end of the 1990s. Low oil prices caused many of them > to cut their capital spending, and now they are realising that to > maintain production, they need to spend more. So a higher proportion > of their capital is now non-productive." Again, as the places let to explore are either geologically nightmarish (Deep ocean floors) or "politically unstable" (i.e., Africa), this trend will only grow more each year, especially since few countries have yet switched over to accepting Euros instead of dollars for their oil, and the US economic structures show no signs of an FDR-like resurgence after the continuation of this collapse. > As the price of oil falls, some of the pressures that have squeezed > profits on the way up will ease. New drilling rigs are coming into > service, new engineers are being trained. And again, this is not a trend we see in dropping oil prices, but the settling of the price back into where it is primarily geology and market share that deals the dollar per barrel value. The price is still well over a $100 a barrel, and yet we are so far gone into these irreconcilable price hikes that we refer to this as a major drop! *snip* > "I can see aggressive spending on organic growth, and organic spending > on acquisitions." This is an obvious point: When oil reserves are not acquirable through exploration, then buying out smaller players to grow overall company reserves (the "grow or die" phenomenon) becomes the other strategy available. So, we will likely see the super giants getting ever bigger and a new wave of nationalizations and state interventions taking place as this lack of expandability continues to crunch in on the global market. Imperial//Exxon and Shell will expand and buy out others, Russia and maybe even Angola will start to take state control (or at least direction) of oil producers as this trend intensifies. > The highest returns in the world for oil and gas companies are to be > found in the Asia Pacific region, Russia and the Caspian, and Africa > and the Middle East, according to the IHS Herold/Harrison Lovegrove > study. The lowest are in Canada, which includes the oil sands and the > US. *snip* From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 14:23:15 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:23:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45% Message-ID: Maybe this is just a convention bounce, but it's possible that the gasoline prices, which haven't really come down a lot despite the recent big fall in crude oil prices (now heading down to $100 per barrel: ), and the delusion of "energy independence" will determine the fate of the 2008 US presidential elections. The biggest applause at the RNC was heard when the chant of "Drill, Baby, Drill" went up, or so I thought. -- Yoshie September 7, 2008 Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45% McCain enjoying increase in support following convention From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 15:24:11 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:24:11 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Sunday Times: "Vladimir Putin Set to Bait US with Nuclear Aid for Tehran" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think that the balance between the U.S. and Russia has changed for good and that they may well sell those S-300 s to Iran. The U S is facing a deteriorating home country. I find it meaningful that the set up war (set up by Isreal/U.S.) happened just before the unemployment figures for the U.S. came out, and as Russia sold Freddie and Fanny stocks! Those unemployment figures should be higher and were officially misrepresented! In a world that uses one universal currency, the dollar, the U.S. financial realities have been hidden from actual real view for generations. That is no longer possible. The financial situation in the U. S. seen actually show the United States as a third world country. It is a country that has presided helpfully over the dissolution of it's own major industries, at the same time it has intimidated and humiliated more than one hundred countries in order to force them to do as the U.S. thought they should. It is still doing so, witness Vice President Cheney's recent trip to the former Soviet Union's satelites to bully and/or buy them to do as Washington wants them to. The Soviet Union has been in talks to join the Euro group. You cannot imagine how powerfu a block of Euopean countries with Russia as parter would be! It would form the first real set of checks and balances to U.S.A. world empire plans. The U S problems would come to light in an a way that it will do anything to continue to hide. Take the Titanic. Remember the movie? When it went down they showed the undertow created by the massive weight and size of the sinking ship. The U.S.is now going down, as Hitler's Germany was also going down when his dictatorship tried to reverse the slide dramaticly. The world will have to move from primary reliance on the unstable dollar, subject to the legal/politial whim of an isolated country with too many nuclear weapons. The Republican and the Democratic parties have both been destroying the laws and the regulations set up to check and balance the financial greed of robber barons set up by Roosevelt ( the traitor to his class) at the bottom of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In effect, they are now all gone. Berneke and Paulson are both part of this erasure of checks and balances. Their ministrations have made the financial situation worse. The robber barons only illustrated the universal human greed factor. A Democratic Republic cannot exist without checks and balances. The U.S. with an Intelligence Services budget of 70 billion a year and 80% of the intelligence 'officers' are civilian outsourced workers for money not the common good, are not subject to Habeous Corpus or the U.S. Constitution or International law, only results, as is true of our Israeli co-government brothers. Do read Tim Shorrock's "Spies for Hire". So, when the order went out that Russia was to be set up as Evil Empire to all those agencies and hard working civilian intelligence officers with unlimited funds and the newest, best of tools and no legal, ethical or moral restraints but results, the setup was done. Then the advertising expertise of the U S was used to spread the 'news' that Russia was reaching for the Cold War power it once 'enjoyed'. Russia attacted Georgia. Those facts are beginning to crumble. so Cheney eagerly went to shore up the propaganda. All the world is now sceptical of the U.S. power. Only belatedly is the U.S. realizing this, with both rage and bewilderment, and revenge. As will become clear, revenge only increases the U.S. pain. This American administration is almost completely out of touch. Russia stands on the edge of a time of real long term power and influence. If selling the S-300 to Iran is needed to signal this world change, now may be the time! If Europe continues to follow the U S lead and foreign policy choices, afraid to anger the Americans as always, it will decline equally. Russia and the Middle East and Asia is the future for Europe, not the U.S.A.. As America declines, it's deficiencies are finally becoming visible world wide. With control of the internet , a choke hold on media revelations, the pace of exposure is too slow, but it is inevitable. Suzanne On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi < critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > The Sunday Times article probably isn't true because its reports on > Iran, Russia, etc. have always been full of psychological warfare > based on leaks from anonymous sources. As for S-300, the threat to > sell it to Iran and Syria is something the Russians have been willing > to use, but if they actually sold it, they could no longer use it as a > bargaining chip with the West, so they probably won't do so easily. > But they may actually do so, as well as cutting the Russian route to > supply NATO forces in Afghanistan, if the West doesn't cease and > desist from its military advancement toward Russia. After all, Russia > is holding its first joint naval exercise with Venezuela (cf. > ). > -- Yoshie > > > From The Sunday Times > September 7, 2008 > Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran > Mark Franchetti in Moscow > > Russia is considering increasing its assistance to Iran's nuclear > programme in response to America's calls for Nato expansion eastwards > and the presence of US Navy vessels in the Black Sea delivering aid to > Georgia. > > The Kremlin is discussing sending teams of Russian nuclear experts to > Tehran and inviting Iranian nuclear scientists to Moscow for training, > according to sources close to the Russian military. > > Moscow has been angered by Washington's promise to give Georgia ?564m > in aid following the Russian invasion of parts of the country last > month after Tbilisi's military offensive. Kremlin officials suspect > the US is planning to rearm the former Soviet republic and is furious > at renewed support for attempts by Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato. > > Last week a third US Navy ship entered the Black Sea with aid bound > for Georgia. Moscow has accused the Americans of using the vessels to > deliver weapons but has failed to provide any evidence. > Related Links > > Vladimir Putin, the prime minister of Russia, who has been the driving > force during the crisis, has declared he will take unspecified action > in response. > > "Everything has changed since the war in Georgia," said one source. > "What seemed impossible before, is more than possible now when our > friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends. What are > American ships doing off our coast? Do you see Russian warships off > the coast of America? > > "Russia will respond. A number of possibilities are being considered, > including hitting America there where it hurts most ? Iran." > > Increasing nuclear assistance to Iran would sharply escalate tensions > between Moscow and Washington. Over the past 10 years Russia has > helped Iran build its first nuclear power station in Bushehr. Iran > claims the plant is for civilian purposes. Officially at least, Moscow > accepts that. The West has little doubt the aim is to build a nuclear > bomb. > > But diplomats say that despite its help with the Bushehr plant, Moscow > has so far played a constructive role as a mediator between the regime > in Tehran and the West and by backing United Nations sanctions. > > Earlier this year, in one of his last actions as president, Putin > added Russia's stamp of approval to a UN security council resolution > imposing fresh sanctions against Iran. > > The document bans, with the exception of the Bushehr project, > dual-technology exports that could be used for civil nuclear purposes > and missile production. > > "After the war in Georgia it's difficult to imagine relations between > Russia and America getting worse," said a western diplomat. "Russia > giving greater nuclear assistance to the Iranians would do the trick ? > that's for sure." > > Last month Russia agreed to sell missiles to Syria. "The mood among > the hawks is very bullish indeed," said one source who did not rule > out a resumption of Russian military action in Georgia to take the > port of Batumi, where American vessels are delivering aid. > > Hardliners were infuriated last week by the visit to Georgia of Dick > Cheney, the American vice-president. "Georgia will be in our > alliance," Cheney said. He also visited Ukraine, whose Nato > aspirations could make it the next flashpoint between Russia and > America. > > However in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, events appeared to be moving > Moscow's way. Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-western president, is > fighting to stay in power in a crisis that could see him impeached. > > "I'm amused by claims in the West that Russia is the loser in this > crisis," said a former Putin aide. "What would Washington do if we > were arming Cuba the way it armed Georgia? The postSoviet days when we > could be pushed around are over." > > > Russia may push forward with S-300 sales to Iran > 17:41 | 01/ 09/ 2008 > > MOSCOW, September 1 (RIA Novosti) - Russia may proceed with plans to > sell advanced S-300 air defense systems to Iran under a secret > contract believed to have been signed in 2005, a Russian analyst said > on Monday. (Russian mobile surface-to-air missile systems - Image > gallery) > > Commenting on an article in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper saying > Russia is using the plans as a bargaining chip in its standoff with > America, Ruslan Pukhov, director of Moscow-based Center for Analysis > of Strategies and Technologies, said: "In the current situation, when > the U.S. and the West in general are stubbornly gearing toward a > confrontation with Russia after the events in South Ossetia, the > implementation of a lucrative contract on the deliveries of S-300 [air > defense systems] to Iran looks like a logical step." > > The U.S. and Israel were alarmed by media reports, which started > circulating as early as 2005, on the possible delivery of S-300 > surface-to-air missiles to Iran, as these systems could greatly > improve Iranian defenses against any air strike on its strategically > important sites, including nuclear facilities. > > The advanced version of the S-300 missile system, called S-300PMU1 > (SA-20 Gargoyle), has a range of over 150 kilometers (over 100 miles) > and can intercept ballistic missiles and aircraft at low and high > altitudes, making the system an effective tool for warding off > possible air strikes. > > The issue was again raised in December last year when Iranian Defense > Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said Russia had agreed to deliver to > Iran an unspecified number of advanced S-300 air defense complexes > under a previously signed contract. > > However, Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation > said the issue of the delivery of S-300 air defense missile systems to > Iran was not a subject of current or past negotiations. > > Israeli defense sources, however, said in July that Iran was expected > to take delivery of Russian S-300 air defense systems by the end of > 2008. > > Pukhov said: "This may be true. While Russia and the West were on good > terms, the contract could have been 'frozen' for the time being. But > now may be the perfect time to move forward with the fulfillment of > the S-300 contract." > > According to the Russian analyst, S-300 missiles and previously > delivered Tor-M1 missiles would help Iran build a strong network of > long- and medium-range 'defensive rings' to thwart any attempts to > destroy key nuclear facilities in the country. > > Moscow supplied Iran with 29 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems in > late January under a $700-million contract signed in late 2005. Russia > has also trained Iranian Tor-M1 specialists, including radar operators > and crew commanders. > > "Anyone attempting to threaten Iran with aerial bombardment would have > to consider the possibility of strong and effective resistance," the > expert said. > > Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi denied > on Monday reports that Tehran had bought S-300 air defense systems > from Russia. > > "Our missile and technical capability completely depends on the > efforts of Iranian scientists," he said. > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Sep 7 18:22:04 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:22:04 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Russia and Georgia: All About Oil Message-ID: <48C4702C.2090500@attglobal.net> by Michael Klare Foreign Policy In Focus (August 13 2008) In commenting on the war in the Caucasus, most American analysts have tended to see it as a throwback to the past: as a continuation of a centuries-old blood feud between Russians and Georgians, or, at best, as part of the unfinished business of the Cold War. Many have spoken of Russia's desire to erase the national "humiliation" it experienced with the collapse of the Soviet Union sixteen years ago, or to restore its historic "sphere of influence" over the lands to its South. But the conflict is more about the future than the past. It stems from an intense geopolitical contest over the flow of Caspian Sea energy to markets in the West. This struggle commenced during the Clinton administration when the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea basin became independent and began seeking Western customers for their oil and natural gas resources. Western oil companies eagerly sought production deals with the governments of the new republics, but faced a critical obstacle in exporting the resulting output. Because the Caspian itself is landlocked, any energy exiting the region has to travel by pipeline - and, at that time, Russia controlled all of the available pipeline capacity. To avoid exclusive reliance on Russian conduits, President Clinton sponsored the construction of an alternative pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan to Tbilisi in Georgia and then onward to Ceyhan on Turkey's Mediterranean coast - the BTC pipeline, as it is known today. The BTC pipeline, which began operation in 2006, passes some of the most unsettled areas of the world, including Chechnya and Georgia's two breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. With this in mind, the Clinton and Bush administrations provided Georgia with hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, making it the leading recipient of US arms and equipment in the former Soviet space. President Bush has also lobbied US allies in Europe to "fast track" Georgia's application for membership in NATO. All of this, needless to say, was viewed in Moscow with immense resentment. Not only was the United States helping to create a new security risk on its southern borders, but, more importantly, was frustrating its drive to secure control over the transportation of Caspian energy to Europe. Ever since Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency in 2000, Moscow has sought to use its pivotal role in the supply of oil and natural gas to Western Europe and the former Soviet republics as a source both of financial wealth and political advantage. It mainly relies on Russia's own energy resources for this purpose, but also seeks to dominate the delivery of oil and gas from the Caspian states to the West. To further its goals in the Caspian, Putin and his prot?g? Dmitry Medvedev - until recently the chairman of Gazprom, the Russian state gas monopoly - have enticed (or browbeaten) the leaders of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan into building new gas pipelines through Russia to Europe. The Europeans, fearful of becoming ever more dependent on Russian-supplied energy, seek to build alternative conduits across the Caspian Sea and along the route of the BTC pipeline in Azerbaijan and Georgia, bypassing Russia altogether. It is against this backdrop that the fighting in Georgia and South Ossetia has been taking place. The Georgians may only be interested in regaining control over an area they consider part of their national territory. But the Russians are sending a message to the rest of the world that they intend to keep their hands on the Caspian Sea energy spigot, come what may. This doesn't necessarily mean occupying Georgia outright, but they will certainly retain their strategic positions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - for all practical purposes, daggers aimed at the BTC jugular. So even if a cease-fire is put into effect, the struggle over energy resources - sometimes hidden and stealthy, sometimes open and violent - will continue long into the future. _____ Michael T Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, the author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Metropolitan Books, 2008), and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). Klare's previous book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum has been made into a documentary movie - to order and view a trailer, visit www.bloodandoilmovie.com Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright (c) 2008, Institute for Policy Studies. Recommended citation: Michael Klare, "Russia and Georgia: All About Oil", (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, August 13 2008). http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5462 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/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Sep 8 05:16:11 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:16:11 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Russia remains a Black Sea power Message-ID: <48C5097B.3020106@attglobal.net> by M K Bhadrakumar www.atimes.com (August 30 2008) If the struggle in the Caucasus was ever over oil and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) agenda towards Central Asia, the United States suffered a colossal setback this week. Kazakhstan, the Caspian energy powerhouse and a key Central Asian player, has decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Russia over the conflict with Georgia, and Russia's de facto control over two major Black Sea ports has been consolidated. At a meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe on Thursday on the sidelines of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarbayev told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Moscow could count on Astana's support in the present crisis. In his press conference in Dushanbe, Medvedev underlined that his SCO counterparts, including China, showed understanding of the Russian position. Moscow appears satisfied that the SCO summit also issued a statement on the Caucasus developments, which, inter alia, said, "The leaders of the SCO member states welcome the signing in Moscow of the six principles for regulating the South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia's active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region". The SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. There were tell-tale signs that something was afoot when the Kazakh Foreign Ministry issued a statement on August 19 hinting at broad understanding for the Russian position. The statement called for an "unbiased and balanced assessment" of events and pointed out that an "attempt [was made] to resolve a complicated ethno-territorial issue by the use of force", which led to "grave consequences". The statement said Astana supported the "way the Russian leadership proposed to resolve the issue" within the framework of the United Nations charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and international law. The lengthy statement leaned toward the Russian position but offered a labored explanation for doing so. Kazakhstan has since stepped out into the thick of the diplomatic sweepstakes and whole-heartedly endorsed the Russian position. This has become a turning point for Russian diplomacy in the post-Soviet space. Nazarbayev said: "I am amazed that the West simply ignored the fact that Georgian armed forces attacked the peaceful city of Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia]. Therefore, my assessment is as follows: I think that it originally started with this. And Russia's response could either have been to keep silent or to protect their people and so on. I believe that all subsequent steps taken by Russia have been designed to stop bloodshed of ordinary residents of this long-suffering city. Of course, there are many refugees, many homeless. "Guided by our bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia, we have provided humanitarian aid: 100 tons have already been sent. We will continue to provide assistance together with you. "Of course, there was loss of life on the Georgian side - war is war. The resolution of the conflict with Georgia has now been shifted to some indeterminate time in the future. We have always had good relations with Georgia. Kazakhstan's companies have made substantial investments there. Of course, those that have done this want stability there. The conditions of the plan that you and [President of France Nicolas] Sarkozy drew up must be implemented, but some have begun to disavow certain points in the plan. "However, I think that negotiations will continue and that there will be peace - there is no other alternative. Therefore, Kazakhstan understands all the measures that have been taken, and Kazakhstan supports them. For our part, we will be ready to do everything to ensure that everyone returns to the negotiating table." From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 05:37:03 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:37:03 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The Land Question behind the Taliban Resurgence Message-ID: The Dexter Filkins article below clarifies the main reason for the Taliban resurgence, which looks not unlike an Islamic variant of the Maoist "people's war." Without substantial land reform in the tribal areas, the Taliban will continue to grow in Pakistan. Pressuring the Pakistani government to attack the Taliban militarily in Pakistan so as to deny the Taliban in Afghanistan "strategic depth" (the current main US approach), or worse the US military directly invading the tribal areas in Pakistan (the approach that the US will be increasingly taking), is a recipe for disaster, liable to make the whole of Pakistan, which has not become a coherent nation yet, ungovernable. -- Yoshie September 7, 2008 Right at the Edge By DEXTER FILKINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVERYWHERE I TRAVELED during my stay in the tribal areas and in Peshawar, I met impoverished Pakistanis who told me Robin Hood-like stories about how the Taliban had challenged the wealthy and powerful people on behalf of the little guys. Hamidullah, for instance, was an illiterate wheat farmer living in Khyber agency when, in 2002, a wealthy landowner seized his home and six acres of fields. Hamidullah and his family were forced to eke out a living from a nearby shanty. Neither the local malik nor the government agent, Hamidullah told me, would intervene on his behalf. Then came Namdar, the Taliban commander. He hauled the rich man before a Vice and Virtue council and ordered him to give back Hamidullah's home and farm. Now Hamidullah is one of Namdar's loyal militiamen. "There are so many guys like me," he said, cradling a Kalashnikov. The social revolution that has swept the tribal areas does not bode well for the plans, laid out by Governor Ghani, to oust the Taliban by boosting the tribal elders. Nor does it hold out much promise for the Americans, who have expressed hope that they could do in the FATA what they were able to do with the Sunni tribes in Iraq. There, local tribesmen rose up against, and have substantially weakened, Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 10:24:56 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:24:56 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Azerbaijan at Crosswinds of a New Cold War Message-ID: Azerbaijan at crosswinds of a new cold war By Kaveh L Afrasiabi Azerbaijan's presidential elections are a few weeks away and while most experts agree it is a sure bet that the current president, Ilham Aliyev, will easily win re-election, there is less certainty about the future orientation of the country, increasingly caught in the crosswind of a new US-Russia power struggle. In his tour of the region last week, US Vice President Dick Cheney shot many salvos against Russians, accusing them of posing a "threat of tyranny, economic blackmail and military invasion" to its neighbors. In his meeting with Aliyev, Cheney was comparatively more reserved and put the emphasis instead on "energy security". Coinciding with Cheney's trip has been a new report by the European Union's energy commissioner, Andris Piebglas, calling on the EU to redouble its efforts to build the US$12 billion Nabucco gas pipeline [1] and reduce its dependence on imports from Russia in the wake of the Georgian crisis that, per a report in the British newspaper The Guardian, has led many experts to dismiss the planned 3,300 kilometer Nabucco pipeline from Azerbaijan to Europe via Georgia and Turkey. Not only that, both Russia and Iran have opposed the construction of a trans-Caspian pipeline that would allow the shipment of gas from the Caspian section of Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan and then to Europe. Last week, at a meeting of the Caspian littoral states on the legal status of Caspian Sea, held in Baku, Iran's point man on the Caspian Sea, Mehdi Safari, stated, "We object to the trans-Caspian pipeline because of the possible negative impact on sea ecology ... there are Iranian and Russian energy routes and it is unnecessary to jeopardize Caspian ecology." Although there is real concern about the Caspian ecology, both Tehran and Moscow are equally if not more concerned about the geopolitical ramifications of so-called "pipeline politics" in the Caspian basin and the adjacent regions, particularly now that the US and Europe seem determined to lessen the West's energy dependency on both Iran and Russia by cultivating alternative sources. The crisis in Georgia is, however, a powerful wake-up call to Baku concerning "roads not taken". On the one hand, Baku is interested in cultivating closer military ties with the West, in light of the Azeri parliament's recent ratification of an action plan for greater military cooperation with the US. A top US State Department official has recently called for a strategic, trilateral cooperation between US, Azerbaijan and Turkey. And yet, on the other hand, this is precisely the kind of initiative that Baku would be wise to stay away from, unless it is prepared to embrace serious backlashes from its powerful neighbors, Iran and Russia. One such backlash could conceivably come in the form of Russia's support for the independence of the Azeri breakaway region of Gharabagh, given that the leaders of Upper Gharabagh have welcomed Moscow's decision to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. For now, Moscow is disinclined to back this scenario and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated last week that the situation in Gharabagh is "different". That may be small music to Baku's ears, yet few leaders or pundits in Azerbaijan can afford to miss the sobering lesson from the crisis in Georgia, that is, the exorbitant price paid for ignoring Russia's national security concerns. This means that, contrary to some hasty conclusions about "Russia's colossal blunder", to paraphrase Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, Russia's military gambit in Georgia has not thrown Russia's neighbors in the bosom of the West, but rather, as in the case of Azerbaijan, prompted them to adopt a more cautious foreign policy approach that is geared to maintaining a balance in foreign relations, partly for the sake of protecting fragile borders and territorial integrity. Instead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, countries such as Georgia and Azerbaijan have the theoretical option of cooperating and or even joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is dominated by Russia and China. At the moment, this may seem not to be in the cards, yet it makes sense from the prism of regional stability. In the Caspian Sea, Iran and Russia rely on the existing legal convention for the Caspian that refers to it as a "common sea". That is why both countries are opposed to the division of the Caspian's surface water. The various bilateral and trilateral agreements for the division of the Caspian's underwater resources do not trump the "shared sea" condominium status of the sea that acts as a hinge shutting the door to a foreign presence in the Caspian. The above means that for the foreseeable future, despite marathon meetings of the five Caspian littoral states, there will most likely not be any new convention, thus guaranteeing the exclusion of NATO or US forces from the important energy hub of the Caspian. As for Baku's geopolitical orientation, its cordial, business-like relations with Tehran, as well as its pragmatic approach toward the Russia-led geopolitical realities in the region, are prudent courses of action that Baku would be ill-advised to forsake in favor of closer ties with the West. After all, the West has been rather helpless in terms of pulling Tbilisi out of the grave mess that its adventurist leadership carved for itself. Concerning the latter, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the US of providing military assistance to Georgia under the guise of humanitarian assistance. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on the other hand, has tried damage-control in US-Russia relations by not putting the kiss of death on the US-Russia nuclear cooperation agreement and, more importantly, not echoing Cheney's blistering verbal volleys. While we await the results of elections in both the US and Azerbaijan, the latter is likely to thread a cautious middle path that would steer it clear of the headaches gripping the South Caucasus. Needless to say, the pain of such headaches would be much alleviated if Democratic Senator Barack Obama wins in November and somehow succeeds in introducing real change in the hitherto hegemonic orientation of US foreign policy. In that case, the first priority of a president Obama should be to throw water on the new cold war logs fired up by Cheney. Note 1. For more on the Nabucco pipeline, click here, and for more on trans-Caspian pipeliness, click here. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction. For his Wikipedia entry, click here. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 12:13:25 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:13:25 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Vote for quagmire? Making the war an issue Message-ID: <200809081813.m88IDPQN016751@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/bc7f0723/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 12:11:28 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:11:28 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll Message-ID: <200809081811.m88IBS6A012147@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/a63d1828/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 12:12:14 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:12:14 -0700 Subject: [R-G] We Need a Debate on the War Message-ID: <200809081812.m88ICEDH014330@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/ff04f3aa/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 12:17:51 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:17:51 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Deadly U.S. air strikes undermine Afghan mission, report says Message-ID: <200809081817.m88IHpSV004751@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/85a6e491/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 12:42:28 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:42:28 -0700 Subject: [R-G] (Kabul) Suicide bombers get inside police headquarters Message-ID: <200809081842.m88IgSS3009765@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/c3147db6/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 12:52:43 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:52:43 -0700 Subject: [R-G] "Taliban" learning how to win key propaganda battles Message-ID: <200809081852.m88IqhIa002794@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/10bdb5c2/attachment.txt From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Sep 8 15:35:35 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:35:35 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll In-Reply-To: <200809081811.m88IBS6A012147@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200809081811.m88IBS6A012147@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <200809081735.36609.intnsred@golgotha.net> > The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found > that 34 per cent of respondents "strongly disapprove" of Canada's > participation in military action in Afghanistan, while 22 per cent > "somewhat disapprove," making a total of 56 per cent. Sid, having watched more than my share of the CBC, I know Canadians are far better versed in int'l affairs than US corporate media "consumers". But do Canadians have any appreciation as to the precarious position NATO troops are in -- especially considering the recent Pakistani news that they are cutting off ("suspending") NATO supply routes to Afghanistan? (see ) The Pakistani move is likely just a reminder to NATO that they are able to exist in Pakistan only with Pakistan's cooperation, but there is just zero news about this in the US corporate mass media and the US still continues attacks in Pakistan. -- "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein From news at ckut.ca Mon Sep 8 15:52:15 2008 From: news at ckut.ca (CKUT Community News Collective) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:52:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] GroundWire September Edition Available for Download! Message-ID: <48C59E8F.1080004@ckut.ca> GroundWire (SEPT 2008) WWW: http://www.ncra.ca/exchange/dspProgramDetail.cfm?programID=75081 On this month's GroundWire, the August Six Nations Gathering, over a hundred people meet in Tatamagouche Nova Scotia for FreeSchool, and an in-depth look into the Tar Sands in Alberta. Plus headlines on a strike at Montreal's largest hostel, Bill C484 replaced by Bill C543, and a union drive at Queen's University. Credits: Tim Crabtree, David Parker, Noel Thomas, Aaron Lakoff, David Koch, Gretchen King, Kate Lerman, and Courtney Kirkby. Recording Location: CKUT 90.3fm (Montreal, Qc) RUNS: 28m04s MP3: http://www.ncra.ca/business/admin_ncra/progex/programFiles/53/GroundWireSept.mp3 From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 16:08:01 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:08:01 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Once_Spurned=2C_McCain_Finds_Corporate_Sup?= =?windows-1252?q?port_+_McCain=92s_Bounce_Gives_Him_5-Point_Lead?= Message-ID: The Democrats manage to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory again? -- Yoshie Once Spurned, McCain Finds Corporate Support By BRODY MULLINS September 8, 2008 MINNEAPOLIS -- Corporate executives, who once discounted John McCain's campaign, have been key to the Republican presidential nominee's rebound on the fund-raising circuit, a new analysis of campaign donations shows. Since the 2008 presidential campaign began, Democratic candidate Barack Obama has raised more than double Sen. McCain's haul and beaten the Arizona Republican in just about every fund-raising category. But in the months after the two started to square off as their parties' likely nominees, Sen. Obama maintained only a slight financial edge overall, while Sen. McCain claimed the advantage among top industry donors. Sen. McCain's fund-raising advantage among corporate America is a stark reversal from earlier this year, when he struggled to secure donations from executives. In the Republican primary, many executives backed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, partly because he is a former businessman and partly because Sen. McCain has long battled with industry as a member of the Senate. According to an analysis of fund-raising data released Thursday by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. McCain raised more money in June and July from larger donors in 15 of the top-donating 25 industries than did Sen. Obama. The Republican nominee drew more donations from executives at oil and gas, real-estate, securities and investment and insurance companies, the data showed. He raised $22.3 million from the top 25 industries in the two-month period, compared with Sen. Obama's $19.9 million. Up until June, Sen. Obama had raised $100 million from individual executives at the top 25 industries, nearly double Sen. McCain's $52.3 million, according to a separate analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Overall, Sen. Obama reported a total of $41.9 million in donations for June and July, compared with $39.5 million for Sen. McCain. Before June, Sen. Obama had raised nearly $300 million -- almost triple Sen. McCain's total. In August, Sen. McCain had his best fund-raising month of the campaign, bringing in $40 million overall. Sen. Obama hasn't said how much he raised that month. Because of his success raising money in the primary campaign, Sen. Obama opted to reject government financing and to fund his campaign with private donations, becoming the first major presidential candidate to do so. Sen. McCain has decided to accept the $84.5 million in funding from the government and will be prohibited from raising any more private donations. Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins at wsj.com September 8, 2008 Gallup Daily: McCain's Bounce Gives Him 5-Point Lead Leads Obama 49%-44% in first results conducted fully after GOP convention September 8, 2008 Convention Rallies Republicans A USA Today/Gallup poll finds 60% of Republicans more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the November election, up from 42% who said the same just prior to the Republican convention. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Sep 8 16:13:41 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:13:41 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Russia may cut off oil flow to the West Message-ID: <48C5A395.8050806@attglobal.net> by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard www.telegraph.co.uk (August 29 2008) Fears are mounting that Russia may restrict oil deliveries to Western Europe over coming days, in response to the threat of EU sanctions and Nato naval actions in the Black Sea. Any such move would be a dramatic escalation of the Georgia crisis and play havoc with the oil markets. Reports have begun to circulate in Moscow that Russian oil companies are under orders from the Kremlin to prepare for a supply cut to Germany and Poland through the Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline. It is believed that executives from lead-producer LUKoil have been put on weekend alert. "They have been told to be ready to cut off supplies as soon as Monday", claimed a high-level business source, speaking to The Daily Telegraph. Any move would be timed to coincide with an emergency EU summit in Brussels, where possible sanctions against Russia are on the agenda. Any evidence that the Kremlin is planning to use the oil weapon to intimidate the West could inflame global energy markets. US crude prices jumped to $119 a barrel yesterday on reports of hurricane warnings in the Gulf of Mexico, before falling back slightly. Global supplies remain tight despite the economic downturn engulfing North America, Europe and Japan. A supply cut at this delicate juncture could drive crude prices much higher, possibly to record levels of $150 or even $200 a barrel. With US and European credit spreads already trading at levels of extreme stress, a fresh oil spike would rock financial markets. The Kremlin is undoubtedly aware that it exercises extraordinary leverage, if it strikes right now. Such action would be seen as economic warfare but Russia has been infuriated by Nato meddling in its "backyard" and threats of punitive measures by the EU. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday accused EU diplomats of a "sick imagination". Armed with $580 billion of foreign reserves (the world's third largest), Russia appears willing to risk its reputation as a reliable actor on the international stage in order to pursue geo-strategic ambitions. "We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War", said President Dmitry Medvedev. The Polish government said yesterday that Russian deliveries were still arriving smoothly. It was not aware of any move to limit supplies. The European Commission's energy directorate said it had received no warnings of retaliatory cuts. Russia has repeatedly restricted oil and gas deliveries over recent years as a means of diplomatic pressure, though Moscow usually explains away the reduction by referring to technical upsets or pipeline maintenance. Last month, deliveries to the Czech Republic through the Druzhba pipeline were cut after Prague signed an agreement with the US to install an anti-missile shield. Czech officials say supplies fell forty per cent for July. The pipeline managers Transneft said the shortfall was due to "technical and commercial reasons". Supplies were cut to Estonia in May 2007 following a dispute with Russia over the removal of Red Army memorials. It was blamed on a "repair operation". Latvia was cut off in 2005 and 2006 in a battle for control over the Ventspils terminals. "There are ways to camouflage it", said Vincent Sabathier, a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "They never say, 'we're going to cut off your oil because we don't like your foreign policy'". A senior LUKoil official in Moscow said he was unaware of any plans to curtail deliveries. The Kremlin declined to comment. London-listed LUKoil is run by Russian billionaire Vagit Alekperov, who holds twenty per cent of the shares. LUKoil produces two million barrels per day (b/d), or 2.5 per cent of world supply. It exports one fifth of its output to Germany and Poland. Although Russia would lose much-needed revenue if it cut deliveries, the Kremlin might hope to recoup some of the money from higher prices. Indeed, it could enhance income for a while if the weapon was calibrated skilfully. Russia exports roughly 6.5 million barrels per day, supplying the EU with 26 per cent of its total oil needs and 29 per cent of its gas. A cut of just one million barrels per day in global supply - and a veiled threat of more to come - would cause a major price spike. It is unclear whether Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or other Opec producers have enough spare capacity to plug the shortfall. "Russia is behaving in a very erratic way", said James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA. "There is a risk that they might do something like cutting oil to hurt the world's democracies, if they get angry enough". Mr Woolsey said the rapid move towards electric cars and other sources of power in the US and Europe means Russia's ability to use the oil weapon will soon be a diminishing asset. "Within a decade it will be very hard for Russia to push us around", he told The Daily Telegraph. It is widely assumed that Russia would cut gas supplies rather than oil as a means of pressuring Europe. It is very hard to find alternative sources of gas. But gas cuts would not hurt the United States. Oil is a better weapon for striking at the broader Western world. The price is global. The US economy could suffer serious damage from the immediate knock-on effects. While the Russian state is rich, the corporate sector is heavily reliant on foreign investors. The internal bond market is tiny, with just $60 billion worth of ruble issues. Russian companies raise their funds on the world capital markets. Foreigners own half of the $1 trillion debt. Michael Ganske, Russia expert at Commerzbank, said the country was now facing a liquidity crunch. "Local investors are scared. They can see the foreigners leaving, so now they won't touch anything either. The impact on the capital markets is severe", he said. _____ Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=COPYRIGHT&grid=P9 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/08/29/cnrussia129.xml 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/ From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Sep 8 16:55:34 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:55:34 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Fuel_supply_to_Nato_forces_=E2=80=98suspended?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= Message-ID: <200809081855.34393.intnsred@golgotha.net> Fuel supply to Nato forces ?suspended? By Ibrahim Shinwari LANDI KOTAL, Sept 5: The government is reported to have decided to stop fuel supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan via the Torkham highway with effect from Saturday. ?An order to this effect has come from Islamabad and the Frontier Corps has been asked to stop oil supplies to Nato forces forthwith,? a senior government official said. Sources said the federal government did not cite any reason for the move, but the decision was apparently taken in the wake of the US ground and missile attacks in North and South Waziristan tribal regions. The US-led forces have intensified assaults in the tribal region over the past few days and five attacks, including the ground assault in Angoor Adda, have been launched, killing over 50 people, including foreign and local militants and civilians. The Torkham highway, linking Peshawar with Kabul and northern parts of Afghanistan and Central Asian states, is a major supply route for the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in the war-ravaged country. Over 20 heavily-loaded vehicles, including oil tankers, were stranded at the border town of Torkham following the government?s decision. However, an official told Dawn in Peshawar that the supplies had been suspended only temporarily because of the law and order situation in the Khyber tribal region. ?Why would Pakistan suspend oil supplies due to increased US attacks in the region? It goes against conventional wisdom,? the official said. ?Torkham highway has become extremely dangerous due to militancy in Jamrud and Landi Kotal. The administration needs to beef up security of the highway. When we have enough troops on the ground to ensure safety of oil tankers, the supplies would be allowed to go through,? he added. He denied that the decision to suspend oil supplies had come from Islamabad and said it was taken at the local level in view of the security situation. The sources said that militants had increased their activities in the Khyber region after the military operation in Bajaur. -- "The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest." -- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, U.S. District Judge. From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Sep 8 16:55:37 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:55:37 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Pakistan cuts supply lines to Nato forces Message-ID: <200809081855.37945.intnsred@golgotha.net> Pakistan cuts supply lines to Nato forces Saturday, September 06, 2008 By Nasrullah Afridi BARA: In a major development, the federal government on Friday announced disconnection of supply lines to the allied forces stationed in Afghanistan through Pakistan in an apparent reaction to a ground attack on a border village in South Waziristan agency by the Nato forces. Political authorities of the Khyber Agency claimed to have received verbal directives to immediately halt transportation of all kinds of goods meant for the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan for an indefinite period. Authorities claimed the decision was taken in the wake of the growing unrest in the Khyber Agency that provides for the only ground link of the country to the war-torn Afghanistan. "Until now, drivers of the vehicles carrying goods meant for the foreign forces in Afghanistan were directed to reach the tribal agency between 7am to 10am, which were then escorted to the border town of Torkhum by the Khassadar force," the authorities told The News. The authorities claimed that due to repeated attacks on the personnel of the Khassadar forces during the last one week and abduction of a few personnel, it had become difficult for the security forces to provide foolproof security to the supply lines. Independent sources, however, claimed that the government feared retaliation by the tribesmen against a recent ground attack conducted by the Nato forces in Angoor Adda of the South Waziristan Agency that triggered condemnation from various quarters, including the government of Pakistan itself. NWFP Governor Owais Ahmad Ghani had likened the attack to an aggression against a sovereign state, saying the people of the country expected the Pakistan Army to give a befitting reply to the attack. He said that some twenty innocent people lost their lives ? most of them were women and children. The US government had accepted responsibility for the attack but did not offer any apology for the same and instead announced to launch more such attacks against the militants across the border, if so required in future. -- "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -- Albert Einstein From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 17:03:31 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:03:31 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Naomi Klein: call-out for Sept. 13 Day of Action for U.S. War Resisters Message-ID: <200809082303.m88N3VPi016563@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/15c1f23a/attachment.txt From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Sep 8 17:42:17 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:42:17 -0400 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Russia may cut off oil flow to the West In-Reply-To: <48C5A395.8050806@attglobal.net> References: <48C5A395.8050806@attglobal.net> Message-ID: <200809081942.18280.intnsred@golgotha.net> On Monday 08 September 2008 18:13, Bill Totten wrote: > by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard > www.telegraph.co.uk (August 29 2008) I have to wonder how valid this really is; a case of black propaganda? I wonder for a couple of reasons. The UK has an unusual amount of animosity towards Russia dating back to the Crimean War and the "Great Game" between the British Empire and Russian Empire. Russia wants to foster good relations with Europe if only to break the US-European/NATO bonds. And Russia would love to have Europe dependent on them for energy, but the Russians know that will be a long-term project which will require consistency and stable energy supplies. The spin that Russia would do this to Germany after Germany just funded an undersea pipeline is surprising. If the Russians wanted to interfere with the West's oil, why not just take out the pipeline in Georgia? If the Russians do this -- which certainly is possible -- it's clearly a sign that Russia is highly pissed to the point of pulling out all the stops. But overall, I think this is just more propaganda designed to inflate the "New Cold War" idea. Gotta keep the alliance and defense contracts going... (Naww, can't be! Our corporate mass media would *never* lie to us, right?! :-) -- Fast fact: Since the mid-1970s, the richest one percent of households have doubled their percentage of the US national wealth. As the richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, bluntly said, "If[sic] class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Sep 8 17:36:02 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:36:02 -0700 Subject: [R-G] What happened to the NDP's opposition to the war in Afghanistan? Message-ID: <200809082336.m88Na2dX000595@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080908/74de7849/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 06:59:20 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:59:20 -0400 Subject: [R-G] U.S. Rules Out Unilateral Steps Against Russia Message-ID: It looks like the US has accepted Western Europe's decision. -- Yoshie September 9, 2008 U.S. Rules Out Unilateral Steps Against Russia By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration, after considerable internal debate, has decided not to take direct punitive action against Russia for its conflict with Georgia, concluding that it has little leverage if it acts unilaterally and that it would be better off pressing for a chorus of international criticism to be led by Europe. In recent interviews, senior administration officials said the White House had concluded that American punishments like economic sanctions or blocking Russia from world trade groups would only backfire, deepening Russia's intransigence and allowing the Kremlin to narrow the regional and global implications of its invasion of Georgia to an old-fashioned Washington-Moscow dispute. Even as they vowed to work with allies, administration officials conceded that they wished the European Union had been willing to take firmer action than issuing tepid statements criticizing Russia's conduct. But the officials said the benefits of remaining part of a united front made it prudent for the United States to accept the softer approach advocated by Italy and Germany, among other allies. Some within the administration have argued for a more hawkish response, saying that Moscow probably intends to impose its will among independent states along its borders. They say the Kremlin is signaling to Ukraine, the Baltic nations and Poland that it is back in the game of regional hegemony, and they say it must be deterred. In the first days of the conflict, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney reflected the view of administration hard-liners who saw Russia's offensive as justifying their skepticism and a policy that the Kremlin's actions would "not go unanswered." In his more recent comments, Mr. Cheney has stuck with the administration's emerging position of a more calibrated response. In an interview, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates described the administration as having come to a unified position that calls for "a long-term strategic approach ? not one where we react tactically in a way that has negative strategic consequences." Mr. Gates, a career Kremlinologist and former director of central intelligence, said: "We are all agreed that we need to stay very much in close collaboration with the Europeans and others. I think there is a sense that we do have the time to calibrate reactions carefully. And I think there is agreement not to take any precipitous actions. But there is also agreement on the importance of continued support for Georgia's territorial integrity." He cautioned that "if we act too precipitously, we could be the ones who are isolated." As part of the new strategy, President Bush notified Congress on Monday that, "in view of recent actions" by Russia, he was withdrawing from consideration an agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation that he and Vladimir V. Putin, then Russia's president and now the prime minister, negotiated in April after years of effort. While the step was the most meaningful show of displeasure the United States has made over Russia's military action in Georgia, it also reflected a more cautious response. The deal was all but certain to die in Congress anyway, and the agreement could be revived by the administration should Russia's behavior improve, officials said. The issue of how to manage Russia is also playing into presidential politics. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, has long called for excluding Russia from the Group of 8 industrialized powers and has urged a firmer response. Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has criticized the Kremlin's decision to go into Georgia but has made it clear that he favors more engagement. While the United States has been cautious in moving to punish Russia, it has thrown significant support behind Georgia, including a $1 billion economic assistance package that Mr. Bush proposed last week. The aid, officials said, was to shore up Georgia's economy and to help the political standing of President Mikheil Saakashvili, the republic's battered leader. Overall, the administration's strategy reflects a desire to defend Georgia's territorial sovereignty and its symbolic role as an emerging democracy, while not precluding cooperation with Russia on a number of important long-term national security interests, including counterterrorism, nonproliferation and efforts to halt narcotics traffic. While the United States and Russia continue to share a number of national security interests, Mr. Gates said, "We would still like to see Russia headed toward a more constructively collaborative role in dealing with international problems ? rather than throwing their food on the floor." In other interviews, a range of senior administration officials argued that Russia is already paying a price for its actions, as foreign investors appeared to be removing or withholding assets, prompting a decline in the ruble since the Kremlin's forces crossed into Georgia. The Russian stock market has also plummeted. "Russia has been condemned by the European Union, by the Group of 7 foreign ministers and individually by many other countries," said a senior State Department official, who, like some others interviewed for this article, was given anonymity to discuss internal administration thinking. "This is very strong stuff, and they do feel that," the official added. "And even if they didn't feel that, they might feel the billions of dollars of capital that has fled. The Russians are on a course of self-isolation. Nothing we do in a deliberate, punitive way would be as effective in isolating Russia as what they have done themselves." Regarding another possible punishment, a veto of Russian entry into the World Trade Organization, the more likely decision now is for a disciplined silence from powerful voices in Washington that had supported Moscow's membership, other officials said. A renewal of support for membership in the organization would be dependent on Russian behavior. "We were an advocate for Russia, but maybe we just go quiet," Mr. Gates said in describing the emerging strategy. "So it's not a negative decision. Where we were their advocate, maybe we're not so much their advocate anymore, at least not for the foreseeable future." The United States has left much of the direct diplomacy to Europe, including the administration's endorsement of a leading role by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president and current president of the European Union, who visited Moscow on Monday to urge Russia to abide by the terms of a cease-fire he brokered last month. Inside the Bush administration, cabinet-level meetings of principal policy makers have been held several times since the fighting in Georgia began on Aug. 7. The most recent took place just before Mr. Cheney visited the region last week. The vice president, who visited Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, all former Soviet republics on Russia's periphery, spoke forcefully on Russia for much of last week, but even he did not close the door on improved relations, casting future relations as a choice for Russian leaders to make. "What we do know right now is that Russia's leaders cannot have things both ways," Mr. Cheney said on Saturday at an international forum in Cernobbio, Italy. "They cannot presume to gather up all the benefits of commerce, consultation and global prestige while engaging in brute force, threats or other forms of intimidation against sovereign, democratic countries. To succeed and prosper in the modern world, Russia must relate to the world as a responsible modern power." In Rome on Monday, where the vice president was meeting with Italian officials, a senior administration official said, "The emphasis that the United States wants to make going forward is to make certain that we've got everybody knitted up together in terms of developing a common policy that we can all support." From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Sep 9 07:23:09 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:23:09 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Last Ditch Message-ID: <48C678BD.10207@attglobal.net> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (September 08 2008) ? Why do the big deals always happen over the weekends? So the big boyz in government and finance can take off their neckties when they bargain with each other? So the markets will be closed and unable to register a response one way or another? So the shrinking fraction of the US public that pays attention to anything besides Nascar and pornography won't catch the news Saturday evening? This weekend's big deal was the US government taking over the "government sponsored enterprises" (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that guarantee trillions of dollars in mortgages. The "guarantee" is supposedly accomplished by converting bundles of mortgages from the banks and loan companies that originate them (that make the contracts with the buyers of houses) into bonds that can be sold downstream. Risk was theoretically dispersed among the holders of these bonds. This all seemed to work during the long stable period when our cheap oil economy was chugging along, and house prices maintained a consistent relationship with incomes, and people paid their mortgages dependably. The whole system ran like a reliable machine - like a Chrysler slant-six engine! Until the cheap oil age came to an end. Then, all parts of the system shook apart. It was the end of cheap oil that catalyzed the housing collapse and, by extension, the current huge financial crisis. But the run up to it was like a bounce off a high diving board into an empty pool. The bounce came around 2001 when it became apparent that the US standard-of-living could not be maintained on incomes in a post-cheap-oil economy. The trauma of 9/11 prompted a new and utterly insane consensus to form that the US standard of living could be switched over from income to massive debt. All the normal brakes against irresponsible lending and borrowing came off - embodied in Alan Greenspan's absurd statement that it was a good time to assume an adjustable rate mortgage when interest rates were at a historic low - meaning they could only be adjusted upwards. Why hold Greenspan responsible? Because he was at the apex of the authority vested with establishing norms, and he shoved our behavior into the realm of the recklessly abnormal, and he should have known better. The public went along with it because "free money" and high living are fun. Their behavior was reinforced by other authorities - for instance, President Bush, who told Americans to go shopping after the 9/11 attacks. (They went shopping with credit cards.) Things really wobbled in 2005 - which was, coincidentally, the year of all-time world-wide peak conventional oil production - with hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripping through the Gulf of Mexico oil rigs as a dramatic highlight. (It was also the year that The Long Emergency was published.) Since then, the US economy and the financial part of it that became a nine hundred pound tail wagging a thirty-pound dog, has been held together with baling wire, duct tape, and band-aids. All the debt run up by all parties - home-owners, credit-card holders, business, banks, hedge funds, government - is not being paid back reliably, and all the leveraged arrangements that depend on it being paid back are coming apart. Thus, capital disappears. The wealth of a nation disappears. All that remains is the pretense that we are still a wealthy society Fannie and Freddie are near the center of this black hole of debt. So far, the black hole has been "papered over" by the old stage magician's trick of diverting the audience's attention. The systemic wound that Bear Stearns represented, was covered up with a band-aid applied by the Federal Reserve's exchange of loans for worthless securities. In fact, the capital of Bear Stearns actually did disappear - a mere residue of it, a few cents on the dollar, was shifted to JP Morgan as payment for taking the wrapper off the band-aid. But, basically, the money is gone. Now, the same thing has happened with Fannie and Freddie, except that the scale is an order of magnitude greater. This time, the US Treasury Department is assuming worthless paper and paying out much larger loans to enterprises that are functionally bankrupt. The exact nature of the government's chartered "sponsorship" has always been ambiguous. Professional opinion has generally held that government backing was implied rather than explicit - but that's a ridiculous internal contradiction that went unchallenged for decades as Fannie and Freddie's Ponzi-style operation lumbered on (and their executives made off with obscene payouts). Now the government's role has suddenly been made explicit. It will probably only make things worse, since the enterprises are too big and over-scaled to work under any circumstances, let alone insolvency. One thing this points to is a truth that is uniformly overlooked by kibitzers: that what we developed over the past decade in America was not an "information economy" or a "consumer economy" but a suburban sprawl building economy, meaning an economy dedicated to building a living arrangement with no future. The climax of the sprawl building economy occurred in absolute lockstep with the climax of peak oil. You can date it virtually to the month - May 2005. After that, the future asserted itself and all the financial expectations bound up with sprawl-building went up in a vapor - including the value of mortgages on suburban houses. Everything that followed has been an attempt to cover up this basic reality: that the way we live in America can't continue. The reason our energy debate is so hollow and idiotic is because we can't face this basic reality. The fantasy-du-jour among both political parties is that we can become "energy independent". By this they mean we can keep on living the way we do by means other than oil. This is just not true. We have to make profound changes in everything we do from the way we inhabit the landscape to the way we produce our food. Lately, the only change we've shown any interest in is changing what our cars run on. But that is not going to rescue us, not even a little. Our inability to talk about anything else except the cars will drag us down into poverty and turmoil. The housing market is not coming back. Ever. In the form that we knew it. The suburban project is over. That version of the American Dream is over. We'll be a lot better off if we put aside dreaming altogether for a while and start focusing on reality instead - that part of the day when we're awake and capable of actually doing things. We've got a lot to face and a lot to do. The government takeover of Fannie and Freddie is just another papering-over of our fundamental problem - that until we embark on new ways of being a nation, of living differently and working differently on different things, the other nations of the world will not have confidence in us, or the paper we issue, and we will not really have confidence in ourselves. I have believed all along - and said as much in The Long Emergency - that we would not get through this crisis without passing through a period of hardship. We're entering it now. Even if the stock markets shoot up five hundred points today on the basis of the Fannie-Freddie deal (and the mistaken belief that our troubles are over), we are only at the beginning of a very painful workout. Personally, I think we're in for financial carnage before the election. The Fannie-Freddie deal may be the place where the wheels really come off. ____________________________________ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/09/last-ditch.html 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/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Tue Sep 9 07:28:00 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 07:28:00 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Utopia and Reality Message-ID: <001601c9127f$ee1bb6b0$0400a8c0@computer> [Re the Red Bad Bear list discussion] I've always felt that the basic role of committed "radicals" is a matter of "riding point" -- exploring new turf and charting new vision and presenting creative strategies. But there's a downside to that, of course, as there is in just about anything in our world. It's tempting to lay out a bright and shiny utopian vision -- its nuts-and-bolts content almost always ill-defined, sometimes to the point of vagueness -- and then criticize virtually everything that fails to measure up to that -- again, oft-misty -- Image. We all know the sinister role of financial and corporate interests in the United States -- and much globally as well. In our national bailiwick, we have Thorstein Veblen and The Theory of the Leisure Class, historian Charles Beard and his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, Thurman Arnold and his Folklore of Capitalism, the Power Elite by C. Wright Mills -- and an almost infinite number of other comparable analyses. There is, sadly, really nothing new with regard to that Reality. But many of us attempt to secure meaningful social justice change within that context. All the while, of course, many of us seek to propel a vision of a just society in which negative forces are finally gone, replaced by genuinely democratic economic/socio/political arrangements. [Those will never, of course, measure up completely to the multitude of human ideals.] But it can become all too easy for the utopian radical to place himself/herself on a tree perch -- and criticize those and their efforts which fail to measure up to the ever evasive and shining Glow off yonder. From that perspective, criticism can be levied against everything from contemporary Cuba to FDR to Hugo Chavez to Eisenhower to unionism to Obama -- and vastly more. That's all too easy to do from the Perch in the Tree. If that's what one want to do, well -- fine with me. That's a Destiny. [And we all, of course, criticize to some extent.] But, again, many of us fall out on the side of principled pragmatism -- as well as that of Vision. We try to work effectively with the cards that we have -- and can get. My personal "negotiating strategy" is to get as much as one can within the practical framework of Reality -- and then try, at that very point, to get even More. And then, keep trying, keep fighting, always reaching. But we have to always remember that the troops can get tired for a spell. And the trail to the summit of the Big Rock Candy Mountain is a long and tough pull. Yours, H. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 08:41:35 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:41:35 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Pakistan Considers Asset Sales to Bolster Economy Message-ID: Just as the USG is decisively turning against Pakistan, and the Taliban are gaining on, the country's corrupt civilian elite are making worse economic moves than Musharraf's that can bring down their own government. Can this country be saved? -- Yoshie September 9, 2008 Pakistan Considers Asset Sales to Bolster Economy By HEATHER TIMMONS NEW DELHI ? Pakistan plans to sell valuable energy assets, beginning with a major gas field, as it tries to reap billions of dollars from deals with investors in industries like banking and farming. The move comes as Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, is stepping in as president. Because of a hefty oil bill and a slowing economy, Pakistan is struggling under its biggest budget deficit in a decade, $21 billion; inflation that hit a 30-year high, 24.3 percent, in July; and fast-rising unemployment that is projected to reach 6.6 percent in 2009. Government leaders are eager to raise money, quickly. "The government is going through all their funding options," a banker advising the Pakistani government said. Financial advisers to the government spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to alienate their client. The Qadirpur gas field in Pakistan, a natural gas reserve of 2.9 trillion cubic feet in the Indus River flood plain, may be one of the first big-ticket sales. The field, the second-largest in the country, is valued at about $3 billion. Bids for the field, about 260 miles northeast of Karachi, may be submitted in the next week or so, bankers say. Likely bidders include foreign companies already involved in Pakistan's energy industry, like Kuwaiti state corporations and OMV, a private Austrian energy company. "They're testing the market with an auction," said an energy banker who asked to remain anonymous because he was pricing the deal for a client. The selling of the Qadirpur field could be controversial because it is considered a strategic asset. Pakistan imports more than three-quarters of its petroleum and is struggling to become less dependent on imports. But a person close to the deal said there were no guarantees that the field would be sold. He characterized the bid solicitation as an informal process. He asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the deal. Some investors are questioning the wisdom of Pakistan's selling valuable assets and are wondering whether sales will be conducted transparently and fairly. But there is no question that the country needs to raise money, analysts said. Pakistan's economic situation is "a result of rising commodity and food prices, exacerbated by a lot of pre-election spending by the previous government," said Gareth Price, head of the Asia Program at Chatham House, a research center in London, referring to the general elections held in February. In an effort to win votes, the previous government, led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, kept subsidies high on food, electricity and oil, helping drive up the budget deficit. The sale of the Qadirpur field is part of a full-scale review of the biggest energy company in Pakistan, Oil and Gas Development, which owns 75 percent of Qadirpur. The review is being led by Merrill Lynch. Pakistan's privatization commission said in late August that it also planned to offer stakes in Kot Addu Power on international stock exchanges this year and to privatize Hazara Phosphate Fertilizers. It invited bidders for 51 percent of Jamshoro Power, a long-discussed privatization deal. Salt and coal mines are also scheduled to be privatized. The list of state assets for sale may not necessarily be followed by deals, analysts warned. "Talk of investing huge sums of money doesn't always materialize, because people are put off by the political machinations" in Pakistan, Mr. Price said. Pakistan's "economic curse" is that the ruling elite ? civil servants, politicians and the military ? have worked in their own interest, not that of the wider population, limiting how much capital the country can raise, he said. One possible source of new investment is the Middle East. "There is a cultural and long-term affinity between the two regions," said Youssef Nasr, the chief executive of HSBC in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, in particular, have been strong supporters of Pakistan. Investors from the Middle East have already bought stakes in telecommunications, banking and industrial companies in Pakistan and have been pleased with the results, he said. One area of cooperation between Pakistan and the Middle East may be agriculture. The arid climate of the Middle East, coupled with rising food prices, has ignited fears about food security. Pakistan, meanwhile, has swaths of arable land that is lying fallow. Government officials on both sides are exploring links that could lead to joint farming ventures, Mr. Nasr said. "It's not going to be a huge industry, by international standards," he predicted, but it could be large enough to make a difference to Pakistan's economy. The Pakistani government plans to raise money in ways besides asset sales and joint ventures. Pakistan's central bank said on Thursday that it would sell bonds compliant with Islamic law in the domestic market and that the World Bank would "fast track" $1 billion in planned investments in the country. Attempts to privatize and sell some state-owned assets have proved contentious. The government's plans to sell Pakistan Steel to a group of investors in 2006 were overturned, in part because the agreed-upon price was deemed to be about a third of the $1 billion value. Other sales of equity stakes have gone through with less controversy. In June 2007, United Bank Limited of Pakistan raised $650 million on the London Stock Exchange. One bright spot for the county's economy has been remittances, or money transferred home by Pakistanis working outside the country, which are on the rise, Mr. Price said. The government is lobbying to get more permits for workers to travel to the Persian Gulf, from which most remittances are sent. From intnsred at golgotha.net Tue Sep 9 08:50:33 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:50:33 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Fannie? Freddie? Foreigners own my house -- and probably yours too! Message-ID: <200809091050.33995.intnsred@golgotha.net> Fannie? Freddie? Foreigners own my house -- and probably yours too! by Steve McRae I own a home, at least that's what the bank tells me. I've often joked with friends that "I rent a house from the bank" which is pretty close to the truth. After all, even though I've paid my mortgage for years, the bank owns far more of "my" house than I do. Big deal, most people will admit that if they stop to think about it. But what if I told you that your bank doesn't really own your house. What if I told you that foreigners own your house because the ruling powers in the US sold your house to foreigners in a scam to help pay for Bush's wars? Well, that is what I'm telling you. This economic scam isn't complicated -- bankers only make it complicated to hide the scam. If you know how to balance a checkbook and know the meaning of the word "deficit" I can easily explain it to you. Here's how the scam works. International Trade 101 The US runs a huge -- no, make that HUGE -- trade deficit. If you think we spend obscene amounts of money on oil, we spend far more on imported industrial and consumer goods. All those Asian made computers, TVs, DVD players and all the Chinese-made stuff at Wal-Mart dwarfs our trade deficit in petroleum products. The industrial giant that was the US in WWII is now history. So why does China, Japan, S. Korea (etc.) keep filling up ships with real products and sending them to the US? What's in it for them? To finance our trade and budget deficit foreign nations used to be content with buying US Treasury Bonds and making investments in US corporations. But now our deficits are so large that foreign investors want more -- and you can't blame them. More and more we see foreign nations buying up entire US companies. IBM sold off its Personal Computer division, Lenovo, to China. Go to a ball game and drink a Budweiser and the profits from that Bud go to Brazilians and Europeans. The profits from all those foreign-owned "American" companies going overseas is real American wealth going overseas. But foreigners are restricted from buying some of the really good US companies. The US government intervened to stop the Chinese from buying the oil company UNOCAL. IBM needed US government permission to sell off its PC division. The US government simply won't allow companies like Boeing -- and others -- to be sold to foreign investors. Since George Bush came to power, the US trade deficit has continued to expand and the US government is running MASSIVE budget deficits. It stands to reason that if you cut taxes and increase spending that you're going to increase your deficit. Duh. Remember, since Bush launched the so-called "War on Terror" military spending has gone from obscenely high to out-of-this-world high. The US now spends as much on its military as all other countries in the world combined. But we have to sell those foreigners something! If we don't, they won't fill up ships with stuff to send to us and politicians are going to have to break the truth to the American people. So what else are we selling to foreign investors to keep living beyond our means? That's where my house comes in. It's about the only thing that we in the US have left to sell. Do Anything Except Tell the Truth George Bush came into power right after the dot-COM tech bubble burst at the end of the 1990s. Bush needed a gimmick to keep the game going. After all, the Chinese may want to keep those cheap consumer goods for their own internal Chinese market instead of sending them to the US. What Bush did was to flood the US with money. That's easy to do -- just crank up the printing presses! In the span of only a few short years Bush more than doubled the total amount of US dollars in circulation. That's a helluva an increase in dollars! Bush printed so much money that the US government stopped telling people how much money they were printing. So what did the banks do with all those new dollars? Make loans, of course. Especially real estate loans. That flood of cash is what gave us the real estate bubble during Bush's presidency. Banks went hog wild loaning money for a house to anyone with a pulse. You want your house refinanced? No problem! Hell, TV shows were made about how to get rich "flipping" a house. The banks built up a huge housing bubble full of hot air. You know, the bubble that just popped. But wait -- it gets worse! With the banks rolling in newly printed cash, Wall Street and bond traders wanted in on the scam. So the financial community started creating an alphabet soup of bonds and securities. Those securities ("securities" sounds safe, doesn't it?!) were a hodge-podge of crap but were mostly made up of those shaky house loans that the banks were making. And where did Wall Street sell those junk "securities"? You betcha! To foreign investors! Now, let's not blame all this on Bush and the greed of Wall Street -- we were at fault too. After all, with military spending going through the roof to fight wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, and other places, something had to happen. That's just common sense. We would have to tighten our belts and buy fewer East Asian consumer goods. Oh no, we can't have that, what would Wal-Mart do?! Or we would have to raise taxes -- perish the thought, we're Americans! Or maybe -- just maybe -- we'd have to admit we can't afford the Pentagon and our bloated military. So George Bush did what most politicians do. He lied. He told us what we wanted to hear. After Sep. 11th, Bush didn't tell the American people that he was going to raise taxes to pay for his wars. No, he told us to go shopping. Seriously! Go shopping or the terrorists would win. And we lapped it up. How To Sell Your House Without You Even Knowing It Now it's time to pay up. The US government just bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They had to -- they had no choice. They had no choice for two reasons: 1. All those Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages are government-insured. If a government-insured mortgage goes belly-up, the US government has to pay off the bank for the bad mortgage. But even the US government cannot afford to pay the banks the money for all the bad, junk mortgages the banks made. It's the safety net of socialism for the banks, and an eviction notice for anyone defaulting on a house. 2. Most of those junk mortgages were packaged into junk securities and sold to foreign (especially East Asian) investors. Those investors will be royally pissed if the US defaults on those "securities." If the US allows those junk securities to evaporate, the Japanese and Chinese won't be sending us ships of consumer crap to fill the shelves at Wal-Mart. So what's that mean for my house and your house? Like millions of Americans my house is financed by an FHA US government-insured loan. I make my payment to a US bank. But my actual mortgage was likely packaged into a junk security and sold to a foreign investor. In short, a foreigner really owns my house -- not the US bank. An aside: When a person is taken in by a liar or con-artist, whose fault is it? Is it the liar's fault? Or is it the person's fault for not being skeptical enough? Or both? In Summary Why does a foreigner own my house? I can think of three reasons right off the top of my head: 1. The US government failed to regulate and monitor Wall Street and the banking industry. Not only did the government let the fox guard the proverbial chicken coop, but the government, Alan Greenspan, and the Federal Reserve helped eat the chickens because they are the foxes. 2. We've allowed corporations to take over the US government. Corporations fund both major political parties and are erasing our national borders. You and I need a passport to cross the US border -- corporations and money do not. 3. George Bush lied through his teeth and launched a war on Iraq and other countries without raising taxes and telling us the only thing we needed to do was to go shopping. And we believed him. The author grants any person the right to republish this article in its entirety as long as the author's name and a link to the original Internet source of the article is retained. Feedback and comments about this article are welcome. -- "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real." -- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957. From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Tue Sep 9 10:41:37 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:41:37 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Pallin's Scurrilous Record re Alaskan Natives Message-ID: <000601c9129a$f15b0ef0$0400a8c0@computer> Indianz.Com. In Print. http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/010720.asp Attorneys: Gov. Palin's record on Alaska Natives Tuesday, September 9, 2008 Filed Under: Opinion | Politics Ed. Note: Lloyd Miller is an attorney with Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry. Heather Kendall Miller works for the Native American Rights Fund. "1. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Fishing Perhaps no issue is of greater importance to Alaska Native peoples as the right to hunt and fish according to ancient customary and traditional practices, and to carry on the subsistence way of life for future generations. Governor Sarah Palin has consistently opposed those rights. 2. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Subsistence Hunting Palin has also sought to invalidate critical determinations the Federal Subsistence Board has made regarding customary and traditional uses of game, specifically to take hunting opportunities away from Native subsistence villagers and thereby enhance sport hunting. Palin's attack here on subsistence has focused on the Ahtna Indian people in Chistochina. 3. Palin has attacked Alaska Tribal Sovereignty Governor Palin opposes Alaska tribal sovereignty. Given past court rulings affirming the federally recognized tribal status of Alaska Native villages, Palin does not technically challenge that status. But Palin argues that Alaska Tribes have no authority to act as sovereigns, despite their recognition. 4. Palin has attacked Alaska Native Languages Palin has refused to accord proper respect to Alaska Native languages and voters by refusing to provide language assistance to Yup'ik speaking Alaska Native voters. As a result, Palin was just ordered by a special three-judge panel of federal judges to provide various forms of voter assistance to Yup'ik voters residing in southwest Alaska. Nick v. Bethel, No. 3:07-cv-0098-TMB (D. Ak.) (Order entered July 30, 2008). Citing years of State neglect, Palin was ordered to provide trained poll workers who are bilingual in English and Yup'ik; sample ballots in written Yup'ik; a written Yup'ik glossary of election terms; consultation with local Tribes to ensure the accuracy of Yup'ik translations; a Yup'ik language coordinator; and pre-election and post-election reports to the court to track the State's efforts." Get the Story: Lloyd Miller and Heather Kendall Miller: Sarah Palin's Record on Alaska Native and Tribal Issues (TurtleTalk 9/8) Related Stories: Palin billed state for living at home and family travel (9/9) Editorial: Gov. Palin stalling on Troopergate probe (9/8) Gov. Palin claims trooper disparaged Natives (9/4) Column: Liberals smear 'drunken Indian' husband (9/3) Governor's husband takes on role as 'First Dude' (9/3) Fired Alaska Native cop not contacted by McCain (9/2) McCain picks Alaska governor for running mate (9/1) Sen. McCain to announce vice presidential pick (08/28) Alaska lawmakers to probe firing of Native top cop (7/29) Controversy continues over new Alaska top cop (7/25) New Alaska top cop was accused of harassment (7/23) Probe sought into firing of Alaska Native top cop (7/22) Fired Alaska Native cop cites pressure from governor (7/21) Alaska governor defends firing of Native top cop (7/18) First Alaska Native public safety official fired (7/14) Alaska Native appointed to state game board (2/11) No Natives named to Alaska Board of Game (2/7) HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 9 11:35:36 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:35:36 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Video film backs Afghan villagers' claims of carnage Message-ID: <200809091735.m89HZaPd023444@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080909/9eadf8ad/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 9 11:36:37 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:36:37 -0700 Subject: [R-G] (Iran) The Israel Lobby vs. the oil companies Message-ID: <200809091736.m89HabKL025108@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080909/e08e0e64/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 9 11:43:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:43:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] U.S. drones kill 23 in missile attack in Pakistan Message-ID: <200809091743.m89HhjH7011914@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080909/32ef70fa/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 9 11:43:09 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:43:09 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran Message-ID: <200809091743.m89Hh9xt009376@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080909/a10879e7/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 9 11:42:43 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:42:43 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Shin Bets academic freedom Message-ID: <200809091742.m89HghEm008354@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080909/479c3a2b/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 11:57:20 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:57:20 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy Message-ID: Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy As the nation continues to debate its energy future, a new report released today shows that the U.S. can create two million jobs by investing in a rapid green economic recovery program, which will strengthen the economy, increase energy independence, and fight global warming. Green Recovery ? A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy [LINK: ] was prepared by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, under commission by the Center for American Progress and released by a coalition of labor and environmental groups. The authors are Robert Pollin, Heidi Garrett-Peltier, James Heintz, and Helen Scharber of PERI. Focusing for now on a short-term clean energy and jobs program, Green Recovery reports that a short-term green stimulus package would create two million jobs nationwide over two years. Later in the fall, PERI and CAP will co-publish a fuller study that addresses the longer-term challenges and opportunities created by building a clean-energy economy. The short-term $100 billion green economic recovery package would: * Create nearly four times more total jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry, and 300,000 more jobs than a similar amount of spending directed toward household consumption. * Create roughly triple the number of good jobs ? paying at least $16 dollars an hour ? as spending the same amount of money within the oil industry. * Reduce the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent from 5.7 percent (calculated within the framework of U.S. labor market conditions in July 2008). * Bolster employment especially in construction and manufacturing. Construction employment has fallen from 8 million to 7.2 million jobs over the past two years due to the housing bubble collapse. The Green Recovery program can, at the least, bring back these lost 800,000 construction jobs. The green economic recovery program addresses the immediate need to boost our struggling economy and accelerate the adoption of a comprehensive clean-energy agenda through a $100 billion investment that would combine tax credits and loan guarantees for private businesses with direct public-investment spending. The recovery program aims to boost private and public investment in six energy-efficiency and renewable-energy strategies: retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and freight rail, constructing 'smart' electrical grid transmission systems, wind power, solar power, and next-generation biofuels. The report shows that the vast majority of the two million jobs would be in the same areas of employment that people already work in today, in every region and state of the country. For example, constructing wind farms creates jobs for sheet metal workers, machinists and truck drivers, among many others. Increasing the energy efficiency of buildings through retrofitting requires roofers, insulators and building inspectors. Expanding mass transit systems employs civil engineers, electricians, and dispatchers. The study's authors conclude that "we can be certain that the green recovery program will serve as a strong counterforce against pressures that are currently pushing unemployment up as well as more broadly increasing economic disparities. The green infrastructure investments proposed here will also generate significant long-term advances toward creating the clean energy economy that we need." The green recovery program investments would fund: * $50 billion for tax credits. This would assist private businesses and homeowners in financing commercial and residential building retrofits, as well as investments in renewable-energy systems. * $46 billion in direct government spending. This would support public building retrofits, the expansion of mass transit, freight rail and smart electrical-grid systems, and new investments in renewable energy. * $4 billion for federal loan guarantees. This would underwrite private credit that is extended to finance building retrofits and investments in renewable energy. About the authors: Robert Pollin is Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. James Heintz is Associate Research Professor and Associate Director of PERI. Heidi Garrett-Peltier and Helen Scharber are Ph.D. students in Economics and Research Assistants at PERI. This report is part of PERI's ongoing program exploring the renewable energy economy. Watch our website for future reports in this program area. For more information or for media inquiries, please contact Debbie Zeidenberg, PERI's Communications Director. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Sep 9 11:57:50 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (ANTHONY FENTON) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:57:50 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Layton targets tar sands Message-ID: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080908.welexndp0908/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail Layton targets tar sands GLORIA GALLOWAY Globe and Mail Update September 8, 2008 at 7:04 PM EDT FORT SMITH, NWT ? The plane carrying New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and his NDP entourage swooped over the Alberta tar sands Monday to show vast expanses of northern wilderness despoiled by development. Ponds filled with chemicals that remain from oil extraction, forest that have criss-crossed with strips that have been cleared of trees, mines that rise out of nowhere. Linda Duncan, the environmental advocate who is running for the New Democrats in Edmonton-Strathcona, offered a running description of the devastation below. Wildlife has been displaced, she said, and ground water has been drained. In Fort Smith, more than 300 kilometres north of the tar sands that lie outside Fort McMurray, Alta., people fear the chemicals they say may be flowing their way. ?It's depressing to see untrammeled development with significant environmental consequences taking place with no action by the government to address it,? Mr. Layton told reporters at park overlooking the Slave River in this community of 2,500. ?The consequences of this development are not just limited to the narrow areas that we have been travelling over in our voyage here. The polluted water that can flow from the toxic development that is taking place without controls ultimately flows to the North through the river system that we see behind us here.? Conservative Leader Stephen Harper paid a recent visit to the north to talk about what his government would do to ensure Canada's arctic sovereignty. He has also spoken about the importance of the region to the country and to himself personally. But Mr. Layton accused Mr. Harper of fast-tracking tar sands development without proper controls. ?When we see Mr. Harper claim to be standing up for the North and to have a vision for the North, he'd better start by controlling the pollution and taking action to protect the north from the toxic discharges of his friends in the big oil companies.? The NDP, he said, has demanded that no new permits for oil sands development be issued until a plan for that development has been put in place. Mr. Layton said he also wants the oil companies to explain what they are going to do with the toxic lagoons and how they will ensure the integrity of dams protecting the Athabaska River system. The oil sands are the largest single contributor to greenhouse gases in Canada. They are also provide the livelihood for thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have flocked to places like Fort McMurray to take advantage of the energy boom. But Mr. Layton said the destruction of the Canadian north will come back to haunt future generations and it is time to end the $1.4-billion in federal tax subsidies that go to the oil and gas companies exploiting the tar sands. ?You can see here is that it's far from benign. It looks like a suburban subdivision,? he said of the hectares and hectares of developed territory that passed beneath the wings of the plane. ?Massive amounts of energy are being used to draw out these fossil fuels, we spend twice as much energy, sometimes three times as much energy, as we produce just to get the energy out,? he said. Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative MP from the Ontario riding of Peterborough, responded to the Mr. Layton's criticisms by saying that the NDP Leader knows full well that the government, under Mr. Harper, increased the level of scrutiny on industry in all sectors of the economy. In addition, said Mr. Del Mastro, the oil-sands industry is making huge investments in an effort to improve its efficiency. Billions of dollars in procurements will flow to Ontario and Quebec in the coming years, he said, as the energy companies invest in the goods that will be required to retrofit their operations. And tens of thousands of people rely on the tar sands for their jobs, said Mr. Del Mastro, so Mr. Layton is ?attacking people where they work.? Liberal Leader St?phane Dion has made the environment a prime plank in his election campaign with his proposal to introduce a carbon tax offset by income-tax cuts. Mr. Layton is aiming to position his party as the foremost defender of the same issue ? one that ranks high on the list of Canadian concerns. ?The first nations who have lived here for thousands of years already can no longer really eat the fish,? he fish, he said. ?Is no one going to say this is going to stop?? Cec Heron, a lifetime resident of Fort Smith who works on land and water issues for a local aboriginal band, said thee people of this area cannot drink oil. ?We've survived without oil in the North for thousands of years by living off the land. We didn't need it for vehicles and everything else,? Ms. Heron said. ?We used to be able to dip a cup into any lake out here and drink fresh water. It terrifies me to think of what is going to happen to people who are downstream from the oil sands. It's going to be horrendous for us.? From mstainsby at resist.ca Tue Sep 9 12:02:04 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:02:04 -0600 Subject: [R-G] The energy industry's Mediterranean love affair Message-ID: <48C6BA1C.60302@resist.ca> Clip *Algeria and Libya are among the last great hopes for the energy industry as it struggles to offset waning reserves and production in mature fields, such as the North Sea. They have rising production, vast unexplored tracts of land and a hunger for foreign investment, if only on their own strict and demanding terms.* Full: The energy industry's Mediterranean love affair Eni's purchase of First Calgary Petroleums is another sign of the sector's plans for Algeria and Libya. And the competition is heating up ERIC REGULY Globe and Mail //September 9, 2008 ROME ? Algeria and Libya have gone from no-go countries to the hottest of the oil and gas hot spots in only a few years. After a spate of recent deals, more evidence of the new love affair with the two Mediterranean countries came yesterday when Italian energy giant Eni SpA agreed to buy Toronto-listed First Calgary Petroleums Ltd., which owns a natural gas field in Algeria, for about $923-million. For Eni, acquiring First Calgary means the Italian firm is snapping up huge reserves in a country where it already operates, all at a price that has come down considerably. First Calgary's stock price has dropped from $24.90 a share in 2005 to below $4 yesterday, in part because of a lack of progress in developing its MLE field near the Libyan border, the company's main holding. With First Calgary's reserves estimated to contain 190 million barrels of oil equivalent of proved and probable gas, Eni's offer of $3.60 a share means the company is effectively paying less than $5 for every barrel, an ultralow price to pay for future production. Algeria and Libya are among the last great hopes for the energy industry as it struggles to offset waning reserves and production in mature fields, such as the North Sea. They have rising production, vast unexplored tracts of land and a hunger for foreign investment, if only on their own strict and demanding terms. The bad news: The competition for exploration and production licences and contracts in Algeria and Libya is heating up, with some Western governments offering to spend billions to lock up energy wealth for their national oil and gas champions. The Italians covet Algerian gas. Their alternative is to buy it from Russia. Eni already has substantial oil and gas operations in Algeria, currently producing around 90,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Until recently, Algeria and Libya were off limits to foreign oil and gas companies. Algeria was torn by a civil war that didn't sputter out until 2001, when peace accords were signed. Economic sanctions against Libya were not lifted until 2003, after Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi agreed to pay reparations concerning the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, and abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons. Italy last month pledged to pay Libya $5-billion (U.S.) in compensation for the abuses and deaths during three decades of colonial rule, which ended in 1943. The move was widely seen as an energy-driven diplomatic deal to guarantee Italian energy and pipeline companies, notably Eni, which is partly owned by the Italian state, long-term access to the Libya's oil and gas developments. Sensing the region would become the next frontier for conventional oil and gas, Petro-Canada became an early mover when it acquired the international assets of Germany's Veba Oil and Gas for $3.2-billion (Canadian) in 2002. Among Veba's prizes were a number of oil and gas exploration and production concessions in Libya. Through a joint venture with National Oil Corp. of Libya (NOC), Petrocan has become one of the country's biggest producers, with output of 100,000 barrels a day, a figure it expects to double in five years. Petrocan spokesman Tom Carney said the Libyan experience has been fruitful, even if negotiations with NOC have sometimes been difficult; the country is forcing foreign oil companies to give up a greater share of the profits from producing fields. "Libya is second only to the oil sands in the size of the opportunity and the capital investment," he said. Petrocan and NOC are busy hammering out the details of new exploration and production-sharing agreements that will be valid for 30 years and involve a joint investment of $7-billion (U.S.). About $500-million is to be spent on exploration. Calgary-based Venerex Energy has also had a successful exploration program in Libya, although it has not produced any oil. The company, which owns a 50-per-cent stake in a Libyan property that could one day produce 92,500 barrels of oil a day, announced yesterday it is exploring its "strategic alternatives," meaning takeover offers are welcome. Algeria has remained a tougher market for foreign oil companies. A recent surge in violence has rattled all foreign investors there. Canadian engineering company SNC-Lavalin lost 12 Algerian workers in August, when the workers' bus was attacked by terrorists. Algeria, like Libya, is also demanding a greater share of the profits from oil and gas developments. In general, the companies are paying more for less equity in the projects. One big project went spectacularly wrong. Last year, Sonatrach, the Libyan state energy company, had a falling out with two Spanish energy giants, Repsol YPF SA and Gas Natural, on a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) development. Sonatrach dumped its partners. The Spanish duo claimed the failed venture cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. But Algeria's oil and gas reserves and potential are so rich that big energy players cannot ignore the country. Norway's StatoilHydro, Britain's BP, France's Total and OMV of Austria are among the heavyweights eager to expand in Algeria, which is already the world's fourth-biggest LNG producer and controls 20 per cent of the European gas market. Algeria's newest arrival is Russia's giant Gazprom. Gazprom recently opened an office in Algeria, but has yet to strike a significant deal. Not long ago, the Kremlin agreed to write off $4.7-billion of Algeria's Cold War-era debt in exchange for a deal to sell Algeria weapons. Can an oil and gas deal be far behind? With files from Norval Scott http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.wreni09/BNStory/energy/home From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Sep 9 17:12:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:12:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome You to the USSRA Message-ID: <200809092312.m89NCjDD000231@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080909/ad795dda/attachment.txt From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Sep 9 18:19:42 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:19:42 -0400 Subject: [R-G] NZ forces need to leave Middle East - Fisk Message-ID: ?Tuesday, 09 September 2008 NZ forces need to leave Middle East - Fisk http://www.stuff.co.nz/print/4686722a11.html War correspondent Robert Fisk has written about the Middle East for more than 30 years. He talks to Rebecca Quillam about why our troops need to get out of the area and how New Zealanders are in the dark about the situation there. Veteran journalist Robert Fisk doesn't pull any punches when he talks about how to begin to achieve peace in the war ravaged Middle East. "The Western military must pull out from all the Muslim world," he said yesterday at his hotel in Wellington. And he includes New Zealand's special forces, who are based in Afghanistan, in his statement. "Heaven knows what they (the SAS) are doing and Afghanistan is a disaster anyway." He said New Zealand was under no threat from any country in the Middle East. "There are no Syrian soldiers on the streets of Wellington. "(Western nations) have no business to be there, historically it is a disaster. We never have any business there, we're always going to the Middle East with huge armies. "The Muslim armies came towards the West but that was in 732 ? it was a long time ago." Fisk, who has been based in Lebanon's capital Beirut for 32 years, has been in the country this week to promote his latest book The Age of the Warrior ? a collection of selected writings from articles published in The Independent between 1997 and January 2008. It was the first time he had put a collection of his articles together in the form of a book, and it was emotional experience, he said. "You forget a lot of things, because you're working hard and you're travelling all the time. "When you put the book together you realise the people you are talking to and dealing with are going through an absolute hell-disaster and then you realise that is what the book is about. "It's about suffering, pain, betrayal, rape, torture, massacre and invasion. And there were times when I had to break off and go for a walk along the beach." Fisk said while he compiled the book he referred to the vast collection of material he had gathered during his three decades in the region. "I've kept everything ? every notebook, every picture I've taken, every propaganda leaflet dropped by an Israeli aircraft over Beirut, every press conference and every newspaper I've used." Fisk had never been shy in bringing people's attention to what he believed was shoddy journalism ? with the New York Times often in his firing line. He disapproved of embedded reporters and said foreign correspondents must not be afraid to write the truth about what they see in war zones. "You must be objective, but you've got to be objective on the side of those who suffer ? whoever they may be. "When I go to New York and if I read the New York Times, its coverage of the Middle East is incomprehensible, because the language they use diminishes everything. "The wall (between Israel and Palestine) becomes a fence and occupied territory becomes disputed territory ? all so that nobody gets angry." However, he conceded it was difficult for New Zealand, which doesn't have the breadth of foreign correspondents that bigger nations have, to receive quality reports about places like the Middle East. "The problem you have in New Zealand is you're a very small country and you don't have the resources to staff foreign correspondents around the world. "So you fall back on the agencies, and the agencies have the same kind of bland outlook like the New York Times. "And at the end of the day, unfortunately, you are locked into that sort of journalism and it's not the fault of New Zealand journalism, it's just that you don't have the resources to break out of it." He pointed to the readership decline in a number of papers worldwide. "If you write crap ordinary members of the public know it's crap and they don't want it." He said he had built up a "depth of historic knowledge" about the Middle East. "Not because I've learned it from reading books, but because I was there." And after 30 years of studying the United States' Middle East policies, he predicted the upcoming American presidential election would not bring peace to the area, regardless of whether Barack Obama or John McCain won. "Every time there's an American presidential election the Arabs say `Ah, maybe there'll be change in the Middle East. Maybe America will be fairer, maybe it will concern itself with the security of the Arabs as well as the Israelis'. "And then afterwards there'll be a war in the Middle East and the President will call upon both sides to exercise restraint and there'll be billions of dollars of weapons sent to Israel to bomb Lebanon, or whoever they are bombing. "My experience over 32 years is whoever's in the White House, the bombs go on falling. And they will." - NZPA From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 19:13:30 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 21:13:30 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia: President's Future At Stake, Some Say Message-ID: Georgians Question Wisdom of War With Russia President's Future At Stake, Some Say By Tara Bahrampour Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 9, 2008; A12 TBILISI, Georgia, Sept. 8 -- As open war between Georgia and Russia has subsided into a tense standoff among world powers, Georgians inside and outside the government have begun to question the wisdom of the costly confrontation, and of the leaders who set it in motion. They are doing so carefully, saying they don't want to be seen as supporting the Kremlin's call for the ouster of President Mikheil Saakashvili. But whispers of discontent first heard during the early days of the war have grown louder and bolder. Opposition leaders as well as some longtime supporters of the president are calling for investigations into what they call failures in diplomacy and warfare, and some are predicting Saakashvili will be forced from office by a war they say he hoped would earn him a place in history. In parts of Georgia, Russian troops are still dug in. But since a wartime restriction on criticism of the government was lifted Thursday, the public recriminations have begun. David Usupashvili, leader of the opposition Republican Party, said he had serious concerns about the decision to fight the much larger Russian army. "I don't believe that the Georgian government started this military action, but I condemn my government's action to respond with a full-scale military conflict," he said. "The main fundamental question is why Saakashvili and his administration . . . did not think Russia would respond with all in its power, guns and tanks." David Gamkrelidze, leader of the opposition New Rights party, said that while Russia had long been "punishing" Georgia for its independence, Saakashvili's "unbalanced and very aggressive politics" had helped Russia. "By his military rhetoric, and all kinds of provocations, Saakashvili tried to show that he can return these territories by the military way, that he has this capacity, he has this force." The territories in question are two separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officials present at some of the prewar discussions said that Saakashvili and a tight group of supporters seemed convinced they had the military power to win back South Ossetia -- which Georgian forces attacked on the night of Aug. 7 -- within a few hours or days and were not interested in opposing points of view. "He has no communication with anybody except this small circle, which is a serious reason why he decided to go to South Ossetia," said a highly placed official who has worked in the government since Saakashvili took office but said he now feels let down. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official said Saakashvili "wants to be a hero, not a normal president who increases the taxes, et cetera." Alexander Rondeli, president of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, described the group around Saakashvili as "patriots" but added: "Maybe their experience is not enough, and they are revolutionaries rather than experienced statesmen." Georgian officials now say they never thought their army had a chance of overcoming the much larger Russian army on its own. Saakashvili said that he had no expectation of outside military assistance but that to preserve the Georgian state he had no choice but to attack the Russian forces. "We did not expect that some ready battalions would be there from the U.S. to come help us," he said in an interview. "That would have been insane of me. And I didn't expect the Europeans to risk their skins for us." Some sort of confrontation with Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia had long been brewing. Since leading the peaceful 2003 Rose Revolution, Saakashvili had made reclaiming the zones one of his main goals. Saakashvili's Western-oriented government has been hailed as a "beacon of democracy" by President Bush. But many here say that long before the war, the government used tensions over the breakaway regions to flout basic democratic principles, change the constitution to strengthen the ruling party, ignore judiciary problems and suppress the media. Such complaints helped spark massive protests here last November, which the government crushed with tear gas and masked troops wielding batons, staining Georgia's international image. Saakashvili ended the crisis by calling a snap presidential election; he won a second term, though with less support than in the previous election and with allegations of vote-rigging. With an ineffectual opposition, Saakashvili and his ruling majority had seemed securely ensconced for another five years. But now there is serious pressure: A popular opposition member of Parliament has called for an investigative commission, 80 organizations and individuals have signed a petition calling for a "broad debate," and most opposition leaders refused to sign a government pledge of unity, according to a local online newspaper. Critics also accuse the government of dishonesty in its characterization of the war's outcome. Several have blasted the government for staging celebrations during and after the war, and for claiming the conflict was an international public relations victory while blaming others for its failures. "What we are hearing is that everyone is guilty in this but the government itself," Usupashvili said. "They started talking that the events of last year were something which stopped the government from improving the army, or that there are lots of [Russian] agents within the opposition. But they are not looking in their own back yard to see who misled the president by saying the Russians wouldn't respond." Some people here say the war has delegitimized the president. "He no more has the moral or political right to be commander in chief, and he must resign," said Gamkrelidze, who ran against Saakashvili in January and is calling for new elections. One politician seen as a possible alternative is Nino Burjanadze, who helped usher in the Rose Revolution and resigned as speaker of the Parliament in the spring. Burjanadze, who recently visited the United States, said she was not yet ready to criticize Saakashvili publicly but said that for years she had warned him that Russia would attack if Georgia sent troops into the breakaway regions. "I always said this, and I said this at the last meeting," shortly before the war, she said. With his typical confidence, Saakashvili recently answered "absolutely" when asked whether he expects to survive the crisis politically. For all his troubles, his is a familiar face to Georgian voters as well as Western allies, and some people here predict he will finish his term, though perhaps in a weakened position that forces him into power-sharing. Rondeli said he thinks Saakashvili's chances of staying in power are "quite high." "I think there will be political forces that will try to seize the moment and get rid of him, but I think his position is not as weak as it looks for some," Rondeli said. Several critics said they worried that speaking out too soon could undermine their chances of changing the leadership. "A lot of people are afraid that they could be arrested for treason," said a government official who recounted discussing with others in the government ways to challenge the administration. Sitting near an outdoor cafe called KGB: Still Watching You, he pushed his cellphone to the other side of the table, noting, "Now, everybody is quite silent, and moving away from cellphones." The official said he did not expect Saakashvili to last the year but fears what might follow. "If he is forced out by force, I fear that everything that he achieved -- roads, police reform, Euro-Atlantic cooperation -- could be gone. That's why we really need to change it very, very delicately and in a very quiet way." Otherwise, he said, a more authoritarian government could replace the current one. Critics say they are not looking for another revolution. Some envision a scenario in which Saakashvili stays on with diminished power. Several, however, expressed fear that rather than feeling chastened by the war, the ruling party will interpret the $1 billion in aid pledged by the United States last week as a green light to continue its policies. To offer the aid without conditions was "a mistake," Gamkrelidze said, adding that assistance should be tied to judicial, legislative, constitutional and media reforms. "He almost got us into a new cold war, or a third world war. It must be in the interest of the U.S. and European allies to make this country more democratic and more accountable." From tchilds at resist.ca Tue Sep 9 19:51:53 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Real leaders are willing to take risks - Linda McQuaig Message-ID: <64473.64.85.36.244.1221011513.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/495578 Real leaders are willing to take risks Sep 09, 2008 04:30 AM LINDA MCQUAIG We're told this federal election is going to turn on "leadership" ? something Prime Minister Stephen Harper is said to be endowed with. Apart from a deeper hole in the Afghan quagmire, I haven't been aware of any place Harper has "led" us to over the past 2 1/2 years, so I found this concept of leadership puzzling. Then I saw the Conservative TV ads and realized that leadership is about wearing a warm sweater and playing cards with your kids. Now I don't mean to be a stickler for substance, but isn't leadership supposed to be about leading people, about guiding them to a better place than they'd be able to get to on their own? Guiding the people to that better place isn't easy since there are plenty of powerful interests anxious to hijack the caravan, and detour it to their own advantage. Fending off those interests, and protecting the public's, could be called leadership. If there's one issue that's emerged as pivotal in the past 2 1/2 years ? and promises to become more so ? it's global warming. So a politician claiming "leadership" as his strong suit is presumably as adept at tackling the climate threat as he is at playing Fish. Indeed, climate change is the issue of our time. Ignoring it isn't an option. Given what's at stake and the array of powerful interests resisting change, it's fair to say that how politicians tackle climate change is a good measure of real leadership. Exactly what "leadership" attributes does Harper bring to the climate battle? Well, let's see, he's steely-eyed, aloof, tolerates no dissent and pronounces English words very nicely. On the down side, he's barely budged from his past as a climate-change denier, he's blocked progress toward solutions at key international meetings, and he's introduced Canadian regulations that only require reductions in the "intensity" of greenhouse gas emissions ? not actual emission reductions. Meanwhile, his chief rival, Liberal Leader St?phane Dion, has proposed a far-reaching plan to introduce a tax on carbon, and compensate with income tax reductions, particularly at the lower end. Most serious observers say that some method of putting a price on carbon ? either through a carbon tax or "cap-and-trade" system ? will be necessary. The respected environmental group, Sierra Club of Canada, gives the Liberal plan a B+ (the Greens get A-, the NDP a B, the Bloc B-). Only the Conservatives, scoring F+, stand out as climate change renegades in the Sierra Club's rankings. Not content to just do nothing, the Conservatives are trying to scare Canadians about Dion's "Green Shift." Said Harper last week: "I think it's a crazy time for the country to take risks." Really? What, then, would be a good time for the country to take risks ? after 2050, when scientists on the UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say it will be too late, if we haven't reduced global emissions to 50 per cent below 1990 levels (a goal we're nowhere near)? Also, isn't doing nothing risky, given the punch we know climate can pack? Harper's dismissive approach is reminiscent of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's pit-bullish attack on Barack Obama for, among other things, trying to save the planet. Among neo-cons like Palin and Harper, any attempt to actually address real problems like climate change ? with solutions other than military contracts ? is ridiculed. What's the difference between Palin and Harper? Lipstick. Linda McQuaig's column appears every other week. lmcquaig at sympatico.ca From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Sep 9 20:27:04 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:27:04 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons Message-ID: <48C73078.7060902@attglobal.net> by Ian Angus Socialist Project, E-Bulletin No 133 (August 25 2008) Will shared resources always be misused and overused? Is community ownership of land, forests and fisheries a guaranteed road to ecological disaster? Is privatization the only way to protect the environment and end Third World poverty? Most economists and development planners will answer "yes" - and for proof they will point to the most influential article ever written on those important questions. Since its publication in Science in December 1968, "The Tragedy of the Commons" has been anthologized in at least 111 books, making it one of the most-reprinted articles ever to appear in any scientific journal. It is also one of the most-quoted: a recent Google search found "about 302,000" results for the phrase "tragedy of the commons". For forty years it has been, in the words of a World Bank Discussion Paper, "the dominant paradigm within which social scientists assess natural resource issues". (Bromley and Cernea 1989: 6) It has been used time and again to justify stealing indigenous peoples' lands, privatizing health care and other social services, giving corporations 'tradable permits' to pollute the air and water, and much more. Noted anthropologist Dr G.N. Appell (1995) writes that the article "has been embraced as a sacred text by scholars and professionals in the practice of designing futures for others and imposing their own economic and environmental rationality on other social systems of which they have incomplete understanding and knowledge". Like most sacred texts, "The Tragedy of the Commons" is more often cited than read. As we will see, although its title sounds authoritative and scientific, it fell far short of science. Garrett Hardin hatches a myth The author of "The Tragedy of the Commons" was Garrett Hardin, a University of California professor who until then was best-known as the author of a biology textbook that argued for "control of breeding" of "genetically defective" people. (Hardin 1966: 707) In his 1968 essay he argued that communities that share resources inevitably pave the way for their own destruction; instead of wealth for all, there is wealth for none. He based his argument on a story about the commons in rural England. (The term "commons" was used in England to refer to the shared pastures, fields, forests, irrigation systems and other resources that were found in many rural areas until well into the 1800s. Similar communal farming arrangements existed in most of Europe, and they still exist today in various forms around the world, particularly in indigenous communities.) "Picture a pasture open to all", Hardin wrote. A herdsmen who wants to expand his personal herd will calculate that the cost of additional grazing (reduced food for all animals, rapid soil depletion) will be divided among all, but he alone will get the benefit of having more cattle to sell. Inevitably, "the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd". But every "rational herdsman" will do the same thing, so the commons is soon overstocked and overgrazed to the point where it supports no animals at all. Hardin used the word "tragedy" as Aristotle did, to refer to a dramatic outcome that is the inevitable but unplanned result of a character's actions. He called the destruction of the commons through overuse a tragedy not because it is sad, but because it is the inevitable result of shared use of the pasture. "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all". Where's the evidence? Given the subsequent influence of Hardin's essay, it's shocking to realize that he provided no evidence at all to support his sweeping conclusions. He claimed that the "tragedy" was inevitable - but he didn't show that it had happened even once. Hardin simply ignored what actually happens in a real commons: self-regulation by the communities involved. One such process was described years earlier in Friedrich Engels' account of the "mark", the form taken by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist Germany: "[T]he use of arable and meadowlands was under the supervision and direction of the community ... "Just as the share of each member in so much of the mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his share also in the use of the 'common mark'. The nature of this use was determined by the members of the community as a whole ... "At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of regulations and disputes concerning the mark." (Engels 1892) Historians and other scholars have broadly confirmed Engels' description of communal management of shared resources. A summary of recent research concludes: "[W]hat existed in fact was not a 'tragedy of the commons' but rather a triumph: that for hundreds of years - and perhaps thousands, although written records do not exist to prove the longer era - land was managed successfully by communities". (Cox 1985: 60) Part of that self-regulation process was known in England as "stinting" - establishing limits for the number of cows, pigs, sheep and other livestock that each commoner could graze on the common pasture. Such "stints" protected the land from overuse (a concept that experienced farmers understood long before Hardin arrived) and allowed the community to allocate resources according to its own concepts of fairness. The only significant cases of overstocking found by the leading modern expert on the English commons involved wealthy landowners who deliberately put too many animals onto the pasture in order to weaken their much poorer neighbours' position in disputes over the enclosure (privatization) of common lands. (Neeson 1993: 156) Hardin assumed that peasant farmers are unable to change their behaviour in the face of certain disaster. But in the real world, small farmers, fishers and others have created their own institutions and rules for preserving resources and ensuring that the commons community survived through good years and bad. Why does the herder want more? Hardin's argument started with the unproven assertion that herdsmen always want to expand their herds: "It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons ... As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain". In short, Hardin's conclusion was predetermined by his assumptions. "It is to be expected" that each herdsman will try to maximize the size of his herd - and each one does exactly that. It's a circular argument that proves nothing. Hardin assumed that human nature is selfish and unchanging, and that society is just an assemblage of self-interested individuals who don't care about the impact of their actions on the community. The same idea, explicitly or implicitly, is a fundamental component of mainstream (that is, pro-capitalist) economic theory. All the evidence (not to mention common sense) shows that this is absurd: people are social beings, and society is much more than the arithmetic sum of its members. Even capitalist society, which rewards the most anti-social behaviour, has not crushed human cooperation and solidarity. The very fact that for centuries "rational herdsmen" did not overgraze the commons disproves Hardin's most fundamental assumptions - but that hasn't stopped him or his disciples from erecting policy castles on foundations of sand. Even if the herdsman wanted to behave as Hardin described, he couldn't do so unless certain conditions existed. There would have to be a market for the cattle, and he would have to be focused on producing for that market, not for local consumption. He would have to have enough capital to buy the additional cattle and the fodder they would need in winter. He would have to be able to hire workers to care for the larger herd, build bigger barns, et cetera. And his desire for profit would have to outweigh his interest in the long-term survival of his community. In short, Hardin didn't describe the behaviour of herdsmen in pre-capitalist farming communities - he described the behaviour of capitalists operating in a capitalist economy. The universal human nature that he claimed would always destroy common resources is actually the profit-driven "grow or die" behaviour of corporations. Will private ownership do better? That leads us to another fatal flaw in Hardin's argument: in addition to providing no evidence that maintaining the commons will inevitably destroy the environment, he offered no justification for his opinion that privatization would save it. Once again he simply presented his own prejudices as fact: "We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust - but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin." The implication is that private owners will do a better job of caring for the environment because they want to preserve the value of their assets. In reality, scholars and activists have documented scores of cases in which the division and privatization of communally managed lands had disastrous results. Privatizing the commons has repeatedly led to deforestation, soil erosion and depletion, overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, and the ruin of ecosystems. As Karl Marx wrote, nature requires long cycles of birth, development and regeneration, but capitalism requires short-term returns. "[T]he entire spirit of capitalist production, which is oriented towards the most immediate monetary profits, stands in contradiction to agriculture, which has to concern itself with the whole gamut of permanent conditions of life required by the chain of human generations. A striking illustration of this is furnished by the forests, which are only rarely managed in a way more or less corresponding to the interests of society as a whole ..." (Marx 1998: 611n) Contrary to Hardin's claims, a community that shares fields and forests has a strong incentive to protect them to the best of its ability, even if that means not maximizing current production, because those resources will be essential to the community's survival for centuries to come. Capitalist owners have the opposite incentive, because they will not survive in business if they don't maximize short-term profit. If ethanol promises bigger and faster profits than centuries-old rain forests, the trees will fall. This focus on short-term gain has reached a point of appalling absurdity in recent best-selling books by Bjorn Lomborg, William Nordhaus and others, who argue that it is irrational to spend money to stop greenhouse gas emissions today, because the payoff is too far in the future. Other investments, they say, will produce much better returns, more quickly. Community management isn't an infallible way of protecting shared resources: some communities have mismanaged common resources, and some commons may have been overused to extinction. But no commons-based community has capitalism's built-in drive to put current profits ahead of the well-being of future generations. A politically useful myth The truly appalling thing about "The Tragedy of the Commons" is not its lack of evidence or logic - badly researched and argued articles are not unknown in academic journals. What's shocking is the fact that this piece of reactionary nonsense has been hailed as a brilliant analysis of the causes of human suffering and environmental destruction, and adopted as a basis for social policy by supposed experts ranging from economists and environmentalists to governments and United Nations agencies. Despite being refuted again and again, it is still used today to support private ownership and uncontrolled markets as sure-fire roads to economic growth. The success of Hardin's argument reflects its usefulness as a pseudo-scientific explanation of global poverty and inequality, an explanation that doesn't question the dominant social and political order. It confirms the prejudices of those in power: logical and factual errors are nothing compared to the very attractive (to the rich) claim that the poor are responsible for their own poverty. The fact that Hardin's argument also blames the poor for ecological destruction is a bonus. Hardin's essay has been widely used as an ideological response to anti-imperialist movements in the Third World and discontent among indigenous and other oppressed peoples everywhere in the world. "Hardin's fable was taken up by the gathering forces of neo-liberal reaction in the 1970s, and his essay became the 'scientific' foundation of World Bank and IMF policies, namely enclosure of commons and privatization of public property ... The message is clear: we must never treat the earth as a 'common treasury'. We must be ruthless and greedy or else we will perish." (Boal 2007) In Canada, conservative lobbyists use arguments derived from Hardin's political tract to explain away poverty on First Nations' reserves, and to argue for further dismantling of indigenous communities. A study published by the influential Fraser Institute urges privatization of reserve land: "[T]hese large amounts of land, with their attendant natural resources, will never yield their maximum benefit to Canada's native people as long as they are held as collective property subject to political management ... collective property is the path of poverty, and private property is the path of prosperity". (Fraser 2002: 16-17) This isn't just right-wing posturing. Canada's federal government, which has refused to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, announced in 2007 that it will "develop approaches to support the development of individual property ownership on reserves", and created a $300 million fund to do just that. In Hardin's world, poverty has nothing to do with centuries of racism, colonialism and exploitation: poverty is inevitable and natural in all times and places, the product of immutable human nature. The poor bring it on themselves by having too many babies and clinging to self-destructive collectivism. The tragedy of the commons is a useful political myth - a scientific-sounding way of saying that there is no alternative to the dominant world order. Stripped of excess verbiage, Hardin's essay asserted, without proof, that human beings are helpless prisoners of biology and the market. Unless restrained, we will inevitably destroy our communities and environment for a few extra pennies of profit. There is nothing we can do to make the world better or more just. In 1844 Friedrich Engels described a similar argument as a "repulsive blasphemy against man and nature". Those words apply with full force to the myth of the tragedy of the commons. Works Cited Appell, G N 1993. "Hardin's Myth of the Commons: The Tragedy of Conceptual Confusions". http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00002203/01/HARDIN.pdf Boal, Iain. 2007. "Interview: Specters of Malthus: Scarcity, Poverty, Apocalypse". Counterpunch, September 11 2007. Bromley, Daniel W and Cernea Michael M 1989. "The Management of Common Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies". World Bank Discussion Paper. Cox, Susan Jane Buck. 1985, "No Tragedy on the Commons". Environmental Ethics 7. Engels, Friedrich. 1892. "The Mark". Engels, Friedrich. 1844. Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm Fraser Institute. 2002. Individual Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves. Hardin, Garrett. 1966. Biology: Its Principles and Implications. Second edition. San Francisco. W H Freeman & Co. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons". Marx, Karl. [1867] 1998. Marx Engels Collected Works Vol 37 (Capital, Vol 3). New York: International Publishers Neeson, J M 1993. Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700-1820. Cambridge University Press. _____ Ian Angus is editor of Climate and Capitalism and an associate editor of Socialist Voice. http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet133.html 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 22:34:19 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:34:19 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia's Kudrin Says against Further Tax Cuts + Oil Stocks Drop on Tax Plan Message-ID: Russia's Kudrin says against further tax cuts Tue Sep 9, 2008 7:24am EDT MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said on Tuesday he expected the government to decide on its future tax policies later this month, but added the oil industry should not expect any more large tax breaks. Kudrin, the government's main fiscal hawk, said the oil industry has already received large tax breaks as part of the most recent reform and this should be enough to revive crude output growth. "(If oil firms are not happy) I'd suggest they offer their assets and fields at open auctions. I'm sure there will be an awful lot of people wanting to buy them with the current tax burden," Kudrin said at an interview at the Reuters Russia Investment Summit. "As an economist, I can say that Russia has reached a line beyond which you cannot cut taxes." Instead, Kudrin argues that the tax burden should be raised in order to fund pension reforms in a country where the average pension stands at just 4,000 roubles ($158.40) a month. "Some will say it (raising taxes) is not a liberal position... But I'm not afraid about my image," he said. He said the country will spend all its reserve fund and national wealth fund, currently at $174 billion, by 2027 as the share of windfall revenues from energy exports will fall to 11 percent of the GDP from around 25 percent currently. "It is almost impossible to reduce taxes in a situation with such a trend," said Kudrin, whose ministry is fighting against the growth-focused Economy Ministry, which wants to cut the value added tax to 12 percent from the current 18 percent. "I don't see any well-founded proposals (from the Economy Ministry). Their proposals are not balanced," he said, adding that the final decision on taxes would likely be taken in September by President Dmitry Medvedev. Russian oil firms have repeatedly asked for additional tax breaks from the government, saying they need more funds to invest in new fields and revive production growth. They have already received around 100 billion roubles in tax breaks from next year and agreed with the government that new and depleted fields will be exempted from levies. But they asked for more from 2010 with proposals ranging from breaks that would allow oil firms to save up to 400 billion roubles, requested by oil major Lukoil, and one for a more modest 100-200 billion, proposed by government and Kremlin officials. Kudrin said he would fight hard to prevent that from happening. "So far, we are not considering such proposals. It could happen in the future... But in 2010 it is unlikely." "All new fields are already enjoying tax holidays. It is a pretty serious measure in itself," he said. (Reporting by Dmitry Zhdannikov and Andrey Ostroukh; editing by Jason Neely) Russia's RTS Falls Most in 2 Years; Oil Stocks Drop on Tax Plan By William Mauldin Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Russia's RTS Index fell the most in more than two years, led by oil producers after crude sank to a five-month low and Energy Minister Alexei Kudrin said oil companies shouldn't expect further tax relief. The dollar-denominated RTS posted the largest fluctuation among national markets included in global benchmarks, tumbling 7.5 percent to 1,395.11. The ruble-denominated Micex Index sank 9.1 percent to 1,158.07, the lowest since June 14, 2006. Kudrin said ``Russia has reached a line beyond which you cannot cut taxes,'' Reuters reported. Kudrin said it is ``almost impossible to reduce taxes'' at a time when oil and gas revenue is falling as a share of Russia's economy, the newswire said. ``Oil stocks are the biggest losers today, hit by both the dropping crude prices as well as signals from the Finance Ministry that the second round of oil-tax cuts might not be such a sure thing,'' said Douglas Rohlfs, international equity salesman at Metropol in Moscow. The Micex Oil & Gas Index sank 9.2 percent, the lowest since November 2005. OAO Rosneft, Russia's largest oil producer, tumbled 9.6 percent to 189.24 rubles, its biggest decline on record. OAO Lukoil, the country's second-largest producer, lost 8.8 percent to 1,601.78 rubles. Russia's RTS Index has fallen 39 percent this quarter, the worst performer among 88 national benchmarks tracked by Bloomberg, after oil prices declined, inflation quickened to 15 percent, the government investigated steel and coal producer OAO Mechel, and Russia sent troops and warplanes into Georgia. `Oil Weakness' Crude fell in New York today as the dollar rose against the euro and as Saudi Arabia Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi said oil supplies are sufficient to meet demand. The contract for October delivery declined $2.05, or 1.9 percent, to $104.29 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. ``The oil price looks set for further weakness over the coming week and investors remain wary of emerging-market assets,'' Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib Financial Corp. in Moscow, wrote in a note to investors. Yesterday's advance in Russian stocks may have been merely the ``eye of the market's hurricane.'' OAO Gazprom, the stock with the biggest weighting in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, dropped 18.62 rubles, or 8.3 percent, to 207.20 rubles, the lowest since it listed shares on the Micex. The gas export monopoly had ``no economic or technical basis'' for denying pipeline access to ZAO Trans Nafta in Tatarstan, the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service said on its Web site late yesterday. The gas giant may face a fine of as much as $250 million, UniCredit SpA said in a note. Falling Metal Prices Falling metals prices hurt the outlook for Russian steel and mining stocks. The Micex Metal & Mining index sank 7.8 percent. OAO GMK Norilsk Nickel fell for a sixth day, dropping 13 percent to 3,241.71 rubles. Nickel fell in London as Posco, Asia's largest maker of stainless steel, said it will extend output cuts for a third month, indicating weaker demand for the metal. Copper fell to a seven-month low. To contact the reporter on this story: William Mauldin in Moscow at wmauldin1 at bloomberg.net. Last Updated: September 9, 2008 11:08 EDT From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 22:36:00 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:36:00 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia's Kudrin Says against Further Tax Cuts + Oil Stocks Drop on Tax Plan Message-ID: Russia's Kudrin says against further tax cuts Tue Sep 9, 2008 7:24am EDT MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said on Tuesday he expected the government to decide on its future tax policies later this month, but added the oil industry should not expect any more large tax breaks. Kudrin, the government's main fiscal hawk, said the oil industry has already received large tax breaks as part of the most recent reform and this should be enough to revive crude output growth. "(If oil firms are not happy) I'd suggest they offer their assets and fields at open auctions. I'm sure there will be an awful lot of people wanting to buy them with the current tax burden," Kudrin said at an interview at the Reuters Russia Investment Summit. "As an economist, I can say that Russia has reached a line beyond which you cannot cut taxes." Instead, Kudrin argues that the tax burden should be raised in order to fund pension reforms in a country where the average pension stands at just 4,000 roubles ($158.40) a month. "Some will say it (raising taxes) is not a liberal position... But I'm not afraid about my image," he said. He said the country will spend all its reserve fund and national wealth fund, currently at $174 billion, by 2027 as the share of windfall revenues from energy exports will fall to 11 percent of the GDP from around 25 percent currently. "It is almost impossible to reduce taxes in a situation with such a trend," said Kudrin, whose ministry is fighting against the growth-focused Economy Ministry, which wants to cut the value added tax to 12 percent from the current 18 percent. "I don't see any well-founded proposals (from the Economy Ministry). Their proposals are not balanced," he said, adding that the final decision on taxes would likely be taken in September by President Dmitry Medvedev. Russian oil firms have repeatedly asked for additional tax breaks from the government, saying they need more funds to invest in new fields and revive production growth. They have already received around 100 billion roubles in tax breaks from next year and agreed with the government that new and depleted fields will be exempted from levies. But they asked for more from 2010 with proposals ranging from breaks that would allow oil firms to save up to 400 billion roubles, requested by oil major Lukoil, and one for a more modest 100-200 billion, proposed by government and Kremlin officials. Kudrin said he would fight hard to prevent that from happening. "So far, we are not considering such proposals. It could happen in the future... But in 2010 it is unlikely." "All new fields are already enjoying tax holidays. It is a pretty serious measure in itself," he said. (Reporting by Dmitry Zhdannikov and Andrey Ostroukh; editing by Jason Neely) Russia's RTS Falls Most in 2 Years; Oil Stocks Drop on Tax Plan By William Mauldin Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Russia's RTS Index fell the most in more than two years, led by oil producers after crude sank to a five-month low and Energy Minister Alexei Kudrin said oil companies shouldn't expect further tax relief. The dollar-denominated RTS posted the largest fluctuation among national markets included in global benchmarks, tumbling 7.5 percent to 1,395.11. The ruble-denominated Micex Index sank 9.1 percent to 1,158.07, the lowest since June 14, 2006. Kudrin said ``Russia has reached a line beyond which you cannot cut taxes,'' Reuters reported. Kudrin said it is ``almost impossible to reduce taxes'' at a time when oil and gas revenue is falling as a share of Russia's economy, the newswire said. ``Oil stocks are the biggest losers today, hit by both the dropping crude prices as well as signals from the Finance Ministry that the second round of oil-tax cuts might not be such a sure thing,'' said Douglas Rohlfs, international equity salesman at Metropol in Moscow. The Micex Oil & Gas Index sank 9.2 percent, the lowest since November 2005. OAO Rosneft, Russia's largest oil producer, tumbled 9.6 percent to 189.24 rubles, its biggest decline on record. OAO Lukoil, the country's second-largest producer, lost 8.8 percent to 1,601.78 rubles. Russia's RTS Index has fallen 39 percent this quarter, the worst performer among 88 national benchmarks tracked by Bloomberg, after oil prices declined, inflation quickened to 15 percent, the government investigated steel and coal producer OAO Mechel, and Russia sent troops and warplanes into Georgia. `Oil Weakness' Crude fell in New York today as the dollar rose against the euro and as Saudi Arabia Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi said oil supplies are sufficient to meet demand. The contract for October delivery declined $2.05, or 1.9 percent, to $104.29 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. ``The oil price looks set for further weakness over the coming week and investors remain wary of emerging-market assets,'' Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib Financial Corp. in Moscow, wrote in a note to investors. Yesterday's advance in Russian stocks may have been merely the ``eye of the market's hurricane.'' OAO Gazprom, the stock with the biggest weighting in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, dropped 18.62 rubles, or 8.3 percent, to 207.20 rubles, the lowest since it listed shares on the Micex. The gas export monopoly had ``no economic or technical basis'' for denying pipeline access to ZAO Trans Nafta in Tatarstan, the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service said on its Web site late yesterday. The gas giant may face a fine of as much as $250 million, UniCredit SpA said in a note. Falling Metal Prices Falling metals prices hurt the outlook for Russian steel and mining stocks. The Micex Metal & Mining index sank 7.8 percent. OAO GMK Norilsk Nickel fell for a sixth day, dropping 13 percent to 3,241.71 rubles. Nickel fell in London as Posco, Asia's largest maker of stainless steel, said it will extend output cuts for a third month, indicating weaker demand for the metal. Copper fell to a seven-month low. To contact the reporter on this story: William Mauldin in Moscow at wmauldin1 at bloomberg.net. Last Updated: September 9, 2008 11:08 EDT From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Sep 10 02:44:36 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:44:36 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons: Message-ID: <48C788F4.3090107@attglobal.net> Population and the disguises of Providence by Garret Hardin from Commons Without Tragedy (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1991) edited by Robert V Andelson _____ Note: Compare this 1991 article with the scathing attack by Ian Angus on a 1968 article by the same author that I posted here a few hours ago. I wonder why Angus didn't even bother citing this article: Was he maliciously using Professor Hardin and his 1968 article as a straw man to knock down, or was he just too lazy to read the 1991 article. I haven't yet read Dr Hardin's ?1998 article from Science Magazine at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/682, but I suspect it is much more similar to this 1991 article than the one attacked by Ian Angus. Bill Totten. _____ THE COMPLEX of concerns we blanket with the name 'the population problem' has been with us for almost two hundred years. Any 'problem' that persists that long without resolution should lead us to suspect subconscious resistances. In this instance a major resistance is, I think, centered around the concept of Providence. We would do well to look into the origin and variations of this concept. The word 'Providence' was much used in the eighteenth century, but it is seldom heard now. Nonetheless, the idea behind the word still plays a role in shaping people's thoughts. There seems to be an almost irreducible hunger for this supportive idea. Psychoanalytically speaking, this hunger is no mystery: each of us starts life as a helpless little being to whom all the essentials must be supplied. It is natural and necessary that an infant should expect to be provided for. As we develop we outgrow some of these expectations; but under stress, or when puzzled, we may relapse into an infantile attitude of expecting Providence (under whatever name) to take care of us. The Latin word providere means to see ahead, hence to provide for. As the word 'God' became somewhat unfashionable in the eighteenth century, 'Providence' became its surrogate. The psychoanalytic weight of the two words is much the same. This century was later labeled 'the Enlightenment' by those who approved the change. In the same century another substitution was made, as Robert Nisbet tells us {1}. Turgot, one of the seminal minds of the time, made the personal transition in less than a year. In July of 1750, in a public address at the Sorbonne, Turgot praised the idea of Providence as one of Christianity's great gifts to the world. But by December of the same year he had decided that the idea of progress (which also has ancient roots) was far more deserving of admiration. As Nisbet says: 'with respect to the idea of progress, Turgot, without abandoning the structure or framework of his first address at the Sorbonne, secularized it.' Progress - a secularized version of Providence - soon came to mean principally technological progress. A new faith developed: 'Technology will solve our problems'. This is surely a providential idea. The emotional appeal is the same; the hunger is the same. As the acknowledged historian of progress, J B Bury, says: 'it was just the theory of an active Providence that the theory of Progress was to replace; and it was not till men felt independent of Providence that they could organise a theory of Progress' {2}. We note that in 1751, after he had abandoned Providence for Progress, Turgot renounced his ecclesiastical ambitions. At the end of the same decade, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith gave memorable form to another providential idea: The rich ..., though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants; and thus, without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interests of society ... {3} Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' is, of course, a figure of speech. Note his clever salesmanship in tying the argument to what would, two centuries later, be called the 'trickle-down' theory of distribution, thus easing the pain of accepting what looks at first like wholly selfish behaviour. The selfish entrepreneur, though he intends only his own good (said Smith), nevertheless acts for the benefit of all society. Such is the faith of laissez-faire; it is surely a providential idea. Seventeen years later Adam Smith developed it more fully in his classic text, The Wealth of Nations. Other men added rhetorical embellishments. Ten years before Smith's classic work, La Riviere asserted that laissez-faire produced l'ordre naturel. Then, as now, the word 'natural' enjoyed prestige. In 1810 David Ricardo, in The High Price of Bullion, claimed that 'Where there is free competition, the interests of the individual and that of the community are never at variance' {4}. I have italicized the word 'never' to call attention to several points. First, italics suggest the authority Ricardo was trying to bestow on the idea. Second, the claim of an invariable correlation of individual and community interests is one that was easily accepted by economists, though it was, as we shall see, denied by many serious students of population, beginning with Malthus. Lastly, for many economists laissez-faire became something of a religious belief, a ready substitute for 'Providence'. Pursuing the history of ideas to their earliest origins one finds the germ of laissez-faire in the writings of Chuang Tzu of the fourth century BC: 'Good order results spontaneously when things are left alone' {5}. Of course few in eighteenth century Europe were aware of what had been thought in China two millennia earlier. Following the idea of 'spontaneous order' all the way to the present we find that the Nobel economist F A Hayek, in a book published in 1988, echoes Chuang Tzu, matching the unqualified praise of Ricardo: 'Order generated without design can far outstrip plans men consciously contrive' {6}. Few biologists would argue with that assertion: but what is explicitly said hardly justifies that which the author no doubt hopes the reader will infer, namely that human beings can never improve on nature. Even if human-generated order is usually a poor match for nature's designs it does not follow that economic libertarians are wise in holding that humanity should renounce all foresight, all planning and all intervention in the order of nature. The Utterly Dismal Theorem The congruence of self-interest and community interest implied by laissez-faire was a comforting one to the people of the late eighteenth century. Into this complacent world burst Malthus with his assertion that, when population is involved, laissez-faire reproduction does not automatically produce a pleasant world. Unhindered reproduction, he said, causes the population to increase 'geometrically' ('exponentially', we say now), while the means of subsistence increases only arithmetically. Reproduction can easily outrun food production. Malthus was right in the first assertion: in the absence of 'environmental resistance' exponential reproduction is the innate result of all healthy living. We can hardly imagine a different biology. But Malthus' belief that subsistence increases arithmetically has no basis in fact. There is no general law that predicts the rate at which the human species improves the technology with which the environment is exploited. Later commentators suggested that Malthus was dimly aware of the principle of 'diminishing returns'. Malthus denied this explanation. The dispute need not detain us here. It is manifestly clear that Malthus's theory does not lead to the attainment of happiness through laissez-faire reproduction. This conclusion has been expressed unequivocally in our time by another economist, Kenneth Boulding. He first describes Malthus's 'famous dismal theorem of economics' which he summarizes in these words: ... if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery, then no matter how favorable the environment or how advanced the technology the population will grow until it is miserable and starves. The theorem, indeed, has a worse corollary which has been described as the utterly dismal theorem. This is the proposition that if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery, then any technological improvement will have the ultimate effect of increasing the sum of human misery, as it permits a larger population to live in precisely the same state of misery and starvation as before... {7} In spite of its pessimistic cast the Essay of Malthus was given a favourable reception when it first appeared. But its hard-headed approach to human problems was better suited to the century of the Enlightenment than it was to the succeeding Romantic century. A determined and continuing search was made for 'softer' mechanisms than the 'misery and vice' that Malthus proposed as the great controllers of population size. In 1832 (two years before the death of Malthus) one Thomas Rowe Edmonds put forward an interesting theory: Amongst the great body of the people at the present moment, sexual intercourse is the only gratification; and thus, by a most unfortunate concurrence of adverse circumstances, population goes on augmenting at a period when it ought to be restrained ... When [the working class] are better fed they will have other enjoyments at command than sexual intercourse, and their numbers, therefore, will not increase in the same proportion as at present. {8} Society should make the poor rich, advised Edmonds, so that they will have better things to do with their free time than entertain one another as animals do. This recommendation was no doubt favourably received by many Victorians, who - publicly at any rate - deprecated sexual intercourse. The substitution theory even surfaced more than a century later when it was suggested that television sets be put in every village in India, so that villagers would discover that other recreations are more enjoyable than 'doin' what comes naturally'. Many villages in the Third World now have television sets, but the predicted effect on human fertility has failed to make its appearance. Ten years after Edmonds' ill-starred proposal Thomas Doubleday put forward another: It is a fact, admitted by all gardeners as well as botanists, that if a tree, plant, or flower, be placed in mould, either naturally or artificially made too rich for it, a plethoric state is produced, and fruitfulness ceases ... There cannot be a doubt that, with the animal creation ... fecundity is totally checked by the plethoric state ... the doe, or female rabbit, and ... the sow will not conceive if fed to a certain height of fatness ... leanness is indispensable to conception ... {9} Is it true that fertility is inversely correlated with the quality of the diet? Doubleday's thesis of 1842 became a priori suspect when Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859. Natural selection has the automatic effect of making good (though unconscious) economizers of all species. It makes Darwinian sense for individuals to convert an increase in food into an increase in progeny; a species that became more fertile under starvation conditions would imperil its survival. Empirical facts corroborate the evolutionary predictions. In reviewing these it will help to make the distinction that has become standard in demography: fecundity is the potentiality for having children, while fertility measures the actual production of children. As far as the fecundity of human beings is concerned the effect of nutrition is beyond controversy. Rose Frisch, a leader in this field of research, has summarized the findings in this way: 'Good nutrition leads to greater weight, more body fat in the female, leading to regular menstruation and higher fecundity, [thus] leading to greater fertility' {10}. The explanation of Doubleday's facts is easily given. The excessive fat of penned-up rabbits and pigs is an artefact of domestication: their relatives in the wild would never achieve such gross fatness, thanks in large part to the regimen of involuntary exercise imposed on them by predators. Natural selection has not had to deal with Doubleday's kind of 'plethoric state'. From the earliest days students of population have tried to induce desired political changes from scientific facts. Edmonds, for instance, saw the hand of Providence at work: 'To better the condition of the labouring classes, that is, to place more food and comforts before them, however paradoxical it may appear, is the wisest mode to check redundancy' {11}. When Providence works this way it is easy for human beings to cooperate with her. But Frisch's findings point to the opposite conclusion, a fact that disturbs her (and no doubt many others). Of Rose Frisch it has been reported that: "She expresses concern that her findings on the fat-fertility relationship might be used as 'scientific' documentation of the negative value of sending surplus food to the underfed populations of the world ... She believes 'a greater effort is needed to provide contraceptive methods together with adequate nutrition' " {12}. The providential bias in population theories has been strong from the earliest days. Going back to 1847 we find that the anonymous translator of the works of a Genevan economist, Sismondi, opined that; 'Sanitary improvements, and whatever tends to lengthen life, are the most effectual means of restraining a too great increase of population' {13}. By the end of the nineteenth century the tenderhearted view of population dynamics had a firm hold on such influential people as those in the Bloomsbury set. Geoffrey Searle has given a telling description of their position: Socialists, predisposed to believe that the solution to all difficulties lay in a radical improvement of the social environment, also noted that there was an inverse relationship between fertility and income. From this they deduced that higher wages and better living conditions automatically brought about a reduction in the birth rate. This was the conclusion reached by the Webbs [Sidney and Beatrice] in Industrial Democracy [1897], which includes a discussion of differential fertility within the working class. Many other socialists followed the Webbs' lead. Thus, Mrs Pember Reeves wrote in 1913: '... for those who deplore large families in the case of poor people, it must be a comfort to remember a face which experience shows us, that as poverty decreases, and as the standard of comfort rises, so does the size of the family diminish. Should we be able to conquer the problem of poverty, we should automatically solve the problem of the excessively large family.' {14} The imputing of the miseries of overpopulation to the actions of injustice was made more explicit in 1952 in the writings of the Brazilian nutritionist, Josue de Castro. In The Geography of Hunger he wrote: 'Hunger has been chiefly created by the inhuman exploitation of colonial riches, by the latifundia and one-crop culture which lay waste the colony, so that the exploiting country can take too cheaply the raw materials its properous industrial economy requires' {15}. Sadly, Castro reports that 'A large part of the world is not yet convinced of the necessity of doing away with hunger once for all', which is unfortunate because: 'when all the world's parts are indissolubly linked into one living whole, it is no longer possible to let one region rot and starve without infecting the rest, and threatening the whole world with death' {16}. One can empathize with Castro's intention - namely, to mobilize the indifferent to eradicate hunger from the world - without accepting his hypothesis that hunger is infectious in the same way that microbial diseases are infectious. If hunger spreads from the poor to the rich it is either because the rich are too stupid to manage their own affairs, or because they become infected by the idea of sharing-without-limit. Ideas, even malfunctional ones, are infectious. All of the many causes proposed for overpopulation suffer from the same logical weakness: they assume that correlation equals causation. But correlation can be read in either direction. Mrs Reeves' assertion that 'as poverty decreases, the size of the family diminishes', implies that wealth is the cause of diminished fertility. Why did she not say, 'as the size of the family diminishes, wealth increases'? In truth, most couples, rich or poor, know that adding another child to their family will, in all probability, diminish their wealth and well-being. So the hypothesis that fertility causes poverty is not an ungrounded speculation. Closer co the truth is the hypothesis that the causal relation of poverty and fertility is a circular one, an increase in either tending to increase the other: a true vicious circle. Long ago logicians labeled the error of deducing cause from sequence as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. ('After this, therefore because of this'.) It's a pity that many scholars continue to fall into this trap. One who did not was Joseph Townsend, an English minister. Commenting on his travels in Spain in 1791 he wrote: 'In a fully peopled country, to say, that no one shall suffer want is absurd. Could you supply their wants, you would soon double their numbers.' {17} Note that this was said eight years before Malthus' Essay was published. Was this insight a new discovery of Townsend's? Undoubtedly it was not. It is highly probable that ordinary folk understood this population principle for millennia, but it was not often voiced precisely because 'everybody knew it'. Then after Malthus it seemed too heartless and pessimistic a thought to state in public. The assertion of more providential principles was a surer path to public favor. Anti-Malthusian hypotheses are legion. The diminution of fertility was, at various times, asserted to follow from: amusements alternative to sex; rich food; excess protein; better sanitation; industrialization; modernization (whatever that is); land reform; social justice; lessening of infant mortality; education; or - according to one's political bias - the adoption of communism or capitalism. The pattern is clear: since the most plausible proposals for controlling population are 'unacceptable', whoever has the temerity to admit that population might be a problem promptly sees a chance to advance the reform of his choice by asserting that his reform is the best way to control population. Providence is in the saddle again. The less doctrinaire commentators sometimes say that simple wealth is all that is needed to bring down fertility. This raises a question of definition, which is implicit in most of the entries on the reformers' lists. What is wealth, really? Both income and wealth per capita are greater in European countries than they are in the 'Third World' countries. By conventional measures, wealth and fertility are inversely related. But it has been remarked that, in Europe at least, 'a housing shortage is the best contraceptive'. Can a shortage be a true form of wealth? A young couple reduced to sharing the inadequate apartment of parents cannot agree that this shortage is wealth. As concerns fertility and population matters, the Gross National Product is a gross and inaccurate measure of real wealth. Statistics are tricky. In the middle of the twentieth century, there appeared a population hypothesis so minimally specified as to be almost mystical in nature, namely the Benign Demographic Transition. The initial adjective has here been added to the usual form of the name for reasons that will be made clear presently. The Benign Demographic Transition Ignoring short-term fluctuations, the population of Europe was nearly stable for many centuries, with both fertility and mortality at high levels (the rate of each being about forty per thousand population per year). In the last few centuries both fertility and mortality have fallen, with mortality falling first. The result has been an increase in population. After a delay of some time, fertility also fell. It is reasonable to assume that, sooner or later in a world of limits, the fertility race must once again equal the mortality rate, but this time at a low level for both. This situation seems to have been reached in some of the Central European countries (Hungary and West Germany, for instance). The change from [High Fertility & High Mortality] to [Low Fertility & Low Mortality] is called the demographic transition. It was first identified in France in 1934 under the name 'revolution demographique' {18}. The anglicization of the name came a decade later. The term 'demographic transition' has come to be more than mere description. Implicitly it is a theory about the way human populations automatically adjust to improved circumstances. It is assumed that the transition will eventually be complete (low fertility = low mortality) and stable, even though there has not been time to validate the latter point. It is also assumed that the forces that keep fertility low will (providentially!) not be painful to contemplate or experience. The fact that pain was not emphasized in the transition experience in European history is no doubt a consequence of two factors: the slowness of the transition (it took place over some two or three centuries); and the fact that most histories were written by the comfortable people who suffered the least from the transition. It was easy for demographers immersed in a European culture to assume that European history was the model for the history of all cultures, sooner or later. The demographic transition was seen as a historical imperative. Such a gratuitous assumption has been condemned by the philospher Karl Popper as historicism {19}. The demographic transition theory is a post hoc fallacy universalized and projected into the future. If the world has limits - which is the only reasonable assumption - terrestrial population growth must eventually come to an end as the aggregate fertility rate once more becomes equal to the aggregate mortality rate. For both to be high, or both low, would equally well bring the transition to a close, but transitionists assume that both will be low: that is the reason for calling the theory they support the Benign Demographic Transition Theory. As used in argumentation the theory implied that making people rich and comfortable would remove the threat of overpopulation. By 1969 a widely used population textbook called transition theory 'one of the best documented generalizations in the social sciences' {20}. Only a few years later the demographer Michael Teitelbaum expressed serious doubts: 'its explanatory power has come into increasing scientific doubt at the very time that it is achieving its greatest acceptance by nonscientists' {21}. In 1985 Teitelbaum and Winter spelled out a more forceful criticism: 'It is doubtful whether this theory was ever truly a theory at all (that is, a set of hypotheses with predictive force) ...' {22}. The literature undercutting the Benign Demographic Transition theory grows ever larger. Etienne van de Walle concludes that 'central Africa is one vast contradiction of the theory: mortality has fallen, and fertility has risen, for two generations, with no end in sight' {23}. Ester Boserup predicts that 'Population increase will be rapid in Africa for many decades ...' {24}. Demographers and other professional students of population have learned their lesson, but still the Benign Demographic Transition theory guides the work of those engaged in professional telephilanthropy - philanthropy targeted on people who are distant in space or ethnic characteristics. There are two reasons for the continued fashionability of the Benign Demographic Transition theory. First, it is a providential theory and hence eminently acceptable. Second, it justifies the jobs of those who are employed by telephilanthropic foundations. The persistence of hunger and poverty in distant lands after millions of dollars have been poured into them discourages domestic donors; an optimistic reference to the Benign Demographic transition can often quiet doubts and loosen purse-strings. As transition theory declined in prestige there developed a realization that perhaps the basic theory of human population dynamics was not providential after all. Perhaps the details of human behavoir needed to be studied more carefully? Fortunately the basis of this study was laid early in the nineteenth century, though it was noticed by virtually no one, probably because the resultant 'theory of the commons' is the very opposite of a providential theory. The Tragedy of the Commons The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus sought an explanation of his dismal theorem in the comparison of his two ratios (one of which we no longer defend). A better approach was taken by another man of the cloth in 1833, the year before Malthus died. This man was the Oxford mathematician and economist William Forster Lloyd. He showed how the properties of a distribution system, interacting with human nature, can produce unwanted effects. In a manner that would develop into a habit in science a century later, Lloyd began by setting up a 'model': Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures? ... The difference depends on the difference of the way in which an increase of stock in the two cases affects the circumstances of the author of the increase. If a person puts more cattle into his own field, the amount of the subsistence which they consume is all deducted from that which was at the command, of his original stock; and if, before, there was no more than a sufficiency of pasture, he reaps no benefit from the additional cattle, what is gained in one way being lost in another. But if he puts more cattle on a common, the food which they consume forms a deduction which is shared between all the cattle, as well that of others as his own, in proportion to their number, and only a small part of it is taken from his own cattle {25}. A careful reading shows that Lloyd had a clear conception of carrying capacity and the unfortunate consequences of exceeding it {26}. Short-run self-interest drives a herdsman in a common to add animals to his herd beyond the carrying capacity of the domain because the profit from so doing accrues to him alone, while the attendant costs caused by overpopulation are commonized over the entire community of herdsmen. In a common pasture that is managed by no powers other than chose of herdsmen acting individually, the exploiters are caught in a 'Double C - Double P Game' (CC - PP Game): Commonize the Costs while Privatizing the Profits {27}. Unhappily, in the long run all the herdsmen lose in an unmanaged common; but - so long as they cling to this system - they cannot escape ruin. Ruin that is both foreseen and inevitable is the very essence of Greek tragedy: recall, if you will, Oedipus Rex. The idea of the tragedy of the commons has ancient but modest roots. Antiquarians like to quote Aristotle: 'That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest' {28}. Aristotle's statement is undoubtedly a precursor of the theory of the commons, but it is not rich enough in meaning to generate the formal theory. The closest Aristotle's aphorism comes to mathematics is a vague hint of less and more. But what Lloyd said, though he used no mathematical symbols, has led to explicit mathematical equations {29}. The primary interest of the Oxford economist was not in malnourished cows but in human overpopulation. 'Marriage is a present good', he said, 'but in a community of goods, where the children are maintained at public tables, or where each family takes according to its necessities out of the common stock, these difficulties [impinging on the parents] are removed from the individual. They spread themselves, and overflow the whole surface of society, and press equally on every part.' {30} What Lloyd assumes in this model is a distribution system resembling the one Karl Marx praised 42 years later: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' {31}. Marx, ignorant of Lloyd's work, naively promoted his motto as a formula for felicity. It is puzzling that Lloyd should have so emphasized the dangers of commonizing the costs of child-rearing, for in his day and his community these costs were almost entirely privatized. Since Lloyd's time the commonization of the costs of child-rearing has gone much further and Lloyd's strictures are much more appropriate. Guilt-mongers of our time delight in blaming parents for the overpopulation of a nation: such has been the message of Zero Population Growth, Inc, an American organization operating principally on college campuses. ZPG literature never refers to Lloyd's work, This is a pity, for he pointed out long ago that 'the simple fact of a country being overpopulous ... is not, of itself, sufficient evidence that the fault lies in the people themselves, or a proof of the absence of a prudential disposition. The fault may rest, not with them as individuals, but with the constitution of the society, of which they form part' {32}. Not blame but mechanism was Lloyd's quarry as he puzzled over the persistence of human suffering. How was his work received in his day? Apparently it had little impact. The reasons were partly personal {33}. He suffered the handicap of being a member of a sickly family. In five years he gave only a very few lectures at Oxford and then, with private means, retired to Prestwood, Great Missenden, where he lived 'in apparent obscurity' until his death from a stroke at age fifty-eight. In 1953 the United Nations published a large and useful summary of population doctrines and beliefs under the title The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends. Out of a total of 330,000 words only 43 are devoted to Lloyd, and these occur at the end of a long footnote. Worse, in summarizing Lloyd's contribution to the theory of population this scholarly work gets his position 180 degrees wrong. (Since the book is the work of a committee we don't know whom to blame.) It's no wonder that the resurrection of Lloyd's work in 1968 came as a surprise {34}. Laissez-Faire and Equality Production, trade, distribution: what limits to freedom shall we impose on these interrelated functions? The laissez-faire position is that there should be complete freedom for the first two, while the third must be constrained by the rights of private property. Setting aside the vexed question of property, what about the first two functions? Looking at the world as it is, Walter Lippmann once wrote some revealing words (to which italics have here been added): The pure doctrine of non-intervention in production and trade has never in fact been practiced anywhere. Even Adam Smith, let alone John Stuart Mill, recognized exceptions to the rule. One could go further, I believe, and argue plausibly that most men have shown in their behaviour that they wished to impose free capitalism on others and to escape it themselves. Employers have believed in it for their employees, and have appealed to it against factory laws and unionism. But they have not hesitated to call upon the state for protection against foreign competitors. Manufacturers who had to ship goods have not hesitated much about regulating the railroads ... There is no reason to think that business men under capitalism have had any consistent conviction of laissez-faire. Their employees have certainly not had it, They have voted for tariffs when they were told their jobs depended upon them. They have voted to close the labor market by restricting immigration. They have voted for labor laws and they have organized unions. Like their employers they have believed in laissez-faire for others. {35} The paradox can be put in the following terms. However passionately theoreticians may cling to symmetry and reciprocity in elaborating their theories of production and trade, those who are actual practitioners of economic living can be just as passionate in defending asymmetry and non-reciprocity in their daily lives. The merits of the case, as concerns production and trade, will not be argued here: our present task is to take up the distribution function. The thrust of rhetorical pronouncements identified as 'idealistic' is symmetrical and reciprocal. Traditional religions, atheistical egalitarianism, and liberation theology all glorify equality in distribution. But intentions do not necessarily lead to accomplishment. Distributing a community's wealth in the light of Marx's ideal (From each ...) first produces inequality, and then (ultimately) widespread poverty. For two reasons: First, human abilities are the product of the interaction of innate abilities and training. People are unequal at birth, and education exaggerates their inequality. Consequently productivity varies fantastically from one individual to another. Second, what should be the grounds for allocating wealth? Idealists tell us that distribution should be according to a person's 'need'. But who determines 'need'? If agents of the state do so, freedom goes out as restraint and resentment come in. Revolution may be just around the corner. On the other hand, when each individual is the sole judge of his own need, the door is opened to greed. Adam Smith spoke of the 'insatiable desires' of the rich, but the desires of the poor can also be difficult to control. Rich or poor, people vary in their susceptibility to satiation. A political decision to satisfy variable 'needs' would end up giving greater rewards to the insatiable. Is that the 'fairness' that idealists seek? 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' defines a highly asymmetrical, non-reciprocal system of distribution. You must contribute to the common pot according to your ability, while I demand the right to take out of the pot according to my needs, as I reckon them. 'Need creates right', say I. But with every I saying this, in a world of shortages there can be no spontaneously generated stability. (If there were no shortages there would be no problem of course: but that does not describe our world.) We need to look at the commons from another point of view, namely its relation to responsibility. Unfortunately, most of the statements that include the word 'responsibility' are vacuous rhetoric. Typically, a politician who proclaims his responsibility thereby claims power; he will oppose attempts to make him operationally responsible for his errors. To serve the needs of society, responsibility needs to be defined in the following way; An agent is fully responsible when he pays all the costs of the benefits he receives. Is a distribution by the formula of the commons a responsible distribution? The formula for the system of the commons may be written as CC - PP: Commonize the Costs against everyone, but Privatize the Profits - to me. The first term of each dyad represents the actor, which is C in the first dyad and P in the second. Since the actors are different - C versus P - commonizing does not meet our operational definition of responsibility. Irresponsibility opens the door to malfunction and uncontrollable costs. Applications of the theory of the commons extend far beyond common pastures, far beyond overpopulation among human beings. For instance, the theory extends to the capture, by speculators, of gains in the value of real estate as a result of community development. This diversion of community wealth was vigorously condemned by Henry George. Robert Andelson has explained the deep equivalence of George's ideas and commons theory {36}. The theory extends to the dysfunctional multiplication of water projects made possible by the federal commonization called 'subsidies' {37}. The theory is applicable to all insurance schemes, which commonize the losses of a few among all those who subscribe to a system; though insurance is a defensible way of dealing with exceptional losses, it inevitably encourages carelessness and dishonesty. The theory of the commons also applies to the many variants of socialized medicine, as Howard Hiatt first made clear {38}. In the medical case the waste is due less to the abuse of the commonized system by hypochondriacs than it is to its exploitation by liability lawyers whose forensic creativity pushes physicians into the practice of 'defensive medicine', that is, the employment of expensive medical procedures that defend doctors against lawyers, producing a waste of resources that defrauds the general public. Like Proteus of the Greek myth, the irresponsible commons take on ever new forms in a society in which all too many people fail to keep in the forefronts of their minds the economists' anti-Providential assertion that 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'. In the pure case, commonizing leads to ruin. But the modern state operates as a 'mixed economy', and so ruin is less common than simple waste. Moreover, under conditions of true plenty the unmanaged commons is not only tolerable, it may also be the most economical way of exploiting the environment. When an American frontiersman shot a dozen passenger pigeons for his dinner he harmed no one. Restricting such activities of the pioneers would have been wasteful of human time and effort. Criticisms of the Commons Theory After the resurrection and elaboration of Lloyd's theory of the commons several papers were published arguing that even with shortages a commonized resource need not necessarily come to a bad end. Some of the criticisms are just and call for a clarification of the idea of 'commons'. Arthur F McEvoy (1987) spoke of 'the commons myth', maintaining that it: ... misrepresents the way common lands were used in the archetypical case (that is, England before the privatization of landed property). English farmers met twice a year at minor court to plan production for the coming months. On those occasions they certainly would have exchanged information about the state of their lands and sanctioned those who took more than their fair share from the common pool. Likewise, Italian, Chinese, and other immigrant fishing communities in late nineteenth century California kept very tight control over the allocation and harvest of their resources so as to produce what we would now call an optimum yield for their group. As the San Francisco Chronicle put it in 1907, 'if any Italian thinks it is possible to catch crabs for the market without joining the association, let him try it' {39}. McEvoy's criticism has merit, but the merit must be evaluated in the light of a remark made by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: 'All propositions are erroneous unless they are construed in reference to a background which we experience without any conscious analysis' {40}. Clearly, the background of the resources discussed by Lloyd (and later by myself) was one of non-management of the commons under conditions of scarcity. In contrast, the English farmers and Italian fishermen cited by McEvoy were managing access to the resources they were exploiting. The title of my 1968 paper should have been The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons'. The commons discussed by McEvoy were managed by forces that are variously called 'community pressure' or 'shame'. When pressures are given the legislated form of laws the result is sometimes called 'socialism'. By long tradition, the open ocean - far beyond the reach of national sovereignties - is an unmanaged common. That is why the stocks of most oceanic fisheries are now accelerating toward exhaustion. Oceanic fisheries haven't a chance of survival so long as their exploitation is guided by the rubric, 'freedom of the seas' (read, 'laissez-faire' once more). An apparent exception is the Alaska fur-seal resource which has prospered for nearly a century, but that is because the commons of its breeding grounds in the Pribilof Islands are in fact managed jointly by only two exploiters, Russia and the United States. A more serious case is that of air pollution which is out of control because the absorptive capacities of the atmosphere are created as unmanaged commons. As people have become concerned with the proven damage of acid rain and the possible disaster of an atmospheric greenhouse, nations have moved closer to converting the global atmosphere from an unmanaged common to a managed one. (The political roadblocks to this reform are, of course, formidable.) We should speak of the 'commons model', rather than the 'commons myth'. Both Lloyd and I investigated the logical properties of this model (though this use of the word 'model' did not develop until the twentieth century). Whether any particular case is a materialization of that model is a historical question - and of only secondary importance. What human ecologists are most concerned with are the commons of our time that are truly unmanaged (or poorly managed). After these have been identified the next question is, How can we bring about the successful management of the remaining, deteriorating commons? In a strict sense, it is not the commons that need managing, but the people who exploit them. Managing people requires a deep knowledge of human nature - but what is the nature of human beings? McEvoy is not satisfied with the answers he infers from the literature. He says that the 'shortcoming of the tragic myth of the commons is its strangely unidimensional picture of human nature. The farmers on Hardin's pasture do not seem to talk to one another. As individuals, they are alienated, rational, utility-maximizing automatons and little else. The sum total of their social life is the grim, Hobbesian struggle of each against all and all together against the pasture in which they are trapped.' This is a serious misapprehension of the evidence, as can be shown by abandoning the hypothetical model to examine some relevant empirical evidence. The Hutterites of northwestern North America have adapted their behaviour to the providential motto of Karl Marx. (Whether they even know about Marx is not important.) Each Hutterite gives such labor as he or she feels is reasonable to the community, and takes out of the common scores what he/she feels is needful. Hutterites are admirable and successful farmers, and they have discovered something about human nature and its bearing on the limitations of the commons that should interest everyone. John Baden and Richard Stroup describe the problem: There is a saying commonly heard among the Hutterites: 'All colonies (especially "other" colonies) have their drones'. Further, it is recognized that the number of 'drones' increases more than proportionately with an increase in colony size. Given that: (1) all goods are public goods, (2) individual economic incentives are minimal, and (3) material differentials are outlawed, a rational, maximizing person would operate to maximize his pleasure, including leisure. Included in such self-seeking activities are trips into town or to a neighboring ranch to 'check on' or 'pick up' something allegedly relevant to his assigned task. {41} Keeping in mind McEvoy's roster of the shortcomings of exploiters of the commons we must judge that the Hutterites are, on the testimony of Baden and Stroup, rational and utility-maximizing. But, to use McEvoy's term, are Hutterites alienated from their community? Far from it. Many independent accounts make it crystal clear that the Hutterites lead a richly communal life, far from a 'grim, Hobbesian struggle of each against all'. Though the word 'struggle' seems too violent and too colorful, some sort of competition does seem to be going on. No English word is entirely adequate to describe the low-key jostling of wills in a Hutterite community; the word 'competition' will have to do. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'compete' as 'to strive after (something) in company or together'. It must be said that 'togetherness' is a specialty of Hutterites: as the community increases in size there's many a competition between 'gold-bricks' or 'goof-offs' to see who can get the cushy assignments on the community's work-roster. No bloodletting, no alienation: just quiet 'jockeying for position', to use an image from harness-racing. What is the result of this very human behavior? The Hutterites have learned that they can make the Marxian system of distribution work only within rather narrow limits: from (approximately) sixty to 150 persons in the colony. The lower limit is explained by the economist's favourite 'economies of scale'. The upper limit is explained by 'human nature', more mysterious but just as undeniable a reality as economies of scale. What aspect of human nature is involved in the control of a nominally unmanaged commons? Words are treacherous, but close observation of well-functioning groups exploiting a common resource - herdsmen, fishermen, Hutterite farmers, or whomever - leads to the strong feeling that it is old-fashioned shame that keeps would-be defectors in line. For this to work the size of the decision-making group must be small, apparently less than 150. Let us call this the Hutterite Limit. The observations needed to test the Hutterite limit have usually escaped recording. Traditional anthropology has not been sufficiently numerate to establish the effects of scale. Nevertheless some confirmations of the Hutterite limit have been recorded {42}, with no clear-cut disconfirmations. A study of population control in modern China showed the importance of close observation in discerning the effective social arrangements. The first observation indicated a group of two thousand people as the unit of control in Beijing. More careful observation showed that the actual unit within which control was exerted varied between 50 and 150 people {43}. Conclusion: the Hutterite limit was observed. Intuitively, the scale effect makes sense. It is a matter of common observation that the effectiveness of shame depends very much on face-to-face confrontations. It is easy for a small group to impose a feeling of shame on its errant members; in a large group, the feeling doesn't transmit well. It looks as though self-seeking is something of a biological constant, while shame is diluted by numbers. That is why formal, explicit government is more necessary in large groups than small. Idealists who feel repelled by explicit government - and such idealists are numerous in our society - should be advised to work for reductions in the size of the operational groups. Implicitly referring to groups of trans-Hutterite size, James Madison aptly made the connection between human nature and the necessity of government: Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of Government. But what is Government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no Government would be necessary. {44} Wise as it is, the last sentence cries out for correction: 'If all men (and women) were angels, no Government would be necessary'. Observations of unmanaged Commons ('no Government') show that when the Hutterite limit is transgressed non-conforming behavior (which may begin with a minority of one) is infective. The larger the group, the more rapid the infection. Destructive behavior that begins with a minority soon becomes the behavior of the majority. This makes sense. The non-conformer benefits from his actions in a community in which the majority conform to a self-denying ideal. As such a minority visibly prospers, another factor in human nature enters in; envy. One by one, hitherto self-denying conformers, envious of the prosperity of non-conformers, join the ranks of the less-than-angels. Positive feedback sets in. The ideal withers away. The process is sensitive to scale; only by keeping the size of the group small can shame triumph over envy. That this needs saying is evidence of the power of taboo. In the 1960s the 'Free Speech' movement in Berkeley effectively ended the taboo on many four-letter English words, but not on the four-letter word 'envy'. As Helmut Schoeck's scholarly study shows, envy is still one of the most powerfully tabooed words of our society {45}. Much that should be discussed under the subject of 'envy' is often automatically converted into the uncompromising assertion of 'rights'. Psychological denial not only lays a taboo on existent words, it can also slow the coinage of new ones that affront ruling attitudes. 'Optimism' was coined in 1737; 'pessimism' came along 57 years later. 'Shortage' was coined in 1868; 'longage' arrived 107 years later. Optimists who believe in Providence are energized by the word 'shortage' to look harder for more resources, which they are sure must be out there, someplace. To admit that there is a 'longage' of people or demands is to give up the belief in a providential plethora of resources. It is no wonder that 'longage' is not yet an accepted part of the popular vocabulary. The world of terrestrial resources is strictly limited, but not seriously so if we can learn to curb human demands. Given temperate demands, our world is vast - And has more than enough - for no more than enough. There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom; But there is a longage of people. {46} Every asserted 'shortage' of supply can equally aptly be described as a 'longage' of demand. Those who trumpet 'shortages' are likely to fight vigorously for 'rights'. (Remember '... to each according to his needs'.) This position bespeaks an admirable egalitarian sentiment, but how does the natural environment fare in such a rhetorical environment? If 'needs' include the need to reproduce at will, the drive toward equality of per capita distribution will finally exhaust the environment. In an unmanaged - or weakly managed - common, 'shortage' implies 'rights' implies ruin. But if we admit that envy is a natural and powerful part of human nature, a part that needs to be curbed, we will speak less often of shortages of supplies and begin to think about longages of people and longages of human desires. When we see longage as the central problem there is a possibility that we may find ways of controlling the proportions of the various populations and the dimensions of their demands, thus making it possible for at least a modicum of the world's environmental riches to be passed on to our grandchildren. The rhetoric we speak reveals the models with which our minds do their work. The rhetoric we live by determines our effects upon the world. NOTES: {1} Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pages 181-182. {2} J B Bury, The Idea of Progress (1932; New York: Dover, 1955), page 73. {3} Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759; Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Classics, 1976), page 304. {4} V Stark, The History of Economics in its Relation to Social Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1944), page 24. {5} Ronald Hamowy, The Scottish Enlightenment and the Theory of Spontaneous Order (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987), page 6. {6} Friedrich August Hayek, The Fatal Conceit (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), page 8. {7} Kenneth E. Boulding, The Image (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1956), page 117. {8} Garrett Hardin, Population, Evolution and Birth Control (2nd edition; San Francisco: W H Freeman, 1969), page 34. {9} Ibid, page 36. {10} Rose E Frisch, 'Demographic implications of the biological determinants of female fecundity', Social Biology, 22 (1975), page 22. {11} E P Hutchinson, The Population Debate (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967), page 345. (The passage is quoted from a work of Edmonds, 1828). {12} News report, Technology Review, 78, 4 (1976), page 24, {13} D E C Eversley, Social Theories of Fertility and the Malthusian Debate (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), page 201. {14} J DuPaquier, A Fauve-Chamoux, and E Grebenik, editors, Malthus Past and Present (New York: Academic Press, 1983), page 345. {15} Josue de Castro, The Geography of Hunger (Boston: Little Brown, 1952). {16} Ibid, pages 21 and 24. {17} E P Hutchinson, loc. cit., page 131. {18} Etienne van de Walle [Book review], Population and Development Review, 13 (1987), pages 547-550. {19} Karl R Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957). {20} William Petersen, Population (2nd edition; New York: Macmillan, 1969), page 11. {21} Michael S Teitelbaum, 'Relevance of demographic transition theory for developing countries', Science, 188 (1975), page 420. {22} Michael S Teitelbaum and Jay M Winter, The Fear of Population Decline (Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1985), page 14. {23} Vide 8, supra. {24} Ester Boserup, 'Economic and demographic interrelationships in sub-Saharan Africa', Population and Development Review, 11 (1985), page 395. {25} William Forster Lloyd, Two Lectures on the Checks to Population (1833; facsimile edition; New York: Augustus M Kelley, 1968), pages 30-31. {26} Garrett Hardin, 'Sentiment, guilt, and reason in the management of wild herds', Cato Journal, 2 (1982), pages 823-833. {27} Garrett Hardin, Filters Against Folly (New York: Viking, 1985), chapter 10. {28} Aristotle, Politics (New York: Viking, 1971), page 27 (Book 2, chapter3). {29} Garrett Hardin and John Baden, editors, Managing the Commons (San Francisco: W H Freeman, 1977). See chapters by H V Muhsam, 'An algebraic theory of the commons' and Daniel Fife, 'Killing the goose'. {30} Lloyd, op cit, page 21. {31} Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha program' in R C Tucker, The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: Norton, 1972), page 388. {32} Lloyd, op cit, pages 22-23. {33} Richard M. Romano, 'William Forster Lloyd - a non-Ricardian?, History of Political Economy, 9, 3 (1977), pages 412-441. {34} Garrett Hardin, 'The tragedy of the commons', Science, 162 (1968), pages 1243-1248. {35} Walter Lippman, The Method of Freedom (New York: Macmillan, 1934), pages 25-26. {36} Robert V Andelson, 'Commons Without Tragedy', this volume, chapter 2. {37} Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert (New York: Viking, 1986). {38} Howard H Hiatt, 'Protecting the medical commons: who is responsible?', New England Journal of Medicine, 293 (1975), pages 235-241. {39} Arthur F McEvoy, 'Toward an interactive theory of nature and culture: Ecology, production, and cognition in the California fishing industry', Environmental Review, 11 (1987), page 299. {40} Alfred North Whitehead, Essays in Science and Philosophy (New York: Philosophical Library, 1948), pages 85-86. {41} John Baden and Richard Stroup, 'Choice, faith, and politics: the political economy of Hutterite communes'. Public Choice, 12 (1972), pages 1-11. {42} Nathan Keyfitz, Population and Biology, (Liege: Ordina Editions, 1986), page 150. {43} Ruth & Victor W Sidel, 'Medicine in China: individual and society', Hastings Center Studies, 2, 3 (1974), pages 23-36. {44} James Madison (1788), in The Federalist, Number 50 (New York: Scribner, 1893), page 360. {45} Helmut Schoeck, Envy (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969). {46} Garrett Hardin, 'Carrying Capacity' in Stalking the Wild Taboo (Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, 1976), pages 260-261. Garrett Hardin (Ph D, Stanford University), professor emeritus of human ecology, University of California at Santa Barbara, is generally recognized as one of the seminal thinkers of our time. His books include Nature and Man's Fate (1959), Exploring New Ethics for Survival (1972), Naked Emperors: Essays of a Taboo-Stalker (1982), and Filters Against Folly: How to Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, and the Merely Eloquent (1985). His most widely-reprinted articles are 'The Tragedy of the Commons' (1968) and 'Living on a Lifeboat' (1974). 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/ From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Sep 10 07:56:30 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:56:30 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Zinn: US 'in need of rebellion' Message-ID: US 'in need of rebellion' Has the US been irretrievably damaged in the eyes of the world? [GALLO/GETTY] Al Jazeera speaks to Howard Zinn, the author, American historian, social critic and activist, about how the Iraq war damaged attitudes towards the US and why the US "empire" is close to collapse. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/09/20089814415795791.html Q: Where is the United States heading in terms of world power and influence? HZ: America has been heading - for some time, and is heading right now - toward less and less world power, less and less influence. Obviously, since the war in Iraq, the rest of the world has fallen away from the United States, and if American foreign policy continues in the way it has been - that is aggressive and violent and uncaring about the feelings and thoughts of other people - then the influence of the United States is going to decline more and more. This is an empire which is on the one hand the most powerful empire that ever existed; on the other hand an empire that is crumbling - an empire that has no future ... because the rest of the world is alienated and simply because this empire is top-heavy with military commitments, with bases around the world, with the exhaustion of its own resources at home. [This is] leading to more and more discontent and home, so I think the American empire will go the way of other empires and I think it is on its way now. Q: Is there any hope the US will change its approach to the rest of the world? HZ: If there is any hope, the hope lies in the American people. [It] lies in American people becoming resentful enough and indignant enough over what has happened to their country, over the loss of dignity in the world, over the starving of human resources in the United States, the starving of education and health, the takeover of the political mechanism by corporate power and the result this has on the everyday lives of the American people. [There is also] the higher and higher food prices, the more and more insecurity, the sending of the young people to war. I think all of this may very well build up into a movement of rebellion. We have seen movements of rebellion in the past: The labour movement, the civil rights movement, the movement against the war in Vietnam. I think we may well see, if the United States keeps heading in the same direction, a new popular movement. That is the only hope for the United States. Q: How did the US get to this point? HZ: Well, we got to this point because ... I suppose the American people have allowed it to get it to this point because there were enough Americans who were satisfied with their lives, just enough. Of course, many Americans were not, that is why half of the population doesn't vote, they're alienated. But there are just enough Americans who have been satisfied, you might say getting some of the "goodies" of the empire, just some of them, just enough people satisfied to support the system, so we got this way because of the ability of the system to maintain itself by satisfying just enough of the population to keep its legitimacy. And I think that era is coming to an end. Q: What should the world know about the United States? HZ: What I find many people in the rest of the world don't know is that there is an opposition in the United States. Very often, people in the rest of the world think that Bush is popular, they think 'oh, he was elected twice', they don't understand the corruption of the American political system which enabled Bush to win twice. They don't understand the basic undemocratic nature of the American political system in which all power is concentrated within two parties which are not very far from one another and people cannot easily tell the difference. So I think we are in a situation where we are going to need some very fundamental changes in American society if the American people are going to be finally satisfied with the kind of society we have. Q: Do you think the US can recover from its current position? HZ: Well, I am hoping for a recovery process. I mean, so far we haven't seen it. You asked about what the people of the rest of the world don't know about the United States, and as I said, they don't know that there is an opposition. There always has been an opposition, but the opposition has always been either crushed or quieted, kept in the shadows, marginalised so their voices are not heard. People in the rest of the world hear the voices of the American leaders. They do not hear the voices of the people all over this country who do not like the American leaders who want different policies. I think also, people in the rest of the world should know that what they see in Iraq now is really a continuation of a long, long term of American imperial expansion in the world. I think ... a lot of people in the world think that this war in Iraq is an aberration, that before this the United States was a benign power. It has never been a benign power, from the very first, from the American Revolution, from the taking-over of Indian land, from the Mexican war, the Spanish-American war. It is embarrassing to say, but we have a long history in this country of violent expansion and I think not only do most people in other countries [not] know this, most Americans don't know this. Q: Is there a way for this to improve? HZ: Well you know, whatever hope there is lies in that large number of Americans who are decent, who don't want to go to war, who don't want to kill other people. It is hard to see that hope because these Americans who feel that way have been shut out of the communications system, so their voices are not heard, they are not seen on the television screen, but they exist. I have gone through, in my life, a number of social movements and I have seen how at the very beginning of these social movements or just before these social movements develop, there didn't seem to be any hope. I lived in the [US] south for seven years, in the years of the civil rights movements, and it didn't seem that there was any hope, but there was hope under the surface. And when people organised, and when people began to act, when people began to work together, people began to take risks, people began to oppose the establishment, people began to commit civil disobedience. Well, then that hope became manifest ... it actually turned into change. Q: Do you think there is a way out of this and for the future influence of the US on the world to be a positive one? HZ: Well, you know for the United States to begin to be a positive influence in the world we are going to have to have a new political leadership that is sensitive to the needs of the American people, and those needs do not include war and aggression. [It must also be] sensitive to the needs of people in other parts of the world, sensitive enough to know that American resources, instead of being devoted to war, should be devoted to helping people who are suffering. You've got earthquakes and natural disasters all over the world, but the people in the United States have been in the same position as people in other countries. The natural disasters here [also] brought little positive reaction - look at [Hurricane] Katrina. The people in this country, the poor people especially and the people of colour especially, have been as much victims of American power as people in other countries. Q: Can you give us an overall scope of everything we talked about ? the power and influence of the United States? HZ: The power and influence of the United States has declined rapidly since the war in Iraq because American power, as it has been exercised in the world historically, has been exposed more to the rest of the world in this situation and in other situations. So the US influence is declining, its power is declining. However strong a military machine it is, power does not ultimately depend on a military machine. So power is declining. Ultimately power rests on the moral legitimacy of a system and the United States has been losing moral legitimacy. My hope is that the American people will rouse themselves and change this situation, for the benefit of themselves and for the benefit of the rest of the world. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 11:26:13 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:26:13 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Having Opted Out of Public Financing, Obama Is Now Scrambling for Money Message-ID: September 9, 2008 Straining to Reach Money Goal, Obama Presses Donors By MICHAEL LUO and JEFF ZELENY After months of record-breaking fund-raising, a new sense of urgency in Senator Barack Obama's fund-raising team is palpable as the full weight of the campaign's decision to bypass public financing for the general election is suddenly upon it. Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts "extremely anemic." At a convention-week meeting in Denver of the campaign's top fund-raisers, buttons with the image of a money tree were distributed to those who had already contributed the maximum $2,300 to the general election, a subtle reminder to those who had failed to ante up. The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama's decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted. Presidential candidates in a general election have typically relied on two main sources of money: public financing, along with additional money their parties raise. In choosing to accept the public money, the McCain campaign now gets an $84 million cash infusion from the United States Treasury. Mr. McCain is barred from raising any more money for his own campaign coffers but can lean on money raised by the Republican National Committee, which has continued to exceed expectations. Meanwhile, Obama campaign officials had calculated that with its vaunted fund-raising machine, driven by both small contributors over the Internet and a powerful high-dollar donor network, it made more sense to forgo public financing so they could raise and spend unlimited sums. But the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do. The Obama campaign does not have to report its August fund-raising totals until next week, so it is difficult to tally what it has in the bank at this point. A spokesman said that August was its best fund-raising month yet and that the campaign's fund-raising was on track. But the campaign finished July with slightly less cash on hand with the Democratic National Committee compared with Mr. McCain and the R.N.C. The Obama campaign has also been spending heavily, including several million more than the McCain campaign in advertising in August. A California fund-raiser familiar with the party's August performance estimated that it raised roughly $17 million last month, a drop-off from the previous month, and finished with just $13 million in the bank. Still, the Obama campaign said last Thursday that it had raised $10 million over the Internet in the 24 hours after the speech by Mr. McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, at the Republican convention on Wednesday, a one-day record for the campaign. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said the majority of the Obama campaign's donors during the primary had yet to write checks for the general election. When they do, he said, it will be the equivalent of the large injection of cash the McCain campaign is receiving from the government ? about $70 million or $80 million. "We're confident that we will meet our financial goals, but it's hard work," Mr. Plouffe said. "We have a long way to go in the next six weeks." Members of Mr. Obama's national finance committee were briefed during the convention in Denver by Mr. Plouffe. Penny Pritzker, the Obama finance chairwoman, announced new state-by-state fund-raising goals. The decidedly business-oriented nature of the meeting reflected the burden on the Obama campaign in the coming weeks. "I think McCain made the right call," said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996. "The Republican National Committee is strong. They have the resources to make this race almost financially on par." Democratic strategists disagree, pointing out that campaign finance rules impose serious restrictions on Mr. McCain's ability to fully make use of his party's bank account. "It's not just the limitation of dollars when you accept public financing, it's the limitations that go with that spending," said Tad Devine, a senior strategist for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004. Mr. Devine added that choosing to accept public financing was the Kerry campaign's single biggest mistake because it limited the campaign's resources. The McCain campaign had by far its best fund-raising month ever in August, when it collected $47 million for its coffers and $22 million for the party, finishing the month with more than $100 million in the bank that will now be at the disposal of the R.N.C., according to several finance officials. McCain fund-raisers said they also hope to raise an additional $100 million for the party in September and in October, taking advantage of the sizable contribution limits for the party. The party's Internet fund-raising has also picked up significantly since the announcement that Ms. Palin would join the Republican ticket. Combined with the $84 million from public financing, that would leave the McCain campaign with about $300 million at its disposal. A recent e-mail message to McCain fund-raisers unveiled new incentives to spur them in their final push. For the primary, anyone who raised $100,000 or more earned the title of Trailblazer, while those who raised $250,000 or more became Innovators. Now Trailblazers who raise another $100,000 for the party for the general election can become Super-Trailblazers, and Innovators who raise another $250,000 earn the title of Super-Innovators. Officials have also sketched out plans for Ms. Palin to do some 35 fund-raisers over the next two months. Mr. McCain will be dispatched for only four major fund-raisers: one on Monday night in Chicago, in which the party raised about $4 million; another next week in Miami, then Los Angeles and New York in October, finance officials said. But even if the McCain finance team, led by Lewis M. Eisenberg, a former Goldman Sachs executive, and Wayne L. Berman, a Washington lobbyist, meets its goals, the campaign will have complete control over only the $84 million from the federal government, as well as $19 million in party money that is permitted to be used in coordination with the campaign. The Republican Party can spend unlimited amounts of its money independent of the McCain campaign. It can also split the costs of so-called hybrid advertisements with the campaign, commercials that must promote not only Mr. McCain but also other Republicans down the ticket, something media strategists said could be ineffective when trying to create a cohesive message. Nevertheless, McCain fund-raisers pointed out the pressure is now on the Obama campaign to raise far more than it ever has before. The Obama campaign set a goal in mid-June of raising $300 million for the campaign and about $150 million for the Democratic Party over four-and-a-half months, fund-raisers said. As of the end of July, however, the Obama campaign was well short of the $100 million a month pace it had set, taking in about $77 million between the campaign and the party that month. It is not yet clear whether the Obama campaign will be able to ratchet up its fund-raising enough in the final two months of the campaign to make up the difference. Even Mr. Obama's fund-raisers in Illinois were admonished in an e-mail message last Thursday to step up their efforts to "show the other regions that his home state still has it." The donors, who were also reminded they had each promised to collect $300,000 for the campaign, were asked to raise $25,000 each for an event on Sept. 22 at a Chicago museum. The new state-by-state goals unveiled by campaign officials in Denver stunned at least some in the room and included sizable increases for at least some states, according to interviews with several Obama fund-raisers. The campaign has created a fund-raising committee, the Campaign for Change, which allows fund-raisers to harvest additional checks of more than $30,000 that will then be divvied up among state Democratic Parties in 18 battleground states, with Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan receiving the most. In a campaign swing through South Florida over Labor Day weekend, Mr. Obama's vice-presidential running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., met with several small groups of major donors and sent out an e-mail appeal to supporters of his own unsuccessful presidential campaign, as well as to Jewish supporters. The effort brought in more than $1 million in four days. Campaign officials expect their Internet fund-raising engine to ramp up as the election approaches. And they hope that much of the high-dollar fund-raising can be done without Mr. Obama. In the New York area alone, there are some 18 events planned in September, all with surrogates, including Mrs. Clinton, Caroline Kennedy and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But campaign officials conceded that Mr. Obama inevitably will have to make some appearances. On Friday night in New Jersey, Mr. Obama devoted five hours for two fund-raising events, including one at the home of the singer Jon Bon Jovi, in which the ticket was $30,800 a person. Mr. Obama is also scheduled to appear at back-to-back fund-raisers in Los Angeles on Sept. 16. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 12:27:50 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:27:50 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Trouble the Water Message-ID: <200809101827.m8AIRoPf014087@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/b6cb920d/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 12:39:01 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:39:01 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Disaster in Afghanistan Message-ID: <200809101839.m8AId1uk011207@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/f012fa46/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 12:43:55 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:43:55 -0700 Subject: [R-G] German-Afghan peace alliance calls for withdrawal of German troops from Afghanistan Message-ID: <200809101843.m8AIhtPs022483@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/798facf0/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 12:54:04 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:54:04 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Israeli Strategy After the Russo-Georgian War Message-ID: <200809101854.m8AIs4BA017119@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/5fb77dc1/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 12:54:52 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:54:52 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Hamas Debates the Future Message-ID: <200809101854.m8AIsrxn021246@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/a9df71c5/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 13:02:59 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:02:59 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Moscow Facing Lending Crisis Message-ID: Moscow facing lending crisis By Catherine Belton in Moscow Published: September 9 2008 20:56 | Last updated: September 9 2008 20:56 An exodus of foreign capital is forcing Russian banks to slash lending as the international reaction to the country's military standoff with Georgia starts to affect the real economy. Bankers say Russia is facing its worst crisis since the August 1998 default. The Russian stock market has plummeted more than 40 per cent since May. A flight of capital estimated by analysts at up to $20bn (?14bn, ?11bn) since the start of the conflict is drying up liquidity. The Russian Trading System index fell another 7.5 per cent on Tuesday to its lowest level since June 2006. Bankers and analysts said real estate and retail businesses were being hardest hit by a slowdown in lending. "There are real estate developers who can't finish projects. They can't get money from anyone, state banks included," said one senior banker in Moscow speaking on condition of anonymity. "No one was ready for the lack of cash to manifest itself so quickly," he said. "Nobody has any money. The country has got all this cash but the banking system and capital markets are not particularly good at allocating it. There is a flood of liquidity in the state's fields and a drought in the private sector." Russia's central bank says analysts' estimates of capital flight are exaggerated and only $5bn left the country in August. But foreign investors have shunned the Russian rouble and stock market. The conflict with Georgia was the final straw in a summer punctuated by ill omens such as Vladimir Putin's attack on Russian steelmaker Mechel that reminded them of the political risks of investing in Russia. Domestic borrowing costs for Russian companies have soared because of greater refinancing risks. Exacerbating Russia's market fall is the fact that many of the country's leading tycoons raised funds for expansion by pledging shares in some of the nation's biggest companies. Now they are facing margin calls from the banks that lent money against the shares, bankers and traders say. That is making the market sell-off worse as businesses fail to find alternative sources of funds. "All the oligarchs that are over-leveraged are being forced to sell off," said Sergei Sidorov, head of capital markets at Unicredit in Moscow. Hans-J?rg Rudloff, chairman of Barclays Capital, said the military standoff between Russia and Georgia had exacerbated fraught nerves in the global investment community and the steep decline in Russian stock prices could have a big impact on the ability of Russian private companies to fund further growth. Calling on the west not to shun Russia, he said: "Geopolitical tensions always interfere with economic planning and could derail growth patterns around the world." Pyotr Aven, president of one of Russia's biggest private banks, Alfa Bank, told a Reuters investment summit on Tuesday that the economy was showing "dangerous" signs of slowing amid accelerating inflation and a slowdown in real income growth. Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Uralsib investment bank in Moscow, said investors were spooked by Russia's slowing economy, question marks over Russian companies' earnings potential after Mr Putin's broadside at Mechel, increasing economic dependence on oil, and potential damage to Russia's ability to attract foreign investment. The Russian government has until now helped shore up liquidity despite the global credit squeeze by placing up to $12.75bn development funds in short-term deposits in the banking system and holding regular cash auctions. In a sign of the growing squeeze however, Russian banks submitted bids for $3.5bn at a cash auction on Monday, while the Finance Ministry made only $2.4bn available. Cash held by banks on deposits at the central bank has been falling day by day, reaching a low of 638.4bn roubles ($25bn, ?18bn, ?14bn) on Tuesday from 675.6bn the day before. Even state banks such as Sberbank, the country's state-controlled retail bank, could face difficulties raising capital abroad in the wake of the Georgian conflict, bankers and analysts said. Sberbank is currently seeking a $1bn-plus syndicated loan on international markets. Alexei Kudrin, the Russian finance minister, attempted on Tuesday to limit the damage. Speaking at a Reuters investment forum, he said the conflict with Georgia had reduced Russia's political risk by eliminating the potential for further military escalation, while the recent resolution of the dispute over the Anglo-Russian energy venture TNK-BP was a sign that Russia was trying to improve its investment climate. But bankers are unconvinced. One banker, however, said: "Investors are . . . likely to ignore Russia. Companies are not going to be able to issue on international markets." Medvedev fails to halt Russian market slide By Rachel Morarjee and Peter Garnham Published: September 10 2008 13:09 | Last updated: September 10 2008 15:48 Russia's stock market tumbled for a second consecutive session on Wednesday despite an attempt by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other officials to shore up the market with promises of government support. Mr Medvedev said on Wednesday that the 45 percent slump in Russian stocks since May is temporary, and the government has the power to bring them back to levels seen at the start of the year. "I think in the end these changes are not dramatic and will bring about a stabilisation. If the right decisions are made, the situation will straighten out," Medvedev was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti, the state news agency. "We will return to the levels that we saw at the start of the year. In any case, I believe this is in the power of the government," Medvedev said. Russia's benchmark rouble-denominated Micex index fell 3.8 per cent to 1114.67 and the dollar-denominated RTS index slid 4.4 per cent to 1334.33. Margin calls on local investors and redemption for foreign equity funds drove sales, analysts said. "It is good that Medvedev cares about the market and the market usually welcomes these kind of comments but in today's environment sales are still due to margin calls and redemption requests," said Tom Mundy, an analyst at Moscow-based Renaissance Capital. Oil giant Gazprom, Russia's biggest company, dropped another 3.1 per cent, to 200.70Rbs on the Micex Stock Exchange, the lowest since it listed shares there in January 2006. On Tuesday the shares fell nearly 8 per cent after Russia's regulator said the state-controlled gas export monopoly would be fined for restricting access for an independent gas producer to its vast pipeline network. JPMorgan reiterated its "underweight" recommendation on Russian stocks, saying concerns about geopolitical risk and political inference in business have been replaced by the souring economic outlook. The rouble eased 0.1 per cent to 30.35 against its euro/dollar basket on Wednesday as Russia continued to pay the price for the conflict in Georgia. Win Thin at Brown Brothers Harriman said while the rouble was suffering from capital flight out of Russia due to political tensions between Moscow and the West, plunging commodity prices were also weighing on the currency. "Given our outlook for lower commodity prices, we think the rouble will continue to fall," he said. Alexei Kudrin, Russian finance minister, acknowledged instability on Russian markets, and said the country should try to make the rouble a safe investment. The rouble "should become a currency to invest in, not flee, as people are doing now," he said. The Central Bank of Russia, which manages the rouble to a basket of 55 per cent dollars and 45 euros, has been forced to intervene heavily in the market to support the currency in recent weeks. Nevertheless, the rouble has fallen 3.4 per cent against its euro/dollar basket since the start of August. The rouble had been a one-way upward bet for currency investors prior to the escalation in hostilities in Georgia on August 8. Before the conflict, the Central Bank of Russia's main concern was keeping a lid on the rouble's strength as capital poured into resource-rich Russia, which also boasts the world's third largest foreign exchange reserves and sustainable fiscal and trade surpluses. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 12:55:37 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:55:37 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Intel Council Warned Against Raids in Pakistan Message-ID: <200809101855.m8AItbid024486@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/6b700285/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 13:09:31 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:09:31 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Ecuador at OPEC Message-ID: Ecuador seeks Opec expertise By Carola Hoyos in Vienna Published: September 9 2008 09:17 | Last updated: September 9 2008 09:17 As Opec begins to discuss the politically and economically fraught issue of reducing its oil output, Ecuador, its newest, smallest and poorest member still believes it made the right decision to join nine months ago. For the Latin American oil and gas producer, Opec is more than a cartel focused on keeping prices at levels comfortable for the world's biggest oil exporters, says Galo Chiriboga, Ecuador's energy minister. "Opec is very important for us. It is a place for us to meet other people and look for cooperation, especially with Venezuela and Algeria," he told the FT. Ecuador is seeking to tap the two countries' expertise and technology in gas exploration and development, rather than oil. Meanwhile, his country played a role in getting the group to back Venezuela - albeit reluctantly - in its fight against ExxonMobil, the world's biggest international energy group, and the only company suing Caracas over the nationalisation of its fields, said Mr Chiriboga. High prices have prompted producer countries to change contract terms, take control of fields and rely more on their national oil companies as well as fellow NOCs from other countries. Opec is once again becoming a place where members like Ecuador can discuss how best to extract as much revenue and, in some cases control, from international oil companies. This marks a return to Opec's role at its inception in the 1960s, when it was a vehicle for countries to demand - often in a joint effort - better concession rights from the all-powerful seven sisters and the other oil companies that controlled almost the entire industry and treated their hosts as little more than colonial serfs. Mr Chiriboga was speaking in Vienna ahead of Opec's meeting where the cartel is likely to agree to maintain current production levels but begin to consider quietly reducing output in the coming months to ensure prices do not fall below producers' comfort levels. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 13:17:37 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:17:37 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Reversal of Fortune for Emerging Markets Message-ID: Reversal of fortune for emerging markets By David Oakley in London Published: September 10 2008 19:25 | Last updated: September 10 2008 19:25 Outflows from emerging markets bond and equity funds reached $29.5bn over the past three months, the highest level since at least 1995, with withdrawals gathering pace over the past week. Investors headed for the exits as rising fears over slowing world growth and the state of the banking system over the past week added pressure on emerging markets ? which were already reeling from weaker commodity prices, inflationary pressures, a stronger dollar and geopolitical concerns. Investors switched $1bn out of equity and fixed income funds on Monday, one of the highest daily outflows since records began in 1995, said EPFR Global, the data provider. Last week there were outflows of $1.6bn, bringing the total since June 4 to $29.5bn, the largest three-month figure since 1995. Nick Chamie, head of emerging markets research at RBC Capital Markets, said: "Since July, investors have finally become aware of the severity of the global slowdown. The emerging markets are a leveraged play on global growth, so in a serious downturn, investors will naturally sell them." David Lubin, emerging market strategist at Citigroup, said: "Emerging market asset prices rose strongly in a world of rapid growth and high commodity prices, creating something like a virtuous circle. "Now we're faced with the risk that this process is unwinding. The strength of the dollar has put emerging economies' currencies under pressure just at the point where a rise in global risk aversion is pushing investors away from exposure to developing countries." The benchmark MSCI emerging market index fell 1.27 per cent to 857.44, the lowest level since March 2007. The fall extended its decline to 4.8 per cent over the past week and 22 per cent over past three months. The hardest hit stock markets in dollar terms are Ukraine, which has fallen 58.8 per cent this year in part on geopolitical worries; China, down 57 per cent amid fears it had risen too far on a bubble; Hungary, down 49 per cent on worries over growth; Pakistan, down 46.7 per cent amid political turmoil; and Vietnam, down 46.4 per cent in the face of a sharp rise in inflation. Russia been under pressure, with the benchmark RTS index down 4.4 per cent yesterday and 46 per cent since its May 19 peak. Emerging market sovereign bond yield spreads have risen to 330 basis points over Treasuries ? highs not seen since mid-2005 ? from 300bp at the start of last week amid rising risk aversion. Bonds of the four Bric countries ? Brazil, Russia, India and China ? have also been hit by rising interest rates this year. From suzannedk at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 13:18:37 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:18:37 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Trouble the Water In-Reply-To: <200809101827.m8AIRoPf014087@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200809101827.m8AIRoPf014087@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: thanks On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > http://www.troublethewaterfilm.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 > From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 13:20:29 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:20:29 -0700 Subject: [R-G] New Kissinger telcons reveal Chile plotting at highest levels of U.S. government Message-ID: <200809101920.m8AJKTvq022102@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/55b0cff7/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 13:43:30 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:43:30 -0400 Subject: [R-G] "Ultra-nationalists Join the Russian Mainstream" (FT) vs "Russia's Return as a 'Post-ideological' Power" (Daily Star) Message-ID: The contrast between the Financial Times' and the (Lebanese) Daily Star's interpretations is striking. Arabs (even Westernizers among them) are more level-headed than Westerners about Russia. -- Yoshie Invasion's ideologues: Ultra-nationalists join the Russian mainstream By Charles Clover in Moscow Published: September 8 2008 20:09 | Last updated: September 8 2008 20:09 A decade ago, many of the most influential thinkers in today's Russia were in the intellectual wilderness. While some sat in pamphlet-littered basements churning out copies of underground ultra-rightwing newspapers with names such as Lightning and Russian Order, others were in jail following failed coups in 1991 and 1993 against the pro-western "occupation regimes" of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. Russia's intellectual journey since then has been dizzying, as the radical has become mainstream and the hardline position increasingly moderate-sounding, with what were the margins emerging as the political centre. Now, against the backdrop of conflict in Georgia and deteriorating relations with the west, Russia's ultra-nationalist thinkers are starting to exert unprecedented influence. The wide acceptance of a group of ideas once dismissed as laughable signals a new era in Russia's foreign relations, as Moscow seeks to protect what President Dmitry Medvedev calls a "region of privileged interest" in parts of the former Soviet Union. Rising nationalist opinion could also mean bigger defence budgets and a race to modernise Russia's military as well a presaging a yet more nationalist approach to economic policy. The government is coming under increasing pressure to invest the country's oil wealth at home rather than abroad and could even respond to international criticism of the war in Georgia by pre-emptively imposing trade restrictions on the US. The war not only boosted the prestige of the military, which enjoyed its first successful campaign in a generation. It has also enhanced the reputations of a narrow group of ultra-nationalist thinkers who prophesied the coming clash with the west. Today's Russia, willing to press its national objectives with military force, unconcerned with the erosion of democracy and dismissive of world opinion, was foretold a decade ago in inky manifestos and in lecture halls full of bearded radicals straight out of Dostoevsky. "I am convinced that now, following the war, there will be a huge shift in the balance of power within the Russian elite," says Aleksander Dugin, leader of the Eurasian Movement, a prominent far-right group. Mr Dugin has seen a remarkable improvement in his fortunes since the days in the early 1990s when he worked out of a basement flat in a gritty central Moscow district penning works on the metaphysics of Christianity. He went on to become a television talk show host and a professor at Moscow State University. Now he has a radio show on the Kremlin-supported 107 FM. "The people that formed the centre under [former president, now prime minister Vladimir] Putin will now become marginal. And another pole will appear that did not exist under Putin at all. That is the army, the military and patriotic movements. That is us. Under Putin we were the extremists: respectable, yes, but radicals. Now we are moving right into the centre," he says. Not everyone shares Mr Dugin's view, but the newly ascendant nationalism is likely to bring new ideas into Russia's mainstream. These form no less than the basis of a looming ideological clash between Russia and the west. "Political momentum has been shifting in [the ultra-nationalists'] direction for quite some time. One could argue that the incursion into Georgia was something new, but it was building on a momentum that we have been seeing," says John Dunlop from Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Viktor Erofeev, a well-known author and one of a small and shrinking minority of Russians who question the reasons for the war against Georgia, attributes the wave of patriotism to a widespread "cult of power". In a recent radio debate, Mr Erofeev described it as "the joy of victory, in sport, in politics, but also in war. It is an archaic form of self-consciousness ... [that] has remained with us, where it has disappeared in more civilised countries." Amid the bombast about reimposition of Tsarist rule, the reconstitution of the Soviet Union or Russian empire and banishing Washington's influence from the region, the new right does have a philosophical bone to pick with the west, which proclaims the "universality" of democracy and human rights and makes the US ready to defend and promote these goals throughout the world ? by military force if necessary. Russia's opposition to "unipolar domination" by Washington is tied to the view pushed by the thinkers of the new right that such universal truths are an illusion, that their nation and civilisation form a unique "whole" that has a right to existence. That this ideological approach has penetrated to the Kremlin can be seen in a now famous speech in Munich in February 2007 by Mr Putin, in which the then president said he considered the unipolar model "not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world". The model was flawed, he argued, because "at its basis there is and can be no moral foundation for modern civilisation". It was a speech that was labelled by some commentators as the start of a new "cold war" with the west. Russia's insistence on the right to "sovereign democracy", a phrase of Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin's top ideologist, can also be traced to this philosophical opposition to moral absolutes. Mr Surkov argues that each nation has the right to practise democracy in its own "sovereign" way, which rationalises in theoretical terms the fact that Russian democracy is not very democratic at all. Many ultra-nationalists already walk the corridors of power: Dmitry Rogozin, former head of the Rodina (Motherland) party, is Russia's ambassador to Nato. The Duma, or parliament, has also been a hive of activity of radical nationalists since the mid-1990s, regularly featuring the rantings of arch-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky. While their liberal western-oriented counterparts spent the decade following the collapse of communism learning the economic theories of Milton Friedman or reading up on the Council of Europe, the venerable organisation dedicated to promoting human rights, Russia's nationalists were studying the Orthodox church, mugging up on French postmodernism or simply "drinking beer, playing chess and lifting dumbbells", as Valery Korovin, leader of the Eurasian Youth Movement, puts it. Russia's military and "special services" such as the former KGB, now FSB, have long had a mysterious connection to these ultra-rightwing groups. The rising stature of the siloviki, as the former uniformed men are known, has accompanied a rise in the prestige of rightwing philosophy. While serving officers tend to keep their political leanings to themselves, several retired officers took on a high profile in the media during the Georgian war and their prestige is only likely to increase with the success of the military campaign. Aleksander Prokhanov, editor of the radical rightwing Tomorrow newspaper and known as the "nightingale of the general staff" for his close links to Russia's top brass, predicts a political crisis between pro-western and nationalist political factions. After the military victory in the Caucasus, the nationalists will need to guard against political setbacks at home, he says. That requires "very fast changes ? social, political, economic and ideological" in Russia, in which the main opponent will be the new pro-western elite "who are loath to give up their assets in the west". The event that gave the new right much of its popularity was Russia's agonising decade of economic collapse following the end of communism: that destroyed the credibility of liberal democratic reformers. In addition, the US campaign against Russia's ally Serbia in 1999 sparked a sea- change in public opinion. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, opinion polls showed nationalism was a phenomenon associated primarily with lower-income groups, while the upper echelons of society saw imitation of the west in all things, from democracy to liberal economics, as desirable. But already in 2001, a study by the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow noticed a new "ideology" among the middle and upper class ? previously the "agents of modernisation". A majority had come to see Nato as a hostile force and the break-up of the Soviet Union as a mistake. Most viewed Russia as belonging to a unique civilisation separate from the west. Under Mr Putin's eight-year presidency, the popularity of rightwing ideas grew as he deployed belligerent rhetoric and used Kremlin resources to sponsor groups such as Nashi, the youth movement organised by Mr Surkov. Mr Putin, and Mr Medvedev after him, adorned the presidency with the trappings of empire ? regularly featuring the orthodox cross of Tsarist Russia and the red star of Soviet might. Today, Russia's ideological transformation is complete, if contradictory. Just like in the 19th century, when Russia's armies fought against Napoleon while its aristocracy spoke French, today's Russian elite embraces a confusing agenda: Nato is considered a hostile force and they support the war in Georgia, but they still prefer holidaying in the west, owning property there and sending their children to British private schools. However, analysts caution that public support for Kremlin policies is not unconditional. More than on patriotism and national pride, public approval for Mr Putin is based on his ? and now Mr Medvedev's ? presidency delivering higher living standards. Dmitri Simes of the Washington based Nixon Center says there are limits to the sacrifices people will make: "They don't want to be cut off from the west, they don't want to be isolated or ostracised." Russians do not want to increase military spending in a way that would compete with or threaten other national priorities, he says. "Mr Putin was so hugely popular not just because of his national security credentials but because, under him, Russians began to live much better. But a new cold war, a new arms race, would threaten all that." Aleksander Dugin: Author of the influential 1997 book 'The Foundations of Geopolitics', which he wrote in conjunction with a general from the Academy of the General Staff. In it, he theorised that Russia, the earth's largest land power, was the natural antagonist to the "Atlantic world" of the US and Britain. He heads the Eurasian Movement, devoted to that philosophy, and has helped translate European "new right" authors into Russian. He has been a professor at Moscow State University and now has a weekly radio show. Dmitry Rogozin: Elected to Russia's lower house of parliament in 1997, he co-headed the ultra-nationalist Rodina (Motherland) party from 2003. Rodina, a Kremlin-backed nationalist party, was designed to draw votes away from the powerful Communist party, which has been in constant opposition to the Kremlin. Mr Rogozin was removed as a leader of the party in 2006 after losing an internal power struggle. In January 2008 he was named Russia's ambassador to Nato. Aleksander Prokhanov: One of the original nationalist writers to emerge in the Soviet Union in the 1970s, he is now editor of Tomorrow newspaper and a close friend of many of Russia's top generals. Those include Field Marshal Dmitry Yazov, who planned the 1991 coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev, which ultimately failed. He is a successful fiction author and is often featured on television and radio programmes representing rightwing views. The Middle East and Russia's return as a 'post-ideological' power By The Daily Star Monday, September 08, 2008 Editorial Russia's bold stroke in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia last month has added a new dimension to the resurgence under way for the past few years. The Kremlin has signaled that it is back as major player on the world stage, a prospect that carries far-reaching implications for many regions - the Middle East in particular. Governments and peoples in this part of the world have much to gain from a shakeup of the international order as it has existed since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. To do so, however, they will have to recognize that this new Russian challenge to American supremacy is very different from the one that kept the Cold War going for decades. For one, today's Russia might be described as "post-ideological." Its tussles with the United States (and some other Western countries) are no longer potentially existential ones that lead inevitably to zero-sum games. In addition, despite its growing energy wealth, Moscow no longer has the strategic wherewithal to engage in dozens of far-flung contests with Washington. What it retains includes a determination to protect its own interests (especially close to home) and, increasingly, a willingness to be assertive in doing so. It also has a relatively large population infused with considerable amounts of ability and no shortage of national pride. In short, the days when post-Soviet Russia could be ignored are definitively over. It cannot have been a coincidence that the first foreign leader to visit Russia after the humiliation of Georgia (and its American ally) was another individual with a long history of defying US demands, Syrian President Bashar Assad. This demonstrated that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the real power behind his throne, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, will not shy away from taking their struggles with Washington to venues in the Middle East. The Russians also have grand plans to leverage their huge reserves of natural gas into even greater riches by increasing cooperation with other key producers. In addition, Moscow has sought to slow the flow of sanctions against Iran over that country's nuclear program and is scheduled to complete a reactor for the Islamic Republic in 2009. A new Cold War is not unavoidable, and Russia does not need one to effect the gains its seeks. The United States is badly over-extended militarily, and its influence has been sharply diminished by years of unilateralism. Apart from those in Georgia, recent developments in Lebanon have also made it clear that expressions of American "support" are no guarantee of victory over one's rivals. Situations like these will offer Russia openings to spread its influence, and while most Middle Eastern governments should have learned by now that serving as proxies in a wider struggle can be a thankless business, each would do well to re-examine the new realities. Needless to say, the same applies to the next president of the United States. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Sep 10 13:54:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:54:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] So Sambo beat the bitch! Message-ID: <200809101954.m8AJsjuk005609@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080910/fbf65ecd/attachment.txt From internacional at pcdob.org.br Wed Sep 10 14:02:09 2008 From: internacional at pcdob.org.br (=?Windows-1252?Q?PCdoB_-_Secretaria_de_Rela=E7=F5es_Internacionais?=) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:02:09 -0300 Subject: [R-G] PCdoB - Artigo J. Reinaldo Carvalho (Port. Ingl e Esp) Message-ID: <006401c91382$56a3ee70$0e05a8c0@mh> Estimados Camaradas, Recebam em anexo, em portugu?s, espanhol e ingl?s, o artigo de Jos? Reinaldo Carvalho, Secret?rio de Rela??es Internacionais do Comit? Central do Partido Comunista do Brasil- PCdoB. Sauda??es Fraternas, Maria Helena D' Eugenio p/ Secretaria de Rela??es Internacionais do CC do PCdoB (11) 30541822 ou 00 ===================== Dear Comrades, Please find attached the article by Jos? Reinaldo Carvalho, Interantional Relations Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Brazil - PCdoB. Fraternal greetings, Maria Helena D' Eugenio by the International Relations Secretary CC - PCdoB (55 11 ) 30541822 or 00 From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Sep 10 15:03:09 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:03:09 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] An Inside Job Message-ID: <48C8360D.8030905@attglobal.net> Who brought down the cooling towers in South Yorkshire? by George Monbiot Monbiot.com (August 29 2008) Warning: When I first posted this up, on August 25th, I received so many complaints from people who took it seriously that I decided to take it down again. In re-posting it, I feel obliged to point out that this is a spoof, satirising the style and substance of the 9/11 truth movement. The event it refers to, however, is a real one. _____ by Lew Knee, published on Monbiot.com, 25th August 2008. According to the MSM, these Twin Towers were "demolished in a controlled explosion": http://newsbbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7578266.stm Lol! Only the CIA-paid shills would believe a story like that. The question you have to ask is Qui Bono? And Chris custodiet? What the MSM doesn't tell you is that ALL the Jews were evacuatted from these cooling towers hours before they were brort down. When the towers collapsed, not a SINGLE Jew was inside them! And the security services warned people to stay away BEFORE they were "demolished". take another look at the footage of the "collapse". Do you see any evidence of "controled demolition"? No. At least 23 witneses, all of who have misteriously disappeared since the attacks saw a plane hit the colling towers just before they came down!!! And NO debris from any plain or missile or even from a holographic image of a VIRTUAL MISILE has been found at the sight!!!! Proving that ALL the debris was cleared away by the goverment as soon as the towers came down, which was why they didn't let anyone near it. If you check out frames 1335-1337 of the film of the "demolition", you can see a BLUR close to the base of Tower 1, just minutes before it came down. You can clearly see that this is the plane/missile/hologram/alien text message dispached by the NWO to destroy these towers!!!! And how did Tower 2 come down when it wasn't even HIT by a plain??? This was obviously an INSIDE JOB! The demolition of these towers was planned WEEKS, if not MONTHS ago!!!! Why else was no one killed in the "explosion"? And why has no one else come foreword to expose it? Because they were all killed???? We need a new truth movement to out the insiders who did this crime on beharf of the NWO and the MSM hacks and shills who will make ab homimen attacks and hit jobs on the people trying to find the answers. We must not stop until we have found the truth and exposed the greatest conspiracy EVER perpettrated on British soil!!!!!!!! Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/29/an-inside-job/ 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/ From mstainsby at resist.ca Wed Sep 10 15:33:00 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:33:00 -0600 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] An Inside Job In-Reply-To: <48C8360D.8030905@attglobal.net> References: <48C8360D.8030905@attglobal.net> Message-ID: <48C83D0C.4070407@resist.ca> Monbiot should seriously stick to analyzing what is going on with climate change-- his attacks on first anarchist movements and now this crap are really depressing. He's a bit funny, but he makes no point. Bill Totten wrote: > Who brought down the cooling towers in South Yorkshire? > > by George Monbiot > From internacional at pcdob.org.br Wed Sep 10 15:43:50 2008 From: internacional at pcdob.org.br (=?Windows-1252?Q?PCdoB_-_Secretaria_de_Rela=E7=F5es_Internacionais?=) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:43:50 -0300 Subject: [R-G] PCdoB - Artigo Ronaldo Carmona (Port. e Ingl) Message-ID: <04de01c9138e$50ead1e0$0e05a8c0@mh> Estimados Camaradas, Recebam em anexo, em portugu?s, espanhol e ingl?s, o artigo Direita paramilitar boliviana parte para a??o fora-da-lei de Ronaldo Carmona, Membro da Comiss?o de Rela??es Internacionais do Comit? Central do Partido Comunista do Brasil- PCdoB. Sauda??es Fraternas, Maria Helena D' Eugenio p/ Secretaria de Rela??es Internacionais do CC do PCdoB (11) 30541822 ou 00 ===================== Dear Comrades, Please find attached the article Bolivian paramilitary right resorts to illegal measures by Ronaldo Carmona, Member of the Comission on International Relations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Brazil - PCdoB. Fraternal greetings, Maria Helena D' Eugenio by the International Relations Secretary CC - PCdoB (55 11 ) 30541822 or 00 From mstainsby at resist.ca Wed Sep 10 16:05:08 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:05:08 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Edmonton: No Games on Stolen Native Land! Panel on 2010 & Tar Sands Message-ID: <48C84494.5020603@resist.ca> [For Edmonton Residents] On September 29th, 2008 (Monday), the 2010 Olympic Winter Games "Spirit Train" will be coming to Edmonton, Alberta. A call out has been issued by the Olympics Resistance Network (appended below) On September 27, 2008, several speakers from indigenous communities who are being adversely effected on unceded territories in "British Columbia" as well as communities in "Alberta" are coming to Edmonton to speak about issues surrounding the 2010 Olympic Games, tar sands development and the negative impacts on human health, self-determination and the environment. On Monday September 29th, there will be a demonstration confronting the Olympic Spirit train as it brings its show through Edmonton. The panel will detail why these issues need to be understood and opposed as a show of support for self-determination and against corporate sponsored development of traditional indigenous territories. Confirmed speakers include: Dustin Johnson, Tsimshian Nation: coordinator of North Coast Enviro Watch and member of Native 2010 Resistance; Ange Sterritt, Gitxsan First Nation: Member of Native 2010 Resistance; Clayton Thomas-Muller, Indigenous Tar Sands Campaigner for the Indigenous Environmental Network [IEN] Lionel Lepine, member Athabasca Chipewyan/Dene First Nation (Fort Chip). Mike Mercredi, member Athabasca Chipewyan/Dene First Nation (Fort Chip). Invited Speakers from the community of Little Buffalo (Lubicon Lake Indian Nation) Location of panel: Edmonton Native Friendship Centre Street: 11205 101 Street NW T5G 2A4 Edmonton, AB Date September 27th (Saturday); Action opposing 2010 Olympic Spirit Train on September 29th (Monday). The Spirit Train event in Edmonton will take place at 1:00pm ? 8:00pm WP Wagner School (6310 Wagner Rd NW) for more information, contact macdonald at oilsandstruth.org 780 233 4992 ******* The following is excerpted from a larger callout for support/actions & events from the Olympics Resistance Network. ++++ Another upcoming opportunity is the Spirit Train, being launched on Sept. 21, 2008 by Canadian Pacific Railway (which has historically and currently played a critical role in the colonization and usurpation of indigenous lands) and VANOC (Vancouver Organizing Committee for 2010). We are calling for and encouraging protests and actions to disrupt the 'Spirit Train' as it stop across cities across Canada. * Scheduled route and days (Check: cpspiritrain.com for official updates): Sept. 21, Port Moody, BC. 2-8 pm. West Coast Express Station, 65 Williams St. Sept. 27, Calgary, Alberta. 2:00pm ? 8:00pm Pop Davies Park (Ogden Rd. and Millican Rd. S.) Sept. 29, Edmonton, Alberta. 1:00pm ? 8:00pm WP Wagner School (6310 Wagner Rd NW) Oct. 2, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 1:00pm ? 8:00pm William Reid Park Pendygrasse Rd. Oct. 4, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 2:00pm ? 8:00pm Sinclair Park Community Centre 490 Sinclair St. Oct. 8, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 1:00pm ? 8:00pm Marina Park October 11, Sudbury, Ontario. 2:00pm ? 8:00pm Energy Court, next to National Grocery on Lorne St. Oct. 13, Toronto, Ontario. 1:00pm ? 8:00pm Cooksville GO Transit Station 3210 Hurontario St. Oct. 16, Smiths Falls, Ontario. 1:00pm ? 8:00pm CP lot on Rideau Ave N and Ella St Oct. 18, Montreal, Quebec. 1:00pm ? 8:00pm Place des Vestiges on the Quays of the Old Port, across from Jacques-Cartier Pier From bobenoch at shaw.ca Wed Sep 10 19:27:03 2008 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (bob enoch) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:27:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] [A-List] An Inside Job In-Reply-To: <48C83682.6020607@attglobal.net> References: <48C83682.6020607@attglobal.net> Message-ID: <48C873E7.8050103@shaw.ca> By Business Weak special correspondent S.B.Laden; The beltway was abuzz this week about a new start-up business that promises to help cut costs in the Construction industry. E-Z-Crash Ltd. is based on new but proven technology for demolishing steel and concrete structures of at least sixty-seven floors.......flying passenger planes into the structure. Company founder I.B. Credulus said: "the idea is so simple I'm surprised that no-one else has tried it. After all, the whole world knows how it works, or at least the US does, which pretty much amounts to the same thing." The IPO will be handled by Deutche Bank From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Sep 11 03:17:41 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:17:41 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] America's Outrageous War Economy! Message-ID: <48C8E235.7020705@attglobal.net> Pentagon can't find $2.3 trillion, wasting trillions on 'national defense' by Paul B Farrell www.marketwatch.com (August 18 2008) Yes, America's economy is a war economy. Not a "manufacturing" economy. Not an "agricultural" economy. Nor a "service" economy. Not even a "consumer" economy. Seriously, I looked into your eyes, America, saw deep into your soul. So let's get honest and officially call it "America's Outrageous War Economy". Admit it: we secretly love our war economy. And that's the answer to Jim Grant's thought-provoking question last month in the Wall Street Journal - "Why No Outrage?" There really is only one answer: Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war. We love "America's Outrageous War Economy". Americans passively zone out playing video war games. We nod at ninety-second news clips of Afghan war casualties and collateral damage in Georgia. We laugh at Jon Stewart's dark comedic news and Ben Stiller's new war spoof "Tropic Thunder" ... all the while silently, by default, we're cheering on our leaders as they aggressively expand "America's Outrageous War Economy", a relentless machine that needs a steady diet of war after war, feeding on itself, consuming our values, always on the edge of self-destruction. * Why else are Americans so eager and willing to surrender 54% of their tax dollars to a war machine, which consumes 47% of the world's total military budgets? * Why are there more civilian mercenaries working for no-bid private war contractors than the total number of enlisted military in Iraq (180,000 to 160,000), at an added cost to taxpayers in excess of $200 billion and climbing daily? * Why do we shake our collective heads "yes" when our commander-in-chief proudly tells us he is a "war president"; and his party's presidential candidate chants "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", as if "war" is a celebrity hit song? * Why do our spineless Democrats let an incompetent, blundering executive branch hide hundreds of billions of war costs in sneaky "supplemental appropriations" that are more crooked than Enron's off-balance-sheet deals? * Why have Washington's 537 elected leaders turned the governance of the American economy over to 42,000 greedy self-interest lobbyists? * And why earlier this year did our "support-our-troops" "war president" resist a new GI Bill because, as he said, his military might quit and go to college rather than re-enlist in his war; now we continue paying the Pentagon's warriors huge $100,000-plus bonuses to re-up so they can keep expanding "America's Outrageous War Economy?" Why? Because we secretly love war! We've lost our moral compass: The contrast between today's leaders and the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 shocks our conscience. Today war greed trumps morals. During the Revolutionary War our leaders risked their lives and fortunes; many lost both. Today it's the opposite: Too often our leaders' main goal is not public service but a ticket to building a personal fortune in the new "America's Outrageous War Economy", often by simply becoming a high-priced lobbyist. Ultimately, the price of our greed may be the fulfillment of Kevin Phillips' warning in "Wealth and Democracy": "Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out". 'National defense' a propaganda slogan selling a war economy? But wait, you ask: Isn't our $1.4 trillion war budget essential for "national defense" and "homeland security?" Don't we have to protect ourselves? Sorry folks, but our leaders have degraded those honored principles to advertising slogans. They're little more than flag-waving excuses used by neocon war hawks to disguise the buildup of private fortunes in "America's Outrageous War Economy". America may be a ticking time bomb, but we are threatened more by enemies within than external terrorists, by ideological fanatics on the left and the right. Most of all, we are under attack by our elected leaders who are motivated more by pure greed than ideology. They terrorize us, brainwashing us into passively letting them steal our money to finance "America's Outrageous War Economy", the ultimate "black hole" of corruption and trickle-up economics. You think I'm kidding? I'm maybe too harsh? Sorry but others are far more brutal. Listen to the ideologies and realities eating at America's soul. 1. Our toxic 'war within' is threatening America's soul How powerful is the Pentagon's war machine? Trillions in dollars. But worse yet: Their mindset is now locked deep in our DNA, in our collective conscience, in America's soul. Our love of war is enshrined in the writings of neocon war hawks like Norman Podoretz, who warns the Iraq War was the launching of "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism", a reminder that we could be occupying Iraq for a hundred years. His World War IV also reminded us of the coming apocalyptic end-of-days "war of civilizations" predicted by religious leaders in both Christian and Islamic worlds two years ago. In contrast, this ideology has been challenged in works like Craig Unger's American Armageddon: How the Delusions of the Neoconservatives and the Christian Right Triggered the Descent of America - and Still Imperil Our Future (2008). Unfortunately, neither threat can be dismissed as "all in our minds" nor as merely ideological rhetoric. Trillions of tax dollars are in fact being spent to keep the Pentagon war machine aggressively planning and expanding wars decades in advance, including spending billions on propaganda brainwashing na?ve Americans into co-signing "America's Outrageous War Economy". Yes, they really love war, but that "love" is toxic for America's soul. 2. America's war economy financed on blank checks to greedy Read Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes' ?Three Trillion Dollar War (2008). They show how our government's deceitful leaders are secretly hiding the real long-term costs of the Iraq War, which was originally sold to the American taxpayer with a $50 billion price tag and funded out of oil revenues. But add in all the lifetime veterans' health benefits, equipment placement costs, increased homeland security and interest on new federal debt, and suddenly taxpayers got a $3 trillion war tab! 3. America's war economy has no idea where its money goes Read Portfolio magazine's special report "The Pentagon's $1 Trillion Problem". The Pentagon's 2007 budget of $440 billion included $16 billion to operate and upgrade its financial system. Unfortunately "the defense department has spent billions to fix its antiquated financial systems [but] still has no idea where its money goes". And it gets worse: Back "in 2000, Defense's inspector general told Congress that his auditors stopped counting after finding $2.3 trillion in unsupported entries". Yikes, our war machine has no records for $2.3 trillion! How can we trust anything they say? 4. America's war economy is totally 'unmanageable' For decades Washington has been waving that "national defense" flag, to force the public into supporting "America's Outrageous War Economy". Read John Alic's Trillions for Military Technology: How the Pentagon Innovates and Why It Costs So Much (2007). A former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment staffer, he explains why weapon systems cost the Pentagon so much, "why it takes decades to get them into production even as innovation in the civilian economy becomes ever more frenetic and why some of those weapons don't work very well despite expenditures of many billions of dollars", and how "the internal politics of the armed services make weapons acquisition almost unmanageable". Yes, the Pentagon wastes trillions planning its wars well in advance. Comments? Tell us: What will it take to wake up America, get citizens, investors, anybody mad at "America's Outrageous War Economy?" Why don't you rebel? Will the outrage come too late ... after this massive war bubble explodes in our faces? Copyright (c) 2008 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-we-love-americas-outrageous/story.aspx?guid={0D31C880-32CD-4BA1-8133-329EA57CB069} 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/ From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 11:47:05 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:47:05 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45% In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a tangent, but the money man in BBC World this morn said twice that the financials, the numbers, are so confusing that he is beginng to see ponzi type manipulations coming from the U.S. As to your comment above, "Secrets of the Temple" explaining the Federal Reserve, states that one if its main functions is to support the president that the status quo wants, both before the election and after during his entire presidency. The $100 a barrel of oil was one of the confusing numbers to him...so the article looks right on. On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi < critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe this is just a convention bounce, but it's possible that the > gasoline prices, which haven't really come down a lot despite the > recent big fall in crude oil prices (now heading down to $100 per > barrel: < > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92664318-7921-11dd-9d0c-000077b07658.html>), > and the delusion of "energy independence" will determine the fate of > the 2008 US presidential elections. The biggest applause at the RNC > was heard when the chant of "Drill, Baby, Drill" went up, or so I > thought. -- Yoshie > > < > http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx > > > September 7, 2008 > Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45% > McCain enjoying increase in support following convention > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 11 11:47:21 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:47:21 -0700 Subject: [R-G] (Omar Khadr) New witness comes to fore with account of gun battle Message-ID: <200809111747.m8BHlLkw005931@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080911/47a5ee5d/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 11 11:49:32 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:49:32 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bolivia protests deepen, tensions with U.S. rise Message-ID: <200809111749.m8BHnWC4011716@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080911/bd94f820/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 11 11:48:41 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:48:41 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bush said to give orders allowing raids in Pakistan Message-ID: <200809111748.m8BHmfl7009521@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080911/6012ed39/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 11 11:54:56 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:54:56 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Iranian nukes mean end of Zionism' Message-ID: <200809111754.m8BHsulu026461@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080911/172b8e6a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 11 12:05:52 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:05:52 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Afghans wont tolerate more civilian deaths in raids -- general Message-ID: <200809111805.m8BI5qee024615@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080911/c5ca77a7/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 12:16:32 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:16:32 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran In-Reply-To: <200809091743.m89Hh9xt009376@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200809091743.m89Hh9xt009376@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: Bailing out Tehran sounds extremely sensible, the two and two are four kind. On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4692237.ece > The Times (London) September 7, 2008 > Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran > Mark Franchetti in Moscow > Russia is considering increasing its assistance to Iran's nuclear > programme in response to America's calls for Nato expansion eastwards > and the presence of US Navy vessels in the Black Sea delivering aid to > Georgia. > The Kremlin is discussing sending teams of Russian nuclear experts to > Tehran and inviting Iranian nuclear scientists to Moscow for training, > according to sources close to the Russian military. > Moscow has been angered by Washington's promise to give Georgia ?564m > in aid following the Russian invasion of parts of the country last > month after Tbilisi's military offensive. Kremlin officials suspect > the US is planning to rearm the former Soviet republic and is furious > at renewed support for attempts by Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato. > Last week a third US Navy ship entered the Black Sea with aid bound > for Georgia. Moscow has accused the Americans of using the vessels to > deliver weapons but has failed to provide any evidence. > Vladimir Putin, the prime minister of Russia, who has been the driving > force during the crisis, has declared he will take unspecified action > in response. > "Everything has changed since the war in Georgia," said one source. > "What seemed impossible before, is more than possible now when our > friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends. What are > American ships doing off our coast? Do you see Russian warships off > the coast of America? > "Russia will respond. A number of possibilities are being considered, > including hitting America there where it hurts most Iran." > Increasing nuclear assistance to Iran would sharply escalate tensions > between Moscow and Washington. Over the past 10 years Russia has > helped Iran build its first nuclear power station in Bushehr. Iran > claims the plant is for civilian purposes. Officially at least, Moscow > accepts that. The West has little doubt the aim is to build a nuclear > bomb. > But diplomats say that despite its help with the Bushehr plant, Moscow > has so far played a constructive role as a mediator between the regime > in Tehran and the West and by backing United Nations sanctions. > Earlier this year, in one of his last actions as president, Putin > added Russia's stamp of approval to a UN security council resolution > imposing fresh sanctions against Iran. > The document bans, with the exception of the Bushehr project, > dual-technology exports that could be used for civil nuclear purposes > and missile production. > "After the war in Georgia it's difficult to imagine relations between > Russia and America getting worse," said a western diplomat. "Russia > giving greater nuclear assistance to the Iranians would do the trick > that's for sure." > Last month Russia agreed to sell missiles to Syria. "The mood among > the hawks is very bullish indeed," said one source who did not rule > out a resumption of Russian military action in Georgia to take the > port of Batumi, where American vessels are delivering aid. > Hardliners were infuriated last week by the visit to Georgia of Dick > Cheney, the American vice-president. "Georgia will be in our > alliance," Cheney said. He also visited Ukraine, whose Nato > aspirations could make it the next flashpoint between Russia and > America. > However in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, events appeared to be moving > Moscow's way. Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-western president, is > fighting to stay in power in a crisis that could see him impeached. > "I'm amused by claims in the West that Russia is the loser in this > crisis," said a former Putin aide. "What would Washington do if we > were arming Cuba the way it armed Georgia? The postSoviet days when we > could be pushed around are over." > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > > From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Sep 11 12:19:03 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:19:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] CPA: End the war in Afghanistan, NOW! Message-ID: <200809111819.m8BIJ3cp027493@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080911/44176bf3/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 12:29:54 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:29:54 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome You to the USSRA In-Reply-To: <200809092312.m89NCjDD000231@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200809092312.m89NCjDD000231@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: There is also the chance that the wars moneys borrowed from China and from Japan may never be repaid, and, that at the point of borrowing were never intended to be repaid. Even if that is what happens, the U.S. debt will actually be that much higher by whatever amount is outstanding when the borrowing stops, as it must. If the dollar is lower than when the debt was made, that loss will also have to be figured in. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > [1]http://tinyurl.com/5seoce > > > RGE Monitor September 9, 2008 > > > [2]Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome You to the USSRA > (United Socialist State Republic of America)[3] > Nouriel Roubini > > > The now inevitable nationalization of Fannie and Freddie is the most > radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in > decades. For the last twenty years after the collapse of the USSR, the > fall of the Iron Curtain and the economic reforms in China and other > emerging market economies the world economy has moved away from state > ownership of the economy and towards privatization of previously > stated owned enterprises. This trend was aggressively supported the > United States that preached right and left the benefits of free > markets and free private enterprise. > > > Today instead the US has performed the greatest nationalization in the > history of humanity. By nationalizing Fannie and Freddie the US has > increased its public assets by almost $6 trillion and has increased > its public debt/liabilities by another $6 trillion. The US has also > turned itself into the largest government-owned hedge fund in the > world: by injecting a likely $200 billion of capital into Fannie and > Freddie and taking on almost $6 trillion of liabilities of such GSEs > the US has also undertaken the biggest and most levered LBO (leveraged > buy-out) in human history that has a debt to equity ratio of 30 > ($6,000 billion of debt against $200 billion of equity). > > > So now Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke (as originally nicknamed by > Willem Buiter) have now turned the USA into the USSRA (the United > Socialist State Republic of America). Socialism is indeed alive and > well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well > connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized > and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill > of $300 billion. > > > This biggest bailout and nationalization in human history comes from > the most fanatically and ideologically zealot free-market > laissez-faire administration in US history. These are the folks who > for years spewed the rhetoric of free markets and cutting down > government intervention in economic affairs. But they were so > fanatically ideological about free markets that they did not realize > that financial and other markets without proper rules, supervision and > regulation are like a jungle where greed untempered by fear of loss or > of punishment leads to credit bubbles and asset bubbles and manias and > eventual bust and panics. > > > The ideologue regulators who literally held a chain saw at a public > event to smash unnecessary regulations are now communists > nationalizing private firms and socializing their losses: the bailout > of the Bear Stearns creditors, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the > use of the Fed balance sheet (hundreds of billions of safe US > Treasuries swapped for junk toxic illiquid private securities), the > use of the other GSEs (the Federal Home Loan Bank system) to provide > hundreds of billions of dollars of liquidity to distressed, illiquid > and insolvent mortgage lenders, the use of the SEC to manipulate the > stock market (restrictions on short sales), the use of the US Treasury > to manipulate the mortgage market (Treasury will now for the first > time outright buy agency MBS to manipulate and prop up this market), > the creation of a whole host of new bailout facilities (TAF, TSLF, > PDCF) to prop and rescue banks and, for the first time since the Great > Depression, to bail out non-bank financial institutions, and a whole > range of other executive and legislative actions (including the recent > bill to provide a public guarantee to mortgage for banks willing to > reduce their face value). > > > This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in > economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist > China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United > Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads > relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks > (not even the subordinated debt holders who made a fortune yesterday > as those claims were also made whole). > > > Like scores of evangelists and hypocrites and moralists who spew and > praise family values and pretend to be holier than thou and are then > regularly caught cheating or cross dressing or found to be perverts > these Bush hypocrites who spewed for years the glory of unfettered > wild west laissez faire jungle capitalism (and never believed in any > sensible and appropriate regulation and supervision of financial > markets) allowed the biggest debt bubble ever to fester without any > control, have caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great > Depression and are now forced to perform the biggest government > intervention and nationalizations in the recent history of humanity, > all for the benefit of the rich and the well connected. So Comrades > Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books > as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA. Fanatic > zealots of any religion are always pests that cause havoc and > destruction with their inflexible fanaticism; but they usually dont > run the biggest economy in the world. But these laissez faire > voodoo-economics zealots in charge of the USA have now caused the > biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the nastiest > economic crisis in decades. So let them be shamed in public for their > hypocrisy and zealotry that has caused so much financial and economic > damage. > > References > > 1. http://tinyurl.com/5seoce > 2. > http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253529/comrades_bush_paulson_and_bernanke_welcome_you_to_the_ussra_united_socialist_state_republic_of_america > 3. http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/bio/2/nouriel_roubini > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From intnsred at golgotha.net Thu Sep 11 12:30:54 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:30:54 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45% In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200809111430.54699.intnsred@golgotha.net> I'd have to agree with you Suzanne. Here in the US it seems the ruling class clearly wants a militarist in the White House. Obama has moved to the right on many issues -- especially the 2 main wars the US is waging. But why have a pretend militarist when you can have the real deal in McCain? Likewise, after its initial shock at the pick of Palin, the corporate mass media now seems to be behind her "maverick" campaign, with only enough static about her to maintain the media's credibility. There are dark clouds on the horizon and I think the forecast is a rain of more war. :-( -- "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." -- H. L. Mencken From intnsred at golgotha.net Thu Sep 11 12:35:21 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:35:21 -0400 Subject: [R-G] (Omar Khadr) New witness comes to fore with account of gun battle In-Reply-To: <200809111747.m8BHlLkw005931@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> References: <200809111747.m8BHlLkw005931@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <200809111435.22203.intnsred@golgotha.net> When in a gun battle with a foreign army that has invaded your country, if you throw a hand grenade at those invaders, that is not "terrorism." That is fighting a war. As a member of the Taliban at a time when the Taliban was in power, Omar Khadr should be treated as a child soldier and/or as a POW. -- "Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee." -- Famous American socialist (and blind person) Helen Keller, 1911. From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Sep 11 16:37:15 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:37:15 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Hurricanes and Floods Savage Haiti: What is the UN's Responsibility? Message-ID: From: K M Ives This Week in Haiti" is the English section of HAITI LIBERTE newsweekly. For the complete edition with other news in French and Creole, please contact the paper at (tel) 718-421-0162, (fax) 718-421-3471 or e-mail at editor at haitiliberte.com. Also visit our website at . ???????????????????????????? HAITI LIBERTE ?????????????????? "Justice. Verite. Independance." ??????????????????? * THIS WEEK IN HAITI * ?????????????????????? September 10 - 16, 2008 ???????????????????????????? Vol. 2, No. 8 HURRICANES AND FLOODS SAVAGE HAITI: WHAT IS THE U.N.'S RESPONSIBILITY? by Kim Ives In the past month, Haiti has been struck or grazed by four tropical storms or hurricanes: Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and this past weekend, Ike. Almost every corner of the island is now in a state of emergency and desperation. Gustav flooded the southern cities of Jacmel, Cayes, and Jeremie, while Hanna flooded the northern cities of Gonaives, Port-de-Paix, Mirebalais and Hinche. In Gonaives alone, more than 500 people have been killed, with the death toll rising. Over the weekend, Ike killed some 60 people in the town of Cabaret, just north of the capital. Three bridges on the road to the north have been washed away. Food, water, medicines and other relief supplies can only arrive, slowly, by sea or air. Thousands are wounded, sick from dampness or homeless. They face post-flood disease and hunger due to the crops washed away or polluted by water brimming with sewage and the bloated carcasses of drowned livestock and humans. The cruelest irony of this escalating tragedy is that Haiti is militarily occupied by the United Nation's Mission to Stabilize Haiti (MINUSTAH). The mission costs over $600 million a year to pay 9,000 soldiers from countries like Brazil, Jordan, China, and Sri Lanka to drive around in armored vehicles pointing their guns at starving Haitians in an attempt to project an image of strength and authority. In September 2004, four years ago, when the mission was only six months old, some 2000 people were killed when Gonaives was flooded following the passage of Tropical Storm Jeanne. Since that time, the MINUSTAH has spent over $2 billion repressing and intimidating Haitians rather than building dykes, canals, sturdy housing, and roads, or reforesting and terracing mountains, measures that could have averted, or at least mitigated, the catastrophe we now see unfolding. Indeed, in his May 2006 inauguration address, President Rene Preval called on the U.N. "to turn its tanks into bulldozers." U.N. officials scoffed at the proposal: "MINUSTAH is not a development agency," sniffed Edmond Mulet, then MINUSTAH's head, in response. Today's MINUSTAH chief, Hedi Annabi, described Haiti this week as "hell on earth." The comparisons with neighboring Cuba are stark. All the storms intensified and struck that island with even more force - 150 mile an hour winds, in the case of Gustav, leveling over 100,000 homes - like "a nuclear bomb," said Fidel Castro. But only one person was killed. Over 10 more storms are predicted for this hurricane season. As the case of Cuba proves, a nation, however poor, must control its own destiny and be able to marshal its own resources, pursue its own development policies, and make its own storm preparations. This sovereignty is the only defense against the hurricanes now ravaging Haiti. The first free nation of Latin America is today a military protectorate, virtually recolonized. The U.N. generals and administrators that oversee Haitian affairs as proxies for Washington, Paris and Ottawa, will never have Haiti's best interests or popular will at heart. These imperialists ignore and, if they become too troublesome, overthrow Haiti's elected leaders. As a result, MINUSTAH is now scrambling to respond clumsily and inadequately to a crisis for which it is largely responsible through its resource-diverting, development-suppressing and democracy-repressing existence. From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Sep 11 16:38:21 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:38:21 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Chavez and Aristide Meet in South Africa Message-ID: From: K M Ives This Week in Haiti" is the English section of HAITI LIBERTE newsweekly. For the complete edition with other news in French and Creole, please contact the paper at (tel) 718-421-0162, (fax) 718-421-3471 or e-mail at editor at haitiliberte.com. Also visit our website at . ???????????????????????????? HAITI LIBERTE ?????????????????? "Justice. Verite. Independance." ??????????????????? * THIS WEEK IN HAITI * ?????????????????????? September 10 - 16, 2008 ???????????????????????????? Vol. 2, No. 8 ARISTIDE AND CHAVEZ MEET IN SOUTH AFRICA by Kim Ives On Sep. 2, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez met with former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Pretoria, South Africa, where Aristide has been in exile for the past four years. The meeting came during Chavez's one-day visit to South Africa to sign two energy and oil agreements. Chavez received Aristide at Pretoria's Sheraton Hotel, where the two met for "more than thirty minutes," according to a South African press officer, Terrence Manase. Aristide and his wife Mildred then attended a state banquet held in honor of Chavez at the Presidential Guesthouse on Pretoria's Church Street. Mildred Aristide told Haiti Liberte that "it was a good meeting" without offering further details about the content of discussions. Many have speculated that Venezuela would be an ideal place for Aristide to take up residency in exile if Haitian President Rene Preval continues to ignore the persistent popular demand that security preparations be made to allow Aristide's return to Haiti to live as a private citizen. Venezuela is located only 650 miles south of Haiti, as opposed to the 7,400 miles between Pretoria and Port-au-Prince. In March 2004, Bush administration officials vociferously opposed a three-month stay by Aristide in Jamaica at the invitation of then Prime Minister P.J. Patterson. Then US Ambassador to Haiti, James Foley, said that Aristide's "coming within 150 miles from Haiti is promoting violence." Then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that Aristide's return to the Western Hemisphere from the Central African Republic, where U.S. Special Forces had deposited him after kidnapping him from his home in Haiti's capital on Feb. 29, 2004, was "a bad idea." And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the Bush administration did not want Aristide to "come back into the hemisphere and complicate [the] situation." Following the second successful Washington-backed coup d'etat against him, Aristide was invited to live in South Africa by President Thabo Mbeki, who was the only head of state to attend Haiti's Jan. 1, 2004 bicentennial celebrations. However, today, Mbeki and his faction of South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), are facing a serious challenge from bitter political rival Joseph Zuma, who captured the ANC's presidency in December 2007 and is expected to win South Africa's presidency in elections scheduled for March 2009. Should Zuma win, he may not be as welcoming to Aristide, who is viewed by Zuma's partisans and much of the South African opposition as Mbeki's protegee. In April 2007, Aristide was awarded a doctorate in philosophy and literature at the University of South Africa (UNISA), where he now teaches. Ironically, following the first coup against Aristide on Sep. 30, 1991, Aristide was flown to Caracas by then Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez. Chavez staged an unsuccessful coup d'etat against Perez and his neoliberal policies in February 1992. In an afternoon press conference with Mbeki, Chavez hailed Venezuela's agreements with South Africa as a shining example of "South-South solidarity." "Fortunately the attempt to impose on the world hegemony and a uni-polar world has failed," Chavez said, addressing the U.S. during remarks lasting nearly two hours. "On the horizon, we can see rising a multi-polar world, and that is precisely the world we need. The bi-polar was terrible to the Third World... Today we are in the midst of a terrible crisis all over the world - a financial crisis; an economic crisis; a food crisis; an energy crisis; an ecological crisis and a moral crisis. It is a systematic, a general crisis." "So it is essential to unite the people of the South to get together in the manner South Africa and Venezuela are doing today in order to devise a new strategic agenda," Chavez continued, "to conduct a true strategic change in international relations... In South America and Latin America a true process of liberation is currently underway - a true liberation is underway. It is no longer a revolution of rifles, no longer the guerrillas that 40 or 50 years ago were all around our hemisphere. Today we are millions, women and men, workers, the youth, students, Blacks, Indians and mixed-bloods. The people have awakened and a peaceful revolution is underway today - a democratic revolution, but it is a revolution. This is part of the world dynamics." Under the deals signed, the South African state-owned oil firm PetroSA will carry out with its Venezuelan counterpart PDVSA heavy crude oil production and offshore gas and oil exploration, particularly in Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, said to hold the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves. All articles copyrighted Haiti Liberte. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED. Please credit Haiti Liberte. ??????????????????????????????????????? -30- From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Sep 11 19:53:31 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:53:31 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] State of Denial Message-ID: <48C9CB9B.9060508@attglobal.net> Clear Channel foams our intellectual runway by Robert C Koehler Tribune Media Services (August 28 2008) Talk about naive. The Union of Concerned Scientists apparently thought the Democratic and Republican national conventions would be appropriate events at which to bring up the awkwardly substantive topic of US nuclear weapons stockpiles (6,000 or so) and policy (insane). So, as part of a larger campaign of informative ads in the two convention cities, Denver and Minneapolis-Saint Paul, they rented billboard space at the two airports and greeted travelers with ads depicting an aerial view of that city, with one of those ground zero bull's-eyes superimposed on the downtown area, and the words: "When only one nuclear bomb could destroy a city like (Minneapolis, Denver) ... We don't need 6,000". Below the picture, the party's presidential nominee - one per city - was urged "to get serious about reducing the nuclear threat". Well, OK. Perhaps you will not be surprised to hear what happened next: In Minneapolis, some people found the ad "scary", which it was supposed to be, and "anti-McCain", which it wasn't, but airports are the sovereign turf of Corporate America, which has quite a few values higher than free speech. Chief among them, I think, is "happy, happy". And Northwest Airlines, the official airline of the Republican National Convention, which also controls the advertising space in Concourse G of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, found the ad to be in clear violation of this value. So it requested Clear Channel Outdoor, a branch of the media conglomerate that originally sold the billboard space to Union of Concerned Scientists, to remove the ad. Clear Channel, best known for homogenizing the nation's airwaves (it owns more than 1,200 radio stations, and pushes a lineup of right-wing talk show hosts), did Northwest one better. It yanked the ad in Minneapolis, then preemptively yanked it again in Denver, where no one had complained. Phew - threat averted! Let the conventions proceed with all due hoopla and empty intrigue. "By maintaining thousands of highly accurate nuclear weapons on alert, the United States perpetuates the only threat that could destroy it as a functioning society: a large-scale attack by Russia launched either without authorization, by accident, or by mistake because of a false warning of an incoming US attack". So UCS points out, in a statement on its Web site called "Toward True Security". America's security establishment remains calcified in Cold War paranoia and, incredibly, hair-trigger nuclear alert - and no one talks about it. What threat do we really face? By any rational assessment, the greatest danger to our survival is from nuclear weapons themselves. But we don't have the mechanism for such a discussion, at least not in the common spheres of national life: politics and popular culture. We continue to maintain and upgrade our nuclear arsenal and national life simply moves on around it. Yet: "By giving nuclear weapons so large and visible a role in US policy", the UCS statement goes on, "... the United States has increased the incentive for other nations to acquire nuclear weapons, and reduced the political costs to them of doing so". Nuclear technology is more accessible than ever, and more and more countries feel the need to join "the club", fueling the arrival of what many observers consider a second nuclear age - far more "egalitarian" than the first. At least forty non-nuclear states currently possess large quantities of highly enriched uranium, and the risk of terrorists possessing "suitcase nukes" is greater than ever. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has been monitoring the state of global nuclear risk since 1947, recently reset its doomsday clock to five minutes to midnight. No, this is not an easy discussion to have, but what is the cost of not having it? What is the cost of remaining in a state of suppressed disquiet, fearing some vague "threat level orange" and watching increasingly bizarre security measures - especially at the airport - tighten around us? What is the cost of not making a nuke-free world a political priority in the United States? "By contributing to a climate in which possessing nuclear weapons is legitimate", the statement continues, "the United States has also undermined the ability of the international community to prevent more states from acquiring them ... The United States can, and should, take the lead in promoting an effort to clear the path to a world free of nuclear weapons". Like I say, what was the Union of Concerned Scientists thinking - trying to put this matter on the agenda of America's major political parties as they meet to choose new leaders and determine our national direction? "Eventually we want to live in a world free of nuclear weapons", UCS spokesman Aaron Huertas told me. But here's the thing. As Clear Channel and Northwest Airlines understood, we can live in that world right now just by taking that unpleasant ad down - no politics in the airport, please - and maintaining a state of impenetrable denial. _____ Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler at tribune.com. http://www.commonwonders.com/archives/col461.htm 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 20:58:04 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:58:04 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Hacia una Unidad Monetaria Sudamericana In-Reply-To: <48C99B82.6040303@alai.info> References: <48C99B82.6040303@alai.info> Message-ID: - - - Servicio Informativo "Alai-amlatina" - - - Con miras a la integraci?n financiera regional Hacia una Unidad Monetaria Sudamericana Oscar Ugarteche Aurora V?zquez ALAI AMLATINA, 11/09/2008, M?xico DF.- El anuncio de Brasil y Argentina de que iniciar?an su comercio binacional en moneda nacional ha sido la primera noticia latinoamericana orientada en el sentido de la integraci?n financiera regional. La noticia dada el 5 de septiembre desde Brasilia enfatiza que se har?n los pagos en moneda nacional entre ambos pa?ses a partir del 3 de octubre, pero no dice c?mo se har?n con los pa?ses m?s peque?os del MERCOSUR. Este primer paso podr?a ampliarse con la utilizaci?n de una unidad de cuentas de referencia estable que no sea el d?lar. En las ?ltimas ocho semanas desde julio del 2008 a septiembre el tipo de cambio d?lar euro ha pasado por una apreciaci?n del d?lar de 1.60 por euro a 1.40 por euro, sin que exista ninguna raz?n macroecon?mica para explicar dicho movimiento. La inestabilidad de la moneda de dicho pa?s es un reflejo de la inestabilidad de su econom?a y la incertidumbre sobre su crecimiento futuro. Ante un contexto poco alentador en el que se habla de crisis financiera, energ?tica, alimentar?a y ecol?gica, se abre una brecha que permite el paso a nuevas estructuras que no s?lo tienen impacto en la econom?a sino tambi?n en la pol?tica, en la sociedad y el medio ambiente, aunque ?sta a?n es muy peque?a, ya se han empezado a dar los primeros pasos y as? es como Argentina y Brasil, cuya decisi?n de tener un intercambio comercial bilateral con sus monedas. Recientemente en Buenos Aires se discuti? la unidad monetaria sudamericana, una canasta de monedas an?loga al ECU europeo que tiene como m?rito mayor, ser estable ante las variaciones del d?lar y del euro. A diferencia de la uni?n monetaria planteada por Brasil a partir del real hace tres a?os, la unidad monetaria es una canasta de monedas que le deja libertad de acci?n a los bancos centrales para el manejo de sus pol?ticas cambiaria y monetaria dentro de ciertas bandas y con coordinaci?n macroecon?mica. El comercio intra latinoamericano crece a tasas nunca vistas y es comercio de manufacturas. En la medida en que van ganando mayor?a en el comercio total, como en el caso argentino, tener una unidad de referencia regional es conveniente y econ?mica. Ahorra los costos de transacci?n de pasar por una tercera moneda y adem?s desconecta la relaci?n entre las monedas que comercian de una tercera moneda intermediaria cuyo valor es ser una referencia de precios. La creaci?n de una unidad monetaria, como ya vimos permite crear estabilidad econ?mica entre los socios, favoreciendo el comercio intrarregional, al mismo tiempo que crea oportunidades y ventajas para un posterior desarrollo y crecimiento econ?mico. Lo m?s importante es que permite pensar en la regi?n como un ente aut?nomo listo para enfrentar los retos de la globalizaci?n financiera en otros t?rminos, con unidad de criterios ante la incertidumbre.. - Oscar Ugarteche es Investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Econ?micas de la UNAM y asesor de Latindadd, - Aurora V?zquez es Becaria del proyecto Papiit No. IN-309608 DGAPA-UNAM "Elementos para la integraci?n financiera Latinoam?rica". M?s informaci?n: http://alainet.org From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Sep 11 22:03:17 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:03:17 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Pilger: A Murderous Theatre Of The Absurd Message-ID: A Murderous Theatre Of The Absurd Sep 11, 2008 By John Pilger John Pilger's ZSpace Page / ZSpace Try to laugh, please. The news is now officially parody and a game for all the family to play. First question: Why are "we" in Afghanistan? Answer: "To try to help in the country's rebuilding programme." Who says so? Huw Edwards, the BBC's principal newsreader. What wags the Welsh are. Second question: Why are "we" in Iraq? Answer: To "plant a western-style open democracy". Who says so? Paul Wood, the former BBC defence correspondent, and his boss Helen Boaden, director of BBC News. To prove her point, Boaden supplied Medialens.org with 2,700 words of quotations from Tony Blair and George W Bush. Irony? No, she meant it. Take Andrew Martin, divisional adviser at BBC Complaints, who has been researching Bush's speeches for "evidence" of noble democratic reasons for laying to waste an ancient civilisation. Says he: "The 'D' word is not there, but the phrase 'united, stable and free' [is] clearly an allusion to it." After all, he says, the invasion of Iraq "was launched as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'". Moreover, says the BBC man, "in Bush's 1 May 2003 speech (the one on the aircraft carrier) he talked repeatedly about freedom and explicitly about the Iraqi transition to democracy . . . These examples show that these were on Bush's mind before, during and after the invasion." Try to laugh, please. Laughing may be difficult, I agree, given the slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan by "coalition" aircraft, including those directed by British forces engaged in "the country's rebuilding programme". The bombing of civilian areas has doubled, along with the deaths of civilians, says Human Rights Watch. Last month, "our" aircraft slaughtered nearly 100 civilians, two-thirds of them children between the ages of three months and 16 years, while they slept, according to eyewitnesses. BBC television news initially devoted nine seconds to the Human Rights Watch report, and nothing to the fact that "less than peanuts" (according to an aid worker) is being spent on rebuilding anything in Afghanistan. As for the notion of a "united, stable and free" Iraq, consider the no-bid contracts handed to the major western oil companies for ownership of Iraq's oil. "Theft" is a more truthful word. Written by the companies themselves and US officials, the contracts have been signed off by Bush and Nouri al-Maliki, "prime minister" of Iraq's "democratic" government that resides in an air-conditioned American fortress. This is not news. Try to laugh, please, while you consider the devastation of Iraq's health, once the best in the Middle East, by the ubiquitous dust from British and US depleted uranium weapons. A World Health Organisation study reporting a cancer epidemic has been suppressed, says its principal author. This has been reported in Britain only in the Glasgow Sunday Herald and the Morning Star. According to a study last year by Basra University Medical College, almost half of all deaths in the contaminated southern provinces were caused by cancer. Try to laugh, please, at the recent happy-clappy Nurembergs from which will come the next president of the United States. Those paid to keep the record straight have strained to present a spectacle of choice. Barack Obama, the man of "change", wants to "build a 21st-century military . . . to stay on the offensive everywhere". Here comes the new Cold War, with promises of more bombs, more of the militarised society with its 730 bases worldwide, on which Americans spend 42 cents of every tax dollar. At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease America's grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. John McCain, his Republican opponent, may well be a media cartoon figure - the fake "war hero" now joined with a Shakespeare-banning, gun-loving, religious fanatic - yet his true significance is that he and Obama share essentially the same dangerous prescriptions. Thousands of decent Americans came to the two nominating conventions to express the dissenting opinion of millions of their compatriots who believe, with good cause, that their democracy is evaporating. They were intimidated, arrested, beaten, pepper-gassed; and they were patronised or ignored by those paid to keep the record straight. In the meantime, Justin Webb, the BBC's North America editor, has launched a book about America, his "city on a hill". It is a sort of Mills & Boon view of the rapacious system he admires with such obsequiousness. The book is called Have a Nice Day. Try to laugh, please. Source: The New Statesman From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Sep 12 05:46:45 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:46:45 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] No tears in west for sixty Afghan children Message-ID: <48CA56A5.9040800@attglobal.net> by Ameen Izzadeen Daily Mirror (August 29 2008) The people of Afghanistan are caught between the devil and the dreaded Taleban. Obviously, they believe their devil is the US-led force which operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), as this force is properly known, is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Last Friday, August 22, the US troops in ISAF killed 95 civilians, including sixty children and nineteen women, adding to the ever increasing number of civilian deaths. According to UN figures, in the first six months of this year alone, some 1,000 civilians had been killed in the Afghan war. This is much higher than the number of Taleban militants killed during the same period: 473. Other estimates say that more than 25,000 Afghans have died since the US aggression in October 2001. The August 22 massacre of civilians is the worst single incident in the past seven years. At the rate civilians are killed in Afghanistan, with little or no condemnations from Nato countries which form the core of the ISAF, one wonders whether the Afghans are lesser mortals. Imagine what would happen if a terrorist kills 95 US citizens or citizens of any of the Nato countries. Such a massacre would have dominated the headlines for weeks, if not months. Giving a melodramatic touch, the western media would also carry photographs of the dead children, interviews with their neighbours, friends and teachers and statements of grieving parents and political leaders. But sixty Afghan children who died in the US attack had none of it. No speaker addressing the ongoing Democratic Party convention, where anti-Iraq-war-and-pro-Afghan-war Barack Obama is being officially anointed as the candidate of the party, dared to mention the Afghan civilian massacre, though they talked about US troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. The deaths of Afghan children were largely a news-in-brief item on major western television channels. It is not only the US troops who kill civilians in Afghanistan. The British, the Canadians and others in the ISAF also kill civilians with impunity and later say "sorry" and promise compensation after investigations. Very little happen after these empty words. On March 12, the British government acknowledged that its troops were responsible for an air strike that killed two women and two children near Helmand. On July 26, British troops opened fire on a vehicle that failed to stop at a checkpoint in the Sangin district of the same province, killing four civilians and injuring three. The Canadians killed a two-year-old girl and her four-year-old brother in a July 27 shooting incident in which the father of the two children was seriously wounded. The number of incidents where civilians have been killed by US troops, is obviously high as the Americans account for more than half of the 60,000-strong ISAF. Besides the August 22 incident, the Americans are responsible for a series of other incidents in which civilians were killed. The major incidents involving US troops this year are: June 10: At least thirty were killed in the village of Ebrahim Kariz, Mata Khan district of Paktika Province when US forces launched an air and ground attack on the village allegedly targeting a "militant hideout". Residents said that among the dead were dozens of civilians. July 4: Twenty-three civilians were killed in US air strikes in the district of Waygal in the province of Nouristan. July 6: Forty-seven civilians attending a wedding (including the bride) were killed in US air strikes in Nangarhar province. July 14: Officials in Nuristan province said almost thirty defenseless civilians were killed during an ISAF air strike in Want-Waigal district. July 15: US Forces admit to killing eight civilians in the Bakwa district of Farah province. July 20: Nine civilians were killed in a US air strike in the Ana Darreh district of Farah province. August 7: US troops say they "inadvertently" killed four women and a child in an exchange of fire in an area of central Ghazni province. (Source Wikipedia) Coming back to the August 22 incident, it is still a mystery how the civilians came to be targeted. The people had gathered in the village of Azizabad in Herat province to attend the traditional fortieth day almsgiving after the death of a village leader. The villagers say there was no Taleban activity in the area. But the US military had a different version, which contained several contradictions. Firstly, the US admission of thirty killed goes against the UN figure of more than ninety and the initial figure of 76 released by the Afghan government. Secondly, government officials in Herat say there was no Afghan troop involvement in the killing. But the Americans say the US air support was called in by Afghan troops who were ambushed by a group of Taleban militants led by a man named Mullah Siddiq. Afghansitan's Islamic Affairs Minister Nematullah Shahrani told AFP that the US military had claimed the Taleban were there. "They must prove it. So far, it is not clear for us why the coalition conducted the air strikes", he said. Naturally, the people were angry. They held days of protests shouting slogans against the United States and their puppet president Hamid Karzai, whose writ does not extend beyond Kabul. Even those writs he issues require the US rubber stamp. Karzai issued what has now become a customary condemnation. He blamed the ISAF and said those killed had been "martyred". The word "martyring" has a powerful meaning in Islam. A shaheed or martyred person never dies and his soul departs in a state of purity. Karzai used the word shaheed to mitigate the people's anger and bring the situation under control. He also sacked two Afghan generals. They had played no part in the massacre. But someone's head had to roll. So Karzai picked on two Afghan generals, because he could not act against the haughty and mighty American troops. But little does Karzai realize that he is also responsible for the wanton killing of innocent civilians, for he and the Americans are one and the same. The massacre also points to desperation on the part of the ISAF, which has faced serious setbacks in recent months. It was only early this month that ten French soldiers were killed in a day-long clash with Taleban, prompting French President Nicolas Sarkozy to make an emergency visit to Afghanistan. Sarkozy addressing French troops said they should fight on. The war will go on. In their desperation, the foreign troops apparently do not mind killing even 100 civilians if it yields one Taleban militant. But such a policy only drives the people towards the Taleban, who still enjoy the support of the Afghan people, especially among the Pashtoons who make up nearly fifty percent of the Afghan population and who are poorly represented in the government of Karzai, who is himself a Pashtoon. It seems the Afghan war is far from being won. The Taleban's power is expanding, not only in Afghanistan, but also in neighbouring Pakistan. http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=24676 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/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Fri Sep 12 07:29:28 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:29:28 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Obama et al.and the Gun Culture Message-ID: <00dd01c914db$96917c00$0400a8c0@computer> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: [September 12 2008] Quite recently I had a brief visit with a very good Idaho friend whose Western identity and commitments are as solid as mine -- a staunch labor unionist, avid hunter and outdoorsman [outdoorsperson], and a faithful Democrat. [On the latter point, he's probably more faithful than I -- since, on rare occasions, I've digressed into sensible third party ventures at the Presidential level.] His position on the foregoing matters was unchanged -- a supporter of Obama [and Biden]. But he was troubled. He'd been hearing things from some of his friends that disturbed him and, while his basic optimism remained intact, he was, again, troubled. I knew why. Ms. Palin and spouse have an Image as genuine outdoorspeople: hunting and fishing enthusiasts, snowmobilers, trekkers and roamers of the wilds. And Alaska certainly has its own appealing Image in that quarter. My credentials in the "gun culture" are, if I may say so, sterling. I've had firearms since I was seven years old -- and I presently have a good select collection -- all of which are pretty traditional: Western lever action rifles, an old-style singlebarreled shotgun, a revolver. I've hunted [almost always as a loner in the deepest wilderness settings] and successfully so. At several points, I've trapped extensively and, although I have only one remaining Victor Number 4 Double Spring from my 200 or so of such going back to my last big trapping venture of half a century ago, I do support trapping when it involves the living subsistence of its practitioners [e.g., Natives]. Although I can digress from the National Rifle Association on political choices, I'm an NRA Life Member [like Ms. Palin and, as far as that goes, Howard Dean] and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment who welcomed the recent United States Supreme Court ruling clearly establishing that as a full member of the Bill of Rights. And, as far as that goes, I've written and spoken extensively, from the perspective of life experience, on the use of firearms in matters of principled self-defense [civil rights activists, labor organizers.] That, I should add, explains my keeping a couple of loaded firearms here in Idaho where most people are just fine and friendly -- but not all. The history and images of Obama and Biden don't involve firearms and hunting. Obama has occasionally drifted into the outer edges of "gun control", Biden even more so. [The Clinton's stance -- despite anything Hillary has said recently -- has been almost consistently anti-gun.] All of this can play well with a certain kind of "Eastern/Coastal" liberal -- whose ignorance of firearms and related matters could equate with my ignorance of, say, quantum physics. But for many in the Real West, and in rural and small town settings, this lack of familiarity by Obama and Biden disturbs -- can even frighten -- good people who, like myself are sensible and strongly committed firearms owners and hunters and travelers in the natural wilds. Despite this, many -- like my aforementioned good friend here in the Gem State -- will vote on the disastrous economy, endless war, paucity of health care, gross violations of civil liberty and all the rest that cry out for substantive relief and downright cure. But many of my colleagues in our gun and hunting culture will not -- unless Obama and Biden et al. can substantively address these issues in a very genuinely reassuring and positive way. It can't be the token one-trip "hunt" or "shoot" that Bill Clinton, Gore, and Kerry attempted -- none of which were convincing to anyone. I think Obama -- and Biden -- and their attendant key advisors should engage, pretty damn fast, in a genuinely thorough crash course in gun and hunting rights and the corresponding attitudes on those and related matters in the West and small towns and rural areas around the country -- and in urban areas as far as that goes. Obama made a good start when he endorsed the USSC ruling upholding the Second as an individual right. But he et al. have to do far more than that -- including a great deal of close attention and sincere listening. And when they talk on these issues, it can't be just contrived. It has to be truly genuine, from their hearts. And, if their ears are good, their empathetic attunement [which they display well on other people-concerns] will carry with reasonable effectiveness. Ms. Palin and Co. are, by any rational standards, "limited" folk -- and obviously selfish ones at that. McCain continues to remind me -- [and a knowledgeable one of my two younger brothers agreed with vigor] of an inhabitant of the oldster reservation at Sun City [Phoenix environs], How seriously gun and hunting folks take him as a "friend" is speculative. The Palin masks are beginning to slip significantly. Her attitude toward endangered animal species -- polar bears -- is at best callous. She supports pervasive oil drilling -- even in the most nationally sacrosanct areas of pristine wilderness. Her positions on key Native issues -- including among them subsistence hunting and fishing in the context of tribal sovereignty -- are poor, But her hunting and gun culture credentials are solid. Her siren song, if one doesn't look too deeply, can be appealing -- very much so. And Barack Obama and Joseph Biden et al. have their work cut out. Solidarity, Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear] HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See our Community Organizing Course [with new material] http://hunterbear.org/my_combined_community_organizing.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 11:49:06 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:49:06 -0400 Subject: [R-G] La derecha boliviana intensifica la violencia Message-ID: La derecha boliviana intensifica la violencia From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:00:32 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:00:32 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Peace Corps, Fulbright Scholar Asked to 'Spy' on Cubans, Venezuelans Message-ID: Exclusive: Peace Corps, Fulbright Scholar Asked to 'Spy' on Cubans, Venezuelans U.S. Embassy Official's 'Spy' Request Violated Long-Standing U.S. Policy By JEAN FRIEDMAN-RUDOVSKY and BRIAN ROSS Feb. 8, 2008? In an apparent violation of U.S. policy, Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar were asked by a U.S. Embassy official in Bolivia "to basically spy" on Cubans and Venezuelans in the country, according to Peace Corps personnel and the Fulbright scholar involved. Click here to read this article in Spanish. (Haz click aqu? para leer este art?culo en espa?ol.) "I was told to provide the names, addresses and activities of any Venezuelan or Cuban doctors or field workers I come across during my time here," Fulbright scholar John Alexander van Schaick told ABCNews.com in an interview in La Paz. Van Schaick's account matches that of Peace Corps members and staff who claim that last July their entire group of new volunteers was instructed by the same U.S. Embassy official in Bolivia to report on Cuban and Venezuelan nationals. The State Department says any such request was "in error" and a violation of long-standing U.S. policy which prohibits the use of Peace Corps personnel or Fulbright scholars for intelligence purposes. "We take this very seriously and want to stress this is not in any way our policy," a senior State Department official told ABCNews.com. The Fulbright scholar van Schaick, a 2006 Rutgers University graduate, says the request came at a mandatory orientation and security briefing meeting with Assistant Regional Security Officer Vincent Cooper at the embassy on the morning of Nov. 5, 2007. According to van Schaick, the request for information gathering "surfaced casually" halfway through Cooper's 30-minute, one-on-one briefing, which initially dealt with helpful tips about life and security concerns in Bolivia. "He said, 'We know the Venezuelans and Cubans are here, and we want to keep tabs on them,'" said van Schaick who recalls feeling "appalled" at the comment. "I was in shock," van Schaick said. "My immediate thought was 'oh my God! Somebody from the U.S. Embassy just asked me to basically spy for the U.S. Embassy.'" A similar pattern emerges in the account of the three Peace Corps volunteers and their supervisor. On July 29, 2007, just before the new volunteers were sworn in, they say embassy security officer Vincent Cooper visited the 30-person group to give a talk on safety and made his request about the Cubans and Venezuelans. "He said it had to do with the fight against terrorism," said one, of the briefing from the embassy official. Others remember being told, "It's for your own safety." Peace Corps Deputy Director Doreen Salazar remembers the incident vividly because she says it was the first time she had heard an embassy official make such a request to a Peace Corps group. Salazar says she and her fellow staff found the comment so out of line that they interrupted the briefing to clarify that volunteers did not have to follow the embassy's instructions, and she later complained directly to the embassy about the incident. "Peace Corps is an a-political institution," Salazar says. "We made it clear to the embassy that this was an inappropriate request, and they agreed." Indeed, the State Department admits having acknowledged the infraction and assuring Salazar that it would not happen again. Yet, it was just four months later that Fulbright scholar van Schaick says he was asked by the same embassy official, Cooper, to "spy" on the Cubans and Venezuelans. A U.S. Embassy official in La Paz, Bolivia said Cooper was referring all calls for comment to the State Department in Washington. Van Schaick says he never considered complying with the request, fearful he would violate Bolivian espionage laws and that he would jeopardize the integrity of the Fulbright program, which yearly sends hundreds of American college graduates to countries around the world. "I am supposed to be a cultural ambassador increasing mutual understanding between us and the Bolivian people," van Schaick explains. "This flies in face of everything Fulbright stands for." The Fulbright program receives its funding from the U.S. State Department and the Peace Corps is a federal agency, but the State Department insists that neither group has the obligation to act in an intelligence capacity. In fact, both have strict regulations against members getting involved in politics in their host country. The press director at the Peace Corps told ABC News in no uncertain terms that the corps is not involved in any intelligence gathering. "Since Peace Corps' inception in 1961, it has been the practice of the Peace Corps to keep volunteers separate from any official duties pertaining to U.S. foreign policy, including the reality or the appearance of involvement in intelligence-related activities," said Amanda Beck, press director of the Peace Corps. "Any connection between the Peace Corps and the intelligence community would seriously compromise the ability of the Peace Corps to develop and maintain the trust and confidence of the people in the host countries we serve." Read the Peace Corps' full statement. Like many of the Peace Corps workers, van Schaick is carrying out his research in the Santa Cruz countryside, where a number of Cuban doctors are deployed providing free medical services as part of Cuba's solidarity with its socialist ally, Bolivia's President Evo Morales. The accusations are likely to reverberate in Bolivia, especially given the already shaky relationship between the Bush administration and President Morales' two-year-old government. "These are serious incidents that we will investigate thoroughly," says Bolivia's Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca in an interview. "Any U.S. government use of their students or volunteers to provide intelligence represents a grave threat to Bolivia's sovereignty." Bolivian law provides severe penalties in espionage cases. According to Article 111 of the country's penal code, "he who procures secretive documents, objects or information&concerning [Bolivia's] foreign relations in an espionage effort for other countries during times of peace, endangering the security of the State, will incur a penalty of 30 years in prison." In lay man's terms: if any U.S. citizen provides information of use in a spying effort, they would be subject to Bolivia's maximum prison sentence. But the U.S. citizens who reported being approached in this way by the State Department official said no mention was made of any legal risks arising from complying with the request to keep tabs on foreign nationals in Bolivia. There is no indication that any of the volunteers made reports to the U.S. Embassy. Van Schaick says he is keenly aware of the Pandora's box now knocked open. The Hoboken, N.J. native, however, was adamant that the incident be brought to light -- in the hopes for change. "I came forward because the Bolivian people have a right to know," former union activist van Schaick says. "Asking Fulbrighters to spy is just not OK." Three of the other four Fulbright scholars currently in Bolivia say they were never asked about Cubans or Venezuelans in their briefings. A fourth Fulbright scholar declined repeated requests for an interview on the subject. Editor's Note: Jean Friedman-Rudovksy is a freelance journalist based in La Paz, Bolivia where she is the correspondent for TIME Magazine and Women's Enews. She has worked as an associate producer for ABC News in Bolivia and is a founding editor of Ukhampacha Bolivia, an online bilingual Web journal on Latin American social and political issues. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:08:21 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:08:21 -0400 Subject: [R-G] CEPR: U.S. Should Disclose its Funding of Opposition Groups in Bolivia Message-ID: Press Release U.S. Should Disclose its Funding of Opposition Groups in Bolivia and Other Latin American Countries - Center for Economic and Policy Research For Immediate Release: September 12, 2008 Contact: Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460 WASHNGTON, D.C. - The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) called on the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other agencies to release information detailing whom it is funding in Bolivia -- where violent right-wing opposition groups have wreaked havoc this week in a series of shootings, beatings, ransacking of offices, and sabotage of a natural gas pipeline -- as well as in other Latin American countries including Venezuela. Recent events suggest there may be evidence for Bolivian president Evo Morales' assertions that the U.S. Embassy is supporting groups promoting violence and seeking "autonomy" from Bolivia, and the Center called on USAID and other U.S. agencies to "come clean" in order to demonstrate the U.S. government's good faith. "Washington has decided to keep its ties to Bolivia's opposition shrouded in secrecy, and that's not conducive to trust between the U.S. and Bolivian governments," said Mark Weisbrot, CEPR Co-Director. "If Washington has nothing to hide in terms of whom it is funding and working with in Bolivia, then it should reveal which groups those are." In the midst of the violence and property destruction, Bolivian president Evo Morales declared U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg "persona non grata" and asked him to be expelled, suggesting he is aiding organizations behind the violence and sabotage. Despite numerous requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. has not turned over all the names of recipient organizations of USAID funds. Bolivia is a major recipient of USAID money, with millions of dollars sent to groups there. The U.S. also funds groups in Bolivia through the National Endowment for Democracy and related organizations. "USAID is not supposed to be a clandestine organization, but nevertheless the U.S. government refuses to divulge which groups in Bolivia are supported with U.S. tax dollars," Weisbrot said. "By providing clandestine aid to groups that are almost certainly in the opposition, it gives the impression that the U.S. is contributing to efforts to destabilize the Bolivian government." The U.S. Embassy in Bolivia has been implicated in a number of events that suggest it may be seeking to undermine Morales' government. In February of this year it was revealed that the Embassy had repeatedly asked Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright Scholar [LINK: ] to spy on people inside Bolivia. USAID has an "Office of Transition Initiatives" operating in Bolivia, funneling millions of dollars of training and support to right-wing opposition regional governments and movements. At least eight people were killed and dozens injured in violence Thursday, the latest in over a week of protests carried out by organized youth groups in conjunction with [LINK: ] departmental governors and other opposition leaders that also saw them sabotage a natural gas pipeline, vandalize government offices, ransack the offices of a human rights organization, and threaten to cut off natural gas exports to neighboring Brazil and Argentina. The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University ________________________________ Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:15:18 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:15:18 -0400 Subject: [R-G] NATO Says Won't Take Part in Pakistan Raids Message-ID: FWIW: NATO says won't take part in Pakistan raids 11 Sep 2008 20:38:26 GMT Source: Reuters (Adds New York Times report, paragraph 10) By David Brunnstrom BRUSSELS, Sept 11 (Reuters) - NATO will not take part in a proposed U.S. strategy of conducting raids into Pakistan from Afghanistan against Taliban and al Qaeda militants, a spokesman said on Thursday. "The NATO policy, that is our mandate, ends at the border," James Appathurai told a regular news briefing. "There are no ground or air incursions by NATO forces into Pakistani territory." NATO states would discuss the issue, Appathurai said, but he added: "Let me stress, it is not NATO that will be sending its forces across the border." The 26 NATO defence ministers will hold an informal meeting on Sept. 18-19 meeting in London, but Appathurai said the next opportunity for them to discuss Afghan operations would be at a ministerial meeting in Budapest on Oct. 9-10. The spokesman said a solution needed to be found to growing extremism in tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. "Pakistan needs to take effective action in cooperation with the rest of the international community and the Afghans to address the problem that is increasingly threatening Pakistan's stability as well as Afghanistan's," he said. NATO leads a force of some 53,000 troops in Afghanistan. A separate U.S. force is also battling militants in the country. U.S. RAID Helicopter-borne U.S. commandos carried out a ground assault in Pakistan's South Waziristan, a sanctuary for al Qaeda operatives, last week, the first known incursion into Pakistan by U.S. troops since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The raid killed 20 people, including women and children. The New York Times reported on Thursday that President George W. Bush had secretly approved orders in July allowing U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without approval from the Pakistan government. On Wednesday, the U.S. military conceded to Congress that it was not winning the fight against the Taliban insurgency and said it would revise its strategy to target militant safe havens in Pakistan. U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee he was "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy" that would cover both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Pakistan, which has been an ally in the U.S.-led war on terror launched after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, condemned the raid and has repeatedly said it will not tolerate foreign troops entering its territory. On Thursday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai backed the proposed U.S. strategy change, saying he had been calling for a different approach for years. Violence in Afghanistan has soared in the past three years as al Qaeda and Taliban fighters have regrouped in border areas. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:31:57 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:31:57 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Gobiernos_de_Sudam=E9rica_repudian_el_golpe_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?terrateniente_en_Bolivia=3B_La_gravitaci=F3n_de_San?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ta_Cruz=3B_Etc=2E?= Message-ID: Actualizado el 2008-09-12 a horas: 04:52:04 Gobiernos de Sudam?rica repudian el golpe terrateniente en Bolivia Redacci?n Bolpress Los gobiernos de Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela, Chile y Paraguay expresaron su respaldo incondicional al proceso democr?tico boliviano. Lula da Silva y Cristina Fern?ndez no reconocer?n a ning?n golpista que pretenda sustituir al leg?timo gobierno constitucional de Bolivia. Hugo Ch?vez apoyar? movimientos armados si Evo Morales es derrocado. El secretario general de la OEA dijo que los autonomistas no tienen derecho de apoderarse de bienes p?blicos. Actualizado el 2008-09-12 a horas: 12:12:50 La gravitaci?n de Santa Cruz Ram?n Rocha Monroy La toma de instituciones p?blicas en Santa Cruz y el saqueo desconsiderado de sus instalaciones y equipos son p?simas se?ales de una sombra separatista que comienza a vislumbrarse en el trasfondo de las protestas auton?micas. Al margen del enfrentamiento de esos grupos de activistas con el Gobierno central, quienes vivimos en otras regiones del pa?s nos preguntamos si esos grupos tienen derecho de ser tan desconsiderados con algo que no les pertenece porque es patrimonio nacional. Actualizado el 2008-09-12 a horas: 01:38:01 ?El pueblo d?nde est?? Betty Tejada Soruco (www.laparabaeditorialvirtual.com).- Desde el martes 9 de septiembre en Santa Cruz se realiza de manera violenta la denominada "toma de instituciones del estado". Los protagonistas son cientos de j?venes y mujeres, casi todos con la cara cubierta con barbijos o pa?uelos, armados con palos los m?s pobres, bates y guantes de beisbol los de clase media, piedras, hondas y furia, casi todos. Actualizado el 2008-09-11 a horas: 23:59:29 Shannon advierte que las relaciones diplom?ticas bilaterales se han "da?ado seriamente" Echan a Goldberg y EE.UU. declara "persona no grata" al embajador Guzm?n (Agencias).- El Canciller David Choquehuanca notific? oficialmente al gobierno de Estados Unidos que el embajador Philip Goldberg fue declarado persona "non grata" por conspirar contra la democracia y la unidad de Bolivia. Acto seguido, el gobierno norteamericano declar? "persona non grata" al embajador de Bolivia en Washington Gustavo Guzm?n. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Sep 12 12:34:41 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:34:41 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Bolivia: On the Brink of Civil War (junge Welt) Message-ID: 13.09.2008 / Ausland / Seite 2 Am Rand des B?rgerkriegs From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 12:31:57 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:31:57 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Parse this article Message-ID: <200809121831.m8CIVvsL008945@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/466ea821/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 12:32:50 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:32:50 -0700 Subject: [R-G] US 'refuses to give Israel bombs' fearing Iran strike Message-ID: <200809121832.m8CIWovh012535@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/57a53c2f/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 12:34:18 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:34:18 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Peace deal would have to include right of return -- Abbas Message-ID: <200809121834.m8CIYI6Z015819@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/c2540cfd/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 12:35:07 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:35:07 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Abbas vows to dismantle PA if Israel frees Hamas prisoners for Shalit Message-ID: <200809121835.m8CIZ7nI017439@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/451f59d1/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 12:51:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:51:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Figure in Rosenberg case admits to Soviet spying Message-ID: <200809121851.m8CIpj8e027804@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/5d9fe3db/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 13:07:54 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:07:54 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Fascist violence in Bolivia an eyewitness report Message-ID: <200809121907.m8CJ7s0m005652@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/2b32757a/attachment.txt From internacional at pcdob.org.br Fri Sep 12 15:17:11 2008 From: internacional at pcdob.org.br (=?Windows-1252?Q?PCdoB_-_Secretaria_de_Rela=E7=F5es_Internacionais?=) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:17:11 -0300 Subject: [R-G] Pronunciamento/Speech Socorro Gomes (CMP/WPC)Artigo J Message-ID: <090e01c9151c$ed09a670$0e05a8c0@mh> Estimados Camaradas, Recebam em anexo, em portugu?s, espanhol e ingl?s, o Pronunciamento de Socorro Gomes, presidenta do Conselho Mundial da Paz e membro do Comit? Central do PCdoB, na abertura da primeira Reuni?o do Secretariado do CMP em Palmela, regi?o de Set?bal, Portugal, 9 e 10 de setembro de 2008. Sauda??es Fraternas, Maria Helena D' Eugenio p/ Secretaria de Rela??es Internacionais do CC do PCdoB (11) 30541822 ou 00 ===================== Dear Comrades, Please find attached ? in Portuguese, Spanish and English ? the Speech of Socorro Gomes, chairwoman of the World Peace Council and Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Brazil - PCdoB, at overture of the First Meeting of the WPC Secretariat in Palmela, Setubal Region, Portugal, September 9-10, 2008. Fraternal greetings, Maria Helena D' Eugenio by the International Relations Secretary CC - PCdoB (55 11 ) 30541822 or 00 From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 17:52:00 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:52:00 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Bolivian Right intensifies the violence (video) Message-ID: <200809122352.m8CNq0Y3029826@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/9cdc92ad/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 18:09:30 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:09:30 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bolivia split in two by protests; deaths mourned Message-ID: <200809130009.m8D09UVW028535@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/67b4daaf/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 18:14:17 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:14:17 -0700 Subject: [R-G] CEPR: U.S. Should Disclose its Funding of Opposition Groups in Bolivia Message-ID: <200809130014.m8D0EHa2004291@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/c932f6d4/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Sep 12 18:22:46 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:22:46 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Our murderous comedy of errors Message-ID: <48CB07D6.8010709@attglobal.net> Last month, "our" aircraft slaughtered nearly 100 Afghan civilians, two-thirds of them children aged three months to sixteen years, while they slept by John Pilger New Statesman (September 11 2008) Try to laugh, please. The news is now officially parody and a game for all the family to play. First question: Why are "we" in Afghanistan? Answer: "To try to help in the country's rebuilding programme". Who says so? Huw Edwards, the BBC's principal newsreader. What wags the Welsh are. Second question: Why are "we" in Iraq? Answer: To "plant a western-style open democracy". Who says so? Paul Wood, the former BBC defence correspondent, and his boss Helen Boaden, director of BBC News. To prove her point, Boaden supplied Medialens.org with 2,700 words of quotations from Tony Blair and George W Bush. Irony? No, she meant it. Take Andrew Martin, divisional adviser at BBC Complaints, who has been researching Bush's speeches for "evidence" of noble democratic reasons for laying to waste an ancient civilisation. Says he: "The 'D' word is not there, but the phrase 'united, stable and free' [is] clearly an allusion to it". After all, he says, the invasion of Iraq "was launched as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'". Moreover, says the BBC man, "in Bush's 1 May 2003 speech (the one on the aircraft carrier) he talked repeatedly about freedom and explicitly about the Iraqi transition to democracy ... These examples show that these were on Bush's mind before, during and after the invasion". Try to laugh, please. Laughing may be difficult, I agree, given the slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan by "coalition" aircraft, including those directed by British forces engaged in "the country's rebuilding programme". The bombing of civilian areas has doubled, along with the deaths of civilians, says Human Rights Watch. Last month, "our" aircraft slaughtered nearly 100 civilians, two-thirds of them children between the ages of three months and sixteen years, while they slept, according to eyewitnesses. BBC News initially devoted nine seconds to the Human Rights Watch report, and nothing to the fact that "less than peanuts" (according to an aid worker) is being spent on rebuilding anything in Afghanistan. Such wags, the Welsh. As for the notion of a "united, stable and free" Iraq, consider the no-bid contracts handed to the major western oil companies for ownership of Iraq's oil. "Theft" is a more truthful word. Written by the companies themselves and US officials, the contracts have been signed off by Bush and Nouri al-Maliki, "prime minister" of Iraq's "democratic" government that resides in an air-conditioned American fortress. This is not news. Try to laugh, please, while you consider the devastation of Iraq's health, once the best in the Middle East, by the ubiquitous dust from British and US depleted uranium weapons. A World Health Organisation study reporting a cancer epidemic has been suppressed, says its principal author. This has been reported in Britain only in the Glasgow Sunday Herald and the Morning Star. According to a study last year by Basra University Medical College, almost half of all deaths in the contaminated southern provinces were caused by cancer. Try to laugh, please, at the recent happy-clappy Nurembergs from which will come the next president of the United States. Those paid to keep the record straight have strained to present a spectacle of choice. Barack Obama, the man of "change", wants to "build a 21st-century military ... to stay on the offensive everywhere". Here comes the new Cold War, with promises of more bombs, more of the militarised society with its 730 bases worldwide, on which Americans spend 42 cents of every tax dollar. At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease America's grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. John McCain, his Republican opponent, may well be a media cartoon figure - the fake "war hero" now joined with a Shakespeare-banning, gun-loving, religious fanatic - yet his true significance is that he and Obama share essentially the same dangerous prescriptions. Thousands of decent Americans came to the two nominating conventions to express the dissenting opinion of millions of their compatriots who believe, with good cause, that their democracy is evaporating. They were intimidated, arrested, beaten, pepper-gassed; and they were patronised or ignored by those paid to keep the record straight. Meanwhile, Justin Webb, the BBC's North America editor, has launched his book about America, his "city on a hill". It is a sort of Mills & Boon view of the rapacious system he admires with such obsequiousness. The book is called Have a Nice Day. Try to laugh, please. http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2008/09/pilger-iraq-bbc-try-obama 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/ From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Sep 12 18:40:19 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:40:19 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Help Cuba Recover from Its Worst Economic Disaster Message-ID: <200809130040.m8D0eJfd003217@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080912/ab11a619/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 01:29:36 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:29:36 -0400 Subject: [R-G] US Refused to Give Israel Bunker-Busters, Air Corridor to Attack Iran Message-ID: Or so they say. Iran's power elite who have bet that the US has too much trouble on its hands -- what with the financial crisis, the (now rapidly declining but still relatively) high oil prices, Pakistan, now Russia, etc. -- to make war on Iran have done well. They have not opted and are now even less likely than before to go for "freeze for freeze," so there won't be any normalization of the US-Iran relation any time soon. That is a mixed blessing for Iran's workers: the low-level US-Israeli threat won't totally go away (cf. Sadegh Kabeer, "The Not-So-Diplomatic Turn," ), but Iranian workers won't be exposed to the kind and degree of economic liberalization that any normalization with the US is likely to entail. The low-intensity sanctions currently in place impose costs on Iran, especially its private sector, but at their current levels they have not negatively affected Iran's economic development (in terms, for instance, of gross fixed capital formation as percentage of GDP, at least in the statistics available from the IMF and Iran's Central Bank so far, though one has no way of ascertaining if the quantity of investment isn't masking the deterioration in quality of it by just looking at the numbers), beyond what is to be expected from the turbulence of capitalism (the growth rate of gfcf has begun to slow down since 2002 -- see, e.g., Table 2 on p. 4 of IMF Country Report No. 07/101, "Islamic Republic of Iran: Statistical Appendix," March 2007, ). The low-intensity sanctions instead have had a salutary effect of quickly re-orienting Iran's political economy from Europe to China, Russia, Latin America, etc. This is likely to politically strengthen "Third-Worldists" at the expense of "Westernizers" in Iran. In this context, it is more than ever important for Iran's social and political activists to re-orient the culture of their struggle, so they can prevail in the new national and international contexts. -- Yoshie Last update - 14:34 11/09/2008 Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran By Amos Harel and Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondents The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes. Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made. About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran. Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included: Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down. Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of "If you want, coordinate with him." Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model. The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years. The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister's plane to serve as a refueling aircraft. Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point. The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush's visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush's visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran. However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel's "offensive" requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems. During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system. The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil. A senior security official said the Americans were preparing "with the greatest speed" to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month. The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time. At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009. However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half. Related articles: # Iran-Israel arms race heats up, both boost naval capabilities # Peres warns Olmert: Attack on Iran could spark wide-scale war From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 02:57:13 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:57:13 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia Ready to Tap Wealth Fund Message-ID: The Russian leadership were prepared for the Georgian military move against South Ossetia, but they seem to have been unprepared for capital flight. They might have used this occasion to bring the financial sector under state control, instead of talking about using the national wealth fund to support the existing financial market, which doesn't appear to impress capitalists anyway. -- Yoshie Russia ready to tap wealth fund By Charles Clover and Catherine Belton in Moscow and Rachel Morarjee in London Published: September 11 2008 09:48 | Last updated: September 11 2008 18:58 Russia is considering using money from its $32bn national wealth fund and from pension reserves to support financial markets, Alexei Kudrin, finance minister, said on Thursday. His comments indicate the government is under pressure to react to the collapsing stock market. It has tumbled almost 50 per cent since May and lost an additional 2.7 per cent on Thursday. "There are several proposals now for the banking community to improve the instruments that would allow [markets] to calmly work in this environment," the minister told reporters. "Among these there is a proposal to place pension fund money and national wealth fund money on the domestic market." Mr Kudrin added the money would be placed in securities. Sberbank, Russia's largest bank, led the way down on Thursday with a fall of 7.4 per cent ? signalling that instability in the financial sector is the key source of weakness. "There is a shortage of liquidity being felt, and the central bank of Russia is carrying out large-scale operations to refinance commercial banks," said Sergei Ignatiev, chairman of the central bank. The central bank again injected more than $10bn (?7bn, ?5.7bn) in short-term funds into the market on Thursday. The government has for months faced calls to use some of its windfall oil revenues to invest in order to stabilise domestic financial markets. Mr Kudrin's comments are significant, as he had opposed the use of national wealth funds to support markets. Erik DePoy, equity strategist at Russia's Alfa Bank, said Mr Kudrin was the "standard bearer for the conservative approach" of non-intervention. Any intervention by the fund in the Russian market "would be only symbolic". "Even if they did $3bn, that is equivalent to one day's trading. I think they're just trying to talk up the market any way they can." Despite the Russian stock market turmoil, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's president, chose Thursday to unveil a plan to upgrade the structure of the financial markets, which will be introduced as legislation next year. Mr Medvedev said laws on stock exchanges, clearing activities and a central depository centre were the first in the legislative pipeline. "This is in no way a simple period for the international markets," the president told a Kremlin meeting of senior government and banking officials. "But this perhaps makes our agenda more relevant, not less relevant." Intervention using the wealth fund would knock Russia's sovereign rating if it proved to be more than an attempt to talk up the stock market, analysts warned. "If the government intends to put public funds at risk [funds originally laid aside to shore up the pension system], in order to prop up asset prices, then this would have negative implications for Russia's rating," said Frank Gill, head of European sovereign ratings at Standard & Poor's. Investing the fund's money domestically would require changing the law, which created the entity in February with the purpose of buoying the country's pension system. Chris Weafer, of Uralsib investment bank, said: "There is a group in government pushing for the money to be released domestically. But now that's shifting . . . ?because there is a real risk the market fall will have a broader contagion. "Using the money domestically is a lesser evil. If they don't stop the market falling then the whole house of cards could collapse." If authorities did not use the money now, "$40bn is not going to be of any use". From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 03:01:32 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Libyan "People's Capitalism" according to the IMF Message-ID: IMF Executive Board Concludes 2008 Article IV Consultation with The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Public Information Notice (PIN) No. 08/114 September 9, 2008 Public Information Notices (PINs) form part of the IMF's efforts to promote transparency of the IMF's views and analysis of economic developments and policies. With the consent of the country (or countries) concerned, PINs are issued after Executive Board discussions of Article IV consultations with member countries, of its surveillance of developments at the regional level, of post-program monitoring, and of ex post assessments of member countries with longer-term program engagements. PINs are also issued after Executive Board discussions of general policy matters, unless otherwise decided by the Executive Board in a particular case. On July 18, 2008, the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the Article IV consultation with the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.1 Background Since the lifting in 2003-04 of the UN sanctions, which lasted more than 10 years, Libya has launched a series of structural reforms and accelerated its transition to "people's capitalism." The normalization of diplomatic relations with the U.S. and the EU in the second half of 2007 has contributed to increased foreign investors' interest, particularly in the hydrocarbon, banking, and infrastructure sectors. However, while progress has been made in recent years to liberalize the economy, it remains largely state controlled and heavily dependent on hydrocarbon resources. Crude oil and gas accounted for about 70 percent of GDP, 90 percent of total government revenues, and 98 percent of total exports in 2007. A Wealth Distribution Program (WDP) was launched in March 2008 to distribute part of the oil wealth to the population and reduce the size of the government. Disbursements will be in the form of both cash and shares in projects. The initially announced amount was LD 25-30 billion ($20-25 billion), but subsequently only LD 4.6 billion ($3.8 billion) were approved for this year. The authorities are still considering the size, form, and modalities of the annual distributions in the years ahead. Macroeconomic performance strengthened further in 2007, notwithstanding an acceleration in inflation. Real GDP grew by 6.8 percent, supported by an expansion in the hydrocarbon sector (3.9 percent) and a rapid increase in nonhydrocarbon activities (10.3 percent). Growth was particularly strong in construction, transportation, and trade. At the same time, average inflation increased substantially to 6.2 percent, largely driven by higher food prices and a marked increase in public expenditure. Inflation accelerated further in the first quarter of 2008, averaging about 12 percent (year-on-year). Despite higher oil revenues, Libya's fiscal surplus in 2007 narrowed to 26 percent of GDP, compared to 35 percent in 2006. This reflected a rapid increase in virtually all expenditure items (45 percent), albeit at a slightly slower rate than what was envisaged in the budget. The decision to raise public wages resulted in an increase in the wage bill of around 50 percent. Capital expenditure also grew rapidly. On the external side, The current account surplus declined to 34 percent of GDP, compared to 46 percent in 2006, due to a marked increase in imports (33 percent). Continued high oil exports resulted in a further build up of the net foreign assets of Central Bank of Libya (CBL) to almost $80 billion. The real effective exchange rate of the dinar appreciated by 1 percent in 2007, and about 5 percent in the first quarter of 2008 due to the combined effects of the rising inflation and the strengthening of the euro against the SDR (to which the dinar is pegged). Broad money growth accelerated to 41 percent in 2007, reflecting the substantial increase in net foreign assets and the rapid increase in public expenditure, including on-lending by SCIs. Credit extended to the nongovernment sector by these institutions grew by about 36 percent, while that extended by commercial banks grew by about 15 percent. Interest rates remained low and became negative in real terms with the rise in inflation. In an effort to address excess liquidity, the CBL recently increased its policy interest rate to 2.25 percent and the reserves requirement to 20 percent. It introduced in May 2008 its own certificates of deposit as part of its ongoing effort to enhance the monetary policy framework. The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) was established in March 2007. The authorities plan to invest the LIA's initial $40-50 billion mostly abroad on a commercial basis and ensure that the LIA will be run by a qualified and independent management. Recent enhancements of its operational framework are largely in line with staff's recommendations. Progress has been made in various structural reforms, partly in line with past Fund TA recommendations and the Medium-Term Reform Strategy (Country Report 06/137). A sound framework for the management of the oil wealth has been established through the creation of the LIA. Customs administration has been reformed and a large taxpayer's office established; the presentation of the budget has been consolidated and a macrofiscal unit initiated; a large number of public enterprises have been privatized; and one third of public employees are being retrenched to the private sector. Two large state-owned banks were privatized in 2007 and 2008, and two of the three remaining public commercial banks were merged in April 2008. Most regional banks have also been merged into one bank, and agreement has been reached with financial institutions from UAE and Qatar to establish two new banks. Libya's debt relief to heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) continues to be based on forgiving interest payments and using a combination of swaps and rescheduling of principal. The authorities indicated that agreements based on these modalities have already been reached with some HIPCs, and that negotiations are ongoing with others. Executive Board Assessment Executive Directors welcomed Libya's continued solid macroeconomic performance, as reflected in the acceleration in GDP growth?in particular in the non-hydrocarbon sector?and the large fiscal and external current account surpluses, based on both the favorable external environment and the authorities' ongoing economic reforms. Directors agreed that Libya's medium-term outlook remains positive, but underscored the need to reverse the recent acceleration in inflation?caused in particular by the increase in food prices?and to further advance structural reforms in the period ahead, in support of the authorities' welcome initiative to speed up the transition from a state-dominated to a market economy. Directors stressed that efforts to contain inflation should focus on tightening the fiscal stance by limiting the rapid increase in public expenditure, which could also pose risks for expenditure quality. They welcomed the authorities' plans to limit any further increases in public sector wages and to complete the civil service reform. While recognizing the need to upgrade the infrastructure, Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to prioritize public investment and to stand ready to scale back more of the planned projects if inflationary pressures do not recede. Public financial management also needs to be strengthened further, including by unifying the process of budget preparation and implementation under the Ministry of Finance. Directors welcomed the authorities' decision to limit the scope of the Wealth Distribution Program in 2008?while maintaining the focus on strengthening human capital?against the background of the economy's absorptive capacity constraints and increased inflation. This conservative approach will need to be maintained in the period ahead in order to avoid crowding out priority spending, to discourage rent-seeking activities, and to further reduce inflationary pressures. Directors considered that the planned reform of the public administration in the context of the WDP could present an opportunity to address inefficiencies, but care should be taken not to jeopardize the delivery of essential public services. They recommended that the authorities consider the reform plans carefully in consultation with the World Bank. Directors commended the authorities for launching the Libyan Investment Authority in a transparent fashion, and the recent enhancement of its operational framework. They emphasized the importance of limiting domestic investments by the LIA. Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to enhance the operational framework of the LIA in line with the evolving best practices for sovereign wealth funds. Directors commended the recent efforts of the Central Bank of Libya to tighten monetary policy by raising both the CBL policy interest rate and the reserves requirement. They noted that greater reliance on indirect monetary policy instruments would be beneficial, and in this regard, they welcomed the recent introduction of CBL certificates of deposit. Directors commended the authorities for the progress made in bank privatization and restructuring. They encouraged the authorities to finalize the plans to privatize the two remaining public commercial banks. It would also be important to establish an independent bank restructuring agency that would take over ownership of the specialized credit institutions and oversee their restructuring and privatization. Directors agreed that the dinar's peg to the SDR has served Libya well as it provides a strong monetary anchor while allowing some flexibility in the dinar's exchange rate vis-?-vis individual major currencies. An eventual move to greater exchange rate flexibility would be beneficial, but would need to be gradual and preceded by a switch to market-based monetary management and development of expertise in foreign exchange markets. Directors took note of the staff assessment that the dinar is moderately undervalued at present, but that this undervaluation is likely to be transitory given the expected evolution of the fiscal and current account positions based on current policies. Directors welcomed the authorities' commitment to continue to improve economic and financial statistics in order to facilitate better monitoring and analysis of developments to guide policy formulation. They urged the authorities to establish a framework for Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) in line with international standards. Directors encouraged the authorities to continue to provide full debt relief to heavily indebted poor countries in line with the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 03:09:33 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:09:33 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The Story of Russia's Liquidity Crunch Message-ID: By FT Reporters Published: September 12 2008 12:06 | Last updated: September 12 2008 12:06 Russian Equities: May 19 Russia's RTS stock index hits an annual high of 2,498.10 ?July 11 Brent crude, the benchmark for European oil prices, touches a record of 147.50 ?July 24 TNK-BP chief executive Robert Dudley leaves Moscow blaming an official campaign of harassment as part of a battle for control of the joint venture oil company between BP and its Russian billionaire shareholders ?July 24 Russian Prime Minister accuses Russian steel company Mechel of price gouging ?July 29 Russia's RTS stock market drops for the fourth consecutive session, down over 10 per cent since Putin's attack on Mechel ?August 5 The rouble touches a high of 29.28, the strongest level since the Russian central bank adopted a dollar/euro basket in February 2007 ?August 8 Following a Georgian operation against South Ossetia, Russia launches an invasion of the country, sparking international condemnation ?August 9 Brent crude drops below $100 a barrell for the first time this year ?September 4 Russia's central bank intervenes in the market to prop up the rouble for the second time in a month ?September 8 The rouble falls to a low of 30.52 against a dollar/euro basket, down 4 per cent from its high ?September 10 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the government can prop up the stock market and push it back to its January levels ?September 11 Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin say the government is mulling using national wealth and pension funds to prop up the equity market From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Sep 13 03:42:26 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:42:26 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <48CB8B02.7070404@attglobal.net> Read this or George W Bush will be president the rest of your life by William Blum www.killinghope.org (September 05 2008) Obama-Biden - Osama bin Laden: A coincidence? I think not. I'm sorry to say that I think that John McCain is going to be the next president of the United States. After the long night of Bush horror any Democrat should easily win, but the Dems are screwing it up and McCain has been running more-or-less even with Barack Obama in the polls. The Democrats should run on the slogan "If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain", but that would be too outspoken, too direct for the spineless Nancy Pelosi and her spineless party. Or, "If you liked Iraq, you'll love Iran". But the Democrat leadership is not on record as categorically opposing either conflict. Nor, it seems, do the Democrats have the courage to raise the issue of McCain not having been born in the United States as the Constitution requires. Nor questioning him about accusations by his fellow American prisoners about his considerable collaboration with his Vietnamese captors. Nor a word about McCain's highly possible role in the brutal Georgian invasion of South Ossetia on August 7. (More on this last below.) Obama has lost much of the sizable liberal/progressive vote because of his move to the center-right (or his exposure as a center-rightist), and he now may have lost even his selling point of being more strongly against the war than McCain - if in fact he actually is - by appointing Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden has long been a hawk on Iraq (as well as the rest of US foreign policy), calling for an invasion as far back as 1998. {1} In April, 2007, when pressed in an interview about his vote for the war in 2003, Biden said: "It was a mistake. I regret my vote ... because I learned more, like everybody else learned, about what, in fact, we were told" {2}. This has been a common excuse of war supporters in recent years when the tide of public opinion turned against them. But why did millions and millions of Americans march against the war in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know that Joe Biden didn't know? It was clear to the protesters that George W Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they couldn't care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell; the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan; they knew about napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium ... Didn't Biden know about any of these things? Those who marched knew that the impending war was something a moral person could not support; and that it was totally illegal, a textbook case of a "war of aggression"; one didn't have to be an expert in international law to know this. Did Joe Biden think about any of this? If McCain had a role in the Georgian invasion of breakaway-region Ossetia it would have been arranged with the help of Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser and until recently Georgia's principal lobbyist in Washington. As head of the neo-conservative Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, Scheunemann was one of America's leading advocates for invading Iraq. One of McCain's primary campaign sales pitches has been to emphasize his supposed superior experience in foreign policy matters, which - again supposedly - means something in this world. McCain consistently leads Obama in the opinion polls on "readiness to be commander-in-chief", or similar nonsense. The Georgia-Russia hostilities raise - in the mass media and the mass mind - the issue of the United States needing an experienced foreign policy person to handle such a "crisis", and, standard in every crisis - an enemy bad guy. Typical of the media was the Chicago Tribune praising McCain for his statesmanlike views on Iraq and stating: "What Russia's invasion of Georgia showed was that the world is still a very dangerous place", and Russia is a "looming threat". In addition to using the expression "Russia's invasion of Georgia", the Tribune article also referred to "Russia's invasion of South Ossetia". No mention of Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia which began the warfare. {3} In a feature story in the Washington Post on the Georgia events the second sentence was: "The war had started, Russian jets had just bombed the outskirts of Tbilisi [Georgian capital]". The article then speaks of "the horror" of "the Russian invasion". Not the slightest hint of any Georgian military action can be found in the story. {4} One of course can find a media report here or there that mentions or at least implies in passing that an invasion from Georgia is what instigated the mayhem. But I've yet to come upon one report in the American mass media that actually emphasizes this point, and certainly none that put it in the headline. The result is that if a poll were taken amongst Americans today, I'm sure the majority of those who have any opinion would be convinced that the nasty Russians began it all. {5} What we have here in the American media is simply standard operating procedure for an ODE (Officially Designated Enemy). Almost as soon as the fighting began, Dick Cheney announced: "Russian aggression must not go unanswered" {6}. The media needed no further instructions. Yes, that's actually the way it works. (See Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, et cetera, et cetera.) The president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is an American poodle to an extent that would embarrass Tony Blair. Until their 2,000 troops were called home for this emergency, the Georgian contingent in Iraq was the largest after the US and UK. The Georgian president prattles on about freedom and democracy and the Cold War like George W, declaring that the current conflict "is not about Georgia anymore. It is about America, its values" {7}. (I must confess that until Saakashvili pointed it out I hadn't realized that "American values" were involved in the fighting.) His government recently ran a full-page ad in the Washington Post. The entire text, written vertically, was: "Lenin ... Stalin ... Putin ... Give in? Enough is enough. Support Georgia. ... sosgeorgia.org". {8} UK prime minister Gordon Brown asserted that Russia's recognition of the independence of Georgia's two breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was "dangerous and unacceptable" {9}. Earlier this year when Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia, the UK, along with the US and other allied countries quickly recognized it despite widespread warnings that legitimating the Kosovo action might lead to a number of other regions in the world declaring their independence. Brown's hypocrisy appears as merely the routine stuff of politicians compared to that of John McCain and George W re the Georgia fighting: "I'm interested in good relations between the United States and Russia, but in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations", said McCain {10}, the staunch supporter of US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and leading champion of an invasion of Iran. And here is Mahatma Gandhi Bush meditating on the subject: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century" {11}. Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected. It compares favorably with the motto on automobile license plates of the state of New Hampshire made by prisoners: "Live Free or Die". Our beloved president was also moved to affirm that the Russian recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia: was an "irresponsible decision". "Russia's action only exacerbates tensions and complicates diplomatic negotiations", he said {12}. Belgrade, are you listening? It should be noted that linguistically and historically-distinct South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been autonomous Russian/Soviet protectorates or regions from early in the 19th century to 1991, when the Georgian government abolished their autonomy. So what then was the purpose of the Georgian invasion of Ossetia if not to serve the electoral campaign of John McCain, a man who might be the next US president and be thus very obligated to the Georgian president? Saakashvili could have wanted to overthrow the Ossetian government to incorporate it back into Georgia, at the same time hopefully advancing the cause of Georgia's petition to become a member of NATO, which looks askance upon new members with territories in dispute or with military facilities belonging to a nonmember state such as Russia. But the nature of the Georgian invasion does not fit this thesis. The Georgians did none of the things that those staging a coup have traditionally found indispensable. They did not take over a TV or radio station, or the airport, or important government buildings, or military or police installations. They didn't take into custody key members of the government. All the US/Israeli-armed and trained Georgia military did was bomb and kill, civilians and Russian peacekeeper soldiers, the latter legally there for sixteen years under an international agreement. For what purpose all this if not to incite a Russian intervention? The only reason the United States did not itself strongly attack the Russian forces is that it's a pre-eminent principle of American military interventions to not pick on anyone capable of really defending themselves. Unreconstructed cold warriors now fret about Russian expansionism, warning that Ukraine might be next. But of the numerous myths surrounding the Cold War, "communist expansionism" was certainly one of the biggest. We have to remember that within the space of 25 years, Western powers invaded Russia three times - World War I, the "intervention" of 1918-20, and World War II, inflicting some forty million casualties in the two world wars alone. (The Soviet Union lost considerably more people to international warfare on its own land than it did abroad. There are not too many great powers who can say that.) To carry out these invasions, the West used Eastern Europe as a highway. Should it be any cause for wonder that after World War II the Soviets were determined to close down this highway? Minus the Cold War atmosphere and indoctrination, most people would have no problem in seeing the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe as an act of self defense. Neither does the case of Afghanistan support the idea of "expansionism". Afghanistan lived alongside the Soviet Union for more than sixty years with no Soviet military intrusion. It's only when the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists. During the Cold War, before undertaking a new military intervention, American officials usually had to consider how the Soviet Union would react. That restraint was removed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. We may now, however, be witnessing the beginning of a new kind of polarization in the world. An increasing number of countries in the Third World - with Latin America as a prime example - have more fraternal relations with Moscow and/or Beijing than with Washington. Singapore's former UN ambassador observed: "Most of the world is bemused by western moralising on Georgia" ... While the western view is that the world "should support the underdog, Georgia, against Russia ... most support Russia against the bullying west. The gap between the western narrative and the rest of the world could not be clearer." {13} And the Washington Post reported: "Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's influential son, echoed the delight expressed in much of the Arab news media. 'What happened in Georgia is a good sign, one that means America is no longer the sole world power setting the rules of the game ... there is a balance in the world now. Russia is resurging, which is good for us, for the entire Middle East'". {14} Scheming at the convention? Am I the only one to be a bit suspicious about what happened at the Democratic Convention on August 27? Why did Hillary Clinton call for a suspension of the roll call when it reached New York and ask that Barack Obama be selected by the convention by acclamation? Many delegates had worked very hard to get the vote out at their primaries and wanted the opportunity to publicly announce the delegate count. What harm would there have been to allow every state to vote? And why, after Clinton's motion, did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately cry: "All those in favor, say Aye", followed by a large roar, and she then cried: "All those opposed say Nay". It is impossible to say how strong the Nay vote was because the time elapse between Pelosi calling for it and her declaring that "The measure is approved" was no more than one or two nanoseconds. She literally did not allow a Nay vote to be heard. I also can not find a record of the vote that took place before it reached New York. Does anyone else find anything strange about all this? All consciences are equal, except that some consciences are more equal than others The Bush administration has proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections. Both supporters and critics say that the new regulations are broad enough to allow pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others to refuse to provide birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception, and other forms of contraception, while explicitly allowing employees to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere. "People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong", Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Health-care workers should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience." {15} It's difficult to argue against such a philosophy. It's also difficult to be consistent about it. Do Leavitt and others in the Bush administration extend this concept to those in the military? If a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is deeply repulsed by his/her involvement in carrying out the daily horror of the American occupation and asks to be discharged from the military as a conscientious objector, will the Pentagon honor his request because "people should not be forced to do things they believe are morally wrong"? The fact that the soldier voluntarily enlisted has no bearing on the question. A person's conscience develops from life experiences and continual reflection. Who's to say at what precise point in time a person's conscience must rebel against committing war crimes for the objection to be considered legally or morally valid? Signing a contract is no reason to be forced to kill people. Can a health-care worker strongly opposed to America's brutal wars refuse to care for a wounded soldier who has been directly involved in the brutality? Can a civilian doctor, pharmacist, or psychologist in the US refuse to treat a soldier on the grounds that if they help to restore his health he'll be sent back to the war front to continue his killing? Can peace activists be allowed to withhold the portion of their income taxes that supports the military? They've been trying to do this for decades without any government support. National Pentagon Radio WAMU, the Washington, DC National Public Radio (NPR) station asked its listeners to write them and tell them what they used the station as a source for. Some of those who replied were invited in for a recorded interview, and a tape of part of the interview was played on the air. I sent them the following email: June 13 2008 To mysource at wamu.org Dear People, I use WAMU to listen to All Things Considered. I use All Things Considered to get the Pentagon point of view on US foreign policy. It's great hearing retired generals explain why the US has just bombed or invaded another country. I'm not bothered by any naive anti-war protesters. I get the official truth right from the horse's mouth. Is this a great country, or what? I hope you're lining up some more great retired generals to tell me why we had to bomb Iran and kill thousands more people. Just make sure you don't make me listen to anyone on the left. Sincerely, William Blum, who should be on Diane Rehm, but never will be asked [followed by some information about my books] I had no expectation of any kind of positive reply. I figured that if my letter didn't do it, then surely the titles of my books would reveal that I'm not actually a lover of the American military or their wars. But I don't really want to believe the worst about the mainstream media. That's too discouraging. So it was a pleasant surprise when someone at the station invited me to come in for an interview. It lasted more than half an hour and went very well. I expressed many of my misgivings about NPR's coverage of US foreign policy in no uncertain terms. The interviewer said he was very pleased. He expected this was going to be an interesting piece for the station to broadcast. But as it turned out, that was the end of the matter. I never heard from the station again, and my interview was never broadcast. About two months later I sent an email to the interviewer asking if the interview would be aired. I could verify that he received it, but I got no reply. I think the interviewer had been sincere, which is why I'm not mentioning his name. Someone above him must have listened to the tape, remembered where "public" radio's real loyalty lay (to its primary funder, Congress), and vetoed the whole thing. My (lack of) faith in American mass media has not been challenged. And those who work in the mass media will continue to believe in what they practice, something they call "objectivity", while I will continue to believe that objectivity is no substitute for honesty. The audience contributes its share to the syndrome. Consumers of news, if fed American-exceptionalism junk food long enough come to feel at home with it, equate it with objectivity, and equate objectivity with getting a full and balanced picture, or the "truth"; it appears neutral and unbiased, like the living room sofa they're sitting on as they watch NBC or CNN. They view the "alternative media", with a style rather different from what they're accustomed to, as not being objective enough, therefore suspect. The president of NPR, incidentally, is a gentleman named Kevin Klose. Previously he helped coordinate all US-funded international broadcasting: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Central Europe and the Soviet Union), Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio/TV Marti (Cuba), Worldnet Television (Africa and elsewhere); all created specifically to disseminate world news to a target audience through the prism of US foreign policy beliefs and goals. He also served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Would it be unfair to say that Americans then became his newest target audience? All unconscious of course; that's what makes the mass media so effective; they really believe in their own objectivity. Not to mention the conscious propaganda. NOTES {1} See Stephen Zunes, "Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal", Foreign Policy in Focus, August 24 2008, www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492 {2} "Meet the press", April 29 2007, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/ {3} Chicago Tribune, August 28 2008 {4} Washington Post, August 31 2008, page B1 {5} For further discussion of the Georgia issue, see Robert Scheer, "Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?", The Huffington Post, August 14 2008; Pat Buchanan, Creators Syndicate column of August 22 2008; Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation blogs, August 21 2008 {6} Reuters, August 10 2008 {7} Washington Post, August 9 2008. page 1 {8} Washington Post, August 28 2008, repeated September 1. {9} The Guardian (London), September 1 2008 {10} See and hear these actual words actually coming out of the actual mouth of the man - http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/08/13/john-mccain-maybe-doesnt-know-what-the-word-invade-means/ {11} National Public Radio (NPR), August 15 2008 {12} Associated Press, August 27 2008 {13} The Guardian (London), August 28 2008, column by Seumas Milne, quoting from ambassador Kishore Mahbubani's interview in the Financial Times (London) of August 21 {14} Washington Post, August 30 2008, page 18 {15} Associated Press, August 21 2008, Washington Post, August 22 2008 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://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer61.htm 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 04:01:51 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:01:51 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia Tries to Raise Oil Production (AP) + Transneft Sees Russian Oil Growth until 2012 (Reuters) Message-ID: Russia tries to raise oil production By CATRINA STEWART ? 13 hours ago MOSCOW (AP) ? Home to abundant oil reserves, Russia rarely worried about where the next barrel would come from ? until now. With analysts expecting production to fall this year for the first time in a decade, Russian companies are pushing to find new oil in remote regions such as the Arctic Shelf and East Siberia ? but their efforts are hampered by crippling taxes that give the government much of the recent gains from high oil prices. The Kremlin is now apparently considering tax cuts aimed at letting companies keep enough of the country's windfall from higher oil prices to invest in exploration ? on top of cuts earlier this year that analysts and industry executives said they didn't go far enough. Russia's oil industry is calling for $16.3 billion in further breaks from next year. The prospering energy industry in Russia has been crucial to the career of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who as president oversaw an eight-year, oil-fueled economic boom which improved the lives of many ordinary Russians and helped restore national self-confidence. Declining oil production is bad news for a resource-based economy where revenues from the oil industry account for about 25 percent of GDP ? and undermines Russia's efforts to position itself as an influential guarantor of global energy supplies, providing as it does some 30 percent of Europe's oil imports. "The Kremlin was very uncomfortable seeing the declining production curve," said Artyem Konchin, an oil and gas analyst at UnicreditAton. "If the Kremlin wants to position itself as an energy superpower ? and a place where reserves are abundant, or at least available ? a decline in production is detrimental to this message." Oil production reached 9.87 million barrels per day last year, a 2.3 percent rise. It is down 0.5 percent in the first eight months of the year. While the Energy Ministry is sticking with its forecast of 1 percent production growth this year, analysts expect production to decline by up to 0.5 percent ? its first decline in 10 years ? followed by a rebound next year, as the already approved tax cuts take effect. Older fields ? located mainly in western Siberia ? are nearing maturity, and there are few huge new developments coming onstream to drive production in the next few years, say analysts. Costly exploration is badly needed in areas such as East Siberia and the Arctic Shelf. Rosneft ? the country's largest oil producer ? said last week it would delay the launch of its giant Vankor project and trimmed its production forecasts for the year, further blows to the Ministry's estimates. And according to data from Uralsib bank, Surgutneftegaz and Sibneft ? a unit of Gazpromneft ? both have seen falling output in recent months, while another big oil concern, Lukoil, is roughly flat. "I am worried about the projects... You need to invest in them, and for that you have to find cash. To find cash, you have to get it from your own earnings, or debt. And the debt market is very bad right now ... So where exactly are you going to find this cash?" said Victor Mishnyakov, an oil and gas analyst at UralSib bank. Earlier in the year, the government approved tax breaks for new fields in remote areas, and raised the tax-free threshold to $15 per barrel from $9. The changes ? which are estimated to save the industry $5 billion annually ? come into effect next year. There is an ongoing debate within the government about going further, with the Finance Ministry urging fiscal restraint and the Economy Ministry pushing for cuts and growth. In a recent interview in New York, OAO Lukoil deputy vice president Andrei Gaidamaka told The Associated Press that the taxes have a direct impact on their ability to plow money back into new projects. The government at present takes about $70 of the revenue in taxes from every $100 barrel sold, he said. The approved cuts will on their own give Lukoil a further $2 billion-$3 billion in pretax profits annually. "We are very different from most of our international competitors," he said. "We are way more competitive on the cost side, but we still have lower profitability due to the high tax burden." The oil windfall tax has served the government well, helping it amass $174 billion in a "rainy-day" fund, split off in February into a reserve fund and a national welfare fund. But with oil prices powering through to unprecedented heights earlier this summer, touching $147 per barrel in July, the energy companies have seen little of the benefits. The proposed tax cuts are as yet unspecified, but potentially include raising the tax-free threshold from $15 per barrel to $25, said Deputy Energy Minister Stanislav Svetlitsky recently. A debilitating dispute at Anglo-Russian joint venture TNK-BP, in large part resolved, has also stoked concerns. The company reassigned 148 technical specialists from the country earlier this year amid visa difficulties and litigation. In July, chief operating officer Tim Summers said the Russian shareholders' desire to cut capital expenditure by $900 million in 2008 could wipe up to 1 million tons to 5 million tons from the company's output over the next 12 months. Where once it was common practice for Russian investors to whisk cash out of the company via dividends, analysts say that practice is changing in the domestic oil industry, given the massive investment needs. "If you take money out of the investment cashflow, you will probably face declining production," said Konchin. AP Business Writer Stevenson Jacobs contributed to this report from New York. Transneft sees Russian oil growth until 2012 Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:30pm BST By Tanya Mosolova MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian oil output can grow for at least five years even if the industry doesn't get new tax breaks and despite delays at some major projects, the president of pipeline monopoly Transneft TRNF_p.RTS said on Wednesday. Nikolai Tokarev, boss of the world's largest pipeline company, said Russian oil firms had submitted plans to Transneft which will see the country's production rising by around 1.2 million barrels per day by 2012. "We can not say that oil output is stagnating or falling ... In 2012 we will have a total increase in output of 60 million tonnes (1.2 million pbd) compared to this year," Tokarev said in an interview at the Reuters Russia Investment Summit. Oil production in Russia, the world's second-largest crude exporter, has declined by around one percent since the start of the year after reaching a post-Soviet peak of 9.87 million bpd in 2007. Stagnant oil production -- which has been rising by between 2 and 11 percent over the past decade -- has been a major concern for the government which depends heavily on oil revenues. The government still expects production to be at least flat this year and has offered a series of tax breaks to oil firms. But companies say a deeper tax cut is needed to sustain growth. Tokarev said production could grow even without further tax cuts, but added that Russia should start thinking about capping production in a few years in order not to deplete its reserves too quickly. "In the United States, they keep reserves for the future and fields which are ready to produce are being mothballed and are awaiting their time," said Tokarev. "I believe the state of our finances and budget allow us to think about such a rational approach. There is no need to rush and deplete our resources too quickly," said Tokarev. He said documents submitted by oil firms showed Russia's top oil producer Rosneft (ROSN.MM: Quote, Profile, Research) would grow faster than other companies until 2012, adding 22.5 million tonnes to its current production despite a six-month delay to its giant Vankor project announced last week. Gazprom Neft (SIBN.MM: Quote, Profile, Research), the oil arm of gas monopoly Gazprom (GAZP.MM: Quote, Profile, Research), BP's (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) Russian venture TNK-BP TNBPI.RTS, and the country's second largest oil producer LUKOIL (LKOH.MM: Quote, Profile, Research) would also expand production. (Additional reporting by Dmitry Zhdannikov, Michael Stott, Amie Ferris-Rotman, Katya Golubkova and Robin Paxton; Editing by Jason Neely) From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 04:38:11 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:38:11 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Russia's Bid to Strengthen OPEC Ties May Sow Unease Message-ID: Russia's Bid to Strengthen OPEC Ties May Sow Unease Oil-Cartel Ministers Will Curtail Output Amid Falling Prices By NEIL KING JR., SPENCER SWARTZ and ANNA RAFF September 10, 2008; Page A7 VIENNA -- Russia upped the ante in its faceoff with the West by proposing "extensive cooperation" with the OPEC oil cartel, an idea that would stir concerns among big oil-consuming countries like the U.S. [Chart] Time to Cut? The Russian proposal came just hours before the group's 13 ministers decided to scale back production by around 520,000 barrels a day, or less than 1% of world oil supply, over the next 40 days in the face of falling prices and slowing demand growth. OPEC officials described the move as necessary to avoid a buildup of excess supply, but the group could face criticism for moving to cut production when prices are still above $100 a barrel. The cuts would put OPEC's output -- now at around 32.7 million barrels a day -- back to where it was during the first three months of the year. The decision, following hours of debate, came after U.S. benchmark crude fell Tuesday to its lowest level in five months, settling at $103.26 a barrel, down $3.08, or 2.9%, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The offer by Russia's energy czar and vice premier, Igor Sechin, came as a surprise twist at the start of the OPEC session. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries supplies around 40% of the world's oil, while Russian output makes up another 11%. Mr. Sechin made his offer for cooperation in person at the meeting in a visit that OPEC officials said was arranged in recent days. The Russian delegation of more than 20 officials raised eyebrows at the cartel's usually cloistered headquarters along the banks of the Danube; it was among the largest sent to Vienna by a nonmember state, an OPEC official said. It was also the most high-profile visit from Moscow to the cartel in at least a decade. Among the group was Sergei Bogdanchikov, the chief executive of Russian oil giant OAO Rosneft. The Russian outreach to OPEC comes at a time of severe strain between Moscow and the West after Russia's invasion of Georgia last month. While an actual alliance with OPEC seems far-fetched, concerns already run high in the U.S. and Europe that Moscow is trying to increase its chokehold over Europe's energy needs. Moscow supplies Europe with most of its natural gas and much of its crude oil and gasoline. OPEC's first formal gathering in six months was otherwise fraught with politics and posturing as factions tussled over whether to cut output even as oil still hovered above $100 a barrel. Some voices within the group argued that OPEC should exhibit restraint and lower its production. The decision to cut output over the next month means that Saudi Arabia will likely scale back its production to where it was earlier this year, before Riyadh began ramping up in a bid to drive down record prices. Analysts have been closely scrutinizing OPEC's actions for any signs of a consensus on what might be the optimal price that the cartel would seek to defend. The latest action suggests that OPEC sees that price at around $100 a barrel, despite the fact oil is still up nearly 33% from a year ago and nearly quadruple what it was in 2003. The decision came as a surprise after many OPEC officials said in recent days that the market remains healthy, with neither too little nor too much oil washing around. Arriving at his hotel around dawn Tuesday, Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi, the principal voice within the cartel, described the market as "fairly well balanced" and "in a healthy position." But that view was contrary to assertions by the Iranian oil minister, Gholam Hossein Nozari, that the market is oversupplied. Libya's top oil official, Shokri Ghanem, also spoke of a supply "glut." OPEC President Chakib Khelil, who is also Algeria's oil minister, said the group's action was unlikely to ease the recent slide in oil prices because weakening U.S. and European demand had allowed crude inventories to build. "It's pretty obvious why we took this action," Mr. Khelil told reporters afterwards. For months, OPEC ministers have blamed everyone from market manipulators to doomsayers for driving oil prices to records, arguing that the price had no relation to the fundamentals of supply and demand. But now the cartel must decide when prices have fallen too far. Mr. Sechin said Russia was working on a draft memorandum of understanding on deepened cooperation between Russia and OPEC. Part of the cooperation, he said, could include providing for a "stable pricing environment" for producers and consumers. He stressed that Russia and Saudi Arabia are the world's two top oil producers, accounting for nearly a quarter of global oil demand. Bringing Russia into OPEC would give the group additional clout but would also present myriad headaches, which is why analysts were largely skeptical that any meaningful cooperation would bloom from Moscow's visit. Saudi Arabia, the biggest power in OPEC, is a close U.S. ally and is loath to see the group used as a forum to take shots at the West. Russian officials didn't specify whether they were seeking admission as a regular OPEC member. Even formal cooperation short of membership would be a watershed for the global oil market, underscoring how relations have soured between Russia and the U.S., the world's No. 1 oil consumer. OPEC officials declined to comment on what might become of the Russian outreach. Mr. Khelil declined to say whether OPEC woud extend Russia OPEC membership. A Russian official said the memorandum of understanding could take two months to sign, suggesting it could be finalized in October when OPEC representatives come to an international oil conference in Russia. Mr. Sechin is the board chairman of Rosneft, a state-controlled oil company that is Russia's largest crude producer. He is a long-time confidant of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and the two men wield great influence over energy policy. --Benoit Faucon contributed to this article. Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king at wsj.com, Spencer Swartz at spencer.swartz at dowjones.com and Anna Raff atanna.raff at dowjones.com From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 04:53:09 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:53:09 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Is There an Oil Price Floor and Where Is It? Message-ID: Is there an oil price floor and where is it? Rachel Ziemba | Sep 11, 2008 Since mid July, Crude oil futures have fallen almost $50 from their peak, WTI is in the neighborhood of $100 a barrel, and Brent has already closed below $100 a barrel. About two months ago, I suggested that we were finally seeing the fall in oil prices [LINK: ] I'd been expecting to see for some months. Since then demand destruction has taken the upper hand, as it became clearer that a slower global economy would erode demand growth as it has already done in the OECD. However it is a sign of the frothiness of the market that it took only a relatively small decrease in demand to trigger this look back at fundamentals. The oil price also reflected the more general reassessment that led to a USD rally against the Euro and Pound. So where is the oil price heading? This week, OPEC stepped in ? to in part ? try to steer the market to a oil price floor. OPEC's additional oil supplies (mostly from Saudi) had contributed to putting the oil market well in surplus where supply exceeded demand, contributing to lower prices. OPEC had been pretty absent as an actor in the oil market in recent months, with Saudi Arabia taking the lead on adding new supplies, convening a special oil conference in June. The impact of OPEC's cuts back to September 2007 levels will be a matter for coming months ? and assumes that all members including Saudi Arabia will agree to return to those levels. The latter assumption may not be valid. The New York Times suggests that Saudi Arabia may not return to past production levels. It is particularly unlikely to do so until it gauges winter demand - in part because it does not want to be blamed for exacerbating economic woes or pricing its product beyond the means of its purchasers. In the short term the combination of removal of supply and hurricane risks could be a bit bullish for oil. Yet, supplies have been sufficient that despite the threat of real supply shocks [LINK: ], oil has failed to hold gains. And given the outlook for the U.S. economy, it doesn't seem likely demand will pick back up. Especially since even the threat of real supply disruptions failed to have that effect. And investors whipsawed on the way up and down in the energy markets might not want to get back in. Meanwhile new regulations might make it somewhat more difficult to borrow to trade. So all in all, it points to oil in the double digits soon. Yet, there could be a pretty high floor for oil ? perhaps $80 a barrel. Such a price is still high (higher than 2007's average of around $71), even if it seems cheap after flirting with $150 a barrel. UPDATE: However, given limitations on supply, we could see an oil price rebound when (and if) the U.S. and global economies recover. Given that the supply additions, particularly from non-OPEC sources is limited in the near term, we could see a gradual climbing after 2010. But we might not see the kind of trajectory we saw this year unless the same credit constraints and liquidity traps recur as they did this year. However, I should add that my $80 price point is slightly arbitrary and sentiment matters a lot END UPDATE Why that price point? 1) There still isn't that much supply. While Saudi Arabia added new supplies from Khursaniyah, boosting its surplus capacity, there aren't a lot of new supplies from either OPEC or non-OPEC members coming online in the next few years. Following a global recession-induced demand slowing, we could see a mid-term tightening of supplies. 2) The cost of a marginal barrel of oil has risen along. Certainly many unconventional oil sources need about $70 to break even. And countries about to put in motion more investment may want to ensure their investment will pay off. Of course some supplies are still cheaper than others, production costs in the gulf are lower than in many areas, but many of the touted new supplies from Brazil's Tupi or others are in the neighborhood of $50 a barrel break even costs. Supplies and investment programs that became viable at over $100 a barrel may seem less attractive if oil crosses the double digits 3) At a certain price point, Americans (and others) will start consuming more again. And perhaps if credit eases, Chinese might start buying cars again. While some behavioral changes will stick ? you don't go returning the fuel efficient car for a gas guzzler ? others, like a switch to carpooling or public transport, may not. That price point could be in the neighborhood of 70-90 a barrel. I base this on the fact that when oil averaged $60-70 a barrel in 2006 and 2007, few of these behavioural changes had taken effect yet. Demand is price dependent. Finally, more and more oil exporters (OPEC and non-OPEC) need an oil price of around $60+ a barrel to pay their import bills. Ahead of the OPEC meeting, I updated some estimates of the spending and saving patterns of oil exporters. This partly updates a paper I wrote over a year ago, when $70 a barrel seemed kinda high. A quick caveat ? a history lesson of the 1980s would show us that oil exporters can't keep oil prices high just by wishing it so. OPEC's role is clearly significant, especially now that it accounts for much of the incremental supply, but it may be limited in its activities. In general, OPEC, and other cartels have tended to be more effective at pushing prices up by restricting production than bringing it down. Furthermore, if oil prices continue to slide, the determination of OPEC may be tested as some producers may prefer to sell more volume to maintain a certain revenue inflow ? contributing to more supply and lower prices. UPDATE: The following is hypothetical scenario to illustrate the spending patterns of oil exporters. It doesn't necessarily mean that oil will stabilize at $80 in the next few years, but rather shows the vulnerabilities that oil exporters might face if it does. These vulnerabilities, could contribute to OPEC members actually pumping more oil in order to increase revenues. And the trajectory may not be clear END UPDATE My calculations assume that oil averages $110 a barrel this year and $80 a year thereafter, that oil output remains similar to that of the spring of 2008 (ie before Saudi Arabia's increase) and that spending (imports) and non-oil exports continue to climb at current trends. Assuming that oil stabilizes at $80 a barrel, these spending patterns would slow, but it is easier to scale up than to scale down spending (another lesson of the 1980s). Under these assumptions, the current account surpluses of all key oil exporters would erode considerably ? meaning that surpluses in 2009 would be lower than in 2007, when the oil price was slightly lower. See the following estimate of GCC spending and saving ratios. This graph shows the share of each barrel of oil that is spent and what is saved. It uses a broad definition of imports and nets out non-oil exports to show what imports need to be paid from the oil revenue intake. Imports and Current Account Surplus of Emerging Oil Exporters -- expressed in dollars/barrel In aggregate, oil exporters might soon start spending their savings ? and some countries will have to do it sooner than later ? and in aggregate oil savings will still be large. Oil exporter current account surpluses would likely be close to $300 billion in 2009 under the scenario I've depicted, still a lot less than the over $600 billion in 2008 but nothing to sneeze at. Furthermore oil savings actually exceed the current account surpluses in some cases as private capital inflows to countries like the UAE, and Russia have eroded the current account surplus, meaning that oil savings outstrip the net savings of the country. Again the following graphs are somewhat hypothetical, especially as its difficult to forecast out spending rates. Current Account Surpluses of Key Oil Exporters -- Oil at $80/barrel 2009-2012 Some countries will have non-oil exports to cushion the effect of falling prices. Others are more vulnerable. The bigger spenders include Oman, Kazakhstan, Iran, Venezuela. But even more fiscally conservative (until recently) countries like Kuwait and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, will have surpluses erode as fiscal spending begins to outpace revenues. This in my view will contribute to an oil price floor. Current Account Surplus Expressed in $/barrel oil price Data ? IMF, adjusted by Author Russia attended the most recent OPEC meeting and suggested more cooperation with OPEC ? a rather political statement to be sure and fitting in with its putting trade talks on the back burner. Russia need not actively participate in OPEC to support its goals. Russia's declining oil production (down more than 1% from last year and the first decline in 10 years) means it is unlikely to be a spoiler to OPEC. So we may be in for expensive energy for some time to come ? however, recent prices are clearly a relief for the global economy, which was suffering even at $120 a barrel oil ? even if not for the planet. From intnsred at golgotha.net Sat Sep 13 09:35:46 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:35:46 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Pak army ordered to hit back US forces Message-ID: <200809131135.47233.intnsred@golgotha.net> Pak army ordered to hit back US forces Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:35:21 GMT Pak army put on high alert to confront any US agression Army Spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas confirmed the orders in a brief interview with Geo News on late Thursday night. The decision was made on the first day of the two-day meeting of Pakistan's top military commanders to discuss the US coalition's ground and air assault in Waziristan region which killed dozens of civilians. Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani chaired the meeting which began in Rawalpindi on Thursday at the Army General Headquarters. Pakistan's military commanders expressed their determination to defend the country's borders without allowing any external forces to conduct operations inside the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, sources said. A senior official said the military commanders also discussed the implications of the American attacks inside Pakistan and took stock of the public feeling. "In his statement, Genral Kayani has represented the feeling of the entire nation, as random attacks inside Pakistan have angered each and every Pakistani," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Kayani rebuffed the American policy of including Pakistani territory in their operations against the al-Qaeda and Taliban linked militants hiding in the areas near Afghan border. Also, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani noted that Kayani's remarks on country's defense were true reflection of the government policy. The army decision followed bloody incursions by the US ground troops into tribal belt as well as a string of missile strikes by CIA-operated drone aircraft. The reaction also comes after US President George W. Bush approved US military raids on militants inside Pakistan without Islamabad's agreement. The development also brought into the open the increasing mistrust between the Americans and the Pakistanis over how to handle the Taliban and al-Qaeda linked militants in Pakistan's tribal areas. Some political expert predict the break out of an all-out war between the United States troops and Pakistani army following the Bush administration's approval of ground and air assaults inside the country. -- In 2003, the average worker in the United States was netting $517.00 per week. How much were CEO's taking home at that time? A mere $155,000. 52 times per year. That is a staggering 301 to 1 differential. In 1982 the ratio of CEO to average worker pay was "a mere" 42 to 1. From intnsred at golgotha.net Sat Sep 13 09:36:12 2008 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:36:12 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Pakistan order to kill US invaders Message-ID: <200809131136.13305.intnsred@golgotha.net> Pakistan order to kill US invaders Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | September 13, 2008 KEY corps commanders of Pakistan's 600,000-strong army issued orders last night to retaliate against "invading" US forces that enter the country to attack militant targets. The move has plunged relations between Islamabad and Washington into deep crisis over how to deal with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban What amounts to a dramatic order to "kill the invaders", as one senior officer put it last night, was disclosed after the commanders - who control the army's deployments at divisional level - met at their headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi under the chairmanship of army chief and former ISI spy agency boss Ashfaq Kayani. Leading English-language newspaper The News warned in an editorial that the US determination to attack targets inside Pakistan was likely to be "the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had", with even "moderates" outraged by it. The "retaliate and kill" order came amid reports of unprecedentedly fierce fighting in the Bajaur Agency of Pakistan's tribal areas, an al-Qa'ida stronghold frequently mentioned as the most likely lair of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. At the same time, a series of brutal killings by the militants were reported. The beheaded bodies of two of nearly 40 police recruits abducted a week ago were found near the town of Hangu. Their discovery follows warnings that the recruits would be put to death, one by one, unless Pakistan stopped its big offensive in Bajaur. The bodies of three local Bajaur men who had been shot in the neck were also found yesterday. Notes were attached declaring the men to have been spies. In a day of what appears to have been unrelenting combat in Bajaur, helicopter gunships, heavy artillery and tanks were used to strike al-Qa'ida targets. Officials said at least 100 militants had been killed, bringing the number who have died in the six weeks since the offensive was launched to well over 700. The figure is regarded as remarkable, given that NATO forces in Afghanistan seldom achieve a "kill" rate of more than about 30 in any single operation. Many of those killed are reported to have been "foreign fighters" - mostly Arabs and Central Asians, who have been flooding into Pakistan's tribal areas to join al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. Ground troops are said to have moved into key areas formerly controlled by the militants, despite a promised ceasefire marking the holy month of Ramadan. "We launched strikes against militant hideouts in Bajaur and destroyed several compounds they were using," an official was quoted as saying. The order to retaliate against incursions by "foreign troops", directed specifically at the 120,000 Pakistani soldiers deployed along the border with Afghanistan, follows US President George W. Bush's authorisation of US attacks in Pakistan. Washington's determination to launch such attacks has caused outrage across Pakistan, with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani last night strongly backing a warning by General Kayani that Pakistan would not allow its territorial integrity to be violated. The "kill" order against invading forces, and the sharp deterioration in relations with the US, has far-reaching implications for the war on terror. Anger at all levels in Pakistani society was summed up last night in The News, not normally sympathetic to the militants. "There is an escalating sense of furious impotence among the ordinary people of Pakistan," the newspaper said. "Many - perhaps most - of them are strongly opposed to the spread of Talibanisation and extremist influence across the country: people who might be described as 'moderates'. "Many of them have no sympathy for the mullahs and their burning of girls' schools and their medieval mindset. "But if you bomb a moderate sensibility often enough, it has a tendency to lose its sense of objectivity and to feel driven in the direction of extremism. "If America bombs moderate sensibilities often enough, you may find that its actions are the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had." -- Civics quiz! Q: What did Thomas Jefferson say was the purpose of representative government? A: "to curb the excesses of the monied interests." From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 13 12:24:53 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:24:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bolivia on edge after martial law declared Message-ID: <200809131824.m8DIOrDT004770@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080913/5934b57d/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 13 12:27:14 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:27:14 -0700 Subject: [R-G] When success is failure in Iraq Message-ID: <200809131827.m8DIREEG007134@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080913/3f8a946e/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 13 12:28:02 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:28:02 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Russia takes control of Turkmen (world?) gas Message-ID: <200809131828.m8DIS2KZ008114@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080913/e164a691/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 13 12:28:32 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:28:32 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Hamas and al-Qaida: Radicalization in the Occupied Territories? Message-ID: <200809131828.m8DISWai008646@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080913/db02c776/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Sep 13 12:26:41 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:26:41 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Noam Chomsky: Towards a Second Cold War? Message-ID: <200809131826.m8DIQfL4006547@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080913/b6ced8fb/attachment.txt From suzannedk at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 12:45:47 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:45:47 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Russia Ready to Tap Wealth Fund In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: International Herald Tribune published my letter to the editor about Georgian 'War', today. Your comment at the begining is right on. If you read "Spies for Hire" by Tim Shorrock you will understand why I really expect that capital was squirreled into Russia in amounts, large, that were there only to be immediately removed after 'hostilities'. The US knew the horrible financial numbers were coming out in US at the same time. Why woo the impoverished angry eastern European states to join NATO, encircle and teach the Russian baer civility after it is clear the US is in effect impoverished itself but for armaments? Russia and the Eu have been thinking of joining and waht a powerhouse that would be....how the US would be outclassed.....outmanuvered. Suzanne s i o v e r i s h e d ? + Suzette On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi < critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > The Russian leadership were prepared for the Georgian military move > against South Ossetia, but they seem to have been unprepared for > capital flight. They might have used this occasion to bring the > financial sector under state control, instead of talking about using > the national wealth fund to support the existing financial market, > which doesn't appear to impress capitalists anyway. -- Yoshie > > < > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/452e2354-7fde-11dd-8eeb-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html > > > Russia ready to tap wealth fund > > By Charles Clover and Catherine Belton in Moscow and Rachel Morarjee in > London > > Published: September 11 2008 09:48 | Last updated: September 11 2008 18:58 > > Russia is considering using money from its $32bn national wealth fund > and from pension reserves to support financial markets, Alexei Kudrin, > finance minister, said on Thursday. > > His comments indicate the government is under pressure to react to the > collapsing stock market. It has tumbled almost 50 per cent since May > and lost an additional 2.7 per cent on Thursday. > > "There are several proposals now for the banking community to improve > the instruments that would allow [markets] to calmly work in this > environment," the minister told reporters. "Among these there is a > proposal to place pension fund money and national wealth fund money on > the domestic market." > > Mr Kudrin added the money would be placed in securities. > > Sberbank, Russia's largest bank, led the way down on Thursday with a > fall of 7.4 per cent ? signalling that instability in the financial > sector is the key source of weakness. > > "There is a shortage of liquidity being felt, and the central bank of > Russia is carrying out large-scale operations to refinance commercial > banks," said Sergei Ignatiev, chairman of the central bank. > > The central bank again injected more than $10bn (?7bn, ?5.7bn) in > short-term funds into the market on Thursday. The government has for > months faced calls to use some of its windfall oil revenues to invest > in order to stabilise domestic financial markets. > > Mr Kudrin's comments are significant, as he had opposed the use of > national wealth funds to support markets. > > Erik DePoy, equity strategist at Russia's Alfa Bank, said Mr Kudrin > was the "standard bearer for the conservative approach" of > non-intervention. Any intervention by the fund in the Russian market > "would be only symbolic". > > "Even if they did $3bn, that is equivalent to one day's trading. I > think they're just trying to talk up the market any way they can." > > Despite the Russian stock market turmoil, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's > president, chose Thursday to unveil a plan to upgrade the structure of > the financial markets, which will be introduced as legislation next > year. Mr Medvedev said laws on stock exchanges, clearing activities > and a central depository centre were the first in the legislative > pipeline. > > "This is in no way a simple period for the international markets," the > president told a Kremlin meeting of senior government and banking > officials. "But this perhaps makes our agenda more relevant, not less > relevant." > > Intervention using the wealth fund would knock Russia's sovereign > rating if it proved to be more than an attempt to talk up the stock > market, analysts warned. > > "If the government intends to put public funds at risk [funds > originally laid aside to shore up the pension system], in order to > prop up asset prices, then this would have negative implications for > Russia's rating," said Frank Gill, head of European sovereign ratings > at Standard & Poor's. > > Investing the fund's money domestically would require changing the > law, which created the entity in February with the purpose of buoying > the country's pension system. > > Chris Weafer, of Uralsib investment bank, said: "There is a group in > government pushing for the money to be released domestically. But now > that's shifting . . . because there is a real risk the market fall > will have a broader contagion. > > "Using the money domestically is a lesser evil. If they don't stop the > market falling then the whole house of cards could collapse." If > authorities did not use the money now, "$40bn is not going to be of > any use". > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From dsiar at triad.rr.com Sat Sep 13 13:08:53 2008 From: dsiar at triad.rr.com (David Siar) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:08:53 -0400 Subject: [R-G] New Issue of Cultural Logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0F0FB35F-8357-437E-B07B-5CA196CDEC24@triad.rr.com> The new issue of CULTURAL LOGIC is now on line at: http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/2007.html (Please note the new blog feature.) Dave Siar, for the Editors Index: Roland Boer "Socialism, Christianity, and Rosa Luxemborg" Philip Bounds "George Orwell and the Dialogue with English Marxism" Paula Cerni "The Age of Consumer Capitalism" Stephen C. Ferguson II "Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology" Grover Furr and Vladimir Bobrov "Nicolai Bukharin's First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka" Catherine Gouge "'Amibivalent Technologies' of American Citizenship" Bruno Gulli "Early Plenitude: An Essay on Sovereignty and Labor" Katerina Kolozova "The Project of Non-Marxism: Arguing for 'Monstrously' Radical Concepts" John Maerhofer "Aim? C?saire and the Crisis of Aesthetic and Political Vangardism " Michael Mikulak "Cross-pollinating Marxism and Deep Ecology: Towards a Post-humanist Eco-humanism" Terence Patrick Murphy "From Alignment to Commitment: The Early Work of James Kelman" Ronald Paul ""To turn the whole world upside-down': Women and Revolution in The Non-Stop Connolly Show " Philip Tonner "Freud, Bentham: Panopticism and the Super-Ego" Hristos Verikukis "Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism " Reviews Ivan Ca?adas Christos Tsiolkas, Dead Europe David Hursh Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine and Peter McLaren and Nathalia Jaramillo, Pedagogy and Praxis in the Age of Empire Howard Pflanzer Robert Roth, Health Proxy Louis Proyect Amazing Grace Charlie Samuya Veric, Tamara Powell, and John Streamas E. San Juan, Jr., Balikbayang Mahal Poetry by Christopher Barnes Dave Bruzina Iftekhar Sayeed George Snedeker From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Sep 13 14:17:09 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:17:09 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Nader on Ballot for 85.2% of Voters, McKinney for 70.5%; and Death of Peter Camejo Message-ID: Both Nader and McKinney are on the ballot for far more voters this year than Nader was in 2004, though the desire for a left-wing candidate has yet to reach the level it did before 2000. That, as well as the relative scarcity of preventive denunciations of "spoilers" on the Left, may say something about Obama, leftists, and/or voters in the USA. On the same day I discovered this promising, or at least noteworthy, trend, I learned that Peter Camejo died. -- Yoshie Ralph Nader Will Be On Ballot for 85.2% of Voters September 13th, 2008 Ralph Nader's name will be on the ballot this year in states containing 85.2% of the national popular vote cast in 2004. This is far better than his 2004 showing, when he was only on before 50.1%. However, it is not as good as his 2000 showing, when he was on in 90.5% of the nation. 1 Comment ? Cynthia McKinney Will be on Ballot for 70.5% of Voters September 13th, 2008 This year, Cynthia McKinney will be on the ballot in states that cast 70.5% of the national popular vote in 2004. This is the second best ballot access showing in the party's history. Only 2000 was better for the Green Party. Of course, the exact state-by-state distribution of the 2008 national popular vote will be slightly different than it was in 2004. Using the 2004 vote totals is the best approximation one can make at this point. In 2004, presidential nominee David Cobb had been on the ballot before 54.8% of the voters. In 2000, Green nominee Ralph Nader had been on before 90.5% of the voters. Peter Camejo Dies September 13th, 2008 On September 13, Peter Camejo died. He was 69 and had been living with cancer for several years. Peter Camejo had been the Socialist Workers presidential candidate in 1976. Some years later, he rejected doctrinaire Marxism, but always considered himself a socialist. He was the Green Party candidate for California Governor three times, and he was Ralph Nader's running mate in 2004. Although he had been born in the United States, his parents were Venezuelan and he grew up in Venezuela. He was on the 1960 Venezuelan Olympics team. He was a successful financial planner and a very good orator. Camejo was a fierce fighter for fair election laws and practices in the United States, and his death is a painful event. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Sep 13 16:17:15 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:17:15 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Retrofit Economy Message-ID: <48CC3BEB.5090201@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (September 10 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society I've suggested several times in these essays that the broad shape of the most likely future facing industrial society, at the end of the age of cheap abundant energy, can be sorted out very roughly into three phases: the age of scarcity industrialism, the age of salvage societies, and - if we are lucky - the ecotechnic age, when new societies based on sustainable high technology will rise on the ruins of our own unsustainable time. For a variety of reasons, any typology of this sort is easy to misunderstand, and it seems worthwhile just now to clarify what I intend to say, and what I don't, in proposing this model of the future. The most important point that needs making, it seems to me, is that these three phases are to some extent ideal types, and the forms they take on the ground of actual history will be far more complex, messy, and idiosyncratic than the simple outline suggests. This isn't simply a result of the fact that none of these phases have arrived yet. The same thing can be said, after all, of the use of economic phases to talk about history that's already happened. When a historian suggests that England embraced a mercantilist economic system in the sixteenth century, for instance, she does not mean that the English economy shifted gears all at once on January 1 1501. Nor does she mean that the English economy in that century lacked important features of the older feudal-agrarian economy or foreshadowings of the capitalist economy that replaced mercantilism later on, nor that the English mercantilist economy was identical to all others. Rather, she means that the traits implied by the term "mercantilism" - an export-based economy geared toward generating a favorable balance of trade with competing nations, foreign policy initiatives pursuing overseas colonies and the expansion of naval power and a merchant marine, and the like - provide a workable sketch of the shape toward which the English economy moved over the course of the century in question. The same rule applies to the phases I've outlined here. The transition from today's industrialism of abundance to the scarcity industrialism of the near future, for example, will likely be just as slow and ragged a process as the rise of mercantilism. Some nations - Russia, for example - have already implemented the political control of resource markets that I've suggested as a core feature of the phase; other nations have barely begun to move in that direction, and other features of the phase are just as unevenly distributed. For that matter, the 1950s-era American autos cruising down the streets of Havana today, repeatedly rebuilt with scavenged and jerry-built parts, show certain core features of the salvage economy already in existence in some parts of the world right now. Thus the world of a hundred years from now, say, will include nations at many different points along the scale. It will very likely be dominated by nations that have embraced scarcity industrialism, while the powers of today's age of abundance will be the fallen empires and failed states of that day. Meanwhile, those nations that draw the short straws in the geopolitical lottery may already be well into the salvage society phase, mining the refuse of the industrial age to meet local needs and to pay for whatever foreign trade can still be had. Nations that lack both fossil fuels and valuable salvage, in turn, will either have fallen back to agrarian or nomadic economies or, given plenty of luck and the necessary knowledge base, may be pioneering the first rough sketch of an ecotechnic society. All of this will take place amid the turmoil of ordinary history: that unending and uneven rhythm of crises, struggles, and the rise and fall of governments and peoples whose embarrassingly premature obituary Francis Fukuyama wrote a few years back, and which tends to hide the slower and broader shifts in economy and subsistence from contemporary eyes. Fast forward another century, when Hubbert's curve will have finished its trajectory and fossil fuels will be rare geological specimens, and the powers of the age of scarcity industrialism will most likely have collapsed in their turn. Those areas with a wealth of salvageable scrap and the political and military savvy to hold onto them will be the regional powers of a world in which global reach no longer exists, while other areas - the modern conception of the nation-state will probably have fallen into history's recycling bin by then, to be replaced by some other form of geopolitical arrangement - will have only sustainable resources to rely on; some of those will likely have settled into some nonindustrial mode for the long term, while others may be building on the first tentative foundations of an ecotechnic system. All these changes, once again, will take their shape amid the rough and tumble of historical events, and may be difficult to track against that wildly variable background. One implication of this vision is that appropriate steps for the present and the near future are not limited to those that have some obvious relationship to the scarcity industrialism of the near future. If, unlikely as it seems, any of my readers belong to the political, economic, or military leadership of one of the world's leading or rising powers, their attention will be, and indeed should be, riveted to the coming of scarcity industrialism; the nations they lead, not to mention their own positions of influence and privilege, depend utterly on how well they are able to manage that difficult transition. For the rest of us, though, a broader focus and a less limited toolkit has many advantages. The end of the age of abundance industrialism means the end of the trickle-down economy that provided so many economic benefits to the middle classes and raised the industrial world's working classes out of abject poverty. To some extent, while the political classes will be entering a new industrial order, those outside that circle may just find themselves passing directly into the world of Dark Age salvage societies. What this implies, in turn, is that the skills and habits of the age of salvage may be well worth cultivating right now. One obvious example unfolds from the implications of the sprawling speculative subdivisions that surround so many American cities just now, in the aftermath of the late housing bubble. For decades now, people interested in sustainable housing have focused their attention on innovative methods of new house construction: cobb and adobe, straw bale, and many more. These are useful and in some cases brilliantly successful technologies, but their application to our present predicament is limited by one overarching factor: here in America, at least, we already have many more houses than we need or can afford, and the economic system we use to pay for new houses is so badly broken just now that it may take a generation or more to get a new one up and running. That being the case, the dream of sustainable Levittowns of cob-built, earth-sheltered, solar-heated houses will remain out of reach for a good long time. The possibilities before us are more limited. We can either struggle on with the hopelessly inefficient housing stock we have now in its current state, or we can learn how to rework our existing homes to improve their energy efficiency: that is, we can learn to retrofit. The word "retrofit" was coined in the 1950s, but its common use is one of the legacies of the energy crises of the 1970s. During those years, a great many homeowners discovered that houses built to take advantage of cheap energy lost most of their advantages when energy stopped being cheap. At the same time, the soaring interest rates and stagflation of that decade made buying a new home a good deal less economically viable than it had been during the preceding years. Many people responded by figuring out cheap, effective ways to improve the energy efficiency of their existing homes. Insulating blankets found their way around hot water heaters, caulk guns traced lines around leaky foundation plates, insulated Roman blinds replaced fashionable curtains, and a surprising number of people discovered that it really is just as comfortable to put on a cardigan as it is to turn up the thermostat on a cold evening. One of the less noticed phenomena of these same years, in turn, was the emergence of home energy retrofitting as a viable economic sector. In every American city and a great many smaller towns, contractors no longer able to find work building houses found a new niche installing insulation, storm windows, and solar water heaters, while hardware stores found room for a new section of home energy efficiency supplies. It was never a large sector, and its growth came to a sudden stop in the early 1980s in the flurry of political machinations that crashed the price of oil and threw away our best chance for a transition to sustainability, but it was one of the few success stories at a time when most American industries were contracting and most families' standard of living was slipping year after year. Many of those same conditions are repeating themselves on a much larger scale as the world stumbles across the uneven plateau on top of Hubbert's peak. Despite the recent volatility in the futures markets, oil remains far more expensive than it was a year ago; one step down for every two steps upward still amounts to steady upward movement. The approaching Great Recession promises to make the stagflation of the Seventies look mild, but to American families it still poses the same challenge of having to get by with less. Thus it's tolerably likely that the same sort of retrofit economy will emerge in the next few years, as those homeowners who stayed clear of the blandishments of fast-talking mortgage salesmen, and keep their homes, find that they have no choice but to make the best of the homes they have. The same considerations apply to other sectors of the economy. The auto industry is facing a similar transition, for example, as mechanics and hobbyists across the country turn used cooking oil into biodiesel, convert hybrid cars into plug-in vehicles, and equip bicycles and scooters with electric motors and batteries. Detroit's much-ballyhooed electric cars, when they finally get around to appearing on the market, are likely to find themselves eating the dust of thousands of ingenious retrofitters who, unburdened with the institutional inertia of Fortune 500 corporations, are getting products to local markets right now. These retrofits won't allow what James Howard Kunstler has usefully labeled "the paradise of happy motoring" to continue; on the other hand, they may well enable a great many Americans to deal with the downside of a social geography designed for cars rather than people, during the inevitable lag time while that social geography becomes a bad memory. A great many more dimensions of American life are likely to need retrofitting in the years to come; nearly every aspect of our economy, culture, and politics depends on cheap abundant energy and will have to be rebuilt to deal with the new reality of energy scarcity. That will apply to little things - for example, plenty of home appliances now controlled by computer chips can be made to work with thermostats, spring-driven timers, and the like, given a little ingenuity and a willingness to tinker - and to much bigger ones as well. In a very real sense, given the sharp limits we face in the near future, our entire lives will need to be retrofitted to deal with the realities so many of us have been trying to avoid for so long. The first job of this foreshadowing of the salvage economy, in other words, will be to haul a viable future out of the scrap heap of the present, and get it back into some semblance of working order while there's still time to do so. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/09/retrofit-economy.html 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/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Sep 14 06:13:33 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:13:33 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Bayer Pesticides Cause Mass Death of Bees Message-ID: <48CCFFED.6080507@attglobal.net> Pesticides cause mass death of bees Germany: Charge against Bayer's Board of Management Coalition Against Bayer Dangers (August 25 2008) The German Coalition Against Bayer Dangers today brought a charge against Werner Wenning, chairman of the Bayer Board of Management, with the Public Prosecutor in Freiburg (south-western Germany). The group accuses Bayer of marketing dangerous pesticides and thereby accepting the mass death of bees all over the world. The Coalition introduced the charge in cooperation with German beekeepers who lost thousands of hives after poisoning by the pesticide clothianidin in May this year. Since 1991 Bayer has been producing the insecticide Imidacloprid, which is one of the best selling insecticides in the world, often used as seed-dressing for maize, sunflower, and rape. Bayer exports Imidacloprid to more than 120 countries and the substance is Bayer's best-selling pesticide. Since patent protection for Imidacloprid expired in most countries, Bayer in 2003 brought a similarly functionning successor product, Clothianidin, onto the market. Both substances are systemic chemicals that work their way from the seed through the plant. The substances also get into the pollen and the nectar and can damage beneficial insects such as bees. The beginning of the marketing of Imidacloprid and Clothianidin coincided with the occurrence of large scale bee deaths in many European and American countries. Up to seventy per cent of all hives have been affected. In France alone approximately ninety billion bees died within ten years, reducing honey production by up to sixty per cent. Harro Schultze, attorney of the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers said: "The Public Prosecutor needs to clarify which efforts BAYER undertook to prevent a ban of Imidacloprid and Clothianidin after sales of both substances were stopped in France. We're suspecting that Bayer submitted flawed studies to play down the risks of pesticide residues in treated plants". In France Imidacloprid has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers since 1999 and in 2003 was also banned as a sweetcorn treatment. The Comit? Scientifique et Technique, convened by the French government, declared that the treatment of seeds with Imidacloprid leads to significant risks for bees. Bayer's application for Clothianidin was also rejected by French authorities. "Bayer's Board of Management has to be called to account since the risks of neonicotinoids such as Imidacloprid and Clothianidin have now been known for more than ten years. With an annual turnover of nearly 800 million Euro neonicotinoids are among Bayer's most important products. This is the reason why Bayer, despite serious environmental damage, is fighting against any application prohibitions", says Philipp Mimkes, speaker of the Coalition Against Bayer-dangers. The Coalition demands that Bayer withdraw all neonicotinoids from the market worldwide. The accusation of flawed studies is confirmed by the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) which judged on Bayer's Clothianidin application: "All of the field/semi-field studies, however, were found to be deficient in design and conduct of the studies and were, therefore, considered as supplemental information only. Clothianidin may pose a risk to honey bees and other pollinators, if exposure occurs via pollen and nectar of crop plants grown from treated seeds." PRMA adds: "It should also be noted that Clothianidin is very persistent in soil, with high carry-over of residues to the next growing season. Clothianidin is also mobile in soil." In May 2008 German authorities blamed clothianidin for the deaths of millions of honeybees. The German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) suspended the registration for eight pesticide seed treatment products, including Clothianidin and Imidacloprid, on maize and rape. The case is filed by the Public Prosecutor in Freiburg (Tel: +49-(0)761 2050) under the file number 520 UJs 1649/08 More Information: The Guardian: Germany bans chemicals linked to bee devastation http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/23/wildlife.endangeredspecies Sierra Club urges EPA to suspend nicotinyl insecticides: http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/whatsnew/whatsnew_2008-07-30.asp Press Release of the Research Centre for Cultivated Plants http://www.jki.bund.de/cln_044/nn_813794/DE/pressestelle/Presseinfos/2008/1605__BienensterbenClothianidin.html__nnn=true Bee-keepers and environmental groups demand prohibition of pesticide "Gaucho" ? French Institutes Finds Imidaproclid Turning Up in Wide Range of Crops ? 2003 report from the "Comit? Scientifique et Technique de l'Etude Multifactorielle des Troubles des Abeilles" http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapportfin.pdf Coalition Against Bayer Dangers, www.CBGnetwork.org http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14369.cfm _____ _____ _____ _____ Pesticides: Germany bans chemicals linked to honeybee devastation by Alison Benjamin guardian.co.uk (May 23 2008) Germany has banned a family of pesticides that are blamed for the deaths of millions of honeybees. The German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) has suspended the registration for eight pesticide seed treatment products used in rapeseed oil and sweetcorn. The move follows reports from German beekeepers in the Baden-W?rttemberg region that two thirds of their bees died earlier this month following the application of a pesticide called clothianidin. "It's a real bee emergency", said Manfred Hederer, president of the German Professional Beekeepers' Association. "fifty to sixty per cent of the bees have died on average and some beekeepers have lost all their hives". Tests on dead bees showed that 99% of those examined had a build-up of clothianidin. The chemical, produced by Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer, is sold in Europe under the trade name Poncho. It was applied to the seeds of sweetcorn planted along the Rhine this spring. The seeds are treated in advance of being planted or are sprayed while in the field. The company says an application error by the seed company which failed to use the glue-like substance that sticks the pesticide to the seed, led to the chemical getting into the air. Bayer spokesman Dr Julian Little told the BBC's Farming Today that misapplication is highly unusual. "It is an extremely rare event and has not been seen anywhere else in Europe", he said. Clothianidin, like the other neonicotinoid pesticides that have been temporarily suspended in Germany, is a systemic chemical that works its way through a plant and attacks the nervous system of any insect it comes into contact with. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency it is "highly toxic" to honeybees. This is not the first time that Bayer, one of the world's leading pesticide manufacturers with sales of 5.8 billion Euros (GBP 4.6bn) in 2007, has been blamed for killing honeybees. In the United States, a group of beekeepers from North Dakota is taking the company to court after losing thousands of honeybee colonies in 1995, during a period when oilseed rape in the area was treated with imidacloprid. A third of honeybees were killed by what has since been dubbed colony collapse disorder. Bayer's best selling pesticide, imidacloprid, sold under the name Gaucho in France, has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers in that country since 1999, after a third of French honeybees died following its widespread use. Five years later it was also banned as a sweetcorn treatment in France. A few months ago, the company's application for clothianidin was rejected by French authorities. Bayer has always maintained that imidacloprid is safe for bees if correctly applied. "Extensive internal and international scientific studies have confirmed that Gaucho does not present a hazard to bees", said Utz Klages, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience. Last year, Germany's Green MEP, Hiltrud Breyer, tabled an emergency motion calling for this family of pesticides to be banned across Europe while their role in killing honeybees were thoroughly investigated. Her action follows calls for a ban from beekeeping associations and environmental organisations across Europe. Philipp Mimkes, spokesman for the German-based Coalition Against Bayer Dangers, said: "We have been pointing out the risks of neonicotinoids for almost ten years now. This proves without a doubt that the chemicals can come into contact with bees and kill them. These pesticides shouldn't be on the market." ?guardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/23/wildlife.endangeredspecies 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/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 08:17:37 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:17:37 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Gender Pay Gaps among Obama and McCain Campaign Staffers Message-ID: Last updated September 11, 2008 1:01 p.m. PT Obama only talks good game on gender pay equity DEROY MURDOCK "Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work," Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Aug. 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: "I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons." Obama's campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading "Fighting for Pay Equity," the women's issues page laments that, "Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act..." Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make. A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body. The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look. Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397. Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average. Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women. Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama's rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue. Obama responded Aug. 31 to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin "seems like a very engaging person," Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. "But I've got to say, she's opposed -- like John McCain is -- to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me." Obama's criticism notwithstanding, McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams. McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878. On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain. How could this be? One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women -- much more than men -- for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels. If anyone on McCain's Senate staff is unhappy, McCain's male staffers might complain they seem to get a slightly raw deal. In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama -- at the expense of the women who work for him -- quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home. Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.Murdock at gmail.com From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Sep 14 08:52:43 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:52:43 -0400 Subject: [R-G] What the Tories know about you Message-ID: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.welxnpolling13/BNStory/politics/home What the Tories know about you MICHAEL VALPY From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 10:45:07 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:45:07 -0400 Subject: [R-G] US to Sell Israel Air Force New Bunker-buster Bombs + US a Step Closer to Iran Blockade Message-ID: Two bad signs, one economic and the other military. Last update - 19:05 14/09/2008 U.S. to sell Israel Air Force new bunker-buster bombs By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel Tags: Iran, United States Despite reservations in Washington regarding a possible Israeli strike on Iran, the American administration will supply Israel with sophisticated weapons for heavily fortified targets, the U.S. administration announced. The U.S. Department of Defense announced it would sell the Israel Air Force 1,000 new smart bombs, rumored to significantly enhance the IAF's military capabilities. The deal was approved amid public and secret messages from Washington, with the Americans expressing their reservations about a possible Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic's suspected nuclear sites. The Pentagon's announcement, which came on Friday, said the U.S. will provide Israel with 1,000 units of Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39) - a special weapon developed for penetrating fortified facilities located deep underground. Advertisement The $77 million shipment, which includes launchers and appurtenances, will allow the IAF to hit many more bunkers than currently possible. Although each bomb weighs 113 kilograms, its penetration capabilities equal those of a one ton bomb, according to professional literature. Most U.S. Air Force aircraft are able to carry a pack of four of these bombs in place of a single one-ton bomb. The bomb's small size allows a single-strike aircraft to carry more of the munitions than is possible utilizing currently available bomb units, thus increasing firepower, or, alternatively, allowing the aircraft to fly longer distances to deliver a single bomb. During demonstrations, the GBU-39 - labeled by the manufacturer, Boeing, as a Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - has successfully penetrated more than 1.8 meters of thick reinforced concrete with a 23-kilogram warhead. The GPS-guided weapon is said to have a 50-percent probability of hitting its intended target within 5-8 meters, which should minimize collateral damage. The estimated value for the bomb's GPS version, which military experts have called the latest development in the bunker-buster line, is around $70,000 to $90,000 for each individual bomb. The U.S. has already supplied Israel with earlier versions of bunker busters. In 2005, the Pentagon authorized the sale of GBU-28 to Israel, in a move that commentators construed as a hinted threat aimed at Iran. Haaretz reported earlier this month that the U.S. was hesitant about selling Israel heavier busters. The Pentagon's announcement also said that the U.S. would help upgrade the Israel Defense Forces' patriot anti-aircraft missiles - which Israel uses as part of its missile-interception array. Israel will also receive 28,000 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon) tube launchers for land forces. Sep 13, 2008 US a step closer to Iran blockade By Kaveh L Afrasiabi The United States government has imposed new sanctions on Iran, this time targeting its shipping industry, by blacklisting the main shipping line and 18 subsidiaries, accusing the maritime carrier of being engaged in contraband nuclear material, a charge vehemently denied by Iran. While the economic impact of the measures against Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) will be minimal in light of the near absence of any connection between the shipping company and US businesses, this latest US initiative against Iran sends a strong signal about the US's intention to escalate pressure on Iran, even unilaterally if need be. And, perhaps, it is a prelude for more serious and dangerous actions in the near future, above all a naval blockade of Iran to choke off its access to, among other things, imported fuel. The outgoing George W Bush administration is slowly but surely taking strident actions that will effectively tie the hands of the next US president, particularly if that happens to be Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama, who in the past has expressed an interest in direct dialogue with Tehran. Should the new sanctions prove as catalysts for more aggressive US actions against Iran in international waters or the Persian Gulf, as called for by some members of US Congress seeking the interdiction of Iranian cargo ships, then by the time Bush's successor takes over at the Oval Office next January, the climate in US-Iran hostility may have degenerated to such depths that it would take a monumental effort to undo what appears to be Bush's last hurrah. On the other hand, on the eve of US presidential elections in November, more tensions between the US and Iran are tantamount to greater prioritization of national security issues by the average American voter, something that benefits Obama's Republican rival, "bomb, bomb Iran" John McCain. Indeed, the coupling of crisis in Georgia and the Iran crisis represents a major bonus for McCain and his "get tough" approach toward the US's external foes. According to American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who has done several reports on US covert actions against Iran, Bush has on more than one occasion vowed not to leave the White House with Iran's nuclear program still intact. With the new tensions with Russia over Georgia lessening the prospects for fresh "multilateral" Iran diplomacy at the United Nations this autumn, the White House has now begun a new chapter in coercive, unilateral action against Iran that may well be part of a comprehensive "package approach". This could include the interdiction of Iranian ships on the high seas and even incremental steps toward imposing a regime of "smart blockade" aimed at denying Iran access to badly needed imported fuel. The purpose of the latter would be to in effect target the Iranian population by applying tangible pain that could dissipate the popular support for the government's nuclear policy, that is, its insistence that it has the right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium. Doubtless, this is playing with fire and things could get nasty and rather quickly, spiralling out of control in the event of a stern Iranian reaction. As far as Washington and Tel Aviv are concerned, their efforts to create a wedge between Iran and Syria is paying off, thanks in part to the tireless efforts of France, and Israeli politicians have made no secret of their hope that their negotiations with Damascus will create a timely dividend in the form of breathing cold air into the hitherto hot furnace of the Iran-Syria alliance. In Iran murmurings of "weak and reactive diplomacy" can already be heard, thus putting the President Mahmud Ahmadinejad administration on the defensive. Consequently, Washington hawks increasingly smell a late opportunity to defang Iran. They will surely have made their own threat analysis and estimates of risks. Should their calculations prove incorrect, it could prove disastrous with incalculable, monstrous new headaches for the US government for years to come. For Iran's part, a spokesperson for IRISL has denounced the US's measure as "illegal" and based on "false accusations", promising to complain to international tribunals. IRISL is, in fact, a stock-owned private company and not government owned, and the US's action may be in violation of the terms and ambit of UN sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Iran over its nuclear program. For instance, these sanctions exempt the Bushehr power plant in Iran, thus allowing the shipment of nuclear material for the Russian-made plant nearing completion. This means that the US might seek to seize Russian nuclear goods bound for Iran, thus raising the ire of Moscow and using this as a payback for Russia's offensive in pro-West Georgia. Alternatively, the US could use the threat of such action as leverage with regard to both Tehran and Moscow. Russia, from Washington's point of view, needs to be brought into line on Iran. Again, any such action by the US is bound to have both intended and unintended consequences, and it would be foolhardy for Washington hawks to pretend to know the full scope of the ramifications, which could be dramatic in terms of heating up a new cold war and outright militarizing the Iran nuclear crisis. Tehran does not appear to welcome any new escalation with the US. A deputy foreign minister, Mehdi Safari, announced Iran's preparedness to engage in good-faith negotiations with the "Iran Six" nations (the UN Security Council's permanent five - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany). Ahmadinejad is due in New York in less than two weeks to attend the annual UN General Assembly gathering, and by all indications the US and Israel are deliberately picking up serious momentum in their anti-Ahmadinejad campaign, thus warranting a letter by Iran's ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, complaining of blatant threats against Iran's president by Israeli politicians - they even said they would kidnap him. In conclusion, as tough new decisions on Iran are being plotted in Washington and Tel Aviv, the fate of peace and stability in the volatile oil region of the Persian Gulf seems once again on the verge of being compromised in the drive towards open confrontation with Iran. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction. For his Wikipedia entry, click here. From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Sep 14 12:44:57 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:44:57 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Cuba and Haiti: Children of Prometheus Message-ID: Children of Prometheus COMMON SENSE JOHN MAXWELL Sunday, September 14, 2008 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20080913T050000-0500_140147_OBS_CHILDREN_OF_PROMETHEUS_.asp The modern world was invented in the Caribbean. Two hundred years ago the Haitians defeated the armies of Europe's major powers, Napoleon's France (twice), Britain and Spain, destroying slavery and precipitating the birth of capitalism, destroying European empire in the Western hemisphere and helping launch the United States as a world power. And they promulgated, for the first time on Earth, the reality of universal human rights. The Haitians have been paying for their temerity ever since. Fifty years ago, the Cubans threw off the neo-colonial yoke, outlawed capitalism in Cuba and successfully asserted the right of any country, no matter how small, to choose its own path to development. In the process the Cubans reordered George Canning's boast that he had brought a new world into being to redress the balance of the old. The Cubans completed the liberation of Africa, dealing a death blow to apartheid and the repulsive doctrine of ethnic difference and superiority. For their sins the Cubans and Haitians continue to be punished, the Haitians by slow-motion genocide, by compound interest and by state terrorism, by armed banditry in support of criminal monopolists and by the kidnapping of their elected leader. The Cubans have been punished by terrorism, by invasion, by biological warfare and by a brutal and illegal economic blockade. The two peoples nearest us - to whom most of the hemisphere owe their freedom - are punished as Prometheus was for stealing divine fire and giving it to ordinary mortals. Zeus punished Prometheus when he finally caught up with him, by having him chained to a rock - perhaps in South Ossetia!, where a vulture would come to feast on Prometheus' liver, magically regenerated overnight. Nature has dealt the Haitians and Cubans some serious blows. These blows are so numerous and so devastating that some people have begun to question whether what is happening is entirely natural. Does someone 'own' the weather? Cuba's fertile province of Pinar del Rio, which grows everything from plantains to the worlds' best tobacco, has been hit 14 times in eight years by hurricanes or storms. Comparing the strike rate over the last century suggests that global warming or some other force is tormenting Cuba. 'I have never seen anything as painful .' Dr Paul Farmer, an American physician, medical anthropologist and Harvard professor, has spent about half his adult life dedicated to healing the world, especially Haiti - the poorest country in the hemisphere. When the first storms broke over Haiti, Paul was in Rwanda, doing what he does all over the world, setting up systems to help ordinary people help heal themselves and their neighbours. He dashed back to Haiti from which he reported on Wednesday ".we need food, water, clothes, and, especially, cash (which can be converted into all of the above)-so that Zanmi Lasante (ZL), and thus all of us, can do our part to save lives and preserve human dignity. "The need is enormous. After 25 years spent working in Haiti and having grown up in Florida, I can honestly say that I have never seen anything as painful as what I just witnessed in Gona?ves-except in that very same city, four years ago. Again, you know that 2004 was an especially brutal year, and those who work with PIH know why: the coup in Haiti and what would become Hurricane Jeanne. Everyone knows that Katrina killed 1,500 in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast, but very few outside of our circles know that what was then Tropical Storm Jeanne, which did not even make landfall in Haiti, killed an estimated 2,000 in Gona?ves alone." Paul Farmer thought he would have found organisations and institutions working on disaster relief. Instead, Farmer's health care organisation - Partners in Health (Zanmi Lasante in Haitian) have been forced into the front line. PIH is a network of locally directed organisations working in 10 countries to attack poverty and inequality and bring the fruits of modernity - health care, education, etcetera - to people marginalised by adverse social forces. In Haiti they have now been forced into a different role - which is why Paul Farmer is apologising to his staff and friends for asking for money, food and other resources. ". we saw not a single first-aid station or proper temporary shelter. We saw, rather, people stranded on the tops of their houses or wading through waist-deep water; we saw thousands in an on-foot exodus south toward Saint-Marc." Farmer is appealing desperately for help against a background of official ignorance and failure. "A speedy, determined relief effort could save the lives of tens of thousands of Haitians in Gona?ves and all along the flooded coast. The people of that city and others have been stranded without food or water or shelter for three days and it's simply not true that they cannot be reached. When I called to say as much to friends working with the US government and with disaster-relief organisations based in Port-au-Prince, it became clear that, as of yesterday, there's not a lot of accurate information leaving Gona?ves, although estimates of hundreds of deaths are not hyperbolic." Part of the problem in Haiti is that the American-managed coup against President Aristide was a coup against democratic community organisations as well. The Haiti Democracy Project, USAID and John McCain's International Republican Institute calculated that they would fatally undermine Aristide by destroying the grassroots organisations. What they did was to destroy the Haitians' capacity to help themselves. EVACUATING THE POPULATION OF JAMAICA Cuba is organised as a mutual aid society in which every citizen has his responsibilities, his duties and his place. When hurricanes threaten Cuba, people move out of the way guided by the neighourhood Committees for the Defence of the Revolution -CDR. They move the old and the young, the sick and the healthy and their cats, dogs, parrots, their goats, donkeys and cows, to safe places. Here is a truly incredible fact. Last week the Cubans moved 2,615,000 people - a number nearly equivalent to the entire population of Jamaica, to safety. Four people died in the storm, the first fatalities for years. It is a remarkable statistic. Three years ago when Texas tried to evacuate a million or so ahead of hurricane Rita, more than 100 people died in the evacuation. The hurricanes hitting Cuba this year have been peculiarly destructive, Gustav leaving behind wreckage which reminded Fidel Castro of the wreckage of Hiroshima. Cuba needs food, not because of poverty -as in Haiti, but because its crops have been devastated and food stores destroyed. When the Cubans asked the Americans to allow them to buy supplies from the US, Condoleezza Rice said no! The Cubans were not asking for charity. Some of us have long suspected that for some Americans, ideology was more important than humanity. That celebrated rhetorical question in the Bible has now been answered by Secretary Rice: If your brother asks for bread, will you give him a stone? The essence of being human is that other humans recognise your humanity. I, and probably many others, are unable to recognise Ms Rice as human. It is savagely ironic, or, perhaps, barbarically ironic that it is the Cubans who should be treated in this way. When people are in trouble anywhere in the world the Cubans send help, no matter what the state of relations is with their governments, to Honduras, Guatemala and Pakistan among others. When Katrina hit the US, the Cubans organised a 1,500-strong medical brigade which would have saved many lives, had their help been accepted. But, as the Bible says, let the dead bury their dead. We need to organise to help as many people as possible survive the effects of the hurricanes. We need to organise funds for Haiti and food for Cuba. I would hope that this newspaper organises a relief fund for our worst hit neighbours and I will offer what I can, $10,000. I would urge us to demonstrate our sympathy and solidarity by giving as much as we can, no matter how small. Copyright ?2008 John Maxwell jankunnu at gmail.com. From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 13:49:57 2008 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:49:57 +0200 Subject: [R-G] Is There an Oil Price Floor and Where Is It? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In your projections you never mentioned the probable costs of the melted pole's summer ice in less than ten years. Is that nitpicking? Suzanne On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi < critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote: > < > http://www.rgemonitor.com/globalmacro-monitor/253547/is_there_an_oil_price_floor_and_where_is_it > > > Is there an oil price floor and where is it? > Rachel Ziemba | Sep 11, 2008 > > Since mid July, Crude oil futures have fallen almost $50 from their > peak, WTI is in the neighborhood of $100 a barrel, and Brent has > already closed below $100 a barrel. About two months ago, I suggested > that we were finally seeing the fall in oil prices [LINK: > < > http://www.rgemonitor.com/econo-monitor/253051/have_we_passed_the_turning_point_for_oil > >] > I'd been expecting to see for some months. Since then demand > destruction has taken the upper hand, as it became clearer that a > slower global economy would erode demand growth as it has already done > in the OECD. However it is a sign of the frothiness of the market that > it took only a relatively small decrease in demand to trigger this > look back at fundamentals. The oil price also reflected the more > general reassessment that led to a USD rally against the Euro and > Pound. > > So where is the oil price heading? > > This week, OPEC stepped in ? to in part ? try to steer the market to a > oil price floor. OPEC's additional oil supplies (mostly from Saudi) > had contributed to putting the oil market well in surplus where supply > exceeded demand, contributing to lower prices. OPEC had been pretty > absent as an actor in the oil market in recent months, with Saudi > Arabia taking the lead on adding new supplies, convening a special oil > conference in June. > > The impact of OPEC's cuts back to September 2007 levels will be a > matter for coming months ? and assumes that all members including > Saudi Arabia will agree to return to those levels. The latter > assumption may not be valid. The New York Times suggests that Saudi > Arabia may not return to past production levels. It is particularly > unlikely to do so until it gauges winter demand - in part because it > does not want to be blamed for exacerbating economic woes or pricing > its product beyond the means of its purchasers. > > In the short term the combination of removal of supply and hurricane > risks could be a bit bullish for oil. Yet, supplies have been > sufficient that despite the threat of real supply shocks [LINK: > < > http://www.rgemonitor.com/econo-monitor/253455/us_oil_production_and_hurricanes_insecurity_of_demand_trumps_insecurity_of_supply > >], > oil has failed to hold gains. And given the outlook for the U.S. > economy, it doesn't seem likely demand will pick back up. Especially > since even the threat of real supply disruptions failed to have that > effect. And investors whipsawed on the way up and down in the energy > markets might not want to get back in. Meanwhile new regulations might > make it somewhat more difficult to borrow to trade. > > So all in all, it points to oil in the double digits soon. Yet, there > could be a pretty high floor for oil ? perhaps $80 a barrel. Such a > price is still high (higher than 2007's average of around $71), even > if it seems cheap after flirting with $150 a barrel. > > UPDATE: However, given limitations on supply, we could see an oil > price rebound when (and if) the U.S. and global economies recover. > Given that the supply additions, particularly from non-OPEC sources is > limited in the near term, we could see a gradual climbing after 2010. > But we might not see the kind of trajectory we saw this year unless > the same credit constraints and liquidity traps recur as they did this > year. However, I should add that my $80 price point is slightly > arbitrary and sentiment matters a lot END UPDATE Why that price point? > > 1) There still isn't that much supply. While Saudi Arabia added new > supplies from Khursaniyah, boosting its surplus capacity, there aren't > a lot of new supplies from either OPEC or non-OPEC members coming > online in the next few years. Following a global recession-induced > demand slowing, we could see a mid-term tightening of supplies. 2) The > cost of a marginal barrel of oil has risen along. Certainly many > unconventional oil sources need about $70 to break even. And countries > about to put in motion more investment may want to ensure their > investment will pay off. Of course some supplies are still cheaper > than others, production costs in the gulf are lower than in many > areas, but many of the touted new supplies from Brazil's Tupi or > others are in the neighborhood of $50 a barrel break even costs. > Supplies and investment programs that became viable at over $100 a > barrel may seem less attractive if oil crosses the double digits > > 3) At a certain price point, Americans (and others) will start > consuming more again. And perhaps if credit eases, Chinese might start > buying cars again. While some behavioral changes will stick ? you > don't go returning the fuel efficient car for a gas guzzler ? others, > like a switch to carpooling or public transport, may not. That price > point could be in the neighborhood of 70-90 a barrel. I base this on > the fact that when oil averaged $60-70 a barrel in 2006 and 2007, few > of these behavioural changes had taken effect yet. Demand is price > dependent. > > Finally, more and more oil exporters (OPEC and non-OPEC) need an oil > price of around $60+ a barrel to pay their import bills. Ahead of the > OPEC meeting, I updated some estimates of the spending and saving > patterns of oil exporters. This partly updates a paper I wrote over a > year ago, when $70 a barrel seemed kinda high. > > A quick caveat ? a history lesson of the 1980s would show us that oil > exporters can't keep oil prices high just by wishing it so. OPEC's > role is clearly significant, especially now that it accounts for much > of the incremental supply, but it may be limited in its activities. In > general, OPEC, and other cartels have tended to be more effective at > pushing prices up by restricting production than bringing it down. > Furthermore, if oil prices continue to slide, the determination of > OPEC may be tested as some producers may prefer to sell more volume to > maintain a certain revenue inflow ? contributing to more supply and > lower prices. > > UPDATE: The following is hypothetical scenario to illustrate the > spending patterns of oil exporters. It doesn't necessarily mean that > oil will stabilize at $80 in the next few years, but rather shows the > vulnerabilities that oil exporters might face if it does. These > vulnerabilities, could contribute to OPEC members actually pumping > more oil in order to increase revenues. And the trajectory may not be > clear END UPDATE My calculations assume that oil averages $110 a > barrel this year and $80 a year thereafter, that oil output remains > similar to that of the spring of 2008 (ie before Saudi Arabia's > increase) and that spending (imports) and non-oil exports continue to > climb at current trends. Assuming that oil stabilizes at $80 a barrel, > these spending patterns would slow, but it is easier to scale up than > to scale down spending (another lesson of the 1980s). > > Under these assumptions, the current account surpluses of all key oil > exporters would erode considerably ? meaning that surpluses in 2009 > would be lower than in 2007, when the oil price was slightly lower. > > See the following estimate of GCC spending and saving ratios. This > graph shows the share of each barrel of oil that is spent and what is > saved. It uses a broad definition of imports and nets out non-oil > exports to show what imports need to be paid from the oil revenue > intake. > > Imports and Current Account Surplus of Emerging Oil Exporters -- > expressed in dollars/barrel > > > In aggregate, oil exporters might soon start spending their savings ? > and some countries will have to do it sooner than later ? and in > aggregate oil savings will still be large. Oil exporter current > account surpluses would likely be close to $300 billion in 2009 under > the scenario I've depicted, still a lot less than the over $600 > billion in 2008 but nothing to sneeze at. Furthermore oil savings > actually exceed the current account surpluses in some cases as private > capital inflows to countries like the UAE, and Russia have eroded the > current account surplus, meaning that oil savings outstrip the net > savings of the country. > > Again the following graphs are somewhat hypothetical, especially as > its difficult to forecast out spending rates. > > Current Account Surpluses of Key Oil Exporters -- Oil at $80/barrel > 2009-2012 > > > Some countries will have non-oil exports to cushion the effect of > falling prices. Others are more vulnerable. The bigger spenders > include Oman, Kazakhstan, Iran, Venezuela. But even more fiscally > conservative (until recently) countries like Kuwait and to a lesser > extent Saudi Arabia, will have surpluses erode as fiscal spending > begins to outpace revenues. This in my view will contribute to an oil > price floor. > > Current Account Surplus Expressed in $/barrel oil price > > > Data ? IMF, adjusted by Author > > Russia attended the most recent OPEC meeting and suggested more > cooperation with OPEC ? a rather political statement to be sure and > fitting in with its putting trade talks on the back burner. Russia > need not actively participate in OPEC to support its goals. Russia's > declining oil production (down more than 1% from last year and the > first decline in 10 years) means it is unlikely to be a spoiler to > OPEC. > > So we may be in for expensive energy for some time to come ? however, > recent prices are clearly a relief for the global economy, which was > suffering even at $120 a barrel oil ? even if not for the planet. > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 14 13:57:09 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:57:09 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of '08 Election Message-ID: <200809141957.m8EJv93i012333@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080914/314a773a/attachment.txt From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 14:06:29 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:06:29 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Another Struggle: Sexual Identity Politics in Unsettled Turkey Message-ID: Interventions: A Middle East Report Online Feature Another Struggle: Sexual Identity Politics in Unsettled Turkey Kerem ?ktem September 2008 (Kerem ?ktem is a fellow at the European Studies Centre of St. Antony's College at the University of Oxford.) What happens when almost 3,000 men, women and transgender people march down the main street of a major Muslim metropolis, chanting against patriarchy, the military and restrictive public morals, waving the rainbow flag and hoisting banners decrying homophobia and demanding an end to discrimination? Or when a veiled transvestite carries a placard calling for freedom of education for women wearing the headscarf and, for transsexuals, the right to work? If the city is Istanbul, it seems, nothing much. Apart from the anxious glances of a few young male bystanders caught up in the demonstration and the occasional cheers of onlookers, only the presence of riot police at the Istanbul gay pride parade on June 29, 2008 would have reminded the observer that this was a politically sensitive event in a deeply troubled setting. Yet, in contrast to their aggressive tactics against peaceful demonstrators on May Day, the police were remarkably restrained as well. Transgender marchers at the Istanbul gay pride parade, June 29, 2008. (Kerem Oktem) June 29 marked the largest gay pride event ever to be held in Turkey, and indeed the largest in the immediate neighborhood of southeast Europe, where similar, if smaller, processions were attacked by right-wing extremists and members of the general public. The march's dispassionate reception was surprising, particularly considering that it took place as Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by politicians with Islamist origins, faced an existential threat in the country's highest court. The legal challenge to the AKP's right to participate in politics, mounted by defenders of the state secularist legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atat?rk, and dismissed by the Constitutional Court on July 31, could have escalated into all-out war over Turkey's future. Yet no one used the gay pride parade to pose as champions of public morality. There was no hate campaign, and indeed there was benign neglect, in both the Islamist and secular sectors of the mainstream press. Coverage in the left and liberal press was sympathetic; only newspapers close to the extremist Islamist Felicity Party featured a smattering of incitement. Was this an indicator of growing acceptance of gender non-conforming lifestyles in Turkey, a sign of a more tolerant, outward-looking society, affirmation of a more progressive cultural climate? There is wide consensus that Turkey is a "hinge state," a hybrid of the political and also sexual regimes and ideologies of Europe and the Middle East.[1] Turkey's neighbors to the east have considered homosexuality a punishable offense for the better part of a century, due to British or French mandate-era civil codes or conservative interpretations of Islamic law; its neighbors to the west have followed restrictive Communist legislation or conservative Orthodox Christian legal mores to the same conclusion. But homosexuality has not been an issue of criminal justice in Turkey since the modern nation-state emerged in the 1920s. The only territory under Turkish control where homosexuality is banned is northern Cyprus, where British anti-sodomy laws were incorporated into the Cypriot and, later, the Turkish Republic of Cyprus penal code. Yet as liberal and cosmopolitan as Istanbul and other cities in western Turkey look in comparison to cities in nearby countries, Turkey remains a deeply conservative -- if highly heterogeneous and regionally differentiated -- society gripped by a patriarchal and militarist state ideology rooted in the foundational myths of Kemalism. If many gays and lesbians prosper as professionals or within the arts and media sectors, and some gay rights activists carve out spaces of interaction protected to a degree from state intrusion, transgender people are exposed by both the visible manifestations of their sexual orientation and their engagement in sex work. As Elif Shafak argues, the Kemalist modernization project "required the mapping of gender roles and public-private zones, as well as the redrawing of the boundaries in between."[2] Kemalist and Islamist responses to transgender individuals are equally negative, but the former is probably more hateful: The transsexual condition is particularly threatening to the ideological constructs of modern Turkey's very essence, the clearly, albeit differently, circumscribed roles for men and women in the public sphere. But the loud and public advocacy of all gender non-conforming people, gays and lesbians included, for equal rights throws into question key tenets of the republic: militarism, male hegemony and de-feminized femininity, a concept exemplified by the female doctors, nurses and teachers, who were expected to subordinate their sexuality to the ideal of selfless service of the nation. Fighting for Pride Traditional forms of homosexual and homoerotic interaction, including the dances of males performing in women's clothes (zenne and k??ek), were tolerated in the Ottoman Empire and, for much of its history, in the Turkish Republic as well. Transsexuals performed on stage and as sex workers in private rendezvous houses; veterans recall with nostalgia being treated by clients in a "gentlemanly manner." All this, of course, happened behind closed doors, protected from the public gaze. Then the military coup of 1980, the central rupture in Turkey's recent political history, unsettled this balance between reluctant toleration and enforced invisibility. The putschists destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of young men and women and imposed a militarist, religiously conservative mindset in educational and other state institutions as part of their war on communists and other leftists. But the generals also declared war on individuals they deemed morally deviant. Literally storming nightclubs and music halls across the country, military commanders ordered transsexuals to be removed and imprisoned.[3] After undergoing torture and compulsory haircuts, the dancers were forcibly relocated to provincial cities. Contemporary witnesses remember transsexuals being dragged onto trains and trying to escape by jumping off the carriages bound for Eski?ehir, a town in west-central Anatolia. At the same time, famous transsexual singers like the "Sun of Art" Zeki M?ren (1931-1996) and B?lent Ersoy were banned from stage, radio and TV, over which the state had monopolies at the time. Following the destruction of the socialist left, however, the late 1980s saw the cautious emergence of new social and identity movements, ranging from feminists to the liberal left, from anti-militarists to Kurdish rights groups. In this environment, gay, lesbian and transgender people, and their sexual and political identities, became increasingly visible. The turning point was an aborted gay pride week in Istanbul in 1993, initially authorized by the governor, but banned after a campaign of libel in the mainstream media. Gays, lesbians and, increasingly, transgender people reacted to the reversal by organizing themselves in the associations Lambda Istanbul and Kaos GL in Ankara. The rest is a story of unprecedented achievement. In 1994, Kaos GL began publishing a monthly "gay-lesbian cultural magazine," and soon became a focal point for the emergence of a self-identified gay community in Turkey. Annual gay pride events occurred in Istanbul and Ankara, even if only in cultural centers and theaters. In 2001, members of Kaos GL joined in the May Day demonstrations in Ankara, paving the way for the first gay pride parade, in Istanbul in 2003. "The first time we were out in the streets," remembered one activist, "we were about 20 or so people." Yet another breakthrough came in 2007, when the parliamentary election campaign, moved up by the AKP government after Kemalist politicians blocked a vote on the AKP's candidate for president, coincided with the pride parade. Around 1,500 demonstrators hit the streets, inspired by the slogan of independent candidate and professor Baskin Oran that society can only change when the disenfranchised bust out of the confines of identity politics and act in solidarity with each other. Oran's words captured the outlook of Kaos GL and Lambda. The result was broader coalitions of gay rights groups, socialist and feminist activists, human rights organizations and representatives of the liberal left.[4] The simple, remarkable fact is that, in the space of 15 years, Turkey's gay and lesbian rights movements have created the conditions for the emergence of a conscious cultural and political gay identity, a better informed and less homophobic mainstream media, and a community of thousands of active supporters who do not fear to make a public stand. "Cleansing" the Neighborhood Marchers from the new gay rights organization in majority-Kurdish Diyarbakir at the Istanbul gay pride parade, June 29, 2008. (Kerem Oktem) Yet to what extent does this success translate into concrete amelioration of homophobic practices in public institutions and the legal system? Paradoxically, at least at first glance, discriminatory practices in state institutions are widespread and homophobic behavior is on the rise. Hate crimes against members of the LGBT community are rampant, as dramatized by the July 2008 murder of gay rights activist Ahmet Yildiz, dubbed the first gay "honor killing" because the killer is allegedly a member of the extended family.[5] Much of the rise in incidents of homophobia may be due to better reporting. Yet the change seems to be structural: A war rages within the republican establishment over the right way to be a "Turkish citizen" and a "Turkish man." It is fought in police stations, courts and military barracks, and seems to target members of the transgender community with the greatest violence. According to Pinar Selek, one of Turkey's most prolific sociologists and feminists, this ideological war is compounded by strategies of inner-city beautification and rent generation predicated upon the removal of those who disturb decent, ordinary folk.[6] The suburb of Eryaman is one of Ankara's many new high-rise residential areas that supply affordable and relatively well-appointed accommodations to the lower middle classes. Many transsexuals have moved there in recent years. Apart from the odd quizzical look, they have had few problems with their neighbors, even if the fact that some of them engaged in sex work did raise concerns. All this changed, however, in April 2006, when a group of young men known to be members of the semi-fascist Hearths of the Ideal (?lk? Ocaklar?) attacked the flats of transsexual tenants. In the ensuing days, transsexuals were rounded up, abused and beaten, under the noses of silent neighbors, as well as local policemen who declined to intervene.[7] In some cases, the far-right attackers were joined by plainclothes officers identified as members of the "Sledgehammer" unit, which is tasked with ridding Ankara of sex workers and transgender people.[8] The assailants are now on trial for forming an armed gang to engage in criminal activity. While this case is the first prosecution for attacks on transsexuals, the judge intends to reduce the charges to inflicting bodily harm. Whatever the outcome, the initial goal of "cleansing" Eryaman of gender non-conforming people, thereby precluding a slump in housing prices, has been achieved. Unlike tightly controlled Ankara, Istanbul is often assumed to be more welcoming toward sexual minorities. Yet here, as well, the police have effectively declared transsexuals fair game, leaving no doubt that they will receive no assistance when they fall victim to crime. In fact, transsexuals are often beaten up when they enter a police station in central Istanbul. At the heart of Istanbul nightlife, and particularly in Beyo?lu, transsexuals remain visible, some of them living together in a side street off Tarlaba?? Boulevard with the ironic name of Bayram, the term used for the feast at the end of Ramadan. Once a largely Greek and Armenian enclave, the area now accommodates illegal migrants, refugees, poor Kurds and Roma, as well as transsexuals. Bayram is the last such area of collective transsexual habitation, many others having been "cleansed" by police and local vigilantes in the 1990s. As per Selek's analysis, Bayram is the scene of a major urban transformation project seeking to replace cheap, substandard housing with an upper middle-class neighborhood. According to activist accounts, the residents of Bayram have been given one year's notice by a private developer: Leave, or we will make you leave. In a tragic turn, the transsexuals of Bayram, together with their Kurdish, Roma and African neighbors, will soon face involuntary removal from their homes, in an echo of the eviction campaigns targeting Armenians and Greeks before them. Public Morals and Authoritarian Values A malign symbiosis of security forces and ultra-nationalist vigilantes has been a periodic feature of Turkish politics since the 1950s. All of the recent high-profile political murders -- Father Andrea Santoro in 2006, Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink in January 2007, three evangelical Christians in April 2007 -- were carried out by members of groups of a nationalist and, to some extent, Islamist persuasion, either with the tacit knowledge or the outright logistical support of security personnel. The ongoing court case against the Ergenekon network, composed of retired generals, active-duty army and police officers, judges and other Kemalist establishmentarians, is likely to reveal more such vigilantism and intimidation of minority groups. The courts, however, play an ambiguous role in that many judges seek to interpret current law, which is less draconian than in the past thanks to Turkey's efforts to join the European Union, in the authoritarian and socially conservative spirit of the founding years of the republic. These jurists often employ notions of public morals rooted in the penal code of fascist Italy, as well as notions of decency based in Islamic legal norms.[9] A court case against Lambda Istanbul, organizer of the 2008 pride march and Turkey's most prominent gay rights group, resulted in a verdict rejecting Lambda's application for the status of formal association on the grounds that the words "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and transsexual" in the group's name are "against the law and morality" and infringe upon the constitutional protection of the "Turkish family."[10] The fact that the court of first instance decided against the application shows, above all, the socially conservative worldview of many local judges, coupled with ignorance of international legal norms and European human rights law, which they are obliged to implement. The jurists also disregarded a key Turkish precedent: Kaos GL once faced almost exactly the same allegations. In that case, the public prosecutor confirmed the group's official status as an association when he decided that there was no reason to suspect the association of "immoral" activities. The governor, Muammer G?ler, an AKP appointee, will have to register Lambda Istanbul eventually, either by decision of Turkey's Supreme Court, to which Lambda activists have now appealed, or failing that, the European Courts of Human Rights. In the meantime, Lambda's status remains in limbo, placing constraints on the group's activism and making it difficult for new members to join. The only public body in Turkey that explicitly discriminates against homosexuals is the military. According to the Turkish Armed Forces Health Requirement Regulations, people with "high-level psychological disorders (homosexuality, transsexuality, transvestism)" are to be barred from military service.[11] At the same time, military doctors and psychological commissions set high thresholds for men to be identified as homosexuals, subjecting them to a series of humiliating and degrading tests based on outdated conceptions of human psychology. Once they are recognized as gay, they are dismissed as unfit for service, with possible repercussions for their job prospects and employment in state institutions. Conscientious objectors, especially but not only if they are gay, as in the case of Mehmet Tarhan, are treated with particular scorn: They are subjected to torture and ill treatment in military prisons and to recurrent prosecutions that amount, according to another case seen at the European Court of Human Rights, to "social death."[12] Remembering the armed forces' role in enforcing militarism and conservative social norms after the coup of 1980, it would be fair to say that the military is the most powerful combatant in the war over the definition of the values of society in general, and the norms governing the "Turkish man" and, hence, the Turkish nation, in particular. Individuation The common idea that Turkey is polarized between "secular" and "Islamist" camps obscures more than it reveals about social dynamics. Ever since the 1980 coup, despite the military regime's promotion of a "Turkish-Islamic synthesis" and despite the war in the Kurdish southeast, Turkey has been undergoing a process of individuation, the exploration of and struggle for identities beyond those permitted by the state or the community. Once, even critical intellectuals conformed in one way or another with the identities officially sanctioned by the Kemalist state. The few available avenues of resistance, such as radical leftist or Islamist politics, suppressed the individual as much as the praetorian state, whose policies were prescribed, above all, by the military and the civilian bureaucracy.[13] In the 1980s and 1990s, however, social change slowly created the conditions for individual identity choices. The country urbanized rapidly; levels of wealth and education rose; a socially responsible bourgeoisie investing in liberal institutions emerged; transnational networks of Alevi and Kurdish diasporas grew; and Turkey was exposed to global institutions and their norms, culminating in the process, now in abeyance, of accession to the EU. The process of individuation led to clashes with both state- and community-approved identities. Hence, identity-based movements, whether Kurdish or Alevi, feminist or gay, lesbian and transsexual, experienced both pressure from the state and ostracism by society at large, albeit in varying measures. The ostensible paradox, that a conservative backlash strikes Turkey at a time when a growing number of individuals are losing the fear of coming to terms with their own history and identity, appears in the end to be dialectical rather than paradoxical. In the original condition of state authoritarianism, homophobia and hatred of Kurds were not explicit, because gender non-conforming individuals and Kurds were denied visibility and deprived of a safe political or social space. Now that these identities have become visible as well as audible -- even unavoidable -- the reaction to them is also manifest. What complicates this tableau, which is otherwise quite similar to the European historical experience, is not so much Islam or even Islamism, but the modes of governance of the praetorian state. Without the state's extra-legal manipulation, far-right extremists and hardline Islamists might still attack transsexuals, gays, African immigrants, Christians or other "others." Yet they would not be capable of terrorizing society at large, carrying out assassinations and murders in broad daylight, were they not sanctioned and utilized by the security forces, treated with leniency by the courts and protected by the subliminal adoration of militarism and male supremacy that is constantly reproduced by many private media outlets. Before the June 29 demonstration in Istanbul, Kaos GL and Lambda Istanbul organized a series of conferences, panel discussions and cultural events dedicated to the rights and the politics of members of the gay, lesbian and transsexual community. In Ankara, where some of the events took place on university campuses, hundreds of students took the opportunity to converse with gay rights activists. No ugly incidents occurred. Despite administrative hassles and occasional police interference, gay rights groups are now showing up beyond the metropolises, from Eski?ehir to Antalya. Piramid GL, based in Diyarbak?r, is the country's first Kurdish gay rights organization. Turkish Cypriots, too, have formed the Northern Cypriot Initiative Against Homophobia. As one panelist at the conclusion of the Istanbul pride week remarked, "Three years ago, we were only 40 people; last year we were 1,500." In 2008, they were almost twice as many. Turkey might have avoided a political meltdown when the Constitutional Court decided not to outlaw the AKP, as the chief prosecutor of Turkey, a Kemalist stalwart, demanded. Yet the government's drive for reform, given impetus by belief in the possibility of integration into Europe, has lost considerable momentum. The AKP's social conservatism is omnipresent, whether in the censorious ban of cross-dressing on TV or in the promotion of a model of family relations that leaves no space for dissent or non-conforming gender roles. What is less likely, however, is the reversal of the societal process of individuation, which would require a level of state violence and a renunciation of basic democratic principles unimaginable at the current juncture. Even in the worst-case scenario of direct military intervention, Kurds will not resubmit to the delusion that they are "mountain Turks," families of survivors of the 1915 atrocities against Armenians will not deny their ancestry[14] and transsexuals will not turn into "Turkish men." Even the generals of the 1980 junta managed to ban B?lent Ersoy and Zeki M?ren from the stage for only a few years. When they were allowed to perform again, they returned with a vengeance: Ersoy had a sex change operation and M?ren appeared in ever more colorful and feminine dress. The Sun of Art baffled almost everyone once again when he died in 1996, receiving a state funeral. He had bequeathed his belongings to the Mehmet?ik Foundation, which provides pension funds for Turkish soldiers wounded or killed in combat. Notes [1] Tarik Bereket and Barry D. Adam, "The Emergence of Gay Identities in Contemporary Turkey," Sexualities 9/2 (April 2006). [2] Elif Shafak, "Transgender Bolero," Middle East Report 230 (Spring 2004). See also Deniz Kandiyoti, "Transsexuals and the Urban Landscape in Istanbul," Middle East Report 206 (Spring 1998). [3] The tragicomic film Beynelmilel [The International] captures the brutality of the gender and cultural policies of the 1980 military regime. In a key scene, an army unit storms a gathering of local men, who meet to drink and sing with a k??ek despite a curfew, and arrests all men present. [4] Bianet.org, July 3, 2007. [5] Independent, July 19, 2008. Activists say they have evidence for at least one comparable murder in the southeastern town of Maras. [6] Pinar Selek, Maskeler, S?variler, Gac?lar, ?lker Sokak: Bir Altk?lt?r?n D??lanma Mekan? (Istanbul: Istiklal Kitabevi, 2007). [7] Kaos GL, LGBT Bireylerin Insan Haklari Raporu 2007 (Ankara, 2007). [8] Human Rights Watch, "We Need a Law for Liberation": Gender, Sexuality and Human Rights in a Changing Turkey (New York, May 2008). [9] See Kerem ?ktem, "Revolution of Islamic Law: Eighty Years of the Swiss Civil Code in Turkey," H Soz U Kult, October 20, 2006, online at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=1356. [10] Human Rights Watch, p. 92. [11] Ibid., p. 80 ff. [12] Andreas Speck, "Conscientious Objection in Turkey: Struggling to Emerge," Peacework (December 2007). [13] Ahmet Insel, "Pretoryen Devlet ve Sahipleri," Birikim 218 (June 2007). [14] See Fethiye ?etin, My Grandmother: A Memoir (London: Verso, 2008). For background on the court case against the AKP, see Hilal Elver, "Lawfare and Wearfare in Turkey," Middle East Report Online (April 2008). For background on Hrant Dink, see Ay?e Kad?o?lu, "The Pigeon on the Bridge is Shot," Middle East Report Online, February 16, 2007. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Sep 14 14:08:05 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:08:05 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Chavez Accepts Responsibility for Blackouts in Venezuela Message-ID: Chavez Accepts Responsibility for Blackouts in Venezuela September 8th 2008, by Tamara Pearson - Venezuelanalysis.com Merida, September 5, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- Following nationwide blackouts, the Venezuelan government acknowledged its responsibility and outlined a plan to fix the ongoing problem. On Monday, September 3rd, there were three blackouts in Merida, lasting an hour or more and disrupting work, school, and university life. The third blackout occurred at night, leaving streets pitch black, and chaos on the roads as cars tried to navigate intersections without traffic lights. Similar situations could be seen across the country, including in Caracas, where trains were stranded. This follows a previous nationwide blackout on April 29. Blackouts in Andean states are common. In a press conference Friday, September 5, Chavez said the blackouts were the responsibility of the government, and that "There is no revolution without electricity and no future without a good electricity system." Accompanied by members of the Central Committee for Planning and Energy, Chavez insisted on the necessity of working without rest to resolve the problem, which he attributed to the fact that supply is not meeting the growth in demand. "We're in a transition from an old model to this new age of energy revolution," he said. Whilst acknowledging that the process of nationalization of the industry has gone through a series of problems, he also questioned that the government hasn't gone at the "required speed" to look for solutions. However, he also highlighted that it is the workers in the sector who are at the forefront of accelerating the solutions to such historical problems. Chavez also accused the opposition media of wanting to plant pessimism with their coverage of the electricity failures. "Now they are saying that because (I) nationalized the (electricity) sector the failures are starting, well no....that's what the oligarchs want, they will die in their bitterness." Chavez assured that the government is working towards implementing 42 structural projects (18 of expansion, 11 associated, and 13 for widening networks), which include the inauguration of the thermo-electric plant, Josefa Camejo, in the state of Falcon (by 27 September), with a capacity of 450 megawatts. Falcon is one of the states where supply of electricity does not meet demand. He also highlighted the construction of dams for the generation of electricity and the thermo-electric plant Termozulia II, which is expected to be inaugurated between the October 21 and 25 and will generate 460 megawatts for the region of Zulia. This plant will use combined cycle technology, which takes advantage of the gases and heat that escape in order to generate additional electricity without using fuel. Altogether an increase of 1,335 megawatts is anticipated when other plants are also modernized. Beyond the next few months, the government wants to construct the Hydroelectric plant Mazparro in the state of Barinas, which will insert a total of 25 megawatts into the national electric generation. It should be inaugurated in early 2009 and will unite with the thermo-electric plant Juan Antonio Rodriguez, which is currently being maintained and in which the government is investing in its modernization. Also, the thermo-electric plant Planta Centro is in a process of reconversion that will see electricity produced with gas and not with diesel fuel. Chavez emphasized that this will contribute to the decrease of pollution. He also announced that the National Electric Corporation (Corpoelec) is handling 874 plans of distribution to improve the supply of electricity to the population. From this year until 2014 it is hoped to have sustainable growth in line with the demand increase of 5.7%. Chavez stressed that such investment seeks to recover the electricity generation capacity, which was abandoned by previous administrations. Finally, to avoid excess electricity demand, Chavez called on citizens to leave behind the "wasteful culture" and adopt a "culture of energy saving". "There is a barbarous increase in the consumption of energy. We are aware, well one of the components of this situation is the waste of energy." Printed: September 14th 2008, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3780 License: Published under a Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). See creativecommons.org for more information. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 14 14:13:15 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:13:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] (Canada) The Jewish vote Message-ID: <200809142013.m8EKDFlA026709@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080914/4f07d41a/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 14 15:42:34 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:42:34 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Breaking the Siege of Gaza Message-ID: <200809142142.m8ELgYQq018894@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080914/03d95e69/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 14 15:51:47 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:51:47 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Former Israeli soldier bears witness to 'dirty' occupation Message-ID: <200809142151.m8ELplx9027650@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080914/c2f03034/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 14 15:52:53 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:52:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Ex-minister accuses Israel of racism Message-ID: <200809142152.m8ELqrVZ028472@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080914/a761cf13/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Sep 14 16:38:38 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:38:38 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The New Humanitarian Order Message-ID: <200809142238.m8EMccb7011727@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080914/600ede7c/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Sep 14 17:53:03 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:53:03 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Worsening Debt Crisis: Message-ID: <48CDA3DF.6000300@attglobal.net> Who Got Us into This Mess and What are the Real Political Options? An Interview with Economist Michael Hudson by Mike Whitney www.counterpunch.com (September 08 2008) Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist specializing in the balance of payments and real estate at the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase & Company), Arthur Anderson, and later at the Hudson Institute (no relation). In 1990 he helped established the world's first sovereign debt fund for Scudder Stevens & Clark. Dr Hudson was Dennis Kucinich's Chief Economic Advisor in the recent Democratic primary presidential campaign, and has advised the US, Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new editon, Pluto Press, 2002). Mike Whitney: On Friday afternoon the government announced plans to place the two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under "conservatorship". Shareholders will be virtually wiped out (their stock already had plunged by over ninety per cent) but the US Treasury will step in to protect the companies' debt. To some extent it also will protect their preferred shares, which Morgan-Chase have marked down only by half. This seems to be the most sweeping government intervention into the financial markets in American history. If these two companies are nationalized, it will add $5.3 trillion dollars to the nation's balance sheet. So my first question is, why is the Treasury bailing out bondholders and other investors in their mortgage IOUs? What is the public interest in all this? Hudson: The Treasury emphasized that it was under a Sunday afternoon deadline to finalize the takeover details before the Asian markets opened for trading. This concern reflects the balance-of-payments and hence military dimension to the bailout. The central banks of China, Japan and Korea are major holders of these securities, precisely because of the large size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - their $5.3 trillion in mortgage-backed debt that you mention, and the $11 trillion overall US mortgage market. When you look at the balance sheet of US assets available for foreign central banks to buy with the $2.5 to $3.5 trillion of surplus dollars they hold, real estate is the only asset category large enough to absorb the balance-of-payments outflows that US military spending, foreign trade and investment-capital flight are throwing off. When the US military spends money abroad to fight the New Cold War, these dollars are recycled increasingly into US mortgage-backed securities, because there is no other market large enough to absorb the sums involved. Remember, we do not permit foreigners - especially Asians - to buy high-tech, "national security" or key infrastructure. The government would prefer to see them buy harmless real estate trophies such as Rockefeller Center, or minority shares in banks with negative equity such as Citibank shares sold to the Saudis and Bahrainis. But there is a limit on how nakedly the US Government can exploit foreign central banks. It does need to keep dollar recycling going, in order to prevent a sharp dollar depreciation. The Treasury therefore has given informal assurances to foreign governments that they will guarantee at least the dollar value of the money their central banks are recycling. (These governments still will lose as the dollar plunges against hard currencies - just about every currency except the dollar these days.) A failure to provide investment guarantees to foreigners would thwart the continuation of US overseas military spending! And once foreigners are bailed out, the Treasury has to bail out domestic American investors as well, simply for political reasons. Whitney: Fannie and Freddie have been loading up on risky mortgages for ages, under-stating the risks largely to increase their stock price so that their CEOs can pay themselves tens of millions of dollars in salary and stock options. Now they are essentially insolvent, as the principal itself is in question. There was widespread criticism of this year after year after year. Why was nothing done? Hudson: Fannie and Freddie were notorious for their heavy Washington lobbying. They bought the support of Congressmen and Senators who managed to get onto the financial oversight committees so that they would be in a position to collect campaign financing from Wall Street that wanted to make sure that no real regulation would take place. On the broadest level, Treasury Secretary Paulson has said that these companies are being taken over in order to reflate the real estate market. Fannie and Freddie were almost single-handedly supporting the junk mortgage market that was making Wall Street rich. The CEOs claimed to pay themselves for "innovation". In today's Orwellian vocabulary financial "innovation" means the creation of special rent-extracting privilege. The privilege was being able to get the proverbial "free ride" (that is, economic rent) by borrowing at low-interest government rates to buy and repackage mortgages to sell at a high-interest markup. Their "innovation" lies in the ambiguity that enabled them to pose as public-sector borrowers when they wanted to borrow at low rates, and private-sector arbitrageurs when they wanted to get a rake-off from higher margins. The government's auditors are now finding out that their other innovation was to cook the accounting books, Enron-style. As mortgage arrears and defaults mounted up, Fannie and Freddie did not mark down their mortgage holdings to realistic prices. They said they would do this in a year or so - by 2009, after the Bush Administration's deregulators have left office. The idea was to blame it all on Obama when they finally failed. But at the deepest level of all, the "innovation" that created a rent-extracting loophole was the deception that making more and more bad-mortgage loans could continue for a prolonged period of time. The reality is that no exponential rise in debt ever has been able to be paid for more than a few years, because no economy ever has been able to produce a surplus fast enough to keep pace with the "magic of compound interest". That phrase is itself a synonym for the exponential growth of debt. The Road to Debt Peonage Whitney: In an earlier interview you said: "The economy has reached its debt limit and is entering its insolvency phase. We are not in a cycle but the end of an era. The old world of debt pyramiding to a fraudulent degree cannot be restored." Would you expand on this in view of today's developments? Hudson: How long more and more money can be pumped into the real estate market, while disposable personal income is not growing by enough to pay these debts? How can people pay mortgages in excess of the rental value of their property? Where is the "market demand" to come from? Speculators already withdrew from the real estate market by late 2006 - and in that year they represented about a sixth of all purchases. The best that this weekend's bailout can do is to postpone the losses on bad mortgage debts. But this is a far cry from actually restoring the ability of debtors to pay. Mr Paulson talks about more lending to support real estate prices. But this will prevent housing from falling to levels that people can afford without running deeper and deeper into mortgage debt. Housing prices are still way, way above the traditional definition of equilibrium - prices whose carrying charges are just about equal to what it would cost to rent over time. The Treasury's aim is to revive Fannie and Freddie as lenders - and hence as vehicles for the US economy to borrow from the foreign central banks and large institutional investors that I mentioned above. More lending is supposed to support real estate prices from falling quite so far as they otherwise would - and in fact, the aim is to keep the debt pyramid growing. The only way to do this is to lend mortgage debtors enough to pay the interest and amortization charges on the existing volume of debt they have been loaded down with. And since most people aren't really earning any more - and in fact are finding their budgets squeezed - the only basis for borrowing more is to inflate the price of real estate that is being pledged as collateral for mortgage refinancing. It is pure hypocrisy for Wall Street's Hank Paulson to claim that all this is being done to "help home owners". They are vehicles off whom to make money, not the beneficiaries. They are at the bottom of an increasingly carnivorous and extractive financial food chain. Nearly all real estate experts are in agreement that for the next year or two, many of today's homeowners will find themselves locked into where they are now living. Their situation is much like medieval serfs were tied to their land. They can't sell, because the market price won't cover the mortgage they owe, and they don't have the savings to pay the difference. Matters are aggravated by the fact that interest rates are scheduled to reset at higher non-teaser rates for the rest of this next year and 2010, increasing the financial burden. You may remember that Alan Greenspan recommended that homebuyers take out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) because the average American moves every three years. By the time the mortgage interest rate jumped, he explained, they could sell to a new buyer in this game of musical chairs - presumably with more and more chairs being added all the times, and plusher ones to boot. But homeowners can't move today, so they find themselves stuck with rising interest charges on top of their rising fuel and heating and electricity charges, transportation charges, food costs, health insurance and even property taxes as these begin to catch up with the rise in Bubble Prices. The government has carefully avoided nationalizing the companies and thereby taking them onto its own balance sheet. It has created a "conservatorship" (a word that my spellchecker does not recognize). So the bailout of Fannie and Freddie looks like the Republicans are trying to play the financial just-pretend game simply until they leave office in February, after which time they can blame the failure of the "miracle of compound debt interest" on the incoming Democratic Congress. So it's politics as usual: play for the short run. In the long run - even next year - the real estate market will continue to drift down. Whitney: The economic news keeps getting grimmer and grimmer, but you'd never know it by listening to the politicians at the Republican Convention. The only time the economy was brought up at all was in the context of praise for free markets and globalization. The housing crash and credit market meltdown were not mentioned. Could you tell us what you think the rising unemployment numbers, falling consumer demand, skyrocketing foreclosures and ongoing troubles in the credit markets mean for America's future? Is this just a blip on the radar or are we in the middle of a major retrenchment that will result in falling living standards and a deep, protracted recession? Hudson: The Republicans prefer to distract attention from how the Bush regime has failed over the past eight years. If attention can be focused on Iraq and terrorism, on personalities and style, serious discussion of such matters may be crowded out. That's what the news media are for. When politicians do talk about the economy, the basic strategy is to fight the November election over who has the nicest dream for what people would like to believe. Amazing as it seems, a large number of Americans actually expect to have a good chance of becoming millionaires. They're simply not looking at the debt side of the balance sheet. The most striking economic dynamic today is polarization between those who live off the returns to wealth (finance and property extracting interest and rent, plus capital gains as asset prices are inflated) and those who live off what they can earn, struggling to pay the taxes and debts they are taking on. The national income and product accounts - GNP and national income - don't say anything about the polarization of property, and doesn't include capital gains, which are how most wealth is being achieved these days, not by actual direct investment to increase the means of production as lobbyists for trickle-down economic theory claim. Here's how things look today: The richest one per cent of the population receive 57.5 per cent of all the income generated by wealth - that is, payment for privilege, most of it inherited. These returns - interest, rent and capital gains - are not primarily a return for enterprise. They are pure inertia, weighing down markets. They do not "free" markets, except by providing a free lunch to the wealthiest families. The richest twenty per cent of the population receives some 86 per cent of all this income - that is, what actually is increasing household balance sheets. What people still view as an economic democracy is turning into a financial oligarchy. Politicians are looking for campaign support mainly from this oligarchy because that is where the money is. So they talk about a happy-face economy to appeal to American optimism, while being quite pragmatic in knowing who to serve if they want to get ahead and not be blackballed. During the 1990s the bottom ninety per cent of the population tried to catch up by going into debt to buy homes and other property. What they didn't see was that an insatiable growth in debt is needed to keep a real estate and finance bubble expanding. All this credit imposes financial charges, which have been largely responsible for polarizing wealth ownership so sharply in recent decades. These debt charges have grown so heavy that debtors are able to pay only by borrowing the interest that is falling due. They have been able to borrow for the past few years by pledging real estate or other collateral whose prices are being inflated by Federal Reserve policy. The Treasury also contributes by giving tax favoritism, un-taxing property and finance. This forces labor and tangible industrial capital to pick up the fiscal slack, even as they are being forced to carry a heavier debt burden. Homeowners do not gain by this higher market "equilibrium" price for housing. Higher prices simply mean more debt overhead. Rising price/rent and price/earnings ratios for debt-financed properties, stocks and bonds oblige wage earners to go deeper and deeper into debt, devoting more and more years of their working life to pay for housing and to buy income-yielding stocks and bonds for their retirement. Debt expansion to buy property seems self-justifying as long as asset prices are rising. This asset-price inflation is euphemized as "wealth creation" by focusing on real estate, stock and bond prices - even as disposable personal income and living and working conditions are eroded. So to come back to your broad question, I don't see consumer demand rising much, except by foreign tourists coming over and spending their money as the dollar falls. Here in New York, foreign buyers are supporting the real estate market. The Wall Street downturn already has forced the city to postpone its promised property tax cuts and its subway expansion. My wife and I just got our condo tax bill this week. There was an explanatory note telling us that the only tax cuts will be for commercial property owners. Residential property tax rates rise. It gets worse. Without better transportation, wage earners will be squeezed across the country. Higher gas prices, electricity, health care and food are crowding out spending on output and forcing people into even more debt. That's why arrears and defaults are rising. Even rents are rising, despite falling real estate prices. This is because houses under foreclosure can't be rented out, so millions of houses may be taken off the market. Whitney: What exactly do you mean by "modern debt peonage"? Hudson: This is what happens when wage earners are obliged to turn over all their income above basic subsistence needs to the FIRE sector - mainly for debt service but also to pay for compulsory insurance and, most recently, the tax burden that finance and property have shifted off themselves. The distinguishing feature about peonage is its lack of choice. It is the antithesis of free markets. As I mentioned above, many families today find themselves locked into homes that have negative equity. Their mortgage debt exceeds the market price. These homes can't be sold - unless the family can pay the difference to the banker who has made the bad mortgage loan. The gap may exceed all the income the family earns in an entire year - just as it was making on paper a price gain larger than its annual take-home pay. But what did all this matter, in retrospect, if the house was for living, not for buying and selling? This dimension of use value was left out of account by focusing on paper wealth. In a nutshell, debt peonage is the other side of the coin in a rentier economy. The negative equity we are seeing today is a key component of debt peonage. It forces debt peons to spend their lives trying to work their way out of debt. The more desperate they get, the more risks they take, and the deeper they end up. In Kansas City, one of my students wrote his class paper on how the immediate cause of many mortgage defaults is gambling debt. Missouri has a lot of fundamentalist Christians who think of God as watching carefully over them. Being good people, they want to give God a chance to reward them for living an honest life. So they go to the gambling boats that are moored along the river. But the odds are against them, and it looks like Einstein was wrong when he said that God doesn't play dice. Gambling - and much financial speculation - is all about probability, and the odds are as much against gamblers as they are against debtors. Being laws of nature, the laws of probability are like the privilege of land ownership: a gambling license provides the house with an opportunity to rake economic rent off the top. Debt deflation and the tax shift off finance and property onto labor Whitney: In the short run it looks like slow growth and deflation will be bigger problems than inflation. Commodities, including gold and oil, are tumbling almost daily, while bank assets are being steadily downgraded, foreclosures are soaring and the stock market is reeling. The financial crisis that began in the real estate market has triggered a boycott of structured products and is now rippling through the broader economy. The Federal Reserve has already dropped interest rates by 3.5 per cent and has used up half its balance sheet ($450 billion) to shore up the faltering banking system. But the situation keeps getting worse. The banks have curtailed their lending, and consumer spending is off in nearly every area. It looks like the Fed is out of ammo. Is it time to consider fiscal alternatives to the present downturn, such as cutting payroll taxes to give families more money to increase demand, or initiating massive infrastructure projects? Hudson: By "deflation" I assume you mean debt deflation - draining purchasing power as a result of rising debt service and compulsory insurance, plus the wage squeeze that the government praises for "raising productivity" to "create wealth" for the CEOs who pay themselves what they have cut back from labor's paycheck. There will be less consumer spending - but even so, consumer prices may not come down if the dollar resumes its fall, especially if monopoly pricing continues to be permitted. Your solution is indeed what is needed, and Mr Obama has promised to raise the wage and salary limit subject to FICA withholding. I think that an even better idea would be to go back to the original 1913 income tax and exempt wages that merely cover subsistence. I would restore a cut-off point at $102,000 in today's dollars, matching the terms of America's 1913 income tax. People earning less would not have to file an income-tax return at all. This truly conservative idea would free income to be spent on improving living standards. Instead, high income brackets and property are being un-taxed today, and their tax savings are being spent mainly in making loans that are used to bid up the price of wealth and luxury goods. This is what the classical economists warned against, yet the tax shift off property onto labor is being done hypocritically in their name. To get the kind of free markets they advocated, taxes should fall on the FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate) and monopolies, not wages or bona fide industrial profits stemming from tangible capital investment and employment. Whitney: This June you wrote a groundbreaking paper for a recent Post-Keynesian conference at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, where you're an economics professor. Its title was "How the Real Estate Bubble drives Home buyers into Debt Peonage". You earlier wrote a now famous May 2006 Harpers cover story on debt peonage. Your Kansas City paper produces charts showing how tax favoritism for real estate and other clients for the banking and financial sector stimulates asset-inflation, leading to massive equity bubbles like the one we are currently experiencing in the housing market. Would you give us a brief summary of your thesis? Hudson: My paper explained how the money the tax collector gives up is "freed" to be paid to banks as interest. This is the motto of real estate investors: "Rent is for paying interest". The FIRE sector has adopted a populist rhetoric to persuade homeowners to believe that lowering the property tax will end up giving them more money. It seems at first blush that this would happen. But in practice, new buyers - and speculators - come into the market and pledge the tax cuts to bid up housing prices all the more. The winner in this new anti-tax marketplace is the buyer who pledges to pay the tax cut to the banks as interest on a mortgage loan to buy the property. As my paper describes: "Tax favoritism for real estate, corporate raiders and ultimately for bankers has freed income to be pledged to carry more and more debt, which has been used to fuel asset-price inflation that raises the price of home ownership, corporate stocks and bonds - but not to increase production and output ... Shaping the marketplace to favor finance and property over industry and labor does not create a 'free market'. It favors the debt-leveraged buying and selling of real estate, stocks and bonds, distorting markets in ways that de-industrialize the economy. [And] shifting taxes off property and finance is more a distortion than a virtue, unless debt leveraging is deemed virtuous. "This is the tragedy of our economy today. Credit creation, saving and investment are not being mobilized to increase new direct investment or raise living standards, but to bid up prices for real estate and other assets already in place and for financial securities (stocks and bonds) already issued. This loads down the economy with debt without putting in place the means to pay it off, except by further and even more rapid asset-price inflation. "This is largely the result of relinquishing planning and the structuring of markets to large banks and other financial institutions; political lobbyists have rewritten most of today's tax laws and sponsored general public deregulation of the checks and balances that were being put in place by the late 19th century. At that time, just over a hundred years ago, it seemed that wealth - and banking - were being industrialized, while landed wealth and monopolies would become more socialized and their rents fully taxed. Instead of real estate prices rising, the rental 'free lunch' would provide the basic source of public finance. Technology and productivity would increase industrial capital formation and raise labor's living standards. These policies would free markets from rent extraction and also from taxes as the fiscal burden was shifted back onto property. "But this is not what has occurred. The financial system has used its power to extract fiscal favors for real estate and to press for deregulation of monopolies as the major source of its interest and collateral for its loans." Whitney: What do you think the positive effects would be of taxing property rather than income and industrial profit? Hudson: It would have two major positive effects. First, it would free labor and industry from the tax burden. And by the same token, it would require the economic rent currently used to pay interest and depreciation to be paid instead as a property rent tax. This would free an equivalent sum from having to be raised in the form of income and sales tax. That was the classical idea of free markets. As matters stand today, the tax subsidy for real estate and finance leaves more net rental income to be capitalized into bank loans. This is a travesty of the "free markets" that lobbyists for the banks and the wealthy in general claim to advocate. Replacing income and sales taxes by a land-rent "free lunch" tax would make real estate prices more affordable, because the interest now "free" to be paid to banks to support a high debt overhead would instead be collected and used to lower the tax burden on labor and industry. This would reduce the cost of production and living, I estimate by about sixteen percent of national income. Homeowners and renters would pay the same amount as they now do, but the public sector would recapture the expense of building transportation and other basic infrastructure out of the higher rental value this spending creates. The tax system would be based on user fees for property, falling on owners in a way that collects the rising value of their property resulting from the rent of location, enhanced by public transportation and other infrastructure, and from the general level of prosperity, for which landlords are not responsible but merely are the passive beneficiaries under current practice. A Neo-Progressive fiscal policy would aim at recapturing the land's site value created by public infrastructure spending, schooling and the general level of prosperity. The debt pyramid would be much smaller, and savings could take the form of equity investment once again. Slower growth of debt, housing and office prices, and lower taxes on income and sales would make the economy more competitive internationally. Whitney: I'd like to expand on what you have said in your article and you can correct me if I've got it wrong. You say that today's tax code poses an obstacle to progressive political change, and puts more and more power in the hands of bankers and speculators who profit from "boom and bust" cycles. In other words, reworking the tax system has to be the cornerstone of any progressive platform? Is this the bigger point you are trying to make? Hudson: It's certainly the tax point I want to make. But I think that my most important point is the analysis of how the mathematics of compound interest intrudes increasingly into the economy. The fiscal link is that as finance strips more and more wealth, Wall Street converts its economic power into political power. Its main aim is to free itself from taxation - by shifting the burden onto labor. One way to achieve this tax shift has been to re-define taxes as a "user fee". This is what the Greenspan Commission did in 1983 when it imposed heavy regressive taxation on labor via FICA wage withholding for Social Security and Medicare instead of funding these programs out of the general budget, to be paid for largely by the higher brackets. The Social Security Trust Fund generated a heavy tax surplus, which was used to cut tax rates on the upper wealth brackets. The tax code's "small print" made commercial real estate free of having to pay income tax by pretending that landlords were losing money on their property as buildings depreciated - as if the land's rising site value did not more than compensate. Most important, interest was treated as a tax-deductible expense. This encouraged debt leveraging rather than equity investment, creating an enormous market for bankers creating credit and collecting interest on it. Whitney: You say in your article that there's "a symbiosis between finance, insurance and real estate" which is at the core of the Bubble Economy. And that this creates "a feedback between bank credit and asset prices. The quickest and easiest path to wealth is not to earn profits by investing in industry, but to go into debt to ride the wave of asset-price inflation. The result is a shift of wealth seeking away from industry to financial maneuvering on credit to ride the wave of asset-price inflation". Is this financialization trend irreversible, or is there a way we can revitalize America's industrial base? Should we consider nationalizing the failing auto industry and putting people to work while we build vehicles for the future? Hudson: Nationalization may not be the answer as long as financial interests have replaced the government as society's new central planners. I fear that nationalization under today's political conditions would mean "socializing the losses", having the government bear them and then sell off the companies at the usual give-away price to new buyers on credit, all to the benefit of Wall Street. If there is any sector to be nationalized, it should be the FIRE sector - finance, insurance and industry - along with taking basic infrastructure back into the public domain by de-privatizing it. The Progressive Era's plan that made America so rich and dominant a nation was for the government to supply basic services such as railroads, phone systems, the post office and roads or canals at cost or at a subsidy. This lowered the price structure across the economic spectrum, enabling the United States to undersell and out-produce other economies. Whitney: We are now in Year Two of the so-called credit crisis, what Bloomberg News calls "the worst financial crisis since the Depression". More and more pundits are pointing at the Fed's monetary policies as the source of the troubles. Surprisingly, even the New York Times has joined in the finger pointing by admitting that Greenspan played a central role in the housing bubble. Here's what The New York Times recently said: "Who's to blame? In the estimation of many economists, it starts with the Federal Reserve. The central bank lowered interest rates following the calamitous end of the technology bubble in 2000, lowered them more after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, and then kept them low, even as speculators began to trade homes like dot-com stocks. Meanwhile, the Fed sat back and watched as Wall Street's financial wizards engineered diabolically complicated investments linked to mortgages, generating huge amounts of speculative capital that turned real estate into a conflagration." How would you characterize Greenspan's part in the present crisis? Hudson: He was its cheerleader, with backup from the University of Chicago and a slew of right-wing think tanks. Mr Greenspan gave all this trickle-down economics a patina of rationale and also a rhetoric pretending that the financial bubble was helping homeowners rather than mortgage lenders and Wall Street. His role was to translate Ayn Rand propaganda into populist euphemism. The role of a financial cheerleader is to confuse the economic issues, above all by depicting running into debt as "debt leverage" to accelerate "wealth creation". Looking backward, we now can see that this was really debt creation. When Mr Greenspan spoke about wealth, he didn't mean the kind that Adam Smith referred to in The Wealth of Nations - tangible means of production. Mr Greenspan meant balance-sheet financial claims on this wealth in the form of stocks, bonds and property claims. Adam Smith said that to count these monetary forms of wealth alongside the actual land and capital of Britain would be double counting. For Greenspan, the liabilities side of the economy's balance sheet - what its producers owed to financial and property owners - became the only kind of wealth he really cared about. This inside-out perspective was largely responsible for de-industrializing, downsizing and outsourcing the US economy. Mr Greenspan's idea of "free markets" was simply to deregulate them - covertly, to be sure, by appointing non-regulators to the government's key regulatory positions. This resulted in asset stripping, which created some conspicuous billionaires (corporate raiders, re-christened as "shareholder activists" these days) and hence won the praise of Mr Greenspan for ostensibly playing a positive role in "wealth creation". The bottom line is that the economic vocabulary was turned into double-think. The Political dimension Whitney: I have no background in economics, and never had any particular interest in the topic. My frustration with the direction of the country - particularly the Iraq war and the dismantling of civil liberties - led me to search for answers in places that I never otherwise would have looked. Now I am convinced that the war in Iraq and the rapid shift towards a police state here in America are logical corollaries of the economic polarization that has its root in policies that are fundamentally flawed and serve the narrow interests of corporatists, bankers and other vested interests. Hudson: With regard to your abhorrence of economics, some of my best students at the New School withdrew from the discipline as they found that it wasn't addressing the problems they were most concerned about. The field has been sterilized by more than a generation of Chicago School intolerance. The economics profession does not seem to be amenable to reform along the lines that would get you interested in it. It has become mainly a rhetorical gloss to depict financial oligarchy as if it were populist economic democracy. Many people have tried to expand its scope, and have failed. Thorstein Veblen made an attempt a century ago, his analysis - basically, classical political economy - was exiled to the academic sub-basement of sociology. Economists preferred to put on blinders when it came to looking at wealth distribution and the classical distinction between "earned" and unearned" (that is, parasitic) income. Just while sex was becoming un-repressed, wealth distribution became the new politically incorrect topic to discuss. In the old movies about invaders from outer space such as The Thing, there usually was a near-sighted scientist who said, "Let's try to reason with it. It's smarter than we are, because it's come in a flying saucer with all that great technology." The monster from outer space then would simply whack the man aside, killing him brutally. It's much like the Terminator from the future. "It doesn't feel compassion. It doesn't feel pain. You can't reason with it", says the movie's hero. "All it does is kill". This is the task the Chicago Boys have taken on in their defense of financialized markets as being "free". You can't reason with them. Reason is not their job. They are not there to be fair. But to achieve its censorial role, today's economic orthodoxy pretends that markets work in a fair way to provide everyone with opportunity - something like a sperm with a chance to inherit a billion dollars from a Russian kleptocrat or American real estate magnate or Wall Street operator. To promote this worldview, one needs to craft a rhetoric pretending that markets are "free", not leading to serfdom. One has to pretend that is government regulation of the kleptocrats that is leading to serfdom rather than protecting the population from predatory finance. Regarding your concern with the police state and, ultimately military aggression that is required to promote "free markets" at gunpoint, Pinochet-style, empire building always has gone hand in hand with impoverishing the population of the imperial center as well as its periphery. For starters, empires and wars don't pay, at least not in modern times. At best, it is like the war in Iraq - a vehicle for the Bush administration to channel billions of "missing" dollars to its campaign supporters, to recycle back into new Republican campaign funding. The economy at large is taxed as imperialism turns into asset stripping. A second and more purely political dimension of imperial warfare is to distract the attention of voters away from economic issues, by appealing to their nationalism and chauvinism. Hobson's theory of imperialism was that the domestic population lacked the income to consume what it produced, so that producers had to seek out foreign markets. This led to war. But today, the "postindustrial" mode of imperialism is more about recycling wealth to produce capital gains, mainly by globalizing and privatizing the Bubble Economy. The most important markets for "wealth creation" are not for goods and services, but for real estate and financial assets. So we are brought back to your initial questions today, about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will sponsor more sales of mortgage-backed securities. Whitney: I think your article offers a straightforward way to avoid disaster and to transform society by changing the tax code so that it strengthens the middle class and levels the playing field between "the haves and the have-nots". But how can this be achieved without breaking your ideas into snappy sound-bytes and building a broad-based grassroots movement devoted to working class issues and economic justice? Is there a way to make these transformative social changes without starting a third political party; an American Labor Party perhaps? Hudson: If the incoming Democratic administration proves to be more of the same, pressure will indeed arise to create a new party. More often economic reform has come from the top, but I don't see it from the Republicans, given their corruption. Within the Democratic Party the question is whether the Wall Street Democratic Leadership Committee (who gave us Gore and Lieberman after the Clintons) will continue to impose its stranglehold. Any real improvement will need an educational campaign to prepare the ground for making economic reform the centerpiece of major elections. This educational role often has been filled by third parties. In the 1890s, for instance, the main Progressive Era campaigning occurred outside of the Democrats and largely outside of the Republicans as well. _____ Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist specializing in the balance of payments and real estate at the Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase & Company), Arthur Anderson, and later at the Hudson Institute (no relation). In 1990 he helped established the world's first sovereign debt fund for Scudder Stevens & Clark. Dr Hudson was Dennis Kucinich's Chief Economic Advisor in the recent Democratic primary presidential campaign, and has advised the US, Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments, as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new edition, Pluto Press, 2002). He can be reached via his website, mh at michael-hudson.com Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney at msn.com http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney09082008.html 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/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Sep 15 02:48:01 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:48:01 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The myth of the super-rich Message-ID: <48CE2141.8090203@attglobal.net> by Peter Wilby New Statesman (September 11 2008) Most of our tycoons are not wealth creators, but wealth drainers Most Britons, and particularly readers of this column, will be familiar with the extent to which the super-rich are soaring away from the rest of us. Over the past five years alone, the average earnings of chief executives of FTSE-100 companies have doubled to GBP 3.2 million. Their pay has been rising five times faster than their employees'. The top one per cent of the population now enjoy 23 per cent of national wealth, while the poorest half share a mere six per cent. For most of the 20th century, Britain became steadily more equal. For the past three decades the movement has been in the opposite direction and it is estimated that Britain's wealthiest person, Lakshmi Mittal, is worth more than twice as much as anybody in the past 150 years. The reasons for the international trend of growing inequality are still disputed. Most economists, however, agree that globalisation and technology both play a role, because they make business more competitive and, therefore, put a high premium on scarce skills, including those of entrepreneurship and leadership. Government policies - tax cuts, deregulation and anti-union legislation - have certainly added to inequality. But, the argument runs, these are made necessary by the increased competition. If we hit the super-rich with what are pejoratively called "punitive" taxes, it is said, they will take their money and wealth-creating prowess elsewhere. Then we all lose. This account is challenged by Stewart Lansley, author of Rich Britain (2006), in a pamphlet put out by the TUC for its annual conference (Do the Super-Rich Matter?). Lansley argues that the largest group among today's super-rich are not wealth creators at all. They make their fortunes from land, property and finance and, in essence, are parasites living off an economy that is being slowly destroyed. The share of domestic bank lending that goes to the manufacturing industry fell from 5.2 per cent in 1999 to 2.3 per cent in 2007. Britain is strong in only two sectors of advanced technology: aerospace and pharmaceuticals, which are both supported by government money. Spending on research and development is declining. Output per worker is still well below the US, France and Germany. Internationally, Britain compares poorly on patent generation. To some degree - which Lansley doesn't fully acknowledge - none of this matters. You could argue Britain is strong in the growth areas of the future, which are mostly services such as education, media and top-class football matches. But Lansley is right to point out that an extraordinary proportion of current investment and top-end earnings go to financial institutions and their employees. In effect, Britain has turned into an enormous hedge fund on which ministers have bet the house. Many of the super-rich specialise in shifting money around, allegedly so it can be used most productively. This too may be described as a service: wealth management for the world. Now the credit crunch has revealed that financiers, to put it mildly, did a less than brilliant job and that large sums ended up in their own pockets. Indeed, the high earnings in the finance industry came mostly from the speculative activity that got us into the present mess. One must wonder how long the world will continue paying for this kind of service. But even if we keep their taxes low, the super-rich will eventually find reasons to leave, because Britain will lack the educated workforce, the transport, the policing, and perhaps even the stable democratic structures that make it a good place to live and do business. The mass of taxpayers will not indefinitely finance state spending while the country's 49 billionaires pay, according to one estimate, just 0.1 per cent of their income in tax. Lansley proposes several measures to "cap unjustifiable fortune-building at the expense of others". Some, such as requiring banks to hold higher levels of capital in proportion to what they lend, might well have restrained a national spending spree built on credit, with the dire consequences that are now familiar. But the best proposal is that the super-rich should simply pay tax at roughly the same rate as most other people. Lansley suggests that, however many tax reliefs and avoidance schemes are available, they should all pay a minimum of 32 to forty per cent of their earnings to the Treasury. That would still leave them very rich, but also force them to make a fair contribution to services that they now seem to imagine are provided by the tooth fairy. It is a sad comment on new Labour that it will not contemplate a solution that is so obviously just. _____ Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes a weekly column for the New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/09/super-rich-wealth-britain 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/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Mon Sep 15 07:18:22 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:18:22 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Minnesota Message-ID: <005401c91735$88c66a20$0400a8c0@computer> For me to say much more at this point -- and maybe even into the near future -- about the important need for the Obama campaign to reach out, and fast, to small town and rural people and very much to hunters and gunpersons, would be redundant. As many Indian elders are prone to say following their specific topical exposition, "I have said all I have to say." But the fact that Obama, who was substantively ahead in Minnesota, is now abruptly even with McCain/Palin, is a hell of a shocker and one can only hope that it's interpreted by the Democrats as a very, very signal wakeup Cry. The poll results were issued by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a thoroughly reputable newspaper. Minnes