From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sat Nov 1 03:19:23 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sat Nov 1 03:19:33 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] an interesting talk on things financial In-Reply-To: <05c701c93b1d$96fd1ab0$54ad57ca@jfos> References: <05c701c93b1d$96fd1ab0$54ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <200811011519230000.012E2E17@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> - this is interesting and informative if you are a bit in the dark (or a lot) about 'higher finances' and how it is all related to the current situation - and well done, informal rather than academic, by an anarchist in Ireland The cause of the crisis in global capitalism and the opportunities for anti-capitalists by Paul Bowman - WSM (personal capacity) A very detailed talk on the cause of the current world financial crisis that starts off by explaining the background economics in an easy to understand manner, moves on to the role the war and other events apart from the sub-prime crash played and concludes with a look at what opportunities have been created for anarchist by this sequence of events. http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/4577 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 1 18:55:49 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 1 18:55:59 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein Message-ID: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/3c30ca8e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2bc34e.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3106 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/3c30ca8e/2bc34e.gif From hermann at picknowl.com.au Sat Nov 1 19:35:15 2008 From: hermann at picknowl.com.au (John Hermann) Date: Sat Nov 1 19:35:33 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: [ERANet] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: aed93b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9109 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/8d5c47d9/aed93b.jpg From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Sat Nov 1 22:49:25 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Sat Nov 1 22:26:31 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: [ERANet] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <490D2345.3050400@spiritone.com> If you think they are going to lower taxes here I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. You can bet the farm that they're going to squeeze the tax payer to bailout these wall street fat cats. Doing nothing would not work. Hanging the son of bitches on Wall Street now thats a solution I can live with. John Hermann wrote: > Evidently Dion did not read my previous response to a similar recent > story (which was also fabricated on the same set of false > assumptions). Governments around the world had no option under the > existing financial framework than to recapitalize the banking system > with newly created credit money, by taking part public ownership of at > least the largest banks in trouble. Bye and large this money has not > come from taxation; it has been largely borrowed from central banks > specifically for the purpose of the bank bailouts. To have done > nothing would have resulted in a catastrophe of unprecedented > proportions. I have reproduced my previous response below. John Hermann > > The argument presented here is factually wrong and unconvincing. > Probably something of the order of one trillion dollars will be > needed to recapitalize the north american banking system. That > amounts to perhaps one third of the entire revenue obtained from > taxation. The claim that the bank bailout will be funded by the > taxpayer is therefore absurd. Consider what the withdrawal of such a > vast amount from tax revenue would do to spending programs and to the > public sector. It would devastate both, and lead to mass lay-offs in > the public sector, including the military. It is also incompatible > with promises by both presidential candidates to reduce taxes. > > UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealed in answer to a recent question > precisely where the bank bailout money will be coming from, namely, > from increased borrowing. And this is almost certainly how the US > government will finance the bailout. The only issue of interest here > is how much of that borrowing will be from the money markets and how > much will (effectively) be from the central bank. Bush and other > political leaders have signalled that the taxpayer will be > "protected", which might mean that funding will occur through the > selling of newly created government securities to the private sector, > followed by the central bank buying them back. Any interest income > from these securities would then return to treasury. > > Also absurd is the claim that the increased level of bank capital will > not be used as the basis for creating new loans to both the public and > private sectors. Capital adequacy is the primary basis of bank > lending, which is the central function of banking as we know it. In > the present circumstances (ie, there is the strong risk of a > deflationary scenario), any bank which does not use the injection of > new capital for the purpose of creating new loans (new credit money) > will quickly become insolvent and collapse. The idea that presently > undercapitalized banks are in a position to do anything else with this > new capital is misconceived and fallacious. John Hermann > > > > At 10:25 AM 2/11/2008, you wrote: > >> [On a per capita basis, a number of other countries' pollies have >> outdone the USA's in tax-funded generosity to Mr Greed. In a >> democracy, the people would be able to stop the grab at the outset. >> >> Dion Giles >> Western Australia] >> >> >> http://www.alternet.org/workplace/105452/ >> >> >> >> >> Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage >> >> By Naomi Klein, The Nation >> Posted on October 31, 2008, Printed on November 1, 2008 >> http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/ >> >> In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have >> given up the fight for power. But that doesn't mean they are >> relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check out >> the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 billion >> bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, >> Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on this task, and with a >> clear deadline in mind: inauguration. "How much of it do you think >> may be actually spent by January 20 or so?" Corker asked Neel >> Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in charge of the bailout. >> >> When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but to >> hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often turn >> their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold and >> grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like the >> Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured concrete down >> the elevator shafts. >> >> The Bush gang prefers bureaucratic instruments: "distressed asset" >> auctions and the "equity purchase program." But make no mistake: the >> goal is the same as it was for the defeated Portuguese -- a final >> frantic looting of the public wealth before they hand over the keys >> to the safe. >> >> How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have governed >> the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush administration >> announced it would be injecting $250 billion into America's banks in >> exchange for equity, the plan was widely referred to as "partial >> nationalization" -- a radical measure required to get the banks >> lending again. In fact, there has been no nationalization, partial or >> otherwise. Taxpayers have gained no meaningful control, which is why >> the banks can spend their windfall as they wish (on bonuses, mergers, >> savings...) and the government is reduced to pleading that they use a >> portion of it for loans. >> >> What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? I fear it is >> something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business -- >> that this bailout has been designed to keep pillaging the Treasury >> for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big market >> players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but their >> battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in the banks' >> honesty, and with good reason. This is where Treasury's equity pays >> off big time. >> >> By purchasing stakes in these institutions, Treasury is sending a >> signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Because the >> government won't be able to afford to let them fail. If these >> companies get themselves into trouble, investors can assume that the >> government will keep finding more cash, since allowing them to go >> down would mean losing its initial equity investments (just look at >> AIG). That tethering of the public interest to private companies is >> the real purpose of the bailout plan: Treasury Secretary Henry >> Paulson is handing all the companies that are admitted to the program >> -- a number potentially in the thousands -- an implicit Treasury >> Department guarantee. To skittish investors looking for safe places >> to park their money, these equity deals will be even more comforting >> than a Triple-A rating from Moody's. >> >> Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best part is >> that the government is paying them -- in some cases billions of >> dollars -- to accept its seal of approval. For taxpayers, on the >> other hand, this entire plan is extremely risky, and may well cost >> significantly more than Paulson's original idea of buying up $700 >> billion in toxic debts. Now taxpayers aren't just on the hook for the >> debts but, arguably, for the fate of every corporation that sells >> them equity. >> >> Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both enjoyed this kind of >> unspoken guarantee. For decades the market understood that, since >> these private players were enmeshed with the government, Uncle Sam >> would always save the day. It was the worst of all worlds. Not only >> were profits privatized while risks were socialized but the implicit >> government backing created powerful incentives for reckless investments. >> >> Now, with the new equity purchase program, Paulson has taken the >> discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge swath >> of the private banking industry. And once again, there is no reason >> to shy away from risky bets -- especially since Treasury has not >> required the banks to give up high-risk financial instruments in >> exchange for taxpayer dollars. >> >> To further boost confidence, the federal government has also unveiled >> unlimited public guarantees for many bank deposit accounts. Oh, and >> as if this wasn't enough, Treasury has been encouraging the banks to >> merge with one another, ensuring that the only institutions left >> standing will be "too big to fail." In three different ways, the >> market is being told loud and clear that Washington will not allow >> the country's financial institutions to bear the consequences of >> their behavior. This may well be Bush's most creative innovation: >> no-risk capitalism. >> >> There is a glimmer of hope. In answer to Senator Corker's question, >> Treasury is indeed having trouble dispersing the bailout funds. It >> has requested about $350 billion of the $700 billion, but most of >> this hasn't yet made it out the door. Meanwhile, every day it becomes >> clearer that the bailout was sold on false pretenses. It was never >> about getting loans flowing. It was always about turning the state >> into a giant insurance agency for Wall Street -- a safety net for the >> people who need it least, subsidized by the people who need it most. >> >> This grotesque duplicity is an opportunity. Whoever wins the election >> on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It can be used to >> call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds -- not after the >> inauguration, but right away. All deals should be renegotiated >> immediately, this time with the public getting the guarantees. >> >> It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout. The market won't >> like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing the Bush >> gang their parting gift to big business -- the gift that will keep on >> taking. >> >> /Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of >> Disaster Capitalism. >> >> /? 2008 The Nation All rights reserved. >> View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sat Nov 1 22:59:04 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sat Nov 1 23:08:34 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: [ERANet] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <200811021059040234.001BFF9A@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 9109 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/b4adeea3/attachment.jpe From hermann at picknowl.com.au Sun Nov 2 00:40:15 2008 From: hermann at picknowl.com.au (John Hermann) Date: Sun Nov 2 00:40:35 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <200811021059040234.001BFF9A@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> <200811021059040234.001BFF9A@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <200811020540.mA25eJ5K001692@mail11.tpg.com.au> I agree with all of this. -- JH At 02:29 PM 2/11/2008, Dave Patterson wrote: >The key words here would be 'under the existing financial framework' >- it should be clear that the existing financial framework must be >changed, and changed seriously, as it completely inevitably leads to >financial catastrophes on a regular basis,the transfer of large >amounts of money from we the people upstairs to they who do the >creating. It is simply insane to allow private entities to create a >nation's money supply, and charge interest on that money - it is, >quite simply, creating a society which puts yourself (we the >people, that is) in a position of dependency on a most untrustworthy >master, and no truly sovereign people who had the least idea what >they were doing would do this. (explained in more detail in an >earlier essay >BANKETEERING >http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/banketeering.html >) . This is, of course, much easier said than done, as it includes >establishing democratic governments to oversee the money creation >process, and it would be something of a struggle to wrest power away >from the current banking-elite plutocrats, and it would also require >the establishment of a 'people's media' devoted to telling the truth >about things rather than indoctrinating the people in beliefs that >keep the current overlords in power. And other things, all of which >are equally unlikely as long as 'we the people' apparently have no >idea what is happening and that doesn't bother anyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/5d58f15b/attachment.html From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Sun Nov 2 01:10:07 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Sun Nov 2 00:47:20 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: [ERANet] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <200811021059040234.001BFF9A@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> <200811021059040234.001BFF9A@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <490D443F.1010507@spiritone.com> you are basically stepping all around a pet theory of mine. I believe that the cause for all past goevernment failures from ancient Egypt, Rome, to Nazi Germany and the USSR all have failed for the same root cause--- a group of elites emerges and controls and operates the government for themselves and to hell with the masses. In the US it just took the elites 200 years before theygained countroled. That said this thing isn't over until there is one hell of a bloody revolution. Dave Patterson wrote: > The key words here would be 'under the existing financial framework' - > it should be clear that the existing financial framework _must_ be > changed, and changed seriously, as it completely inevitably leads to > financial catastrophes on a regular basis,the transfer of large > amounts of money from we the people upstairs to they who do the > creating. It is simply insane to allow private entities to create a > nation's money supply, and charge interest on that money - it is, > quite simply, creating a society which puts yourself (we the people, > that is) in a position of dependency on a most untrustworthy master, > and no truly sovereign people who had the least idea what they were > doing would do this. (explained in more detail in an earlier essay > BANKETEERING http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/banketeering.html ) . This > is, of course, much easier said than done, as it includes establishing > democratic governments to oversee the money creation process, and it > would be something of a struggle to wrest power away from the current > banking-elite plutocrats, and it would also require the establishment > of a 'people's media' devoted to telling the truth about things rather > than indoctrinating the people in beliefs that keep the current > overlords in power. And other things, all of which are equally > unlikely as long as 'we the people' apparently have no idea what is > happening and that doesn't bother anyone. > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 08-11-02 at 11:05 AM John Hermann wrote: > > Evidently Dion did not read my previous response to a similar > recent story (which was also fabricated on the same set of false > assumptions). Governments around the world had no option under the > existing financial framework than to recapitalize the banking > system with newly created credit money, by taking part public > ownership of at least the largest banks in trouble. Bye and large > this money has not come from taxation; it has been largely > borrowed from central banks specifically for the purpose of the > bank bailouts. To have done nothing would have resulted in a > catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. I have reproduced my > previous response below. John Hermann > > The argument presented here is factually wrong and unconvincing. > Probably something of the order of one trillion dollars will be > needed to recapitalize the north american banking system. That > amounts to perhaps one third of the entire revenue obtained from > taxation. The claim that the bank bailout will be funded by the > taxpayer is therefore absurd. Consider what the withdrawal of such > a vast amount from tax revenue would do to spending programs and > to the public sector. It would devastate both, and lead to mass > lay-offs in the public sector, including the military. It is also > incompatible with promises by both presidential candidates to > reduce taxes. > > UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealed in answer to a recent > question precisely where the bank bailout money will be coming > from, namely, from increased borrowing. And this is almost > certainly how the US government will finance the bailout. The only > issue of interest here is how much of that borrowing will be from > the money markets and how much will (effectively) be from the > central bank. Bush and other political leaders have signalled that > the taxpayer will be "protected", which might mean that funding > will occur through the selling of newly created government > securities to the private sector, followed by the central bank > buying them back. Any interest income from these securities would > then return to treasury. > > Also absurd is the claim that the increased level of bank capital > will not be used as the basis for creating new loans to both the > public and private sectors. Capital adequacy is the primary basis > of bank lending, which is the central function of banking as we > know it. In the present circumstances (ie, there is the strong > risk of a deflationary scenario), any bank which does not use the > injection of new capital for the purpose of creating new loans > (new credit money) will quickly become insolvent and collapse. The > idea that presently undercapitalized banks are in a position to do > anything else with this new capital is misconceived and > fallacious. John Hermann > > > > At 10:25 AM 2/11/2008, you wrote: > >> [On a per capita basis, a number of other countries' pollies have >> outdone the USA's in tax-funded generosity to Mr Greed. In a >> democracy, the people would be able to stop the grab at the outset. >> >> Dion Giles >> Western Australia] >> >> >> http://www.alternet.org/workplace/105452/ >> >> >> >> >> Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage >> >> By Naomi Klein, The Nation >> Posted on October 31, 2008, Printed on November 1, 2008 >> http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/ >> >> In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have >> given up the fight for power. But that doesn't mean they are >> relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check >> out the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 >> billion bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking >> Committee hearing, Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on >> this task, and with a clear deadline in mind: inauguration. "How >> much of it do you think may be actually spent by January 20 or >> so?" Corker asked Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in >> charge of the bailout. >> >> When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but >> to hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often >> turn their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold >> and grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like >> the Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured >> concrete down the elevator shafts. >> >> The Bush gang prefers bureaucratic instruments: "distressed >> asset" auctions and the "equity purchase program." But make no >> mistake: the goal is the same as it was for the defeated >> Portuguese -- a final frantic looting of the public wealth before >> they hand over the keys to the safe. >> >> How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have >> governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush >> administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into >> America's banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely >> referred to as "partial nationalization" -- a radical measure >> required to get the banks lending again. In fact, there has been >> no nationalization, partial or otherwise. Taxpayers have gained >> no meaningful control, which is why the banks can spend their >> windfall as they wish (on bonuses, mergers, savings...) and the >> government is reduced to pleading that they use a portion of it >> for loans. >> >> What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? I fear it is >> something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business >> -- that this bailout has been designed to keep pillaging the >> Treasury for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big >> market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but >> their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in >> the banks' honesty, and with good reason. This is where >> Treasury's equity pays off big time. >> >> By purchasing stakes in these institutions, Treasury is sending a >> signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Because >> the government won't be able to afford to let them fail. If these >> companies get themselves into trouble, investors can assume that >> the government will keep finding more cash, since allowing them >> to go down would mean losing its initial equity investments (just >> look at AIG). That tethering of the public interest to private >> companies is the real purpose of the bailout plan: Treasury >> Secretary Henry Paulson is handing all the companies that are >> admitted to the program -- a number potentially in the thousands >> -- an implicit Treasury Department guarantee. To skittish >> investors looking for safe places to park their money, these >> equity deals will be even more comforting than a Triple-A rating >> from Moody's. >> >> Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best >> part is that the government is paying them -- in some cases >> billions of dollars -- to accept its seal of approval. For >> taxpayers, on the other hand, this entire plan is extremely >> risky, and may well cost significantly more than Paulson's >> original idea of buying up $700 billion in toxic debts. Now >> taxpayers aren't just on the hook for the debts but, arguably, >> for the fate of every corporation that sells them equity. >> >> Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both enjoyed this kind >> of unspoken guarantee. For decades the market understood that, >> since these private players were enmeshed with the government, >> Uncle Sam would always save the day. It was the worst of all >> worlds. Not only were profits privatized while risks were >> socialized but the implicit government backing created powerful >> incentives for reckless investments. >> >> Now, with the new equity purchase program, Paulson has taken the >> discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge >> swath of the private banking industry. And once again, there is >> no reason to shy away from risky bets -- especially since >> Treasury has not required the banks to give up high-risk >> financial instruments in exchange for taxpayer dollars. >> >> To further boost confidence, the federal government has also >> unveiled unlimited public guarantees for many bank deposit >> accounts. Oh, and as if this wasn't enough, Treasury has been >> encouraging the banks to merge with one another, ensuring that >> the only institutions left standing will be "too big to fail." In >> three different ways, the market is being told loud and clear >> that Washington will not allow the country's financial >> institutions to bear the consequences of their behavior. This may >> well be Bush's most creative innovation: no-risk capitalism. >> >> There is a glimmer of hope. In answer to Senator Corker's >> question, Treasury is indeed having trouble dispersing the >> bailout funds. It has requested about $350 billion of the $700 >> billion, but most of this hasn't yet made it out the door. >> Meanwhile, every day it becomes clearer that the bailout was sold >> on false pretenses. It was never about getting loans flowing. It >> was always about turning the state into a giant insurance agency >> for Wall Street -- a safety net for the people who need it least, >> subsidized by the people who need it most. >> >> This grotesque duplicity is an opportunity. Whoever wins the >> election on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It can >> be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds -- >> not after the inauguration, but right away. All deals should be >> renegotiated immediately, this time with the public getting the >> guarantees. >> >> It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout. The market >> won't like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing >> the Bush gang their parting gift to big business -- the gift that >> will keep on taking. >> >> /Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of >> Disaster Capitalism. >> >> /? 2008 The Nation All rights reserved. >> View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sun Nov 2 01:14:50 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sun Nov 2 01:15:02 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: [ERANet] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <490D443F.1010507@spiritone.com> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> <200811021059040234.001BFF9A@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> <490D443F.1010507@spiritone.com> Message-ID: <200811021314500359.00984C67@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> gdy - the US elites have been in control since day 1 in 1776 ..... aside, from that, you're right, they've ALWAYS been in control - we were getting close during the 60s to some real democractic breakthroughs in some places, but they beat that back - a small essay about it all here - App 2 Corp Reac Rev http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/app2-corp.html *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-01 at 10:10 PM gdy52150 wrote: >you are basically stepping all around a pet theory of mine. I believe >that the cause for all past goevernment failures from ancient Egypt, >Rome, to Nazi Germany and the USSR all have failed for the same root >cause--- a group of elites emerges and controls and operates the >government for themselves and to hell with the masses. In the US it just >took the elites 200 years before theygained countroled. That said this >thing isn't over until there is one hell of a bloody revolution. > >Dave Patterson wrote: > >> The key words here would be 'under the existing financial framework' - >> it should be clear that the existing financial framework _must_ be >> changed, and changed seriously, as it completely inevitably leads to >> financial catastrophes on a regular basis,the transfer of large >> amounts of money from we the people upstairs to they who do the >> creating. It is simply insane to allow private entities to create a >> nation's money supply, and charge interest on that money - it is, >> quite simply, creating a society which puts yourself (we the people, >> that is) in a position of dependency on a most untrustworthy master, >> and no truly sovereign people who had the least idea what they were >> doing would do this. (explained in more detail in an earlier essay >> BANKETEERING http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/banketeering.html ) . This >> is, of course, much easier said than done, as it includes establishing >> democratic governments to oversee the money creation process, and it >> would be something of a struggle to wrest power away from the current >> banking-elite plutocrats, and it would also require the establishment >> of a 'people's media' devoted to telling the truth about things rather >> than indoctrinating the people in beliefs that keep the current >> overlords in power. And other things, all of which are equally >> unlikely as long as 'we the people' apparently have no idea what is >> happening and that doesn't bother anyone. >> >> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >> On 08-11-02 at 11:05 AM John Hermann wrote: >> >> Evidently Dion did not read my previous response to a similar >> recent story (which was also fabricated on the same set of false >> assumptions). Governments around the world had no option under the >> existing financial framework than to recapitalize the banking >> system with newly created credit money, by taking part public >> ownership of at least the largest banks in trouble. Bye and large >> this money has not come from taxation; it has been largely >> borrowed from central banks specifically for the purpose of the >> bank bailouts. To have done nothing would have resulted in a >> catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. I have reproduced my >> previous response below. John Hermann >> >> The argument presented here is factually wrong and unconvincing. >> Probably something of the order of one trillion dollars will be >> needed to recapitalize the north american banking system. That >> amounts to perhaps one third of the entire revenue obtained from >> taxation. The claim that the bank bailout will be funded by the >> taxpayer is therefore absurd. Consider what the withdrawal of such >> a vast amount from tax revenue would do to spending programs and >> to the public sector. It would devastate both, and lead to mass >> lay-offs in the public sector, including the military. It is also >> incompatible with promises by both presidential candidates to >> reduce taxes. >> >> UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealed in answer to a recent >> question precisely where the bank bailout money will be coming >> from, namely, from increased borrowing. And this is almost >> certainly how the US government will finance the bailout. The only >> issue of interest here is how much of that borrowing will be from >> the money markets and how much will (effectively) be from the >> central bank. Bush and other political leaders have signalled that >> the taxpayer will be "protected", which might mean that funding >> will occur through the selling of newly created government >> securities to the private sector, followed by the central bank >> buying them back. Any interest income from these securities would >> then return to treasury. >> >> Also absurd is the claim that the increased level of bank capital >> will not be used as the basis for creating new loans to both the >> public and private sectors. Capital adequacy is the primary basis >> of bank lending, which is the central function of banking as we >> know it. In the present circumstances (ie, there is the strong >> risk of a deflationary scenario), any bank which does not use the >> injection of new capital for the purpose of creating new loans >> (new credit money) will quickly become insolvent and collapse. The >> idea that presently undercapitalized banks are in a position to do >> anything else with this new capital is misconceived and >> fallacious. John Hermann >> >> >> >> At 10:25 AM 2/11/2008, you wrote: >> >>> [On a per capita basis, a number of other countries' pollies have >>> outdone the USA's in tax-funded generosity to Mr Greed. In a >>> democracy, the people would be able to stop the grab at the outset. >>> >>> Dion Giles >>> Western Australia] >>> >>> >>> http://www.alternet.org/workplace/105452/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Naomi Klein: Bailout = Bush's Final Pillage >>> >>> By Naomi Klein, The Nation >>> Posted on October 31, 2008, Printed on November 1, 2008 >>> http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/ >>> >>> In the final days of the election, many Republicans seem to have >>> given up the fight for power. But that doesn't mean they are >>> relaxing. If you want to see real Republican elbow grease, check >>> out the energy going into chucking great chunks of the $700 >>> billion bailout out the door. At a recent Senate Banking >>> Committee hearing, Republican Senator Bob Corker was fixated on >>> this task, and with a clear deadline in mind: inauguration. "How >>> much of it do you think may be actually spent by January 20 or >>> so?" Corker asked Neel Kashkari, the 35-year-old former banker in >>> charge of the bailout. >>> >>> When European colonialists realized that they had no choice but >>> to hand over power to the indigenous citizens, they would often >>> turn their attention to stripping the local treasury of its gold >>> and grabbing valuable livestock. If they were really nasty, like >>> the Portuguese in Mozambique in the mid-1970s, they poured >>> concrete down the elevator shafts. >>> >>> The Bush gang prefers bureaucratic instruments: "distressed >>> asset" auctions and the "equity purchase program." But make no >>> mistake: the goal is the same as it was for the defeated >>> Portuguese -- a final frantic looting of the public wealth before >>> they hand over the keys to the safe. >>> >>> How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have >>> governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush >>> administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into >>> America's banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely >>> referred to as "partial nationalization" -- a radical measure >>> required to get the banks lending again. In fact, there has been >>> no nationalization, partial or otherwise. Taxpayers have gained >>> no meaningful control, which is why the banks can spend their >>> windfall as they wish (on bonuses, mergers, savings...) and the >>> government is reduced to pleading that they use a portion of it >>> for loans. >>> >>> What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? I fear it is >>> something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business >>> -- that this bailout has been designed to keep pillaging the >>> Treasury for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big >>> market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but >>> their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in >>> the banks' honesty, and with good reason. This is where >>> Treasury's equity pays off big time. >>> >>> By purchasing stakes in these institutions, Treasury is sending a >>> signal to the market that they are a safe bet. Why safe? Because >>> the government won't be able to afford to let them fail. If these >>> companies get themselves into trouble, investors can assume that >>> the government will keep finding more cash, since allowing them >>> to go down would mean losing its initial equity investments (just >>> look at AIG). That tethering of the public interest to private >>> companies is the real purpose of the bailout plan: Treasury >>> Secretary Henry Paulson is handing all the companies that are >>> admitted to the program -- a number potentially in the thousands >>> -- an implicit Treasury Department guarantee. To skittish >>> investors looking for safe places to park their money, these >>> equity deals will be even more comforting than a Triple-A rating >>> from Moody's. >>> >>> Insurance like that is priceless. But for the banks, the best >>> part is that the government is paying them -- in some cases >>> billions of dollars -- to accept its seal of approval. For >>> taxpayers, on the other hand, this entire plan is extremely >>> risky, and may well cost significantly more than Paulson's >>> original idea of buying up $700 billion in toxic debts. Now >>> taxpayers aren't just on the hook for the debts but, arguably, >>> for the fate of every corporation that sells them equity. >>> >>> Interestingly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both enjoyed this kind >>> of unspoken guarantee. For decades the market understood that, >>> since these private players were enmeshed with the government, >>> Uncle Sam would always save the day. It was the worst of all >>> worlds. Not only were profits privatized while risks were >>> socialized but the implicit government backing created powerful >>> incentives for reckless investments. >>> >>> Now, with the new equity purchase program, Paulson has taken the >>> discredited Fannie and Freddie model and applied it to a huge >>> swath of the private banking industry. And once again, there is >>> no reason to shy away from risky bets -- especially since >>> Treasury has not required the banks to give up high-risk >>> financial instruments in exchange for taxpayer dollars. >>> >>> To further boost confidence, the federal government has also >>> unveiled unlimited public guarantees for many bank deposit >>> accounts. Oh, and as if this wasn't enough, Treasury has been >>> encouraging the banks to merge with one another, ensuring that >>> the only institutions left standing will be "too big to fail." In >>> three different ways, the market is being told loud and clear >>> that Washington will not allow the country's financial >>> institutions to bear the consequences of their behavior. This may >>> well be Bush's most creative innovation: no-risk capitalism. >>> >>> There is a glimmer of hope. In answer to Senator Corker's >>> question, Treasury is indeed having trouble dispersing the >>> bailout funds. It has requested about $350 billion of the $700 >>> billion, but most of this hasn't yet made it out the door. >>> Meanwhile, every day it becomes clearer that the bailout was sold >>> on false pretenses. It was never about getting loans flowing. It >>> was always about turning the state into a giant insurance agency >>> for Wall Street -- a safety net for the people who need it least, >>> subsidized by the people who need it most. >>> >>> This grotesque duplicity is an opportunity. Whoever wins the >>> election on November 4 will have enormous moral authority. It can >>> be used to call for a freeze on the dispersal of bailout funds -- >>> not after the inauguration, but right away. All deals should be >>> renegotiated immediately, this time with the public getting the >>> guarantees. >>> >>> It is risky, of course, to interrupt the bailout. The market >>> won't like it. Nothing could be riskier, however, than allowing >>> the Bush gang their parting gift to big business -- the gift that >>> will keep on taking. >>> >>> /Naomi Klein's latest book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of >>> Disaster Capitalism. >>> >>> /? 2008 The Nation All rights reserved. >>> View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/105452/ >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1761 - Release Date: 1/11/2551 19:56 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Nov 2 01:31:49 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sun Nov 2 01:32:05 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: [ERANet] Parting $700bn-plus pillage: Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <490D2345.3050400@spiritone.com> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> <490D2345.3050400@spiritone.com> Message-ID: <20081102063149.F3899F7E1@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/4e749698/attachment.html From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sun Nov 2 03:36:29 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sun Nov 2 03:36:40 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] look what I found ... In-Reply-To: <20081102063149.F3899F7E1@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081101235550.CDBF212ADD@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811020035.mA20ZIpn020433@mail13.tpg.com.au> <490D2345.3050400@spiritone.com> <20081102063149.F3899F7E1@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200811021636290703.0150EB77@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> browsing around on a Sunday afternoon - free Randy Newman concert on NPR - including a little gem called "A Few Words in Defense of This Country" - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93254331 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081102/2550d088/attachment.html From duanebehrens at cox.net Sun Nov 2 13:10:28 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Sun Nov 2 13:10:32 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Oh, It's Time For Some Campaignin' Message-ID: <20081102141029.2D9BE.163831.imail@fed1rmwml39> http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Nov 2 19:35:05 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sun Nov 2 19:35:17 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Two kinds of Republicans Message-ID: <20081103013507.F34DAFA0A@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081103/ed99c18f/attachment.html From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Nov 2 23:30:44 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sun Nov 2 23:30:50 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Standards? Rupert Murdoch has to be joking Message-ID: <20081103053045.A1392F2F0@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081103/10f51cd6/attachment.html From duanebehrens at cox.net Mon Nov 3 07:51:18 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Mon Nov 3 07:51:36 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] The Bailout - and Goldman Sachs Message-ID: <20081103085118.IE8U3.173015.imail@fed1rmwml39> http://www.dailymail.co.uk Goldman Sachs is on course to pay its top City bankers multimillion-pound bonuses - despite asking the U.S. government for an emergency bail-out. The struggling Wall Street bank has set aside ?7billion [approximately $14 billion] for salaries and 2008 year-end bonuses, it emerged yesterday. Each of the firm's 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than ?3million [$6 million]. The size of that pay pool comfortably dwarfs the ?6.1billion [$12 billion] lifeline which the U.S. government is throwing to Goldman as part of its ?430 billion bail-out. As Washington pours money into the bank, that cash will immediately be channelled to Goldman's already well-heeled employees. END EXCERPT Yes, you read that right. Four hundred and forty three top executives in a firm that is receiving 6.1 billion dollars in emergency aid from American taxpayers are EACH being rewarded with THREE MILLION DOLLAR Christmas bonuses! Yes - perhaps something needed to be done. But this wasn't it. Duane Behrens -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From papadop at peak.org Mon Nov 3 09:55:19 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Mon Nov 3 10:36:24 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] MEANWHILE -- at GITMO, military will "amplify" guilty verdict Message-ID: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081103/pl_afp/usattacksjusticeguantanamobahlul_081103161051;_ylt=A0WTUcYUJw9JsGMB3QGFOrgF Agence France Presse November 3 '08 WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Yemeni national who allegedly served as an Al-Qaeda propagandist has been convicted by a panel of military officers in the second "war on terror" trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The military panel handed down the guilty verdict against Ali Hamza Ahmad al-Bahlul on Friday, but it was sealed until Monday, said the Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "My understanding is that he was found guilty," Whitman said. Bahlul, 39, was charged with conspiracy, solicitation to commit murder and material support for terrorism. It was unclear whether he was found guilty of all charges. The Pentagon was expected to release a statement "explaining and amplifying" the verdict, Whitman said. Bahlul's trial was the second of a "war on terror" detainee at Guantanamo Bay under a specially created system of military commissions that has been criticized by civil rights activists and lawyers as lacking full protection of defendants' rights. In the first such trial, military jurors in August found Osama bin Laden's former driver Salim Hamdan guilty of providing material support to terrorism, but rejected stronger terrorist conspiracy charges. Hamdan was sentenced to a net of five more months in jail, after considering the years he already spent in US custody. From McPogo at aol.com Mon Nov 3 12:37:15 2008 From: McPogo at aol.com (McPogo@aol.com) Date: Mon Nov 3 12:38:24 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: [GATA] William Greider: Paulson's swindle revealed Message-ID: Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Subject: [GATA] William Greider: Paulson's swindle revealed Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:47:57 -0800 (PST) Size: 31220 Url: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081103/58584882/attachment.mht From jomut at yahoo.com Mon Nov 3 13:42:03 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Mon Nov 3 13:42:08 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] pallin' with palin! Message-ID: <637934.27279.qm@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? hi, ? In case you ain't heard of this one yet: Two pranksters from a Montreal radio station had Sarah Palin thinking that she was having a telephone conversation with -- who's that French dude, by the way? -- oh, yah, President Sarcasty. ? John =============== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081103/c34d2d07/attachment.html From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Nov 3 20:09:07 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon Nov 3 20:09:13 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] How US election will play out Message-ID: <20081104020910.0B26EF6A5@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081104/a26b86e4/attachment.html From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Nov 3 20:44:01 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon Nov 3 20:58:24 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Bolivia; climate; Obama; Cuban Five; Marx; Africa; Dennis Brutus poems; Venezuela; Malaysia; Tamils Message-ID: <490FB6F1.7000609@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links@dsp.org.au Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Bolivia: Unprecedented alliance defeats right-wing assault (now with audio) Now with audio: Federico Fuentes' assessment after just returning from Bolivia. Morales seems to have outmanouevred the ultra-right's attempts to unseat him and to have made his position stronger, while his enemies are in disarray. He is so confident of his support in the popular social movements now that he is holding another referendum next month. * Read more Will Obama end Bush's `war on terror'? By Simon Butler October 31, 2008 -- In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon, US President George Bush declared an open-ended, apparently indefinite "war on terror". Using the terrorist attacks as an excuse, the "war on terror" has meant a war drive to extend US global domination. The threats were free flowing -- at one point as many as seven nations were part of the "axis of evil" and therefore potential military targets as Bush threatened "pre-emptive strikes" against US "enemies".Facing sustained resistance from the Iraqi people, and increasingly unpopular at home, the failure of the Iraqi occupation has contributed to making the Bush presidency one of the least popular in history. Campaigning for the White House, Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama has made much of his initial vote against the war in 2003. * Read more Overwhelming UN General Assembly vote against US blockade of Cuba New York -- The UN General Assembly on October 29 approved by an overwhelming majority the resolution demanding an end of the US blockade of Cuba, a vote passed by the assembly for the 17th consecutive year, news agencies report. * Read more David Harvey: Reading Karl Marx's Capital David Harvey has been teaching Karl Marx's Capital, Volume I for nearly 40 years, and his video lectures are now available at Links. * Read more Meanwhile, in Africa ... a tale of two `bailouts' By Jean-Paul Pi?rot While Africa needs US$72 billion a year in aid, hundreds of billions are being freed up to pay Western banks for the consequences of speculation. * Read more Sister of Cuban hero jailed in US demands `Free the Cuban Five!' Maria Eugenia is the sister of Tony Guerrero, one of the ``Cuban Five'' political prisoners held for 10 years in US prisons on ``conspiracy to commit espionage'' charges for reporting on the Miami-based, Washington-backed terrorist groups operating against Cuba. Eugenia recently toured Australia to build support for the campaign to free the five. Below is the three-part video of her Sydney public meeting. * Read more Two poems by Dennis Brutus in Caracas Below are two poems presented by veteran anti-apartheid and global social justice activist Dennis Brutus, in Venezuela for the eighth meeting of the Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defence of Humanity and the World Forum for Alternatives, October 18, 2008. * Read more Venezuela: Between assassination plots and abstention By Federico Fuentes, Caracas October 25, 2008 -- Talk of assassination plots and rising concerns about a high abstention rate have marked the beginning of the November 23 regional elections race here in Venezuela. Formally at stake are 23 governorships, more than 300 mayorships and hundreds of representatives on the state legislative councils. However, the result of these elections could also have an important impact on the future of the Bolivarian Revolution led by the Chavez government. During the November 2004 regional elections, the pro-Chavez forces, on the back of the thumping victory in the August 2004 recall referendum on Chavez's mandate, painted the electoral map red as they swept into 21 of the 23 governorships up for election (they later rewon the governership of Amazonas to make it 22 out of 24 all up). * Read more Malaysian opposition stands up to racialism and intimidation By Peter Boyle October 25, 2008 -- Some parties in Malaysia's ruling National Front (BN) government are trying to intimidate opposition parties and social activists, Socialist Party Malaysia (PSM) secretary general S.Arutchelvan told Green Left Weekly, a few days after the PSM's sole federal MP, Dr D. Jeyakumar, had his car torched by thugs on October 17. * Read more New African resistance from below to global finance By Patrick Bond October 25, 2008 -- A far-reaching strategic debate is underway about how to respond to the global financial crisis, and indeed how the North's problems can be tied into a broader critique of capitalism. The 2008 world financial meltdown has its roots in the neoliberal export-model (dominant in Africa since the 1981 World Bank Berg Report and onset of structural adjustment during the early 1980s) and even more deeply, in 35 years of world capitalist stagnation/volatility. Africa has always suffered a disproportionate share of pressure from the world economy, especially in the sphere of debt and financial outflows. But for those African countries which made themselves excessively vulnerable to global financial flows during the neoliberal era, the meltdown had a severe, adverse impact. * Read more Stop the war in Sri Lanka! The Tamil national question in demands a political solution! Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation central committee statement on developments in Sri Lanka. October 27, 2008 -- The Sri Lankan government's ongoing military campaign to corner and crush the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has led to a terrible humanitarian crisis in the country. Reports emanating from the island indicate that the Sri Lankan state is on the verge of wresting military control over large parts of LTTE territory including the administrative headquarters in Killinochi. While the number of people killed so far in the crossfire between the advancing Sri Lankan armed forces is anybody's guess, some 500,000 people are estimated to have been displaced and rendered homeless in their own land. With the Sri Lankan government not allowing any relief to reach the people in refugee camps, international humanitarian organisations have been forced to leave the battle zones and recently even UN food convoys have had to return, leaving a vast population in the battle zones on the brink of starvation. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081104/1ee37116/attachment-0001.html From papadop at peak.org Tue Nov 4 14:46:10 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue Nov 4 15:27:14 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] London GUARDIAN - election blog Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/nov/04/uselections2008-barackobama5 Guardian blogg - Oliver Burkeman's campaign diary < http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/burkeman> Join me from 6pm eastern, 11pm UK time Here we are at last. Tonight from 6pm eastern time, 11pm UK time I'll be liveblogging election night here on this blog, for as long as it takes. (In an earlier post I gave a different start time; I'll be here from 6pm/11pm.) My colleague Daniel Nasaw has written an excellent guide here setting out Obama and McCain's different potential paths to victory. Read it! And if you'll be at an election night party -- an election night party where you're also following my liveblog, naturally -- why not memorise parts of it in advance, in order to sound immensely knowledgeable? Our guideposts through the evening, of course, will be the poll closing times; 6pm is closing time in solid red Kentucky and in Indiana, where an Obama victory would be a sign of a landslide. Once a state's polls close, the Associated Press and the main US television networks will use exit polls to begin trying to make a call. In the most clear-cut cases, they'll call the state based either on the exits or after comparing the exits with the very first votes counted, but the closer the state, the longer they'll wait before they're confident. In those closer cases, we'll have access to the demographic data of the exit polls long before the state is called. There are numerous reasons not to read too much into them, though they may provide early clues to national changes in the electorate, and to the scale of the predicted record turnout, along with the reality or otherwise of such things as the Bradley effect and the cellphone effect. One of the subsidiary fascinating questions of tonight is what criteria the AP and the networks will use to call the election. Given the pitch of the excitement, and the historic nature of the vote, everyone wants to be first. So despite all the nervous memories of 2000, if we reach a time before the figures are in from, say, California, Oregon and Hawaii, yet Obama seems to have reached the 270 mark assuming those deep-blue states vote Democratic, it's increasingly hard to imagine that the networks will wait just to make sure McCain doesn't pull off some Alice-in-Wonderland California victory. (There may, of course, be big differences in which network calls the race when: Fox, not just in 2000 but in 2004 too, tends to move with the most alacrity, or prematurity.) Of course, once we're in that kind of situation, you can go to bed -- or go and get drunk -- confident of the result even if the networks are still being coy. I'll bring you every result until we know a winner, along with news of notable developments in the races for the House and for the Senate, where the Democrats are yearning for a "filibuster-proof" majority of 60 that would make it far easier for a Democratic president to enact his proposals, though any major boost from their current majority (51-49, reliant on Joe Lieberman) would be a big help in that regard. I'll also bring you updates from our excellent team of reporters in Chicago's Grant Park and elsewhere across the country. The liveblog will begin as a single post; if it becomes unwieldy, I'll close it up and direct you to a part two post, and so on as required. Ladies and gentlemen: it's history in the making, and it's right here -- featuring beer, stream-of-consciousness commentary, links to other stream-of-consciousness commentary and lots of Hard Data. I hope you'll join the conversation and keep me updated on where you are in the world and how people there are marking this extraordinary night. Or afternoon, or morning, I suppose, depending on where you are. (Plus we have the Exciting Election Contest!!! to adjudicate -- not that we need much more excitement.) See you soon. From jomut at yahoo.com Thu Nov 6 12:58:54 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu Nov 6 12:59:05 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] galeano -- obama Message-ID: <666403.89154.qm@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi, ? Bill Spikes, a correspondent of mine from another list, just sent me the info below in response to a message I sent in relation top Obama's Tuesday night victory - also appended at the bottom. ? John =============== ? hi John. ? Further to your thoughts! Hear is a take by? Eduardo Galeano!! I just sent it on to a Prof at McMaster from Chile. ? ==== Hi Mane! ? A quote on Obama from one of our best loved authors! ? Hope all is well and you are not to busy. ? Bill. ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Rights Action To: william.sparks@rogers.com Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: Don't Forget - "The White House Was Built By Slaves" - Eduardo Galeano Obama Should Never Forget "The White House Was Built by Black Slaves" ? Eduardo Galeano November 5 ? www.democracynow.org ? http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/5/uruguayan_writer_eduardo_galeano_on_barack ? [Eduardo Galeano, one of the most celebrated writers from Latin America.? He was born in Uruguay in 1940.? He was imprisoned and forced to leave the country following the 1973 military coup.? He is the author of many books, including The Open Veins of Latin America and Memory of Fire.] ? AMY GOODMAN: ?What is the response in Uruguay to Barack Obama? ?I mean, it is a first, but also, his views of Latin America, when it comes, for example, to President Chavez of Venezuela, he has been as harsh as the Republicans, though he does say that leaders should talk to each other without precondition. ? EDUARDO GALEANO: ?Yes, yes. I'm worried about the repetition of this dangerous, toxic word, "leadership." ?I have heard this word said by Obama and also by McCain, and I usually hear it with a dangerous frequency in all the ? in almost all the politicians in the United States, and about Latin America, it's usual to say, "We should recover our leadership in Latin America." We don't need any foreign leadership. ?Let it be. ?Let reality be as it wants to be, with no ruling state deciding the destiny of other countries. Please, no more. ?Stop with this tradition of the messianic mission of, you know, saving the world. ?No, it has been terrible during so many years, even centuries. ?No. ?Perhaps this crisis, this present crisis, so strong and terrible, may give something like a violent shower of realism and humility to this new government, who is beginning now ? which is beginning now. ? AMY GOODMAN: ?What would you most like to see, from your perspective in Montevideo in Uruguay? ?What would you most like to see the United States of America represent? ? EDUARDO GALEANO: ?What I would most like to see? ?Well, I would like that Obama, who has now tremendous, historic opportunity, that he never forgets that he's now going inside the White House. ?The White House will be his house in the time coming, but this White House was built by black slaves. And I'd like, I hope, that he never, never forgets this. ================================ ? ----- Original Message ----- From: John Mutambirwa Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:07 PM Subject: (john.m) wham! floored by obama! -- John Mutambirwa (dreaming awake) http://www.geocities.com/jomut chakane@hotmail.com john.mutambirwa@gmail.com ? Hi ? Had my eyes fixed on Jesse Jackson's tear-filled eyes last night, as Wham Bam delivered his victory speech of ages, and I was at a loss as to what torrents of passion, reminiscences, hopes,?fears and dreams that may have been vying for supremacy over?the veteran civil rights warrior's?bosom and mind. I should suppose that only Jesse Jackson himself?is the one?able enough to enlighten all and sundry as to the state of the?competitive crowd of emotions that were struggling for expressive relief in his inmost being, and all we can go by, at this instance, is the raw and delightful content of Obama's speech itself, which was an inspiring tapestry?wrought from?long awaited jubilation and sage, statesmanlike caution. ? Not to throw a damper, unregenerate killjoy that I am,?on the very welcome and very well expected?euphoria that accompanied such a majestic historical occasion, but I am somewhat persuaded that,?as history moves on at its drab and unrelentingly steady pace, that the aforementioned?statesmanlike caution will begin to assert itself with sobering sway! ? An illustration of the seemingly dichotomous use of expressions of both supernal elation and cautionary vigilance is perhaps in order. ? Consider Obama's inspirational?tribute, in the very first paragraph of his speech,?to the?matrix?of both possible and probable achievements that the?complex US social arrangement is capable of bringing into being: ? "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer." ? Which is all very noble and?inspiring, of course, especially if one is meditating and declaiming in ahistorical mode, ?which, by the way,?the sage Obama is not doing, as easily becomes evident a few oratorical stanzas later. The sighs and?groans of agonized historical striving, and, more importantly, future struggles for?a seemingly fugitive equity,?stubbornly refuse to be muted by such a euphoric historical experience. Hey, we must remember that?this triumphal and transforming experience of today did not happen in 1776 but had to?wait?through?two and a half centuries of fits and starts. ? "This victory alone is not the change we seek ? it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you." ? A sobering reminder that led Obama to recount (punctuated by?his anaphoric reference to his campaign?jingle of "Yes we can", which Sammy Davis must have approved of with a ghostly, rhythmic?snap of his fingers)?the century long odyssey of Ann Nixon Cooper through the trials and tribulations of the twentieth century AD. ? Yes, one lustily welcomes Obama and his Churchillian reminder to us that the stage the US has now?reached is only the end of the beginning.? Verily, with the numbing onslaught on peoples hard won?rights (a continuing train wreck that?started with the joint Thatcher/Reagan collision with the?progressive currents of history)?that we have witnessed everywhere today -- whether it be through?the silent and barely sophisticated suffocation of workers rights through a?avariety of?union?busting methods?and other methods of expressing a pronounced antipathy towards a disciplined organization of the working class,?or the gradual?reduction of the Bill of Rights into historical irrelevance?via a protracted suspension of them (or a portion of them) on account of the imperatives of a serviceably unending war, or the liberal acceptance of economic rights as a?socially?relevant development?only in so far as they touch upon the privileges of the high and mighty (the hard meaning underpinning the freight train of deregulation) but not in so far as they touch upon the basic economic needs of the?ever growing?horde of?the penuriously wretched?populating Grub Street -- these are welcome and inspiring words indeed that remind all and sudry not to rest on their beguiling and worn out?laurels. Besides, dont forget that "former" colonies have already experienced a colourful change of administrative guard at the very top!! John ============ ? http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/04/obama-victory-speech/ ? Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama?as prepared for delivery Election Night Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 Chicago, Illinois If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ? It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference. ? It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled ? Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America. It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. ? It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America. ? I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead. ? I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden. I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure. ? To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics ? you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done. ? But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to ? it belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington ? it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. ? It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory. ? I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime ? two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair. ? The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America ? I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you ? we as a people will get there. ? There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years ? block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. ? What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek ? it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you. ? So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers ? in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. ? Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House ? a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends?though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn ? I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too. ? And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world ? our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down ? we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security ? we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright ? tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. ? For that is the true genius of America ? that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. ? This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing ? Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. ? She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons ? because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. ? And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America ? the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can. ? At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. ? When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can. ? When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can. ? She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can. A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can. ? America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves ? if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? ? This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time ? to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth ? that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: ? Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081106/ac42d84a/attachment-0001.html From papadop at peak.org Fri Nov 7 00:11:08 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri Nov 7 00:52:20 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Hightower - part of the O-Team Message-ID: http://www.progressive.org/mag/hightower1008.html On The O-Team The Progressive October 2008 Issue By Jim Hightower, Tell me who you walk with," goes the old adage, "and I'll tell you who you are." So let's look at who is walking with Obama. At first glance, you might get worried because, with some exceptions, these are not the policy people you'd expect to see. Take Jason Furman: Because of his pro-corporate connections and comments, Furman is the guy who most alarms labor, fair trade activists, and other progressives (like me). Obama's top economic aide, this thirty-seven-year-old Harvard-educated academic has found nice things to say about the Wal-Mart business model, has supported the corporate trade agenda, and most recently has headed a policy research outfit founded by Robert Rubin, who throttled the populism out of Bill Clinton. Yet, it turns out that Furman is not quite the corporate snake that some would make him out to be. His background also includes an important stint with the highly progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he churned out hard-hitting policy papers on the rising danger of income inequality, the need to raise the minimum wage, the disaster of Bush's tax cuts, and the necessity of stopping the privatization of Social Security. He's no populist, but neither is he a sneaky Rubinaut. Furman's selection has been warmly endorsed by liberal economist and Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz, labor economist Jared Bernstein, and populist economist James Galbraith--all three of whom are also on the Obama team. Dan Carol is a recent addition and a big plus. This fifty-year-old Oregonian is a longtime progressive strategist, a pioneer in Internet organizing, a proponent of grassroots-based policy development, a believer in the politics of big ideas, and an unabashed advocate of making political action fun. (Disclosure: Carol is a friend of mine.) He has now been brought onto the O-team as "director of content and issues." That's a fuzzy title, but I do know that he'll be pushing one of Obama's signature ideas: a "Green Deal" that would enlist the American people themselves to build a green infrastructure all across America. Such solid, progressive thinkers and activists as Van Jones of California and Joel Rogers of Wisconsin are also enlisted in this exciting aspect of Obama's campaign. And let's not forget Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor who is Obama's Internet adviser. Until now, an "Internet adviser" hasn't exactly played a central role on a White House staff, but Obama intends to use the power of cyberspace to advance some of his biggest goals. By enlisting Lessig, a visionary advocate for free public access to the Internet and a renowned defender of the people's online rights against the grasp of corporate control, Obama has demonstrated his seriousness about advancing the democratic potential of this technology. There are, of course, many more players who would mold Obama's White House agenda, including the usual forces of caution, inertia, and recalcitrance dragging him down, ranging from don't-rock-the-boat Democratic elders to Washington's army of corporate lobbyists. The glue for this team is not its uniform progressive credentials, but Obama himself. I know this is risky. I might have to eat these words later, but I think he has a deep core of progressive values, honed by his life experience as a global child and a community organizer. Ultimately, however, the substance of an Obama presidency--and its degree of progressivity--will be determined by the insistent demands and steady involvement of the energized grassroots constituency that has propelled him this far. From papadop at peak.org Fri Nov 7 00:28:33 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri Nov 7 01:09:41 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] OBAMA WILL TAKE HIS INTERNET ARMY TO WASHINGTON Message-ID: The below Mcclatchy item is reinforced by news that Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor is Obama's Internet adviser. Until now, an "Internet adviser" hasn't exactly played a central role on a White House staff, but Obama intends to use the power of cyberspace to advance some of his biggest goals. By enlisting Lessig, a visionary advocate for free public access to the Internet and a renowned defender of the people's online rights against the grasp of corporate control, Obama has demonstrated his seriousness about advancing the democratic potential of this technology. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3092737 Frank Greve, Mcclatchy Newspapers - Wed Nov 5, 11:07 am ET WASHINGTON -- A powerful new lobbying force is coming to town: Barack Obama's triumphant army of 3.1 million Internet-linked donors and volunteers. In a mass e-mail thanking them, written moments before his Grant Park victory speech, Obama put them on notice. "We have a lot to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next," he wrote. Many are eager. "I'm going to be sitting at the phone, asking, 'What do you want me to do next? I'm ready,' " said volunteer Courtney Hood , 37, a mother of three from Owings, Md. How Obama will use his ardent laptop-armed cadres is unclear. So is the extent to which they'll rally behind his priorities, press him for their own or both. Joe Trippi , the Internet politics guru whose computer geeks made Howard Dean a contender in 2004 and who went on to design Obama's socially networked campaign machine, offers a provocative and educated guess. Trippi predicted that Obama would use his forces, first and foremost, to intimidate congressional foes of his agenda, rally his allies and forge "one of the most powerful presidencies in American history." Certainly, Obama reaches the White House with the biggest, best organized, fastest-acting grass-roots army in the history of presidential campaigning. Moreover, because his Internet operation was miles ahead of Republican John McCain's , Obama's liberal-to-libertarian electronic activists are in a position to dominate the new political medium much as conservative Republicans dominate talk radio. As for political utility, many thousands of volunteers such as Hood will be deployable within hours, with great precision and at almost no cost, thanks to the campaign's state-of-the-art information-management systems. The president-elect's political operatives know, for example, the ZIP codes and hence the congressional districts of each of Obama's million most active campaigners, those who volunteered via his Web site mybarackobama.com. It's a social network that the campaign set up to communicate needs, events and assignments to volunteers. The profiles that Obama campaigners submitted to the site also reveal which supporters in each district are environmentalists, concerned about health care or keen on government reform. Moreover, because the so-called "MyBO" site quantified volunteers' participation and fundraising totals digitally, there's a numeric score for each participant's success. It's even adjusted to give more credit for recent help. "We really know who Obama's community leaders are," issue by issue, said Thomas Gensemer , the managing director of Blue State Digital, the Washington -based mobilizer of online communities created by four Dean campaign veterans. Instead of e-mailing members of Congress , Gensemer continued, Obama's most effective supporters will meet with them in their district offices and press them at local town hall meetings. Trippi offered a more dramatic scenario: "Obama will be able to say these are the 10 members of Congress standing in our way on health care. Basically, it'll be the president and the people united, with some members of Congress in between, which won't be a very comfortable place to be." A million Obama activists nationwide translate to an average of nearly 2,300 for each of 435 congressional districts. "And if someone in my district had a list of them with e-mail addresses and a lot of good will, I'd pay a lot of attention to them," said Scott Lilly , a senior staffer for Democrats in the House of Representatives for nearly 30 years. One question, Lilly continued, is whether Obama's activists are concentrated in liberal urban Democratic districts, where Obama needs no help, and not much of a presence in conservative ones, where resistance is most likely. For example, Lilly wondered how numerous Obama supporters are in, say, Panama City, Fla. It's a hub of Florida's 2nd Congressional District , in the state's conservative Panhandle and represented by Allen Boyd , a Blue Dog Democrat. Asked that question in late October, Alvin Peters , the chairman of the Democratic Party in Bay County , which includes Panama City , responded with shock and awe: "I've never seen so much political energy in this district ever," he said. "It's 10 to 20 times more than Kerry -- maybe 1,400 in little Panama City alone -- and it's all local!" That's great news for Obama, whose legislative fate may depend most on his ability to persuade conservative Democrats. What his supporters will accomplish in Republican districts is another uncertainty. "If they're networked into PTA meetings and barbershops and call-in talk shows, they can let people know that their guy isn't doing what we want him to do. That could be an extraordinarily powerful tool," Lilly said. He and others presume that Obama will pass on his activist database to the Democratic National Committee and/or a new nonprofit that takes direction from the Obama White House. That's permitted under MyBO's privacy policy, which says that its names and data may be turned over to "organizations with similar political viewpoints and objectives, in furtherance of our own political objectives." The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to step in, said Washington lawyer Jan Baran , who's a specialist on federal election law, ethics and lobbying. "The FEC has generally laid off regulating Internet-based activity by political organizations and individuals," Baran said. Reform advocates who see the Internet as a tool want to reduce Washington's grip on power by providing universal Internet access to more government deliberations and records. It's an idea that appeals to lots of Obama activists, who can be expected to push for it. Obama has promised to create a "transparent and connected White House ." He's also promised to appoint a Cabinet-rank chief technology officer to promote openness in federal agencies and help the new president communicate with the electorate. More generally, Obama supports expanding high-speed broadband Internet access, which roughly half the nation lacks. An easy and popular step toward transparency would be for Obama to reverse the Bush administration's secretive policy on Freedom of Information Act requests for government records. That could be done by declaration, without congressional involvement, noted John Wonderlich , the program director of the Washington -based Sunlight Foundation , which promotes transparency. Visionaries in the realm of Internet politics, several of them well-known among Obama activists, would like to see Obama go further and use Internet social networks for ideas and collaborative problem-solving. From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Nov 7 01:23:59 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri Nov 7 01:24:12 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Hightower - part of the O-Team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081107072401.03F17F5C7@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081107/e92b6454/attachment.html From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Fri Nov 7 10:34:28 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Fri Nov 7 10:11:28 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Hightower - part of the O-Team In-Reply-To: <20081107072401.03F17F5C7@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081107072401.03F17F5C7@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <49146E14.8020500@spiritone.com> well if he hadn't sold out he would never have gotten this far Dion Giles wrote: > I understand that against advice Obama is keeping Gates on. Is this > so? Allende was advised not to keep Pinochet on, but he ignored the > advice. > > There's a bit of a warning at > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/iran-n06.shtml > which may point to why so much money was thrown into Obama's campaign > and why the PNAC told the news media to give him a dream run. > > Dion Giles > Western Australia > > > At 15:11 07/11/2008, Michael wrote: > >> http://www.progressive.org/mag/hightower1008.html >> >> On The O-Team >> >> >> The Progressive October 2008 Issue >> By Jim Hightower, >> >> Tell me who you walk with," goes the old adage, "and I'll tell you >> who you are." So let's look at who is walking with Obama. >> >> At first glance, you might get worried because, with some >> exceptions, these are not the policy people you'd expect to see. >> >> Take Jason Furman: Because of his pro-corporate connections >> and comments, Furman is the guy who most alarms labor, fair >> trade activists, and other progressives (like me). Obama's top >> economic aide, this thirty-seven-year-old Harvard-educated academic >> has found nice things to say about the Wal-Mart business model, >> has supported the corporate trade agenda, and most recently has >> headed a policy research outfit founded by Robert Rubin, who >> throttled the populism out of Bill Clinton. >> >> Yet, it turns out that Furman is not quite the corporate snake >> that some would make him out to be. His background also >> includes an important stint with the highly progressive Center >> on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he churned out hard-hitting >> policy papers on the rising danger of income inequality, the need to >> raise the minimum wage, the disaster of Bush's tax cuts, and the >> necessity of stopping the privatization of Social Security. He's no >> populist, but neither is he a sneaky Rubinaut. Furman's selection >> has been warmly endorsed by liberal economist and Nobel >> Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz, labor economist Jared Bernstein, and >> populist economist James Galbraith--all three of whom are also on the >> Obama team. >> >> Dan Carol is a recent addition and a big plus. This >> fifty-year-old Oregonian is a longtime progressive strategist, a >> pioneer in Internet organizing, a proponent of grassroots-based >> policy development, a believer in the politics of big ideas, and >> an unabashed advocate of making political action fun. (Disclosure: >> Carol is a friend of mine.) He has now been brought onto the O-team >> as "director of content and issues." That's a fuzzy title, but I do >> know that he'll be pushing one of Obama's signature ideas: a >> "Green Deal" that would enlist the American people themselves to >> build a green infrastructure all across America. Such solid, >> progressive thinkers and activists as Van Jones of California and >> Joel Rogers of Wisconsin are also enlisted in this exciting aspect of >> Obama's campaign. >> >> And let's not forget Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor >> who is Obama's Internet adviser. Until now, an "Internet adviser" >> hasn't exactly played a central role on a White House staff, >> but Obama intends to use the power of cyberspace to advance some of >> his biggest goals. By enlisting Lessig, a visionary advocate for >> free public access to the Internet and a renowned defender of the >> people's online rights against the grasp of corporate control, Obama >> has demonstrated his seriousness about advancing the democratic >> potential of this technology. >> >> There are, of course, many more players who would mold Obama's >> White House agenda, including the usual forces of caution, >> inertia, and recalcitrance dragging him down, ranging from >> don't-rock-the-boat Democratic elders to Washington's army of >> corporate lobbyists. >> >> The glue for this team is not its uniform progressive credentials, >> but Obama himself. I know this is risky. I might have to eat these >> words later, but I think he has a deep core of progressive values, >> honed by his life experience as a global child and a community organizer. >> >> Ultimately, however, the substance of an Obama presidency--and >> its degree of progressivity--will be determined by the insistent >> demands and steady involvement of the energized grassroots >> constituency that has propelled him this far. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mai-not mailing list >> Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1772 - >> Release Date: 11/6/2008 8:23 PM > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > From papadop at peak.org Fri Nov 7 11:46:09 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Fri Nov 7 12:27:18 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] US academic prioritization by War Department Message-ID: US academic prioritization "Topics for the initial funding will focus on the following areas of technical challenge: counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD), network sciences, energy and power management, quantum information sciences, human sciences, science of autonomy, information assurance, biosensors and bio-inspired systems, information fusion and decision science, and energy and power management." ########### http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12337 US Department of Defense _________________________________________________________________ IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 938-08 November 07, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ DoD Announces $400 Million Investment To Basic Research The Department of Defense today announced plans to invest an additional $400 million over the next five years to support basic research at academic institutions. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates secured the additional funding in the fiscal 2009 President's budget request to Congress to expand research into new and emerging scientific areas and to foster fundamental discoveries related to the DoD's most challenging technical problems. The DoD published a `Strategic Plan For Basic Research' last summer, which built the case for this effort. Acknowledging this need, Congress authorized and appropriated funds to support these significant increases in basic research investment. By making these additional investments, the DoD aims to "sustain and strengthen the nation's commitment to long-term basic research", as recommended by the National Research Council's `Rising Above the Gathering Storm' report and to address similar recommendations from numerous other independent national security and scientific advisory groups. "These new grants will lead to discoveries in fundamental fields which underpin many of the technologically complex systems fielded in today's Armed Forces," said William Rees, Jr., the deputy under secretary of defense for laboratories and basic sciences. The anticipated awards will be intended for individual investigators and provide sufficient funding to support a cadre of graduate students working with the faculty member to make substantial and sustained progress in research areas of importance to the DoD. Merit-based awards, based on peer review, will support projects beginning in fiscal 2009 that will be funded for five years. Exceptionally meritorious projects that can be completed in less time will also be considered for funding. Projects will be based on numerous academic disciplines, including: physics, ocean science, chemistry, electrical engineering, materials science, environmental engineering, mechanical engineering, information sciences, civil engineering, mathematics, chemical engineering, geosciences, atmospheric science, and aeronautical engineering. Topics for the initial funding will focus on the following areas of technical challenge: counter weapons of mass destruction (WMD), network sciences, energy and power management, quantum information sciences, human sciences, science of autonomy, information assurance, biosensors and bio-inspired systems, information fusion and decision science, and energy and power management. DoD research offices that will make the awards, contingent upon the receipt and evaluation of sufficiently high quality proposals, include the Army Research Office http://www.aro.army.mil/ , the Office of Naval Research http://www.onr.navy.mil/ and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research http://www.afosr.af.mil/ . From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 8 02:56:00 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 8 02:56:15 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama's team: same old same old Message-ID: <20081108085601.6197012BD8@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081108/212b42fb/attachment.html From duanebehrens at cox.net Sat Nov 8 19:37:43 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Sat Nov 8 19:37:44 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Prop 8 and Five Men Message-ID: <20081108203743.K7YM6.178496.imail@fed1rmwml29> [On November 4, California Proposition 8, which defines marriage solely as a union between a male and female, passed by a slim margin. Virtually all of the coastal counties voted against it. Most of the inland desert counties approved it.] Last weekend, five men were standing on the corner of Hawthorne and PCH. All were holding signs that said "YES ON PROP. 8!" I pulled over and gave them a grin - "Nice day!" "Hey - Thanks for your support!", one of them said. I asked, "So, are you guys all Republicans?" "You bet!" came the immediate response. Then I asked, just loudly enough for all of them to hear, "And are you all gay?" They looked a bit stunned. "What's THAT supposed to mean?" the leader demanded. His grin was gone. "Well," I posed, "cause you know there were five major republican and Christian leaders in the last year, all men, all caught out having sexual relations with young male aides, stalking boys, even some ugly pedophile stuff as I remember. "Just like you guys here today," I continued, " those Republican senators, congressmen and preachers were all real active in pushing anti-gay legislation. Well, except THEY called it 'pro-family.' There's even been some studies on it. Turns out these types tend to overcompensate for feelings of guilt about who they are . . . and yet they can't help themselves from from being who they are . . . and so the trouble eventually comes. Must be tough, ey? "Anyway, my POINT is that - except where kids might be hurt -most of us really don't CARE who you love or why . . . . but YOU guys . . . I mean, WHOA - look at you there with your anti-gay signs and your anti-gay chants! "So c'mon, admit it - you're GAY, aren't you? Hey - are you all gonna get together later and watch a Barbara Streisand musical, or a movie about gladiators, maybe?" Angry now, the leader ordered, "Just move along, asshole, before we call the police . . . " "Well, if THAT'S what you want to do, I'll just pull over here by the curb and wait for them with you! Okay?" He'd already turned away. "C'mon, guys, let's get away from this freak. Hey - we're WATCHIN' you, mister!", he called back to me as they strode away. "Aw, shucks . . . " I replied shyly. "Thanks!" Duane Behrens -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Nov 9 00:02:29 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sun Nov 9 00:03:32 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Prop 8 and Five Men In-Reply-To: <20081108203743.K7YM6.178496.imail@fed1rmwml29> References: <20081108203743.K7YM6.178496.imail@fed1rmwml29> Message-ID: <20081109060230.24E48F79A@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Cripes Duane, you were taking chances! Hope the creeps don't know where you live. But maybe confrontation by a gutsy guy will have given them pause. At 10:37 09/11/2008, you wrote: >[On November 4, California Proposition 8, which defines marriage >solely as a union between a male and female, passed by a slim >margin. Virtually all of the coastal counties voted against >it. Most of the inland desert counties approved it.] > >Last weekend, five men were standing on the corner of Hawthorne and >PCH. All were holding signs that said "YES ON PROP. 8!" I pulled >over and gave them a grin - "Nice day!" > >"Hey - Thanks for your support!", one of them said. > >I asked, "So, are you guys all Republicans?" "You bet!" came the >immediate response. > >Then I asked, just loudly enough for all of them to hear, "And are >you all gay?" They looked a bit stunned. "What's THAT supposed to >mean?" the leader demanded. His grin was gone. > >"Well," I posed, "cause you know there were five major republican >and Christian leaders in the last year, all men, all caught out >having sexual relations with young male aides, stalking boys, even >some ugly pedophile stuff as I remember. > >"Just like you guys here today," I continued, " those Republican >senators, congressmen and preachers were all real active in pushing >anti-gay legislation. Well, except THEY called >it 'pro-family.' There's even been some studies on it. Turns out >these types tend to overcompensate for feelings of guilt about who >they are . . . and yet they can't help themselves from from being >who they are . . . and so the trouble eventually comes. Must be tough, ey? > >"Anyway, my POINT is that - except where kids might be hurt -most of >us really don't CARE who you love or why . . . . but YOU guys . . . >I mean, WHOA - look at you there with your anti-gay signs and your >anti-gay chants! > >"So c'mon, admit it - you're GAY, aren't you? Hey - are you all >gonna get together later and watch a Barbara Streisand musical, or a >movie about gladiators, maybe?" > >Angry now, the leader ordered, "Just move along, asshole, before we >call the police . . . " > >"Well, if THAT'S what you want to do, I'll just pull over here by >the curb and wait for them with you! Okay?" > >He'd already turned away. "C'mon, guys, let's get away from this >freak. Hey - we're WATCHIN' you, mister!", he called back to me as >they strode away. > >"Aw, shucks . . . " I replied shyly. "Thanks!" > >Duane Behrens > >-- >"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >think..." Hunter S. Thompson > > >-- >"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >think..." Hunter S. Thompson > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1776 - Release Date: >11/8/2008 6:49 PM From papadop at peak.org Sun Nov 9 16:28:52 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun Nov 9 17:09:57 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama throttled at the windpipe Message-ID: SO we need to spend our energy "persuading" the President-elect to take a different path towards peace and justice and human rights. M ########## http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conned-Again-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-081109-377.html November 9, 2008 at 11:19:14 CONNED AGAIN ` by Paul Craig Roberts *Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous academic appointments. He has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, was published by Random House in March, 2008. If the change President-elect Obama has promised includes a halt to America's wars of aggression and an end to the rip-off of taxpayers by powerful financial interests, what explains Obama's choice of foreign and economic policy advisors? Indeed, Obama's selection of Rahm Israel Emanuel as White House chief of staff is a signal that change ended with Obama's election. The only thing different about the new administration will be the faces. Rahm Israel Emanuel is a supporter of Bush's invasion of Iraq. Emanuel rose to prominence in the Democratic Party as a result of his fundraising connections to AIPAC. A strong supporter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, he comes from a terrorist family. His father was a member of Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that used violence to drive the British and Palestinians out of Palestine in order to create the Jewish state. During the 1991 Gulf War, Rahm Israel Emanuel volunteered to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. He was a member of the Freddie Mac board of directors and received $231,655 in directors fees in 2001. According to Wikipedia, "during the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities." In "Hail to the Chief of Staff," Alexander Cockburn describes Emanuel as "a super-Likudnik hawk," who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 "made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates." My despondent friends in the Israeli peace movement ask, "What is this man doing in Obama's administration?" Obama's election was necessary as the only means Americans had to hold the Republicans accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and human rights, for their violations of US and international laws, for their lies and deceptions, and for their financial chicanery. As an editorial in Pravda put it, "Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law." But Obama's advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush's. Richard Holbrooke, son of Russian and German Jews, was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador in the Clinton administration. He implemented the policy to enlarge NATO and to place the military alliance on Russia's border in contravention of Reagan's promise to Gorbachev. Holbrooke is also associated with the Clinton administration's illegal bombing of Serbia, a war crime that killed civilians and Chinese diplomats. If not a neocon himself, Holbrooke is closely allied with them. According to Wikipedia, Madeline Albright was born Marie Jana Korbelova in Prague to Jewish parents who had converted to Catholicism in order to escape persecution. She is the Clinton era secretary of state who told Leslie Stahl (60 Minutes) that the US policy of Iraq sanctions, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, had goals important enough to justify the children's deaths. Albright's infamous words: "we think the price is worth it." Wikipedia reports that this immoralist served on the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange at the time of Dick Grasso's $187.5 million compensation scandal. Dennis Ross has long associations with the Israeli-Palestinian "peace negotiations." A member of his Clinton era team, Aaron David Miller, wrote that during 1999-2000 the US negotiating team led by Ross acted as Israel's lawyer: "we had to run everything by Israel first." This "stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be?" According to Wikipedia, Ross is "chairman of a new Jerusalem-based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency." Clearly, this is not a group of advisors that is going to halt America's wars against Israel's enemies or force the Israeli government to accept the necessary conditions for a real peace in the Middle East. Ralph Nader predicted as much. In his "Open Letter to Barack Obama (November 3, 2008), Nader pointed out to Obama that his "transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights . . . to a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby" puts Obama at odds with "a majority of Jewish-Americans" and "64% of Israelis." Nader quotes the Israeli writer and peace advocate Uri Avnery's description of Obama's appearance before AIPAC as an appearance that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning." Nader damns Obama for his "utter lack of political courage [for] surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention." Carter, who achieved the only meaningful peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs, has been demonized by the powerful AIPAC lobby for criticizing Israel's policy of apartheid toward the Palestinians whose territory Israel forcibly occupies. Obama's economic team is just as bad. Its star is Robert Rubin, the bankster who was secretary of the treasury in the Clinton administration. Rubin has responsibility for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and, thereby, responsibility for the current financial crisis. In his letter to Obama, Nader points out that Obama received unprecedented campaign contributions from corporate and Wall Street interests. "Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart." Obama's victory speech was magnificent. The TV cameras scanning faces in the audience showed the hope and belief that propelled Obama into the presidency. But Obama cannot bring change to Washington. There is no one in the Washington crowd that he can appoint who is capable of bringing change. If Obama were to reach outside the usual crowd, anyone suspected of being a bringer of change could not get confirmed by the Senate. Powerful interest groups--AIPAC, the military-security complex, Wall Street--use their political influence to block unacceptable appointments. As Alexander Cockburn put it in his column, "Obama, the first-rate Republican," "never has the dead hand of the past had a 'reform' candidate so firmly by the windpipe." Obama confirmed Cockburn's verdict in his first press conference as president-elect. Disregarding the unanimous US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons five years ago, and ignoring the continued certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency that none of the nuclear material for Iran's civilian nuclear reactor has been diverted to weapons use, Obama sallied forth with the Israel Lobby's propaganda and accused Iran of "development of a nuclear weapon" and vowing "to prevent that from happening." http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/07/obama-hits-out-at-iran-closemouthed -on-tactics/ The change that is coming to America has nothing to do with Obama. Change is coming from the financial crisis brought on by Wall Street greed and irresponsibility, from the eroding role of the US dollar as reserve currency, from countless mortgage foreclosures, from the offshoring of millions of America's best jobs, from a deepening recession, from pillars of American manufacturing--Ford and GM--begging the government for taxpayers' money to stay alive, and from budget and trade deficits that are too large to be closed by normal means. Traditionally, the government relies on monetary and fiscal policy to lift the economy out of recession. But easy money is not working. Interest rates are already low and monetary growth is already high, yet unemployment is rising. The budget deficit is already huge--a world record--and the red ink is not stimulating the economy. Can even lower interest rates and even higher budget deficits help an economy that has moved offshore, leaving behind jobless consumers overburdened with debt? How much more can the government borrow? America's foreign creditors are asking this question. An official organ of the Chinese ruling party recently called for Asian and European countries to "banish the US dollar from their direct trade relations, relying only on their own currencies." "Why," asks another Chinese publication, "should China help the US to issue debt without end in the belief that the national credit of the US can expand without limit?" The world has tired of American hegemony and had its fill of American arrogance. America's reputation is in tatters: the financial debacle, endless red ink, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, rendition, torture, illegal wars based on lies and deception, disrespect for the sovereignty of other countries, war crimes, disregard for international law and the Geneva Conventions, the assault on habeas corpus and the separation of powers, a domestic police state, constant interference in the internal affairs of other countries, boundless hypocrisy. The change that is coming is the end of American empire. The hegemon has run out of money and influence. Obama as "America's First Black President" will lift hopes and, thus, allow the act to be carried on a little longer. But the New American Century is already over. From papadop at peak.org Sun Nov 9 16:40:23 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun Nov 9 17:21:28 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama may undo Bush executive orders Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7718949.stm British Broadcasting Corporation Obama 'to use executive orders' Barack Obama - 7/11/2008 Mr Obama's team is scrutinising Mr Bush's executive orders US President-elect Barack Obama will seek to reverse Bush administration policies when he enters office on 20 January, his transition chief said. John Podesta said executive orders by President George W Bush on issues such as stem cell research and oil drilling were at odds with Mr Obama's views. He said they could be easily repealed as no Congressional action was needed. On Monday Mr Obama and Mr Bush will hold their first meeting since the Democrat's election victory. Mr Obama, his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters - Malia, 10, and Sasha, seven - will be given a tour of their new home at the White House. Afterwards the president-elect and Mr Bush are expected to hold what Mr Obama has described as "substantive talks". 'Deliberate haste' "I'm not going to anticipate problems. I'm going to go in there with a spirit of bipartisanship," Mr Obama said on Friday, at his first news conference as president-elect. The meeting has been arranged with unusual haste - analysts say this is in part because the US is at war, and also the transition is taking place in the midst of an economic crisis. Mr Obama has said that dealing with the economy is his top priority, and that he will move with "deliberate haste" to choose his cabinet. Speaking on Fox News, Mr Podesta said Mr Obama's team was working hard to "build up that core economic team". Mr Podesta said the incoming administration was also scrutinising many of the executive orders signed by President Bush "on stem cell research, on a number of areas". "You see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things I think are not in the interest of the country." He said the executive orders could be repealed or amended quickly by the new administration because no Congressional action was required. "I think we'll see the president do that," Mr Podesta said. One matter he highlighted was the Bush administration's attempts to authorise oil and gas drilling in Utah. "[Obama is] a transformational figure, and I think he's going to transform the way government acts as we move forward," Mr Podesta said. The co-chair of Mr Obama's transition team, Valerie Jarrett, said there could be a diverse, bipartisan cabinet. "I'm confident his administration will include people from all perspectives," she said. Mr Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, pledged a smooth transition. "If a crisis hits on January 21, they're the ones who are going to have to deal with it. We need to make sure that they're as well prepared as possible," Mr Bolten said. From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Mon Nov 10 01:36:13 2008 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Mon Nov 10 01:37:11 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Solnit (via Engelhardt): "Day of the Citizen" Message-ID: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174999/rebecca_solnit_day_of_the_citizen Peter From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Nov 10 12:35:25 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon Nov 10 12:37:22 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama's Chief of Staff: War on Terror or Zionist Terror? Message-ID: http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=1768 Rahm Emanuel: Chief of Staff, All-Around Thug ... Rahm Emanuel is the son of Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, a pediatrician who was a member of the Zionist terrorist gang called Irgun, which carried out acts of violence in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. Among other terrorist acts, Irgun was responsible for the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, where British diplomats and their families were staying. Ninety-one people were killed. To this day, the Israelis celebrate this act of unconscionable horror, crafting a wholly self-serving reconstruction of the event to exonerate the Irgun of responsibility for mass murder. Rahm has never condemned his father's terrorist past and, in fact, remains close to his dad. Upon being asked if his son would promote Israeli interests as Obama's chief of staff, Benjamin said, "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House," thereby leaving the impression that, at least to the elder Emanuel, Rahm can be either a janitor for Barack Obama or a Zionist for Israel. William Daroff, director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC), an umbrella organization representing 155 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America, said of the new White House chief of staff, "Rep. Emanuel is... a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock..." ... [...the right chief of staff for the "war on terror", eh? Rahm Emanuel also served in the IDF --> no double loyalty! ;-} ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Nov 10 13:31:07 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon Nov 10 13:33:03 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama's Treasury Secretary on Africa Message-ID: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Summers.html "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [less-developed countries]? ... I've always thought that underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted." -- Obama's Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1991 [Did anyone say "House Slave"??] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Nov 11 01:44:30 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Tue Nov 11 01:44:43 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Nader's open letter to Obama Message-ID: <20081111074431.E1CB9F93C@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> "Change" message a con. See http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9628. From creuss at bluewin.ch Tue Nov 11 06:25:45 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Tue Nov 11 06:27:45 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Gorbachev wants "U$ Perestroika" Message-ID: This call on Obama is especially ironic considering that Gorbachev's "change" in Russia has led to a redistribution of wealth & natural resources from the public to a few mega-rich oligarchs, while throwing the masses into poverty, illness and alcoholism. After Reagan, the Bushes and now the banksters' mega-ripoff, America has already gone far in that direction, but it still can go further with Obama's treasury secretary, former World Bank economist Larry Summers! Now that's a change you can believe in. Unfortunately, a change for the worse... Chris http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081107/118196981.html Gorbachev calls on Obama to carry out 'perestroika' in the U.S. 07/11/2008 21:56 MOSCOW, November 7 (RIA Novosti) - Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has said that the Obama administration in the United States needs far-reaching 'perestroika' reforms to overcome the financial crisis and restore balance in the world. The term perestroika, meaning restructuring, was used by Gorbachev in the late 1980s to describe a series of reforms that abolished state planning in the Soviet Union. In an interview with Italy's La Stampa published on Friday, Gorbachev said President-elect Barack Obama needs to fundamentally change the misguided course followed by President George W. Bush over the past eight years. Gorbachev said that after transforming his country in the late 1980s, he had told the Americans that it was their turn to act, but that Washington, celebrating its Cold War victory, was not interested in "a new model of a society, where politics, economics and morals went hand in hand." He said the Republicans have failed to realize that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that Europe has changed, and that new powers like China, Brazil and Mexico have emerged as important players on the world stage. He told the paper that the world is waiting for Obama to act, and that the White House needs to restore trust in cooperation with the United States among the Russians. "This is a man of our times, he is capable of restarting dialogue, all the more since the circumstances will allow him to get out of a dead-end situation. Barack Obama has not had a very long career, but it is hard to find faults, and he has led an election campaign winning over the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. We can judge from this that this person is capable of engaging in dialogue and understanding current realities." Former Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, founder of now defunct Yukos oil giant, who is in prison on fraud and tax evasion charges, also used the word perestroika in discussing the future course of the Obama administration. In an article published in the business daily Vedomosti on Friday, Khodorkovsky said Obama's election win was not merely another change of power in a separate country, but was important for all states. He said that, "being a liberal himself, he thinks that the world will take a left turn," and that "a global perestroika would be a logical response to the global crisis." "The paradigm of global development is about to change. The era inaugurated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago is over." He said decisions in neoliberal economies had been made mainly by supranational institutions and transnational corporations. Khodorkovsky predicted: "Globalization will slow to a crawl, but will not stop. The 'golden billion' of the world's richest people will have to abandon hopes of increasing their wealth, but high consumer standards which developed at the end of the 20th century will be unaffected by the change. The striving for political freedom and open competition of personalities and ideas will not disappear." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Tue Nov 11 06:28:55 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Tue Nov 11 06:30:47 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama, Rahm-bo and the End of the New American Century - Conned Again? Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11102008.html Obama, Rahm-bo and the End of the New American Century Conned Again? By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS November 10, 2008 If the change President-elect Obama has promised includes a halt to America's wars of aggression and an end to the rip-off of taxpayers by powerful financial interests, what explains Obama's choice of foreign and economic policy advisors? Indeed, Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff is a signal that change ended with Obama's election. The only thing different about the new administration will be the faces. Rahm Emanuel is a supporter of Bush's invasion of Iraq. Emanuel rose to prominence in the Democratic Party as a result of his fundraising connections to AIPAC. A strong supporter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, he comes from a terrorist family. His father was a member of Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that used violence to drive the British and Palestinians out of Palestine in order to create the Jewish state. During the 1991 Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel volunteered to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. He was a member of the Freddie Mac board of directors and received $231,655 in directors fees in 2001. According to Wikipedia, "during the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities." In "Hail to the Chief of Staff," Alexander Cockburn describes Emanuel as "a super-Likudnik hawk," who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 "made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates." My despondent friends in the Israeli peace movement ask, "What is this man doing in Obama's administration?" Obama's election was necessary as the only means Americans had to hold the Republicans accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and human rights, for their violations of US and international laws, for their lies and deceptions, and for their financial chicanery. As an editorial in Pravda put it, "Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law." But Obama's advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush's. Richard Holbrooke, was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador in the Clinton administration. He implemented the policy to enlarge NATO and to place the military alliance on Russia's border in contravention of Reagan's promise to Gorbachev. Holbrooke is also associated with the Clinton administration's illegal bombing of Serbia, a war crime that killed civilians and Chinese diplomats. If not a neocon himself, Holbrooke is closely allied with them. Madeline Albright is the Clinton era secretary of state who told Leslie Stahl (60 Minutes) that the US policy of Iraq sanctions, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, had goals important enough to justify the children's deaths. Albright's infamous words: "we think the price is worth it." Wikipedia reports that this immoralist served on the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange at the time of Dick Grasso's $187.5 million compensation scandal. Dennis Ross has long associations with the Israeli-Palestinian "peace negotiations." A member of his Clinton era team, Aaron David Miller, wrote that during 1999-2000 the US negotiating team led by Ross acted as Israel's lawyer: "we had to run everything by Israel first." This "stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be?" According to Wikipedia, Ross is "chairman of a new Jerusalem-based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency." Clearly, this is not a group of advisors that is going to halt America's wars against Israel's enemies or force the Israeli government to accept the necessary conditions for a real peace in the Middle East. Ralph Nader predicted as much. In his "Open Letter to Barack Obama (November 3, 2008), Nader pointed out to Obama that his "transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights . . . to a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby" puts Obama at odds with "a majority of Jewish-Americans" and "64 per cent of Israelis." Nader quotes the Israeli writer and peace advocate Uri Avnery's description of Obama's appearance before AIPAC as an appearance that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning." Nader damns Obama for his "utter lack of political courage [for] surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention." Carter, who achieved the only meaningful peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs, has been demonized by the powerful AIPAC lobby for criticizing Israel's policy of apartheid toward the Palestinians whose territory Israel forcibly occupies. Obama's economic team is just as bad. Its star is Robert Rubin, the bankster who was secretary of the treasury in the Clinton administration. Rubin has responsibility for the repeal of the Glass- Steagall Act and, thereby, responsibility for the current financial crisis. In his letter to Obama, Nader points out that Obama received unprecedented campaign contributions from corporate and Wall Street interests. "Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart." Obama's victory speech was magnificent. The TV cameras scanning faces in the audience showed the hope and belief that propelled Obama into the presidency. But Obama cannot bring change to Washington. There is no one in the Washington crowd that he can appoint who is capable of bringing change. If Obama were to reach outside the usual crowd, anyone suspected of being a bringer of change could not get confirmed by the Senate. Powerful interest groups--AIPAC, the military-security complex, Wall Street--use their political influence to block unacceptable appointments. As Alexander Cockburn said of Obama in a pre-eection column, column "never has the dead hand of the past had a ?reform' candidate so firmly by the windpipe." Obama confirmed Cockburn's verdict in his first press conference as president-elect. Disregarding the unanimous US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons five years ago, and ignoring the continued certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency that none of the nuclear material for Iran's civilian nuclear reactor has been diverted to weapons use, Obama sallied forth with the Israel Lobby's propaganda and accused Iran of "development of a nuclear weapon" and vowing "to prevent that from happening." The change that is coming to America has nothing to do with Obama. Change is coming from the financial crisis brought on by Wall Street greed and irresponsibility, from the eroding role of the US dollar as reserve currency, from countless mortgage foreclosures, from the offshoring of millions of America's best jobs, from a deepening recession, from pillars of American manufacturing--Ford and GM-- begging the government for taxpayers' money to stay alive, and from budget and trade deficits that are too large to be closed by normal means. Traditionally, the government relies on monetary and fiscal policy to lift the economy out of recession. But easy money is not working. Interest rates are already low and monetary growth is already high, yet unemployment is rising. The budget deficit is already huge--a world record--and the red ink is not stimulating the economy. Can even lower interest rates and even higher budget deficits help an economy that has moved offshore, leaving behind jobless consumers overburdened with debt? How much more can the government borrow? America's foreign creditors are asking this question. An official organ of the Chinese ruling party recently called for Asian and European countries to "banish the US dollar from their direct trade relations, relying only on their own currencies." "Why," asks another Chinese publication, "should China help the US to issue debt without end in the belief that the national credit of the US can expand without limit?" The world has tired of American hegemony and had its fill of American arrogance. America's reputation is in tatters: the financial debacle, endless red ink, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, rendition, torture, illegal wars based on lies and deception, disrespect for the sovereignty of other countries, war crimes, disregard for international law and the Geneva Conventions, the assault on habeas corpus and the separation of powers, a domestic police state, constant interference in the internal affairs of other countries, boundless hypocrisy. The change that is coming is the end of American empire. The hegemon has run out of money and influence. Obama as "America's First Black President" will lift hopes and, thus, allow the act to be carried on a little longer. But the New American Century is already over. --- Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 11 08:38:14 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Tue Nov 11 08:38:21 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Remembrance Day in Canada In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200811112138140921.02CA8079@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> - what my father's generation, and his father's, did was good and honorable, even if they were led to the field of battle and the huge sacrifices they all made by deception and lies and Machiavellian schemings at high levels - what the last generation has done is much less so, betraying the memory of their ancestors by letting a force easily as evil as Hitler planned to be take over our world, in the name of nothing more than greed and stupidity and docility. What I remember, on this day and always, is the time before the neocons took over. Onward Rocinante - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/onward.html Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html (check out the new cover) From papadop at peak.org Tue Nov 11 22:50:46 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue Nov 11 23:31:47 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] ATTACK OF THE NANOPARTICLES Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:49:52 -0800 (PST) From: MichaelP To: unlikely_suspects: ; Subject: ATTACK OF THE NANOPARTICLES http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/12/nanotechnology-pollution Attack of the NanoParticles - be slightly afraid Report calls for more tests on 'wonder ingredient' o Proliferation of nano materials could pose risk The Guardian (London) , Wednesday November 12 2008 ############ The government must begin a "major and urgent" effort to assess the safety of nanomaterials, the tiny particles commonly used in products as varied as sun creams, sports clothing and medicine, leading experts warn today. Hundreds of consumer products made with nanoparticles, which can be 100 times smaller than a virus, are already on the market, despite an almost complete lack of knowledge of the dangers they may pose to human health and the environment, according to a report by the royal commission on environmental pollution. Nanoparticles have been embraced as a wonder ingredient across manufacturing industry. Cosmetic companies add titanium dioxide nanoparticles to sun creams to make them transparent instead of white. Sports clothing firms have introduced odour-free garments containing nanosilver particles that are twice as toxic to bacteria as bleach. The motor industry has added carbon nanofibres to car tyres and body panels to strengthen them. Many nanomaterials are so poorly understood that scientists are unable to predict how they will behave, and are unclear even how to check their safety, the report says. Sir John Lawton, who chairs the commission, said the lack of tests and environmental monitoring for nanoparticles meant it was impossible to know if the materials were already a cause for concern. "Would we know if nanomaterials were causing harm? The answer is, no we wouldn't. We have no evidence that they cause harm, but a lot of that is because of a lack of evidence," he said. Industry figures estimate at least 600 products are already available globally that contain nanomaterials of some form, but that figure is expected to rise steeply. The report warns that the proliferation of nanoparticles will see more of them released into the environment where they could be inhaled, discharged into water courses, and potentially introduced into the food chain with unknown consequences. Lawton acknowledged nanoparticles were "exceedingly useful", but said there was "a major gap between the pace at which new nanomaterials are being developed and the generation of environmental health and safety data". Some scientists who gave evidence to the commission said it could be 20 years before sufficient safety measures were in place to monitor nanotechnology. "We don't want to be alarmist, but experience says the more we find out about this the better," said Lawton. "We're saying [to the government] get your finger out and get on and do something. This is really urgent." Last week, the Royal Society expressed its dismay at the government's lack of action following its own report on nanotechnology in 2004, which also called for more stringent safety checks. Nanoparticles lend their success to the extraordinary, and sometimes highly unusual, properties they have. For example, carbon nanotubes are incredibly strong, while pieces of graphite easily sheer apart. Nanoparticles of silver are significantly more toxic than lumps of the metal because the tiny particles have a huge surface area. The medical industry is investing heavily in nanoparticles to create precision drugs that can target specific tissues, such as cancer cells. The report calls on government departments to back immediate research into toxicity tests for nanoparticles and the impact of nanomaterials in the environment. The commission picks out three types of nanoparticle it says are of particular concern. Highly toxic nanosilver will inevitably get into the water supply when sports garments incorporating silver nanoparticles are washed. These could cause problems at sewage treatment works, which rely on beds of bacteria to purify water. Carbon nanofibres, which can be added to car tyres or woven into clothing to produce different colours without using dyes, are likely to be shed into the environment where they could be inhaled. Finally, "buckyballs" - microscopic football-shaped cages of carbon - can be absorbed by simple organisms, according to the report, raising concerns that they could contaminate the food chain. A spokesperson for Defra said: "As the commission states, it has found no evidence of harm to health or the environment from nanomaterials, but the government remains committed to researching their health and environmental impact." BACKSTORY Eric Drexler, an American engineer sketched the scenario whereby nanomachines no bigger than molecules run amok, consuming the planet's resources and leaving nothing but grey goo, in his 1986 book Engines of Creation. He has now dismissed that view, but more realistic concerns remain. Nanotechnology encompasses any material suited to measurement in billionths of a metre, or nanometres: connections in a chip, fibres in a tennis racket, or particles absorbing UV light in suntan lotion. Nanoparticles behave unlike lumps of the same material - stronger, more toxic, and with radically different electrical properties. What makes them so useful also makes their safety so uncertain. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Nov 12 00:51:59 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed Nov 12 01:06:18 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: China; Venezuela; Thomas Sankara; Soccer in SA; Philippines; Nepal; Pakistan; Tragedy of the Commons Message-ID: <491A7D0F.7040202@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links@dsp.org.au Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Realities of China today By Martin Hart-Landsberg Interest in the post-1978 Chinese market reform experience remains high and for an obvious reason: China is widely considered to be one of the most successful developing countries in modern times. The Chinese economy has recorded record rates of growth over an extended time period, in concert with a massive industrial transformation. Adding to the interest is the Chinese government's claim that this success demonstrates both the workability and superiority of "market socialism." There are those on the left who share this celebratory view of the Chinese experience, believing that it stands as an effective rebuttal to the neoliberal mantra that still dominates economic thinking. Therefore, they encourage other countries to learn from China's gradual, state controlled process of marketization, privatization, and deregulation of economic activity. A small but significant number share the Chinese government's view that China has indeed pioneered a new type of socialism. Read more Venezuela: 'Our votes are for Chavez and the revolution' By Federico Fuentes Caracas, October 31, 2008 -- "On November 23, we will not just be voting for this or that governorship, we will be deciding the destiny of this revolutionary process", Stalin Perez Borges, a national coordinator of the National Union of Workers (UNT) and United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) militant, told Green Left Weekly. On that day, regional elections for 23 governorships, more than 300 mayors and hundreds of state legislative assembly members will occur -- a crucial contest between the revolutionary forces lead by President Hugo Chavez (mainly grouped in the PSUV) and the US-backed right-wing opposition. Perez Borges and militants from the different union currents that are also in the PSUV have been organising in their unions and workplaces to ensure a strong victory in these elections. "Our position is that, despite some of the problems that exist, we as revolutionaries will be participating not just on voting day, but in the campaign. This is the best way to strengthen and deepen the process." * Read more African revolutionary Thomas Sankara's example lives on By Demba Moussa Demb?l? Thomas Sankara was killed in the belief that it could extinguish the example he set for African youth and progressive forces across the continent. They could not have been more wrong. One week before his assassination on October 15, 1987, in a speech marking the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara, Thomas Sankara declared: ``Ideas cannot be killed, ideas never die.'' Indeed, the history of humanity is replete with martyrs and heroes whose ideas and actions have survived the passage time to inspire future generations. * Read more 'Transformation' from above: the upside-down state of the `beautiful game' in South Africa By Dr Dale T. McKinley For the better part of the past century, the most popular sport in South Africa (both in relation to public entertainment and active participation) has been soccer. From its initial introduction into South Africa as a sport played almost solely by the propertied (white) gentry, soccer quickly became, by the turn of the twentieth century, the sport of choice amongst the non-white population and white lower classes. * Read more Philippines: Militant workers demand `big-time rollback' of labour export policy By Partido ng Manggagawa (Labor Party Philippines) October 27, 2008 -- The militant Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) called for a historic reversal of the strategy of labour export as the government-sponsored Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) opened its first day. * Read more Nepal: The struggle intensifies; interview with Prachanda Editorial, Red Star, newspaper of the CPN (Maoist), October 24-November 7, 2008 The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is going to hold a party congress at the beginning of 2009. The decision to hold a party congress has created much interest among the common people as well as party leaders, cadres, sympathisers and well wishers. * Read more Once again on 'The myth of the Tragedy of the Commons': a reply to criticisms and questions A reply to criticisms and questions about my article on Garrett Hardin's influential essay. By Ian Angus November 3, 2008 -- The response to my recent article "The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons" (also posted at Links at http://links.org.au/node/595) has been very encouraging. It prompted a small flood of emails to my inbox, was reposted on many websites and blogs around the world, and has been discussed in a variety of online forums. The majority of the comments were positive, but many readers challenged my critique of Garrett Hardin's very influential 1968 essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons". A gratifying number wrote serious and thoughtful criticisms. * Read more Pakistanis protest US attacks on tribal areas Civil society, trade unions, political parties and students marched on November 1 in Karachi to protest at the US bombing of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). US missile strikes hours apart killed at least 27 people on October 31 near the border with Afghanistan, only days after Pakistan demanded that the United States halt an intensifying campaign of using Predator drones to bomb tribal areas in Pakistan. * Read more Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081112/41da8cb5/attachment.html From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Nov 12 00:51:59 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed Nov 12 01:06:18 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: China; Venezuela; Thomas Sankara; Soccer in SA; Philippines; Nepal; Pakistan; Tragedy of the Commons Message-ID: <491A7D0F.7040202@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links@dsp.org.au Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Realities of China today By Martin Hart-Landsberg Interest in the post-1978 Chinese market reform experience remains high and for an obvious reason: China is widely considered to be one of the most successful developing countries in modern times. The Chinese economy has recorded record rates of growth over an extended time period, in concert with a massive industrial transformation. Adding to the interest is the Chinese government's claim that this success demonstrates both the workability and superiority of "market socialism." There are those on the left who share this celebratory view of the Chinese experience, believing that it stands as an effective rebuttal to the neoliberal mantra that still dominates economic thinking. Therefore, they encourage other countries to learn from China's gradual, state controlled process of marketization, privatization, and deregulation of economic activity. A small but significant number share the Chinese government's view that China has indeed pioneered a new type of socialism. Read more Venezuela: 'Our votes are for Chavez and the revolution' By Federico Fuentes Caracas, October 31, 2008 -- "On November 23, we will not just be voting for this or that governorship, we will be deciding the destiny of this revolutionary process", Stalin Perez Borges, a national coordinator of the National Union of Workers (UNT) and United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) militant, told Green Left Weekly. On that day, regional elections for 23 governorships, more than 300 mayors and hundreds of state legislative assembly members will occur -- a crucial contest between the revolutionary forces lead by President Hugo Chavez (mainly grouped in the PSUV) and the US-backed right-wing opposition. Perez Borges and militants from the different union currents that are also in the PSUV have been organising in their unions and workplaces to ensure a strong victory in these elections. "Our position is that, despite some of the problems that exist, we as revolutionaries will be participating not just on voting day, but in the campaign. This is the best way to strengthen and deepen the process." * Read more African revolutionary Thomas Sankara's example lives on By Demba Moussa Demb?l? Thomas Sankara was killed in the belief that it could extinguish the example he set for African youth and progressive forces across the continent. They could not have been more wrong. One week before his assassination on October 15, 1987, in a speech marking the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara, Thomas Sankara declared: ``Ideas cannot be killed, ideas never die.'' Indeed, the history of humanity is replete with martyrs and heroes whose ideas and actions have survived the passage time to inspire future generations. * Read more 'Transformation' from above: the upside-down state of the `beautiful game' in South Africa By Dr Dale T. McKinley For the better part of the past century, the most popular sport in South Africa (both in relation to public entertainment and active participation) has been soccer. From its initial introduction into South Africa as a sport played almost solely by the propertied (white) gentry, soccer quickly became, by the turn of the twentieth century, the sport of choice amongst the non-white population and white lower classes. * Read more Philippines: Militant workers demand `big-time rollback' of labour export policy By Partido ng Manggagawa (Labor Party Philippines) October 27, 2008 -- The militant Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) called for a historic reversal of the strategy of labour export as the government-sponsored Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) opened its first day. * Read more Nepal: The struggle intensifies; interview with Prachanda Editorial, Red Star, newspaper of the CPN (Maoist), October 24-November 7, 2008 The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is going to hold a party congress at the beginning of 2009. The decision to hold a party congress has created much interest among the common people as well as party leaders, cadres, sympathisers and well wishers. * Read more Once again on 'The myth of the Tragedy of the Commons': a reply to criticisms and questions A reply to criticisms and questions about my article on Garrett Hardin's influential essay. By Ian Angus November 3, 2008 -- The response to my recent article "The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons" (also posted at Links at http://links.org.au/node/595) has been very encouraging. It prompted a small flood of emails to my inbox, was reposted on many websites and blogs around the world, and has been discussed in a variety of online forums. The majority of the comments were positive, but many readers challenged my critique of Garrett Hardin's very influential 1968 essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons". A gratifying number wrote serious and thoughtful criticisms. * Read more Pakistanis protest US attacks on tribal areas Civil society, trade unions, political parties and students marched on November 1 in Karachi to protest at the US bombing of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). US missile strikes hours apart killed at least 27 people on October 31 near the border with Afghanistan, only days after Pakistan demanded that the United States halt an intensifying campaign of using Predator drones to bomb tribal areas in Pakistan. * Read more Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081112/41da8cb5/attachment-0001.html From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Wed Nov 12 09:13:33 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Wed Nov 12 09:16:14 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Rebounding With Obama [ Foreign Policy in Focus] Message-ID: <491ABA5D.19999.652D65C0@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> So, where should Obama begin? We asked FPIF's crack team of senior analysts for their top three suggestions. It makes for bracing reading: close Guant?namo, end the new Africa Command (AFRICOM), begin the withdrawal from Iraq, sign a peace treaty with North Korea, terminate Star Wars, bring the war on terror to a close, declare a moratorium on free-trade agreements. Our 10 analysts also provide sage commentary. Read on !! fyi-janet ==================== http://www.fpif.org/fpifzines/wb/5661 Foreign Policy In Focus World Beat by JOHN FEFFER | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 Vol. 3, No. 45 Rebounding With Obama After suffering through an abusive relationship, many people will fall in love "on the rebound." They finally escape the clutches of an ogre only to jump, often without looking, into the embrace of another person, any other person. This leap of love is sometimes a lucky one, sometimes not. The last seven years of the Bush administration were indeed abusive. And the rebound effect has been so strong that even a good number of alpha-male conservatives - Colin Powell, Francis Fukuyama, Christopher Buckley - fell into the Obama embrace. The incoming president has seemed like such a good match. He's a good listener. He's patient. He shows grace under pressure. He's good with little kids. What a catch! Beyond these attributes of a sensitive executive, Obama promises to repair some of the damage done by our last bad choice. He is already getting ready to tackle global warming. He will likely roll back the dangerous subversion of the U.S. constitution known as the "unitary executive," which the previous president used to bypass congressional checks and balances. He has indicated a healthy regard for nuclear abolition. On the economy, the president-elect leans in the direction of FDR at a time when the current crisis "has put just about everyone in touch with his inner New Dealer," as Steve Coll writes in The New Yorker. So, what's not to like? Alas, our deep state of infatuation with Barack Obama tempts us to look the other way when he does or say things that are, frankly, unlovely. For instance, when he talks about change and brings in a bunch of Clinton-era Old Dealers, including the unrepentant Lawrence Summers, we wax rhapsodic about a smooth transition and the return of experienced hands. When he talks about the need to redirect our attention from Iraq to Afghanistan - even when the latter conflict is going just as poorly as the former - we thrill that he will fight the Good War. When he talks about maintaining our military capacity - even as we spend a budget-popping $700 billion on senseless wars, obsolete weapons systems, and unpopular military bases - we talk about the need for Democrats to stand tall and protect their flanks from patriotism-impugning conservatives. This isn't love. Nor is this, strictly speaking, a honeymoon period. Instead, we are in limerence. Limerence, a term coined some years ago, defines a state often mistaken for love. Those overtaken by limerence experience obsessive longing for another person. They subject the other person to often irrationally positive evaluations. They develop a degree of emotional dependency on the object of their obsession. And they interpret even the slightest sign of affection in the other as a declaration of reciprocal love. But the love is imaginary. Obama promised to bring a puppy dog to the White House. We are that puppy dog. How else can we explain such an outpouring of affection for such a cool customer as Barack Obama? He's a policy wonk who deflected most questions during the campaign with vague pronouncements of change (a wise strategy but not exactly love-connection material). The ugly emotions of the minority of Obama-haters, stoked by that malign cheerleader Sarah Palin, can be easily explained by racism and various strains of fundamentalism. But the love for Obama, so visible on the Internet and in the faces of celebrants on Election Day, cannot be explained by his rhetorical brilliance alone. As Freud might say, something else is going on here. And it's not just Americans. After all, the Bush administration had an abusive relationship with just about everyone in the world. (Well, perhaps the relationship with Tony Blair was a little bit kinkier.) The international community - and the U.S. elections created, for a brief time, a truly international community - is on the rebound as well. We're all, from sea to shining sea and from the axis of evil to the community of democracies, in a state of limerence. I'm sure Obama is a nice guy. But he's a politician. And politicians respond not to puppy love but to pressure. We began Foreign Policy In Focus during the dog days of the Clinton administration, when idealistic multilateralism had descended into naked unilateralism. Then, too, we were on the rebound. Then, too, we had felt abused by the previous lords of misrule. Then, too, Monica aside, we fell out of love. This time around, we will applaud Obama for every wise foreign policy decision he makes, not because we love him but because he has done the right thing. And if does the wrong thing, as inevitably he will, we will not let limerence stir our hearts and cloud our vision. Such is the respect that our president-elect demands and deserves. As a democrat, rather than the leader of a personality cult, Obama would have it no other way. What Would Obama Do? The list of crises facing the new U.S. president is so daunting that only a madman or a former editor of the Harvard Law Review would run screaming in the other direction. There are two wars, a world financial and economic crisis, and a melting planet. It's enough to make something like North Korea's nuclear program, daunting enough to be the plot line of a Hollywood thriller, into a second-tier priority. So, where should Obama begin? We asked FPIF's crack team of senior analysts for their top three suggestions. It makes for bracing reading: close Guant?namo, end the new Africa Command (AFRICOM), begin the withdrawal from Iraq, sign a peace treaty with North Korea, terminate Star Wars, bring the war on terror to a close, declare a moratorium on free-trade agreements. Our 10 analysts also provide sage commentary. "Changes in foreign policy are often less about grand declarations than they are about alterations in tone, outlook, and priorities. This is a cumulative process," writes Mark Engler. "The president-elect should take the enormous goodwill he has throughout the world and lead the world by example, by making diplomacy, cooperation, negotiation, and international law - not war - the center of our international energy plan," argues Antonia Juhasz. "Can we now make Africa a priority?" asks E. Ethelbert Miller. "Yes we can! Yes we should." FPIF contributor Julie Mertus focuses on what Obama should do in the realm of human rights. "President Bush's scorn of international treaties went so far as to lead him to take the unprecedented move of 'unsigning' the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court and the Vienna Convention on Treaties," she writes in Letter to President Obama on Human Rights. "You might begin by resigning these, as well as signing on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a convention signed by every country in the world except for the United States and Somalia, and the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, a convention modeled largely on American disability law." Then there's Afghanistan. "Ending Bush's imperial misadventures in Iraq will certainly be a top priority for the incoming administration, but Obama will also be tested in Afghanistan," writes Sameer Dossani in The Case for U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan. "His words so far - calling Afghanistan the 'central front' in the 'War on Terror' and demanding more military action against insurgents allied with the Taliban - don't inspire confidence that he would chose the [Martin Luther] King doctrine over the Bush doctrine." With most pundits talking about Obama following through on his campaign pledges, FPIF columnist Walden Bello hopes that Obama will reverse himself. Just as he changed his mind on the public financing of campaigns, he should alter his promise to beef up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Pulling out of both Iraq and Afghanistan "will clear the way for focusing on the truly gigantic task ahead, which is to transform the American economy and the global economy," Bello writes in How to Spend the Honeymoon. "But he has to act fast, taking advantage of the heady days of his romance with American people and the disarray of the Right. Will he do it? Probably not. But then again, one of the man's greatest assets has been his ability to reverse course, to surprise." The Long Shadow Iraq will cast a long shadow over the United States. The costs of the war are immense, approaching $3 trillion if you factor in everything that Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes include in their recent book. "The connection between the war and the economy is increasingly clear and starting to affect everyone, from those worrying about retirement to John McCain's Joe the Plumber," writes FPIF's Kyi May Kaung in her review of The Three Trillion Dollar War. The costs aren't simply measurable in monetary terms. The price is exacted in the bodies and memories of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. Consider the testimony of former U.S. army sergeant Domingo Rosas. "One night I was told to bring a message down to the detainee site," Rosas recalls in an excerpt from the new book Winter Soldier, by Iraq Veterans Against the War and FPIF contributor Aaron Glantz. "I knocked on the door, and when they opened it, I witnessed one detainee being kicked around on the ground in the mud, rolled over again and again. The agent was just kicking him with his foot, rolling him over in the mud, pouring water on his face, the whole waterboarding thing. Another detainee was standing there with a bag over his head and was forced to carry a huge rock until he just physically couldn't do it anymore and just collapsed. That image seared itself into my mind's eye, and I can't forget it." How can we dispel the long shadow that Iraq casts over us? FPIF senior analyst Adil Shamoo offers a proposal that would carry with it great symbolic weight. "Issue an order to convert the controversial U.S. embassy in Baghdad into a university for the Iraqi people," he writes in A Bold Step for U.S. Good Will in Iraq, an op-ed published in The Christian Science Monitor. "This powerful message from our new leader would convey to the Iraqi people in particular a new direction for U.S. policy." After the Meltdown We're continuing to investigate the impact of the financial crisis around the world. In Latin America, as FPIF contributor Joshua Frens- String reports in Postcard from.Montevideo, "The initial reaction of many Latin American leaders to the unfolding U.S. financial meltdown has been an almost gleeful celebration of arrogance's defeat. As the situation's gravity multiplies, responses have become more tempered, but disdain for the years in which the region acted as a primary laboratory for the economic experiments of the United States, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank remain. Finally, FPIF senior analyst Stephen Zunes writes about fallacy of guilt by association, both in the elections and on the left. "During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, in what became known as 'guilt by association,' simply being friends with someone suspected of being a Communist could ruin your career," he writes in The Cooties Effect. "Today that's been extended to guilt by spatial proximity, which could appropriately be called the 'cooties effect.' If you sit on the same board, have appeared on the same panel, or otherwise have been in close physical proximity to someone deemed undesirable, you therefore must have been infected by their politics or, at minimum, have no problems with things they may have done in their past." Links "Obama's Victory," from the Institute for Policy Studies Mandate for Change post-election analysis panel, November 8, 2008; http://www.ips- dc.org/articles/886 John Vidal, "Obama Victory Signals Rebirth of U.S. Environmental Policy," The Guardian, November 5, 2008; http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/05/climatechange- carbonemi ssions/print Steve Coll, "The Test," The New Yorker, November 10, 2008; http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/10/081110taco_talk_coll Tim Shipman, "Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama," The Daily Telegraph, November 10, 2008; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3 405 336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats- against -Barack-Obama.html FPIF Senior Analysts, "Obama's Top Three Foreign Policy Priorities," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5655); Foreign Policy In Focus asked our senior analysts to identify the foreign policy priorities of the new Obama administration. Julie Mertus, "Letter to President Obama on Human Rights," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5648); Here are four steps for the new president to bring U.S. human rights policy in line with global standards. Sameer Dossani, "The Case for U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5658); Instead of scaling up an already disastrous war, the United States could change course in a way that would ultimately do a lot more to ensure the world's safety. Walden Bello, "How to Spend the Honeymoon," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5657); Will Obama will bring real change to U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Afghanistan? Kyi May Kaung, "Review of The Three Trillion Dollar War," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5642); The economic chickens are coming home to roost. IVAW and Aaron Glantz, "Winter Soldier: Domingo Rosas," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5653); One veteran's chilling account of what he saw while serving in the Iraq War underscores the violent way U.S. forces have treated Iraqi detainees, even after they've died. Adil Shamoo, "A Bold Step for U.S. Good Will in Iraq," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5644); Convert the huge U.S. Embassy into a university. Joshua Frens-String, "Postcard from.Montevideo," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5650); The United States could learn a few lessons from Uruguay about how to get out of a financial crisis. Stephen Zunes, "The Cooties Effect," Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5643); McCain and Palin tried to smear Obama through guilt by association. But this isn't just a Republican tactic. . . . Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) fpif.org: a think tank without walls From thinker at thelakebc.ca Wed Nov 12 09:47:16 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Wed Nov 12 09:44:33 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] The real Obama ? Message-ID: <200811121544.mACFiLYU001813@karma.reboot.ca> A Rough Guide to Obama, on $2.3 billion a day* By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) Did you know that President-elect Obama: * voted for every one of President Bush's Iraq-War funding increases? * believes Bush's "surge" in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" and has proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror"? * criticized the Iraq War because it is "unwinnable," not because it is illegal, immoral and has killed one million Iraqis? * will probably leave 140,000 private contractors (mercenaries) and as many as 60,000 to 80,000 regular US troops in Iraq? * praised President Bush, Sr., and the 1991 Gulf War saying: "I think that when you look back at his foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy. In how we executed the Gulf War.... I think George H.W. Bush doesn't get enough credit for...his foreign policy team and the way that he...prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful." * is willing to bomb Iran and that he won't rule out a first strike nuclear attack? * wants to send an additional 10,000 US troops to fight the war in Afghanistan? * wants to expand the Afghan war with unilateral air strikes to bomb Pakistan? * supported Israel's war against Lebanon? * supports Ballistic Missile Defense? * favours military expenditures on warplanes that he says "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power." * voted for the Patriot Act II, the Wall Street bailout, building a border wall with Mexico and immunity for corporations that conducted electronic eavesdropping on Americans? * wants continued sanctions against Cuba? * called President Chavez an "enemy of the US" and wants sanctions against Venezuela? Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other examples from Obama's statements, his voting records, his financial backers and his selection of advisors and staff that expose very regressive positions on foreign policy and domestic issues. (Check out the links to an initial list of articles below.) Some rationalize their support for Obama by saying he is less pro-war than McCain or Bush. Others may argue with contention that Obama even is pro-war. At different times, and with different audiences, Obama has taken completely contradictory stands on many important issues. How do we interpret this behaviour? Are we believe all of his progressive-sounding rhetoric on "hope" and change," and simply ignore as inconvenient his many "right-wing," pro-war positions? As Obama himself has said in his latest book The Audacity of Hope: "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." As James Krichick said in the New Republic, "Obama is, in his own words, something of a Rorschach test." Sam Smith puts it this way in an article called "Can we talk about the Real Obama now?": "Obama has left the same kind of vacuum. His magic, or con, was that voters could imagine whatever they wanted and he would do nothing to spoil their reverie. He was a handsome actor playing the part of the first black president-to-be and, as in films, he was careful not to muck up the role with real facts or issues that might harm the fantasy. Hence the enormous emphasis on meaningless phrases like hope and change." (Undernews (online report of the Progressive Review), November 5, 2008.) Obama's rhetoric on the Iraq War is a case in point. Many mistakenly see him as as anti-war "peace candidate" who will pull the US military out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the truth about his position on this subject is far more complicated. "In an interview with Amy Goodman, Sen. Obama stated his intention of leaving 140,000 private contractors in Iraq because ?we don?t have the troops to replace them.? He also stated the need to keep an additional ?strike force in the region in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity." Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008. Colin Kahl, the coordinator of the Obama campaign?s working group on Iraq policy wrote a paper for Center for a New American Security, saying that between 60,000 and 80,000 US troops should stay in Iraq until the end of 2010. (James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008.) Another insight into Obama's position on the Iraq war is revealed in his appointment of Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. Stephen Zunes, in "Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal," (Foreign Policy In Focus, August 24, 2008) says that "Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. "The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies. "Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administrations decision to invade that oil-rich country." (Emphasis added) Leaving aside the Iraq War there is plenty for peace activists to be concerned about in Obama's overall agenda for the US military. For example, as Obama wrote in an article called "Renewing American Leadership": "To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . . We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability..." (Foreign Affairs, May 31, 2007.) And, here's what the official website of the Obama-Biden campaign says about what they'll do to when elected to "rebuild the military for 21st century tasks": * Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families. * Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world. * Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power. * Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises. * National Missile Defense: An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public. A 21st Century Military for America Particularly revealing is the section above called "Preserve Global Reach in the Air" which concludes with the assertion that the US needs to invest in multi-billion dollar warplane programs because they "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power." The idea that Obama is anti-war is a powerful myth that will impede the peace movement's ability to mobilize opposition to the inevitable continuation of US militarism and imperialism. President Obama may then prove to be more of an obstacle to peace than a true agent of change moving the US economy away from a world in which corporations seek profit through predatory wars. Obama's deceitful image as peacemonger will allow him to get away with policies and actions that would not be countenanced for an instant if they had come from the likes of McCain or Bush. This blindspot for Obama's pro-war agenda will not only hamper the ability of US peace activists to speak out, organize and protest, it will also help to dampen the efforts of many others around the world. There is a potential silver lining to this situation. As President Obama and his government begin to carry forward their efforts to "extend global power," liberal activists will hopefully begin to concede that Obama is not the peace president they had expected him to be. As the campaign hype and honeymoon fade away, disappointment in Obama's rhetoric and hypocrisy may transform into a realization that the US is in dire need of a strong "third party" to give voice to the aspirations for peace held by so many millions of Americans. Perhaps this disillusionment in the Democratic Party will begin to open up new possibilities for the election of some future US president who really does stand for peace. But don't hold your breath! ---------- * Under President Obama, the US military budget may well be spending about $2.3 billion a day. The 2008 US military budget is $696 billion. Obama says he will increase military spending and will add 65,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Every increase of 1,000 army troops adds about $2 billion per year, while every addition of 1,000 Marines adds $1 billion/year. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327888,00.html That means Obama's proposal could add $157 billion, bringing the total to $857 billion per year, which means about $2.3 billion per day. Resources: African People's Solidarity Committee, "Obama Exposed" and "Obama Fact Sheet" "Quentin Young, Early Supporter of Obama, Now Disappointed and Saddened," Corporate Crime Reporter, January 28, 2008. Shaun Booth, "Barack Obama: A Hawk in Dove?s Clothing," Political Lore, January 18th, 2008. Michel Chossudovsky, "The Democrats endorse the 'Global War on Terrorism': Obama 'goes after' Osama," Global Research, August 29, 2008. August Cole, "Obama Adviser Doesn't Expect Defense Cuts," Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008. Robert Dreyfuss, "Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy," The Nation, July 1, 2008 Tom Eley, "Barack Obama and the War In Iraq," World Socialist Web, February 14, 2007. Glen Ford, "Obama surrenders on military spending," The Progressive, January 15, 2008. Chris Floyd, "The Bagman Cometh: Obama Embraces War Criminal's Endorsement," Empire Burlesque, October 19, 2008. Chris Floyd, "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq," Baltimore Chronicle, September 5, 2008. Joshua Frank, "It Could be a Long, Hard Struggle: A Look Under the Hood of an Obama Administration," November 6, 2008. Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008. Glenn Greenwald, "The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending," Jan. 2, 2008. William D. Hartung, "Dems: What about the Military Budget?" Foreign Policy In Focus, February 21, 2008 Joseph Gerson, "Obama's Foreign & Military Policies: Old Wine in a New Bottle?" Common Dreams, April 23, 2007. Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider - Obama's Iraq Fairy Tale," Black Agenda Report, July 9, 2008. James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008. Tom Mackaman, "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran," World Socialist Web, October 1, 2004. Pam Martens, "Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street," CounterPunch, May 5, 2008. "Sen. Barack Obama Speaks Out on the Iraq War, Race, Hillary Clinton and Pastor Jeremiah Wright," CNN Larry King Live, March 20, 2008. The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever The Politics Demand, John McCain's team. (This contains dozens of contradictory statements made by Obama regarding various aspects of the Iraq war.) Ralph Nader, "Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama," November 3, 2008. Johnny Peepers, "Obama?s Pro-War Chief of Staff: Rahm ?Rahmbo? Emanuel," Dillsnap cogitations, November 2008. St. Pete for Peace, "If you voted for Obama, this is what you voted for," November 2008. News release, Greens Warn Antiwar Americans Against Wasting Votes on Pro-War Democrats, US Green Party, July 28, 2008. Kevin Zeese, "Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?," Voters for Peace, April 2008. Over the past year, John Pilger has written numerous columns critiquing Obama hawkish policies, including: * Bringing down the new Berlin Walls 13 Feb 2008 ... One of Barack Obamas chief whisperers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan, which spawned jihadism, ... * The danse macabre of US-style democracy 23 Jan 2008 ... Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. ... * In the great tradition, Obama is a hawk 12 Jun 2008 ... The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US... * The invisible government 16 Jun 2007 ... Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, We must not rule out military ... * Obama, the prince of bait-and-switch 24 Jul 2008 ... Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan ... * A murderous theatre of the absurd 11 Sep 2008 ... At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease Americas grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. ... * The new world war - the silence is a lie 24 Sep 2008 ... The change candidate for president, Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft and bombs. The ironies are searing. ... * The diplomacy of lying 23 Oct 2008 ... The beatification of President Barack Obama is already under way; for it is he who challenges America to rise up [and] summon the better ... ---------- Free sample copy: If you live in Canada and haven't previously received a free sample copy of COAT's magazine, Press for Conversion!, then just send your name, street address and postal code to overcoat@rogers.com and we'll mail you a complimentary copy. From fresch at ica.net Wed Nov 12 15:39:14 2008 From: fresch at ica.net (Fred Schneider) Date: Wed Nov 12 15:39:31 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: One Company's Toxic Agenda or Our Poisonous Way of Life? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081112163537.0247f568@ica.net> One Company's Toxic Agenda or Our Poisonous Way of Life? Marie-Monique Robin's "The World According to Monsanto" Wednesday 12 November 2008 by: Leslie Thatcher, t r u t h o u t | Review http://www.truthout.org/111208A How have our leaders come to see support for such jury-rigged systems - systems that mask and disperse responsibility, while simultaneously spreading and intensifying risk - as somehow in the national interest? (Photo: Institute for Responsible Technology) How did a nation of would-be self-sufficient yeoman farmers and master craftsmen become the wellspring of the new thralldom? Can we blame corporate barons and their enablers in government for our dependence on "systems that mask and disperse responsibility while simultaneously spreading and intensifying risk" or have our own frivolity and negligence perverted the American dream? Dominique Dhombres' review of Marie-Monique Robin's movie, "The World According to Monsanto", shown on French TV this spring, provoked so much reader interest, I obtained a copy of the book in French (to be released this coming spring in English) and the movie in English to see for myself. Both text and film are extraordinary models of investigative reporting, each comprising chilling and compelling indictments of a company with a long history of producing varieties of poison. I have no doubt that had a human individual, rather than a multinational corporation, been responsible for the death, suffering and destruction Marie-Monique Robin documents, the International Criminal Court and other jurisdictions around the world would be clamoring for that person's head. Yet, Monsanto continues to operate so much more freely than the disguised Radovan Karadzic. Only last week The Independent reported that Gordon Brown and other European leaders are secretly planning to promote GMO food - 90 percent of which is produced by Monsanto - over the objections of their own populations. While "The World According to Monsanto" excoriates Monsanto executives and their enablers, what Marie-Monique Robin most effectively documents are the perverse effects - the moral, social, technological, economic and market failures - of Western society's economic organization, most specifically with respect to science and the products of science, and, ultimately, with respect to the preservation of the public commons and human life on the planet. Both Ms. Robin's film and her book use a montage of Monsanto advertising, promotional films, claims and pledges to illustrate the fantasy chemical, then biotech/life sciences company it purports to be. Then she proceeds in both media to examine, deconstruct and destroy the fantasy, revealing a far less attractive reality - which the company invariably denies. From PCBs to the 2,4,5,-T dioxin in Agent Orange to Roundup, Ms. Robin demonstrates that the company's products caused serious harm, that the company knew and denied the dangers and proceeded to discredit - ruining careers and sometimes lives - whistleblowers and opponents. In each case, "The World According to Monsanto" shows government agencies and entities charged with protecting the public good - most notably the EPA - standing against it, defending Monsanto's interests rather than the innocents poisoned by its products. As Ms. Robin's investigation moves forward in time - to the introduction of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), genetically modified foods (GMO), "Terminator" seeds, and patents on life - and across the world to Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and India, she shows the pattern repeating itself. The film uses the image of an actual revolving door to convey the chief means by which Ms. Robin shows the company perverting its own regulatory regime as regulators, judges and scientists move in and out of Monsanto's executive suites and the offices of such key contractors as its legal counsel. And while American readers and viewers may be unsurprised by the impact of what Russ Feingold has called a "system of legalized bribery and legalized extortion" with respect to regulatory agencies, the corruption of science Ms. Robin depicts operating through the very mechanisms that are supposed to keep it professional and objective - peer-reviewed articles in professional journals, for example - may shock and surprise, although perhaps less so now when the eagerness of "independent" financial rating agencies and many academic economists and financial experts to jump on the financial industry's gravy train has been revealed. Robin's documentary has the tremendous emotional force that comes from seeing the impact on human beings of the events she described and the stark gulf between company promises and realities delivered. The book is in other ways more powerful: her arguments and evidence are more thoroughly developed and supported throughout with detailed notes. It is earnestly to be hoped that the English language edition will contain an index. A timeline allowing the reader to track the overlaps and sequences of various events described would be even more helpful, as would diagrams tracking the connections between regulators and the regulated. The most damning regulatory failure Ms. Robin documents is the FDA's May 29, 1992, ruling that genetically modified food is "substantially equivalent" to conventional varieties. The policy statement went on to address labeling: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. For this reason, the agency does not believe that the method of development of a new plant variety ? would ? usually be required to be disclosed in labeling for the food." (1) She evokes the unrestrained joy of lobbyists following the ruling - which they know is a joke, scientifically - and she films James Maryanski - who in 1992 was biotechnology coordinator with the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition - saying the ruling was "a political decision ... not based on scientific data." And although the evidence, Robin argues, using as examples the L-trytophane epidemic and Arpad Pusztai's transgenic potatoes, is compelling that transgenic plants may have dramatically different properties from the natural variety - properties that do not inhere to the transgene - none of the GMO food sold in the United States has been independently tested, a level of stringency inferior to that applied to the least food additive. You might be naive enough to imagine that in the US the market would rule and consumers would be free to decide whether they care to be guinea pigs for the long-term impact of drinking pus-laced milk from rBGH-injected cows or of eating untested foods. But no, Robin reports, the agencies charged with protecting US consumers have carried water for Monsanto a little further and supported its efforts to ban labeling. "As many as 20 polls effected between 1997 and 2004 clearly indicate that over 80 percent of Americans want labeling of transgenic products." (2) Apparently our free market ideologues are unaware that a free market is predicated on - requires - perfect information. Robin illustrates the near impossibility of acquiring or developing such information when Monsanto's proprietary technology claims make it impossible for scientists to study their products or release the results of those studies without permission, when scientists who succeed in doing independent work are hounded from their jobs, subjected to concerted attacks on professional blog sites, and otherwise victimized - all too often with the collusion of their own governments. The stories Robin documents make a mockery of the concept of independent science. But Robin shows that the independence and integrity - not only of regulators and judges, scientists and reporters - have been undermined by Monsanto's tactics, but also that rural communities in the US have been torn apart by the "totalitarian world" tactics, the "gene police" sent there to enforce Monsanto's agreements with growers and its patents - even against those whose fields have been contaminated by wind-blown pollen. That contamination of conventional varieties by GMO crops - which Robin documents occurring far from where GMO agriculture is authorized - for example, in the Mexican heartland of corn cultivation - lends still more credence to such claims made by Robin interviewees as, "They want to own life;" "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Robin, the daughter of farmers, reveals how the invasion of mono-culture GMO soybean cultivation in Latin America has contributed to rainforest elimination as well as to the eradication of independent multi-crop peasant farmers, their communities and the extraordinary biodiversity their traditional farming methods had sustained: just so Europeans and other Westerners can feed their chickens and pigs "cheap" fodder. "The fundamental problem with GMO," Robin quotes stock analyst Mark Brunner," is that only Monsanto profits from them: the risks are for others, while the regulatory agencies have abdicated their role of regulation and control." (3) Robin substantiates that the government of the United States under the last four administrations has been Monsanto's constant champion (there's a marvelous film clip of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush touring a Monsanto facility in a lab coat) against its own citizens' interests and expressed will, lobbying foreign governments at the most senior levels, as one interviewee suggested, as though its biotechnology were key to America's industrial base. Yet, Monsanto's key biotech products have not been developed in response to any perceptible market need: rBGH was introduced when there was a glut of milk on the market; GMO corn and soybeans were developed for resistance to Monsanto herbicides, precluding the need for the labor-intensive weed pulling by hand - at least until herbicide-resistant weeds develop. Robin maintains that no GMO crop has yet been developed that demonstrates nutritional, yield or overall hardiness superiority to conventional varieties in independent studies, not even the famed "golden rice," which apparently produces "derisory" quantities of beta carotene when cultivated under realistic conditions. (4) The fantasy - not of biotech's promise, which many of the truly independent and subsequently ruined scientists Robin covers believed in - but of its results is nonetheless still maintained. In Le Monde's Monday, November 3, edition, the director of Monsanto's French subsidiary, Laurent Martel, is quoted, "A country that allows a handful of obscurantists to lay waste its research deprives itself of all the promises of progress that research bears for the present and the future." (5) Not unlike the snake oil salesmen of subprimes who argued their product brought the American dream a home within reach of those who had previously been unable to afford it, Monsanto as portrayed by Robin makes the most extravagant claims for its products, some of which she shows dealing death, ruin and an entire panoply of unintended but foreseeable consequences instead. And as securitized, derivative-enhanced subprimes have infiltrated and contaminated the global financial system, Robin shows how the use of Monsanto's chemical and GMO products has contaminated biological, social and essential economic systems. How did our leaders come to see support for such jury-rigged systems - systems that mask and disperse responsibility, while simultaneously spreading and intensifying risk - as somehow in the national interest? What has led them to renounce their responsibility to defend us as citizens and consumers - thwarting our will, common sense and the essential independent science necessary for informed decision-making? How is it that we have allowed them to create a desolation and call it "progress?" From the biblical verses in Kings, Isaiah and Micah, America's founders were inspired with the image of what we could expect from freedom and independence: "You will sit under your own Vine, and under your own Fig-tree, none being permitted to make you afraid. All political Power will be derived from you; and will be exercised only by such Persons, during such Terms in such Manner and for such Purposes as you shall appoint. Those who shall be entrusted with the Management of public Affairs, will be the Servants, and not the Masters of the States." (6) Neither we, nor the Paraguayan peasants Robin films trying to maintain their diverse little farms as islands in a mono-culture sea of GMO soybeans regularly sprayed with dangerous herbicides, can live without fear of coercion, or be confident there will be no reduction of our human potential for happiness and self-fulfillment through the corrosive and pervasive chemical, social and biological by-products that infuse "the world according to Monsanto." --------- The World According to Monsanto Marie-Monique Robin English edition, book: New Press (March 2009), 352 pages. English edition, Movie/DVD: Yes! Films, 109 minutes. My home page: "http://home.ica.net/~fresch/index.htm" ======================================== Fred Schneider, 905-279-7199, Fax: same, call first! #37-425 Meadows Blvd. Mississauga, ON, L4Z 1N3 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Nov 12 22:22:42 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed Nov 12 22:22:49 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Snouts jamming the trough Message-ID: <20081113042243.47055108EB@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Only $70bn remains of the the first $350 bn tranche of the $700bn gift to Mr Greed as the pigs jostle for a last go at the trough (inevitably they will ask for more, and inevitably the pollies will comply because that's who they're there to serve). The last mad scramble for the rest of the first $350bn is described in its unedifying detail by Mark Landler and David Kirkpatrick in a New York Times piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/economy/12lobbying.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1226465514-1MVWrPL4DojwbhMndGiAyw&oref=slogin which is mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/111208N Dion Giles Western Australia From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Nov 12 22:42:05 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Wed Nov 12 23:25:53 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Socialist Party of Malaysia: Building socialism while capitalism crumbles | Links Message-ID: <491BB01D.4000401@greenleft.org.au> By Choo Chon Kai, International Bureau, PSM November 13, 2008 -- Kajang, Malaysia -- It was timely for the Socialist Party of Malaysia (Parti Sosialis Malaysia -- PSM) to host the ``Socialism 2008 - Malaysia'' conference, when the world is caught in a deep crisis that is considered the worst since World War II. The conference showed that capitalism, during its 18-year term as the dominant ideology of the world, had wreaked havoc on the lives of people and the planet, and that there was an urgent need to put forward a socialist alternative. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/732 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From creuss at bluewin.ch Thu Nov 13 06:20:00 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Thu Nov 13 06:22:00 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] THIS is the Change we can believe in! Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RealChange.gif Type: image/gif Size: 170329 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081113/d3cd5bbc/RealChange-0001.gif From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 13 06:45:12 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 13 06:45:23 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] THIS is the Change we can believe in! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081113124513.B11DEF7E9@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Is it true that Barack Obama is angling to keep Joe Lieberman in l;place as Home Security chairman? Dion Giles Western Australia At 21:20 13/11/2008, you wrote: >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From duanebehrens at cox.net Thu Nov 13 07:14:26 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Thu Nov 13 07:14:35 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers Message-ID: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> I read this, was quite appalled, then sat for a moment thinking, "There really ARE people who believe this . . . " DB ============================================= Opponents of Lawrence Summers for a second turn as Treasury secretary have, of course, brought up his 1991 memo as chief economist of the World Bank, in which he wrote that poor countries need more pollution, not less. The memo was obviously meant to stimulate thinking and not to be implemented as policy. But it also was undeniably correct. Summers's main point was that life and health are worth less in poor countries than in rich ones. He measured that worth by the earnings lost when a person is sick or dies prematurely. But another good measure, maybe clearer, would be the amount a society will spend to save a life. Treatments that are routine in the United States, although they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, are simply not available to citizens of poor countries. You get cancer and you die. Of course this shouldn't be true, but it undeniably is true, and rejecting the idea of poor countries earning a little cash by "buying" pollution from rich ones will do nothing to make it less true. If an industrial plant that causes pollution is going to be built somewhere, it ought to be built where life is worth less. This sounds brutal, but it isn't. Or rather, it is less brutal than reality. Turn it around: If a life is worth less, it is also cheaper to save. For what we spend in the United States to save a single life, you could save dozens or hundreds of lives in poor countries. So if the plant is going to be built somewhere, building it in a poor country will enable more lives to be saved than building it in a rich one. Summers also pointed out that the harm from pollution tends to be "non-linear," meaning that the harm goes up more than proportionately as pollution increases. A little bit of pollution may be virtually harmless, but double it or quadruple it and you more than double or quadruple the negative effects. If a city in a rich country is very polluted and a city the same size in a poor country is not, you will save lives -- in the rich country this time -- if some of that pollution can be moved from the rich country to the poor one. And the money the rich country pays the poor one can save even more lives in the poor country. The general point is that clean air and other environmental goods are luxuries. The richer a country is, the more of them it can afford. And if rich countries like the United States had had to meet some of the standards being wished upon poor countries today, we would still be poor ourselves. Every economic transaction has two sides. When you deny a rich country the opportunity to unload some toxic waste on a poor one, you are also denying that poor country the opportunity to get paid for taking the toxic waste. And by forbidding this deal, you are putting off the day when the poor country will no longer need to make deals like this. In his notorious memo, Summers was doing his job and doing it well: thinking outside the box about how to help the poor countries that are supposed to be the World Bank's constituency. Plenty of outside-the-box thinking will be required from our next Treasury secretary too. Summers is famous for this, and for the abrasiveness that goes along with it. But the Obama administration won't have time, and shouldn't have the patience, for the umbrage game that dominated the recent political campaign. There is no point in making Larry Summers promise to behave himself. That just isn't his style, and if President-elect Obama can't face it, he should choose someone less likely to stir up fusses at regular intervals. That would be a pity. By Michael Kinsley -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 13 08:03:32 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 13 08:03:44 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> Message-ID: <20081113140333.0795CF565@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> The notion that linear incremental pollution is less significant in an unpolluted area than in a heavily polluted area is the opposite to the truth. Even paying, for argument's sake, that modern technology is going to cause drastic warming because of CO2 emission blanketing the radiant release of heat, the Lambert-Beer law expresses the fact that the effect of an increase in absorbent concentration decreases with increasing concentration (the absorbance term A in A = absorptivity x concentration x path length) being logarithmic). But that is global in its application and doesn't fully gainsay Kinsley's point. What does is the non-linearity of the effect of a pollutant in a given region, to which he refers. Non-linear sure - but in the other direction. The incremental effect of any pollutant at all, on a local or regional level (which is what Kinsley is referring to) is less, not greater, for increasing concentrations. This is whether it be in absorption of radiation (Lambert-Beer) or in any other property you like to mention that harms people, animals and plants including those that really do. Adding a few tons of pollutant to a pristine lake or river increases concentration manyfold - even millionsfold depending on how low it is to start with. Add it to Sydney Harbour and hey, what's the big deal? That's why we try to look after the Antarctic so carefully and why those floating hotels visiting Alaska are so much more harmful than the same vessels visiting New York or Sydney. Anyone in the least doubt about what Larry Summers stands for might read the short item at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/02/27/summers_harvard_and_israel/. Obama is indeed singing for his supper. Dion Giles Western Australia At 22:14 13/11/2008, you wrote: >I read this, was quite appalled, then sat for a moment thinking, >"There really ARE people who believe this . . . " DB > >============================================= > >Opponents of Lawrence Summers for a second turn as Treasury >secretary have, of course, brought up his 1991 memo as chief >economist of the World Bank, in which he wrote that poor countries >need more pollution, not less. The memo was obviously meant to >stimulate thinking and not to be implemented as policy. But it also >was undeniably correct. Summers's main point was that life and >health are worth less in poor countries than in rich ones. He >measured that worth by the earnings lost when a person is sick or >dies prematurely. But another good measure, maybe clearer, would be >the amount a society will spend to save a life. Treatments that are >routine in the United States, although they cost hundreds of >thousands of dollars, are simply not available to citizens of poor >countries. You get cancer and you die. Of course this shouldn't be >true, but it undeniably is true, and rejecting the idea of poor >countries earning a little cash by "buying" pollution from rich ones >will do nothing! > to make it less true. > >If an industrial plant that causes pollution is going to be built >somewhere, it ought to be built where life is worth less. This >sounds brutal, but it isn't. Or rather, it is less brutal than >reality. Turn it around: If a life is worth less, it is also cheaper >to save. For what we spend in the United States to save a single >life, you could save dozens or hundreds of lives in poor countries. >So if the plant is going to be built somewhere, building it in a >poor country will enable more lives to be saved than building it in a rich one. > >Summers also pointed out that the harm from pollution tends to be >"non-linear," meaning that the harm goes up more than >proportionately as pollution increases. A little bit of pollution >may be virtually harmless, but double it or quadruple it and you >more than double or quadruple the negative effects. If a city in a >rich country is very polluted and a city the same size in a poor >country is not, you will save lives -- in the rich country this time >-- if some of that pollution can be moved from the rich country to >the poor one. And the money the rich country pays the poor one can >save even more lives in the poor country. > >The general point is that clean air and other environmental goods >are luxuries. The richer a country is, the more of them it can >afford. And if rich countries like the United States had had to meet >some of the standards being wished upon poor countries today, we >would still be poor ourselves. > >Every economic transaction has two sides. When you deny a rich >country the opportunity to unload some toxic waste on a poor one, >you are also denying that poor country the opportunity to get paid >for taking the toxic waste. And by forbidding this deal, you are >putting off the day when the poor country will no longer need to >make deals like this. > >In his notorious memo, Summers was doing his job and doing it well: >thinking outside the box about how to help the poor countries that >are supposed to be the World Bank's constituency. Plenty of >outside-the-box thinking will be required from our next Treasury >secretary too. Summers is famous for this, and for the abrasiveness >that goes along with it. But the Obama administration won't have >time, and shouldn't have the patience, for the umbrage game that >dominated the recent political campaign. There is no point in making >Larry Summers promise to behave himself. That just isn't his style, >and if President-elect Obama can't face it, he should choose someone >less likely to stir up fusses at regular intervals. That would be a pity. > >By Michael Kinsley > >-- >"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >think..." Hunter S. Thompson > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From thinker at thelakebc.ca Thu Nov 13 09:49:09 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Thu Nov 13 09:46:22 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> Message-ID: <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> The main question here is: How do we measure and what are the real costs ? Imaginary monetary figures, based on imaginary money "created" from the air by some bank, or physical realities ? As long as we believe in monetary figures invented by some brainwashed economists, as this article suggests, the human race has no hope for survival. Cheers, Ed. At 05:14 AM 13/11/2008, you wrote: >I read this, was quite appalled, then sat for a moment thinking, >"There really ARE people who believe this . . . " DB > >============================================= > >Opponents of Lawrence Summers for a second turn as Treasury >secretary have, of course, brought up his 1991 memo as chief >economist of the World Bank, in which he wrote that poor countries >need more pollution, not less. The memo was obviously meant to >stimulate thinking and not to be implemented as policy. But it also >was undeniably correct. Summers's main point was that life and >health are worth less in poor countries than in rich ones. He >measured that worth by the earnings lost when a person is sick or >dies prematurely. But another good measure, maybe clearer, would be >the amount a society will spend to save a life. Treatments that are >routine in the United States, although they cost hundreds of >thousands of dollars, are simply not available to citizens of poor >countries. You get cancer and you die. Of course this shouldn't be >true, but it undeniably is true, and rejecting the idea of poor >countries earning a little cash by "buying" pollution from rich ones >will do nothing! > to make it less true. > >If an industrial plant that causes pollution is going to be built >somewhere, it ought to be built where life is worth less. This >sounds brutal, but it isn't. Or rather, it is less brutal than >reality. Turn it around: If a life is worth less, it is also cheaper >to save. For what we spend in the United States to save a single >life, you could save dozens or hundreds of lives in poor countries. >So if the plant is going to be built somewhere, building it in a >poor country will enable more lives to be saved than building it in a rich one. > >Summers also pointed out that the harm from pollution tends to be >"non-linear," meaning that the harm goes up more than >proportionately as pollution increases. A little bit of pollution >may be virtually harmless, but double it or quadruple it and you >more than double or quadruple the negative effects. If a city in a >rich country is very polluted and a city the same size in a poor >country is not, you will save lives -- in the rich country this time >-- if some of that pollution can be moved from the rich country to >the poor one. And the money the rich country pays the poor one can >save even more lives in the poor country. > >The general point is that clean air and other environmental goods >are luxuries. The richer a country is, the more of them it can >afford. And if rich countries like the United States had had to meet >some of the standards being wished upon poor countries today, we >would still be poor ourselves. > >Every economic transaction has two sides. When you deny a rich >country the opportunity to unload some toxic waste on a poor one, >you are also denying that poor country the opportunity to get paid >for taking the toxic waste. And by forbidding this deal, you are >putting off the day when the poor country will no longer need to >make deals like this. > >In his notorious memo, Summers was doing his job and doing it well: >thinking outside the box about how to help the poor countries that >are supposed to be the World Bank's constituency. Plenty of >outside-the-box thinking will be required from our next Treasury >secretary too. Summers is famous for this, and for the abrasiveness >that goes along with it. But the Obama administration won't have >time, and shouldn't have the patience, for the umbrage game that >dominated the recent political campaign. There is no point in making >Larry Summers promise to behave himself. That just isn't his style, >and if President-elect Obama can't face it, he should choose someone >less likely to stir up fusses at regular intervals. That would be a pity. > >By Michael Kinsley > >-- >"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >think..." Hunter S. Thompson > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.1/1781 - Release Date: >11/11/2008 8:59 AM From jomut at yahoo.com Thu Nov 13 14:18:37 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu Nov 13 14:18:45 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Re: On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> Message-ID: <555688.73673.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? hi, ? Kinda difficult to fathom where the guy is coming from but it appears that he knows precious little about the problems of development.? He had better do a little bit of research on "ecological debt" in developing countries as explained by the likes of?Patrick Bond or Walden Bello for instance. ? Speaking from a rock keep of monumental ignorance, the guy thinks that developing countries do not have ecological problems of their own, of both local and extraneous provenance, an argument that many environmental workers in developing countries would dismiss with summary scorn.? He seems to be blissfuly clueless to the fact that people today are are asking for a developmental model that is less stressful on the environment than the old industrial model that has brought us to such a tragic pass today --?irrespective of?whether the said people reside in the so called "North" or "South". ? How'z about the West buying a little more of the AIDS pollution on purpose to relieve Africa of?that particular manifestation of?lethal pollution for instance?? Just?trying to emulate?the guy's intellectual and moral somersaults and I am already temperamentally pooped!! I shall, for the sake of immediate temperamental convenience, forego any speculation to the effect that an increase?in?other types of environmental pollution MIGHT add to the?existing burden of?social stress caused by insufficient health delivery capacities in many developing countries. ? Glad to know that?the export of pollution producing industrial capacity?is a critical developmental variable, over and on top of its Maquiladora effect. ? Am also floored by the guys completely topsy-turvy mixture of?casuistic moral sensibility?and? dizzy as well as dizzying?economic analysis, for he doesnt seem to appreciate the rather crudely elementary?ethical imperative?that perhaps more is spend in the US to save lives BECAUSE life is precious, just as it is everywhere else, and not because of the amount of dollars the same life is purported to be?worth as measured by an?abstract, statistical?index of production. ? UGH! ? John ===================== --- On Thu, 11/13/08, Duane Behrens wrote: From: Duane Behrens Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers To: "Airheads Chat" Cc: "MAI-NOT" Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 1:14 PM I read this, was quite appalled, then sat for a moment thinking, "There really ARE people who believe this . . . " DB ============================================= Opponents of Lawrence Summers for a second turn as Treasury secretary have, of course, brought up his 1991 memo as chief economist of the World Bank, in which he wrote that poor countries need more pollution, not less. The memo was obviously meant to stimulate thinking and not to be implemented as policy. But it also was undeniably correct. Summers's main point was that life and health are worth less in poor countries than in rich ones. He measured that worth by the earnings lost when a person is sick or dies prematurely. But another good measure, maybe clearer, would be the amount a society will spend to save a life. Treatments that are routine in the United States, although they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, are simply not available to citizens of poor countries. You get cancer and you die. Of course this shouldn't be true, but it undeniably is true, and rejecting the idea of poor countries earning a little cash by "buying" pollution from rich ones will do nothing! to make it less true. If an industrial plant that causes pollution is going to be built somewhere, it ought to be built where life is worth less. This sounds brutal, but it isn't. Or rather, it is less brutal than reality. Turn it around: If a life is worth less, it is also cheaper to save. For what we spend in the United States to save a single life, you could save dozens or hundreds of lives in poor countries. So if the plant is going to be built somewhere, building it in a poor country will enable more lives to be saved than building it in a rich one. Summers also pointed out that the harm from pollution tends to be "non-linear," meaning that the harm goes up more than proportionately as pollution increases. A little bit of pollution may be virtually harmless, but double it or quadruple it and you more than double or quadruple the negative effects. If a city in a rich country is very polluted and a city the same size in a poor country is not, you will save lives -- in the rich country this time -- if some of that pollution can be moved from the rich country to the poor one. And the money the rich country pays the poor one can save even more lives in the poor country. The general point is that clean air and other environmental goods are luxuries. The richer a country is, the more of them it can afford. And if rich countries like the United States had had to meet some of the standards being wished upon poor countries today, we would still be poor ourselves. Every economic transaction has two sides. When you deny a rich country the opportunity to unload some toxic waste on a poor one, you are also denying that poor country the opportunity to get paid for taking the toxic waste. And by forbidding this deal, you are putting off the day when the poor country will no longer need to make deals like this. In his notorious memo, Summers was doing his job and doing it well: thinking outside the box about how to help the poor countries that are supposed to be the World Bank's constituency. Plenty of outside-the-box thinking will be required from our next Treasury secretary too. Summers is famous for this, and for the abrasiveness that goes along with it. But the Obama administration won't have time, and shouldn't have the patience, for the umbrage game that dominated the recent political campaign. There is no point in making Larry Summers promise to behave himself. That just isn't his style, and if President-elect Obama can't face it, he should choose someone less likely to stir up fusses at regular intervals. That would be a pity. By Michael Kinsley -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081113/ae191bf3/attachment.html From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 13 18:52:59 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 13 18:53:08 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <20081114005300.11423F6C2@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> First major strategic reform must surely be to decouple the real economy of production from the phoney predator economy of imaginary money so that the former doesn't feed the latter and the latter can't strangle the former. As productive enterprise has, for at least a thousand years, required credit of some sort for forward spending to build and maintain production, the issuing of credit needs to be firmly based on a backup of material assets and must be totally controlled by the people for the people and not by predators. Bush's remarks this morning (WA time) [1] in advance of the G20 gabfest, defending continued predator control of the economy it has distorted then wrecked, means there is a struggle ahead. It is highly unlikely that Obama will lead such a struggle. Dion Giles Western Australia [1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2419353.htm?section=justin At 00:49 14/11/2008, Ed wrote: >The main question here is: How do we measure and what are the real costs ? > >Imaginary monetary figures, based on imaginary money "created" from >the air by some bank, or physical realities ? > >As long as we believe in monetary figures invented by some >brainwashed economists, as this article suggests, the human race >has no hope for survival. > >Cheers, Ed. > > >At 05:14 AM 13/11/2008, you wrote: >>I read this, was quite appalled, then sat for a moment thinking, >>"There really ARE people who believe this . . . " DB >> >>============================================= >> >>Opponents of Lawrence Summers for a second turn as Treasury >>secretary have, of course, brought up his 1991 memo as chief >>economist of the World Bank, in which he wrote that poor countries >>need more pollution, not less. The memo was obviously meant to >>stimulate thinking and not to be implemented as policy. But it also >>was undeniably correct. Summers's main point was that life and >>health are worth less in poor countries than in rich ones. He >>measured that worth by the earnings lost when a person is sick or >>dies prematurely. But another good measure, maybe clearer, would be >>the amount a society will spend to save a life. Treatments that are >>routine in the United States, although they cost hundreds of >>thousands of dollars, are simply not available to citizens of poor >>countries. You get cancer and you die. Of course this shouldn't be >>true, but it undeniably is true, and rejecting the idea of poor >>countries earning a little cash by "buying" pollution from rich >>ones will do nothing! >> to make it less true. >> >>If an industrial plant that causes pollution is going to be built >>somewhere, it ought to be built where life is worth less. This >>sounds brutal, but it isn't. Or rather, it is less brutal than >>reality. Turn it around: If a life is worth less, it is also >>cheaper to save. For what we spend in the United States to save a >>single life, you could save dozens or hundreds of lives in poor >>countries. So if the plant is going to be built somewhere, building >>it in a poor country will enable more lives to be saved than >>building it in a rich one. >> >>Summers also pointed out that the harm from pollution tends to be >>"non-linear," meaning that the harm goes up more than >>proportionately as pollution increases. A little bit of pollution >>may be virtually harmless, but double it or quadruple it and you >>more than double or quadruple the negative effects. If a city in a >>rich country is very polluted and a city the same size in a poor >>country is not, you will save lives -- in the rich country this >>time -- if some of that pollution can be moved from the rich >>country to the poor one. And the money the rich country pays the >>poor one can save even more lives in the poor country. >> >>The general point is that clean air and other environmental goods >>are luxuries. The richer a country is, the more of them it can >>afford. And if rich countries like the United States had had to >>meet some of the standards being wished upon poor countries today, >>we would still be poor ourselves. >> >>Every economic transaction has two sides. When you deny a rich >>country the opportunity to unload some toxic waste on a poor one, >>you are also denying that poor country the opportunity to get paid >>for taking the toxic waste. And by forbidding this deal, you are >>putting off the day when the poor country will no longer need to >>make deals like this. >> >>In his notorious memo, Summers was doing his job and doing it well: >>thinking outside the box about how to help the poor countries that >>are supposed to be the World Bank's constituency. Plenty of >>outside-the-box thinking will be required from our next Treasury >>secretary too. Summers is famous for this, and for the abrasiveness >>that goes along with it. But the Obama administration won't have >>time, and shouldn't have the patience, for the umbrage game that >>dominated the recent political campaign. There is no point in >>making Larry Summers promise to behave himself. That just isn't his >>style, and if President-elect Obama can't face it, he should choose >>someone less likely to stir up fusses at regular intervals. That >>would be a pity. >> >>By Michael Kinsley >> >>-- >>"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >>think..." Hunter S. Thompson >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.1/1781 - Release Date: >>11/11/2008 8:59 AM > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From john.mutambirwa at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 19:29:12 2008 From: john.mutambirwa at gmail.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu Nov 13 19:29:17 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] (john.m) that accursed summer! Message-ID: <20081114012913.B1A20F5E5@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081114/579b148b/attachment.html From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Thu Nov 13 20:22:20 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Thu Nov 13 19:59:04 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <20081114005300.11423F6C2@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> <20081114005300.11423F6C2@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <491CE0DC.9030609@spiritone.com> this guy is wordy and its not a pretty picture he paints but I think he's pretty much dead on The Five Stages of Collapse by Dmitry Orlov http://energybulletin.net/node/47157 Published Nov 11 2008 by Energy Bulletin Dion Giles wrote: > First major strategic reform must surely be to decouple the real > economy of production from the phoney predator economy of imaginary > money so that the former doesn't feed the latter and the latter can't > strangle the former. As productive enterprise has, for at least a > thousand years, required credit of some sort for forward spending to > build and maintain production, the issuing of credit needs to be > firmly based on a backup of material assets and must be totally > controlled by the people for the people and not by predators. > > Bush's remarks this morning (WA time) [1] in advance of the G20 > gabfest, defending continued predator control of the economy it has > distorted then wrecked, means there is a struggle ahead. It is highly > unlikely that Obama will lead such a struggle. > > Dion Giles > Western Australia > > [1] > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2419353.htm?section=justin > > > At 00:49 14/11/2008, Ed wrote: > >> The main question here is: How do we measure and what are the real >> costs ? >> >> Imaginary monetary figures, based on imaginary money "created" from >> the air by some bank, or physical realities ? >> >> As long as we believe in monetary figures invented by some >> brainwashed economists, as this article suggests, the human race has >> no hope for survival. >> >> Cheers, Ed. >> >> >> At 05:14 AM 13/11/2008, you wrote: >> >>> I read this, was quite appalled, then sat for a moment thinking, >>> "There really ARE people who believe this . . . " DB >>> >>> ============================================= >>> >>> Opponents of Lawrence Summers for a second turn as Treasury >>> secretary have, of course, brought up his 1991 memo as chief >>> economist of the World Bank, in which he wrote that poor countries >>> need more pollution, not less. The memo was obviously meant to >>> stimulate thinking and not to be implemented as policy. But it also >>> was undeniably correct. Summers's main point was that life and >>> health are worth less in poor countries than in rich ones. He >>> measured that worth by the earnings lost when a person is sick or >>> dies prematurely. But another good measure, maybe clearer, would be >>> the amount a society will spend to save a life. Treatments that are >>> routine in the United States, although they cost hundreds of >>> thousands of dollars, are simply not available to citizens of poor >>> countries. You get cancer and you die. Of course this shouldn't be >>> true, but it undeniably is true, and rejecting the idea of poor >>> countries earning a little cash by "buying" pollution from rich ones >>> will do nothing! >>> to make it less true. >>> >>> If an industrial plant that causes pollution is going to be built >>> somewhere, it ought to be built where life is worth less. This >>> sounds brutal, but it isn't. Or rather, it is less brutal than >>> reality. Turn it around: If a life is worth less, it is also cheaper >>> to save. For what we spend in the United States to save a single >>> life, you could save dozens or hundreds of lives in poor countries. >>> So if the plant is going to be built somewhere, building it in a >>> poor country will enable more lives to be saved than building it in >>> a rich one. >>> >>> Summers also pointed out that the harm from pollution tends to be >>> "non-linear," meaning that the harm goes up more than >>> proportionately as pollution increases. A little bit of pollution >>> may be virtually harmless, but double it or quadruple it and you >>> more than double or quadruple the negative effects. If a city in a >>> rich country is very polluted and a city the same size in a poor >>> country is not, you will save lives -- in the rich country this time >>> -- if some of that pollution can be moved from the rich country to >>> the poor one. And the money the rich country pays the poor one can >>> save even more lives in the poor country. >>> >>> The general point is that clean air and other environmental goods >>> are luxuries. The richer a country is, the more of them it can >>> afford. And if rich countries like the United States had had to meet >>> some of the standards being wished upon poor countries today, we >>> would still be poor ourselves. >>> >>> Every economic transaction has two sides. When you deny a rich >>> country the opportunity to unload some toxic waste on a poor one, >>> you are also denying that poor country the opportunity to get paid >>> for taking the toxic waste. And by forbidding this deal, you are >>> putting off the day when the poor country will no longer need to >>> make deals like this. >>> >>> In his notorious memo, Summers was doing his job and doing it well: >>> thinking outside the box about how to help the poor countries that >>> are supposed to be the World Bank's constituency. Plenty of >>> outside-the-box thinking will be required from our next Treasury >>> secretary too. Summers is famous for this, and for the abrasiveness >>> that goes along with it. But the Obama administration won't have >>> time, and shouldn't have the patience, for the umbrage game that >>> dominated the recent political campaign. There is no point in making >>> Larry Summers promise to behave himself. That just isn't his style, >>> and if President-elect Obama can't face it, he should choose someone >>> less likely to stir up fusses at regular intervals. That would be a >>> pity. >>> >>> By Michael Kinsley >>> >>> -- >>> "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >>> think..." Hunter S. Thompson >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mai-not mailing list >>> Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.1/1781 - Release Date: >>> 11/11/2008 8:59 AM >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mai-not mailing list >> Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >> http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > From oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au Thu Nov 13 22:33:43 2008 From: oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au (Clem Clarke) Date: Thu Nov 13 22:33:56 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> We need a planet to play on. We need food. We DON'T need pollution. Find clean ways to make energy. They are around. And, money is made from "thin air", that is, it is worthless. And calculations (multiply, divide) made with a zero are worthless. If money has a REAL value, that is different. But, at the moment, it doesn't. Clem Ed Deak wrote: > The main question here is: How do we measure and what are the real > costs ? > > Imaginary monetary figures, based on imaginary money "created" from > the air by some bank, or physical realities ? > > As long as we believe in monetary figures invented by some brainwashed > economists, as this article suggests, the human race has no hope for > survival. > > Cheers, Ed. > > > At 05:14 AM 13/11/2008, you wrote: From thinker at thelakebc.ca Thu Nov 13 22:49:54 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Thu Nov 13 22:47:01 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <200811140446.mAE4kqrJ026288@karma.reboot.ca> Yes Clem and this is exactly what my 1991 "Principle for the application of physical efficiency to economics", featured on this list several times, is about. The question is who believes any of it ? Cheers, Ed. At 08:33 PM 13/11/2008, you wrote: >We need a planet to play on. We need food. > >We DON'T need pollution. > >Find clean ways to make energy. They are around. > >And, money is made from "thin air", that is, it is worthless. And >calculations (multiply, divide) made with a zero are worthless. > >If money has a REAL value, that is different. But, at the moment, it doesn't. > >Clem > >Ed Deak wrote: >>The main question here is: How do we measure and what are the real costs ? >> >>Imaginary monetary figures, based on imaginary money "created" from >>the air by some bank, or physical realities ? >> >>As long as we believe in monetary figures invented by some >>brainwashed economists, as this article suggests, the human race >>has no hope for survival. >> >>Cheers, Ed. >> >> >>At 05:14 AM 13/11/2008, you wrote: > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.1/1781 - Release Date: >11/11/2008 8:59 AM From duanebehrens at cox.net Fri Nov 14 08:39:51 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Fri Nov 14 08:40:04 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Electioneering Message-ID: <20081114093952.CVUJ4.277066.imail@fed1rmwml29> "If this election had been much closer, the outcry over the problems enumerated would be huge." Much has been made of the fact that there was no catastrophic meltdown in the election system this year. The fact that problems were not as pervasive as they might have been is due to the hard work of the voting rights community and election administrators in the months and even years before the election and the enthusiasm and persistence of voters. At the same time, thousands and thousands of voters faced unacceptable barriers to voting this year, demonstrating that much more work remains to be done. [end quote] From Common Cause And a new twist this year. A robo (spam) e-mail went out to campuses across the country stating that, because of the long lines anticipated, Republicans were to vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday. None of these tricks were enough to overcome Obama's overwhelming margin of victory. Duane -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From duanebehrens at cox.net Fri Nov 14 08:46:30 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Fri Nov 14 08:46:37 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On God Message-ID: <20081114094630.CMRAF.277146.imail@fed1rmwml29> I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if he didn't. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910) I liked this quote. It comes from the "Word-a-Day" website to which I was subscribed to by a good friend. And I must admit, whenever anyone begins to counsel me about "God's grace", I can't keep from thinking of the 250,000 dead in the wake of that Indonesian tsunami. I do enjoy singing those Christmas hymns, however . . . . Duane Behrens -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From siamdave at yahoo.ca Fri Nov 14 09:47:09 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Fri Nov 14 09:47:18 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On God In-Reply-To: <20081114094630.CMRAF.277146.imail@fed1rmwml29> References: <20081114094630.CMRAF.277146.imail@fed1rmwml29> Message-ID: <200811142247090796.02FE4DB4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> - George Carlin on god - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-14 at 6:46 AM Duane Behrens wrote: >I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if >he didn't. > > -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910) > >I liked this quote. It comes from the "Word-a-Day" website to which I was >subscribed to by a good friend. > >And I must admit, whenever anyone begins to counsel me about "God's >grace", I can't keep from thinking of the 250,000 dead in the wake of that >Indonesian tsunami. I do enjoy singing those Christmas hymns, however . >. . . > >Duane Behrens > >-- >"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >think..." Hunter S. Thompson > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 13/11/2551 18:01 From oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au Fri Nov 14 17:37:31 2008 From: oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au (Clem Clarke) Date: Fri Nov 14 17:37:58 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On Larry Summers In-Reply-To: <200811140446.mAE4kqrJ026288@karma.reboot.ca> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> <200811140446.mAE4kqrJ026288@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <491E0BBB.50700@ozemail.com.au> Hi Ed, I did a search for the article, but couldn't find it. Could you post a link to it? Or send it? Many thanks Clem Ed Deak wrote: > Yes Clem and this is exactly what my 1991 "Principle for the > application of physical efficiency to economics", featured on this > list several times, is about. > > The question is who believes any of it ? > > Cheers, Ed. > > > > > At 08:33 PM 13/11/2008, you wrote: >> We need a planet to play on. We need food. >> >> We DON'T need pollution. >> >> Find clean ways to make energy. They are around. >> >> And, money is made from "thin air", that is, it is worthless. And >> calculations (multiply, divide) made with a zero are worthless. >> >> If money has a REAL value, that is different. But, at the moment, it >> doesn't. >> >> Clem >> >> Ed Deak wrote: >>> The main question here is: How do we measure and what are the real >>> costs ? >>> >>> Imaginary monetary figures, based on imaginary money "created" from >>> the air by some bank, or physical realities ? >>> >>> As long as we believe in monetary figures invented by some >>> brainwashed economists, as this article suggests, the human race >>> has no hope for survival. >>> >>> Cheers, Ed. >>> >>> >>> At 05:14 AM 13/11/2008, you wrote: >> > From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 14 18:38:23 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 14 18:37:29 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Principle In-Reply-To: <491E0BBB.50700@ozemail.com.au> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> <200811140446.mAE4kqrJ026288@karma.reboot.ca> <491E0BBB.50700@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <200811150037.mAF0bKWW027885@karma.reboot.ca> Hi Clem, Here it is. Featured on many economic forums, including several by the WB, used in PhD dissertations and remains unbroken and unbreakable. Cheers, Ed. A PRINCIPLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TO ECONOMICS. By Ed Deak. "THE REAL, OR PHYSICAL COSTS OF A PRODUCT, OR SERVICE ARE CONSTANT." An efficient product contains physically efficient or ideal amounts of energy and matter, regardless of numerical or monetary considerations. Monetary "cost efficiency" can not exist outside the concepts of physical efficiency and becomes cost transfer on other sectors. Therefore it is not efficiency but temporary convenience. 1. Everything and everybody on earth is bound by physical laws. 2. The science, planning and the acts of production are based on physical laws, therefore economic principles must also follow them. 3. "Matter and energy can not be destroyed, only transformed". Both began in and continue into eternity, therefore monetary costs are momentary "subtotals" in continuous columns, without the possibility of "bottom lines". Our environmental and human disasters are caused by arbitrarily located subtotals falsely used as bottom lines by special interests, leaving unaccounted liabilities. 4. Because of the eternal qualities of matter and energy, we don't know the cost of anything and ignorantly use subtotals, like the monetary costs of extraction, to create delusions of well being. 5. In physics "Efficiency is the most output for the least energy input".(Energy=matter). Economists conveniently substituted the word "money" for "energy", which permits the predetermination of equations and causes environmental and human destruction. 6. Measuring instruments and parameters must be permanently defined and of constant values, protected by agreements and laws. 7. Monetary value can not be permanently defined. Money is a speculative commodity under special interest control, an asset to the holder and liability to the issuer. It is infinitely and unpredictably variable, with corrupted conversions. Therefore it's use as economic measure is contradictory, unscientific, immoral and illegal. 8. The premise that huge production runs etc. are "cost efficient" is false, because it refers only to perceptions of temporary monetary benefits to special sectors, while transferring real and monetary costs on others through erroneous, or fraudulent accounting. 9. In physics "Mass increases with speed", e.g. to double the speed of a boat,the energy input may have to be squared. The speedup of production also uses inefficient inputs of capital, energy/matter and creates cost transfers on the environment and humanity. 10."For every action there's an equal reaction". Overcapitalized massproduction creates temporary benefits to a few with the distribution of research, development & administration costs, but multiplies transferred costs in inefficient, forced urbanization, pollution, enslavement, health & mental problems, violence, crime, stress, time & capital waste from commuting, taxation, etc. ad infinitum. 11.The "Gross Domestic Product" and "Productivity" are false concepts to permit the accounting of liabilities as assets. 12.Our economic systems are based on the misuse of words, concepts, mathematics and accounting. No sane person wishes to go back to primitivism or musclepower, but there must be new, democratically controlled determination of when, how far and for whose benefit convenience may, or must overrule the concepts of true efficiency within the recovery capacity of the environment and humanity. Copyright 1991 by Ed Deak, Box 9, Big Lake Ranch PO. BC. VOL 1GO, Canada. Phone:(250) 243-2263, Email: thinker@thelakebc.ca # From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Nov 14 21:56:28 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri Nov 14 21:56:33 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On God In-Reply-To: <200811142247090796.02FE4DB4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <20081114094630.CMRAF.277146.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811142247090796.02FE4DB4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <20081115035629.A8A7210F7B@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Re http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o I'd never heard of George Carlin and I usually avoid videos online because they so often don't work properly, but thought that if Dave Patterson recommended it it had to be good. Sure enough it was hilarious. I went on to see his take on the Ten Commandments (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU&feature=related ) given that the faithful have been foisting them on American courtrooms and was again much rewarded. Loved his third commandment at the very end. Both videos worked by the way. Thanks Dave. Dion Giles Western Australia. At 00:47 15/11/2008, Dave Patterson wrote: >- George Carlin on god - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o From oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au Fri Nov 14 22:26:48 2008 From: oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au (Clem Clarke) Date: Fri Nov 14 22:27:01 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Principle In-Reply-To: <200811150037.mAF0bKWW027885@karma.reboot.ca> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> <200811140446.mAE4kqrJ026288@karma.reboot.ca> <491E0BBB.50700@ozemail.com.au> <200811150037.mAF0bKWW027885@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <491E4F88.8040502@ozemail.com.au> Hi Ed, Thanks. I reformatted it in HTML - hope you like it. See the next email. I'd like to put it on fledgling site www.MakingABeautifulWorld.com if that is OK? Cheers, Clem From oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au Fri Nov 14 22:27:02 2008 From: oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au (Clem Clarke) Date: Fri Nov 14 22:27:19 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] A PRINCIPLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TO ECONOMICS. Message-ID: <491E4F96.9010507@ozemail.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081115/cc5dbd1c/attachment.html From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 14 22:50:22 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 14 22:47:29 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Principle In-Reply-To: <491E4F88.8040502@ozemail.com.au> References: <20081113081426.MCWF1.256179.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811131546.mADFkDnp017157@karma.reboot.ca> <491CFFA7.5060705@ozemail.com.au> <200811140446.mAE4kqrJ026288@karma.reboot.ca> <491E0BBB.50700@ozemail.com.au> <200811150037.mAF0bKWW027885@karma.reboot.ca> <491E4F88.8040502@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <200811150447.mAF4lJq5005063@karma.reboot.ca> Hi Clem, I took out the copyright only the establish the date, as I knew that sooner or later some clever professor will stumble on the obvious. You're welcome to use it in any way you wish. I have no financial interest in it as, for all practical purposes, I haven't discovered, or invented anything, only collected long standing and known facts, and put them into a simple and easily understandable format. We had some good times debating and talking over such things when Dion was here, must now be getting on 6 or 7 years ago. I wonder what happened to the tape taken by Jonathan ? Cheers, Ed. At 08:26 PM 14/11/2008, you wrote: >Hi Ed, > >Thanks. > >I reformatted it in HTML - hope you like it. See the next email. > >I'd like to put it on fledgling site www.MakingABeautifulWorld.com >if that is OK? > >Cheers, > >Clem > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1788 - Release Date: >11/14/2008 1:36 PM From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 14 22:52:09 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 14 22:49:14 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] For the Earth to live....... Message-ID: <200811150449.mAF4n8q5005162@karma.reboot.ca> Printer Friendly Version For The Earth To Live, Capitalism Must Die By Juan Santos 14 November, 2008 Countercurrents.org This is the Day of Reckoning. This is the Time of Purification. This is the end of the ?world?, the end of the city-state, the end of city life, of ?Civilization.? The early Christians called it the ?apocalypse,? the unveiling. Now, at last, the truth of what we have been presents itself unclothed. There is nowhere to hide. It is upon us. Like a cancer, capitalism, industrialism- truly the most advanced stage of civilization ? ?advanced? the way that a cancer is called ?advanced? - has ravaged the body of the Earth. Life on Earth is disappearing. Nothing that can be done- or that will be done ? under the system of global death called capitalism will save Life on Earth. The capitalist, as Karl Marx rightly noted, is ?the soul of capital personified.? ? a soul unable to see beyond the limits of its own immediate perception of ?gain.? The capitalists as a whole ? as a white imperial world-ruling class - understand the depth of the emerging crisis as well as we do. But they advance nothing more than schemes to sustain markets and profits, while life itself is allowed to perish in a holocaust in the making, one whose end is as certain as a nuclear winter. There are no words to convey the depth of criminal horror and illness of the rulers of a system that would create the conditions not only for genocide on an unimaginable, all but limitless scale, but that would commit the murder of all life ? ecocide, biocide and geocide - in order to shield themselves from change and protect and maintain their ability to produce ?profit.? But the holocaust we are entering is not made of a single criminal act - it is not the pushing of a button by a lone madman in a fit of religious mania or suicidal despair, it is, rather, the accumulation of a billion little deaths, the reaching of a critical threshold of death, until death itself boils over, the way that water, when it reaches its threshold of heat, roils over the edges of a pot, waging war on the fire that feeds it. It is the final explosion, the river of blood from the slaughterhouse spilling over its banks, no longer to be contained. It is the millions of children beaten, molested, raped, enslaved and ?schooled.? It is the billions who live on less than a dollar a day. It is the slow soul murder of television and of going to ?work.? It is a Quarter Pounder with Cheese. It is the homeless and the mad left hungry and frozen in the street. In the US, it is the millions of red, black and brown men locked behind prison bars, the mass terror of a racist system whose aim is to brutally reduce whole peoples to a state of utter subjugation, degradation isolation and immobility. Like the Nazi holocaust or the conquest of the Americas and Africa, it is not a single event, it is an historical process and an all - permeating ?way of ?life.?? It is the ?supreme? way of life; the ?non-negotiable? way, as GW Bush put it; the ?American Way.? The capitalist way. Marx and Engels had this much wrong. Civilization, slavery-based economies and more efficient forms of production like industrialist capitalism and socialism have not led to ?progress,? unless ?progress? can be counted as progress toward mass death and destruction, toward the enslavement and grave endangerment of human beings ? all of us- and of every living plant, animal, fish and insect. Fundamentally, Marx and Engels believed in ?profit? at the expense of the living Earth as much as any industrial capitalist ? they just wanted to share the profit more broadly in a different money-system. The fundamental alienation of people from their connection with all life ? and the most fundamental exploitation of life ? would ultimately remain intact. The Marxist project has failed, just as capitalism has failed. The state didn?t gradually ?wither away? over a protracted period of change called ?socialism.? Under the conditions prescribed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao, the state can?t wither away. The state and the city are a single dialectical identity, a unity of opposites - they?re two faces of a single process, and the state can?t ?wither away? unless the fundamental process of domination, control, exploitation, ecocide and genocide called the city ? ?civilization? - also withers away. The city necessitated the state and the state enabled the city. The city and the state arose together and they will die together. No one has remained free anywhere the city-state has arisen or in any area it?s conquered. No one has been free. Not the rulers. Not the ruled. But that?s all over. There?s a capitalist maxim: ?Grow or die.? The maxim holds true within the limited sphere of the circulation of money and the accumulation of capital in a particular economic system; each individual capitalist project must compete ? grow ? or be swallowed by other capitalist ventures; in other words, it must ?die.? The system?s true believers never thought they?d reach the limits of growth, but that is just what has happened. They?ve reached the limits of their ?resource? base ? the ecological and geological limits of what can be destroyed to produce more profit. The game is over. They broke the bank. They were warned. They didn?t listen. They?re still not listening. For them, and for most of us who?ve not shaken our entrainment in the ways of seeing the world they stewed us in as children, we have come to an unimaginable passage. Call it the end of the world as we know it. That?s the deal. The inescapable deal. It?s over. One way or another. Either this ?non-negotiable? way of ?life? ends, or the capacity of Earth to sustain life ends. This is not to say that some solutions can?t be found. It is, rather, to say that any ?solution? that doesn?t undo the fundamental theft and imbalance inherent in the system of profit is not really a solution at all. The problem is global - total. The magnitude of the solution must equate with the magnitude of the problem. The system of theft and imbalance called profit is simply not sustainable, not on the whole, not in part. Life that can?t be sustained dies. The capitalist equation is now turned right-side up: ?Stop ?growth? or die.? And it?s not just the capitalist mode of exploitation that must end. We?ve got to eradicate the cancer at its root, and, of course, capitalism, and modern industrialism more broadly, are built on the foundations of earlier, less ?efficient? systems of exploitation and destruction. While the psychological and biological functions or dysfunctions - the emotional splits and repressions that lie at the very core of the origins of our cultural dysfunction - have yet to be fully articulated and formulated into a coherent picture that explains their intersections with cultural suppression, economic exploitation, and political oppression, this much is clear. The first and fundamental practical expression of these dynamics in terms of their impact on the life of the Earth lies in this: The acquisition of land title by force and the enshrinement of ?property? as social law. That?s how ?civilization? started: a city cannot exist without seizing the land around it. A city is all-but by definition a concentration of people too large to be supported by the land within its own boundaries ? it must seize control of nearby lands or its population will starve. The seizure of land by force ? both for agricultural and herding purposes and for mineral extraction ? continues as a key link in the survival and expansion of a global human population whose numbers are rapidly outstripping the capacities of the territories it already dominates to sustain any further population increase. The result is the rapidly escalating destruction of the world?s forests (and the concomitant eradication of a huge and increasing number of plant and animal species), along with the bottom trawling of the oceans for fish to feed the spiraling human numbers, with the concomitant eradication of 90% of the world?s large fish populations. Other clear examples include the seizure of the territory of the nation of Iraq for its oil and the seizure of a significant portion of Navajo Nation land and the forced removal of its population for access to the 18 billion tons of coal that lie beneath its surface ? basically the same thing that is happening to the indigenous peoples of the Amazon region as their land is seized for farming, ranching and oil interests. ?Growth? means an increase in exploitable ?resources,? whether those resources are oil, coal, the fertility of the soil itself, or the ?resources? for a ?green? economy, like the ores to make the steel to build ?environmentally friendly? hybrid cars (auto production creates, to cite just one example, 7 billion pounds of un-recycled scrap and waste annually.) The end result of this orientation toward economic ?growth? is death for the land base, for the indigenous cultures that care for it, and for the life the land and native peoples support. It is a cancerous growth. Same as it ever was. A capitalist ? or socialist - ?green? economy is little more than another step in the evolution of a millennia long series of more ?efficient? systems of exploitation and destruction. The fundamental premise behind the concept of a ?green? economy and ?green? growth is that the exploitation and destruction of life is somehow ultimately sustainable. "He is blind," as one Hopi elder put it, "So he destroys himself when he tries to save himself." No matter what we call the mode of production and destruction, and no matter how we distribute the ?profit? - the ?wealth? extorted from life and living systems ? continued growth in production and destruction for the sake of human consumption can lead to only one end. Sooner or later ? really sooner than later ? we are going to crash full bore into the limits of growth ? into the absolute limits of the ?carrying capacity? of the Earth ? the end of its ability to feed one more human, the end of the capacity of ecosystems to endure the disappearance of one more species without a complete and perhaps irreversible collapse. There is, if we are honest with ourselves about it, only one possible result that offers hope. It?s not, I am sorry to say, social revolution. Nor is it the process of ?bringing down civilization? advocated by some anarchist greens and anarcho-primitivists. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that revolutionary movements aimed at an overthrow of the state or at the literal, immediate, physical dismantling of the machinery of death can be developed on a sufficient scale with a sufficient understanding to undo what must be undone ? nor could the seizure and wielding of state power do the trick. Not only is the state itself based on the seizure and maintenance of land title by force, but the existence of the state requires the existence of the city ? it requires that the fundamental dynamics of empire, ?resource? exploitation and ?profit? remain intact. Marx?s postulation notwithstanding, for the state to ?wither away? the City must also ?wither away?. It is only the accumulation of wealth at the expense of other forms of life that makes the concentration of power in a state apparatus possible. Only an increasingly radical imbalance in the energy flows of the planet, an imbalance skewed toward humans at the expense of all life, makes for such an accumulation, and the imbalance must grow in concert with the human population?s growth until it reaches the very crossroads we have reached today. The seizing of state power in no way changes the fundamental equation. An ecologist might say that the equations of the solar budget are the only equations ? the only bottom lines ? that count. The only way out ? which is to say the natural way out ? is a population crash. No human-invented scheme can overrule the way ? the natural consequences or ?laws? of nature. And what happens to any and every population in overshoot in nature is a population crash. It?s nature?s way. It can?t be improved upon. It can?t be subverted. It can?t be avoided, although, perhaps, the severity of the collapse can be softened. Blame is irrelevant, except to the extent that in identifying causes, we are able to learn and avoid their repetition. But, a human population crash will do nothing more than delay even worse results ? like utter extinction ? unless it is accompanied by a profound process of identifying and learning from what went awry in what has gone before. Under the best of circumstances the global economy and the global system of dominance that rests on it will run into limits it cannot transform ? so that it cannot continue until the point that the global ecosystem ? life itself ? collapses all around us and within us. In the best case scenario, peak oil will prove just such a limit, a limit that sinks the system of production and destruction to such a degree that it prevents it from resurrecting itself. This formulation can, of course, be denounced as Malthusian. It can also be denounced by revolutionaries of all kinds. But here?s the simple fact. All we can do is hope, and to the best of our ability, align ourselves spiritually and strategically with the forces of life. Yes, as Derrick Jensen suggests, hope is what you do when you have no agency, no power, no control. But then, it is precisely our drive to control and reorder nature that has brought us to this point, and it is that drive for control, and the pain that drives it, that must be healed, transformed and left behind. But, while we may not be able to control outcomes, make a revolution or ?bring down? civilization, we can align ourselves spiritually and strategically with the forces of Life. By the same token and the same logic, the key tasks before us lie not in saving the global economy, not in creating a ?green? economy, not in inventing new ways to exploit new energies in order to continue to mine the life of the Earth, nor in any other activity that would seek to preserve this system in any form whatsoever. The key tasks before conscious people today are the forging of a profound understanding of what has gone wrong ? a sweeping and utter re-evaluation of all values that will be tantamount to a new renaissance, a conscious re-creation and co-creation of culture. Much of that work began to be undertaken in the 1960s, and has borne important fruit, like William Kotke?s work, The Final Empire. It is ours to forge an authentically sustainable culture, even in the midst of this civilization?s fast approaching end ? by relying on and integrating the deepest, clearest and most coherent teachings of traditional indigenous cultures, of students of the ecology, and of the multivalent healing practices of both indigenous cultures and of the new therapies that have arisen in the last 50 years. Such a movement ? one that is intent on restoring the Earth and fostering social justice and renewing our cultures by incorporating the values and vision of indigenous peoples ? is already underway on a global scale. Paul Hawkens, in his important book Blessed Unrest, calls it an ?unstoppable movement to re-imagine our relationship to the environment and one another.? His research shows that it is the largest movement in human history, involving some 2-3 million organizations worldwide and some 200 - 300 million people whose cultural, ethical, political and ecological creativity are already impacting billions. That the processes of renewal - of healing, rectifying and relearning - will best be fostered among those in living in direct contact with, and in a caretaking relationship with the Earth and other, non- human living beings should, I hope, be self evident. Juan Santos is a Los Angeles based writer and editor. His essays can be found at: http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/. He can be reached at: JuanSantos@Mexica.net. From oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au Fri Nov 14 23:10:24 2008 From: oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au (Clem Clarke) Date: Fri Nov 14 23:10:35 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] On God In-Reply-To: <20081115035629.A8A7210F7B@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081114094630.CMRAF.277146.imail@fed1rmwml29> <200811142247090796.02FE4DB4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> <20081115035629.A8A7210F7B@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <491E59C0.4030502@ozemail.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081115/90023726/attachment.html From oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au Fri Nov 14 23:54:37 2008 From: oscarptyltd at ozemail.com.au (Clem Clarke) Date: Fri Nov 14 23:54:52 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] =?windows-1252?q?Is_the_Man_Made_Money_System_Finally_?= =?windows-1252?q?Destroying_Our_Planet_-_Our_ONLY_Home=3F_Money_Just_Does?= =?windows-1252?q?n=92t_Work_Any_More=2E_Create_a_New_System=2E?= Message-ID: <491E641D.8040005@ozemail.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081115/924b996a/attachment-0001.html From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Nov 16 13:39:52 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun Nov 16 13:38:14 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise Is Underway [compilation from Sandra Finley] + Halifax Bridge emergency preparednes Message-ID: <49203EC8.9657.7AB6F5DB@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> In Halifax, the following news item in the Halifax Herald about closure of one of the two main Halifax Harbour bridges, for emergency preparedness exercises, would seem to be part of this Joint exercise. The news item says nothing of a co-ordinated exercise, simply refering to the HDBC [Halifax Dartmouth Bridge Commission partnering with other emergency service organizations to participate in a mock exercise to ensure that all parties are prepared to act quickly and appropriately to secure the safety of bridge users in an emergency situation. As Sandra Finley notes below the public is usually informed of events i.e in isolation..... -------------------- Macdonald Bridge Closed November 16 from 8:00am to 12:00pm The Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission (HDBC) advises motorists that the Angus L. Macdonald Bridge will be closed on Sunday, November 16 from 8:00am to 12:00noon for an emergency preparedness exercise. There are no scheduled closures for the A. Murray MacKay Bridge during this period. HDBC will partner with other emergency service organizations to participate in a mock exercise to ensure all parties are prepared to act quickly and appropriately to secure the safety of bridge users in an emergency situation. The Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission is the forward thinking manager of key transportation infrastructure assets in the HalifaxRegionalMunicipality. Its mission is to provide safe, efficient and reliable passage at an appropriate cost. For more information please contact: Alison MacDonald, Communications Manager Halifax-DartmouthBridge Commission Telephone: (902) 463-2481 Cell: (902) 402-0773 Email: amacdonald@hdbc.ns.ca www.hdbc.ca fyi-janet p.s Read on for a comprehensive compilation from Sandra Finley who has b een tracking Canada - US security arrangements with a view to the loss of Canadian sovereignty. ==================== ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:15:15 -0600 From: Sandra Finley Subject: Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise Is Underway To: Sandra Finley CONTENTS (1) COMMENTARY (2) NORTHCOM, NORAD AND CANADACOM A. "THREAT LEVEL" FOR TODAY, NOVEMBER 14TH B. LEADERSHIP C. RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES D. WHO CREATED THE CONDITIONS FOR THE "THREAT LEVEL"? E. THE TROOP EXCHANGE AGREEMENT F. CANADA COMMAND G. NORAD, OUTSIDE AND NOW INSIDE (3) EXPLANATION, IRAQ TROOPS DEPLOYED INSIDE THE USA ARE "AGAINST THE LAW" (POSSE COMITATUS) (4) EXPLANATION, NORTHCOM RECEIVED A "BATTLE-TESTED FIGHTING UNIT FROM THE WAR ON IRAQ" (assigned to U.S. soil) (5) MASSIVE 'HOMELAND DEFENSE' JOINT EXERCISE IS UNDER WAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2008 --------------------------- These are in some ways connected: A. Oct 1: "the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1." (see #4 below) B. For today, "November 14, 2008 - The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow. (For airline flights it is "High" or Orange.) ... There is no credible, specific intelligence suggesting an imminent threat to the homeland at this time. Still, we are closely assessing potential threats and response planning leading into and following THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN 2008 TO 2009. Heightened coordination and planning among intelligence community and law enforcement partners is being undertaken solely out of an abundance of caution, and focuses on preventive and PREPAREDNESS MEASURES FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS." (emphasis is mine.) C. November 12 - 18: Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise Is Under Way. (Canada is part of this.) If you happen to read about the "Joint Exercise" (#5) in isolation as usually happens in the media, it is a practice fire drill. There is no fire, not even smoke. ======================= (1) COMMENTARY Human beings are creators. Constantly. We create our own reality, consciously and unconsciously. Simultaneously we are created by our friends and colleagues, by the society around us, by our institutions, by what we read, by advertising, by our fears and so on. I consciously do not want these old military men (with all due respect) to play any role in creating who I am! They work every day with people and ideas that are centred around terrorism. They will see terrorism everywhere. They will not see their own role in the creation of the terrorism. Nor will they see ways in which it might be possible to create peace instead of violence. The military institution will create fear in the population. They make me nervous, the old farts. The short video about the number of passes of the basketball, circulated to you earlier, is VERY instructive about what/how we "see". (Please request it, if you missed it.) I will not be nervous if A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE know what NORTHCOM AND NORAD are. And what they are up to. If we are kept ignorant, we will be fearful and then there are no checks, no reins on the lords of war. I have tried to connect this "Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise" currently underway in California (Nov 12 - 18) to definitions. Canada is a player in the Joint Exercise. I am not so sure it will be discussed in our mainstream media. It is reported by Alternet (#5 below). Cheers! Sandra ===================== (2) NORTHCOM AND NORAD A. "THREAT LEVEL", NOVEMBER 14TH "NorthCom" (the U.S. "Northern Command") and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command - a U.S. Canadian partnership) are the organizers of the joint exercises described in (#5). Visit their websites: a. NORTHCOM http://www.northcom.mil/ b. NORAD http://www.norad.mil/ You can, for example, obtain instant access to the "Current threat level". For today, November 14th, 2008: - NorthCom says it's "Elevated" (flashing yellow) ("Significant risk of terrorist attacks") - NORAD says it's "High" (flashing orange, next above yellow). Red is next after orange, at the top of the Current Threat Level. In red we must be under attack. But it is clear that these military institutions have now gone "domestic", too. ------------- B. LEADERSHIP In the preceding phrase I was going to change "we" to "The Americans" must be under attack. Because it's not Canada. But it is. NORAD is a Canada-U.S. partnership. NORAD is part of the "Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise". >From the NORAD website, "The commander of US NORTHCOM also serves as the commander of NORAD." - Under "Leadership" you will see the pictures of the military leaders. The leaders of NorthCom are American generals. - the leaders of NORAD include one Canadian. ------------------- C. RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES I should be quaking in my boots and following their "Recommended Activities". Heaven forbid! - I wasted time writing to the RCMP anti- terrorist squad deployed to Dawson Creek, to tell them that the Government is creating the conditions for civil disobedience, for incidents on the pipeline (which, seen from the point-of-view of the generals is "terrorism"). No, no, no! Stupid me! We are in "high risk" right now, today, November 15th. NORAD recommends that I should "continue to be vigilant, take notice of my surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately. Everyone should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency." I am not joking. Read it on the website for yourself. ---------------------- D. WHO CREATED THE CONDITIONS FOR THE "THREAT LEVEL"? When I read (#5 below) the "Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise" that is underway, I can only agonize. It is Stupid White Men that created the economic crisis in the U.S. through their stupid belief that there is no need for regulation, that the other stupid white men will "self-regulate" themselves. It is stupid white men who lied about weapons of mass destruction and started dropping bombs to kill Iraqi women and children, their libraries, their museums, hospitals, homes and schools. Their water supplies, their food supplies. They, in their stupid wisdom created 600 years worth of hate and terrorism. It is their stupid belief that the government can allow and indeed work with large corporations to destroy people's only means of survival (by poisoning water, air, and land) and there will be no repercussions. Not even in Canada. Ha! It is their stupid belief that we are as stupid as they are. It is their stupid belief that because they have nuclear bombs they can stop people from defending their children against the destruction. I don't know how stupid you can get. Think of all the money they are spending on their games; money that could be spent on finding solutions to the causes of the "civil emergency" that is inevitably the consequence of their combined stupidities. And our combined stupidity is to sit still and mute. -------------------------- E. THE TROOP EXCHANGE AGREEMENT I was curious about how the Lt-General that signed the Troop Exchange Agreement with the U.S., on Canada's behalf, fits in with NORTHCOM and NORAD, the 'Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise'. The Troop Exchange Agreement was signed on Feb 14th, 2008 under the name "Civil Assistance Plan". The early information stated explicitly that the American troops can be called in by the Canadian government in the event of "civil emergency". Today I see where either the language has been sanitized in response to the outrage, or it is being more clearly defined. From experience I would say that the spin doctors, the "communications specialists" have been at work. In some places it is now defined explicitly that the Civil Assistance Plan is for emergencies arising out of natural disasters like earthquakes. No mention of civil emergency arising out of man- made disasters like the tar sands development. Anyway - - Lieutenant-General Charlie Bouchard is the Canadian representative on NORAD. He is not the one who signed the Troop Exchange Agreement. >From information circulated in our network in February or March, 2008: "... Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas. The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency." ---------------------- F. CANADACOM You can google Canada Command for more information. Basically, as I understand it, - USA: the U.S. has Homeland Security and "Northern Command" to protect the Homeland (I guess that the part of "The Homeland" that lies in the deep South of the U.S. doesn't need to be "protected".) - CANADA: We have the department of "Public Safety", the equivalent of Homeland Security. And "Canada Command", the equivalent of U.S. "Northern Command". In addition, together, the U.S. and Canada have NORAD. And as mentioned above, "The commander of US NORTHCOM also serves as the commander of NORAD". ------------------------- G. NORAD, OUTSIDE AND NOW INSIDE NORAD, from its website, under the heading "Education" ... "(NORAD) meanwhile, shed its Cold War image as a result of the 2001 terrorist attacks. The focus on aerospace threats from outside the borders of Canada and the United States now includes domestic airspace. The highly skilled men and women of this bi-national military organization use ground-based radar, airborne radar, satellites, fighter aircraft, proven command structures and intelligence capabilities to enforce control in the skies over the United States. The commander of USNORTHCOM also serves as the commander of NORAD." May be of interest to you: - the "Education" on the NorthCom website: http://www.northcom.mil/About/history_education/education.html - the "Education" on the NORAD website: http://www.norad.mil/about/educational.html ==================================== (3) POSSE COMITATUS - EXPLANATION, IRAQ TROOPS DEPLOYED INSIDE THE USA "AGAINST THE LAW" A bit of explanation regarding a paragraph in the Alternet report on the Massive Joint Exercise (#5): " NorthCom has been in the news lately, after the Pentagon designated to it a battle-tested fighting unit from the war on Iraq. This appears to be against the law, according to the ACLU, since the army isn't supposed to be patrolling our own (U.S.) country." If you go to the heading "US Constitution" under "Education" on the NORAD website, you'll find the reasons given for why American troops CAN be used on American soil to maintain order. The following is a summary explanation of the law known as Posse Comitatus which says that American law FORBIDS the use of American federal troops within the boundaries of the Homeland. (God forbid that there be ANY civil disobedience in the next month, what with this " Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise" that is underway (#5). Some smart fellows passed that Posse Comitatus law, the way I see it!) Re "Against the law": "The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. ... The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act." Comitatus - "a body of companions, esp. a military retinue with its leader" Posse - " In Posse (Latin). What may be considered probable, but has not yet any real existence." Posse Comitatus http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Posse%20Comitatus In English common law, the power of a county sheriff to enlist able- bodied citizens of the county to help him in the pursuit and arrest of a felon. (In American law) *** "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." (Title 18, Section 1385 of the United States Code) The generals (and George Bush) quote the Constitution to say they are doing their duty to protect the Homeland. Others quote Posse Comitatus to say that what they are doing is illegal. =============================== (4) EXPLANATION, NORTHCOM RECEIVED A "BATTLE-TESTED FIGHTING UNIT FROM THE WAR ON IRAQ" Troops Deployed On U.S. Streets By Naomi Wolf http://www.countercurrents.org/wolf081008.htm Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill (INSERT: there is a video clip of a member of Congress who felt that they were being stampeded into approving the bailout package for Wall Street. He said that he personally, and others of the House had been pressured to approve with the threat that things would get real bad if the bail-out didn't go through. Some members of Congress were told that martial law would happen.) Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks. George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield. He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection." With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened. U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C- Span and viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill: "The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no." If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat. I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification: "If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?" "Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders." "But these orders are now legal?'" "Correct." "If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?" "Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken." "If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?" "Nothing." "What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?" "Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else." "What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?" "They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals." "Does Congress have any military of their own?" "No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares." "Who can arrest the President?" "The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment." [Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.] "Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?" "Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens" "Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?" "Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President." "But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?" "Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup." "But it's a coup already." "Yes." Naomi Wolf is the author of Give Me Liberty (Simon and Schuster, 2008), the sequel to the New York Times best-seller The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (Chelsea Green, 2007). C 2008 Independent Media Institute 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team will be called the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive Consequence Management Response Force. Its acronym, CCMRF, is pronounced "sea-smurf." These "sea-smurfs," Gina Cavallaro of Army Times newspaper reports, have "spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle," in a combat zone, and now will spend their 20- month "dwell time" -time troops are required to spend to "reset and regenerate after a deployment" -armed and ready to hit the U.S. streets ============================== (5) MASSIVE 'HOMELAND DEFENSE' JOINT EXERCISE IS UNDER WAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2008 Thanks to Elaine Hughes for sending this in. She writes: QUOTE from the article: "Something called the "Canada Command DETERMINED DRAGON" also is participating, as is the California National Guard and California's "Golden Guardian."" Massive 'Homeland Defense' Joint Exercise Is Under Way By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive Posted on November 15, 2008, Printed on November 15, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/107195/ This week and into next, NorthCom and NORAD are conducting a joint exercise called "Vigilant Shield '09." The focus will be on "homeland defense and civil support," a NorthCom press release states. >From November 12-18, it will be testing a "synchronized response of federal, state, local and international partners in preparation for homeland defense, homeland security, and civil support missions in the United States and abroad." NorthCom is short for the Pentagon's Northern Command. President Bush created it in October 2002. (The Southern Command, or SouthCom, covers Latin America. Central Command, or CentCom, covers Iraq and Afghanistan. And the new AfriCom covers, well, you get the picture.) Vigilant Shield '09 "will include scenarios to achieve exercise objectives within the maritime, aerospace, ballistic missile defense, cyber, consequence management, strategic communications, and counter terrorism domains," the press release states. NorthCom's press release also says that other participants in the exercise include the U.S. Strategic Command's "Global Lightning 09," which is a plan to use nuclear weapons in a surprise attack. The Pentagon's "Bulwark Defender 09" is also involved in the exercise, and it is a cyberspace protection outfit of the Pentagon. Something called the "Canada Command DETERMINED DRAGON" also is participating, as is the California National Guard and California's "Golden Guardian." California's involvement appears to center around planning for a catastrophic earthquake. "Under the leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger and direction of his Office of Homeland Security, the nation's largest state sponsored emergency exercise will take place November 13-18," a press release from the governor's office states. "Golden Guardian 2008 tests California's capability to respond and recover during a major catastrophic earthquake. The Golden Guardian 2008 full-scale exercise scenario focuses on a simulated, catastrophic 7.8 magnitude earthquake along the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault." NorthCom is being shy about giving out additional information about Vigilant Shield '09. When I called for a fact sheet on it, I was told there was none. But the Pentagon did issue such a fact sheet for Vigilant Shield '08. Last year's exercise included "the simulated detonation of three nuclear dispersal devices." The fact sheet stressed the need to support a "civilian-led response" and to "exercise defense support of civil authorities," including involvement in "critical infrastructure protection events" and coordinating "Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection activities." That fact sheet ended by saying: "There will be minimal deployment of active duty forces and no crossborder deployments. We anticipate little to no direct impact on local communities." NorthCom has been in the news lately, after the Pentagon designated to it a battle-tested fighting unit from the war on Iraq. This appears to be against the law, according to the ACLU, since the army isn't supposed to be patrolling our own country. On top of that, NorthCom was up to its eyeballs in getting peace groups spied upon. "The security people at USNORTHCOM . . . had begun noticing some trouble at a few military recruiting events in 2005," Eric Lichtblau recounts in Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice. "Military officials at NORTHCOM asked their counterparts at CIFA [the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity] to ping their powerful new database -- do a broader study and find out how many episodes of violence and disruption were actually imperiling their recruiters." And NorthCom even was in the loop at the Republican Convention in St. Paul. Is it too much to ask Congress to look into NorthCom? Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive. C 2008 The Progressive All rights reserved View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/107195/ ================= It is very important that we all know what is going on. Our police and military and government officials also need to know. I think our government has sold us (our military) out to the U.S. With implications for the protection of water and energy supplies. We have lost our sovereignty. We can take it back. Start by talking with our police officers and soldiers. Please circulate this. ============================== Email from: Sandra Finley Saskatoon SK S7N 0L1 306-373-8078 sabest1@sasktel.net ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25295 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081116/20c65502/--0002.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 169 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081116/20c65502/--0003.obj From papadop at peak.org Sun Nov 16 13:16:45 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun Nov 16 13:57:49 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obama/ executive privilege Message-ID: The revolution against Rule by King George III left open some avenues to misrule by subsequent U$ presidents. What is now called "executive privilege" was erxercised not only by the Brit Monarch but also by absolutist monarchs like the French line of Louis. So whenever the question comes before the U$Supreme Court, they are free to waffle because there is no guidance one way or the other from the U$ Constitution. The waffle says that because of the absence of such guidance, the notion that whatever part of the Brit common law in existence that was not specifically overruled by U$ Constitution remains in force until overruled by federal or state law. The idea of "sovereign immunity" is another hold-over from colonial days. The below author is too kind to the $COTUS - it wasn't until the Truman and Eisenhower reigns that the doctrine earned solid but not absolute Court approval ############ http://www.reason.com/news/show/130094.html Obama Should Swear Off Executive Privilege Keeping his staff transparent and accountable would send a strong message about open government. Radley Balko | November 14, 2008 *Radley Balko is a senior editor at reason. President-elect Barack Obama has been fairly critical of the Bush administration's secrecy, lack of accountability, and executive power grabs over the last eight years. And rightly so. To his credit, Obama has made some early gestures to rolling back some of the power claimed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. One way Obama could send a clear message about the type of service he'll expect from the people who will staff his administration is to make an early vow forbidding any of his staff from claiming executive privilege should they later be asked to testify before Congress, in a deposition, or in any other legal setting. The one obvious exception would be if someone were asked to testify about matters classified for national security purposes. Executive privilege is the idea that a president should be able to shield his staff from congressional or legal inquiries because staffers who know they could potentially be subpoenaed may not feel as free and open to give the president candid advice. This is nonsense. The president's political appointees are public servants. Their salaries are paid by taxpayers. What they do and say on the public payroll should be accessible to the public, to the courts, and to congressional oversight. If a presidential aide fears that advice he gives the president could subject him to legal action or congressional subpoena down the road, he shouldn't give advice that's of questionable legality or that's ethically dubious in the first place. It really is that simple. If the president wants to hire a personal attorney who can give him personal legal advice that's protected by attorney-client privilege, that's fine. He should pay that attorney out of his own pocket, or out of campaign funds. The phrase "executive privilege" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. Rather, it has been inferred by presidents from the Constitution's provisions dividing power among the three branches of the federal government. Though variations on executive privilege were claimed in limited circumstances by several presidents before him, including Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman, the term itself was first coined by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954 during the Army-McCarthy hearings. Eisenhower went on to invoke the privilege dozens of times over the next six years. The Supreme Court has been inconsistent on the matter. During Aaron Burr's trial for treason in 1807, President Jefferson argued something similar to executive privilege in attempting to prevent Burr from subpoenaing Jefferson's private letters about Burr. The Supreme Court found that the president is not exempt from the discovery process in a criminal trial, and ordered Jefferson to turn over the letters. He complied. In the 1974 case U.S. v. Nixon, the Court upheld the general notion that presidential aids should be granted some room to speak candidly without fear of subpoena, but the Court also thoroughly rejected Nixon's claim of "absolute privilege." The ruling--that there's some privilege, but not absolute privilege--left a lot of gray area. Subsequent presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush periodically invoked executive privilege, but it was the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations that really abused the idea. Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to keep the health care task forces held by his wife Hillary Clinton shielded from federal open meetings laws. He would again invoke the doctrine to stymie investigations into Hillary Clinton's firing of White House Travel Office employees, and then again to prevent his aides from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky case (he lost that particular fight in court). George W. Bush moved early to shore up executive privilege, blocking efforts to investigate his predecessor Clinton's role in the fundraising scandal involving campaign contributions from non-U.S. citizens. He also blocked investigations into Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno. Bush's non-partisan deference to presidential power reaped benefits, as he'd go on to invoke executive privilege to thwart attempts by Congress to look into his own administration's scandals, including the U.S. attorney firings, years of missing White House emails, and the cover-up of the friendly fire death of U.S. Army Ranger and former NFL star Pat Tillman. What we see, over and over, is that the executive privilege doctrine is most often invoked to prevent congressional committees, independent counsel, and other oversight bodies from investigating possible legal and ethical breaches by members of the executive branch. It's not being used to promote candor and open dialogue among presidential advisers, but to prevent the public from learning about possible abuses of power by members of the administration, and from holding those members accountable. If Obama were to peremptorily swear off executive privilege early on in his administration, and vow that his staff and advisers will not have his permission to invoke it at a later date, it would not only send a clear and important message to the country that he plans to keep his vow to run a transparent and accountable government, it would also send a message to everyone working in his administration that what they say and do will be on the record, and that they should behave accordingly. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Nov 17 18:10:26 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon Nov 17 18:23:54 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] John Bellamy Foster: Ecology and the transition from capitalism to socialism | Links Message-ID: <492207F2.5030202@greenleft.org.au> This article ... is a revised version of a keynote address delivered at the ?Climate Change, Social Change? conference, Sydney, Australia, April 12, 2008, organised by /Green Left Weekly/. The transition from capitalism to socialism is the most difficult problem of socialist theory and practice. To add to this the question of ecology might therefore be seen as unnecessarily complicating an already intractable issue. I shall argue here, however, that the human relation to nature lies at the heart of the transition to socialism. An ecological perspective is pivotal to our understanding of capitalism?s limits, the failures of the early socialist experiments, and the overall struggle for egalitarian and sustainable human development. My argument has three parts. First, it is crucial to understand the intimate connection between classical Marxism and ecological analysis. Far from being an anomaly for socialism, as we are often led to believe, ecology was an essential component of the socialist project from its inception?notwithstanding the numerous later shortcomings of Soviet-type societies in this respect. Second, the global ecological crisis that now confronts us is deeply rooted in the ?world-alienating? logic of capital accumulation, traceable to the historical origins of capitalism as a system. Third, the transition from capitalism to socialism is a struggle for sustainable human development in which societies on the periphery of the capitalist world system have been leading the way. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/742 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Nov 17 20:42:05 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon Nov 17 20:43:23 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] How the heist nobbles Obama's promises - Naomi Klein Message-ID: <20081118024315.A432BF530@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081118/cb5e3909/attachment.html From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Tue Nov 18 02:29:58 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Tue Nov 18 02:06:38 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] How the heist nobbles Obama's promises - Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <20081118024315.A432BF530@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081118024315.A432BF530@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <49227D06.1020104@spiritone.com> you should be able to get the sales volume from any of the broker sites or the wall street journal without any charges information on large lots trading is generally going to cost you money but is available to any stat service for the market. Dion Giles wrote: > > The following article goes to show Obama's "Change" message was a > pollie's con from the outset. Pretend-differences among the pollies > are being dropped and it's back to politicians vs the public, > representative government vs democracy. Same as same as. > > Does anyone have a link to information of sales volume in the stock > exchange rather than merely price fluctuations? Who, really, is "the > market"? Are large parcels changing hands or millions of small ones? > Or both? > > Dion Giles > Western Australia > ===================================== > > *Lookout* by Naomi Klein > > In Praise of a Rocky Transition > > [from the December 1, 2008 issue, The Nation > http://mobile.thenation.com/ ] > > The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington's > handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is > borderline criminal. > > In a moment of high panic in late September, the US Treasury > unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are > taxed -- a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that > this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in > tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the > /Washington Post/, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that > "Treasury had no authority to issue the [tax change] notice." > > Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has > negotiated with many of the country's banks. According to Congressman > Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables > the deals, "Any use of these funds for any purpose other than > lending--for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for > acquisitions of other institutions, etc.--is a violation of the act." > Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used. > > Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed > out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which > corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as > collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law > and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure. > > Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either > openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. "There > is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama. That's > true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration > makes threatens to hobble Obama's ability to make good on his promise > of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax > revenue is almost the same sum as Obama's renewable energy program. > Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: > an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth. > > Yes, there is only one president at a time, but that president needed > the support of powerful Democrats, including Obama, to get the bailout > passed. Now that it is clear that the Bush administration is violating > the terms to which both parties agreed, the Democrats have not just > the right but a grave responsibility to intervene forcefully. > > I suspect that the real reason the Democrats are so far failing to act > has less to do with presidential protocol than with fear: fear that > the stock market, which has the temperament of an overindulged > 2-year-old, will throw one of its world-shaking tantrums. Disclosing > the truth about who is receiving federal loans, we are told, could > cause the cranky market to bet against those banks. Question the > legality of equity deals and the same thing will happen. Challenge the > $140 billion tax giveaway and mergers could fall through. "None of us > wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great > Depression," explained one unnamed Congressional aide. > > More than that, the Democrats, including Obama, appear to believe that > the need to soothe the market should govern all key economic decisions > in the transition period. Which is why, just days after a euphoric > victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth > transition" and "continuity." > > Take Obama's pick for chief of staff. Despite the Republican braying > about his partisanship, Rahm Emanuel, the House Democrat who received > the most donations from the financial sector, sends an unmistakably > reassuring message to Wall Street. When asked on /This Week With > George Stephanopoulos/ whether Obama would be moving quickly to > increase taxes on the wealthy, as promised, Emanuel pointedly did not > answer the question. > > This same market-coddling logic should, we are told, guide Obama's > selection of treasury secretary. Fox News's Stuart Varney explained > that Larry Summers, who held the post under Clinton, and former Fed > chair Paul Volcker would both "give great confidence to the market." > We learned from MSNBC's Joe Scarborough that Summers is the man "the > Street would like the most." > > Let's be clear about why. "The Street" would cheer a Summers > appointment for exactly the same reason the rest of us should fear it: > because traders will assume that Summers, champion of financial > deregulation under Clinton, will offer a transition from Henry Paulson > so smooth we will barely know it happened. Someone like FDIC chair > Sheila Bair, on the other hand, would spark fear on the Street--for > all the right reasons. > > One thing we know for certain is that the market will react violently > to any signal that there is a new sheriff in town who will impose > serious regulation, invest in people and cut off the free money for > corporations. In short, the markets can be relied on to vote in > precisely the opposite way that Americans have just voted. (A recent > /USA Today//Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans strongly > favor "stricter regulations on financial institutions," while just 21 > percent support aid to financial companies.) > > There is no way to reconcile the public's vote for change with the > market's foot-stomping for more of the same. Any and all moves to > change course will be met with short-term market shocks. The good news > is that once it is clear that the new rules will be applied across the > board and with fairness, the market will stabilize and adjust. > Furthermore, the timing for this turbulence has never been better. > Over the past three months, we've been shocked so frequently that > market stability would come as more of a surprise. That gives Obama a > window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the > hard stuff first. Few will be able to blame him for a crisis that > clearly predates him, or fault him for honoring the clearly expressed > wishes of the electorate. The longer he waits, however, the more > memories fade. > > When transferring power from a functional, trustworthy regime, > everyone favors a smooth transition. When exiting an era marked by > criminality and bankrupt ideology, a little rockiness at the start > would be a very good sign. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > From papadop at peak.org Tue Nov 18 14:52:14 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue Nov 18 15:33:16 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Obvama questions for job candidates. Message-ID: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20081117.html FindLaw Writ Legal Commentary Why the Obama Transition Team's Intrusive Questionnaire May Exclude Some of the Best Job Candidates, or Deter Them From Applying By MICHAEL C. DORF Monday, Nov. 17, 2008 As was widely reported last week, President-elect Obama's transition team has been asking potential appointees to Cabinet and other high-ranking positions in the incoming administration to complete a detailed questionnaire about potential conflicts of interest and matters that could "be a possible source of embarrassment to" the applicant, his or her "family, or the President-Elect if it were made public." Given its length and scope, merely filling out the questionnaire accurately will be a burden for applicants, even though many of the 63 questions probe legitimate areas of concern. However, some of the questions seek highly personal and irrelevant information. After describing the areas in which the questionnaire goes beyond clearly relevant matters, in this column I shall highlight two dangers that it poses: First, moved by an excess of caution, the Obama transition team might rule out well-qualified applicants based on the fear that they will be attacked unfairly. Second, well-qualified applicants who might be embarrassed by what would ultimately be irrelevant attacks could conclude from the questionnaire itself that seeking a high-ranking office in the Obama Administration is either futile or not worth the headache. Either of these scenarios would be unfortunate. The United States faces multiple crises that call for the most highly-qualified leadership. We can ill afford ruling people out based on peccadilloes. The Questionnaire Makes Both Legitimate and Dubious Inquiries Most of the questions on the Obama administration questionnaire probe legitimate concerns. Many seek financial and other information related to possible conflicts of interest. The questionnaire manifests a special concern with ties to lobbyists. Yet some of the questions are dubious. For example, the questionnaire asks for every email, text message, instant message or other electronic communication that a job applicant has ever sent that "could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to [the applicant, his or her] family, or the President-Elect if it were made public." Many applicants will find it literally impossible to comply with that request. Mobile telephones do not indefinitely store text messages, although former Congressman Mark Foley learned to his everlasting shame that they can be stored elsewhere. Moreover, some electronic communications would be protected by duties of confidentiality to clients. Suppose an applicant for a high-ranking Justice Department position, during the course of representing a client, suggested in an email to that client the possibility of a legal strategy that is contrary to some stated position of the incoming administration. Surely that email would, if made public, create either the appearance of a conflict or an embarrassing situation for the President-elect. Must the applicant either disclose the email to the transition team and violate the client's trust, or withhold it and thus provide incomplete information? And what about matters that are simply a source of personal embarrassment? In addition to electronic communications, the questionnaire's catch-all seeks "any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could . . . be a possible source of embarrassment to" the applicant, his or her family, or the President-elect. That is in addition to a request for the identity of "anyone or any organization . . . that might take steps, overtly or covertly, fairly or unfairly, to criticize" the applicant's nomination. The Questionnaire's Requests for Irrelevant Information Much potentially embarrassing material is clearly irrelevant to an applicant's ability to perform a high-ranking government job. Suppose, for example, that a male applicant for an important position in the Department of Transportation has sent electronic messages ordering non-obscene but nonetheless erotic pictures of other adult men (or adult women, for that matter). That fact, if made public, could prove highly embarrassing to the applicant, because it is highly personal-and thus would have to be disclosed in response to the questionnaire. Or suppose an applicant for an important position in the Department of Homeland Security at one time served on the governing board of a charitable organization alongside a now-respectable member of the community who was, many years ago, a member of a domestic terrorist organization. Surely, as President-elect Obama knows better than anyone, that fact is irrelevant to the applicant's current qualifications. And yet, it would no doubt count as an "association with any person, group or business venture that could be used-even unfairly-to impugn or attack [the applicant's] character and qualifications for government service." During the course of the Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama forcefully argued that voters should ignore stories about Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy and his own association with former Weather Underground co-founder William Ayers. If these matters were irrelevant to Palin's and Obama's respective fitness for the Vice Presidency and the Presidency, why is the President-elect now seeking similar information from applicants for jobs in his administration? Could Prudence Become a Self-Fulfilling Prophesy? In asking for sensitive and irrelevant information from job applicants, the Obama transition team does not necessarily imply that it will use this information to screen out applicants who are unwilling to divulge client confidences or who have skeletons in their closets that are embarrassing, but for which they are blameless. Politics is a dirty game, and thus it is only prudent to anticipate the attacks-fair or unfair-that could be launched against potential administration nominees. By asking applicants for all possible sources of damaging or embarrassing information, the President-elect and the applicants can better anticipate what they will be up against. Yet that approach risks rewarding unfair attacks that might never even materialize. Given the choice between a bland appointee with few political liabilities and a bold, talented appointee with politically-salient liabilities that are ultimately unconnected to his or her ability to do the job, the incoming administration will be tempted to err on the safe side. At the same time, some highly-talented applicants will be intimidated by the questionnaire itself. The prospect of taking a pay cut to work in government is already a disincentive to many people who currently work in the private sector. By making real the additional prospect of public humiliation, and the possibility that a prestigious but relatively low-paying government position may not even materialize at the end of the process, the Obama transition team's questionnaire could scare off some of the best candidates. The Futility of Vetting in an Age of Swift Boating Finally, we should have learned by now that deep vetting does not work. Of course, applicants with criminal records, publicly-stated odious views, and active conflicts of interest should be screened out. But efforts to dig further will almost surely be unavailing because political opponents of a nominee can always find or manufacture an issue with which to attack a seeker of high office. The most prominent examples of this phenomenon can be seen in electoral politics. John Kerry's medals were no defense against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; Barack Obama's service on a board that included prominent Republicans did not prevent him from being attacked for "palling around with terrorists"; and the woman who made that accusation, Sarah Palin, was herself the subject of the fantastical tale that her daughter, Bristol, was really the mother of Palin's own youngest son. Nor are unfair and baseless attacks limited to candidates for elective office. When President George H.W. Bush nominated former Texas Senator John Tower to be Secretary of Defense, some opponents objected that he was an alcoholic and philanderer, charges that should have been irrelevant given Tower's highly-successful service as an arms control negotiator for President Reagan. Likewise, when President Clinton nominated Dr. Henry Foster for Surgeon General, opponents who objected to the fact that as an obstetrician, Foster had performed abortions, tried to link Foster-who is African-American-to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment, in which African-American men suffering from syphilis were given placebos so that researchers could chart the progress of the untreated disease. Foster had served on the Tuskegee University faculty in the latter stages of the experiment but he vehemently denied any role in the unethical project. Because the Tower and Foster nominations both failed, the Obama transition team might infer that it is essential to vet every possible detail about potential appointees. Yet that is the wrong lesson of these and other episodes. The real lesson is that political opponents will use or manufacture issues in an attempt to defeat nominees they oppose on other grounds. No amount of vetting can protect a nominee from lies. To their credit, in the most recent election American voters appear to have largely tuned out the nonsense about Bill Ayers and the parentage of Sarah Palin's son, focusing instead on real policy differences between the candidates. That is a hopeful sign that the seriousness of our national problems makes attacks upon character a luxury we can no longer afford. With a nearly bullet-proof Democratic majority in the Senate, the Obama transition team should, in any event, operate on that assumption. From papadop at peak.org Tue Nov 18 18:01:23 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue Nov 18 18:42:22 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] SCOTSMAN: Clinton biz dealings Message-ID: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bill--Clinton-may-.4706843.jp SCOTSMAN (Edinburgh) Wednesday, 19th November 2008 QUESTIONS about former president Bill Clinton's business dealings are clouding speculation that Barack Obama is poised to offer his wife, Hillary, the post of secretary of state. Mr Obama's officials are now investigating Mr Clinton's business affairs, including those involving Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, over possible conflict-of-interest issues. The New York Times reported yesterday that two donors who gave $1 million apiece for Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas did so while under investigation by the Clinton administration's Justice Department in the late 1990s. But party insiders say they expect an accommodation will be reached, under which Mr Clinton agrees to accept no more cash from donors without prior approval, if his wife is given the coveted post. He may also remove himself from the fundraising side of his charitable Clinton Global Initiative organisation. Mr Obama has yet to confirm speculation that began at the end of last week that he will name Mrs Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primary elections, as being in the running for the post with other candidates, including the New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, a former ambassador to the United Nations. But one party source said the failure to scotch the rumours was a sign that the plan was well advanced. "I think if the Obama people were not serious about offering her the job, they'd not have allowed this media speculation." Any decision to appoint Mrs Clinton would be in line with Mr Obama's public declaration that he wishes to bring disparate elements into his cabinet. His officials have already signalled the intention to include one, or possibly two, Republicans in the cabinet, with the Bush administration's defence secretary, Robert Gates, expected to retain his post. Congressional confirmation hearings pose a possible obstacle to Mrs Clinton's appointment, with her husband's past taking the starring role. But with the Democrats enjoying comfortable majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, there is unlikely to be an appetite to block any appointment put to them by Mr Obama. For Mrs Clinton, the secretary of state role may turn out to be a poisoned chalice: foreign policy in the United States is made in the White House, and all the more so since Mr Obama lined up his foreign policy team early in the primary elections. Mrs Clinton is not part of that group as, by contrast, the present secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the Bush administration's foreign policy team. Taking the job would also see her give up her Senate seat and much of her domestic power base, weakening any bid to challenge Mr Obama in the primary elections in four years' time. $10.1 million made in a year on the public-speaking circuit BILL Clinton faces having to curtail a substantial part of his business dealings if his wife, Hillary, becomes US secretary of state. Since leaving the White House in 2000 he has reinvented himself as a gatherer of world philanthropists and the world's most highly paid speech-maker. Last year he earned $10.1 million for 54 speeches; he got $425,000 for one hour-long speech for the billionaire investor Ronald Burkle. The Clintons' tax returns, published this year, show that the couple, who have joint bank accounts, have earned $109 million since leaving the White House, 80 per cent of which came from Mr Clinton's paid speeches and most of the rest from the publication of memoirs. Mr Clinton has earned plaudits for setting up two charitable organisations, the Clinton Global Initiative and the William J Clinton Foundation, both of which raise money for programmes tackling poverty and Aids. But critics say the cash given to his foundation by the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and the King of Morocco pose conflict-of-interest issues should his wife become secretary of state. Many of these deals will have to be suspended for his wife to accept the key foreign policy post. From papadop at peak.org Tue Nov 18 20:36:06 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue Nov 18 21:17:16 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Blackwater gunboats will protect ships from pirates Message-ID: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/blackwater-gunboats-will-protect-ships-from-pirates-14068418.html Blackwater gunboats will protect ships from pirates Belfast Telegraph Wednesday, 19 November 2008 The American security company Blackwater is planning to cash in on the rising threat of piracy on the high seas by launching a flotilla of gunboats for hire by the shipping companies. The firm, which gained international notoriety when its staff killed civilians in Iraq, has already equipped one vessel, called The McArthur, which will carry up to 40 armed guards and have a landing pad for an attack helicopter. The McArthur, a former survey ship, arrives in the Gulf of Aden, the scene of the recent high-profile hijackings and shootouts with Somali pirates, at the end of the year. It is to be joined by three or four similar vessels over next year to form the company's private navy. Blackwater, which has strong ties with the Republican administration in Washington, was the subject of investigations by the US Congress and the Iraqi government after its guards shot dead 17 people in Baghdad's Nisoor Square last year, a massacre which led directly to changes in law regarding security contractors in Iraq. Several security companies are rushing to the region despite the presence of British, American, Russian and Indian naval warships, among others, sent to protect ships. For fees ranging from $12,000 to $18,000 for transits of three and five days, companies are offering teams of unarmed guards, "non-lethal deck security personnel". With more than 60 ships attacked in the Gulf and ship-owners paying an estimated 75m in ransom for the return of crew and cargo, the security companies foresee a lucrative business. One US company, Hollowpoint Protective Services, says it is offering a comprehensive service of hostage negotiations backed by armed rescue operations if the talks fail. Eos, a British concern, says it favours a "non-lethal" approach with the use of sophisticated laser, microwave and acoustical devices. But Blackwater plans to have the largest and most heavily armed presence among the security contractors. The company believes that the presence of escorting gunboats will have a deterrent effect, with criminal gangs being forced to switch to more vulnerable targets. A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrrell, said there have already been about 15 inquiries about its anti-piracy service. The company refused to reveal how much it will charge. Its executive vice-president, Bill Matthews, said the US Navy and the Royal Navy do not have the resources in the region to provide total security, opening up a role for companies such as his. He added: "While there are temporary needs that perhaps outpace the limited resources of the Department of Defence [Washington] and the Ministry of Defence [London], the private sector is available to fill those gaps. "We have been contacted by ship-owners who say they need our help in making sure goods get to their destination. The McArthur can help us accomplish that. We have not sought to enter the space until recently. It was not part of our business plan. But as the world changes, so does our business plan." Nick Davis, a former British Army pilot who runs a company in Poole called Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Solutions, said: "It frightens me that Blackwater is going down there. Their background is not in deterrence. Their background is in weapons. To me, the best people to be armed are the military. Pirates might approach McArthur without knowing it's a Blackwater boat and try to hijack it." Chris Austen, chief executive of Maritime & Underwater Security Consultants, in London, said ship-owners should be cautious about armed guards. "There are some flags that prohibit the carriage of arms or the use of violence. There are some insurers that will not accept it, and your insurance will be void." GUNS FOR HIRE: THE VIOLENT OPTION The massacre on Baghdad's "Bloody Sunday" became a lethal symbol of the aggression with which Blackwater's private army carried out its mission in Iraq. I saw the deadly result of panicked security guards opening fire at a crowded Nisoor Square in the city centre. Round after round mowed down terrified men, women and children. At the end of the shooting spree, 17 people were dead and 20 injured. The killings sparked one of the most bitter and public disputes between the Iraqi government and its American patrons, and brought into focus the often violent conduct of the Western security companies - and that of Blackwater in particular. Operating in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, they were immune from scrutiny or prosecution. This was the seventh shooting of civilians involving Blackwater. The company's reputation in Iraq was particularly controversial. After Nisoor Square, the Iraqi government threatened to expel Blackwater. But it was forced to let the company operate again under pressure from Washington. From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Tue Nov 18 23:27:39 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue Nov 18 23:25:51 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Bush's Willing Accomplice [Harper] by Linda McQuaig Nov 19th Tor Star Message-ID: <49236B8B.871.871DCFB3@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Isolated, repudiated by his people and even shunned by his own party, George W. Bush - the lamest of lame ducks - still seems able to count on the support of at least one world leader: Stephen Harper. ...Just as Harper backed Bush's effort to block global progress on climate change, this time he helped Bush stymie European-led efforts at the G20 summit in Washington to restore regulations to international financial markets. ... In its first budget in 2006, the Harper government changed the rules in ways that effectively opened up the Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers.... At the World Trade Organization negotiations in 2006, Canada played a leading role in pushing developing nations to accept rules that would allow their domestic banks and insurance companies to be taken over by foreign financial institutions... .. The Canadian push for "financial liberalization" ... has continued .. long after it should have .., as recently as the WTO ministerial in July 2008. --Linda McQuaig, Nov 19th fyi-janet ============================== http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/18-3 Published on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 by The Toronto Star Bush's Willing Accomplice by Linda McQuaig Isolated, repudiated by his people and even shunned by his own party, George W. Bush - the lamest of lame ducks - still seems able to count on the support of at least one world leader: Stephen Harper. And so it was on the weekend, as it has so often been in the past two years, that our prime minister provided rare support for Bush as the soon-to-be former president battled against a chorus of world leaders urgently calling for a set of badly needed reforms. Just as Harper backed Bush's effort to block global progress on climate change, this time he helped Bush stymie European-led efforts at the G20 summit in Washington to restore regulations to international financial markets. It was the rollback of these regulations that allowed Wall Street to transform itself into a giant casino where tycoons made billions playing fast and loose with the life savings of ordinary citizens. Harper's resistance to European calls for tighter regulations is ironic, since he has the luxury of presiding over a country that's been spared the worst of the financial meltdown, largely because of the Canadian tradition of tighter domestic financial regulations. This has allowed Harper to ride out the current financial storm politically unscathed, even gaining re-election in the middle of it. In fact, although Harper's record on this has received little attention, his government had started to push Canada down the dangerous road toward looser financial regulation. In its first budget in 2006, the Harper government changed the rules in ways that effectively opened up the Canadian mortgage market to U.S. insurers. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted that these "new players" would bring "greater choice and innovation" to the Canadian mortgage market. Unfortunately, they did just that. They introduced risky products - like mortgages amortized over 40 years with little or no down-payments. The new mortgages quickly caught on. With their lower monthly payments, they made houses seem more affordable. In reality, however, they dramatically increased the cost of a home, roughly tripling it. As the implosion of the U.S. housing market provided a vivid example of the pitfalls of looser mortgage regulations, Flaherty finally intervened last summer, tightening CMHC's rules. The Harper government has been even more aggressive pushing financial deregulation on developing countries. Ellen Gould, a Vancouver-based trade consultant, notes that Ottawa has pressed developing nations to open their economies to the "supposedly superior services" offered by the financial institutions of the advanced world. At the World Trade Organization negotiations in 2006, Canada played a leading role in pushing developing nations to accept rules that would allow their domestic banks and insurance companies to be taken over by foreign financial institutions - like the ones that have been collapsing on Wall Street recently. The Canadian push for "financial liberalization" predates Harper. It was keenly advocated by Liberal governments as well. But the Harper government has continued to push for this sort of deregulation long after it should have known better, as recently as the WTO ministerial in July 2008. One can draw solace perhaps from the realization that Canada doesn't shape the course of world events. Still, it's disappointing to realize that we're using what little influence we have at organizations like the G20 to help the exiting Bush administration do this last bit of disservice to the world. ? Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008 Linda McQuaig's column appears every other week in the Star. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4380 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081119/6b1acc54/-.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 169 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081119/6b1acc54/--0001.obj From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Nov 19 21:26:51 2008 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Wed Nov 19 21:27:23 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Freud, Bernays and manipulation of the masses. Message-ID: <02a501c94abf$ddb2c7a0$3aad57ca@jfos> Extract " The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.(snip) The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Bernays' work and his method of mass psychological manipulation is also still currently used by the United States government. The U.S. Government has an extensive history of conducting planned campaigns of extensive strategic psychological operations ... through the national media to influence and direct the perception and climate of the nation towards its governmental objectives. ... the evils of racism thrive best when its victims no longer recognize the evil." Tuesday, October 28, 2008 THE BLACK MATRIX: The Modern Mental and Social Suppression of African Americans by Franklin G. Jones The present despairing state of Black America is neither a baffling phenomenon, nor the result of some innate racial deficiency among Blacks, but rather the result of the White elite's innate proclivity for always reinventing devious methods of suppressing its Black population-- as a means of maintaining its white dominance and control. The architect of the modern method of suppression now used against Black America was the late Dr. Edward Bernays. Dr. Edward Bernay's was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and one of the most skillful experts in mass manipulation. He invented the modern day Madison Avenue advertising Agencies by using his Uncle Sigmund's knowledge of the human psyche to make people feel they needed whatever product was being advertised. Edward Bernays also invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer persuasion. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires. His most notorious feat was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes were a symbol of independence and freedom. You've Come a Long Way Baby! Bernays was convinced that this mass method of manipulation was more than just a way of selling consumer goods. For him it was a new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that his uncle, Sigmund Freud, had identified, people could be made happy, docile, angry, self hating or even confused. During World War I, Bernays and journalist Walter Lippman were hired by then United States President, Woodrow Wilson, to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of which was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war, on the side of Britain. The war propaganda campaign of Bernays and Lippman produced such an intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress America's governmental elites with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion. Edward Bernays advised US presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Eisenhower and served numerous corporations and business associations. This was the start of the mass media and governmental psychological manipulation programs which has come to covertly dominate today's world. One of Bernays biggest fans was Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, a fact about which Bernays bragged proudly. A common pattern used repeatedly by Bernays was to turn a harmless entity into a fearsome enemy through lies and manufactured news items. Then use the "threat" to justify attacking the entity. Edward Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering consent", important concepts in practical propaganda work. Bernays said in his 1928 book Propaganda, that; "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He further states that; "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it" The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Bernays' work and his method of mass psychological manipulation is also still currently used by the United States government. The U.S. Government has an extensive history of conducting planned campaigns of extensive strategic psychological operations [based upon the works of Benays] through the national media to influence and direct the perception and climate of the nation towards its governmental objectives. Given that the nineteen sixties were a period of massive black rebellion and unrest that eroded the American global image and increasingly placed the nation's peace and stability in dire jeopardy and perhaps most particularly because the nations top sociologist and psychologist knew that those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. This quite logically necessitated that the U.S. Government employ these same proven methods of mass psychological manipulation against its entire African American population. The U.S. Government now secretly deliberately disseminates false deplorably racially devaluing statistics and propaganda about its Black population that are deliberately designed to adversely manipulate and shape the minds and collective consciousness of its African American population -- corrupting African American's sense of unity, cohesion, and reason -- and fostering a consensual national environment of wherein which its Black population is more easily divided, exploited and ultimately suppressed. When most people hear the term of psychological manipulation they usually think in terms of the classic "conspiracy theory" that refers to overt mind control such as mind altering drugs with carefully hypnotic programming. However, the real and true dangers are Bernays' well proven methods of affecting the unconscious mind by using deception, and psychological manipulation. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that involves a set of basic social-psychological principles. The constant relentless bombardment with deplorably negative images of themselves that African Americans are so inundated with, through a white controlled media, is a very carefully and deliberately designed psychological conditioning program. Its unrelenting daily assault on the Black psyche is designed to corrupt African Americans' sense of racial unity and cohesion, mold the character of self-hatred, engender self-doubt, self-loathing, and distrust among their group, while insinuating that Blacks admire, respect, and trust only Whites. This method of psychological manipulation works by affecting the unconscious mind through deception. It uses the psychology of deceit to adversely affect the recipient group in terms of their behavior. Here is a simplified example of how this is being implemented against African Americans. Let us, for example, imagine that a crew of people was aboard their own massive ship and that this ship was being shadowed by another neighboring ship that was constantly broadcasting derogatory messages to the first group. Such messages as that their ship was lesser, smaller, not seaworthy, perhaps slowly sinking or that their crew was incompetent and was planning a mutiny. With time, the group receiving the negative messages, being unable to refute or to confirm these derogatory messages and deficiencies will grow weary and paranoid of the negative messages and will eventually comes to accept these negative assessments of themselves. The perception created by the taunting now unconsciously influences how the taunted group perceive themselves, subsequently causing them to become distrustful of themselves, doubting themselves, hating themselves and, eventually, fighting among themselves. The taunted group may even become so besieged by deep feelings of inadequacy that they may even jump into the sea and attempt to swim towards the taunting ship now believing it to be superior to their own ship, even if their own ship was in fact better. The basis of this concept of mind manipulation is that the human being's most critical aspect is the mind and it works by affecting the mind through deception. Within a real life setting this mortifying psychosocial treatment is precisely what is being deliberately done to African Americans through corporate owned and governmentally controlled media outlets that deliberately subjected them to seeing only the fraudulently worst in themselves. This is done through an immense campaign of false derogatory misinformation and false negative media reports and statistics that are created by U.S. governmental agencies and then leaked to its collaborators in the news media, which either knowingly or unknowingly carry the stories as their own. These false information about African Americans are then disseminated unrelentingly everywhere; it is deliberately perpetuated through news releases in magazine articles, radio, television, press releases, documentaries, and false census reports perpetuating and framing the myth of Whites' racial, moral, and ethical superiority over its Black population. However, the weapon is not in how the message is carried, but is instead within the messages that it carries and how these messages detrimentally affects the Black population at large. The overrepresentation of Black crimes and grossly exaggerated statistics of Black on Black violence within this psychosocial program are intentionally designed to create fear, hatred, and distrust, thus molding the character of disunity and self-hatred among the Black community. [Black's own personal negative experiences and interactions with their fellow Blacks then merely confirm the program's perpetuated message - that it is they who are their own worst enemies]. The ultimately goal of this governmental psychosocial treatment of African Americans is to destroy the Black unity and cohesion that was historically the cornerstone of civil rights gains and that was a crucial factor of the survival of African Americans through more than four hundred years of racial oppression. [Logic dictates that given that unity and cohesion among African Americans was responsible for the demise of White America's past system of blatant, institutionalized racism, then destroying this unity would be an essential objective of this psychological manipulation program.] All African Americans have experienced the burden of this system of applied psychological conditioning, some more severely than others have. It is experienced every time we [Blacks] read a newspaper, watch the evening news, listen to a radio report, enter a classroom and read its racially biased textbooks. To the detriment of many African Americans, it has been an extremely effective. It has successfully conditioned many African Americans to accept the dominance of Whites and white institutions over their lives by misleading them to believe that they are, themselves, their own worst enemies, therefore engendering an aberration of internalized self contempt that pulverizes Black unity and halts Black upward mobility. It is at the root of both the profound division and self hatred now afflicting so many Black Americans and is at the heart of internalized feelings of superiority that many whites possess. And while many African Americans have successfully navigated through this psychologically mortifying minefield and have gone on to lead successful, productive lives, for far too many this immense devaluation can seem inescapable and tragically, over time, many begin to accept subconsciously and painfully the negative portrayals of themselves. Many also become discouraged by the acceptance that their society is also preconditioned to see the worst in them and that, therefore, if they were ever to gain acceptance, if it is to be won at all, that success would be hard won. This in turn manifests negative internalized psychological pain and distress within many African Americans that can take many forms. In fact, this governmental mortifying psychosocial treatment of African Americans may be the most aggravating, if not core, factor of the national phenomenon of self hatred; loss of educational aspirations; loss of unity, cohesion and racial pride; and fragile psyches of many African Americans today. It is in fact so fundamentally detrimental to the Black human condition and psyche that it may even affect the extent to which many African Americans realize their full human potential. This type of psychological manipulation program has also been proven very effective in rapidly destroying a group's ethical and moral values and engendering negative cultural norms with regard to violence, brutality, and even murder. All people, to some degree, are products of cultural conditions and their worldviews operate outside of their level of consciousness. Therefore, no group can be preconditioned to see only the worst in themselves and not exhibit some degree of negative psychological impact. Not only does this massive governmental psychological manipulation campaign negatively impacts Blacks self perceptions, but it also provides a more socially acceptable way to assure that the masses of African Americans remains the most racially devalued and most economical exploited and suppressed group in America. The media's constant, fraudulently inaccurate, negative imagery of Black Americans is designed also to create a shift of victimization that changes the root problem of racism in America to be due to Black's behavior rather than White's proclivity for racism. Therefore insinuates that America would be a better society as a whole if African Americans were gone, thus engendering increasingly prejudiced distorted perceptions and acrimonious beliefs about African Americans that are designed to make the nation and the entire world insensitive to their plight, tranquilizes efforts on their behalf, lessens pressure for social change on their behalf, and makes any serious criticism of White racism almost impossible today. Therefore fostering a national setting wherein which Blacks are more easily exploited and ultimately consensually suppressed. Moreover, some studies have shown that this shift of victimization now reflects increasingly acrimonious beliefs and prejudiced perceptions about and against African Americans that are arguably stronger today than they were after emancipation. This campaign also attempts to discourage miscegenation between Blacks and whites, and creates a false justification for the legal system's mistreatment of African Americans, wherein they are disproportionately incarcerated, given stiffer sentences, and are more likely than other racial groups to be treated brutally, beaten, and fired upon by police officers while they are unarmed. These injustices now go ignored because the perception has subconsciously become that it's all now justified. When contempt of Blacks is made to appear to be justifiable, it is the fiercest and most effective type of racism because its witnesses, bystanders, and even world audiences will sit by idly allowing African Americans to be brutally mistreated under the belief that it is justified. This is what Dr. Edward Bernays referred to as "engineering consent". This governmental psychological conditioning program stripped African Americans of the national and international support that was acquired during the 1960's civil rights struggles. It also today affects attitudes that when enacted through governmental policies, laws, and other legislation actions, serve to ensure that African Americans will not advance. Its effects are manifested in ideas, education, governmental policies, economic stratification, social segregation, housing markets, hiring and promotion practices, psychological issues, and minority access to a variety of social services and opportunity. In order for we African Americans to overcome the profound feelings of hopelessness, confusion, and self hatred that still overwhelmingly plagues millions within our communities, we must synergized our energies and efforts towards countering the effects of the United State's ongoing governmental mass media psychosocial treatment of us that is deliberately designed to render such disunity and confusion among our race as a means of ensuring that its white dominance and control is maintained. The objective of the United States government has always been to maintain its White dominance and control over its Black population, and clearly, psychological warfare meets this need. It was the logical choice because it covertly provided the U.S. Government with a far more sophisticated, proficient, and socially accepted means of covertly controlling and suppressing its Black population. Through this method the U.S. Government is able to both influence the national climate and engender personal psychological feelings among its Black population that meet its objectives of maintaining its white dominance. Furthermore, history overwhelmingly demonstrates that the White race's innate proclivity for racism, control, and dominance is much too deeply ingrained for them to just merely give up their practices of implementing suppressive methods over its African American population. The records of history show that the reincarnation of suppressive methods into forms more acceptable to the changing times is a common practice of the United States government. As seen after the abolishment of slavery wherein its methods of using racist, oppressive treatment of its Black population was reincarnated into Jim Crow inequalities that included many devious strategies and methods that prevented Blacks from becoming registered voters. And let us not forget the horrific Tuskegee experiments in which from1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted dangerous syphilis experiments on four hundred Black men. These men were deliberately left to degenerate painfully under the ravishes of the disease - with symptoms including blindness, tumors, paralysis, insanity and death - to allow the U.S. Government to collect the needed data from their autopsies. And let us also not forget the CIA's involvement in flooding the Black communities of Los Angeles with drugs and high powered weaponry and then disseminated these drugs and weaponry to many African American communities throughout the United States destroying the lives of millions of African Americans while stimulating the economy through the prison industry. The historic and demonstrative evidence overwhelmingly reflects the reality that the U.S. government does manifest a proclivity for reinventing devious methods to suppress its Black population. This proclivity has led to the U.S. Government using its proven method of mass psychological manipulation to control the advancement and growth of its Black population. It was the next logical choice because the evils of racism thrive best when its victims no longer recognize the evil. "When the truth comes along and you know in your bones that it's the truth yet you still refuse to accept and defend it you then really begin to die." ? 2006, 2008 * * * * * This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Wed Nov 19 23:00:54 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed Nov 19 23:01:04 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Crisis? What Crisis? - Dave Fryett Message-ID: <20081120050057.E87EB12F94@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081120/12e471f4/attachment.html From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 20 00:45:42 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 20 00:45:54 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] THEY weren't who the $700bn was for Message-ID: <20081120064542.D49E0138AB@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business/economy/19bailout.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/111908B Edmund L. Andrews, The New York Times: "The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., on Tuesday rejected pleas to use money from the $700 billion bailout program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure or to stave off bankruptcy by Detroit's Big Three automakers." Dion Giles Western Australia From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Thu Nov 20 01:36:06 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Thu Nov 20 01:12:42 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Crisis? What Crisis? - Dave Fryett In-Reply-To: <20081120050057.E87EB12F94@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081120050057.E87EB12F94@fep07.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <49251366.8050901@spiritone.com> this fits my thinking they will let GM go belly up to break the UAW after that there will be little union opposition Dion Giles wrote: > At http://www.countercurrents.org/fryett191108.htm > writer Dave > Fryett argues - /citing detailed chapter and verse /- that the > greedies are not in crisis and not heading down the gurgler: > > "We are not watching their demise unfold but rather their latest > subterfuge to move an ever greater percentage of wealth up the food > chain into their coffers. > > "The goals are to capture other lucrative businesses, reduce > government and its ability to constrain its hegemony over capital, and > to reduce union membership by creating such dire economic > circumstances as to make unions powerless to save their members from > hardship" > > ====================================== > Meanwhile in Australia last night, Reserve Bank chairman Glenn Stevens > called on governments to resist public demands to apply regulations to > curb Mr Greed's depredations. > > He told an audience of business cronies in Melbourne that "the cycle > of greed and fear cannot be regulated away" and any reforms must be > approached "realistically". (Hmm). > > "The genius of the market economic system is that so much of the risk > that is prudently taken, much of the time, turns out to reward the > risk-taker, and indeed all of us, with the profitable deployment of > capital, jobs, more choice, higher productivity and better living > standards," Mr Stevens said. > > His full speech including his pitch for allowing unbridled greed to > rule the economic system is at > http://www.rba.gov.au/Speeches/2008/sp_gov_191108.html . > > Politicians, grabber (aka "business") organisations, public service > mandarins - they're all in it together. > > Dion Giles > Western Australia > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > From siamdave at yahoo.ca Thu Nov 20 10:28:35 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Thu Nov 20 10:28:44 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Freud, Bernays and manipulation of the masses. In-Reply-To: <02a501c94abf$ddb2c7a0$3aad57ca@jfos> References: <02a501c94abf$ddb2c7a0$3aad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <200811202328350265.02FC3861@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> The problem with this is that it is extremely boxy, short-sighted and shallow in many ways. The English could have used some editing too - that is not elitism talking, it is just saying that the English language is a serious tool, and it should be used with some precision. But the basic concept, that the major problem in the world is that whites oppress blacks, is a very blinkered view of things. Certainly it happens, but it has less to do with a white elite suppressing blacks, than a few mid-level rednecks of low intellect doing the racist things. The elite oppress everyone more or less equally, and until people start to understand that, we're never going to change everything. I would suspect that if an elite manager had the power to publish or reject a piece like this, he'd give it the green light - as long as we are fighting amongst ourselves in the cheap seats, they are safe for another day. Or many. And many white people are good people who fight racism and for equality for all, so you shouldn't paint them with this kind of brush - it's not the mark of a clever person to insult those who would be friends. And equally many black people are not anyone you'd want to trust your car with. You just can't judge people based on skin color - and those who insist on trying to do this are adding to the problem, not helping it. And more, but other things call. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-20 at 2:26 PM john foster wrote: >Extract > >" The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and >opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. >Those >who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible >government which is the true ruling power of our country.(snip) > >The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Bernays' >work >and his method of mass psychological manipulation is also still currently >used by the United States government. The U.S. Government has an extensive >history of conducting planned campaigns of extensive strategic >psychological >operations ... through the national media to influence and direct the >perception and climate of the nation towards its governmental objectives. > >... the evils of racism thrive best when its victims no longer recognize >the >evil." > > >Tuesday, October 28, 2008 >THE BLACK MATRIX: > >The Modern Mental and Social Suppression of African Americans >by Franklin G. Jones > >The present despairing state of Black America is neither a baffling >phenomenon, nor the result of some innate racial deficiency among Blacks, >but rather the result of the White elite's innate proclivity for always >reinventing devious methods of suppressing its Black population-- as a >means >of maintaining its white dominance and control. The architect of the >modern >method of suppression now used against Black America was the late Dr. >Edward >Bernays. Dr. Edward Bernay's was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and one of the >most skillful experts in mass manipulation. He invented the modern day >Madison Avenue advertising Agencies by using his Uncle Sigmund's knowledge >of the human psyche to make people feel they needed whatever product was >being advertised. > >Edward Bernays also invented the public relations profession in the 1920s >and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. >Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of >mass-consumer persuasion. He showed American corporations how they could >make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking >mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires. His most notorious feat >was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes >were a symbol of independence and freedom. You've Come a Long Way Baby! > >Bernays was convinced that this mass method of manipulation was more than >just a way of selling consumer goods. For him it was a new political idea >of >how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that >his uncle, Sigmund Freud, had identified, people could be made happy, >docile, angry, self hating or even confused. During World War I, Bernays >and >journalist Walter Lippman were hired by then United States President, >Woodrow Wilson, to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of >which >was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war, on the side of >Britain. The war propaganda campaign of Bernays and Lippman produced such >an >intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress America's >governmental elites with the potential of large-scale propaganda to >control >public opinion. > >Edward Bernays advised US presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Eisenhower and >served numerous corporations and business associations. This was the start >of the mass media and governmental psychological manipulation programs >which >has come to covertly dominate today's world. One of Bernays biggest fans >was >Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, a fact about which Bernays >bragged proudly. A common pattern used repeatedly by Bernays was to turn a >harmless entity into a fearsome enemy through lies and manufactured news >items. Then use the "threat" to justify attacking the entity. > >Edward Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering consent", >important concepts in practical propaganda work. Bernays said in his 1928 >book Propaganda, that; "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the >organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in >democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society >constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our >country. He further states that; "If we understand the mechanism and >motives >of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses >according to our will without them knowing it" > >The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Bernays' >work >and his method of mass psychological manipulation is also still currently >used by the United States government. The U.S. Government has an extensive >history of conducting planned campaigns of extensive strategic >psychological >operations [based upon the works of Benays] through the national media to >influence and direct the perception and climate of the nation towards its >governmental objectives. > >Given that the nineteen sixties were a period of massive black rebellion >and >unrest that eroded the American global image and increasingly placed the >nation's peace and stability in dire jeopardy and perhaps most >particularly >because the nations top sociologist and psychologist knew that those who >make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution >inevitable. >This quite logically necessitated that the U.S. Government employ these >same >proven methods of mass psychological manipulation against its entire >African >American population. The U.S. Government now secretly deliberately >disseminates false deplorably racially devaluing statistics and propaganda >about its Black population that are deliberately designed to adversely >manipulate and shape the minds and collective consciousness of its African >American population -- corrupting African American's sense of unity, >cohesion, and reason -- and fostering a consensual national environment of >wherein which its Black population is more easily divided, exploited and >ultimately suppressed. > >When most people hear the term of psychological manipulation they usually >think in terms of the classic "conspiracy theory" that refers to overt >mind >control such as mind altering drugs with carefully hypnotic programming. >However, the real and true dangers are Bernays' well proven methods of >affecting the unconscious mind by using deception, and psychological >manipulation. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that >involves a set of basic social-psychological principles. The constant >relentless bombardment with deplorably negative images of themselves that >African Americans are so inundated with, through a white controlled media, >is a very carefully and deliberately designed psychological conditioning >program. Its unrelenting daily assault on the Black psyche is designed to >corrupt African Americans' sense of racial unity and cohesion, mold the >character of self-hatred, engender self-doubt, self-loathing, and distrust >among their group, while insinuating that Blacks admire, respect, and >trust >only Whites. > >This method of psychological manipulation works by affecting the >unconscious >mind through deception. It uses the psychology of deceit to adversely >affect >the recipient group in terms of their behavior. Here is a simplified >example >of how this is being implemented against African Americans. Let us, for >example, imagine that a crew of people was aboard their own massive ship >and >that this ship was being shadowed by another neighboring ship that was >constantly broadcasting derogatory messages to the first group. Such >messages as that their ship was lesser, smaller, not seaworthy, perhaps >slowly sinking or that their crew was incompetent and was planning a >mutiny. >With time, the group receiving the negative messages, being unable to >refute >or to confirm these derogatory messages and deficiencies will grow weary >and >paranoid of the negative messages and will eventually comes to accept >these >negative assessments of themselves. The perception created by the taunting >now unconsciously influences how the taunted group perceive themselves, >subsequently causing them to become distrustful of themselves, doubting >themselves, hating themselves and, eventually, fighting among themselves. >The taunted group may even become so besieged by deep feelings of >inadequacy >that they may even jump into the sea and attempt to swim towards the >taunting ship now believing it to be superior to their own ship, even if >their own ship was in fact better. > >The basis of this concept of mind manipulation is that the human being's >most critical aspect is the mind and it works by affecting the mind >through >deception. Within a real life setting this mortifying psychosocial >treatment >is precisely what is being deliberately done to African Americans through >corporate owned and governmentally controlled media outlets that >deliberately subjected them to seeing only the fraudulently worst in >themselves. This is done through an immense campaign of false derogatory >misinformation and false negative media reports and statistics that are >created by U.S. governmental agencies and then leaked to its collaborators >in the news media, which either knowingly or unknowingly carry the stories >as their own. > >These false information about African Americans are then disseminated >unrelentingly everywhere; it is deliberately perpetuated through news >releases in magazine articles, radio, television, press releases, >documentaries, and false census reports perpetuating and framing the myth >of >Whites' racial, moral, and ethical superiority over its Black population. >However, the weapon is not in how the message is carried, but is instead >within the messages that it carries and how these messages detrimentally >affects the Black population at large. > >The overrepresentation of Black crimes and grossly exaggerated statistics >of >Black on Black violence within this psychosocial program are intentionally >designed to create fear, hatred, and distrust, thus molding the character >of >disunity and self-hatred among the Black community. [Black's own personal >negative experiences and interactions with their fellow Blacks then merely >confirm the program's perpetuated message - that it is they who are their >own worst enemies]. > >The ultimately goal of this governmental psychosocial treatment of African >Americans is to destroy the Black unity and cohesion that was historically >the cornerstone of civil rights gains and that was a crucial factor of the >survival of African Americans through more than four hundred years of >racial >oppression. [Logic dictates that given that unity and cohesion among >African >Americans was responsible for the demise of White America's past system of >blatant, institutionalized racism, then destroying this unity would be an >essential objective of this psychological manipulation program.] > >All African Americans have experienced the burden of this system of >applied >psychological conditioning, some more severely than others have. It is >experienced every time we [Blacks] read a newspaper, watch the evening >news, >listen to a radio report, enter a classroom and read its racially biased >textbooks. To the detriment of many African Americans, it has been an >extremely effective. It has successfully conditioned many African >Americans >to accept the dominance of Whites and white institutions over their lives >by >misleading them to believe that they are, themselves, their own worst >enemies, therefore engendering an aberration of internalized self contempt >that pulverizes Black unity and halts Black upward mobility. It is at the >root of both the profound division and self hatred now afflicting so many >Black Americans and is at the heart of internalized feelings of >superiority >that many whites possess. And while many African Americans have >successfully >navigated through this psychologically mortifying minefield and have gone >on >to lead successful, productive lives, for far too many this immense >devaluation can seem inescapable and tragically, over time, many begin to >accept subconsciously and painfully the negative portrayals of themselves. >Many also become discouraged by the acceptance that their society is also >preconditioned to see the worst in them and that, therefore, if they were >ever to gain acceptance, if it is to be won at all, that success would be >hard won. This in turn manifests negative internalized psychological pain >and distress within many African Americans that can take many forms. In >fact, this governmental mortifying psychosocial treatment of African >Americans may be the most aggravating, if not core, factor of the national >phenomenon of self hatred; loss of educational aspirations; loss of unity, >cohesion and racial pride; and fragile psyches of many African Americans >today. It is in fact so fundamentally detrimental to the Black human >condition and psyche that it may even affect the extent to which many >African Americans realize their full human potential. > >This type of psychological manipulation program has also been proven very >effective in rapidly destroying a group's ethical and moral values and >engendering negative cultural norms with regard to violence, brutality, >and >even murder. All people, to some degree, are products of cultural >conditions >and their worldviews operate outside of their level of consciousness. >Therefore, no group can be preconditioned to see only the worst in >themselves and not exhibit some degree of negative psychological impact. >Not >only does this massive governmental psychological manipulation campaign >negatively impacts Blacks self perceptions, but it also provides a more >socially acceptable way to assure that the masses of African Americans >remains the most racially devalued and most economical exploited and >suppressed group in America. > >The media's constant, fraudulently inaccurate, negative imagery of Black >Americans is designed also to create a shift of victimization that changes >the root problem of racism in America to be due to Black's behavior rather >than White's proclivity for racism. Therefore insinuates that America >would >be a better society as a whole if African Americans were gone, thus >engendering increasingly prejudiced distorted perceptions and acrimonious >beliefs about African Americans that are designed to make the nation and >the >entire world insensitive to their plight, tranquilizes efforts on their >behalf, lessens pressure for social change on their behalf, and makes any >serious criticism of White racism almost impossible today. Therefore >fostering a national setting wherein which Blacks are more easily >exploited >and ultimately consensually suppressed. > >Moreover, some studies have shown that this shift of victimization now >reflects increasingly acrimonious beliefs and prejudiced perceptions about >and against African Americans that are arguably stronger today than they >were after emancipation. This campaign also attempts to discourage >miscegenation between Blacks and whites, and creates a false justification >for the legal system's mistreatment of African Americans, wherein they are >disproportionately incarcerated, given stiffer sentences, and are more >likely than other racial groups to be treated brutally, beaten, and fired >upon by police officers while they are unarmed. These injustices now go >ignored because the perception has subconsciously become that it's all now >justified. When contempt of Blacks is made to appear to be justifiable, it >is the fiercest and most effective type of racism because its witnesses, >bystanders, and even world audiences will sit by idly allowing African >Americans to be brutally mistreated under the belief that it is justified. > >This is what Dr. Edward Bernays referred to as "engineering consent". This >governmental psychological conditioning program stripped African Americans >of the national and international support that was acquired during the >1960's civil rights struggles. It also today affects attitudes that when >enacted through governmental policies, laws, and other legislation >actions, >serve to ensure that African Americans will not advance. Its effects are >manifested in ideas, education, governmental policies, economic >stratification, social segregation, housing markets, hiring and promotion >practices, psychological issues, and minority access to a variety of >social >services and opportunity. In order for we African Americans to overcome >the >profound feelings of hopelessness, confusion, and self hatred that still >overwhelmingly plagues millions within our communities, we must synergized >our energies and efforts towards countering the effects of the United >State's >ongoing governmental mass media psychosocial treatment of us that is >deliberately designed to render such disunity and confusion among our race >as a means of ensuring that its white dominance and control is maintained. > >The objective of the United States government has always been to maintain >its White dominance and control over its Black population, and clearly, >psychological warfare meets this need. It was the logical choice because >it >covertly provided the U.S. Government with a far more sophisticated, >proficient, and socially accepted means of covertly controlling and >suppressing its Black population. Through this method the U.S. Government >is >able to both influence the national climate and engender personal >psychological feelings among its Black population that meet its objectives >of maintaining its white dominance. Furthermore, history overwhelmingly >demonstrates that the White race's innate proclivity for racism, control, >and dominance is much too deeply ingrained for them to just merely give up >their practices of implementing suppressive methods over its African >American population. > >The records of history show that the reincarnation of suppressive methods >into forms more acceptable to the changing times is a common practice of >the >United States government. As seen after the abolishment of slavery wherein >its methods of using racist, oppressive treatment of its Black population >was reincarnated into Jim Crow inequalities that included many devious >strategies and methods that prevented Blacks from becoming registered >voters. And let us not forget the horrific Tuskegee experiments in which >from1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted >dangerous >syphilis experiments on four hundred Black men. These men were >deliberately >left to degenerate painfully under the ravishes of the disease - with >symptoms including blindness, tumors, paralysis, insanity and death - to >allow the U.S. Government to collect the needed data from their autopsies. >And let us also not forget the CIA's involvement in flooding the Black >communities of Los Angeles with drugs and high powered weaponry and then >disseminated these drugs and weaponry to many African American communities >throughout the United States destroying the lives of millions of African >Americans while stimulating the economy through the prison industry. > >The historic and demonstrative evidence overwhelmingly reflects the >reality >that the U.S. government does manifest a proclivity for reinventing >devious >methods to suppress its Black population. This proclivity has led to the >U.S. Government using its proven method of mass psychological manipulation >to control the advancement and growth of its Black population. It was the >next logical choice because the evils of racism thrive best when its >victims >no longer recognize the evil. "When the truth comes along and you know in >your bones that it's the truth yet you still refuse to accept and defend >it >you then really begin to die." > >© 2006, 2008 > * * * * * > >This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from >http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Provided by Australis >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Provided by Australis >http://www.australis.com.au/ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.8/1800 - Release Date: 19/11/2551 18:55 From creuss at bluewin.ch Thu Nov 20 12:56:23 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Thu Nov 20 12:58:21 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Freud, Bernays and manipulation of the masses. Message-ID: > the White elite's innate proclivity for always > reinventing devious methods of suppressing its Black population-- as a means > of maintaining its white dominance and control. The architect of the modern > method of suppression now used against Black America was the late Dr. Edward > Bernays. Dr. Edward Bernay's was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and one of the > most skillful experts in mass manipulation. Actually, the zionist elite (of which Bernay and Freud were part) has an innate proclivity for reinventing devious methods of playing out blacks against whites and vice-versa, while being "war profiteers" of the clash (like of the "clash of civilizations" in the WoT) -- and being the worst racists themselves! And they always find black & white (sic) fools who fall for the silly game. Think of the "Valiant Little Tailor" fairy tale... ("By throwing rocks at the two giants while they sleep, the tailor provokes the two giants into fighting each other.") Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Thu Nov 20 13:18:03 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Thu Nov 20 13:20:03 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Why has piracy exploded off the coast of Somalia? Message-ID: The Independent ignores that piracy was an early form of today's "war on terror" scheme, wherein the British Crown hired pirates in order to make the seas unsafe so the British Crown could act as a "protecting power". I.e. the British empire used piracy as a pretext for global imperialist expansion just like the U$ empire now uses "terrorism" (of al-Qaeda which the U$ had built up & funded against the Soviets in Afghanistan). According to the "Atlas of Piracy" (Prima Editions, England 1999), as many as _98%_ of the world's sea pirates in the early 18th century came from Britain and two of its colonies, 53% from Scotland and surroundings. Today, these pirates off Somalia are being used for WoT expansion, even by the German and French navy! Chris http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-why-has-pira cy-exploded-off-the-coast-of-somalia-and-how-can-it-be-stopped-1024520.html The Big Question: Why has piracy exploded off the coast of Somalia, and how can it be stopped? By Archie Bland Wednesday, 19 November 2008 Why are we asking this now? Hijackings off the coast of Somalia this year have posed a grave threat to the lives of sailors taking cargo ships through the region ? and captured the attention of the world's exporters by vastly increasing the costs of global trade. An already dramatic problem had its profile raised still further this week by the most audacious attack yet: the seizure of the Saudi supertanker Sirius Star and her ?100m oil cargo. Yesterday, that was followed by the capture of The Delight, a grain ship with a crew of 25 which was seized off the coast of Yemen. Another vessel registered in Kiribati, with a 12-strong crew, was also attacked yesterday morning. Is it a new problem in modern times? No. Piracy has been a thorn in the side of exporters for years. But in the past, the problem has mostly been confined to Malaysia. The recent increase in incidents near Somalia is a dramatic change from that pattern. Previously, the existence of pirates was a side-effect of Somali fishermen taking to the seas with weapons as a means of defending their tuna-rich waters and extracting a kind of informal tax from commercial fleets that came from around the world to exploit the otherwise defenceless region. But the fishermen began to realise there could be greater profits to be made than simply retaining their fish stocks. In 2004, fewer than ten attacks were reported in the region. In 2007, there were about 25 and this year there have been 95. With 16,000 ships heading through the Gulf of Aden every year, and pirates having a virtual stranglehold on the thin channel that constitutes its northern entrance, there is plenty of scope for things to get worse. Isn't piracy rather romantic? Perhaps in the popular imagination, where fictional figures from Captain Pugwash to Jack Sparrow have always stood for an unwillingness to bow to authority, and a bracing life of freedom on the high seas. In reality, piracy has never been a very noble pursuit. In the days of the Romans, Phoenician pirates sold captives as slaves; in the first century BC, Cicilian pirates from what is now western Turkey routinely killed sailors they attacked and tried to starve Rome by cutting off food supplies. During the golden age of piracy in the Caribbean, from 1660 to 1720, even Captain Henry Morgan ? who died a member of the establishment and gave his name to a brand of rum ? burned Panama to the ground, killing or making homeless all of the city's residents. So why has the situation changed? The biggest reason is the collapse of law and order in Somalia. As recently as 2006, the strict rule of the Islamic Courts Union made most people too scared to join pirate gangs. The demise of that government left a vacuum in which the pirates can do more or less as they please, and easily get hold of the guns and rocket-propelled grenades they need to board cargo ships. As poor Somalis have seen, those willing to take to the high seas rake in massive profits from ransoms at little apparent risk. The temptation to join them and escape lives of poverty has increased. What government remains in Somalia is unwilling or unable to take any kind of stand. Indeed, it may even be profiting from the buccaneering enterprise of its citizens. One jailed pirate, Farah Ismail Eid, said recently that up to 30 per cent of most hijackers' profits went to government officials. "Believe me, a lot of our money has gone straight into their pockets," he added. Why is the attack on the Sirius Star so important? It suggests a new daring among the pirates. Roger Middleton, a consultant researcher at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, wrote in a briefing paper last month: "At present it seems that scaling the high sides of large oil tankers is beyond their capabilities." But the Sirius Star was a large oil tanker with high sides. "This is absolutely a new development, and a very disturbing new development," Mr Middleton said yesterday. "We would have assumed that vessels like this were pretty safe, but apparently that is no longer the case. They are getting bolder ? it's as simple as that." The other remarkable feature of the attack on the Sirius Star is that the ship was a good 450 miles southeast of the coast of Kenya ? at least twice as far from shore as pirates in the region have ever struck before. Experts say the pirates have taken to using "mother ships" from which they launch smaller boats to attack their targets, and that the practice has drastically increased the range and flexibility of the hijackers. Why has it seemed so risk-free to the pirates? For years, shipping companies have calculated that it is worth the expense of paying ransoms to secure their cargoes, and very few of their ships have been well-defended. And in comparison to the hulking super-tankers they take on, the skiffs from which pirates board are nimble and elusive. In most instances, there is at most a 15- minute gap between first sighting of the attackers and being boarded ? not long enough for nearby naval vessels to get close before the pirates have hostages. With typical ransoms of between ?170,000 and ?840,000, it is hardly surprising that so many are tempted. What consequences do the attacks have? Sailors aboard targeted vessels face the prospect of weeks in captivity and even death ? although relatively few have been killed. In general the pirates are said to keep captives in reasonable conditions. The insurance premiums paid by shipping companies have soared since the attacks began in earnest, and anyone sending freight around the east coast of Africa now has to pay about ten times what they did last year. That has an inevitable knock-on effect for consumers, with prices bound to rise at the Western destinations of so many cargo ships. Shipping companies might even begin to send their vessels on longer journeys around Africa's west coast, and if that happens the economic consequences here could be considerable. There are questions, too, about the ultimate destination of much of the pirates' loot: there are reports linking the funds to the militia group Al-Shabaab, which is on the US government's list of terrorist organisations. And if piracy benefits government officials, it is hard to see how responsible government can return to Somalia soon. So what can be done to stop the pirates? Efforts have already been made to organise a "safe lane" in which ships are better protected, although the continued attacks suggest this has been unsuccessful. Western governments have ramped up their military presence in the region, with an outgoing Nato fleet due to be replaced soon with a much larger EU force. The security contractor Blackwater, fresh from Iraq, has also announced it will be sending forces to the region. The shipping companies themselves have been urged to increase the armed presence on their ships. In the end, though, only a stronger Somali government can put an end the problem. Until then, the pirates seem likely to continue undaunted, infused with something of the buccaneering spirit of their predecessors. "We are not afraid," said the pirate leader, Sugule Ali, after boarding the weapons freighter Faina in September. "We know you only die once." Can military contractors stop the pirate attacks? Yes... * Crews have only non-lethal weapons such as sonic cannons, which are little threat to armed pirates * Naval vessels are too cumbersome to respond to a pirate attack with the necessary speed * There simply aren't enough navy ships there to cover the amount of cargo going through the Gulf of Aden No... * Pirates will not be afraid to use their weapons if they see that their opponents have lethal force * Private contractors do not have the same kind of legal authority as national armed forces * If there aren't enough military vessels, the answer is to provide more ? not fill the gap with mercenaries ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Thu Nov 20 17:27:56 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu Nov 20 17:47:57 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Lebowitz; Malaysian socialists; Obama X 4; population debate; China; Venezuela; Miriam Makeba; Congo Message-ID: <4925F27C.7000406@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links@dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links./*/ / * * * Michael Lebowitz: `Reach for the book: it is a weapon' By Michael A. Lebowitz [Presentation at the launch of El Camino al Desarrollo Humano: ?Capitalismo o Socialismo? (The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?) at the Venezuelan International Book Fair, Filven, in Caracas on November 8, 2008. The English version of the pamphlet will be published in a forthcoming edition of Monthly Review.] * Read more Socialist Party of Malaysia: Building socialism while capitalism crumbles By Choo Chon Kai, International Bureau, PSM November 13, 2008 -- Kajang, Malaysia -- It was timely for the Socialist Party of Malaysia (Parti Sosialis Malaysia -- PSM) to host the ``Socialism 2008 -- Malaysia'' conference, when the world is caught in a deep crisis that is considered the worst since World War II. The conference showed that capitalism, during its 18-year term as the dominant ideology of the world, had wreaked havoc on the lives of people and the planet, and that there was an urgent need to put forward a socialist alternative. * Read more Is the climate crisis caused by overpopulation? By Simon Butler November 12, 2008 -- Many environmentalists believe that environmental destruction is a product of "overpopulation", and that the world is already "full up". So are population reduction strategies essential to solving the climate crisis? At best, population control schemes focus on treating a symptom of an irrational, polluting social and economic system rather than the causes. In China, for instance, such measures haven't solved that country's environmental problems. At worst, populationist theories shift the blame for climate change onto the poorest and most vulnerable people in the Third World. They do not address the reasons why environmental damage, or even instances of overpopulation, happen in the first place and they divert attention away from the main challenge facing the climate movement -- the urgent need to construct a new economy based on environmentally sustainable technologies and the rising of living standards globally. For at least 200 years, "overpopulation" has been used to explain a host of social problems such as poverty, famine, unemployment and -- more recently -- environmental destruction. * Read more CPI (ML) Liberation on `Obamania' By CPI (ML) Liberation November 11, 2008 --The emphatic victory of Barack Obama in the US presidential election has generated a great deal of interest and enthusiasm, a veritable ``Obamania'', across the world. There are indeed several special aspects to this remarkable victory. That he is the first black person to be elected to the highest political office in the US; that his campaign emphasised ``hope'' and ``change'' at a time when the US is passing through an extremely gloomy period in its history, and, above all, that his arrival marks the much-awaited end of the hated Bush presidency, and a decisive popular rejection of its hallmarks, have all added up to make this probably the most memorable election in recent US history. For political observers watching this election from afar, the most encouraging aspect perhaps has been the passionate popular participation that made this election an energised extension of not only the fight against racism but also the wider anti-globalisation, anti-war campaign. * Read more China and the global capitalist economic meltdown By Peter Boyle As the US, Japan and Europe slide into recession, the leaders of many smaller countries are desperately hoping that continued strong growth in the Chinese economy, which has contributed about 15 per cent of world economic growth in recent years, might save them from this meltdown.There's hope and then there's hard facts. Recently the latter has replaced those desperate hopes with terror. A measure of this was the November 4 decision of Australia's Reserve Bank to make a bigger than expected interest rate cut. Any temptation by holders of large mortgages and other debts in Australia to reach for the champagne was killed by the realisation that this decision, in the words of one business correspondent, "was a recognition by Australia's top policymakers that the Chinese economy is no longer providing a firewall to insulate the Australian economy from the international crisis". * Read more A crucial test for Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution From the November issue of Am?rica XXI, translated by Federico Fuentes for Green Left Weekly, where it appeared first in English. * * * November 10, 2008 -- While on the surface it may appear to be a simple electoral battle, something much different is at stake on November 23. On that day, Venezuelans will go to the polls to elect 22 governors, 328 mayors, 233 legislators to the state legislative councils, and 13 councillors to district committees -- including indigenous representation -- making a total of 603 positions. Once again, the intricate process of the Bolivarian Revolution will put its strengths and weaknesses in play in the form of an electoral contest. * Read more Can Africa survive Obama's advisers? By Patrick Bond November 12, 2008 -- One of Barack Obama's leading advisers has done more damage to Africa, its economies and its people than anyone I can think of in world history, including even Cecil John Rhodes. That charge may surprise readers, but hear me out. * Read more Obama and the clash of hopes By Peter Boyle November 12, 2008 -- There can be no doubt that the great majority of the 55 million US citizens whose votes made Barack Obama president want change. They want a change from the system in which trillions of dollars are spent to bail out Wall Street while ordinary people on "Main Street" lose their homes, their jobs and can't even get basic health care. They want an end to the endless wars abroad that George W. Bush launched in the wake of 9/11 -- wars that are returning thousands of young Americans home in body bags and many times more seriously wounded. They want the US to be welcomed by the rest of the world as a peacemaker rather than hated as the biggest war-maker. So around the world, everyone with a shred humanity cheered on that wave of hope for change that gave the US its first black president on November 4. * Read more Barack Obama's dual mandate By Solidarity (US) November 10, 2008 -- Millions of Americans see the election of Barack Obama as a referendum on white supremacy and today we join in their celebration. The racist campaigns launched against Obama, conducted sometimes in coded language and other times in inflammatory accusations, turned out to be amazingly unsuccessful. Yet the 2008 election also represents a dual reality that is important for socialists and activists for peace and social justice to grasp. For tens of millions of Black Americans, seeing a United States president-elect who's Black - and even more important, for their children to see a Black president - is a huge symbolic stride towards full citizenship and liberation. Perhaps no event since that legendary night in 1938, when Joe Louis knocked out Max Schmeling, has there been such a magic moment of celebration for the Black community; only in this case they weren't simply spectators but participants in the victory. * Read more Hamba kahle Mama Africa (Miriam Makeba) * Read more Congo: Western intervention behind bloodbath November 7, 2008 -- Despite Western media and politicians having largely ignored a decade of genocidal warfare that has cost 6 million lives, the recent upsurge in fighting in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has drawn not only media attention, but visits to the region by the British and French foreign ministers and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. The current round of fighting in North Kivu province, which began on October 26 with an offensive by the Rwandan-backed rebel forces of General Laurent Nkunda, is indeed a humanitarian catastrophe -- 200,000 people have been displaced, many not for the first time. * Read more Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081121/767ac7a4/attachment.html From duanebehrens at cox.net Thu Nov 20 20:08:50 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Thu Nov 20 20:08:50 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Tire Shelf Life Message-ID: <20081120210850.OTDVD.426923.imail@fed1rmwml30> This 60-Minutes segment discusses the dangers of aged tires being sold as new, and tells you how to interpret the code on the inner sidewall to see if YOUR tires are more than 6 years old. Six years - the age at which British retailers must destroy their stock. American retailers are under no such requirement. Some tires being sold as "new" were manufactured more than 12 years ago! The result - catastrophic tread separation, loss of control . . . death. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4826897 -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 20 20:41:36 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 20 20:41:44 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped Message-ID: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> If the Obama team is genuine in at least one part of its promise to deliver change, and really follows through, a huge hole is likely to be made in Mr Greed's main engine of attack on working conditions and national sovereignty - the trade-driven race to the bottom. The network of international trade deals between states needs to be felled with a silver bullet and a stake driven through its heart, and maybe America will be the country to take a lead in the necessary demolition. It should not be forgotten that many of these trade treaties - unlike the stillborn and unlamented MAI - have provisions within them to withdraw on relatively short notice, making repudiation unnecessary. NAFTA has such provisions, for one. Dion Giles Western Australia ============ Obama to usher in major shift in trade policy By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUy2QNCPnj1yjLw1mdqbzBfbITQD94HSKA00 Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112008LA Washington - The election of Barack Obama has delivered a decisive victory to "fair traders," mainly Democrats and their allies who for years have contended that the free-trade policies of past administrations were recipes for American job losses and environmental degradation. Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history "that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a report. On the other side, Dan Griswold, director of the center for trade policies at the pro-trade Cato Institute, was equally stark in his assessment: "We are going to see the U.S. retreat from its long-standing leadership in the global economy." Obama has taken a generally mainstream Democratic position on trade. He supports expanding trade but says trade agreements must support U.S. manufacturing jobs and include enforceable labor and environmental standards. He has promised a tougher stance against China, telling the National Council of Textile Organizations, "I will use all diplomatic means at my disposal" to induce China to change its foreign exchange and export policies, which have led to huge trade imbalances. During the primary season, Obama and other Democratic hopefuls called for a renegotiation of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, although that was less of an issue in the general campaign. The Global Trade Watch report said the election produced a net gain of 32 congressional fair traders - five in the Senate and 27 in the House. With that, said the organization's director Lori Wallach, "we suspect a shrinking number of members of Congress will dare to pledge fair trade at home and vote for NAFTA expansions in D.C." Among two Republican incumbents ousted by Democrats campaigning on fair trade issues were Phil English of Pennsylvania and Robin Hayes of North Carolina, lawmakers who cast decisive votes in 2005 when the House passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement by a two-vote margin. "Free trade has been devastating to our district," said Democratic Rep.-elect Larry Kissell, a former textile worker who defeated Hayes. "We have called for a free trade moratorium until we see good jobs coming back to this district," he said in a teleconference arranged by Global Trade Watch. A moratorium could effectively sideline three bilateral free trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, that have been negotiated but await congressional approval. The Bush administration has been particularly strong in advocating the Colombia accord, which it says would open up that country to U.S. exports while rewarding the Bogota government for its pro-U.S., pro-democracy policies. But suggestions that Congress vote on the Colombia deal, possibly as part of an economic stimulus package during a lame-duck session, have garnered little interest among Democrats who say the Colombian government hasn't done enough to curb violence against union organizers and members. Democrats and their labor advocates also say the South Korean accord doesn't adequately address the issue of South Korea selling some 770,000 vehicles in the United States in 2007 while buying only about 6,200 U.S. vehicles. Panama may be the only bilateral agreement with a chance because its products don't upset U.S. constituencies, Cato's Griswold said. "Obama has made it clear he understands the benefits of trade," Griswold said, "but he has made it even more clear he will not cross important constituencies in his party, such as organized labor." Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Democrats might be more willing to go along if it is an Obama trade agenda rather than a Bush trade agenda. That agenda would necessarily focus more on environmental and labor protections, but he said the business community already supports an agreement reached between the Bush administration and House Democrats in May 2007 requiring that environmental safeguards and worker rights be core parts of future trade deals. That agreement set the stage for congressional approval in late 2007 of a free trade accord with Peru. Congress previously gave grudging consent to Bush-negotiated trade agreements with Oman, Bahrain, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile and the six Latin American countries of CAFTA. But last year it also refused to extend "fast track" authority, which gives the president the right to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject but cannot amend. "If you look at history, we've had pro-trade presidents since FDR," the Chamber's Wenk said. "There's absolutely no reason why we should become inward and protectionist and isolationist right now." From siamdave at yahoo.ca Thu Nov 20 20:47:14 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Thu Nov 20 20:47:11 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Tire Shelf Life In-Reply-To: <20081120210850.OTDVD.426923.imail@fed1rmwml30> References: <20081120210850.OTDVD.426923.imail@fed1rmwml30> Message-ID: <200811210947140531.0045469E@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Sounds like some radical has gotten into the management of the tv station - imagine 'government' as the allegorical subject of 'tires'.... *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-20 at 6:08 PM Duane Behrens wrote: >This 60-Minutes segment discusses the dangers of aged tires being sold as >new, and tells you how to interpret the code on the inner sidewall to see >if YOUR tires are more than 6 years old. Six years - the age at which >British retailers must destroy their stock. American retailers are under >no such requirement. Some tires being sold as "new" were manufactured >more than 12 years ago! The result - catastrophic tread separation, loss >of control . . . death. > >http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4826897 > >-- >"They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards >think..." Hunter S. Thompson > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: 20/11/2551 19:28 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 20 21:01:42 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 20 21:01:52 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Freud, Bernays and manipulation of the masses. In-Reply-To: <200811202328350265.02FC3861@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <02a501c94abf$ddb2c7a0$3aad57ca@jfos> <200811202328350265.02FC3861@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <20081121030143.5899310910@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Well said Dave and Chris. How refreshing to see people in the general progressive culture debunking this corrosive "identity politics" based on accident of birth - an excrescence which has a strong hold throughout society including the politically progressive. Getting rid of identity politics is no impediment to continuing to oppose injustices which are also based on accident of birth, and to listening carefully to those at the receiving end of the injustices. The first weapon against identity politics is to get back to actual facts as Dave has done. Dion Giles Western Australia At 01:28 21/11/2008, Dave Patterson wrote: >The problem with this is that it is extremely >boxy, short-sighted and shallow in many ways. >The English could have used some editing too - >that is not elitism talking, it is just saying >that the English language is a serious tool, and >it should be used with some precision. But the >basic concept, that the major problem in the >world is that whites oppress blacks, is a very >blinkered view of things. Certainly it happens, >but it has less to do with a white elite >suppressing blacks, than a few mid-level >rednecks of low intellect doing the racist >things. The elite oppress everyone more or less >equally, and until people start to understand >that, we're never going to change everything. I >would suspect that if an elite manager had the >power to publish or reject a piece like this, >he'd give it the green light - as long as we are >fighting amongst ourselves in the cheap seats, >they are safe for another day. Or many. And many >white people are good people who fight racism >and for equality for all, so you shouldn't paint >them with this kind of brush - it's not the mark >of a clever person to insult those who would be >friends. And equally many black people are not >anyone you'd want to trust your car with. You >just can't judge people based on skin color - >and those who insist on trying to do this are >adding to the problem, not helping it. And more, but other things call. > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 08-11-20 at 2:26 PM john foster wrote: > > >Extract > > > >" The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and > >opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. > >Those > >who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible > >government which is the true ruling power of our country.(snip) > > > >The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Bernays' > >work > >and his method of mass psychological manipulation is also still currently > >used by the United States government. The U.S. Government has an extensive > >history of conducting planned campaigns of extensive strategic > >psychological > >operations ... through the national media to influence and direct the > >perception and climate of the nation towards its governmental objectives. > > > >... the evils of racism thrive best when its victims no longer recognize > >the > >evil." > > > > > >Tuesday, October 28, 2008 > >THE BLACK MATRIX: > > > >The Modern Mental and Social Suppression of African Americans > >by Franklin G. Jones > > > >The present despairing state of Black America is neither a baffling > >phenomenon, nor the result of some innate racial deficiency among Blacks, > >but rather the result of the White elite's innate proclivity for always > >reinventing devious methods of suppressing its Black population-- as a > >means > >of maintaining its white dominance and control. The architect of the > >modern > >method of suppression now used against Black America was the late Dr. > >Edward > >Bernays. Dr. Edward Bernay's was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and one of the > >most skillful experts in mass manipulation. He invented the modern day > >Madison Avenue advertising Agencies by using his Uncle Sigmund's knowledge > >of the human psyche to make people feel they needed whatever product was > >being advertised. > > > >Edward Bernays also invented the public relations profession in the 1920s > >and was the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. > >Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of > >mass-consumer persuasion. He showed American corporations how they could > >make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking > >mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires. His most notorious feat > >was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes > >were a symbol of independence and freedom. You've Come a Long Way Baby! > > > >Bernays was convinced that this mass method of manipulation was more than > >just a way of selling consumer goods. For him it was a new political idea > >of > >how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that > >his uncle, Sigmund Freud, had identified, people could be made happy, > >docile, angry, self hating or even confused. During World War I, Bernays > >and > >journalist Walter Lippman were hired by then United States President, > >Woodrow Wilson, to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of > >which > >was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war, on the side of > >Britain. The war propaganda campaign of Bernays and Lippman produced such > >an > >intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress America's > >governmental elites with the potential of large-scale propaganda to > >control > >public opinion. > > > >Edward Bernays advised US presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Eisenhower and > >served numerous corporations and business associations. This was the start > >of the mass media and governmental psychological manipulation programs > >which > >has come to covertly dominate today's world. One of Bernays biggest fans > >was > >Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, a fact about which Bernays > >bragged proudly. A common pattern used repeatedly by Bernays was to turn a > >harmless entity into a fearsome enemy through lies and manufactured news > >items. Then use the "threat" to justify attacking the entity. > > > >Edward Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering consent", > >important concepts in practical propaganda work. Bernays said in his 1928 > >book Propaganda, that; "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the > >organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in > >democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society > >constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our > >country. He further states that; "If we understand the mechanism and > >motives > >of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses > >according to our will without them knowing it" > > > >The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Bernays' > >work > >and his method of mass psychological manipulation is also still currently > >used by the United States government. The U.S. Government has an extensive > >history of conducting planned campaigns of extensive strategic > >psychological > >operations [based upon the works of Benays] through the national media to > >influence and direct the perception and climate of the nation towards its > >governmental objectives. > > > >Given that the nineteen sixties were a period of massive black rebellion > >and > >unrest that eroded the American global image and increasingly placed the > >nation's peace and stability in dire jeopardy and perhaps most > >particularly > >because the nations top sociologist and psychologist knew that those who > >make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution > >inevitable. > >This quite logically necessitated that the U.S. Government employ these > >same > >proven methods of mass psychological manipulation against its entire > >African > >American population. The U.S. Government now secretly deliberately > >disseminates false deplorably racially devaluing statistics and propaganda > >about its Black population that are deliberately designed to adversely > >manipulate and shape the minds and collective consciousness of its African > >American population -- corrupting African American's sense of unity, > >cohesion, and reason -- and fostering a consensual national environment of > >wherein which its Black population is more easily divided, exploited and > >ultimately suppressed. > > > >When most people hear the term of psychological manipulation they usually > >think in terms of the classic "conspiracy theory" that refers to overt > >mind > >control such as mind altering drugs with carefully hypnotic programming. > >However, the real and true dangers are Bernays' well proven methods of > >affecting the unconscious mind by using deception, and psychological > >manipulation. It is neither magical nor mystical, but a process that > >involves a set of basic social-psychological principles. The constant > >relentless bombardment with deplorably negative images of themselves that > >African Americans are so inundated with, through a white controlled media, > >is a very carefully and deliberately designed psychological conditioning > >program. Its unrelenting daily assault on the Black psyche is designed to > >corrupt African Americans' sense of racial unity and cohesion, mold the > >character of self-hatred, engender self-doubt, self-loathing, and distrust > >among their group, while insinuating that Blacks admire, respect, and > >trust > >only Whites. > > > >This method of psychological manipulation works by affecting the > >unconscious > >mind through deception. It uses the psychology of deceit to adversely > >affect > >the recipient group in terms of their behavior. Here is a simplified > >example > >of how this is being implemented against African Americans. Let us, for > >example, imagine that a crew of people was aboard their own massive ship > >and > >that this ship was being shadowed by another neighboring ship that was > >constantly broadcasting derogatory messages to the first group. Such > >messages as that their ship was lesser, smaller, not seaworthy, perhaps > >slowly sinking or that their crew was incompetent and was planning a > >mutiny. > >With time, the group receiving the negative messages, being unable to > >refute > >or to confirm these derogatory messages and deficiencies will grow weary > >and > >paranoid of the negative messages and will eventually comes to accept > >these > >negative assessments of themselves. The perception created by the taunting > >now unconsciously influences how the taunted group perceive themselves, > >subsequently causing them to become distrustful of themselves, doubting > >themselves, hating themselves and, eventually, fighting among themselves. > >The taunted group may even become so besieged by deep feelings of > >inadequacy > >that they may even jump into the sea and attempt to swim towards the > >taunting ship now believing it to be superior to their own ship, even if > >their own ship was in fact better. > > > >The basis of this concept of mind manipulation is that the human being's > >most critical aspect is the mind and it works by affecting the mind > >through > >deception. Within a real life setting this mortifying psychosocial > >treatment > >is precisely what is being deliberately done to African Americans through > >corporate owned and governmentally controlled media outlets that > >deliberately subjected them to seeing only the fraudulently worst in > >themselves. This is done through an immense campaign of false derogatory > >misinformation and false negative media reports and statistics that are > >created by U.S. governmental agencies and then leaked to its collaborators > >in the news media, which either knowingly or unknowingly carry the stories > >as their own. > > > >These false information about African Americans are then disseminated > >unrelentingly everywhere; it is deliberately perpetuated through news > >releases in magazine articles, radio, television, press releases, > >documentaries, and false census reports perpetuating and framing the myth > >of > >Whites' racial, moral, and ethical superiority over its Black population. > >However, the weapon is not in how the message is carried, but is instead > >within the messages that it carries and how these messages detrimentally > >affects the Black population at large. > > > >The overrepresentation of Black crimes and grossly exaggerated statistics > >of > >Black on Black violence within this psychosocial program are intentionally > >designed to create fear, hatred, and distrust, thus molding the character > >of > >disunity and self-hatred among the Black community. [Black's own personal > >negative experiences and interactions with their fellow Blacks then merely > >confirm the program's perpetuated message - that it is they who are their > >own worst enemies]. > > > >The ultimately goal of this governmental psychosocial treatment of African > >Americans is to destroy the Black unity and cohesion that was historically > >the cornerstone of civil rights gains and that was a crucial factor of the > >survival of African Americans through more than four hundred years of > >racial > >oppression. [Logic dictates that given that unity and cohesion among > >African > >Americans was responsible for the demise of White America's past system of > >blatant, institutionalized racism, then destroying this unity would be an > >essential objective of this psychological manipulation program.] > > > >All African Americans have experienced the burden of this system of > >applied > >psychological conditioning, some more severely than others have. It is > >experienced every time we [Blacks] read a newspaper, watch the evening > >news, > >listen to a radio report, enter a classroom and read its racially biased > >textbooks. To the detriment of many African Americans, it has been an > >extremely effective. It has successfully conditioned many African > >Americans > >to accept the dominance of Whites and white institutions over their lives > >by > >misleading them to believe that they are, themselves, their own worst > >enemies, therefore engendering an aberration of internalized self contempt > >that pulverizes Black unity and halts Black upward mobility. It is at the > >root of both the profound division and self hatred now afflicting so many > >Black Americans and is at the heart of internalized feelings of > >superiority > >that many whites possess. And while many African Americans have > >successfully > >navigated through this psychologically mortifying minefield and have gone > >on > >to lead successful, productive lives, for far too many this immense > >devaluation can seem inescapable and tragically, over time, many begin to > >accept subconsciously and painfully the negative portrayals of themselves. > >Many also become discouraged by the acceptance that their society is also > >preconditioned to see the worst in them and that, therefore, if they were > >ever to gain acceptance, if it is to be won at all, that success would be > >hard won. This in turn manifests negative internalized psychological pain > >and distress within many African Americans that can take many forms. In > >fact, this governmental mortifying psychosocial treatment of African > >Americans may be the most aggravating, if not core, factor of the national > >phenomenon of self hatred; loss of educational aspirations; loss of unity, > >cohesion and racial pride; and fragile psyches of many African Americans > >today. It is in fact so fundamentally detrimental to the Black human > >condition and psyche that it may even affect the extent to which many > >African Americans realize their full human potential. > > > >This type of psychological manipulation program has also been proven very > >effective in rapidly destroying a group's ethical and moral values and > >engendering negative cultural norms with regard to violence, brutality, > >and > >even murder. All people, to some degree, are products of cultural > >conditions > >and their worldviews operate outside of their level of consciousness. > >Therefore, no group can be preconditioned to see only the worst in > >themselves and not exhibit some degree of negative psychological impact. > >Not > >only does this massive governmental psychological manipulation campaign > >negatively impacts Blacks self perceptions, but it also provides a more > >socially acceptable way to assure that the masses of African Americans > >remains the most racially devalued and most economical exploited and > >suppressed group in America. > > > >The media's constant, fraudulently inaccurate, negative imagery of Black > >Americans is designed also to create a shift of victimization that changes > >the root problem of racism in America to be due to Black's behavior rather > >than White's proclivity for racism. Therefore insinuates that America > >would > >be a better society as a whole if African Americans were gone, thus > >engendering increasingly prejudiced distorted perceptions and acrimonious > >beliefs about African Americans that are designed to make the nation and > >the > >entire world insensitive to their plight, tranquilizes efforts on their > >behalf, lessens pressure for social change on their behalf, and makes any > >serious criticism of White racism almost impossible today. Therefore > >fostering a national setting wherein which Blacks are more easily > >exploited > >and ultimately consensually suppressed. > > > >Moreover, some studies have shown that this shift of victimization now > >reflects increasingly acrimonious beliefs and prejudiced perceptions about > >and against African Americans that are arguably stronger today than they > >were after emancipation. This campaign also attempts to discourage > >miscegenation between Blacks and whites, and creates a false justification > >for the legal system's mistreatment of African Americans, wherein they are > >disproportionately incarcerated, given stiffer sentences, and are more > >likely than other racial groups to be treated brutally, beaten, and fired > >upon by police officers while they are unarmed. These injustices now go > >ignored because the perception has subconsciously become that it's all now > >justified. When contempt of Blacks is made to appear to be justifiable, it > >is the fiercest and most effective type of racism because its witnesses, > >bystanders, and even world audiences will sit by idly allowing African > >Americans to be brutally mistreated under the belief that it is justified. > > > >This is what Dr. Edward Bernays referred to as "engineering consent". This > >governmental psychological conditioning program stripped African Americans > >of the national and international support that was acquired during the > >1960's civil rights struggles. It also today affects attitudes that when > >enacted through governmental policies, laws, and other legislation > >actions, > >serve to ensure that African Americans will not advance. Its effects are > >manifested in ideas, education, governmental policies, economic > >stratification, social segregation, housing markets, hiring and promotion > >practices, psychological issues, and minority access to a variety of > >social > >services and opportunity. In order for we African Americans to overcome > >the > >profound feelings of hopelessness, confusion, and self hatred that still > >overwhelmingly plagues millions within our communities, we must synergized > >our energies and efforts towards countering the effects of the United > >State's > >ongoing governmental mass media psychosocial treatment of us that is > >deliberately designed to render such disunity and confusion among our race > >as a means of ensuring that its white dominance and control is maintained. > > > >The objective of the United States government has always been to maintain > >its White dominance and control over its Black population, and clearly, > >psychological warfare meets this need. It was the logical choice because > >it > >covertly provided the U.S. Government with a far more sophisticated, > >proficient, and socially accepted means of covertly controlling and > >suppressing its Black population. Through this method the U.S. Government > >is > >able to both influence the national climate and engender personal > >psychological feelings among its Black population that meet its objectives > >of maintaining its white dominance. Furthermore, history overwhelmingly > >demonstrates that the White race's innate proclivity for racism, control, > >and dominance is much too deeply ingrained for them to just merely give up > >their practices of implementing suppressive methods over its African > >American population. > > > >The records of history show that the reincarnation of suppressive methods > >into forms more acceptable to the changing times is a common practice of > >the > >United States government. As seen after the abolishment of slavery wherein > >its methods of using racist, oppressive treatment of its Black population > >was reincarnated into Jim Crow inequalities that included many devious > >strategies and methods that prevented Blacks from becoming registered > >voters. And let us not forget the horrific Tuskegee experiments in which > >from1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted > >dangerous > >syphilis experiments on four hundred Black men. These men were > >deliberately > >left to degenerate painfully under the ravishes of the disease - with > >symptoms including blindness, tumors, paralysis, insanity and death - to > >allow the U.S. Government to collect the needed data from their autopsies. > >And let us also not forget the CIA's involvement in flooding the Black > >communities of Los Angeles with drugs and high powered weaponry and then > >disseminated these drugs and weaponry to many African American communities > >throughout the United States destroying the lives of millions of African > >Americans while stimulating the economy through the prison industry. > > > >The historic and demonstrative evidence overwhelmingly reflects the > >reality > >that the U.S. government does manifest a proclivity for reinventing > >devious > >methods to suppress its Black population. This proclivity has led to the > >U.S. Government using its proven method of mass psychological manipulation > >to control the advancement and growth of its Black population. It was the > >next logical choice because the evils of racism thrive best when its > >victims > >no longer recognize the evil. "When the truth comes along and you know in > >your bones that it's the truth yet you still refuse to accept and defend > >it > >you then really begin to die." > > > >? 2006, 2008 > > * * * * * > > > >This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from > >http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Provided by Australis > >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Provided by Australis > >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: > 270.9.8/1800 - Release Date: 19/11/2551 18:55 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From thinker at thelakebc.ca Thu Nov 20 21:10:54 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Thu Nov 20 21:07:52 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped In-Reply-To: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200811210307.mAL37h9K002384@karma.reboot.ca> Much of our lives is spent on protecting ourselves, our families, homes and properties. So, what the hell is wrong with protecting our economies ? I fought against the US-Canada FTA, still have all the records, against the MAI, that's how this list came about and ever since, without the slightest regrets, because I can see all around us the devastation caused by this criminal idiocy of so called "free trade" To hell with all the professors who brainwash students with the "benefits" of this garbage science, at the intellectual level of the Rosenberg religion, and they in turn mislead governments into selling off their countries. Cheers, Ed. At 06:41 PM 20/11/2008, you wrote: >If the Obama team is genuine in at least one part of its promise to >deliver change, and really follows through, a huge hole is likely >to be made in Mr Greed's main engine of attack on working conditions >and national sovereignty - the trade-driven race to the bottom. The >network of international trade deals between states needs to be >felled with a silver bullet and a stake driven through its heart, >and maybe America will be the country to take a lead in the >necessary demolition. It should not be forgotten that many of these >trade treaties - unlike the stillborn and unlamented MAI - have >provisions within them to withdraw on relatively short notice, >making repudiation unnecessary. NAFTA has such provisions, for one. > >Dion Giles >Western Australia > >============ >Obama to usher in major shift in trade policy > >By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press > >http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUy2QNCPnj1yjLw1mdqbzBfbITQD94HSKA00 >Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112008LA > >Washington - The election of Barack Obama has delivered a decisive >victory to "fair traders," mainly Democrats and their allies who for >years have contended that the free-trade policies of past >administrations were recipes for American job losses and >environmental degradation. > > Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history > "that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a > decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has > been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an > advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a report. > > On the other side, Dan Griswold, director of the center for > trade policies at the pro-trade Cato Institute, was equally stark > in his assessment: "We are going to see the U.S. retreat from its > long-standing leadership in the global economy." > > Obama has taken a generally mainstream Democratic position on > trade. He supports expanding trade but says trade agreements must > support U.S. manufacturing jobs and include enforceable labor and > environmental standards. > > He has promised a tougher stance against China, telling the > National Council of Textile Organizations, "I will use all > diplomatic means at my disposal" to induce China to change its > foreign exchange and export policies, which have led to huge trade imbalances. > > During the primary season, Obama and other Democratic hopefuls > called for a renegotiation of the 1994 North American Free Trade > Agreement with Canada and Mexico, although that was less of an > issue in the general campaign. > > The Global Trade Watch report said the election produced a net > gain of 32 congressional fair traders - five in the Senate and 27 > in the House. With that, said the organization's director Lori > Wallach, "we suspect a shrinking number of members of Congress will > dare to pledge fair trade at home and vote for NAFTA expansions in D.C." > > Among two Republican incumbents ousted by Democrats campaigning > on fair trade issues were Phil English of Pennsylvania and Robin > Hayes of North Carolina, lawmakers who cast decisive votes in 2005 > when the House passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement by a > two-vote margin. > > "Free trade has been devastating to our district," said > Democratic Rep.-elect Larry Kissell, a former textile worker who > defeated Hayes. "We have called for a free trade moratorium until > we see good jobs coming back to this district," he said in a > teleconference arranged by Global Trade Watch. > > A moratorium could effectively sideline three bilateral free > trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, that have > been negotiated but await congressional approval. The Bush > administration has been particularly strong in advocating the > Colombia accord, which it says would open up that country to U.S. > exports while rewarding the Bogota government for its pro-U.S., > pro-democracy policies. > > But suggestions that Congress vote on the Colombia deal, > possibly as part of an economic stimulus package during a lame-duck > session, have garnered little interest among Democrats who say the > Colombian government hasn't done enough to curb violence against > union organizers and members. > > Democrats and their labor advocates also say the South Korean > accord doesn't adequately address the issue of South Korea selling > some 770,000 vehicles in the United States in 2007 while buying > only about 6,200 U.S. vehicles. > > Panama may be the only bilateral agreement with a chance > because its products don't upset U.S. constituencies, Cato's > Griswold said. "Obama has made it clear he understands the benefits > of trade," Griswold said, "but he has made it even more clear he > will not cross important constituencies in his party, such as organized labor." > > Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at > the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Democrats might be more willing > to go along if it is an Obama trade agenda rather than a Bush trade agenda. > > That agenda would necessarily focus more on environmental and > labor protections, but he said the business community already > supports an agreement reached between the Bush administration and > House Democrats in May 2007 requiring that environmental safeguards > and worker rights be core parts of future trade deals. > > That agreement set the stage for congressional approval in late > 2007 of a free trade accord with Peru. Congress previously gave > grudging consent to Bush-negotiated trade agreements with Oman, > Bahrain, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile and the six Latin > American countries of CAFTA. But last year it also refused to > extend "fast track" authority, which gives the president the right > to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject but cannot amend. > > "If you look at history, we've had pro-trade presidents since > FDR," the Chamber's Wenk said. "There's absolutely no reason why we > should become inward and protectionist and isolationist right now." > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >11/20/2008 7:28 PM From siamdave at yahoo.ca Fri Nov 21 01:35:52 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Fri Nov 21 01:36:18 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped In-Reply-To: <200811210307.mAL37h9K002384@karma.reboot.ca> References: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811210307.mAL37h9K002384@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <200811211435520953.014D88B4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Maybe I'm altogether too cynical, but I don't think it's a matter of sneaky economists fooling well-meaning governments at all - from Mulrony/Wilson to Chretien/Martin and now Harper et al (and their counterparts in other countries), I think these people know exactly what they are doing in terms of promoting an economy that works to enrich 'investors' (I always use quotes for that word, because to me it actually means, as used in today's economics discussion, 'shyster of some sort') and push the citizens back to being powerless peasants. With the assistance of an equally compliant media, then, we have corporate lobbyists of various sorts, which would include today's 'economists', government and media, all acting together against We the People, who are the object of the fooling. But not, obviously, all of us. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-20 at 7:10 PM Ed Deak wrote: >Much of our lives is spent on protecting ourselves, our families, >homes and properties. So, what the hell is wrong with protecting >our economies ? >I fought against the US-Canada FTA, still have all the records, >against the MAI, that's how this list came about and ever since, >without the slightest regrets, because I can see all around us the >devastation caused by this criminal idiocy of so called "free trade" > >To hell with all the professors who brainwash students with the >"benefits" of this garbage science, at the intellectual level of the >Rosenberg religion, and they in turn mislead governments into selling >off their countries. > >Cheers, Ed. > > > > >At 06:41 PM 20/11/2008, you wrote: >>If the Obama team is genuine in at least one part of its promise to >>deliver change, and really follows through, a huge hole is likely >>to be made in Mr Greed's main engine of attack on working conditions >>and national sovereignty - the trade-driven race to the bottom. The >>network of international trade deals between states needs to be >>felled with a silver bullet and a stake driven through its heart, >>and maybe America will be the country to take a lead in the >>necessary demolition. It should not be forgotten that many of these >>trade treaties - unlike the stillborn and unlamented MAI - have >>provisions within them to withdraw on relatively short notice, >>making repudiation unnecessary. NAFTA has such provisions, for one. >> >>Dion Giles >>Western Australia >> >>============ >>Obama to usher in major shift in trade policy >> >>By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press >> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUy2QNCPnj1yjLw1mdqbzBfbITQD94HSKA00 >>Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112008LA >> >>Washington - The election of Barack Obama has delivered a decisive >>victory to "fair traders," mainly Democrats and their allies who for >>years have contended that the free-trade policies of past >>administrations were recipes for American job losses and >>environmental degradation. >> >> Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history >> "that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a >> decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has >> been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an >> advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a >report. >> >> On the other side, Dan Griswold, director of the center for >> trade policies at the pro-trade Cato Institute, was equally stark >> in his assessment: "We are going to see the U.S. retreat from its >> long-standing leadership in the global economy." >> >> Obama has taken a generally mainstream Democratic position on >> trade. He supports expanding trade but says trade agreements must >> support U.S. manufacturing jobs and include enforceable labor and >> environmental standards. >> >> He has promised a tougher stance against China, telling the >> National Council of Textile Organizations, "I will use all >> diplomatic means at my disposal" to induce China to change its >> foreign exchange and export policies, which have led to huge trade >imbalances. >> >> During the primary season, Obama and other Democratic hopefuls >> called for a renegotiation of the 1994 North American Free Trade >> Agreement with Canada and Mexico, although that was less of an >> issue in the general campaign. >> >> The Global Trade Watch report said the election produced a net >> gain of 32 congressional fair traders - five in the Senate and 27 >> in the House. With that, said the organization's director Lori >> Wallach, "we suspect a shrinking number of members of Congress will >> dare to pledge fair trade at home and vote for NAFTA expansions in D.C." >> >> Among two Republican incumbents ousted by Democrats campaigning >> on fair trade issues were Phil English of Pennsylvania and Robin >> Hayes of North Carolina, lawmakers who cast decisive votes in 2005 >> when the House passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement by a >> two-vote margin. >> >> "Free trade has been devastating to our district," said >> Democratic Rep.-elect Larry Kissell, a former textile worker who >> defeated Hayes. "We have called for a free trade moratorium until >> we see good jobs coming back to this district," he said in a >> teleconference arranged by Global Trade Watch. >> >> A moratorium could effectively sideline three bilateral free >> trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, that have >> been negotiated but await congressional approval. The Bush >> administration has been particularly strong in advocating the >> Colombia accord, which it says would open up that country to U.S. >> exports while rewarding the Bogota government for its pro-U.S., >> pro-democracy policies. >> >> But suggestions that Congress vote on the Colombia deal, >> possibly as part of an economic stimulus package during a lame-duck >> session, have garnered little interest among Democrats who say the >> Colombian government hasn't done enough to curb violence against >> union organizers and members. >> >> Democrats and their labor advocates also say the South Korean >> accord doesn't adequately address the issue of South Korea selling >> some 770,000 vehicles in the United States in 2007 while buying >> only about 6,200 U.S. vehicles. >> >> Panama may be the only bilateral agreement with a chance >> because its products don't upset U.S. constituencies, Cato's >> Griswold said. "Obama has made it clear he understands the benefits >> of trade," Griswold said, "but he has made it even more clear he >> will not cross important constituencies in his party, such as organized >labor." >> >> Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at >> the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Democrats might be more willing >> to go along if it is an Obama trade agenda rather than a Bush trade >agenda. >> >> That agenda would necessarily focus more on environmental and >> labor protections, but he said the business community already >> supports an agreement reached between the Bush administration and >> House Democrats in May 2007 requiring that environmental safeguards >> and worker rights be core parts of future trade deals. >> >> That agreement set the stage for congressional approval in late >> 2007 of a free trade accord with Peru. Congress previously gave >> grudging consent to Bush-negotiated trade agreements with Oman, >> Bahrain, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile and the six Latin >> American countries of CAFTA. But last year it also refused to >> extend "fast track" authority, which gives the president the right >> to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject but cannot >amend. >> >> "If you look at history, we've had pro-trade presidents since >> FDR," the Chamber's Wenk said. "There's absolutely no reason why we >> should become inward and protectionist and isolationist right now." >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >>11/20/2008 7:28 PM > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: 20/11/2551 19:28 From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Nov 21 07:49:38 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri Nov 21 07:51:40 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Blackwater to Cash In on "Somali Pirates" Message-ID: History repeating itself... (cf. the book "Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean", available at Amazon) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/blackwater-gunboats-will-prot ect-ships-1024582.html Blackwater gunboats will protect ships By Kim Sengupta Wednesday, 19 November 2008 The American security company Blackwater is planning to cash in on the rising threat of piracy on the high seas by launching a flotilla of gunboats for hire by the shipping companies. The firm, which gained international notoriety when its staff killed civilians in Iraq, has already equipped one vessel, called The McArthur, which will carry up to 40 armed guards and have a landing pad for an attack helicopter. The McArthur, a former survey ship, arrives in the Gulf of Aden, the scene of the recent high-profile hijackings and shootouts with Somali pirates, at the end of the year. It is to be joined by three or four similar vessels over next year to form the company's private navy. Blackwater, which has strong ties with the Republican administration in Washington, was the subject of investigations by the US Congress and the Iraqi government after its guards shot dead 17 people in Baghdad's Nisoor Square last year, a massacre which led directly to changes in law regarding security contractors in Iraq. Several security companies are rushing to the region despite the presence of British, American, Russian and Indian naval warships, among others, sent to protect ships. For fees ranging from ?8,000 to ?12,000 for transits of three and five days, companies are offering teams of unarmed guards, "non-lethal deck security personnel". With more than 60 ships attacked in the Gulf and ship-owners paying an estimated ?75m in ransom for the return of crew and cargo, the security companies foresee a lucrative business. One US company, Hollowpoint Protective Services, says it is offering a comprehensive service of hostage negotiations backed by armed rescue operations if the talks fail. Eos, a British concern, says it favours a "non-lethal" approach with the use of sophisticated laser, microwave and acoustical devices. But Blackwater plans to have the largest and most heavily armed presence among the security contractors. The company believes that the presence of escorting gunboats will have a deterrent effect, with criminal gangs being forced to switch to more vulnerable targets. A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrrell, said there have already been about 15 inquiries about its anti-piracy service. The company refused to reveal how much it will charge. Its executive vice-president, Bill Matthews, said the US Navy and the Royal Navy do not have the resources in the region to provide total security, opening up a role for companies such as his. He added: "While there are temporary needs that perhaps outpace the limited resources of the Department of Defence [Washington] and the Ministry of Defence [London], the private sector is available to fill those gaps. "We have been contacted by ship-owners who say they need our help in making sure goods get to their destination. The McArthur can help us accomplish that. We have not sought to enter the space until recently. It was not part of our business plan. But as the world changes, so does our business plan." Nick Davis, a former British Army pilot who runs a company in Poole called Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Solutions, said: "It frightens me that Blackwater is going down there. Their background is not in deterrence. Their background is in weapons. To me, the best people to be armed are the military. Pirates might approach McArthur without knowing it's a Blackwater boat and try to hijack it." Chris Austen, chief executive of Maritime & Underwater Security Consultants, in London, said ship-owners should be cautious about armed guards. "There are some flags that prohibit the carriage of arms or the use of violence. There are some insurers that will not accept it, and your insurance will be void." Guns for hire: The violent option The massacre on Baghdad's "Bloody Sunday" became a lethal symbol of the aggression with which Blackwater's private army carried out its mission in Iraq. I saw the deadly result of panicked security guards opening fire at a crowded Nisoor Square in the city centre. Round after round mowed down terrified men, women and children. At the end of the shooting spree, 17 people were dead and 20 injured. The killings sparked one of the most bitter and public disputes between the Iraqi government and its American patrons, and brought into focus the often violent conduct of the Western security companies ? and that of Blackwater in particular. Operating in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, they were immune from scrutiny or prosecution. This was the seventh shooting of civilians involving Blackwater. The company's reputation in Iraq was particularly controversial. After Nisoor Square, the Iraqi government threatened to expel Blackwater. But it was forced to let the company operate again under pressure from Washington. Kim Sengupta ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Fri Nov 21 09:55:13 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Fri Nov 21 09:31:44 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped In-Reply-To: <200811211435520953.014D88B4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811210307.mAL37h9K002384@karma.reboot.ca> <200811211435520953.014D88B4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <4926D9E1.3010108@spiritone.com> well lets get over the idea that this is just about the economy---its over control and thats with a capital C. If it was over just the econmy the republicans would be dishing out so much corporate welfare to Detriot and the automakers they would be drowning in dollars instead they are withholding any aid----now tell me when is the last time you saw a republican denying a "needy" corporation welfare? Now take a good look at army issued (not marine issued) camoflauge uniforms they look like they've been over bleached----except they were specifically designed to blend in with a urban envrironment thats been destroyed---and you got admit those unforms will blend in with concrete quite well. this is all over control and they are willing to drive the world's economy into the ground to get it Dave Patterson wrote: >Maybe I'm altogether too cynical, but I don't think it's a matter of sneaky economists fooling well-meaning governments at all - from Mulrony/Wilson to Chretien/Martin and now Harper et al (and their counterparts in other countries), I think these people know exactly what they are doing in terms of promoting an economy that works to enrich 'investors' (I always use quotes for that word, because to me it actually means, as used in today's economics discussion, 'shyster of some sort') and push the citizens back to being powerless peasants. With the assistance of an equally compliant media, then, we have corporate lobbyists of various sorts, which would include today's 'economists', government and media, all acting together against We the People, who are the object of the fooling. But not, obviously, all of us. > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 08-11-20 at 7:10 PM Ed Deak wrote: > > > >>Much of our lives is spent on protecting ourselves, our families, >>homes and properties. So, what the hell is wrong with protecting >>our economies ? >>I fought against the US-Canada FTA, still have all the records, >>against the MAI, that's how this list came about and ever since, >>without the slightest regrets, because I can see all around us the >>devastation caused by this criminal idiocy of so called "free trade" >> >>To hell with all the professors who brainwash students with the >>"benefits" of this garbage science, at the intellectual level of the >>Rosenberg religion, and they in turn mislead governments into selling >>off their countries. >> >>Cheers, Ed. >> >> >> >> >>At 06:41 PM 20/11/2008, you wrote: >> >> >>>If the Obama team is genuine in at least one part of its promise to >>>deliver change, and really follows through, a huge hole is likely >>>to be made in Mr Greed's main engine of attack on working conditions >>>and national sovereignty - the trade-driven race to the bottom. The >>>network of international trade deals between states needs to be >>>felled with a silver bullet and a stake driven through its heart, >>>and maybe America will be the country to take a lead in the >>>necessary demolition. It should not be forgotten that many of these >>>trade treaties - unlike the stillborn and unlamented MAI - have >>>provisions within them to withdraw on relatively short notice, >>>making repudiation unnecessary. NAFTA has such provisions, for one. >>> >>>Dion Giles >>>Western Australia >>> >>>============ >>>Obama to usher in major shift in trade policy >>> >>>By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press >>> >>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUy2QNCPnj1yjLw1mdqbzBfbITQD94HSKA00 >>>Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112008LA >>> >>>Washington - The election of Barack Obama has delivered a decisive >>>victory to "fair traders," mainly Democrats and their allies who for >>>years have contended that the free-trade policies of past >>>administrations were recipes for American job losses and >>>environmental degradation. >>> >>> Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history >>>"that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a >>>decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has >>>been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an >>>advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a >>> >>> >>report. >> >> >>> On the other side, Dan Griswold, director of the center for >>>trade policies at the pro-trade Cato Institute, was equally stark >>>in his assessment: "We are going to see the U.S. retreat from its >>>long-standing leadership in the global economy." >>> >>> Obama has taken a generally mainstream Democratic position on >>>trade. He supports expanding trade but says trade agreements must >>>support U.S. manufacturing jobs and include enforceable labor and >>>environmental standards. >>> >>> He has promised a tougher stance against China, telling the >>>National Council of Textile Organizations, "I will use all >>>diplomatic means at my disposal" to induce China to change its >>>foreign exchange and export policies, which have led to huge trade >>> >>> >>imbalances. >> >> >>> During the primary season, Obama and other Democratic hopefuls >>>called for a renegotiation of the 1994 North American Free Trade >>>Agreement with Canada and Mexico, although that was less of an >>>issue in the general campaign. >>> >>> The Global Trade Watch report said the election produced a net >>>gain of 32 congressional fair traders - five in the Senate and 27 >>>in the House. With that, said the organization's director Lori >>>Wallach, "we suspect a shrinking number of members of Congress will >>>dare to pledge fair trade at home and vote for NAFTA expansions in D.C." >>> >>> Among two Republican incumbents ousted by Democrats campaigning >>>on fair trade issues were Phil English of Pennsylvania and Robin >>>Hayes of North Carolina, lawmakers who cast decisive votes in 2005 >>>when the House passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement by a >>>two-vote margin. >>> >>> "Free trade has been devastating to our district," said >>>Democratic Rep.-elect Larry Kissell, a former textile worker who >>>defeated Hayes. "We have called for a free trade moratorium until >>>we see good jobs coming back to this district," he said in a >>>teleconference arranged by Global Trade Watch. >>> >>> A moratorium could effectively sideline three bilateral free >>>trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, that have >>>been negotiated but await congressional approval. The Bush >>>administration has been particularly strong in advocating the >>>Colombia accord, which it says would open up that country to U.S. >>>exports while rewarding the Bogota government for its pro-U.S., >>>pro-democracy policies. >>> >>> But suggestions that Congress vote on the Colombia deal, >>>possibly as part of an economic stimulus package during a lame-duck >>>session, have garnered little interest among Democrats who say the >>>Colombian government hasn't done enough to curb violence against >>>union organizers and members. >>> >>> Democrats and their labor advocates also say the South Korean >>>accord doesn't adequately address the issue of South Korea selling >>>some 770,000 vehicles in the United States in 2007 while buying >>>only about 6,200 U.S. vehicles. >>> >>> Panama may be the only bilateral agreement with a chance >>>because its products don't upset U.S. constituencies, Cato's >>>Griswold said. "Obama has made it clear he understands the benefits >>>of trade," Griswold said, "but he has made it even more clear he >>>will not cross important constituencies in his party, such as organized >>> >>> >>labor." >> >> >>> Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at >>>the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Democrats might be more willing >>>to go along if it is an Obama trade agenda rather than a Bush trade >>> >>> >>agenda. >> >> >>> That agenda would necessarily focus more on environmental and >>>labor protections, but he said the business community already >>>supports an agreement reached between the Bush administration and >>>House Democrats in May 2007 requiring that environmental safeguards >>>and worker rights be core parts of future trade deals. >>> >>> That agreement set the stage for congressional approval in late >>>2007 of a free trade accord with Peru. Congress previously gave >>>grudging consent to Bush-negotiated trade agreements with Oman, >>>Bahrain, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile and the six Latin >>>American countries of CAFTA. But last year it also refused to >>>extend "fast track" authority, which gives the president the right >>>to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject but cannot >>> >>> >>amend. >> >> >>> "If you look at history, we've had pro-trade presidents since >>>FDR," the Chamber's Wenk said. "There's absolutely no reason why we >>>should become inward and protectionist and isolationist right now." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Mai-not mailing list >>>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >>> >>> >>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >>>11/20/2008 7:28 PM >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: 20/11/2551 19:28 >> >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 21 09:37:34 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 21 09:34:39 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped In-Reply-To: <200811211435520953.014D88B4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811210307.mAL37h9K002384@karma.reboot.ca> <200811211435520953.014D88B4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <200811211534.mALFYS4Q010835@karma.reboot.ca> Of course, you're right, Dave, they knew it alright, just as the emperors of the past may have known what they wanted to do. But they and our modern emperors always had to rely for the legalization and justification of their criminal actions by their priests, as "divine orders". Today we have the pseudo priesthoods of economists trained for the purpose of the legalization of crimes as ordered by the Money God, who liveth in computers. As I wrote many times in the past , the world has always been ruled by the conspiracy of 3 special interest sectors: The Merchants who invent the demands, the Priesthoods who invent the scriptural justification for the crimes, and the Military, who does the dirty work, hoping for absolution by the Priests. (Of course, all 3 also have their subsections, who are still part of the overall scheme) Never has this been better proven, or more apparent, than today. And never could either of these sectors survived without the help of the other two. Cheers, Ed. At 11:35 PM 20/11/2008, you wrote: >Maybe I'm altogether too cynical, but I don't think it's a matter of >sneaky economists fooling well-meaning governments at all - from >Mulrony/Wilson to Chretien/Martin and now Harper et al (and their >counterparts in other countries), I think these people know exactly >what they are doing in terms of promoting an economy that works to >enrich 'investors' (I always use quotes for that word, because to me >it actually means, as used in today's economics discussion, 'shyster >of some sort') and push the citizens back to being powerless >peasants. With the assistance of an equally compliant media, then, >we have corporate lobbyists of various sorts, which would include >today's 'economists', government and media, all acting together >against We the People, who are the object of the fooling. But not, >obviously, all of us. > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 08-11-20 at 7:10 PM Ed Deak wrote: > > >Much of our lives is spent on protecting ourselves, our families, > >homes and properties. So, what the hell is wrong with protecting > >our economies ? > >I fought against the US-Canada FTA, still have all the records, > >against the MAI, that's how this list came about and ever since, > >without the slightest regrets, because I can see all around us the > >devastation caused by this criminal idiocy of so called "free trade" > > > >To hell with all the professors who brainwash students with the > >"benefits" of this garbage science, at the intellectual level of the > >Rosenberg religion, and they in turn mislead governments into selling > >off their countries. > > > >Cheers, Ed. > > > > > > > > > >At 06:41 PM 20/11/2008, you wrote: > >>If the Obama team is genuine in at least one part of its promise to > >>deliver change, and really follows through, a huge hole is likely > >>to be made in Mr Greed's main engine of attack on working conditions > >>and national sovereignty - the trade-driven race to the bottom. The > >>network of international trade deals between states needs to be > >>felled with a silver bullet and a stake driven through its heart, > >>and maybe America will be the country to take a lead in the > >>necessary demolition. It should not be forgotten that many of these > >>trade treaties - unlike the stillborn and unlamented MAI - have > >>provisions within them to withdraw on relatively short notice, > >>making repudiation unnecessary. NAFTA has such provisions, for one. > >> > >>Dion Giles > >>Western Australia > >> > >>============ > >>Obama to usher in major shift in trade policy > >> > >>By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press > >> > >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUy2QNCPnj1yjLw > 1mdqbzBfbITQD94HSKA00 > >>Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112008LA > >> > >>Washington - The election of Barack Obama has delivered a decisive > >>victory to "fair traders," mainly Democrats and their allies who for > >>years have contended that the free-trade policies of past > >>administrations were recipes for American job losses and > >>environmental degradation. > >> > >> Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history > >> "that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a > >> decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has > >> been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an > >> advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a > >report. > >> > >> On the other side, Dan Griswold, director of the center for > >> trade policies at the pro-trade Cato Institute, was equally stark > >> in his assessment: "We are going to see the U.S. retreat from its > >> long-standing leadership in the global economy." > >> > >> Obama has taken a generally mainstream Democratic position on > >> trade. He supports expanding trade but says trade agreements must > >> support U.S. manufacturing jobs and include enforceable labor and > >> environmental standards. > >> > >> He has promised a tougher stance against China, telling the > >> National Council of Textile Organizations, "I will use all > >> diplomatic means at my disposal" to induce China to change its > >> foreign exchange and export policies, which have led to huge trade > >imbalances. > >> > >> During the primary season, Obama and other Democratic hopefuls > >> called for a renegotiation of the 1994 North American Free Trade > >> Agreement with Canada and Mexico, although that was less of an > >> issue in the general campaign. > >> > >> The Global Trade Watch report said the election produced a net > >> gain of 32 congressional fair traders - five in the Senate and 27 > >> in the House. With that, said the organization's director Lori > >> Wallach, "we suspect a shrinking number of members of Congress will > >> dare to pledge fair trade at home and vote for NAFTA expansions in D.C." > >> > >> Among two Republican incumbents ousted by Democrats campaigning > >> on fair trade issues were Phil English of Pennsylvania and Robin > >> Hayes of North Carolina, lawmakers who cast decisive votes in 2005 > >> when the House passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement by a > >> two-vote margin. > >> > >> "Free trade has been devastating to our district," said > >> Democratic Rep.-elect Larry Kissell, a former textile worker who > >> defeated Hayes. "We have called for a free trade moratorium until > >> we see good jobs coming back to this district," he said in a > >> teleconference arranged by Global Trade Watch. > >> > >> A moratorium could effectively sideline three bilateral free > >> trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, that have > >> been negotiated but await congressional approval. The Bush > >> administration has been particularly strong in advocating the > >> Colombia accord, which it says would open up that country to U.S. > >> exports while rewarding the Bogota government for its pro-U.S., > >> pro-democracy policies. > >> > >> But suggestions that Congress vote on the Colombia deal, > >> possibly as part of an economic stimulus package during a lame-duck > >> session, have garnered little interest among Democrats who say the > >> Colombian government hasn't done enough to curb violence against > >> union organizers and members. > >> > >> Democrats and their labor advocates also say the South Korean > >> accord doesn't adequately address the issue of South Korea selling > >> some 770,000 vehicles in the United States in 2007 while buying > >> only about 6,200 U.S. vehicles. > >> > >> Panama may be the only bilateral agreement with a chance > >> because its products don't upset U.S. constituencies, Cato's > >> Griswold said. "Obama has made it clear he understands the benefits > >> of trade," Griswold said, "but he has made it even more clear he > >> will not cross important constituencies in his party, such as organized > >labor." > >> > >> Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at > >> the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Democrats might be more willing > >> to go along if it is an Obama trade agenda rather than a Bush trade > >agenda. > >> > >> That agenda would necessarily focus more on environmental and > >> labor protections, but he said the business community already > >> supports an agreement reached between the Bush administration and > >> House Democrats in May 2007 requiring that environmental safeguards > >> and worker rights be core parts of future trade deals. > >> > >> That agreement set the stage for congressional approval in late > >> 2007 of a free trade accord with Peru. Congress previously gave > >> grudging consent to Bush-negotiated trade agreements with Oman, > >> Bahrain, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile and the six Latin > >> American countries of CAFTA. But last year it also refused to > >> extend "fast track" authority, which gives the president the right > >> to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject but cannot > >amend. > >> > >> "If you look at history, we've had pro-trade presidents since > >> FDR," the Chamber's Wenk said. "There's absolutely no reason why we > >> should become inward and protectionist and isolationist right now." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Mai-not mailing list > >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >> > >> > >>No virus found in this incoming message. > >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: > >>11/20/2008 7:28 PM > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: > 20/11/2551 19:28 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >11/20/2008 7:28 PM From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 21 09:50:50 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 21 09:47:56 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] The death of NATO ? Message-ID: <200811211547.mALFlk4Q011594@karma.reboot.ca> The European Council on Foreign Relations The death of NATO By Nick Witney - 20 Nov 08 This article was published in Europe's World - Autumn 2008. NATO is dying; it?s the common condition, of course, of all living things from the moment of birth. And as NATO approaches its 60th birthday next spring, there seems no immediate urgency about writing its obituary; 60-year-olds may reasonably look forward to another decade, perhaps two or even three, of active and productive life. Nonetheless, amidst the celebrations, it is time for some discreet reflection on the fact that ?the old man will not always be with us?. Human institutions, like human beings, can collapse with surprising speed once it becomes apparent they have outlived their usefulness. The dramatic dissolution of the Soviet Union stands as a reminder of what can happen to organisations when doubts take hold as to whether they still serve any real interests other than those of their own apparatchiks ? and how suddenly such doubts can grow when they attempt to convert themselves into something they are not. NATO has already shown itself remarkably tenacious of life. By rights it should have disappeared when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Warsaw Pact evaporated and its job was done. You cannot, after all, clap with one hand. But then came the Balkans crises of the 1990s, culminating in the realisation that only US military power could put a stop to Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic?s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. And then came 9/11, making the ??out of area or out of business? choice seem a no-brainer. So NATO remains in business, and in Afghanistan. These repeated demonstrations of resilience should not, however, blind us to the awkward fact that NATO no longer provides a healthy basis for the trans? Atlantic security relationship. As long as NATO?s raison d??tre was to keep the Russians out and Americans in, NATO?s internal dynamic of US leadership and European followership was both inevitable and appropriate. This unbalanced relationship still has its advantages for both parties. Americans may find their (old) European allies less biddable than before ? but they can at least count on the absence of any serious alternative prospectuses for what NATO should become, or what it should do. Europeans can continue to avoid taking real responsibility for their own security, and to invoke the catechism of ?NATO, the corner-stone of our security? as a substitute for serious strategic thought. But each now finds the behaviour of the other ever easier to resent. Americans find their patience increasingly tried by Europeans who are so free with their advice and criticism yet so reluctant to shoulder the risks and costs of their common security. Americans have also learned from the Kosovo experience of ?war by committee? to distrust NATO as a place to run operations; and now Afghanistan highlights the organisation?s limitations as a mechanism for generating force contributions. As to the Europeans, they are increasingly unhappy about the pressure to participate in different episodes of a US-led ?global war on terror? which they see as dangerous and misconceived, and at finding themselves implicated in policies that seem designed to antagonise their more difficult neighbours like Russia and the Islamic world. And both Europe and America are all the more disappointed in one another because the time-honoured liturgy of alliance solidarity ? ?ties that bind? and shared values ? only obscures what very different peoples Europeans and Americans are, and what very different geostrategic positions they now find themselves in. There is a lot more to this than just saying the one lot are from Mars and other from Venus, and that the American strategic focus has now shifted from the Euro-Atlantic area to pretty much everywhere else. Perhaps the most important difference is that Americans still feel that, if the worst comes to the worst, they have a ?drawbridge option?. Since 9/11, extraordinary resources have been poured into the effort to ensure that the US is proofed against further acts of terrorism ? whilst many billions more have been devoted to countering America?s other main perceived vulnerability, to missile attack. Americans are fundamentally confident in their own abilities to solve any problem they truly set their minds to ? so they know that energy security, for example, will be achievable as and when necessary thanks to technology, and those ?amber waves of grain?. More, they know their own country to be fundamentally righteous and blessed (?God shed his grace on thee?), and endowed with a constitution which ensures that American actions and policies, with occasional exceptions that only prove the rule, are good not just for America but for mankind at large. They believe in God, and are not afraid to distinguish good from evil, with democracies, Israel first and foremost, automatically falling into the former category. They have an ill-suppressed tendency to view Europeans as moral degenerates. By contrast, Europeans are constantly reminded as they walk down the streets of their own cities that they have no possibility of separating themselves from the rest of the world. They have no drawbridge option; their security can lie only in trying to manage the multifarious risks and threats they feel exposed to, never in excluding them. Their confidence is of a more world-weary kind; they know themselves to be wise and experienced ? the Athens that the new Rome fails to appreciate. Europeans pride themselves on rationality and realism, and believe that religion should be kept out of public affairs. Valuing human rights more than democracy, they cannot understand how Americans can be so blind to the injustices done to the Palestinians, or how this has fuelled militant Islamic jihadism. They have an ill-suppressed tendency to view Americans as naive and un-selfcritical zealots. No wonder that both so regularly find the other living down to their expectations. For Europeans, President George W. Bush has from this perspective been an almost reassuring figure. But as American security expert Kori Schake has pointed out (?The US elections and Europe: The coming crisis of high expectations?: Centre for European Reform, November 2007), it would be a mistake to assume that the upcoming change of Administration will necessarily ensure a new transatlantic harmony. And it is also time to recognise that a US-dominated military alliance is no longer an adequate forum for addressing the very real differences in world view that will have to be managed in the years ahead. It is a set-up that is not conducive to balanced strategic dialogue, but to bad behaviour on both sides: the repeated setting of loyalty tests by the Americans, and competition amongst disparate Europeans either to be teacher?s pet or leader of the awkward squad. And when both sides recognise that military power can never be more than one part of the solution to 21st century problems, and sometimes not even that, then NATO?s role and its purview is simply, and irremediably, too narrow. So is it time to be thinking, if not of euthanasia, then at least of booking the old man into a retirement home? Regrettably not, given the organisation?s increasingly unsatisfactory role. For NATO is what we have ? and Europeans are making characteristically snail-like progress in developing the necessary alternative structures on which to rest the transatlantic security relationship. The prospects of a more coherent European foreign policy, and a more substantial European defence, are once again in the balance. The Lisbon treaty, after skidding on the Irish ?No?, is now stuck with two wheels hanging over the ravine. And how much Europeans really care remains to be seen; for many, the phrase ?European power? feels like an oxymoron. The Franco-British couple could jointly galvanise the others, just as they did with their 1998 St Malo initiative; but the British now seem bent on assuming a role of strategic irrelevance. So what?s to be done? None of the ideas for another dose of NATO rejuvenation looks like the answer. All the talk of an improved NATO-EU partnership is mainly wasted breath. The problem is not about institutional relationships, except in the important but narrow case of the current blocks on operational coordination between the two organisations, where Turkey and Cyprus remain bent on pursuing their bilateral feud without regard to the real risks to the personnel of their allies and partners deployed in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The real problem is about relations between Americans and Europeans, 21 of whom belong to both organisations. Talk of ?intensified strategic dialogue in Brussels? in practice boils down to the chilling spectre of interminable joint committee meetings at which one nation?s ambassador to NATO explains his government?s position to a compatriot diplomat who is accredited to the EU, and vice-versa. Nor does the answer lie in the development of an EU ?caucus? within NATO. St Malo was in effect a recognition that the 1990s concept of a ?European Defence Identity? within NATO was unviable ? and since then expansion of the alliance and the proliferation of NATO ?partners? has made the idea of a special collective role for EU members all the more improbable. And a double layer of decision-taking would only cause an already ponderous organisation to seize-up. The recent proposal for a tripartite directorate through which the US, NATO and the EU could jointly coordinate the policies of the Euro-Atlantic partners (?Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World?, by General Klaus Naumann and others: Noaber Foundation, 2007) deserves full marks for ingenuity, but has achieved no traction. Which leaves nothing more dramatic to be done than to focus on upgrading the EU-US strategic dialogue. The annual summits need to be made more substantial, and shifted from their focus on transatlantic, ?bilateral? issues to pay more attention to aligning EU and US policies and actions in the wider world. The US President should keep an eye on the calendar of the European Council, which brings the EU presidents and prime ministers together four times a year, and solicit the occasional invitation. The US mission to the EU should be up-gunned, and the EU representation in Washington turned into a proper embassy as will of course happen, if and when the External Action Service provided for in the Lisbon treaty comes into being. The more seriously the Americans show that they are willing to take the EU collectively, the more seriously the Europeans will take themselves. Winston Churchill once remarked that you could always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after having tried all the alternatives. In the same way, the Europeans will increasingly find themselves having to speak with one voice and act as one body in the wider world, if only because a globalised world will not allow them the luxury of doing anything else. As Charles de Gaulle forecast, ?It is not any European statesman who will unite Europe. Europe will be united by the Chinese?. This is not merely a European interest but an American one as well ? for only collectively can Europeans be effective contributors to global security, or achieve a robust transatlantic security partnership. As NATO enters its twilight years, the US should encourage the European Union to grow into its global responsibilities. For, despite all their differences and mutual dissatisfactions, Europeans and Americans know that each are the best friends the others are likely to have for as far ahead as anyone can see. Email this Page Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version Tags: Institutions, Money and Power Comments There are no comments for this entry yet. Get the discussion started and post below. Submit a Comment Your message will be submitted to a moderator before appearing online. Name and email address are required, all other fields are optional. Your email will not be displayed. Name: Email: Location: WWW: Message: Please enter the word you see in the image below: Remember my personal information Articles Commander Obama By Jose Ignacio Torreblanca - 17 Nov 08 Undoing Bush?s foreign policy legacy will be a huge challenge for Obama. But what can Europe do to help? On The Periphery Of The New World Order By Vessela Tcherneva - 12 Nov 08 When Barack Obama enters the White House as president in January 2009, what will change for the Balkans? Czechs raise the stakes on Lisbon By Andrew Duff - 10 Nov 08 All being well with Europe, the Treaty of Lisbon would now have been ready to come into force on 1 January. But all is not well. The global financial crisis: opportunities for change By Andre Wilkens - 10 Nov 08 The world?s severe economic downturn must be addressed alongside and not to the exclusion of other problems, says ECFR Council Member Andre Wilkens. Russia?s push into wider Europe By Andrew Wilson - 05 Nov 08 With a new US president, what are the prospects for a more united trans-Atlantic position on how to deal with a resurgent Russia and the ?neighbourhood? states in between? What now? By Mark Leonard and Daniel Korski - 05 Nov 08 Once he enters office, President Obama will bring a profound challenge to the comfortable introversion of many EU governments. Read more articles > Read our report on the EU?s declining influence at the UN In the Press The Economist - 20 Nov 08 The Economist quotes Ulrike Gu?rot in an opinion piece on Chancellor Merkel EU Observer - 19 Nov 08 An article on the ?EU enquiry? into the Georgia war quoting Nicu Popescu. The Independent - 17 Nov 08 An opinion piece refers to our latest policy brief on the EU and Russian gas EL PAIS - 16 Nov 08 A leading columnist comments on Mark Leonard?s book, What does China Think? Deutsche Welle - 15 Nov 08 Torreblanca is interviewed on Zapatero?s special invitation to the G20 Summit. Read more press > Suggested Links Asia Centre FRIDE French EU Presidency Project Syndicate Open Society Institute Read more links > Home | About | Council | Experts | Publications | RSS | Newsroom | Email sign-up | Contact From siamdave at yahoo.ca Fri Nov 21 09:49:55 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Fri Nov 21 09:50:00 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped In-Reply-To: <4926D9E1.3010108@spiritone.com> References: <20081121024137.1116AF9BA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811210307.mAL37h9K002384@karma.reboot.ca> <200811211435520953.014D88B4@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> <4926D9E1.3010108@spiritone.com> Message-ID: <200811212249550046.004BB5B6@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> I don't know who gave you the idea anyone thought it was all 'just' about the economy - of course it's about control, but the economy is a central weapon of control. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-21 at 7:55 AM gdy52150 wrote: >well lets get over the idea that this is just about the economy---its >over control and thats with a capital C. If it was over just the econmy >the republicans would be dishing out so much corporate welfare to >Detriot and the automakers they would be drowning in dollars instead >they are withholding any aid----now tell me when is the last time you >saw a republican denying a "needy" corporation welfare? Now take a good >look at army issued (not marine issued) camoflauge uniforms they look >like they've been over bleached----except they were specifically >designed to blend in with a urban envrironment thats been >destroyed---and you got admit those unforms will blend in with concrete >quite well. > >this is all over control and they are willing to drive the world's >economy into the ground to get it > >Dave Patterson wrote: > >>Maybe I'm altogether too cynical, but I don't think it's a matter of >sneaky economists fooling well-meaning governments at all - from >Mulrony/Wilson to Chretien/Martin and now Harper et al (and their >counterparts in other countries), I think these people know exactly what >they are doing in terms of promoting an economy that works to enrich >'investors' (I always use quotes for that word, because to me it actually >means, as used in today's economics discussion, 'shyster of some sort') >and push the citizens back to being powerless peasants. With the >assistance of an equally compliant media, then, we have corporate >lobbyists of various sorts, which would include today's 'economists', >government and media, all acting together against We the People, who are >the object of the fooling. But not, obviously, all of us. >> >>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >>On 08-11-20 at 7:10 PM Ed Deak wrote: >> >> >> >>>Much of our lives is spent on protecting ourselves, our families, >>>homes and properties. So, what the hell is wrong with protecting >>>our economies ? >>>I fought against the US-Canada FTA, still have all the records, >>>against the MAI, that's how this list came about and ever since, >>>without the slightest regrets, because I can see all around us the >>>devastation caused by this criminal idiocy of so called "free trade" >>> >>>To hell with all the professors who brainwash students with the >>>"benefits" of this garbage science, at the intellectual level of the >>>Rosenberg religion, and they in turn mislead governments into selling >>>off their countries. >>> >>>Cheers, Ed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>At 06:41 PM 20/11/2008, you wrote: >>> >>> >>>>If the Obama team is genuine in at least one part of its promise to >>>>deliver change, and really follows through, a huge hole is likely >>>>to be made in Mr Greed's main engine of attack on working conditions >>>>and national sovereignty - the trade-driven race to the bottom. The >>>>network of international trade deals between states needs to be >>>>felled with a silver bullet and a stake driven through its heart, >>>>and maybe America will be the country to take a lead in the >>>>necessary demolition. It should not be forgotten that many of these >>>>trade treaties - unlike the stillborn and unlamented MAI - have >>>>provisions within them to withdraw on relatively short notice, >>>>making repudiation unnecessary. NAFTA has such provisions, for one. >>>> >>>>Dion Giles >>>>Western Australia >>>> >>>>============ >>>>Obama to usher in major shift in trade policy >>>> >>>>By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press >>>> >>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJUy2QNCPnj1yjLw1mdqbzBfbITQD94HSKA00 >>>>Mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112008LA >>>> >>>>Washington - The election of Barack Obama has delivered a decisive >>>>victory to "fair traders," mainly Democrats and their allies who for >>>>years have contended that the free-trade policies of past >>>>administrations were recipes for American job losses and >>>>environmental degradation. >>>> >>>> Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history >>>>"that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a >>>>decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has >>>>been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an >>>>advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a >>>> >>>> >>>report. >>> >>> >>>> On the other side, Dan Griswold, director of the center for >>>>trade policies at the pro-trade Cato Institute, was equally stark >>>>in his assessment: "We are going to see the U.S. retreat from its >>>>long-standing leadership in the global economy." >>>> >>>> Obama has taken a generally mainstream Democratic position on >>>>trade. He supports expanding trade but says trade agreements must >>>>support U.S. manufacturing jobs and include enforceable labor and >>>>environmental standards. >>>> >>>> He has promised a tougher stance against China, telling the >>>>National Council of Textile Organizations, "I will use all >>>>diplomatic means at my disposal" to induce China to change its >>>>foreign exchange and export policies, which have led to huge trade >>>> >>>> >>>imbalances. >>> >>> >>>> During the primary season, Obama and other Democratic hopefuls >>>>called for a renegotiation of the 1994 North American Free Trade >>>>Agreement with Canada and Mexico, although that was less of an >>>>issue in the general campaign. >>>> >>>> The Global Trade Watch report said the election produced a net >>>>gain of 32 congressional fair traders - five in the Senate and 27 >>>>in the House. With that, said the organization's director Lori >>>>Wallach, "we suspect a shrinking number of members of Congress will >>>>dare to pledge fair trade at home and vote for NAFTA expansions in D.C." >>>> >>>> Among two Republican incumbents ousted by Democrats campaigning >>>>on fair trade issues were Phil English of Pennsylvania and Robin >>>>Hayes of North Carolina, lawmakers who cast decisive votes in 2005 >>>>when the House passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement by a >>>>two-vote margin. >>>> >>>> "Free trade has been devastating to our district," said >>>>Democratic Rep.-elect Larry Kissell, a former textile worker who >>>>defeated Hayes. "We have called for a free trade moratorium until >>>>we see good jobs coming back to this district," he said in a >>>>teleconference arranged by Global Trade Watch. >>>> >>>> A moratorium could effectively sideline three bilateral free >>>>trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, that have >>>>been negotiated but await congressional approval. The Bush >>>>administration has been particularly strong in advocating the >>>>Colombia accord, which it says would open up that country to U.S. >>>>exports while rewarding the Bogota government for its pro-U.S., >>>>pro-democracy policies. >>>> >>>> But suggestions that Congress vote on the Colombia deal, >>>>possibly as part of an economic stimulus package during a lame-duck >>>>session, have garnered little interest among Democrats who say the >>>>Colombian government hasn't done enough to curb violence against >>>>union organizers and members. >>>> >>>> Democrats and their labor advocates also say the South Korean >>>>accord doesn't adequately address the issue of South Korea selling >>>>some 770,000 vehicles in the United States in 2007 while buying >>>>only about 6,200 U.S. vehicles. >>>> >>>> Panama may be the only bilateral agreement with a chance >>>>because its products don't upset U.S. constituencies, Cato's >>>>Griswold said. "Obama has made it clear he understands the benefits >>>>of trade," Griswold said, "but he has made it even more clear he >>>>will not cross important constituencies in his party, such as organized >>>> >>>> >>>labor." >>> >>> >>>> Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy at >>>>the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Democrats might be more willing >>>>to go along if it is an Obama trade agenda rather than a Bush trade >>>> >>>> >>>agenda. >>> >>> >>>> That agenda would necessarily focus more on environmental and >>>>labor protections, but he said the business community already >>>>supports an agreement reached between the Bush administration and >>>>House Democrats in May 2007 requiring that environmental safeguards >>>>and worker rights be core parts of future trade deals. >>>> >>>> That agreement set the stage for congressional approval in late >>>>2007 of a free trade accord with Peru. Congress previously gave >>>>grudging consent to Bush-negotiated trade agreements with Oman, >>>>Bahrain, Australia, Morocco, Singapore, Chile and the six Latin >>>>American countries of CAFTA. But last year it also refused to >>>>extend "fast track" authority, which gives the president the right >>>>to negotiate trade deals that Congress can approve or reject but cannot >>>> >>>> >>>amend. >>> >>> >>>> "If you look at history, we've had pro-trade presidents since >>>>FDR," the Chamber's Wenk said. "There's absolutely no reason why we >>>>should become inward and protectionist and isolationist right now." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Mai-not mailing list >>>>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >>>> >>>> >>>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >>>>11/20/2008 7:28 PM >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Mai-not mailing list >>>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >>> >>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1802 - Release Date: >20/11/2551 19:28 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1803 - Release Date: 21/11/2551 9:37 From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Nov 21 11:49:02 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri Nov 21 11:50:59 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] The death of NATO ? Message-ID: > http://ecfr.eu/ The European Council on Foreign Relations FYI: That's a Soros-funded stink tank co-chaired by Joschka Fischer, the "Green" who backed the D.U.-bombing of Yugoslavia (including chemical factories and trains). They're not about peace but about forming a globally operating EU Army to replace NATO. Cheers, Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Nov 21 11:49:47 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri Nov 21 11:51:47 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped Message-ID: Glen wrote: > Now take a good > look at army issued (not marine issued) camoflauge uniforms they look > like they've been over bleached----except they were specifically > designed to blend in with a urban envrironment thats been > destroyed---and you got admit those unforms will blend in with concrete > quite well. Geez, and I thought those were _desert_ uniforms for Iraq... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Fri Nov 21 13:14:11 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Fri Nov 21 12:50:43 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Huge impediment to trade tipped In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49270883.6030702@spiritone.com> nope Christoph Reuss wrote: >Glen wrote: > > >>Now take a good >>look at army issued (not marine issued) camoflauge uniforms they look >>like they've been over bleached----except they were specifically >>designed to blend in with a urban envrironment thats been >>destroyed---and you got admit those unforms will blend in with concrete >>quite well. >> >> > >Geez, and I thought those were _desert_ uniforms for Iraq... > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 21 15:27:23 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 21 15:24:25 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] The death of NATO ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200811212124.mALLOFHx031073@karma.reboot.ca> Goes to show you can't trust them Hungarians further than you can throw them. Cheers, Ed. At 09:49 AM 21/11/2008, you wrote: > > http://ecfr.eu/ The European Council on Foreign Relations > >FYI: That's a Soros-funded stink tank co-chaired by Joschka Fischer, the >"Green" who backed the D.U.-bombing of Yugoslavia (including chemical >factories and trains). > >They're not about peace but about forming a globally operating EU Army >to replace NATO. > >Cheers, >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1803 - Release Date: >11/21/2008 9:37 AM From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Nov 21 20:22:47 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri Nov 21 20:22:55 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Britain's kill-for-kicks "specials" Message-ID: <20081122022248.694FC10AA0@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081122/0745f9fb/attachment.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Sat Nov 22 04:05:12 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sat Nov 22 04:07:22 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Britain's kill-for-kicks "specials" Message-ID: > they knew all along it was the wrong guy but hey, they were hyped up > and needed to kill SOMEBODY. "Trained in Israel" says it all, doesn't it? And if it looks like an Arab, runs like an Arab, ...... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 22 09:09:51 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 22 09:10:01 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Britain's kill-for-kicks "specials" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081122150952.76D95F522@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> They even went further than their Israeli trainers told them. They were specifically told that you do not shoot a person until you have actually seen the bomb. British killers don't get as many opportunities as their Israeli trainers to kill people, and they were not going to let the de Menezes opportunity go to waste, even though he looked nothing like the guy who was supposed to be the target and supposed to be carrying a bomb. Had it been the right target and had they pinned him down so there was no way he could let off a bomb (as they did with de Menezes) then shooting him seven times in the head would still be nothing short of extrajudicial execution. (I dunno what they tell Israeli soldiers to do when they actually see the stone in the child's hand though it is depressing clear what they often do). Dion Giles Western Australia At 19:05 22/11/2008, you wrote: > > they knew all along it was the wrong guy but hey, they were hyped up > > and needed to kill SOMEBODY. > >"Trained in Israel" says it all, doesn't it? >And if it looks like an Arab, runs like an Arab, ...... > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 22 09:23:14 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 22 09:23:24 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Michael Moore on car industry bailout Message-ID: <20081122152315.D234BF6D1@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Wondered how he'd handle a difficult conflict of valid principles. The interview is mirrored at http://www.truthout.org/112108LA followed by readers' comments (including mine!). The original story is at http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/11/20/lkl.michael.moore/index.html Dion Giles Western Australia From creuss at bluewin.ch Sat Nov 22 11:35:53 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sat Nov 22 11:37:51 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Britain's kill-for-kicks "specials" Message-ID: > They even went further than their Israeli trainers told them. They > were specifically told that you do not shoot a person until you have > actually seen the bomb. The IDF obviously does not wait until they see a bomb. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From fresch at ica.net Sat Nov 22 13:28:19 2008 From: fresch at ica.net (Fred Schneider) Date: Sat Nov 22 13:28:28 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd.: Credit and Credibility, PBS program. Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081122142338.026b13c8@ica.net> Credit and Credibility See video at: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/446/index.html Excerpt: Video: Credit and Credibility What role did the credit rating agencies play in the current economic crisis? This week, a former managing director at Standard & Poor's speaks out on U.S. television for the first time about how he was pressured to compromise standards in a push for profits. Frank Raiter reveals what was really going on behind closed doors at the credit rating agencies the public relies on to evaluate the safety of their investments. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/446/index.html My home page: "http://home.ica.net/~fresch/index.htm" ======================================== Fred Schneider, 905-279-7199, Fax: same, call first! #37-425 Meadows Blvd. Mississauga, ON, L4Z 1N3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081122/f60e6433/attachment.html From duanebehrens at cox.net Sat Nov 22 14:15:10 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Sat Nov 22 14:15:12 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: THE LAW IS THE LAW!!... Message-ID: <20081122151510.LJPA2.454910.imail@fed1rmwml30> Hal writes to president [sic] Bush: As one of your last official acts, I request that you sign an Executive Order abolishing ALL federal holidays with any semblance of religious overtones, as being unconstitutional. DUANE: You know, Hal, across our nation's history there have rarely (if ever) been any protestations about merely RECOGNIZING the presence of God. On the contrary, those words "In God We Trust" seem universally accepted to all; they really always have been. But along WITH that acceptance - a condition of that acceptance, if you will - has also come the understanding that American government will not, can not and shall not use its tax-funded authority to influence or meddle in private citizens' religious beliefs. A clear line between government and religion has thus always existed. And we were comfortable with that for more than 200 years. Providing federal preferences and federal funding to "faith-based" educational facilities, as the Bush administration has done, clearly crosses that line. Pretending that that wrong is somehow related to "prayer in schools" or "religious holidays" instead of the appropriate legislative separation of church and state is a deflection. It is a lie borne of evil cunning by the potential recipients of anti-constitutional "law" meant to offset the educational costs of the wealthy by closing schools in our poorest neighborhoods. And it's probably not what Jesus would do. Duane Behrens -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson ============= From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 22 22:33:19 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 22 22:33:28 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: THE LAW IS THE LAW!!... In-Reply-To: <20081122151510.LJPA2.454910.imail@fed1rmwml30> References: <20081122151510.LJPA2.454910.imail@fed1rmwml30> Message-ID: <20081123043319.CB0F9F4AA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081123/32e5c82d/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ae56eb.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39950 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081123/32e5c82d/ae56eb-0001.jpg From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sun Nov 23 22:18:09 2008 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sun Nov 23 23:29:11 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: How they make SPIN Message-ID: <013201c94df5$7c6e75f0$45ad57ca@jfos> AND this is why we call it ***POLITICS*** ALSO KNOWN AS 'SPIN' Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for horsestealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: 'Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted, and hanged in 1889.' Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff sent back the following biographical sketch: 'Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honour, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.' And that is how it's done, folks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081124/548e7040/attachment.html From papadop at peak.org Sun Nov 23 23:43:30 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Mon Nov 24 00:26:21 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: How they make SPIN In-Reply-To: <013201c94df5$7c6e75f0$45ad57ca@jfos> References: <013201c94df5$7c6e75f0$45ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: The basic story may or may not be an urban myth - there is no annotation, and it's verifiability rests solely on the naming of "Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher" M. ########## On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, john foster wrote: AND this is why we call it ***POLITICS*** ALSO KNOWN AS 'SPIN' Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for horsestealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: 'Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted, and hanged in 1889.' Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff sent back the following biographical sketch: 'Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honour, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.' And that is how it's done, folks! From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Nov 24 09:02:38 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon Nov 24 09:04:42 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: <> http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job .html Howard Zinn: "I Don't Care" If 9/11 Was An Inside Job Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the establishment left Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Tuesday, November 18, 2008 World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn recently told an audience that he didn't care if 9/11 was an inside job, echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement. Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, "I don't know much about the situation and the truth is, I don't care that much about it, that's passed?.that's a diversion from what we really have to do," adding that debating who was behind 9/11, "gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation". Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn's fawning army of left-wing sycophants. Watch the clip below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 Zinn's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and contempt towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite the fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last seven years. During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth movement peddled "arcane and dubious theories" and had distracted activists from pursuing "crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC," presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without the pretext of 9/11. When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, stating, "The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully." Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, "That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about U.S. government foreknowledge. Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise. Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years. It's painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them worse than disinformation agents. "I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent," states Salandria, "But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency." Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that it didn't matter even if it was. "When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion," notes one blogger. The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11. ________________________________________________________ "If you want to sabotage a movement, put your own agents into their top positions." -- Sun Tzu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From thinker at thelakebc.ca Mon Nov 24 09:53:21 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Mon Nov 24 09:50:57 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Flooding the world with dollars. Message-ID: <200811241550.mAOFoCOn014197@karma.reboot.ca> Remember that some of those worthless US dollars will end up in other election campaigns, just as their predecessors helped Harper in Canada. Under the phony free trade "national treatment" clause, a foreign corporation already in, or coming into a country, is permitted full rights to pay and control governments. Cheers, Ed. [] November 24, 2008 Democrats' Stimulus Plan May Reach $700 Billion Spending Package Would Rival Financial System Bailout Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302064.html Recession's Grip Forces U.S. to Flood World With More Dollars Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The world needs more dollars. The United States is preparing to provide them. In an all-out assault on capitalism's worst crisis since the Great Depression, the U.S. is taking on the role of both lender and borrower of last resort for the global economy. The Federal Reserve, which has already pumped out hundreds of billions of dollars, might formally adopt a policy of flooding the world financial system with even more money. The Treasury, on course to borrow some $1.5 trillion this fiscal year, may tap global capital markets for even more to finance a fiscal stimulus package of as much as $700 billion and provide additional bailout money for banks. "You want to do everything you can when you're facing the threat of a deflationary breakdown of the economy," says Michael Feroli, a former Fed official who is now an economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. He sees the central bank cutting the overnight lending rate to zero in January and holding it there throughout the year. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are being forced to pull out the stops because the extraordinary actions they've taken so far have failed to gain much traction. Credit markets are collapsing, stock prices are plunging and the world economy is sinking into a recession. As the economy deteriorates, deflation -- a sustained decline in wages and prices -- is emerging as a new threat. U.S. government figures last week showed that consumer prices excluding food and fuel costs fell in October for the first time since 1982. Shell-Shocked Investors, shell-shocked by the turmoil, are piling into super-safe Treasury securities, even as the U.S. government ships more supply out the door. Three-month bill rates dropped last week to 0.01 percent, the lowest since at least January 1940, and yields on Treasuries maturing in two through 30 years all fell to the least since the government began regular sales of the securities. And the dollar has risen as loss-ridden banks worldwide husband their resources, even after receiving generous dollops of liquidity from the Fed. The U.S. currency has surged about 17 percent against the euro -- signaling demand for still more dollars -- in the two months since the crisis deepened after the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Meanwhile, gold is down almost 25 percent from its peak in March. Swap Lines To help fight the worldwide dollar squeeze, the Fed has set up currency swap lines with more than a dozen other central banks. Some arrangements, including those with Europe, Britain and Japan, are open-ended, allowing the Fed's counterparts to draw as many dollars as they need. The U.S. has also established individual $30 billion swap lines with Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore. In a speech to a banking conference on Nov. 14, Bernanke characterized these efforts as an "internationally coordinated approach" among central banks to fulfill their function as lenders of last resort. As the Fed has stepped up its efforts to combat the credit crisis, its balance sheet has mushroomed. Assets rose to $2.2 trillion on Nov. 19 from $924 billion on Sept. 10, just before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers shook the global financial system. The central bank's holdings are likely to increase further. "I would not be surprised to see them aggregate to $3 trillion -- roughly 20 percent of GDP -- by the time we ring in the new year," Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told the Texas Cattle Feeders Association on Nov. 4. Only the Start That may be only the start if the Fed cuts its benchmark rate, now at 1 percent, to zero and adopts what economists call a policy of "quantitative easing." Under such a strategy, it would concentrate on expanding the amount of reserves in the banking system because it could no longer reduce the cost of that money. The Bank of Japan followed this policy in the early part of the decade as it struggled to rescue the world's second-largest economy from the grip of deflation. Its balance sheet eventually rose to the equivalent of about 30 percent of gross domestic product, says Tom Gallagher, head of policy research for International Strategy and Investment Group in Washington. "The Fed could blow through the BOJ's ceiling," he adds - - ballooning the central bank's holdings to more than $4 trillion. The Treasury is also heading into uncharted territory as it taps capital markets for cash to help finance its bailout fund for the banking system and plug holes in the federal budget caused by the weak economy. Money From Abroad Much of that money will come from abroad. "Foreigners don't seem to be interested in any kind of risky U.S. asset," says Brad Setser, a former Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. So, "instead, they are buying Treasuries." That includes China, which recently passed Japan as the biggest holder of Treasuries. On Nov. 3, the department tripled its estimate of planned debt sales in the final three months of the year to a record $550 billion. Paulson told a conference in Washington Nov. 17 that the U.S. will issue some $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury securities in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. That number, too, could grow. Lawrence Summers, Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and an adviser to President-elect Barack Obama, told the same conference that the U.S. needs a "speedy, substantial and sustained" stimulus package to aid the economy. More Government Spending "Government may have to spend $600 billion to $700 billion next year to reverse the downward cycle," Robert Reich, another Obama adviser and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote in his personal blog Nov. 9. Kenneth Rogoff, a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says the new administration will also have to ask Congress for more money to repair the financial system, over and above the $700 billion already authorized for Paulson's Troubled Asset Relief Program. "By the time all this ends, the TARP is going to be closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion," ISI's Gallagher says. Paulson has already committed $290 billion from the program to buy preferred shares in banks and troubled insurer American International Group Inc. There's always a danger the Fed and Treasury may go too far, setting the stage for a big rise in inflation or another asset bubble down the road as the economy revs up and investors get back their nerve. That's what happened in the early part of the decade as ultra-easy Fed policy and Treasury tax cuts helped fuel a credit boom since gone bust. Bernanke and Paulson might welcome a bit of that exuberance right now -- even at the risk of higher inflation later -- as they try to prevent the biggest credit catastrophe in decades from sending the economy into a deflationary nosedive. "It's true that, over the long run, too much money creates inflation," says Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor now at the Stanford Group Co. in Washington. "But they're trying to keep the economy from going over the precipice and into the abyss." To contact the reporter on this story: Rich Miller in Washington rmiller28@bloomberg.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image00137.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1000 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081124/139ff64c/image00137.gif From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Nov 24 13:57:08 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon Nov 24 13:59:08 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] The Imperialism You Can Believe In Message-ID: http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-imperialism-you-can-believe-in.html The Imperialism You Can Believe In While Leftists Celebrate "Change," Obama Appointees Suggest Massive Expansion Of Bush War Doctrine Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Thursday, November 20, 2008 While naive, giddy and myopic establishment leftists have been celebrating the great "change" heralded by the election of Barack Obama, the President elect has been busy appointing people to key positions who advocate the same Neo-Con imperialist foreign policy crafted during eight years of the Bush administration. The New York Times, widely recognized as the voice of the establishment Democratic left, set the tone of what we can expect from an Obama foreign policy in a lead editorial last Sunday entitled, "A military for a dangerous new world." The editorial calls for U.S. military imperialism not to be scaled back under Obama, but to be vastly expanded both in terms of budget and scope. Iran, China, Somalia, Russia and Pakistan are all listed as potential targets of U.S. military aggression and the paper echoes what Obama himself has said he will implement - an addition of nearly 100,000 more soldiers and marines to American ground forces, bringing the total to 759,000 active duty forces, at a cost of $100 billion dollars over the next six years. Does this sound like a "change" from the Project For a New American century framework of endless "multi-theatre warfare," the inspiration for eight years of Bush administration militarism, or an expansion of that very doctrine? Obama's announced appointees and those that are expected to follow differ only from their Bush administration contemporaries in proficiency and competence, their zeal for military adventurism is coequal, while others that shaped eight awful years of spying, torture, eviscerations on freedom and unprovoked military attacks on sovereign nations will merely stay on in their roles. Welcome to the "change that you can believe in". Obama's likely selection of Hillary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State highlights the brazen hypocrisy with which the "change" agenda has begun to be implemented since Obama won the election two and a half weeks ago. Hillary Clinton Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, a point on which she was attacked by Obama during the phony punch and judy show of the debates. Obama also denounced Clinton for voting in favor of a Senate resolution branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton promised to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel, a mantra echoed by Obama when he assured AIPAC, the notorious Israeli lobby, that military strikes against Iran were very much on the table. Does this sound like the language of diplomacy or a change from eight years of the Bush doctrine? Likewise, one of the favorites to become Obama's Defense Secretary is Mich?le A. Flournoy, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank. As Alex Lantier writes, "Members of CNAS, a rather small Washington think tank with a staff of 30 employees founded in 2003 by (John) Podesta and Flournoy, play an outsized role in the Obama transition team." "So many CNAS members are likely to join the Obama administration that CNAS officials told the (Wall Street) Journal they were concerned the think tank might fold after Obama's inauguration." CNAS has opposed a set timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, has advocated the deployment of more troops in Afghanistan and has called for U.S. troops to be stationed in Pakistan. CNAS has also urged military spending to be beefed up in order to compete with China's growing Navy. "CNAS publications, many of which are publicly available on its web site, make it clear that the Obama administration's foreign policy will have a thoroughly imperialist character," notes Lantier. How does this represent a "change" from eight years of Bush administration foreign policy? How does this represent a shift from a strategy of diplomacy based on intimidation, invasion and occupation? Robert Gates Obama's advisors have also been floating the likelihood of Robert Gates remaining as Obama's Secretary of Defense, so it looks like we're either going to have a warmonger or a warmonger in the position - what a choice! The Financial Times reported this week, "President-Elect Barack Obama and Robert Gates are negotiating terms under which the defense secretary would remain as Pentagon chief in the new administration." Gates of course has a history of entanglement with the military-industrial complex having pushed for the U.S. bombing of Nicaragua when he was deputy director of the CIA and later being indicted for his involvement in covering up the Iran Contra scandal. Gates was the primary advocate for the Iraq "surge" which increased the U.S. military presence in the country. Obama's decision to appoint Eric Holder as Attorney General caused a flutter of controversy considering Holder's involvement in ensuring billionaire fugitive investor Marc Rich received a presidential pardon at the end of Bill Clinton's term, but the real dirt on Holder is far more shocking. Eric Holder After leaving the Clinton administration, Holder, who played a key role in the 2005 re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which Obama voted for, set up the legal and lobbying firm of Covington & Burling. The firm's most high-profile case was its defense of Chiquita Brands International, Inc, whose executives were facing charges of aiding terrorists for bankrolling and arming right-wing death squads in Colombia. As Bill Van Auken writes, "Using his longstanding ties at the Justice Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the overwhelming evidence-and the company's own admission-that it had paid out millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre, assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists." "Holder's record is not that of a champion of civil and democratic rights or a defender of the oppressed, but rather a legal servant of the corporations and the state, complicit in their criminality and repression." Holder's law enforcement deputy in the Obama administration is likely to be Robert Mueller, who will remain as FBI Director despite his involvement in the use of National Security Letters to illegally spy on American citizens via the collection of email, telecommunications and financial records. Robert Mueller Obama's head of the CIA transition team is none other than John Brennan, an aide to former CIA director George Tenet and a key participant in the formulation of policies that led to the torture scandal, extraordinary renditions and secret prisons. Van Auken notes, "Brennan, like Tenet, deserves to confront a war crimes tribunal, yet he is shaping intelligence policy for Obama." "Given these appointments, a report published Monday by the Associated Press that the incoming Obama administration "is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in" torture hardly comes as a surprise." Then we have Rahm Emanuel, "the enforcer", and Obama's new chief of staff. Emanuel is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered. Upon news of his appointment, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, told the Jerusalem Post, "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." But forget sins of the father, Rahm Emanuel himself is a former Israeli IDF soldier who has a penchant for making death threats against his political enemies while crazily slamming a knife into a dinner table. Sounds like a diplomatic kind of guy. Rahm Emanuel When Emanuel's appointment was confirmed, top Israeli newspaper the Maariv Daily hailed the news with the headline, "Our man in the White House." Another Israeli news outlet, Y Net, reported, "Emanuel is pro-Israeli, and would not be willing to consider accepting the job unless he was convinced that President-elect Obama is pro-Israel." Recall that President elect Barack Obama's first act of "change" upon winning the Democratic presidential nomination back in June was to don a joint US-Israeli label pin, head on over to AIPAC and prostrate himself in front of the Israeli lobby, vowing to keep military action in mind for Iran and promising to hand over another $30 billion of American taxpayers' money in military assistance to the Zionist state. It seems that Obama has already answered the question of whether he can be a more hardcore Israel hard-liner than George W. Bush - 'yes he can'! When are left-wing establishment liberals going to overcome their inane idolatry for Obama and realize that the people he is putting into positions of power are the same and in some cases worse than the Neo-Cons who ran eight years of Bush foreign policy? When are leftists going to get over their petty power trips and understand that the mantra of "change" is a mere illusion to provide left cover for a massive expansion in U.S. imperialism the likes of which the Bush administration could never have accomplished? When are liberals going to stop behaving like gloating children and understand that Obama's exalted messiah status and political capital, allied with his publicly stated agenda and the nature and track record of those he has appointed to key positions, is a recipe for a new wave of militarism and an expansion of the pre-emptive Bush foreign policy doctrine that Obama himself campaigned against with his rhetorical and empty promises of "change"? ------------------- Over the last few days, unlike scores of other left-wing websites who are still in a zombiefied trance over their new "ObaMassiah", WSWS.org have put out a series of excellent articles concerning the "change" illusion and we encourage you to read them via the links below. Obama's "seamless transition" to endless war by Bill Van Auken http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n18.shtml Obama's transition: A who's who of imperialist policy by Alex Lantier http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n19.shtml Obama's attorney general pick and the illusion of change by Bill Van Auken http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n20.shtml ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Nov 24 19:37:00 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon Nov 24 19:37:07 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Regrettably, Tariq Ali has to be added to the list of gatekeepers. Dion Giles Western Australia At 00:02 25/11/2008, Chris wrote: > < fraud is] a diversion from what we really have to do.>> > > >http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job >.html > > >Howard Zinn: "I Don't Care" If 9/11 Was An Inside Job > >Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the >establishment left > > Paul Joseph Watson > Prison Planet.com > Tuesday, November 18, 2008 > >World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn >recently told an audience that he didn't care if 9/11 was an inside job, >echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers >Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 >truth movement. > >Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if >he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in >particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. > >Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, "I don't >know much about the situation and the truth is, I don't care that much >about it, that's passed?.that's a diversion from what we really have to >do," adding that debating who was behind 9/11, "gets in the way of dealing >with the immediate situation". > >Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the >perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn's fawning army >of left-wing sycophants. > >Watch the clip below. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 > >Zinn's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing >luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and contempt >towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the >contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite the >fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains >was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as >the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last >seven years. > >During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth >movement peddled "arcane and dubious theories" and had distracted activists >from pursuing "crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC," >presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with >hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. >troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without >the pretext of 9/11. > >When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition >that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples >throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin >incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, >stating, "The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, >in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, >has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest >that you look at each of them carefully." > >Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four >months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a >reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New >York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, "That's an internet theory and it's >hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I >don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about >U.S. government foreknowledge. > >Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey >Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls >showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise. > >Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK >assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn >Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, >Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed >to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years. > >It's painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual >cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and >the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official >version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent >soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever >reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them >worse than disinformation agents. > >"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent," states Salandria, "But >with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse >than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a >thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work >of the agency." > >Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Howard >Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went >on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the >public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that >it didn't matter even if it was. > >"When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical >devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they >resort to propaganda and evasion," notes one blogger. > >The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a >crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that >the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to >generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in >preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11. > >________________________________________________________ >"If you want to sabotage a movement, put your own agents > into their top positions." -- Sun Tzu > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 25 08:11:14 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Tue Nov 25 08:11:25 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200811252111140640.02A4ABC8@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> I don't entirely agree with this kind of thing - I think that people like Chomsky, Zinn, and Ali have been great fighters and thinkers and writers in their time against a lot of seriously bad things, and still are for that matter, and that they do not agree with everything that everyone who opposes capitalists or the crimes they are accused of should not, in my opinion, be grounds to dismiss them and all of their work out of hand - actually, you could make a good argument that this kind of tactic is another divide and conquer tactic - if you have ten strong beliefs, according to this kind of thinking, then you must be enemies with someone who only agrees with nine of those beliefs!! (or not necessarily enemies, but at least not friends, and dismiss everything the other person says - which is, I would submit, going to get you into some pretty strange places). I think it is better to just walk your own path (strongly), and when that path is shared with others, this is good, when some of your companions on a certain path diverge for a time, that should be fine too, as long as they are not active enemies in some way - and I don't think you can say someone's disinclination to support your every cause actively makes them an enemy, in the same way, for instance, with these guys, as say PNAC would be pretty much our enemy, in all ways at all times. People like these do not have to apologize to anyone, after lifetimes of fighting for (or against) things we all have agreed with in earlier days, and I think we do them an injustice when we attack them like this (or not 'we', for right or wrong, I haven't been on this bandwagon, actually). It doesn't really matter to me that these people do not see the 911 fight as important, or want to get involved - that in no way at all changes my beliefs about how important this fight is, nor makes me in any way inclined to abandon it - I don't formulate my beliefs on who believes whatever, nor do I reject my beliefs because of what someone else does not believe, I listen to all sides, and make up my own mind, regardless of who else shares or does not share those beliefs. And people who would abandon such a fight because someone like Zinn or whoever says they do not believe in it strongly enough to make it an issue would not really be a companion worth having in the fight - people who follow others, rather than fight because they believe themselves, are never of that much use anyway. More could be said, but that's about the heart of it and much else calls. A good vid of Naomi Klein at the Miami Book Fair recently, on the bailouts and other things, and another guy called Jeremy Scahill who wrote a book on Blackwater and is also a good speaker (about 90 minutes) - http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=naomi+Klein+Miami+Bood+Fair&emb=0&aq=o# . And my own latest thoughts on what is going down - Ultimate Sting http://www.rudemacedon.ca/sting.html . *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-25 at 10:37 AM Dion Giles wrote: >Regrettably, Tariq Ali has to be added to the list of gatekeepers. > >Dion Giles >Western Australia > >At 00:02 25/11/2008, Chris wrote: > > > >> <> fraud is] a diversion from what we really have to do.>> >> >> >>http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job >>.html >> >> >>Howard Zinn: "I Don't Care" If 9/11 Was An Inside Job >> >>Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the >>establishment left >> >> Paul Joseph Watson >> Prison Planet.com >> Tuesday, November 18, 2008 >> >>World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn >>recently told an audience that he didn't care if 9/11 was an inside job, >>echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal >gatekeepers >>Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 >>truth movement. >> >>Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn >if >>he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in >>particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. >> >>Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, "I don't >>know much about the situation and the truth is, I don't care that much >>about it, that's passedŠ.that's a diversion from what we really have to >>do," adding that debating who was behind 9/11, "gets in the way of dealing >>with the immediate situation". >> >>Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the >>perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn's fawning >army >>of left-wing sycophants. >> >>Watch the clip below. >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 >> >>Zinn's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing >>luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and >contempt >>towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the >>contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite >the >>fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains >>was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well >as >>the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last >>seven years. >> >>During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth >>movement peddled "arcane and dubious theories" and had distracted >activists >>from pursuing "crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC," >>presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with >>hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. >>troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without >>the pretext of 9/11. >> >>When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition >>that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples >>throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin >>incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, >>stating, "The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, >>in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, >>has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest >>that you look at each of them carefully." >> >>Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four >>months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a >>reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New >>York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, "That's an internet theory and it's >>hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible >I >>don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about >>U.S. government foreknowledge. >> >>Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey >>Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls >>showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise. >> >>Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK >>assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn >>Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, >>Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed >>to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years. >> >>It's painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual >>cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and >>the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official >>version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent >>soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever >>reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them >>worse than disinformation agents. >> >>"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent," states Salandria, >"But >>with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse >>than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a >>thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work >>of the agency." >> >>Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Howard >>Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went >>on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the >>public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that >>it didn't matter even if it was. >> >>"When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical >>devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they >>resort to propaganda and evasion," notes one blogger. >> >>The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a >>crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that >>the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to >>generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in >>preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11. >> >>________________________________________________________ >>"If you want to sabotage a movement, put your own agents >> into their top positions." -- Sun Tzu >> >> >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the >keyword >>"igve". >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 - Release Date: 24/11/2551 14:36 From thinker at thelakebc.ca Tue Nov 25 10:29:54 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Tue Nov 25 10:26:51 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <200811251626.mAPGQhDA013206@karma.reboot.ca> I would like to see any rational explanation of how 47 huge, vertical steel beams, welded and bolted together to form a cage, encased in concrete, can collapse vertically, at freefall speed and break into small pieces on the way down, at 45 degree breaks, shown in some of the photos, when the legbone of a human being can carry a vertical load of 1,000 kg ? Has anybody ever seen a steel beam collapse vertically? I have seen thousands of ruins during and after WW 2, whole cities levelled, also many medieval ruins of castles, forts, where the ordinary brick chimneys were still standing upright. With steel/concrete buildings, sometimes the bombs went way down and blew out the lower floors but the structures stood upright. I would also like to know how, when even small plane crashes take months, or even years of investigation, like the Air India crash, over 20 years, there were no investigations, no wrecks, no bodies, no nothing involved with these 4 airliners ? Even intellectuals should be able to think practical ways, or if they can not , then just shut up. Cheers, Ed. At 05:37 PM 24/11/2008, you wrote: >Regrettably, Tariq Ali has to be added to the list of gatekeepers. > >Dion Giles >Western Australia > >At 00:02 25/11/2008, Chris wrote: > > > >> <> fraud is] a diversion from what we really have to do.>> >> >> >>http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job >>.html >> >> >>Howard Zinn: "I Don't Care" If 9/11 Was An Inside Job >> >>Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the >>establishment left >> >> Paul Joseph Watson >> Prison Planet.com >> Tuesday, November 18, 2008 >> >>World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn >>recently told an audience that he didn't care if 9/11 was an inside job, >>echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers >>Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 >>truth movement. >> >>Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if >>he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in >>particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. >> >>Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, "I don't >>know much about the situation and the truth is, I don't care that much >>about it, that's passed?.that's a diversion from what we really have to >>do," adding that debating who was behind 9/11, "gets in the way of dealing >>with the immediate situation". >> >>Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the >>perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn's fawning army >>of left-wing sycophants. >> >>Watch the clip below. >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 >> >>Zinn's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing >>luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and contempt >>towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the >>contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite the >>fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains >>was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as >>the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last >>seven years. >> >>During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth >>movement peddled "arcane and dubious theories" and had distracted activists >>from pursuing "crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC," >>presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with >>hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. >>troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without >>the pretext of 9/11. >> >>When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition >>that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples >>throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin >>incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, >>stating, "The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, >>in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, >>has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest >>that you look at each of them carefully." >> >>Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four >>months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a >>reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New >>York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, "That's an internet theory and it's >>hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I >>don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about >>U.S. government foreknowledge. >> >>Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey >>Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls >>showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise. >> >>Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK >>assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn >>Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, >>Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed >>to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years. >> >>It's painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual >>cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and >>the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official >>version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent >>soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever >>reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them >>worse than disinformation agents. >> >>"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent," states Salandria, "But >>with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse >>than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a >>thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work >>of the agency." >> >>Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Howard >>Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went >>on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the >>public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that >>it didn't matter even if it was. >> >>"When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical >>devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they >>resort to propaganda and evasion," notes one blogger. >> >>The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a >>crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that >>the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to >>generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in >>preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11. >> >>________________________________________________________ >>"If you want to sabotage a movement, put your own agents >> into their top positions." -- Sun Tzu >> >> >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >>"igve". >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 >- Release Date: 11/24/2008 2:36 PM From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 25 10:47:55 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Tue Nov 25 10:48:07 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <200811251626.mAPGQhDA013206@karma.reboot.ca> References: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811251626.mAPGQhDA013206@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <200811252347550578.03341E32@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> I have no explanation of why these people don't want to look behind this curtain, but it's up to them - as I said, these are not people who have long lives as apologists for capitalists etc and this is just part of that gatekeeping, quite the reverse, they have done some pretty serious exposing and calling out of 'the bad guys' in their lifetimes, and don't owe anybody anything, in my opinion - in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only responding to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk about - and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial of the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done or whatever, but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get involved with one side or the other, and anyway did not think it that important, as they were fighting other things they thought more important. I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these people are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their right to have that position, and won't shun them for it. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-25 at 8:29 AM Ed Deak wrote: >I would like to see any rational explanation of >how 47 huge, vertical steel beams, welded and >bolted together to form a cage, encased in >concrete, can collapse vertically, at freefall >speed and break into small pieces on the way >down, at 45 degree breaks, shown in some of the >photos, when the legbone of a human being can >carry a vertical load of 1,000 kg ? > >Has anybody ever seen a steel beam collapse >vertically? I have seen thousands of ruins during >and after WW 2, whole cities levelled, also many >medieval ruins of castles, forts, where the >ordinary brick chimneys were still standing >upright. With steel/concrete buildings, >sometimes the bombs went way down and blew out >the lower floors but the structures stood upright. > >I would also like to know how, when even small >plane crashes take months, or even years of >investigation, like the Air India crash, over 20 >years, there were no investigations, no wrecks, >no bodies, no nothing involved with these 4 airliners ? > >Even intellectuals should be able to think >practical ways, or if they can not , then just shut up. > >Cheers, Ed. > > > >At 05:37 PM 24/11/2008, you wrote: >>Regrettably, Tariq Ali has to be added to the list of gatekeepers. >> >>Dion Giles >>Western Australia >> >>At 00:02 25/11/2008, Chris wrote: >> >> >> >>> <>> fraud is] a diversion from what we really have to do.>> >>> >>> >>>http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-dont-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job >>>.html >>> >>> >>>Howard Zinn: "I Don't Care" If 9/11 Was An Inside Job >>> >>>Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the >>>establishment left >>> >>> Paul Joseph Watson >>> Prison Planet.com >>> Tuesday, November 18, 2008 >>> >>>World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn >>>recently told an audience that he didn't care if 9/11 was an inside job, >>>echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal >gatekeepers >>>Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 >>>truth movement. >>> >>>Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn >if >>>he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in >>>particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. >>> >>>Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, "I >don't >>>know much about the situation and the truth is, I don't care that much >>>about it, that's passedŠ.that's a diversion from what we really have to >>>do," adding that debating who was behind 9/11, "gets in the way of >dealing >>>with the immediate situation". >>> >>>Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the >>>perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn's fawning >army >>>of left-wing sycophants. >>> >>>Watch the clip below. >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 >>> >>>Zinn's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing >>>luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and >contempt >>>towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the >>>contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite >the >>>fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains >>>was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well >as >>>the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last >>>seven years. >>> >>>During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth >>>movement peddled "arcane and dubious theories" and had distracted >activists >>>from pursuing "crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC," >>>presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with >>>hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of >U.S. >>>troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched >without >>>the pretext of 9/11. >>> >>>When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition >>>that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples >>>throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin >>>incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, >>>stating, "The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious >one, >>>in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in >history, >>>has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest >>>that you look at each of them carefully." >>> >>>Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four >>>months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a >>>reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New >>>York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, "That's an internet theory and it's >>>hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly >implausible I >>>don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about >>>U.S. government foreknowledge. >>> >>>Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey >>>Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls >>>showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise. >>> >>>Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK >>>assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn >>>Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, >>>Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed >>>to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years. >>> >>>It's painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual >>>cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 >and >>>the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official >>>version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent >>>soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever >>>reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them >>>worse than disinformation agents. >>> >>>"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent," states Salandria, >"But >>>with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse >>>than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a >>>thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work >>>of the agency." >>> >>>Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Howard >>>Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went >>>on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the >>>public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also >that >>>it didn't matter even if it was. >>> >>>"When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical >>>devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they >>>resort to propaganda and evasion," notes one blogger. >>> >>>The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a >>>crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence >that >>>the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to >>>generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in >>>preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about >9/11. >>> >>>________________________________________________________ >>>"If you want to sabotage a movement, put your own agents >>> into their top positions." -- Sun Tzu >>> >>> >>> >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the >keyword >>>"igve". >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Mai-not mailing list >>>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 >>- Release Date: 11/24/2008 2:36 PM > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 25/11/2551 8:29 From thinker at thelakebc.ca Tue Nov 25 11:38:50 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Tue Nov 25 11:35:58 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <200811252347550578.03341E32@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <20081125013700.D8872F5EF@fep08.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <200811251626.mAPGQhDA013206@karma.reboot.ca> <200811252347550578.03341E32@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <200811251735.mAPHZmNC018138@karma.reboot.ca> What I have problem with is that these people are world known and respected commentators. People in their position are not permitted to ignore, or not even attempting to gather even some elementary knowledge and the questioning of events that may completely change world history, one way, or another. I have no idea of the engineering calculations involved, but have enough practical experience and elementary logic to see that there's something badly wrong with the official explanations, plus the lack of independent investigations. This alone should raise the interest and questioning by world known intellectuals and when they don't and are proudly waving their neglect as something praiseworthy, there's something wrong with them. I'm no intellectual, but it is my understanding that intellectuals are supposed to question everything, especially where the lives of thousands and ultimately millions, have been, or could be lost. Cheers, Ed. At 08:47 AM 25/11/2008, you wrote: >I have no explanation of why these people don't >want to look behind this curtain, but it's up to >them - as I said, these are not people who have >long lives as apologists for capitalists etc and >this is just part of that gatekeeping, quite the >reverse, they have done some pretty serious >exposing and calling out of 'the bad guys' in >their lifetimes, and don't owe anybody anything, >in my opinion - in pretty much every other thing >we talk about, they are influential spokespeople >with whom we agree and refer to frequently. I >think it's important to note that they were not >on any stages making speeches about not >believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only >responding to questions after talking about >other things they wanted to talk about - and as >far as I recall, their general response has been >not a denial of the things the 911 truthers are >trying to have accepted or done or whatever, but >simply saying they did not know enough about it >to get involved with one side or the other, and >anyway did not think it that important, as they >were fighting other things they thought more >important. I disagree with that last comment >considerably, but given who these people are and >the things they have done with their lives, I >respect their right to have that position, and won't shun them for it. > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 08-11-25 at 8:29 AM Ed Deak wrote: > > >I would like to see any rational explanation of > >how 47 huge, vertical steel beams, welded and > >bolted together to form a cage, encased in > >concrete, can collapse vertically, at freefall > >speed and break into small pieces on the way > >down, at 45 degree breaks, shown in some of the > >photos, when the legbone of a human being can > >carry a vertical load of 1,000 kg ? > > > >Has anybody ever seen a steel beam collapse > >vertically? I have seen thousands of ruins during > >and after WW 2, whole cities levelled, also many > >medieval ruins of castles, forts, where the > >ordinary brick chimneys were still standing > >upright. With steel/concrete buildings, > >sometimes the bombs went way down and blew out > >the lower floors but the structures stood upright. > > > >I would also like to know how, when even small > >plane crashes take months, or even years of > >investigation, like the Air India crash, over 20 > >years, there were no investigations, no wrecks, > >no bodies, no nothing involved with these 4 airliners ? > > > >Even intellectuals should be able to think > >practical ways, or if they can not , then just shut up. > > > >Cheers, Ed. > > > > > > > >At 05:37 PM 24/11/2008, you wrote: > >>Regrettably, Tariq Ali has to be added to the list of gatekeepers. > >> > >>Dion Giles > >>Western Australia > >> > >>At 00:02 25/11/2008, Chris wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> < >>> fraud is] a diversion from what we really have to do.>> > >>> > >>> > >>>http://www.prisonplanet.com/howard-zinn-i-don > t-care-if-911-was-an-inside-job > >>>.html > >>> > >>> > >>>Howard Zinn: "I Don't Care" If 9/11 Was An Inside Job > >>> > >>>Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the > >>>establishment left > >>> > >>> Paul Joseph Watson > >>> Prison Planet.com > >>> Tuesday, November 18, 2008 > >>> > >>>World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn > >>>recently told an audience that he didn't care if 9/11 was an inside job, > >>>echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal > >gatekeepers > >>>Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 > >>>truth movement. > >>> > >>>Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn > >if > >>>he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in > >>>particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7. > >>> > >>>Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, "I > >don't > >>>know much about the situation and the truth is, I don't care that much > >>>about it, that's passed?.that's a diversion from what we really have to > >>>do," adding that debating who was behind 9/11, "gets in the way of > >dealing > >>>with the immediate situation". > >>> > >>>Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the > >>>perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn's fawning > >army > >>>of left-wing sycophants. > >>> > >>>Watch the clip below. > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-WQ5z53lW8 > >>> > >>>Zinn's comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing > >>>luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and > >contempt > >>>towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the > >>>contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite > >the > >>>fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains > >>>was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well > >as > >>>the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last > >>>seven years. > >>> > >>>During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth > >>>movement peddled "arcane and dubious theories" and had distracted > >activists > >>>from pursuing "crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC," > >>>presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with > >>>hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of > >U.S. > >>>troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched > >without > >>>the pretext of 9/11. > >>> > >>>When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition > >>>that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples > >>>throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin > >>>incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, > >>>stating, "The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious > >one, > >>>in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in > >history, > >>>has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest > >>>that you look at each of them carefully." > >>> > >>>Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four > >>>months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a > >>>reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New > >>>York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, "That's an internet theory and it's > >>>hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly > >implausible I > >>>don't see any point in talking about it," in response to a question about > >>>U.S. government foreknowledge. > >>> > >>>Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey > >>>Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls > >>>showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise. > >>> > >>>Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK > >>>assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn > >>>Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, > >>>Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed > >>>to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years. > >>> > >>>It's painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual > >>>cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 > >and > >>>the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official > >>>version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent > >>>soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever > >>>reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them > >>>worse than disinformation agents. > >>> > >>>"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent," states Salandria, > >"But > >>>with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse > >>>than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a > >>>thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work > >>>of the agency." > >>> > >>>Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Howard > >>>Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went > >>>on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the > >>>public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also > >that > >>>it didn't matter even if it was. > >>> > >>>"When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical > >>>devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they > >>>resort to propaganda and evasion," notes one blogger. > >>> > >>>The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a > >>>crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence > >that > >>>the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to > >>>generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in > >>>preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about > >9/11. > >>> > >>>________________________________________________________ > >>>"If you want to sabotage a movement, put your own agents > >>> into their top positions." -- Sun Tzu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the > >keyword > >>>"igve". > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Mai-not mailing list > >>>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Mai-not mailing list > >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >> > >> > >>No virus found in this incoming message. > >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 > >>- Release Date: 11/24/2008 2:36 PM > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: > 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 25/11/2551 8:29 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 >- Release Date: 11/24/2008 2:36 PM From duanebehrens at cox.net Tue Nov 25 14:45:49 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Tue Nov 25 14:45:52 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: <20081125154549.DHEET.317630.imail@fed1rmwml40> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:57:34 -0800 From: rainmaker To: airheads-chat@micapeak.com Subject: RE: Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud I believe that the reason Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn "don't care" about any explanation for the 9/11 attacks (other than the OCT) is that they are narcissistic adulation whores and essentially, gentlemanly loyal opposition. They talk a good game of outrage in calm voices, write a few papers, urge their acolytes to urge their government to do something, but they know damned good and well that if anything WERE actually done, they'd lose their fat ride on the lecture circuit and tenure gravy train. Much tut-tutting and harrumphing, appoint a blue ribbon commission, hold hearings, issue a white paper, some low level nubs get fired or do a little easy Club Fed time and find Jeebiz as their personal banker, and the lowing herd already forgot about it years ago anyway. The ones who have sufficient attention span to remember don't comprise a large enough slice of the electorate to sway a race for county dogcatcher. But back to Zinn and Chomsky. When she was in college, my daughter was responsible for arranging and booking guest speakers, one of whom was Zinn. She was (and probably still is) one of those fawning sycophants, but the guy rakes it in, let me tell ya. If you want to see someone who raises Hell and is not gentlemanly, it's Ward Churchill, the prof who got bounced from a tenured position in Colorado for his "some people push back" paper. He was unapologetic and still is. Brilliant man, and an equal opportunity offender. Always was. If he denounced the 9/11 Truth people, it would be out of conviction, not self-interest. BTW, I'm still waiting for Bush's eleventh hour pardon-fest for any and all past crimes. -Barry in Spokanistan From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Tue Nov 25 16:01:41 2008 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150) Date: Tue Nov 25 15:38:40 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <20081125154549.DHEET.317630.imail@fed1rmwml40> References: <20081125154549.DHEET.317630.imail@fed1rmwml40> Message-ID: <492C75C5.3080902@spiritone.com> well the statemnet is childish from anyone and is precisely what the perps count on when no one gives a shit they are free to get away with their crime. Personally I favor the old fashion blood and guts type of liberal over the new panty waste liberals that one to kiss and make up---to hell with them hand the damn perps. On the other hand both Chomsky and Zinn have done some good in the past so it would be wrong to condemn them over all but if they don;t want to led on 9-11 then they can get the hell out of the way and let someone else led. There are also some topices that are best left it would be unwise to broach them or you could end up like Gary Webb with the corner ruling the death suicide and stating anyonr of the 3 head wounds could have been the fatal wound. On the last note Zinn has blessed my book with the following comment "This is valuable history of the relationship bewteen big business in the United states and European fascism before, during and after the second World War. The story is shocking and sobering and deserves to be widely read." the book should be available after Christmas. Duane Behrens wrote: >Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:57:34 -0800 >From: rainmaker >To: airheads-chat@micapeak.com >Subject: RE: Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud > >I believe that the reason Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn "don't care" >about any explanation for the 9/11 attacks (other than the OCT) is that they are narcissistic adulation whores and essentially, gentlemanly loyal opposition. > >They talk a good game of outrage in calm voices, write a few papers, urge their acolytes to urge their government to do something, but they know damned good and well that if anything WERE actually done, they'd lose their fat ride on the lecture circuit and tenure gravy train. > >Much tut-tutting and harrumphing, appoint a blue ribbon commission, hold hearings, issue a white paper, some low level nubs get fired or do a little easy Club Fed time and find Jeebiz as their personal banker, and the lowing herd already forgot about it years ago anyway. The ones who have sufficient attention span to remember don't comprise a large enough slice of the electorate to sway a race for county dogcatcher. > >But back to Zinn and Chomsky. When she was in college, my daughter was responsible for arranging and booking guest speakers, one of whom was Zinn. She was (and probably still is) one of those fawning sycophants, but the guy rakes it in, let me tell ya. If you want to see someone who raises Hell and is not gentlemanly, it's Ward Churchill, the >prof who got bounced from a tenured position in Colorado for his "some >people push back" paper. He was unapologetic and still is. Brilliant man, and an equal opportunity offender. Always was. If he denounced the 9/11 Truth people, it would be out of conviction, not self-interest. > >BTW, I'm still waiting for Bush's eleventh hour pardon-fest for any and >all past crimes. -Barry in Spokanistan >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Nov 25 19:45:04 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Tue Nov 25 19:45:12 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <492C75C5.3080902@spiritone.com> References: <20081125154549.DHEET.317630.imail@fed1rmwml40> <492C75C5.3080902@spiritone.com> Message-ID: <20081126014506.1962C127DA@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081126/47f9e69e/attachment.html From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Nov 25 19:35:39 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue Nov 25 19:49:54 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: eyewitness Venezuela; Thanksgiving myth; Bolivia; Western Sahara; ANC; French new left; Diego Garcia; nationalisation; population Message-ID: <492CA7EB.9060304@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links@dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links./*/ / * * * Chavez calls for 'revolution in the revolution' -- On the spot reports from Venezuela on the eve of the Nov. 23 elections By Barry Healy & Annolies Truman, Caracas November 22, 2008 -- Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called for a "revolution within the revolution" at an 8000 strong United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) rally here on November 18. Chavez called upon the PSUV ranks to hold successful PSUV candidates to account if they failed to act in the interests of the people after the election. * Read more Native blood: the truth behind the myth of `Thanksgiving Day' By Mike Ely It is a deep thing that people still celebrate the survival of the early colonists at Plymouth -- by giving thanks to the Christian God who supposedly protected and championed the European invasion. The real meaning of all that, then and now, needs to be continually excavated. The myths and lies that surround the past are constantly draped over the horrors and tortures of our present. * Read more Bolivia's vice-president, ?lvaro Garc?a Linera: 'We are going through the most radical ... social transformation' By ?lvaro Garc?a Linera, introduced and translated by Richard Fidler In the following interview, the vice-president of Bolivia, ?lvaro Garc?a Linera, explains his interpretation of the changes that were made in the draft constitution, originally drafted in December 2007 by the country's constituent assembly, as a result of the recent negotiations involving the parties represented in Bolivia's National Congress. A popular referendum to adopt the new draft constitution is to be held on January 25, 2009. ?lvaro Garc?a Linera also discusses his view of the role of constitutional change in the social transformation of Bolivia that is now under way. * Read more Trade unionists call for solidarity with Western Sahara By Margarita Windisch The 6th Congress of the Western Sahara General Union of Saguia El Hamra and Rio de Oro Workers (UGTSARIO) took place from October 19-21, 2008, in El Aaiun, one of four Saharawi refugee camps in the Hamada desert in south-west Algeria. The brutally harsh Hamada desert, justifiably termed the most inhospitable place on Earth, has become the home away from home for more than 160,000 Saharawi refugees since Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara in 1975. Three Australian trade unionists (two from the Australian Workers Union -- AWU -- and one from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance -- MEAA) travelled thousands of kilometres to attend the congress and participate in the 4th International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers, which was convened as part of the 6th UGTSARIO congress. All three were also members of the Australian Western Sahara Association. * Read more On the spot reports from Venezuela: Right-wing seeks to undermine November 23 elections Below Green Left Weekly/Links Caracas correspondent Federico Fuentes speaks to Latin Radical about developments and possible outcomes of November's regional and state elections in Venezuela. Following that, GLW's Jim McIlroy and Coral Wynter also report from Caracas on the US-backed opposition's antics. * Read more South Africa's ANC: things fall apart BY Dale T. McKinley, Johannesburg November 15, 2008 -- At some point in the not-too-distant future, we might just look back at 2008 as the year in which things really started to fall apart for the African National Congress (ANC). Africa's oldest liberation movement, which has enjoyed overwhelming political hegemony and electoral success since South Africa's democratic breakthrough in 1994, is in deep trouble. * Read more France: Towards the foundation of a New Anti-Capitalist Party By Pierre Rousset The political impact of the New Anti-Capitalist Party (Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste or NPA) process is quite important. In a number places, this new political party in construction is already de facto replacing the French Revolutionary Communist League (Ligue communiste r?volutionnaire or LCR)and is very active. * Read more Close the US military base on Diego Garcia! Complete the decolonisation of Mauritius! By Lindsey Collen, Lalit (Mauritius) October 26, 2008 -- Five separate judgments were handed down in the House of Lords' October 22 judgment on the appeal of the British government against the Chagossians' right of abode on Diego Garcia. Lords Hoffman, Rodger of Earlsferry and Carswell found against the Chagossians' right of abode, while Lords Bingham of Cornhill and Mance found in favour. In this article, we'll summarise the arguments the judges relied upon and also briefly comment on the numerous mentions of Lalit in the judgment, before moving on to the question of Diego Garcia in more political terms; the illegal military occupation of Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands by the British and US, which is the reason for the horrendous banishment of the Chagossians from their home islands is an eminently political problem. * Read more Nationalisation -- a key demand in the socialist program By Dave Holmes For all the misery it represents for ordinary people, there is at least one positive result of the current capitalist financial crisis. The idea of nationalisation is getting an airing again in the West, however squeamish bourgeois leaders and pundits may be about using the actual word. Of course, this is clearly a case of governments mobilising massive resources and taking drastic action to save bankers and speculators from the consequences of their greed but, nevertheless, there it is. And if nationalisation -- state or public ownership -- is allowable in this dubious instance, why not for far more deserving and urgent causes such as saving the planet and the lives and welfare of masses of working people? * Read more Poster: Makeba presente By Ricardo Levins Morales Miriam Makeba passed away on November 10 at a concert in Italy. The link below is to a poster I made in tribute to Makeba as soon as I heard the news. * Read more `Too many people' arguments provide no solution to the global warming crisis By Simon Butler November 17, 2008 -- In Green Left Weekly, Climate and Capitalism and Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal , I argued that population reduction schemes provide no answers to the threat of climate change. Population-based arguments wrongly treat population levels as the cause, rather than an effect, of an unsustainable economic system. This means they tend to divert attention away from pushing for the real changes urgently needed. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. * ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081126/931b25d8/attachment.html From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Nov 25 23:38:41 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Tue Nov 25 23:39:02 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: UNDERNEWS NOV 25 References: Message-ID: <200811261238410953.00B58B19@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Don't know if anyone here is aware of Sam Smith and his Progressive Review, but he does a lot of good writing - here is a bit from yesterday that may be of interest to the demographic which seems to comprise most of this list - he touches briefly on things related to the comments re Zinn et al later on as well - *********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** On 08-11-25 at 3:31 PM SAM SMITH, PROGRESSIVE REVIEW wrote: UNDERNEWS The news while there's still time to do something about it THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW 611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #381 Washington DC 20003 202-423-7884 Editor: Sam Smith EMAIL US REVIEW E-MAIL UPDATES REVIEW INDEX UNDERNEWS XML FEED 25 November 2008 WORD Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences. - Susan B. Anthony SWAMPOODLE REPORT: THE HABIT OF REBELLION Sam Smith As of yesterday, I am one year past the biblical marker of three score and ten. According to the good book, I exist now by "reason of strength" rather than because of any inherent virtue. In fact, the Bible somewhat snottily warns, "yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." Charles Bukowski's in "Thoughts on being 71" notes: It's better now, death is closer, I no longer have to look for it, no longer have to challenge it, taunt it, play with it. it's right here with me like a pet cat or a wall calendar odd, though, I feel no different then I did at 35 or 47 or 62: I am only truly conscious of my age when I look into a mirror: ridiculous baleful eyes, grinning stupid mouth. That's all true, but still I prefer the late Gene McCarthy's interpretation, namely that once past the marker you are free of all biblical restrain. After all, as someone put it, just because one is no longer youthful doesn't mean you can't still be immature. Cicero, naturally, dealt with it all more elegantly: ||| It is after all true that everybody cannot be a Scipio or a Maximus, with stormings of cities, with battles by land and sea, with wars in which they themselves commanded, and with triumphs to recall. Besides this there is a quiet, pure, and cultivated life which produces a calm and gentle old age, such as we have been told Plato's was, who died at his writing-desk in his eighty-first year; or like that of Isocrates, who says that he wrote the book called The Panegyric in his ninety-fourth year, and who lived for five years afterwards; while his master Gorgias of Leontini completed a hundred and seven years without ever relaxing his diligence or giving up work. When some one asked him why he consented to remain so long alive - "I have no fault," said he, "to find with old age." That was a noble answer, and worthy of a scholar. For fools impute their own frailties and guilt to old age. . .. There is . . . nothing in the arguments of those who say that old age takes no part in public business. They are like men who would say that a steersman does nothing in sailing a ship, because, while some of the crew are climbing the masts, others hurrying up and down the gangways, others pumping out the bilge water, he sits quietly in the stern holding the tiller. He does not do what young men do; nevertheless he does what is much more important and better. The great affairs of life are not performed by physical strength, or activity, or nimbleness of body, but by deliberation, character, expression of opinion. Of these old age is not only not deprived, but, as a rule, has them in a greater degree. ||| Of course you wouldn't know it by today's American culture which has done everything in its power to infantilize, institutionalize and ignore its elders. Yet we do the same thing to our young. Go back a couple of centuries and you'll find 16-year olds who were captains of ships and 14 year olds who were serving as apprentices or doing a full day's adult work on the farm. When I try to trace my own spirit of independence, the trail inevitably leads back to a 14 year old driving a tractor and a six-wheeled double-clutching Army surplus personnel carrier on a farm or sailing into a thunderstorm with no one but another teenager to two to help me. Our distorted economy has abandoned far more than the unemployment figures show. It has abandoned those it doesn't even count. But there is something else; I was a member of modern America's most forgotten generation: the silent one. In part, it's our fault. We are, for example, one of two generations never to have elected a president, a fate blessedly secured by Barack Obama's win over John McCain. But it is also true that one of the reasons we didn't have time for such celebrity sports was that we were too busy adapting to a new world thanks to the fact that so much of what we had been raised to believe was being proved wrong. In this sense, the twenty olds of today are in a situation much like the twenty somethings of my era. We had been taught - whatever our ethnicity or gender - to believe explicitly in white male hegemony and in the rules of the Cold War. Within ten years of leaving high school that was no longer part of our truth. Today, the mythology of Reagan-Clinton-Bush economics and the America's superpower status have been similarly shattered. Never again will a majority of Yale undergraduate tell pollsters they want to go into investment banking. Our establishment was stupid, cruel, selfish and incapable of reform. Today's is no different - just the issues. Instead of segregation and nuclear bombs we have a collapsing economy, damaged ecology and destroyed democracy. If today's young want some idea of how to cope, I suggest our example, not because it was any more than occasionally on target but because there are so few parallels. Our efforts ranged from a civil rights revolution to drinking coffee, talking about it all and doing nothing. But there are no right answers when you suddenly find yourself trapped in an interregnum between insanity and uncertainty. The first step, however, is to separate yourself from those who have been running the place and turn your loyalty not to the powerful but to the best truth you can find. You won't find the answer in the stereotypes but in the rebels. After all we produced Sam Nunn, John Dean, Robert Rubin and Antonin Scalia. But, within three years of my own birth, we also came up with Jerry Rubin, Russell Means, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Moyers, Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Abbie Hoffman (born the same year as John McCain), Bobby Seale, James Brown, Woody Allen, Richard Brautigan, Elvis Presley, Gene Wilder, George Carlin, Bill Cosby, Jane Fonda, Jack Nicholson, the Smothers brothers, Stewart Brand, Lily Tomlin and Hunter S Thompson. And that doesn't even include elders of our own generation like Martin Luther King, Dick Gregory and Jules Feiffer. During the most determinedly conformist period of modern America, such names became joyously or vigorously familiar among many of the young, because we had learned to combat, ridicule or just ignore the grossly mistaken message of the establishment. And the interesting thing is that it stuck with us. Unlike the later boomers, many of whom seemed to use the 1960s as a crash pad for their souls and then lost interest once the draft was eliminated, I am struck by the number of refuges of the silent generation who are still on the case. We seemed to have learned a different lesson. Which is why Ralph Nader drives some boomers so crazy; he's refused to sell out. A few years ago I tried to compile a list of one time Ivy Leaguers who had top positions at campus newspapers or radio stations and yet had pursued alternative rather than conventional media careers. The list was pitifully short, including such names as Bill Greider, Jim Ridgeway, Larry Bensky and myself. And the interesting thing most on the list were from the silent generation. Despite all the attention given the 1960s, we had somehow managed to set and maintain a course without its aid. I tried to explain it once in discussing my time at Harvard: ||| Seldom have I been so unhappy doing what I was supposed to be doing and so happy doing what I was not supposed to be doing. Both the exuberance and the despair have only occasionally equaled themselves since and while I blame Harvard for the latter I know it also helped provide the former. Few of my friends have fit the pattern the Harvard stereotype suggests, yet it was Harvard that introduced us. There have been divorces, a stay in a mental hospital, unemployment, depression, dissatisfaction with jobs that others envied them for, even a spell in Allenwood. Where peace has been found it has been sometimes after an enormous struggle that in part seems somehow, but inexplicably, tied up with having gone to Harvard. Perhaps our problem was that we rebelled before the age of rebellion. Dissident students would later attack frontally many of the things we only picked at. We lived in a time that did not even want to talk about things that really seemed to matter. The most active political group on campus was the Young Republicans and their main activity was drinking, The biggest collective action were riots inspired by local councilman Al Vellucci and Pogo. The drug of choice was booze except for some football players who had discovered peyote and some Social Relations majors who had discovered an instructor named Timothy Leary. The full meaning of the Bomb would not occur to most until after we graduated and even those who considered themselves liberal accepted without question that democracy's only real threats came from without. The most important book I read my senior year was Stride Towards Freedom by Martin Luther King. It was not on any of my reading lists. We had left high school ready to take on the world only to taught in college that the world wasn't to be challenged, but just examined, analyzed and manipulated side by side with the right people in the right places. That some of us refused to concede this has been perhaps the major triumph of our later lives -- a triumph of will if not of achievement, like standing on the runway in Casablanca watching the plane take off. My generational peer, Larry Aubach, once said to me, "We will come and we will go and hardly anyone will know we were there." If true, it won't be entirely fair. Caught between the far more assertive, self-assured and self-important World War II and Boomer eras, my generation did something for which credit is not usually given by power-absorbed historians: we adapted. And one would be hard pressed to find in the past many examples where a group as dominant as the white heterosexual American male of the mid to late 20th century gave up so much power so peacefully so quickly. By the time we reached full adulthood, the white males of my generation would find the status that we had been promised already threatened. By the time we had reached full maturity almost everything of social significance that we had been taught had been proved or declared wrong. Instead of continuing the role allegedly held for us in usufruct by our elders, our task, it turned out, was to pass it on to, and share it with, blacks, women and gays. While this was true of all white American men of the time, it was particularly true of our generation because we served as translators of the new to the old. We had, after all, quietly planted some of the change ourselves with the beat rebellion, the irreverence of modern jazz and the civil rights movement. Our generation was the sleeper cell of the Sixties. Not that many were conscious of this role. Sometimes the change just showed up as divorce, depression, or lowered expectations. And if you joined the fray you might find yourself not unlike an American volunteer in the Spanish Civil War: both committed and separate. Historians don't care for inchoate change built on things like anarchistic acquiescence but perhaps some revisionist scholar will discover the unnoted truth that the Silent Generation, by choosing adaptation over resistance, did far more for its country than if it had simply followed suit and elected some presidents and started a few wars. A truth unnoted but perhaps to be expected of those who had, after all, given America the idea of "cool" and "hip." ||| If we are to free ourselves of the current madness, we must likewise retrieve the capacity to rebel even if, at first, it is only in the inefficient, awkward, stumbling way that characterized those of us in the 1950s guided by the unspoken premise that while you can seldom change history, you can always react to it. And the fun part is, that once it become a habit, it's not like a hedge fund at all. It will still have value after three score and eleven years. There is no retirement age for rebellion. Sam Smith, Why Bother? - The words revolution and rebellion attract unjust opprobrium. After all, much of what we identify as peculiarly American is ours by grace of our predecessors' willingness to revolt in the most militant fashion, and their imperfect vision has been improved by a long series of rebellions ranging from the cerebral to the bloody. There is not an American alive who has not been made better by revolution and rebellion. In fact, the terms sit close to what it means to human, since it is our species that has developed the capacity to dramatically change, for better or worse, its own course without waiting on evolution. No other creature has ever imagined a possibility as optimistic as democracy or as devastating as a nuclear explosion, let alone bring them to fruition. To have done so represents an extraordinary rebellion against our own history, cultures and genes. Without revolution and rebellion we would let mating and mutation do their thing. Instead, regularly dissatisfied with our condition, our body, our home, and our government we overthrow genetics through application of imagination, dreams, ambition, skill, perseverance, and strength. Every new idea is an act of rebellion, every work of art, every stretch for something we couldn't do before, every question that begins "what if. . ." Most rebellions don't produce revolutions. A revolution claims, often falsely, to have an known end; a rebellion needs only a known means. When, in the late 90s, college students rioted on some campuses, a dean remarked with bemusement, "There was no purpose in it; it was a rebellion without a cause." The dean didn't catch his own allusion, but I did, because James Dean's movie, Rebel Without a Cause, came out the year I graduated from high school. In it, James Dean, as Jim, tried to explain the cause to his father: "Dad, I said it was a matter of honor, remember? They called me chicken. You know, chicken? I had to go because if I didn't I'd never be able to face those kids again. I got in one of those cars, and Buzz, that -- Buzz, one of those kids -- he got in the other car, and we had to drive fast and then jump, see, before the car came to the end of the bluff, and I got out OK, and Buzz didn't and, uh, killed him...I can't - I can't keep it to myself anymore.". . . In truth, Jim actually had a cause, a desperate, distorted, adolescent search for identity and honor in a society and family that seemed indifferent to such matters. Rejecting his condition was a necessary manifestation of his rebellion, but not its purpose. Those in power, -- deans, parents, or politicians, too often mistake the conflict for the cause. A decade earlier, Humphrey Bogart, as Rick in Casablanca, faced some of the same problems but in an infinitely more sophisticated manner. He was all that James Dean wasn't. With skill and cool, Rick knew how to adapt to the chaos and deceit around him without betraying his own code. Rick maintained his integrity and individuality by stealth even as others were using the same sort of deception to steal and destroy. The film's purist protagonist, the anti-fascist Victor Lazlo -- is a noble prig next to the cynical Rick. "You know," he tells Rick, "it's very important I get out of Casablanca. It's my privilege to be one of the leaders of a great movement. Do you know what I've been doing? Do you know what it means to the work -- to the lives of thousands and thousands of people? I'll be free to reach America and continue my work." Rick: I'm not interested in politics. The problems of the world are not in my department. I'm a saloon keeper. Lazlo: My friends in the Underground tell me that you've got quite a record. You ran guns to Ethiopia. You fought against the Fascists in Spain. Rick: What of it? Lazlo: Isn't it strange that you always happen to be fighting on the side of the underdog? Rick: Yes, I found that a very expensive hobby too, but then I never was much of a businessman... Later Rick tells the beautiful Ilsa "I'm not fighting for anything anymore except myself. I'm the only cause I'm interested in." Ilsa importunes Rick to help Lazlo escape, saying that otherwise he will die in Casablanca. "What of it?" asks Rick. "I'm gonna die in Casablanca. It's a good spot for it." In fact, however, Rick helps to get Laszlo out of jail in time for a Lisbon-bound plane, shoots the infamous German Major Strasser, and watches as Ilsa leaves Casablanca in the fog with the handsome Laszlo -- thus losing his woman but keeping his soul. Rick is not a revolutionary, but is definitely a rebel. And he's not the only one in the movie, for as the gendarmes arrive following Strasser's death, the sly police official, Louis Renault, faces a choice of turning Rick in or protecting him. It is then, to audiences' repeated joy, that he instructs his men to "round up the usual suspects." With La Marseillaise playing slowly in the background, Renault turns to Rick and says, "Well, Rick, you're not only a sentimentalist, but you've become a patriot." And Rick replies, "It seemed like a good time to start." Of course, a well-schooled progressive of today might prefer, in place of such diffident heroics, the words of Mario Savio in 1964: "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." Or some of the strategies recommended by Howard Zinn: "A determined population can not only force a domestic ruler to flee the country, but can make a would-be occupier retreat, by the use of a formidable arsenal of tactics: boycotts and demonstrations, occupations and sit-ins, sit-down strikes and general strikes, obstruction and sabotage, refusal to pay taxes, rent strikes, refusal to cooperate, refusal to obey curfew orders or gag orders, refusal to pay fines, fasts and pray-ins, draft resistance, and civil disobedience of various kinds ..... Thousand of such instances have changed the world but they are nearly absent from the history books." In his own memoir, however, Zinn not only urges imagination, courage, and sacrifice, but patience as well, and tells a Bertolt Brecht fable with echoes of Casablanca: "A man living alone answers a knock at the door. There stands Tyranny, armed and powerful, who asks, 'Will you submit?' The man does not reply. He steps aside. Tyranny enters and takes over. The man serves him for years. Then Tyranny mysteriously becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man opens the door, gets rid of the body, comes back to the house, closes the door behind him, and says, firmly, 'No.'" And there's also a bit of Rick in Raymond Chandler's private detectives: "You don't get rich, you don't often have much fun. Sometimes you get beaten up or shot at or tossed into the jail house. Once in a long while you get dead. Every other month you decide to give it up and find some sensible occupation while you can still walk without shaking your head. Then the door buzzer rings and you open the inner door to the waiting room and there stands a new face with a new problem, a new load of grief, and a small piece of money." Chandler says the detective must be "a man of honor. . .without thought of it, and certainly without saying it." In such ways can rebellion be far quieter and surreptitious than we suppose. For example, we tend to think of the 1950s as a time of unmitigated conformity, but in many ways the decade of the 60s was merely the mass movement of ideas that took root in the 50s. In beat culture, jazz, and the civil rights movement there had already been a stunning critique of, and rebellion against, the adjacent and the imposed. Steven Watson credits the term beat to circus and carnival argot, later absorbed by the drug culture. "Beat" meant robbed or cheated as in a "beat deal." Herbert Huncke, who picked up the word from show business friends and spread it to the likes of William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, and Jack Kerouac, would say later that he never meant it to be elevating: "I meant beaten. The world against me." Gregory Corso defined it this way, "By avoiding society you become separate from society and being separate from society is being beat." Keruoac, on the other hand, thought it involved "mystical detachment and relaxation of social and sexual tensions." Inherent in all this was not only rebellion but a journey. "We were leaving confusion and nonsense behind and performing our one and noble function of the time, move," wrote Kerouac in On the Road. It is instructive during a time in which even alienated progressives outfit themselves with mission and vision statements and speak the bureaucratic argot of their oppressors to revisit that under-missioned, under-visioned culture of what Norman Mailer called the "psychic outlaw" and "the rebel cell in our social body." What Ned Plotsky termed, "the draft dodgers of commercial civilization." Unlike today's activists they lacked a plan; unlike those of the 60s they lacked anything to plan for; what substituted for utopia and organization was the freedom to think, to speak, to move at will in a culture that thought it had adequately taken care of all such matters. Although the beats are frequently parodied for their dress, sartorial nonconformity was actually more a matter of indifference rather than, as in the case of some of the more recently alienated, conscious style. They even wore ties from time to time. Yet so fixed was the stereotype that the caption of a 1950s AP photograph of habitués in front of Washington's Coffee 'n' Confusion Café described it as a place for bearded beatniks when not one person in the picture had a beard. Rather they were a bunch of young white guys with white shirts and short haircuts. Cool resided in a nonchalant, negligent non-conformity rather than in a considered counter style and counter symbolism.. To a far great degree than rebellions that followed, the beat culture created its message by being rather than doing, rejection rather than confrontation, sensibility rather than strategy, journeys instead of movements, words and music instead of acts, and informal communities rather than formal institutions. For the both the contemporaneous civil rights movement and the 1960s rebellion that followed, such a revolt by attitude seemed far from enough. Yet these full-fledged uprisings could not have occurred without years of anger and hope being expressed in more individualistic and less disciplined ways, ways that may seem ineffective in retrospect yet served as absolutely necessary scaffolding with which to build a powerful movement. Besides, with the end of the Vietnam War, America soon found itself without a counterculture or - with a few exceptions - even a visible resistance by societal draft dodgers. The young -- in the best of times the most reliable harbinger of hope; in the worst of times, the most dismal sign of futility -- increasingly faced a culture that seemed impermeable and immutable. The establishment presented a stolid, unyielding, unthinking, unimaginative wall of bland certainty. It looked upon pain, aspiration and hope with indifference, and played out false and time-doomed fantasies to the mindless applause of its constituency. The unalterable armies of the law became far more powerful and less forgiving. The price of careless or reckless rebellion became higher. Bohemia was bought and franchised. Even progressive organizations required a strategic plan, budget, and press kit before heading to the barricades. A school district in Maryland told its teachers not to include creativity or initiative in a student's grades because they were too hard to define. Hipness became a multinational industry and no one apparently thought twice about putting a headline on the cover of a magazine "for men of color" that declared "The Rebirth of Cool," exemplified by 50 pages of fashions by mostly white designers. One west coast student told me bluntly that it was pointless to rebel because whatever one did would be commodified. Others chose not to confront the system but to undermine it in the small places where they lived. You would find them in classrooms or in little organizations, working in human scale on human problems in a human fashion. Their project was to simply recreate the human right where they were. . . There was something else: music. In rock and rap -- as in blues and folk music earlier -- people found that what they couldn't achieve could still be sung or shouted about. And central to this sound was not just a message but who was allowed to deliver it. For example, the music webzine, Fast 'n' Bulbous, described punk this way: "Punk gives the message that no one has to be a genius to do it him/herself. Punk invented a whole new spectrum of do-it-yourself projects for a generation. Instead of waiting for the next big thing in music to be excited about, anyone with this new sense of autonomy can make it happen themselves by forming a band. Instead of depending on commercial media, from the big papers and television to New Musical Express and Rolling Stone, to tell them what to think, anyone can create a fanzine, paper, journal or comic book. With enough effort and cooperation they can even publish and distribute it. Kids were eventually able to start their own record labels too. Such personal empowerment leads to other possibilities in self-employment and activism.". . . By the end of the 1990s, an unremittingly political band, Rage Against the Machine, had sold more than 7 million copies of its first two albums and its third, The Battle of Los Angele, (released on Election Day 1999), sold 450,000 copies its first week. Nine months later, there would be a live battle of Los Angeles as the police shut down a RATM concert at the Democratic Convention. Throughout the 1990s, during a nadir of activism and an apex of greed, RATM both raised hell and made money. In 1993 the band, appearing at Lollapalooza III in Philadelphia, stood naked on stage for 15 minutes without singing or playing a note in a protest against censorship. In 1994, Rage organized a benefit concert "for the freedom of Leonard Peltier." In 1995 they gave one for Mumia Abu-Jamal. In 1997, well before most college students were paying any attention to the issue, Rage's Tom Morello was arrested during a protest against sweatshop labor. Throughout this period no members of the band were invited to discuss politics with Ted Koppel or Jim Lehrer. But a generation heard them anyway. RATM T-shirts became a common sight during the 1999 Seattle protest. There is no good way to predict how such things will work out. Change often comes without a formal introduction. Like the time in early 1960 when four black college students sat down at a white-only Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, NC. Within two weeks, there were sit-ins in 15 cities in five southern states and within two months they had spread to 54 cities in nine states. By April the leaders of these protests had come together, heard a moving sermon by Martin Luther King Jr. and formed the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Four students did something and America changed. Even they, however, couldn't know what the result would be. "You do not become a 'dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career," Vaclav Havel would say while still a rebel. "You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society . . . "The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He has no desire for office and does not gather votes. He does not attempt to charm the public, he offers nothing and promises nothing. He can offer, if anything, only his own skin -- and he offers it solely because he has no other way of affirming the truth he stands for. His actions simply articulate his dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost." Not every revolt is just. One of Tom Stoppard's characters says, "Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering; the capacity for self-indulgence changes hands. But the world does not alter its shape or its course." Too often this true. Infatuation with revolutions has been a particular handicap of the left causing such embarrassments as support for the Stalin regime when no possible excuse could be made for it. It is not that revolutions are wrong - how can an American say that? Rather it is that, on average, revolutions are defined not by the wonder of their promise but by the horrors of what preceded them. They replace evil, but without a warranty. To be a free thinker, Bertrand Rusell said, a man must be free of two things: "the force of tradition, and the tyranny of his own passion." It is the obliteration of the former but subservience to the latter that creates the revolutionary dictator. . . In fact, every act in the face of wrong carries twin responsibilities: to end the evil and to avoid replacing it with another. This twin burden is analogous to what a doctor confronts when attempting to cure a disease. There is even a name for medical failure in such cases; the resulting illness is called iatrogenic - caused by the physician. In politics, however, we have been taught to believe that simply having good intentions and an evil foe are sufficient. This is not true. Arguably from the moment we become aware of an evil, and certainly once we commence an intervention, we become a part of the story, and part of the good and evil. We are no longer the innocent bystander but a participant whose acts will either help or make things worse. Our intentions immediately become irrelevant; they are overwhelmed by our response to them. Our language confuses this business terribly. That which is known at the personal level as terrorism is called humanitarian or a peacekeeping mission when carried out by the state. Thus both the office building destroyed by a few individuals and the country destroyed by a multinational alliance lie in ruins to support the tragic myth that Allah or democracy will be better for it. But nothing grants us immunity from responsibility for our own acts. So if we are to revolt, rebel, avenge, or assuage, our duty is not only to the course we set but to what we leave in our wake. . . PAGE ONE MUST AFGHAN DRUG BUSINESS BOOMING RIA Novosti, Russia - Opium production in Afghanistan has increased by 150% since a NATO-led security and development mission entered the country in 2001, Russia's Federal Drug Control Service said. "Afghanistan has become the absolute leader in narcotics production, producing 93% of the world's entire opiates. . . Afghan drug dealers have in two years set up the successful production of cannabis with over 70,000 hectares of land being cultivated, taking Afghanistan into second place in the world behind Morocco in terms of the cultivation of such drugs," the service said in a statement. Since the Taliban regime was overthrown in the 2001 U.S.-led campaign, Afghanistan, with almost all its arable land being used to grow opium poppies remains the world's leading producer of heroin. According to the UN, Afghanistan's opium production increased from 6,100 tons in 2006 to 8,200 tons in 2007. 40,000 GLEAN VEGETABLES FROM COLORADO HARVEST WJLA - A farm couple got a huge surprise when they opened their fields to anyone who wanted to pick up free vegetables left over after the harvest - 40,000 people showed up. Joe and Chris Miller's fields were picked so clean that a second day of gleaning - the ancient practice of picking up leftover food in farm fields - was canceled "Overwhelmed is putting it mildly," Chris Miller said. "People obviously need food." She said she expected 5,000 to 10,000 people would show up Saturday to collect free potatoes, carrots and leeks. Instead, an estimated 11,000 vehicles snaked around cornfields and backed up more than two miles. About 30 acres of the 600-acre farm 37 miles north of Denver became a parking lot. "Everybody is so depressed about the economy," said Sandra Justice of Greeley, who works at a technology company. "This was a pure party. Everybody having a a great time getting something for free." Justice and her mother and son picked 10 bags of vegetables. Miller said they opened the farm to the free public harvest for the first time this year after hearing reports of food being stolen from churches. It was meant as a thank you for customers. Farm operations manager Dave Patterson said that in previous years the Millers allowed schoolchildren and some church groups to come to the farm during the fall to harvest their own food. He estimated some 600,000 pounds of produce was harvested Saturday. Weld County sheriff's deputies helped direct traffic and the Colorado State Patrol issued citations for cars illegally parked on the side of the road. EVEN CORRECTING FOR INFLATION, BAILOUT BIGGER THAN MARSHALL PLAN, LOUISIANA PURCHASE, RACE TO THE MOON, S&L CRISIS, KOREAN WAR, NEW DEAL, INVASION OF IRAQ, VIETNAM WAR & NAS COMBINED Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing - If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now [ of the bailout] exceeds $4.6 trillion dollars. . . The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history. Crunching the inflation adjusted numbers, we find the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures - combined: - Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion -Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion - Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion -S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion -Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion -The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est) -Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion -Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion -NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion TOTAL: $3.92 trillion OBAMA POISED TO BLUNDER IN AFGHANISTAN SIMON JENKINS, GUARDIAN The reason not to let Iraq slip un-mourned into history is that the episode has one last service to perform. It should teach a lesson that foreign expeditions undertaken in a spirit of jingoist revenge, with a crazed optimism and no strategic plan, are usually a bad idea. That lesson could not be more relevant, as the identical error is being made in Afghanistan and by the same two men who privately or (in Obama's case) publicly expressed reservations about Iraq. In his last utterance Gordon Brown himself seemed blind to the parallels, talking as if one more push, one more hearts-and-minds campaign, should send Johnny foreigner back to the hills so decent people can walk the streets of London in peace. The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has grown increasingly exasperated with the blatant failure of NATO to bring security to his country. He is no fantasist. He knows that he is powerless outside his capital, except where a genius for wheeler dealing can keep the drug lords in funds and the Taliban at bay. The Taliban are gaining ground and he is running out of time to negotiate with their leaders with leverage behind him. Hence last week's outburst, in which Karzai indicated his determination to talk with the Taliban and offer safe protection to Kabul for their former leader, Mullah Omah, for that purpose. Should the Americans object, he replied that "if I say I want protection for Mullah Omah, the international community has two choices, remove me or leave". Meanwhile, a private war is being fought by US special forces against anyone with a gun in the east of the country, the bombing of Pakistani villages so capricious and counter-productive as to suggest a lack of all tactical control. In the south the British have no strategy except to re-enact the Zulu wars at exorbitant cost in money and lives. The Helmand campaign is magnificent but mad. . . Last month Taliban operating out of Pakistan's North-West Frontier territory cut the Khyber Pass, a crucial supply link into Kabul, which can be traversed only in massively armed convoys. This is precisely the trap into which invading forces have been sucked for a century and a half, be they British, Russian or now American. As a blunder it ranks with marching on Moscow. Yet NATO has done it. Nobody reads history. The error of Afghanistan is far more serious than the error of Iraq. If the resulting insurgency is now exported to Pakistan, both errors will seem peccadilloes. Pakistan is the sixth largest state in the world, and nuclear-armed. The awful prospect is that Obama and Brown may feel too weak to learn from Iraq and pull back. They will blunder on, not to a clean defeat but to something far worse, a war of attrition whose poison will spread across a subcontinent. THE YOUNG LEARN BETTER ON THE WEB THAN ADULTS THINK Marshall Kirkpatrick, Read Write Web - The ways young people use the internet everyday are transforming learning in ways that adults often fail to understand but represent major new opportunities that need to be taken advantage of by supportive educators. That's the conclusion of a major new study by 28 researchers over three years released today by the University of California at Berkley and the MacArthur Foundation. . . Funded by the MacArthur Foundation's Digital Media and Learning Series, the research [finds]: New media allow for a degree of freedom and autonomy for youth that is less apparent in classroom setting. Youth respect one another's authority online, and they are often more motivated to learn from peers than from adults. Their efforts are also largely self-directed, and the outcome emerges through exploration, in contrast to classroom learning that is oriented toward set, predefined goals. Contrary to adult perceptions, while hanging out online, youth are picking up basic social and technological skills they need to fully participate in contemporary society. Erecting barriers to participation deprives teens of access to these forms of learning. Participation in the digital age means more than being able to access "serious" online information and culture. Youth could benefit from educators being more open to forms of experimentation and social exploration that are generally not characteristic of educational institutions. Youth using new media often learn from their peers, not teachers or adults, and notions of expertise and authority have been turned on their heads. Such learning differs fundamentally from traditional instruction and is often framed negatively by adults as a means of "peer pressure." Yet adults can still have tremendous influence in setting "learning goals," particularly on the interest-driven side, where adult hobbyists function as role models and more experienced peers. BREEZE PROVIDES SPAIN WITH 43% OF ELECTRICITY FOR A BRIEF PERIOD Tree Hugger - For a brief period on Monday, November 24th wind power provided 43% of all of Spain's demand for electricity, according to the Spanish wind power association. At around 5 AM, wind power generated 9,253 megawatts of power out of a total demand of 21,264 megawatts. So demand was low because of the early hour of the morning, but it's still a record worth noting. The previous wind power record for Spain was 40.8% , set back in March of this year. For the year, wind power is expected to supply about 11% of total Spanish electricity demand. The town of Rock Port, Missouri manages to supply 123% of its electric demand through wind power. Residents of that town have the honor of living in the first fully wind powered town in the United States. ACLU CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE CHARITIES AS TERRORISTS ACLU - A federal court should block the government from blacklisting an Ohio-based charity without providing it due process and should lift a freeze on the organization's assets, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio and several civil rights lawyers argued. The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (]froze the funds of Kind Hearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development. more than 33 months ago without notice or a hearing, based simply on the assertion that the charity was "under investigation." OFAC then threatened to designate Kind Hearts as a "specially designated global terrorist" based on classified evidence, again without providing it with a reason or meaningful opportunity to defend itself. "OFAC's unlimited authority to seize Kind Hearts' property and shut it down without giving the charity notice or an opportunity to defend itself is unconstitutional," said Hina Shamsi, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project and lead ACLU attorney on the case. "Kind Hearts has been in limbo for more than two and a half years and is asking for independent judicial scrutiny of what has been, until now, unilateral government action." Kind Hearts' founders established the charity in 2002 - after the government shut down a number of Muslim charities - with the express purpose of providing humanitarian aid abroad and at home in the United States in full compliance with the law. Despite the efforts Kind Hearts took to implement OFAC guidance and policies and otherwise exercise diligence, OFAC froze its assets in February 2006. SMALL BANKS ANGRY WITH BAILOUT ABC News - Wall Street might have been happy with the government's latest multibillion-dollar banking intervention, but many small community banks are asking for equal treatment. main street vs big city banks Some small banks feel the government is ignoring them in favor of big banks. "I guess appalled is not too strong a word," Cindy Blankenship said to describe her feeling after learning of the government's help for Citigroup. Blankenship and her husband founded the Bank of the West back in 1986. The bank, based in Grapevine, Texas, has since grown to eight locations in Northern Texas and has about $280 million in assets.. . . "We're sitting there taking deposits, making loans, operating on a very conservative and prudent basic banking business model," Blankenship said. "We simply could not do what the big banks have done." Blankenship and other small bank owners are upset that the executives leading Citi and other banks are getting help but not being held personally responsible. In small banks, she said, all the key decision makers have a large financial stake in the bank. If it goes broke, they lose their own investment. "We haven't committed these sins but yet, our reputation is tarnished and yet, we still aren't too big to fail," she said. "We're the good guys and I'm furious about it. There is no equal treatment. I'm not too big to fail. If I had gone out and done what the big banks did, I would have been shut down." LEFT OUT OF THE BAILOUT: THE POOR Mark Kukis, Time - As the roster of corporations and financial institutions on line for government bailouts seems to grow, some public policy advocates in Washington D.C. are calling on policymakers to focus more efforts on the nation's poorest. The ranks of the destitute are growing quietly but alarmingly as much of the world focuses on troubles surrounding Wall Street. . . An estimated 36.5 million Americans currently live below the poverty line, but those numbers will likely increase by as many as 10.3 million if current projections for the depth and duration of the recession hold true. According to the center's analysis, the number of poor children will grow by as many as 3.3 million. And the number of children in deep poverty, those in families living on less than half the wages of the official poverty line, will climb by as many as 2 million. Signs of the recession's impact on America's impoverished are increasingly apparent. . . The number of people using food stamps has risen 9.6%, or roughly 2.6 million people, between August 2007 and August 2008, the last period for which data are available. Food banks around the country are reporting longer lines even as donations are falling. HILLARY CLINTON'S POST PRIMARY CON JOB Washington Times - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's team has told the Federal Election Commission that she continued her campaign even after endorsing Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama on June 7, a claim that lets her transfer millions of dollars from her presidential bid to her Senate campaign. The former first lady made the $6.4 million transfer from her White House campaign, which remains more than $7 million in debt, to Friends of Hillary on Aug. 28. That date would fall outside the legal deadline for making such a move if her campaign were to have ended June 7. Her campaign treasurer told federal regulators that Mrs. Clinton spent more than a quarter-million dollars engaging in "vigorous political activity" throughout June, according to newly released FEC filings. "The committee continued to actively contest for delegates at the state and local delegate-selection events during the month of June," campaign treasurer Shelly Moskwa wrote in a letter to the FEC dated Nov. 20. "Nothing in Senator Clinton's remarks indicated that she was withdrawing from the race. While she indicated that she was suspending her campaign, the term 'suspension' has no legal meaning," Ms. Moskwa wrote. Precisely when Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to be Mr. Obama's secretary of state nominee, dropped out of the Democratic presidential primaries is emerging as an important legal question for FEC regulators examining the transfer of funds. Such transfers are legal if donors give their permission, and the Clinton campaign has said donors indeed authorized the move. Still, such transfers also must take place within 60 days of when a candidate withdraws from the race, according to FEC rules. The Aug. 28 transfer date fell more than 80 days after her June 7 concession to Mr. Obama, in which she told supporters in Washington that "we must elect Barack Obama our president. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him." Given Mrs. Clinton's concession speech in early June, the FEC has raised questions about the timing of the Aug. 28 transfer, sending a letter to the Clinton campaign last month asking for more details. NAPOLITANO COVERED UP FOR NATION'S WORST SHERIFF Tom Zoellner, Slate Napolitano has looked the other way on police excess when political calculation demanded it, as well as tolerated the questionable use of local sheriff's deputies to serve as a roving immigration patrol. All of this can be traced to her friendship with the media-obsessed Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., who would consider it his own personal failing if you haven't yet heard of him. He is "America's toughest sheriff," a man who rose to prominence in the 1990s with such newsmaking stunts as feeding his inmates green bologna, clothing them in pink underwear, housing them in surplus Army tents behind barbed wire in the desert, and putting them to work on chain gangs. This punishment is inflicted equally on convicted criminals and those who have been convicted of no crime at all but are awaiting trial and unable to afford bail. Inmates who assault guards are put on rations of water and fortified bread. The public devours it, and Arpaio has consistently enjoyed some of the highest approval ratings of any elected official in Arizona (Maricopa County includes Phoenix). That inmates have a way of getting killed in Sheriff Joe's jails, costing Maricopa County millions of dollars in lawsuits, has not dimmed his star. Nor has a federal judge's order that he provide a constitutionally mandated minimum level of food and health care, an order that said Arpaio had inflicted "needless suffering and deterioration" on the mentally ill. More than a decade ago, Napolitano was in a position to help curb Arpaio's excesses. As a U.S. attorney in 1995, she was put in charge of a Justice Department investigation into atrocious conditions in Arpaio's "tent city." Napolitano carried out her task with what can best be described as reluctance, going out of her way to protect Arpaio from flak almost before the probe had started. "We're doing this with the complete cooperation of the sheriff," she told the Associated Press. "We run a strict jail but a safe jail, and I haven't heard from anyone who thinks that this is a bad thing." The Justice Department's final report, issued about two years later, confirmed a list of disgraces, including excessive use of force, gratuitous use of pepper spray and "restraint chairs" (since blamed for at least three inmate deaths), and hog-tying and beating of inmates. It also said Arpaio's staffing was "below levels needed for safety and humane operations." The Justice Department filed suit and settled with the sheriff the same day after Arpaio agreed to administrative changes, including limiting the use of pepper spray and improving inmate grievance procedures. Napolitano stood with Arpaio at a press conference in which she, according to the Arizona Republic, "pooh-poohed her own lawsuit as 'lawyerly paperwork.' " Arpaio called the result a vindication. ROBERT GATES' URGE TO SURGE Ray McGovern, Antiwar - After meeting in Canada with counterparts from countries with troops in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Gates emphasized to reporters there is a shared interest in "surging as many forces as we can" into Afghanistan before the elections there in late September 2009. At the concluding news conference, Gates again drove home the point: "It's important that we have a surge of forces." Basking in the alleged success of the Iraq "surge," Gates knows a winning word when he hears one - whether the facts are with him or not. Although the conventional wisdom in Washington credits the "surge" with reducing violence in Iraq, military analysts point to other reasons - including Sunni tribes repudiating al-Qaeda extremists before the "surge" and the de facto ethnic cleansing of Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods. In Washington political circles, there's also little concern about the 1,000 additional U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since President George W. Bush started the "surge" early in 2007. The Americans killed during the "surge" represent roughly one-quarter of the total war dead whose numbers passed the 4,200 mark last week. THE OBAMA DONOR MYTH Campaign Finance Institute - It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission, it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated. "The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth." Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less, only 24% of his funds through October 15 came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Deal in 2004. FOXES IN THE CHICKEN COOP: LAWRENCE SUMMERS Mark Ames, Nation - After his stint in the Reaganomics brain trust, [Summers] returned to Harvard to serve as one of the university's youngest professors. In 1988, he was Michael Dukakis's chief economic advisor, but when that campaign failed to bring Summers to power, he turned to America's great rival, the former Soviet Union, to try out his economic experiments. In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence, hired Summers to advise on that country's economic transformation. Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers's first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania's suicide rate was 26 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers got his hands on Lithuania's economy, life became so unbearable under the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 46 per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain were common. Things got so bad that in 1992, after just two years of Summers-nomics, the traumatized Lithuanians voted the communist party back into power, the first East European nation to do so -- even though just a year earlier Lithuanians actually died on the streets fighting communism. Fresh off his success in Lithuania, Summers moved to the World Bank, where he was named the chief economist in 1991, the year he issued his famous let's-pollute-Africa memo. It was also the year that Summers, and his Harvard protege Andrei Schleifer (who worked with Summers on the Lithuania economic transformation), began their catastrophic "rescue" of Russia's crisis-ridden economy. It's a complicated story involving corruption, cronyism and economic devastation. But by the end of the 1990s, Russia's GDP had collapsed by more than 60 percent, its population was suffering the worst death-to-birth ratio of any industrialized nation in the twentieth century, and the financial markets that Summers and Schleifer helped create had collapsed in what was then the world's biggest debt default ever. The result was the rise of Vladmir Putin and a national aversion to free markets and anything associated with Western liberalism. Summers, through Schleifer, was also tainted with some of that country's corruption, which resulted in a US Justice Department lawsuit against Schleifer and others. While Schleifer was being paid by US taxpayers to advise the Russians on capital markets in the 1990s, his wife, Nancy Zimmerman, bought and traded Russian equities for a Boston hedge fund she ran -- they even used Schleifer's US taxpayer-funded offices to run Zimmerman's Moscow-based hedge fund operations. How close were Larry Summers and Andrei Schleifer? According to former Boston Globe economics correspondent David Warsh, Summers and Schleifer "were among each other's best friends," and Summers taught Schleifer "as an undergraduate, sent him on to MIT for his PhD, took him along on an advisory mission to Lithuania in 1990, and in 1991, shepherded his return to Harvard as full professor, where he was regarded, after Martin Feldstein and Summers, as the leader of the next generation." In 2000, the Justice Department sought $102 million in damages from Schleifer, one of Schleifer's Harvard associates and Harvard University in a conflict-of-interest suit resulting from Schleifer's role as the lead US adviser to Russia's economic reforms -- questioning the way Schleifer and his wife profited from his position. . . After Schleifer returned to Harvard to face the lawsuit, Summers, now president of Harvard, presided over a controversial settlement that all but let his protege off the hook. Thanks to pressure by Summers, Schleifer kept his chair at Harvard, where he continues to teach today. Summers's other favorite man in Russia was Anatoly Chubais -- who consistently ranks at the top of Russia's " most hated man" polls. Chubais was executor of the Russian government's privatization program, in which state companies worth tens of billions of dollars were handed over to insiders for a fraction of their worth in blatantly rigged auctions. Summers praised Chubais as a "demigod" and called Chubais and his free-market cohorts "the dream team." In September 1998, after Russia's capital markets collapsed, along with billions in US-taxpayer-backed loans, Chubais boasted to a Russian newspaper, "We swindled them." By "them," he meant the Western and American aid institutions that funded his reforms. FEMA TRAILER PARKS BAD FOR KIDS' HEALTH USA Today - Children of displaced families from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have serious health and mental ailments, a new study says. The report, by the New York-based Children's Health Fund, reviewed medical records of 261 children who lived in a federally funded Baton Rouge trailer park until early summer. . . One of the most alarming findings: 41% of children younger than 4 were diagnosed with iron-deficiency anemia, more than double the rate of children living in New York City homeless shelters, Redlener says. Other findings: 55% of elementary-school-aged children had a behavior or learning problem. 42% of children were diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, known as hay fever, and/or upper respiratory infection. 24% had a cluster of upper respiratory, allergic and skin ailments. BEATS OBAMALAND NY Times editorial - [Summers and Geithner] have played central roles in policies that helped provoke today's financial crisis. Mr. Geithner, currently the president of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, also has helped shape the Bush administration's erratic and often inscrutable responses to the current financial meltdown, up to and including this past weekend's multibillion-dollar bailout of Citigroup. Given that history, the question that most needs answering is not whether Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers are men of talent - obviously they are - but whether they have learned from their mistakes, and if so, what. We are not asking for moral mea culpas. But unless they recognize their past mistakes, there is little hope that they can provide the sound judgment and leadership that the country needs to dig out of this desperate mess. As treasury secretary in 2000, Mr. Summers championed the law that deregulated derivatives, the financial instruments - aka toxic assets - that have spread the financial losses from reckless lending around the globe. He refused to heed the critics who warned of dangers to come. That law, still on the books, reinforced the false belief that markets would self-regulate. And it gave the Bush administration cover to ignore the ever-spiraling risks posed by derivatives and inadequate supervision. Mr. Summers now will advise a president who has promised to impose rational and essential regulations on chaotic financial markets. What has he learned? At the New York Fed, Mr. Geithner has been one of the ringmasters of this year's serial bailouts. His involvement includes the as-yet-unexplained flip-flop in September when a read-my-lips, no-new-bailouts policy allowed Lehman Brothers to go under - only to be followed less than two days later by the even costlier bailout of the American International Group and last weekend by the bailout of Citigroup. It is still unclear what Mr. Geithner and other policy makers knew or did not know - or what they thought they knew but didn't - in arriving at those decisions, including who exactly is on the receiving end of the billions of dollars of taxpayer money now flooding the system. Confidence in the system will not be restored as long as top officials fail or refuse to fully explain their actions. John Merline, USA Today - Here's one campaign promise President-elect Barack Obama is virtually guaranteed to break: He'll cut health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. That promise was a centerpiece of Obama's health care pitch to voters. But a closer look at his plan shows that he will have a very difficult, if not impossible time, making good on that vow. The $2,500 figure comes from an estimate by unpaid Harvard University advisers to Obama's campaign. They calculated that if you inject more information technology into health care, manage diseases better and cut extraneous paperwork, you could save about $200 billion a year in health spending - or about $2,500 off the average family's health insurance bill. Obama's advisers figure that more IT would save $77 billion, based on a report from the RAND Corp., a prominent research organization. . . But when the Congressional Budget Office looked at the RAND report, it found serious problems, including that researchers had excluded studies, even those published in peer-reviewed journals, "that failed to find favorable results" from adding more IT in health care. Meantime, a comprehensive look at ways to cut health care costs by the independent Commonwealth Fund pegged annual savings from IT at just $29 billion - and not until 2017. FINDING YOUR WAY AROUND THE REVIEW WEB SITE GENERAL · SEARCH SITE · LATEST NEWS · LATEST HEADLINES · ARTICLES & LINKS BY TOPIC · RSS FEEDS · EMAIL US · AMERICAN TRENDS · AMERICAN STATS: · WEB TOOLS THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW Washington's Most Unofficial Source 611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #381 Washington DC 20003 202-423-7884 Editor: Sam Smith EMAIL US REVIEW E-MAIL UPDATES REVIEW INDEX UNDERNEWS XML FEED UNSUBSCRIBE: If you receive your copy via Topica or Yahoo please follow instructions at the top or bottom of your message. All others, send us an e-mail with 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. TO DONATE TO THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW DONATE THROUGH PAYPAL BOOKS WHY BOTHER? GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR MANUAL MUSIC SAM SMITH'S DECOLAND BAND & OTHER GIGS *********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE *********** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081126/7e9ac4e3/attachment-0001.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Wed Nov 26 04:59:48 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Wed Nov 26 05:01:51 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: 9/11 was a false-flag operation, and Chomsky & Zinn are false-flag "opposition leaders". They rant and rave against "capitalism" -- as if there were no Predators in "socialism"! It's the Predators, stupid! To CONTROL the debate, the Predators have to control both "sides" of the debate, i.e. also the "opposition leaders". This way, they can DEFINE the debate: which issues are on the table and which are LEFT OUT of the debate. Such as the 9/11 fraud. If some outsider dares to raise this issue nonetheless, they simply say they don't WANT to know! That's unscientific. Worse, they know full well that 9/11 is a fraud, but they don't want YOU to know. That's dishonest. But they wrote such CRITICAL articles, eh? Naah. Their trick is to bark at the wrong trees, to use false dichotomies. Like their idol, Marx. They use the false dichotomy of "bosses vs. workers", "capitalists vs. socialists" and "right-wing vs. left-wing", but the real dichotomy is "Predators vs. Producers". The trick is that their "critique" sounds "almost right" but it isn't right (if it would sound flat-out wrong, much fewer people would listen to them) -- it's a distraction from the real issues, in order to waste people's time with fluffy debates about non-issues, while the perps get away with the biggest crimes. "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" As long as people fall for these fakes, the WoT will go on and the perps will go unpunished. Dave Patterson wrote: > in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential > spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Yes, that's the trick! They control the debate by giving the impression that they are opposition. (Of course they're not -- or else the zios would do a Finkelstein on them.) Why is Naomi Klein featured on the NYT? Because the NYT is an opposition newspaper? It's the old trick of "social democrats" and the likes of Obama: They are influential spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Unfortunately they're fakes... > I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making > speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only responding > to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk about Ha ha ha ha ha! They want to KEEP 9/11 OUT OF THE DEBATE! Of course they won't make speeches like: "Listen folks, I DON'T believe the truth and I don't want you to talk about 9/11 truth, because I'm a fake!" Only when someone is explicitly asking about it, they have to murmur this lame excuse of "not important". That someone asked at all, is just a little accident, but don't worry, the NYT won't report it... > and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial of > the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done or whatever, An open denial would invite debate and opposition (proving them wrong). But they don't want debate about 9/11! So they don't openly deny it. They just brush it under the carpet. > but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get involved with one > side or the other That's unscientific. A scientist is always curious, especially on important matters. If they don't know enough about it, why don't they criticize the media and the FEMA report (which left out WTC7 entirely) for not telling people enough about it? Why are they content with "not knowing enough about it"? Would they like their students to have this attitude? > and anyway did not think it that important Hello? The WoT, which is BASED ON 9/11, leads straight to a global police state without civil liberties and countless (uncounted) civilian victims on a daily basis. How can this be "not that important"??? > as they were fighting other things they thought more important. What IS more important? > I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these people > are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their right > to have that position, and won't shun them for it. These fakes deserve to be exposed and shunned, because they sabotage the core of opposition to our time's worst perps. A fake opposition is worse than an honest regime or supporter of the status quo -- with the latter, at least people know what they have to do with. Orwell must be spinning in his grave. "Opposition leaders" not wanting to know and telling their followers not to care about the most important issue! The good thing about 9/11 is that it makes the fraud literally OBVIOUS -- videos of 3 controlled demolitions the perps say are NOT controlled demolitions, and obvious violations of physical laws by the official story. Videos that over a billion people on this planet have seen themselves, some even "live". Never in history has large Predator fraud been more obvious than this, and seen by more people. But these clowns still pretend they don't know and that it's irrelevant! It's high time to dismiss the clowns and get a real opposition going. One that barks at the right trees and exposes the real dichotomy, P/P. It won't be featured on the NYT, though. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From siamdave at yahoo.ca Wed Nov 26 07:56:04 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Wed Nov 26 07:56:14 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200811262056040406.027CE72E@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> I think you need to consider that history started somewhat before 911. During the 60s and after, the people running the western countries had a pretty firm hold on things propaganda-wise, and people like Chomsky were in the forefront of the movement telling people to wake up and stop believing the BS the government was spreading around. I don't want to say much about Zinn or Ali, but I do know that Zinn's 'People's History of America' is a very solid 'alternative' view of American history, and Chomsky, of course, has been in the front of the movement exposing capitalism and American imperialism for at least 40 years - these are very much 'look behind the curtain people!!!!' people. And they have also been in the forefront of exposing the media complicity in everything - Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' is still a classic in terms of exposing the American media, including the NYT, for the propagandists they really are. It strikes me as a bit childish for you to be stamping your foot and calling them names because they don't agree with all of your theories, whatever they may be. They have a long and very solid history of fighting the imperialist from within the jaws of the dragon - maybe they do not stress the predatory aspect of governments that have called themselves socialist but are actually predatory in nature because that is not the focus of their fight - they fight the American imperialist face to face, and talk about socialist alternatives in a theoretical way, rather than supporting actual 'socialist' predators. You can only do so much with one life, and these people have done a LOT. You want to explain, for instance, how 'Manufacturing Consent' was gatekeeping? *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-26 at 11:59 AM creuss@bluewin.ch wrote: >9/11 was a false-flag operation, and Chomsky & Zinn are false-flag >"opposition leaders". They rant and rave against "capitalism" -- as if >there were no Predators in "socialism"! It's the Predators, stupid! > >To CONTROL the debate, the Predators have to control both "sides" of the >debate, i.e. also the "opposition leaders". This way, they can DEFINE the >debate: which issues are on the table and which are LEFT OUT of the >debate. >Such as the 9/11 fraud. If some outsider dares to raise this issue >nonetheless, they simply say they don't WANT to know! That's unscientific. >Worse, they know full well that 9/11 is a fraud, but they don't want YOU to >know. That's dishonest. > >But they wrote such CRITICAL articles, eh? Naah. Their trick is to bark >at the wrong trees, to use false dichotomies. Like their idol, Marx. They >use the false dichotomy of "bosses vs. workers", "capitalists vs. >socialists" >and "right-wing vs. left-wing", but the real dichotomy is "Predators vs. >Producers". The trick is that their "critique" sounds "almost right" but >it isn't right (if it would sound flat-out wrong, much fewer people would >listen to them) -- it's a distraction from the real issues, in order to >waste people's time with fluffy debates about non-issues, while the perps >get away with the biggest crimes. "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" > >As long as people fall for these fakes, the WoT will go on and the perps >will go unpunished. > > >Dave Patterson wrote: >> in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential >> spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. > >Yes, that's the trick! They control the debate by giving the impression >that they are opposition. (Of course they're not -- or else the zios >would do a Finkelstein on them.) Why is Naomi Klein featured on the NYT? >Because the NYT is an opposition newspaper? It's the old trick of >"social democrats" and the likes of Obama: They are influential >spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Unfortunately >they're fakes... > > >> I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making >> speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only >responding >> to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk about > >Ha ha ha ha ha! They want to KEEP 9/11 OUT OF THE DEBATE! Of course >they won't make speeches like: "Listen folks, I DON'T believe the truth >and I don't want you to talk about 9/11 truth, because I'm a fake!" >Only when someone is explicitly asking about it, they have to murmur >this lame excuse of "not important". That someone asked at all, is just >a little accident, but don't worry, the NYT won't report it... > > >> and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial of >> the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done or >whatever, > >An open denial would invite debate and opposition (proving them wrong). >But they don't want debate about 9/11! So they don't openly deny it. >They just brush it under the carpet. > > >> but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get involved with >one >> side or the other > >That's unscientific. A scientist is always curious, especially on >important >matters. If they don't know enough about it, why don't they criticize the >media and the FEMA report (which left out WTC7 entirely) for not telling >people enough about it? Why are they content with "not knowing enough >about it"? Would they like their students to have this attitude? > > >> and anyway did not think it that important > >Hello? The WoT, which is BASED ON 9/11, leads straight to a global police >state without civil liberties and countless (uncounted) civilian victims >on a daily basis. How can this be "not that important"??? > > >> as they were fighting other things they thought more important. > >What IS more important? > > >> I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these >people >> are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their right >> to have that position, and won't shun them for it. > >These fakes deserve to be exposed and shunned, because they sabotage the >core >of opposition to our time's worst perps. A fake opposition is worse than >an honest regime or supporter of the status quo -- with the latter, at >least >people know what they have to do with. Orwell must be spinning in his >grave. >"Opposition leaders" not wanting to know and telling their followers not to >care about the most important issue! > >The good thing about 9/11 is that it makes the fraud literally OBVIOUS -- >videos of 3 controlled demolitions the perps say are NOT controlled >demolitions, and obvious violations of physical laws by the official story. >Videos that over a billion people on this planet have seen themselves, >some even "live". Never in history has large Predator fraud been more >obvious than this, and seen by more people. >But these clowns still pretend they don't know and that it's irrelevant! >It's high time to dismiss the clowns and get a real opposition going. >One that barks at the right trees and exposes the real dichotomy, P/P. >It won't be featured on the NYT, though. > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the >keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 - Release Date: 26/11/2551 8:53 From thinker at thelakebc.ca Wed Nov 26 09:56:54 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Wed Nov 26 09:54:04 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200811261553.mAQFrtB7006564@karma.reboot.ca> Hi Chris, Go to http://www.thetyee.ca/ and the discussion on Marx (Praerie Marxist) and my comments on the subject, under Fiat lux, but I also always sign my name. You're absolutely correct. Predators are always the same people, operating under different flags, waving different scriptures, while they're stealing, robbing and murdering. Cheers, Ed. At 02:59 AM 26/11/2008, you wrote: >9/11 was a false-flag operation, and Chomsky & Zinn are false-flag >"opposition leaders". They rant and rave against "capitalism" -- as if >there were no Predators in "socialism"! It's the Predators, stupid! > >To CONTROL the debate, the Predators have to control both "sides" of the >debate, i.e. also the "opposition leaders". This way, they can DEFINE the >debate: which issues are on the table and which are LEFT OUT of the debate. >Such as the 9/11 fraud. If some outsider dares to raise this issue >nonetheless, they simply say they don't WANT to know! That's unscientific. >Worse, they know full well that 9/11 is a fraud, but they don't want YOU to >know. That's dishonest. > >But they wrote such CRITICAL articles, eh? Naah. Their trick is to bark >at the wrong trees, to use false dichotomies. Like their idol, Marx. They >use the false dichotomy of "bosses vs. workers", "capitalists vs. socialists" >and "right-wing vs. left-wing", but the real dichotomy is "Predators vs. >Producers". The trick is that their "critique" sounds "almost right" but >it isn't right (if it would sound flat-out wrong, much fewer people would >listen to them) -- it's a distraction from the real issues, in order to >waste people's time with fluffy debates about non-issues, while the perps >get away with the biggest crimes. "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" > >As long as people fall for these fakes, the WoT will go on and the perps >will go unpunished. > > >Dave Patterson wrote: > > in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential > > spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. > >Yes, that's the trick! They control the debate by giving the impression >that they are opposition. (Of course they're not -- or else the zios >would do a Finkelstein on them.) Why is Naomi Klein featured on the NYT? >Because the NYT is an opposition newspaper? It's the old trick of >"social democrats" and the likes of Obama: They are influential >spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Unfortunately >they're fakes... > > > > I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making > > speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only responding > > to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk about > >Ha ha ha ha ha! They want to KEEP 9/11 OUT OF THE DEBATE! Of course >they won't make speeches like: "Listen folks, I DON'T believe the truth >and I don't want you to talk about 9/11 truth, because I'm a fake!" >Only when someone is explicitly asking about it, they have to murmur >this lame excuse of "not important". That someone asked at all, is just >a little accident, but don't worry, the NYT won't report it... > > > > and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial of > > the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done > or whatever, > >An open denial would invite debate and opposition (proving them wrong). >But they don't want debate about 9/11! So they don't openly deny it. >They just brush it under the carpet. > > > > but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get > involved with one > > side or the other > >That's unscientific. A scientist is always curious, especially on important >matters. If they don't know enough about it, why don't they criticize the >media and the FEMA report (which left out WTC7 entirely) for not telling >people enough about it? Why are they content with "not knowing enough >about it"? Would they like their students to have this attitude? > > > > and anyway did not think it that important > >Hello? The WoT, which is BASED ON 9/11, leads straight to a global police >state without civil liberties and countless (uncounted) civilian victims >on a daily basis. How can this be "not that important"??? > > > > as they were fighting other things they thought more important. > >What IS more important? > > > > I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these people > > are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their right > > to have that position, and won't shun them for it. > >These fakes deserve to be exposed and shunned, because they sabotage the core >of opposition to our time's worst perps. A fake opposition is worse than >an honest regime or supporter of the status quo -- with the latter, at least >people know what they have to do with. Orwell must be spinning in his grave. >"Opposition leaders" not wanting to know and telling their followers not to >care about the most important issue! > >The good thing about 9/11 is that it makes the fraud literally OBVIOUS -- >videos of 3 controlled demolitions the perps say are NOT controlled >demolitions, and obvious violations of physical laws by the official story. >Videos that over a billion people on this planet have seen themselves, >some even "live". Never in history has large Predator fraud been more >obvious than this, and seen by more people. >But these clowns still pretend they don't know and that it's irrelevant! >It's high time to dismiss the clowns and get a real opposition going. >One that barks at the right trees and exposes the real dichotomy, P/P. >It won't be featured on the NYT, though. > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: >11/25/2008 7:53 PM From thinker at thelakebc.ca Wed Nov 26 10:14:59 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Wed Nov 26 10:12:00 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <200811262056040406.027CE72E@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> References: <200811262056040406.027CE72E@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Message-ID: <200811261611.mAQGBqwG007607@karma.reboot.ca> Dave, The problem is not that they don't agree with anything, which is their privilege, but that they studiously ignore solid evidence that changed history, without even questioning, or trying to look into the obviously fraudulent official version. We're all humans and make mistakes and judgments of errors, but it is also our duty to question our own decisions and opinions every single day and used the same objectivity judging ourselves as we use against others. I'm 81, but if I don't learn something new on a day, I consider it wasted. After many years of experience , I will listen to a 5 year old with the same attention as I would to a professor, or any big name prophet, because my neck has been saved many times by people who asked a simple question on subjects I was supposed to be an "expert" in and opened my eyes to mistakes I made, or was about to make. The problem with big names and world class commentators is that they often get lost in self admiration, or feel that they can not afford to admit they were wrong, or neglectful. In short, anybody's statements and opinions are only good for certain particular items, or times, and they should always be questioned, because there are no saints or prophets, only fallible humans. Especially when we ignore something for any reason. By the way, I'm just getting into your book and find it excellent. Hope it will be a success. Cheers, Ed. At 05:56 AM 26/11/2008, you wrote: >I think you need to consider that history started somewhat before >911. During the 60s and after, the people running the western >countries had a pretty firm hold on things propaganda-wise, and >people like Chomsky were in the forefront of the movement telling >people to wake up and stop believing the BS the government was >spreading around. I don't want to say much about Zinn or Ali, but I >do know that Zinn's 'People's History of America' is a very solid >'alternative' view of American history, and Chomsky, of course, has >been in the front of the movement exposing capitalism and American >imperialism for at least 40 years - these are very much 'look behind >the curtain people!!!!' people. And they have also been in the >forefront of exposing the media complicity in everything - Chomsky's >'Manufacturing Consent' is still a classic in terms of exposing the >American media, including the NYT, for the propagandists they really >are. It strikes me as a bit childish for you to be stamping y! > our foot and calling them names because they don't agree with all > of your theories, whatever they may be. They have a long and very > solid history of fighting the imperialist from within the jaws of > the dragon - maybe they do not stress the predatory aspect of > governments that have called themselves socialist but are actually > predatory in nature because that is not the focus of their fight - > they fight the American imperialist face to face, and talk about > socialist alternatives in a theoretical way, rather than supporting > actual 'socialist' predators. You can only do so much with one > life, and these people have done a LOT. You want to explain, for > instance, how 'Manufacturing Consent' was gatekeeping? > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 08-11-26 at 11:59 AM creuss@bluewin.ch wrote: > > >9/11 was a false-flag operation, and Chomsky & Zinn are false-flag > >"opposition leaders". They rant and rave against "capitalism" -- as if > >there were no Predators in "socialism"! It's the Predators, stupid! > > > >To CONTROL the debate, the Predators have to control both "sides" of the > >debate, i.e. also the "opposition leaders". This way, they can DEFINE the > >debate: which issues are on the table and which are LEFT OUT of the > >debate. > >Such as the 9/11 fraud. If some outsider dares to raise this issue > >nonetheless, they simply say they don't WANT to know! That's unscientific. > >Worse, they know full well that 9/11 is a fraud, but they don't want YOU to > >know. That's dishonest. > > > >But they wrote such CRITICAL articles, eh? Naah. Their trick is to bark > >at the wrong trees, to use false dichotomies. Like their idol, Marx. They > >use the false dichotomy of "bosses vs. workers", "capitalists vs. > >socialists" > >and "right-wing vs. left-wing", but the real dichotomy is "Predators vs. > >Producers". The trick is that their "critique" sounds "almost right" but > >it isn't right (if it would sound flat-out wrong, much fewer people would > >listen to them) -- it's a distraction from the real issues, in order to > >waste people's time with fluffy debates about non-issues, while the perps > >get away with the biggest crimes. "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" > > > >As long as people fall for these fakes, the WoT will go on and the perps > >will go unpunished. > > > > > >Dave Patterson wrote: > >> in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential > >> spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. > > > >Yes, that's the trick! They control the debate by giving the impression > >that they are opposition. (Of course they're not -- or else the zios > >would do a Finkelstein on them.) Why is Naomi Klein featured on the NYT? > >Because the NYT is an opposition newspaper? It's the old trick of > >"social democrats" and the likes of Obama: They are influential > >spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Unfortunately > >they're fakes... > > > > > >> I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making > >> speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only > >responding > >> to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk about > > > >Ha ha ha ha ha! They want to KEEP 9/11 OUT OF THE DEBATE! Of course > >they won't make speeches like: "Listen folks, I DON'T believe the truth > >and I don't want you to talk about 9/11 truth, because I'm a fake!" > >Only when someone is explicitly asking about it, they have to murmur > >this lame excuse of "not important". That someone asked at all, is just > >a little accident, but don't worry, the NYT won't report it... > > > > > >> and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial of > >> the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done or > >whatever, > > > >An open denial would invite debate and opposition (proving them wrong). > >But they don't want debate about 9/11! So they don't openly deny it. > >They just brush it under the carpet. > > > > > >> but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get involved with > >one > >> side or the other > > > >That's unscientific. A scientist is always curious, especially on > >important > >matters. If they don't know enough about it, why don't they criticize the > >media and the FEMA report (which left out WTC7 entirely) for not telling > >people enough about it? Why are they content with "not knowing enough > >about it"? Would they like their students to have this attitude? > > > > > >> and anyway did not think it that important > > > >Hello? The WoT, which is BASED ON 9/11, leads straight to a global police > >state without civil liberties and countless (uncounted) civilian victims > >on a daily basis. How can this be "not that important"??? > > > > > >> as they were fighting other things they thought more important. > > > >What IS more important? > > > > > >> I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these > >people > >> are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their right > >> to have that position, and won't shun them for it. > > > >These fakes deserve to be exposed and shunned, because they sabotage the > >core > >of opposition to our time's worst perps. A fake opposition is worse than > >an honest regime or supporter of the status quo -- with the latter, at > >least > >people know what they have to do with. Orwell must be spinning in his > >grave. > >"Opposition leaders" not wanting to know and telling their followers not to > >care about the most important issue! > > > >The good thing about 9/11 is that it makes the fraud literally OBVIOUS -- > >videos of 3 controlled demolitions the perps say are NOT controlled > >demolitions, and obvious violations of physical laws by the official story. > >Videos that over a billion people on this planet have seen themselves, > >some even "live". Never in history has large Predator fraud been more > >obvious than this, and seen by more people. > >But these clowns still pretend they don't know and that it's irrelevant! > >It's high time to dismiss the clowns and get a real opposition going. > >One that barks at the right trees and exposes the real dichotomy, P/P. > >It won't be featured on the NYT, though. > > > >Chris > > > > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the > >keyword > >"igve". > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 - Release Date: > 26/11/2551 8:53 > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: >11/25/2008 7:53 PM From jomut at yahoo.com Wed Nov 26 14:23:48 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Wed Nov 26 14:23:56 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <147781.54817.qm@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, ? Good lord!? Not this argument again!? Wanted to let this one ride but I'll just have to contribute a tidbit for the sake of clarifying some fuzziness. ? Please try to explain whether classical socialist?commentary treated of "capitalist vs proletariat" or "capitalist vs socialist" -- the?socialist component related to a possible outcome of the real time confrontation between?the first-mentioned categories of social actors.? There WASNT a socialist state in Marx's time, at least not one that was supposed to be organized on the vaunted scientific socialist principles, which Marx never elaborately spelled out anyway.? But the proletariat was a real phenomenon that had been created by the march of social events that were preponderantly influenced by the very real social phenomenon of capitalism, which is an undeniable fact that only the historically blind would blithely dismiss as irrelevant.? Of course, one can persuasively argue, as Weber?every cogently did, that the mere existence of an economically abused proletariat (here the categories of "predator'?and "producer" are easily accomodated, without?any analytical harm done at all to the marxian thesis -- even props it up as a matter of fact) is not a sufficient condition for?precipitating a social struggle between the "predator" class and the "producer" class -- a realization that stung C Wright Mills into commenting on the "labour metaphysic" which theoretically predicted, in perpetuity,?the wrothful?insurgency of labour against the prevailing relations of production.? That is why, as Dion points out, it is SOMETIMES necessarry to look askant at those who would orthodoxly claim the inevitability of blind historical causation that nixes the power of individual or group human agency. Hey, I am already getting carried away, and its time to hit the brakes! ? All this goes to prove that an analyst even as incomparably insightful as?Marx has his blind spots of course, a fact that should be easily taken in stride by all mature and perceptive observers of?human affairs, in much?the same manner as the brilliant Chomsky is in error about 911 and its indisputably malign?effects on contemporary history. ? Would have liked to comment a bit on Dion's use of the term "social engineering" which I personally should have shied away from in favor of C W Mills' "methodological inhibition", but I shall have to defer discussion?of that item to?another day as I am already pooped and also trying to write a commentary on another crazy topic for another list. ? John ========================== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 10:59 AM 9/11 was a false-flag operation, and Chomsky & Zinn are false-flag "opposition leaders". They rant and rave against "capitalism" -- as if there were no Predators in "socialism"! It's the Predators, stupid! To CONTROL the debate, the Predators have to control both "sides" of the debate, i.e. also the "opposition leaders". This way, they can DEFINE the debate: which issues are on the table and which are LEFT OUT of the debate. Such as the 9/11 fraud. If some outsider dares to raise this issue nonetheless, they simply say they don't WANT to know! That's unscientific. Worse, they know full well that 9/11 is a fraud, but they don't want YOU to know. That's dishonest. But they wrote such CRITICAL articles, eh? Naah. Their trick is to bark at the wrong trees, to use false dichotomies. Like their idol, Marx. They use the false dichotomy of "bosses vs. workers", "capitalists vs. socialists" and "right-wing vs. left-wing", but the real dichotomy is "Predators vs. Producers". The trick is that their "critique" sounds "almost right" but it isn't right (if it would sound flat-out wrong, much fewer people would listen to them) -- it's a distraction from the real issues, in order to waste people's time with fluffy debates about non-issues, while the perps get away with the biggest crimes. "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" As long as people fall for these fakes, the WoT will go on and the perps will go unpunished. Dave Patterson wrote: > in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential > spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Yes, that's the trick! They control the debate by giving the impression that they are opposition. (Of course they're not -- or else the zios would do a Finkelstein on them.) Why is Naomi Klein featured on the NYT? Because the NYT is an opposition newspaper? It's the old trick of "social democrats" and the likes of Obama: They are influential spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Unfortunately they're fakes... > I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making > speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only responding > to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk about Ha ha ha ha ha! They want to KEEP 9/11 OUT OF THE DEBATE! Of course they won't make speeches like: "Listen folks, I DON'T believe the truth and I don't want you to talk about 9/11 truth, because I'm a fake!" Only when someone is explicitly asking about it, they have to murmur this lame excuse of "not important". That someone asked at all, is just a little accident, but don't worry, the NYT won't report it... > and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial of > the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done or whatever, An open denial would invite debate and opposition (proving them wrong). But they don't want debate about 9/11! So they don't openly deny it. They just brush it under the carpet. > but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get involved with one > side or the other That's unscientific. A scientist is always curious, especially on important matters. If they don't know enough about it, why don't they criticize the media and the FEMA report (which left out WTC7 entirely) for not telling people enough about it? Why are they content with "not knowing enough about it"? Would they like their students to have this attitude? > and anyway did not think it that important Hello? The WoT, which is BASED ON 9/11, leads straight to a global police state without civil liberties and countless (uncounted) civilian victims on a daily basis. How can this be "not that important"??? > as they were fighting other things they thought more important. What IS more important? > I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these people > are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their right > to have that position, and won't shun them for it. These fakes deserve to be exposed and shunned, because they sabotage the core of opposition to our time's worst perps. A fake opposition is worse than an honest regime or supporter of the status quo -- with the latter, at least people know what they have to do with. Orwell must be spinning in his grave. "Opposition leaders" not wanting to know and telling their followers not to care about the most important issue! The good thing about 9/11 is that it makes the fraud literally OBVIOUS -- videos of 3 controlled demolitions the perps say are NOT controlled demolitions, and obvious violations of physical laws by the official story. Videos that over a billion people on this planet have seen themselves, some even "live". Never in history has large Predator fraud been more obvious than this, and seen by more people. But these clowns still pretend they don't know and that it's irrelevant! It's high time to dismiss the clowns and get a real opposition going. One that barks at the right trees and exposes the real dichotomy, P/P. It won't be featured on the NYT, though. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081126/a926f631/attachment.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Wed Nov 26 14:30:13 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Wed Nov 26 14:32:17 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: Dave Patterson wrote: > I think you need to consider that history started somewhat before 911. > During the 60s and after, the people running the western countries had > a pretty firm hold on things propaganda-wise, and people like Chomsky > were in the forefront of the movement telling people to wake up and stop > believing the BS the government was spreading around. Did you read what I wrote at all? I did mention Marx, didn't I. In the 60s, Chomsky & Co. were simply handing out commie propaganda versus capitalist propaganda. In terms of Predators, no real difference. And what does this achieve today? Today the capitalists can say: "See, we told you socialism would crumble, and it did!" So, bye, bye "socialist reforms" in the West -- worse, the reforms go in the opposite direction! Even in Switzerland, the public services are being privatized now! (By "social democrats", btw!) Wouldn't it have been smarter to call a spade a spade from the beginning, telling people that PREDATORS are the problem, as they still are today? Then, today's leaders here could NOT say: "See, we told you Predators would crumble, and they did!" They didn't -- not in Russia nor in the West. No, the P/P critique is still VALID today as it was in the 1960s! But that's NOT what Chomsky was spreading. He was spreading Predator propaganda, just of another flavor. He still is. > these are very much 'look behind the curtain people!!!!' people. When will you look behind THEIR curtain? You still don't understand how they work. They say "A is wrong, B is right" when in fact C is right. You praise them for telling you A is wrong -- which happens to be true. But that doesn't make B right! > And they have also been in the forefront of exposing the media complicity > in everything In everything but 9/11? > Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' is still a classic in terms of exposing > the American media, including the NYT, for the propagandists they really are. So is Naomi Klein a propagandist? > It strikes me as a bit childish for you to be stamping your foot and > calling them names because they don't agree with all of your theories This accusation is childish and just shows your refusal to understand. > They have a long and very solid history of fighting the imperialist from > within the jaws of the dragon If they weren't fakes, the dragon would have eaten them long ago. They're part of the "I'm alright, Jack" crowd. > they fight the American imperialist face to face, and talk about socialist > alternatives in a theoretical way, rather than supporting actual 'socialist' > predators. By just wasting the opposition's time and resources with theoretical TALK about their red herrings, they SUPPORT actual predators. Such as the 9/11 perps. > You can only do so much with one life, and these people have done a LOT. A lot in the "almost" right direction... > You want to explain, for instance, how 'Manufacturing Consent' was > gatekeeping? This was great gatekeeping for zionists, as the book carefully AVOIDS the central aspect of zionist media control -- as opposed to "regular" market forces and government influence. Just like he now AVOIDS the 9/11 fraud. The guy is very consistent, actually. For example, how do you explain the famous "double loyalty" (to Israel) with regular market forces and government influence? Wouldn't work -- on the contrary! "Manufacturing Consent" is manufacturing consent. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Wed Nov 26 15:01:06 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Wed Nov 26 15:03:07 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: John Mutambirwa wrote: > I'll just have to contribute a tidbit for the sake of clarifying some > fuzziness. You're adding some smoke. > Please try to explain whether classical socialist commentary treated of > "capitalist vs proletariat" or "capitalist vs socialist" What a clever nit-pick, but not really. In terms of politicians and political streams/opinions, it IS "capitalist vs socialist", NOT "capitalist vs proletariat". And there are many capitalists among the "proletariat"... and some socialists among non-proletarians. > There WASNT a socialist state in Marx's time I didn't claim that. But there were socialists, see. > But the proletariat was a real phenomenon Are trade unionists (of the "I'm alright, Jack" kind) part of the proletariat? Do they behave like and/or serve Predators? Are "salon socialists" part of the proletariat? Is Professor Chomsky? > All this goes to prove that an analyst even as incomparably insightful > as Marx has his blind spots of course, a fact that should be easily taken > in stride by all mature and perceptive observers of human affairs, in much > the same manner as the brilliant Chomsky is in error about 911 and its > indisputably malign effects on contemporary history. Oh yeah, and if the IDF drops a bunker buster on a building full of civilians, it's "just an error" too, not part of a deliberate genocide. SO human! Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From jomut at yahoo.com Wed Nov 26 15:51:45 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Wed Nov 26 15:51:49 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <21882.54580.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I just do not have time for this hairsplitting which leads to regions of ever more unhelpful aridity.? It would, however, help for any concerned to understand the difference (and Weber was the first to spell out this situation clearly, which?would tremendously help clarify the fuzzy thinking I keep on encountering)?between a "class situation" (eg.?a secretary and street cleaner, since "class" is an economic concept, may belong to the same class) and "class? consciousness" (depending on whom?the two examples above??associate with, at work and/or elsewhere,?they may not, most probably, share? a?mutually sympathetic attitude to their positions in society which might be translated into transformative political action). It might, for the sake of helpful exposition,?be necessary to imagine the secretary as?a CEO's private secretary and the street worker as a common plumber (Joe or someone else!) for the difference between the?class situation and the class consciousness to show vividly.? ? This has everything to do with the urgent necessity of being able to read the larger social environment in which one finds oneself in?as a social actor in order for one to be an effective change agent,?and, I should hope, puts paid to the rather infirm and?factually unsupportable?declaration of proletarians being capitalists.? That does not mean that I am not sympathetically ready to accomodate any such dizzyingly unrealistic?thought patterns among the proles who?might tragically happen to harbour them. ? John ==================== ? John ============== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 9:01 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: > I'll just have to contribute a tidbit for the sake of clarifying some > fuzziness. You're adding some smoke. > Please try to explain whether classical socialist commentary treated of > "capitalist vs proletariat" or "capitalist vs socialist" What a clever nit-pick, but not really. In terms of politicians and political streams/opinions, it IS "capitalist vs socialist", NOT "capitalist vs proletariat". And there are many capitalists among the "proletariat"... and some socialists among non-proletarians. > There WASNT a socialist state in Marx's time I didn't claim that. But there were socialists, see. > But the proletariat was a real phenomenon Are trade unionists (of the "I'm alright, Jack" kind) part of the proletariat? Do they behave like and/or serve Predators? Are "salon socialists" part of the proletariat? Is Professor Chomsky? > All this goes to prove that an analyst even as incomparably insightful > as Marx has his blind spots of course, a fact that should be easily taken > in stride by all mature and perceptive observers of human affairs, in much > the same manner as the brilliant Chomsky is in error about 911 and its > indisputably malign effects on contemporary history. Oh yeah, and if the IDF drops a bunker buster on a building full of civilians, it's "just an error" too, not part of a deliberate genocide. SO human! Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081126/a9c195bc/attachment.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Wed Nov 26 16:58:37 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Wed Nov 26 17:00:52 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: John Mutambirwa wrote: > It would, however, help for any concerned to understand the difference > ... between a "class situation" ... "class consciousness" And what's the use of understanding this difference (which I do), if you are hooked on the WRONG class dichotomy? (capitalist/proletariat instead of predator/producer) See, you keep diverting the debate from the relevant issues. When I say that the type of class dichotomy matters, you divert to class consciousness. As if that wasn't equally crucial in P/P. > the rather infirm and factually unsupportable declaration of proletarians > being capitalists. Using a wrong definition of "capitalist" (the active agent of exploitation, instead of a supporter or profiteer of capitalism) is part of the deception in Marxism. After all, smoke&mirror propaganda begins with re-defining the very meaning of words. It requires it, in order to make unrealistic Predator theories (appear to) "fit" the reality. But using the real meaning of words, we can debunk these theories as the (here literally) red herring they are. > I just do not have time for this hairsplitting Your ilk is wasting the opposition's time -- and the world's future -- with red herrings and the worst of hairsplitting: of irrelevant issues, diversions. Since the 1960s. That's why things are going downhill since then. The Predators laugh all the way to the bank. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From duanebehrens at cox.net Wed Nov 26 17:24:40 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Wed Nov 26 17:24:45 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Debate Tactics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081126182440.P55D2.522289.imail@fed1rmwml30> ---- Christoph Reuss wrote: [snip] "Your ilk is wasting the opposition's time -- and the world's future -- with red herrings and the worst of hairsplitting: of irrelevant issues, diversions. Since the 1960s. That's why things are going downhill since then. The Predators laugh all the way to the bank." ------------------------------------------------ Well, Chris, I agree with the last part of the above paragraph. But "your ilk?" Odd choice of words, isn't it? And I've watched you have a go now at me, at David, at John . . . . most everyone here, really . . . as if WE are your opponents. And perhaps we are. With your caustic and often insulting "debate" style, I suspect your posts have the effect of silencing discussion from those who don't care for your responding attacks. Is that your goal? Do you really WANT to drive people away from this list? If not, perhaps you should re-read and quiet your posts slightly before hitting that "SEND" button. Not the message, just the personal stuff. Or perhaps, as your posts here suggest, you and you alone are the only intelligent being on this planet, and you therefore have the right to belittle every other poster here. You certainly seem to have the need. . . . Duane Behrens From duanebehrens at cox.net Thu Nov 27 00:34:35 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Thu Nov 27 00:34:46 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Thought for the Day Message-ID: <20081127013435.ORSL1.527160.imail@fed1rmwml30> "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." -Moshe Dayan -- "They're gonna make it look like suicide, I know how these bastards think..." Hunter S. Thompson From siamdave at yahoo.ca Thu Nov 27 02:55:10 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Thu Nov 27 02:56:06 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200811271555100750.019280B5@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Chris, I don't know why you have the attitude that this is a street fight, but I'm not interested. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-26 at 9:30 PM creuss@bluewin.ch wrote: >Dave Patterson wrote: >> I think you need to consider that history started somewhat before 911. >> During the 60s and after, the people running the western countries had >> a pretty firm hold on things propaganda-wise, and people like Chomsky >> were in the forefront of the movement telling people to wake up and stop >> believing the BS the government was spreading around. > >Did you read what I wrote at all? I did mention Marx, didn't I. >In the 60s, Chomsky & Co. were simply handing out commie propaganda versus >capitalist propaganda. In terms of Predators, no real difference. > >And what does this achieve today? Today the capitalists can say: "See, we >told you socialism would crumble, and it did!" So, bye, bye "socialist >reforms" in the West -- worse, the reforms go in the opposite direction! >Even in Switzerland, the public services are being privatized now! >(By "social democrats", btw!) > >Wouldn't it have been smarter to call a spade a spade from the beginning, >telling people that PREDATORS are the problem, as they still are today? >Then, today's leaders here could NOT say: "See, we told you Predators >would crumble, and they did!" They didn't -- not in Russia nor in the >West. >No, the P/P critique is still VALID today as it was in the 1960s! But >that's NOT what Chomsky was spreading. He was spreading Predator >propaganda, just of another flavor. He still is. > > >> these are very much 'look behind the curtain people!!!!' people. > >When will you look behind THEIR curtain? > >You still don't understand how they work. They say "A is wrong, B is >right" >when in fact C is right. You praise them for telling you A is wrong -- >which happens to be true. But that doesn't make B right! > >> And they have also been in the forefront of exposing the media complicity >> in everything > >In everything but 9/11? > >> Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' is still a classic in terms of exposing >> the American media, including the NYT, for the propagandists they really >are. > >So is Naomi Klein a propagandist? > >> It strikes me as a bit childish for you to be stamping your foot and >> calling them names because they don't agree with all of your theories > >This accusation is childish and just shows your refusal to understand. > >> They have a long and very solid history of fighting the imperialist from >> within the jaws of the dragon > >If they weren't fakes, the dragon would have eaten them long ago. >They're part of the "I'm alright, Jack" crowd. > >> they fight the American imperialist face to face, and talk about >socialist >> alternatives in a theoretical way, rather than supporting actual >'socialist' >> predators. > >By just wasting the opposition's time and resources with theoretical TALK >about their red herrings, they SUPPORT actual predators. Such as the 9/11 >perps. > >> You can only do so much with one life, and these people have done a LOT. > >A lot in the "almost" right direction... > >> You want to explain, for instance, how 'Manufacturing Consent' was >> gatekeeping? > >This was great gatekeeping for zionists, as the book carefully AVOIDS >the central aspect of zionist media control -- as opposed to "regular" >market forces and government influence. Just like he now AVOIDS the >9/11 fraud. The guy is very consistent, actually. > >For example, how do you explain the famous "double loyalty" (to Israel) >with regular market forces and government influence? Wouldn't work -- >on the contrary! "Manufacturing Consent" is manufacturing consent. > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the >keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 - Release Date: 26/11/2551 8:53 From siamdave at yahoo.ca Thu Nov 27 03:14:34 2008 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Thu Nov 27 03:15:19 2008 Subject: Thanks Ed (Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <200811261611.mAQGBqwG007607@karma.reboot.ca> References: <200811262056040406.027CE72E@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> <200811261611.mAQGBqwG007607@karma.reboot.ca> Message-ID: <200811271614340296.01A441D0@smtp-adsl.totonline.net> Hi Ed, I don't really disagree with anything you say here, I too try to keep an open mind about everything, and try to learn something new each day (not that difficult, it's very true the old saying about as you get older you start to realise how very much you do NOT know). As for Chomsky et al, I too am disappointed and puzzled at their apparent refusal to consider the import of 911 if indeed the American gov was involved, as it surely appears to have been, and the blatant impossibility of the official story of the collapse of the three buildings, but I am a bit more disinclined to condemn them outright for this particular stance, considering their long history of very actively opposing the American empire - it's at least as troubling to me that apparently most 'normal' Americans and Canadians believe this nonsense as well. Anyone who has read anything of what I have written will be aware that I am very aware of gatekeepers and gatekeeping, and try myself to encourage people to wake up to the same things, and I do understand the arguments for adding Chomsky et al to such a group, given their lack of support for the 911 Truth movement - but it just doesn't seem entirely plausible, given their long histories, again, of opposition to Korporate Amerika, of telling people to wake up and think for themselves rather than mindlessly believing what they read in the MSM all the time. And for myself, I don't have people on pedestals or 'leaders' that I follow around and parrot, whether named Chomsly or Klein or anything else, so maybe I have lower expectations in general, and don't feel betrayed or something if they say or do something I disagree with - I just extract what useful things I can from their observations, thankful for whatever insights they have given as I carry on down my own path looking for something I myself can be comfortable believing. And thanks for the kind words on the book - you have your place in history, as the very first person to offer an unsolicited comment in praise of Green Island. I hope you enjoy the rest of it. Dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 08-11-26 at 8:14 AM Ed Deak wrote: >Dave, > >The problem is not that they don't agree with anything, which is >their privilege, but that they studiously ignore solid evidence that >changed history, without even questioning, or trying to look into the >obviously fraudulent official version. > >We're all humans and make mistakes and judgments of errors, but it is >also our duty to question our own decisions and opinions every single >day and used the same objectivity judging ourselves as we use >against others. I'm 81, but if I don't learn something new on a day, >I consider it wasted. > >After many years of experience , I will listen to a 5 year old with >the same attention as I would to a professor, or any big name >prophet, because my neck has been saved many times by people who >asked a simple question on subjects I was supposed to be an "expert" >in and opened my eyes to mistakes I made, or was about to make. > >The problem with big names and world class commentators is that they >often get lost in self admiration, or feel that they can not afford >to admit they were wrong, or neglectful. > >In short, anybody's statements and opinions are only good for certain >particular items, or times, and they should always be questioned, >because there are no saints or prophets, only fallible humans. > >Especially when we ignore something for any reason. > >By the way, I'm just getting into your book and find it excellent. >Hope it will be a success. > >Cheers, Ed. > > >At 05:56 AM 26/11/2008, you wrote: >>I think you need to consider that history started somewhat before >>911. During the 60s and after, the people running the western >>countries had a pretty firm hold on things propaganda-wise, and >>people like Chomsky were in the forefront of the movement telling >>people to wake up and stop believing the BS the government was >>spreading around. I don't want to say much about Zinn or Ali, but I >>do know that Zinn's 'People's History of America' is a very solid >>'alternative' view of American history, and Chomsky, of course, has >>been in the front of the movement exposing capitalism and American >>imperialism for at least 40 years - these are very much 'look behind >>the curtain people!!!!' people. And they have also been in the >>forefront of exposing the media complicity in everything - Chomsky's >>'Manufacturing Consent' is still a classic in terms of exposing the >>American media, including the NYT, for the propagandists they really >>are. It strikes me as a bit childish for you to be stamping y! >> our foot and calling them names because they don't agree with all >> of your theories, whatever they may be. They have a long and very >> solid history of fighting the imperialist from within the jaws of >> the dragon - maybe they do not stress the predatory aspect of >> governments that have called themselves socialist but are actually >> predatory in nature because that is not the focus of their fight - >> they fight the American imperialist face to face, and talk about >> socialist alternatives in a theoretical way, rather than supporting >> actual 'socialist' predators. You can only do so much with one >> life, and these people have done a LOT. You want to explain, for >> instance, how 'Manufacturing Consent' was gatekeeping? >> >>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >>On 08-11-26 at 11:59 AM creuss@bluewin.ch wrote: >> >> >9/11 was a false-flag operation, and Chomsky & Zinn are false-flag >> >"opposition leaders". They rant and rave against "capitalism" -- as if >> >there were no Predators in "socialism"! It's the Predators, stupid! >> > >> >To CONTROL the debate, the Predators have to control both "sides" of the >> >debate, i.e. also the "opposition leaders". This way, they can DEFINE >the >> >debate: which issues are on the table and which are LEFT OUT of the >> >debate. >> >Such as the 9/11 fraud. If some outsider dares to raise this issue >> >nonetheless, they simply say they don't WANT to know! That's >unscientific. >> >Worse, they know full well that 9/11 is a fraud, but they don't want >YOU to >> >know. That's dishonest. >> > >> >But they wrote such CRITICAL articles, eh? Naah. Their trick is to >bark >> >at the wrong trees, to use false dichotomies. Like their idol, Marx. >They >> >use the false dichotomy of "bosses vs. workers", "capitalists vs. >> >socialists" >> >and "right-wing vs. left-wing", but the real dichotomy is "Predators vs. >> >Producers". The trick is that their "critique" sounds "almost right" >but >> >it isn't right (if it would sound flat-out wrong, much fewer people >would >> >listen to them) -- it's a distraction from the real issues, in order to >> >waste people's time with fluffy debates about non-issues, while the >perps >> >get away with the biggest crimes. "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" >> > >> >As long as people fall for these fakes, the WoT will go on and the perps >> >will go unpunished. >> > >> > >> >Dave Patterson wrote: >> >> in pretty much every other thing we talk about, they are influential >> >> spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. >> > >> >Yes, that's the trick! They control the debate by giving the impression >> >that they are opposition. (Of course they're not -- or else the zios >> >would do a Finkelstein on them.) Why is Naomi Klein featured on the >NYT? >> >Because the NYT is an opposition newspaper? It's the old trick of >> >"social democrats" and the likes of Obama: They are influential >> >spokespeople with whom we agree and refer to frequently. Unfortunately >> >they're fakes... >> > >> > >> >> I think it's important to note that they were not on any stages making >> >> speeches about not believing the 911 Truth stuff, they were only >> >responding >> >> to questions after talking about other things they wanted to talk >about >> > >> >Ha ha ha ha ha! They want to KEEP 9/11 OUT OF THE DEBATE! Of course >> >they won't make speeches like: "Listen folks, I DON'T believe the truth >> >and I don't want you to talk about 9/11 truth, because I'm a fake!" >> >Only when someone is explicitly asking about it, they have to murmur >> >this lame excuse of "not important". That someone asked at all, is just >> >a little accident, but don't worry, the NYT won't report it... >> > >> > >> >> and as far as I recall, their general response has been not a denial >of >> >> the things the 911 truthers are trying to have accepted or done or >> >whatever, >> > >> >An open denial would invite debate and opposition (proving them wrong). >> >But they don't want debate about 9/11! So they don't openly deny it. >> >They just brush it under the carpet. >> > >> > >> >> but simply saying they did not know enough about it to get involved >with >> >one >> >> side or the other >> > >> >That's unscientific. A scientist is always curious, especially on >> >important >> >matters. If they don't know enough about it, why don't they criticize >the >> >media and the FEMA report (which left out WTC7 entirely) for not telling >> >people enough about it? Why are they content with "not knowing enough >> >about it"? Would they like their students to have this attitude? >> > >> > >> >> and anyway did not think it that important >> > >> >Hello? The WoT, which is BASED ON 9/11, leads straight to a global >police >> >state without civil liberties and countless (uncounted) civilian victims >> >on a daily basis. How can this be "not that important"??? >> > >> > >> >> as they were fighting other things they thought more important. >> > >> >What IS more important? >> > >> > >> >> I disagree with that last comment considerably, but given who these >> >people >> >> are and the things they have done with their lives, I respect their >right >> >> to have that position, and won't shun them for it. >> > >> >These fakes deserve to be exposed and shunned, because they sabotage the >> >core >> >of opposition to our time's worst perps. A fake opposition is worse >than >> >an honest regime or supporter of the status quo -- with the latter, at >> >least >> >people know what they have to do with. Orwell must be spinning in his >> >grave. >> >"Opposition leaders" not wanting to know and telling their followers >not to >> >care about the most important issue! >> > >> >The good thing about 9/11 is that it makes the fraud literally OBVIOUS >-- >> >videos of 3 controlled demolitions the perps say are NOT controlled >> >demolitions, and obvious violations of physical laws by the official >story. >> >Videos that over a billion people on this planet have seen themselves, >> >some even "live". Never in history has large Predator fraud been more >> >obvious than this, and seen by more people. >> >But these clowns still pretend they don't know and that it's irrelevant! >> >It's high time to dismiss the clowns and get a real opposition going. >> >One that barks at the right trees and exposes the real dichotomy, P/P. >> >It won't be featured on the NYT, though. >> > >> >Chris >> > >> > >> > >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the >> >keyword >> >"igve". >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Mai-not mailing list >> >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >> >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> > >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 - Release Date: >> 26/11/2551 8:53 >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: >>11/25/2008 7:53 PM > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1813 - Release Date: 26/11/2551 8:53 From creuss at bluewin.ch Thu Nov 27 04:13:42 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Thu Nov 27 04:15:54 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Debate Tactics Message-ID: Duane, If you think that "personal stuff" is inappropriate in postings, then why was your posting 100% "personal stuff"? (You contributed zero content of your own in this thread.) If you think that postings should be polite and non-belittling, then why did you end it with the comments "as your posts here suggest, you and you alone are the only intelligent being on this planet, and you therefore have the right to belittle every other poster here. You certainly seem to have the need. . . . "? If you think that Netiquette matters, then why don't you send such a message privately? Do you really just want me to re-read before posting, or do you want to scold me in front of others? And if you're picky enough to complain about my tone, then why do you overlook Dave's and John's impolite phrases, based on MISrepresentations of my statements? Comments like "It strikes me as a bit childish for you to be stamping your foot and calling them names because they don't agree with all of your theories." Double standards, perhaps? Sounds like you do have a problem with my content, not just my tone. So how about contributing some _content_ to this thread? And it's not even true that I "belittle every other poster here". Certainly not Ed and Dion, whom I admire greatly for their original thoughtfulness that makes Mai-Not unique. Whereas boring Marxist clones/clowns are all over the Internet with their ever-same deceptive mantras, diversion tactics and not answering questions (sounds familiar?). Do I WANT to drive others away from the list? No. Do I? Posters who left Mai-Not were Viviane, Janice and Jonathan. None of them left due to me -- on the contrary, I urged them to stay and I'm still exchanging friendly mails with 2 of them. Maybe you allude to the fact that some Hans Grellmann was not inclined to join Mai-Not because I debunked his Dem propaganda (the stuff that brought us Obama with his cabinet full of neo-con/zionist hawks) from the start. Well, good riddance -- just imagine Mai-Not becoming flooded with his PR forwards... *shudder* It would have been too bad for a unique list. Is my writing "caustic"? Yes, because I'm literally sick and tired of Marxist fakes. To me, "polite" deception is much more offensive than a frank truth. And the fact that many people don't recognize the deception doesn't make it less offensive! It is no exaggeration to say that Marxists have sabotaged the progressive movement and have been instrumental to the neo-con takeover of the globe (some are even implementing it personally, after they have marched thru the institutions and are now top politicians). In the East as well (badly) as in the West. That's why I detest them. Their ideology is as disgusting as their often greasy style. They are preposterous enough to tell people that a _progressive_ _future_ can be built on an _19th-century_ _predator ideology_. As their neo-con "peers"... Today's Swiss minister of public services was in the 1980s a Marxist demonstrating in the streets with the slogan: "Make cucumber salad of the state!" (i.e. cut it up, destroy it). In the meantime, he has come to power and is _implementing_ exactly that: by privatizing the public services! Which were the world's best-functioning public services before that (without Marxism). Meanwhile, his Marxist buddies in the "trade unions" are pushing our EU entry with all means, lowering wages, abolishing labor standards, consumer safety etc. --- Dave Patterson wrote: > Chris, I don't know why you have the attitude that this is a street >fight, but I'm not > interested. What a lame and dismissive excuse for not being able to answer my questions. Now WHO doesn't want content debate but just personal stuff? Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Nov 27 05:32:30 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Thu Nov 27 05:32:43 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Debate Tactics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081127113231.8420BF948@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> There's not a single soul who could leave this list without leaving it poorer. All contributions have been instructive in some way. That goes back for years - the only one person I was clad to see the last of was that Zionist troll Skoll - not because of his Zionist views (which people must learn to engage with when they are so persistent an infestation in our culture) but because he never put his own views forward in cogent form - simply took umbrage and (worse) managed to scare a rather faint-hearted list manager at the time. Popper showed that a proposition that was not falsifiable was not scientific. Not that such propositions had to be false, but they had to be such that if they were false they could be shown to be so. There are many issues of substance that have been thrown up by this thread that I have comments on, but will wait till I've settled down from a heavy day. Dion Giles Western Australia From papadop at peak.org Thu Nov 27 08:11:07 2008 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Thu Nov 27 08:55:55 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Debate Tactics In-Reply-To: <20081126182440.P55D2.522289.imail@fed1rmwml30> References: <20081126182440.P55D2.522289.imail@fed1rmwml30> Message-ID: Duane: I've been fairly silent for far too long on this list --perhaps old age is creeping up on me !! - But my sensitivities are hurt by the way you attack another subscriber. I have no problem with an assertion that you feel insulted, but to use that as a launching pad for your suspicions goes way beyond my limit. And my limit does not cater to the tactic of responding to argument, in a personal interchange, with attacks on personhood. I have no problem with attacks made about the personality of outsiders in the whole class of "public figures" [ eg Bush, Chomsky, Zinn ] but I feel able to learn from everyone contributing content to this list without needing to trade insults. Michael From thinker at thelakebc.ca Thu Nov 27 09:08:08 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Thu Nov 27 09:05:02 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Mumbai attacks Message-ID: <200811271504.mARF4sT4003763@karma.reboot.ca> Subject: Red Alert: Possible Geopolitical Consequences of the Mumbai Attacks If the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Islamist militants as it appears, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw the United States into the fray. New Delhi will demand that this action be immediate and public. This demand will come parallel to U.S. demands for the same actions, and threats by incoming U.S. President Barack Obama to force greater cooperation from Pakistan. Thus the crisis will directly intersect U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan. http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081126_red_alert From thinker at thelakebc.ca Thu Nov 27 09:14:00 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Thu Nov 27 09:10:53 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Gen. James Jones Message-ID: <200811271510.mARFAkT4004224@karma.reboot.ca> Subject: Jones would put NATO force in West Bank General James Jones, to be named as Obama's National Security Adviser, has advocated putting NATO forces in the West Bank, according to yesterday's Ha'aretz. "In response to Israel's claim that the Palestinians cannot be trusted with responsibility for security, Jones, a former NATO commander, proposed a NATO-based international force that would later transfer control to the Palestinians." http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2008/11/jones-would-put-nato-force-in-west-bank.html#continued From duanebehrens at cox.net Thu Nov 27 09:50:13 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Thu Nov 27 09:50:20 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Debate Tactics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081127105013.F9Y9J.528870.imail@fed1rmwml30> Christoph [snip]: Sounds like you do have a problem with my content, not just my tone. ------------------------- No. Aside from your attacks, I've found your comments on world affairs to be amazing - often cutting through the thick veneer of propagandized "news" and helping us all to see what may really be going on. Thank you for that. I've already said my piece on your angry approach toward colleagues - people who agree with you in near total. I don't like it - sorry. You angrily responded that I am not only wrong, but also conniving, insincere and vacuous. So there you go. Duane (And the reason I still read you so faithfully is seen in the paragraph from you, pasted below.) [Chris]: "Today's Swiss minister of public services was in the 1980s a Marxist demonstrating in the streets with the slogan: "Make cucumber salad of the state!" (i.e. cut it up, destroy it). In the meantime, he has come to power and is implementing exactly that: by privatizing the public services! Which were the world's best-functioning public services before that (without Marxism). Meanwhile, his Marxist buddies in the "trade unions" are pushing our EU entry with all means, lowering wages, abolishing labor standards, consumer safety etc." From thinker at thelakebc.ca Thu Nov 27 10:00:14 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Thu Nov 27 09:57:07 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Debate Tactics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200811271557.mARFux7W006846@karma.reboot.ca> We have a hard working Swiss colony here, including our partners, with dual citizenships, who dutifully vote against the EU every time the attempt comes up. As I would in their place. Cheers, Ed. At 02:13 AM 27/11/2008, you wrote: >Duane, > >If you think that "personal stuff" is inappropriate in postings, then why >was your posting 100% "personal stuff"? (You contributed zero content of >your own in this thread.) > >If you think that postings should be polite and non-belittling, then why >did you end it with the comments "as your posts here suggest, you and you >alone are the only intelligent being on this planet, and you therefore have >the right to belittle every other poster here. You certainly seem to have >the need. . . . "? > >If you think that Netiquette matters, then why don't you send such a >message privately? Do you really just want me to re-read before posting, >or do you want to scold me in front of others? > >And if you're picky enough to complain about my tone, then why do you >overlook Dave's and John's impolite phrases, based on MISrepresentations of >my statements? Comments like "It strikes me as a bit childish for you to >be stamping your foot and calling them names because they don't agree with >all of your theories." > >Double standards, perhaps? > >Sounds like you do have a problem with my content, not just my tone. So >how about contributing some _content_ to this thread? > >And it's not even true that I "belittle every other poster here". >Certainly not Ed and Dion, whom I admire greatly for their original >thoughtfulness that makes Mai-Not unique. Whereas boring Marxist >clones/clowns are all over the Internet with their ever-same deceptive >mantras, diversion tactics and not answering questions (sounds familiar?). > >Do I WANT to drive others away from the list? No. Do I? Posters who left >Mai-Not were Viviane, Janice and Jonathan. None of them left due to me -- >on the contrary, I urged them to stay and I'm still exchanging friendly >mails with 2 of them. > >Maybe you allude to the fact that some Hans Grellmann was not inclined to >join Mai-Not because I debunked his Dem propaganda (the stuff that brought >us Obama with his cabinet full of neo-con/zionist hawks) from the start. >Well, good riddance -- just imagine Mai-Not becoming flooded with his PR >forwards... *shudder* It would have been too bad for a unique list. > >Is my writing "caustic"? Yes, because I'm literally sick and tired of >Marxist fakes. To me, "polite" deception is much more offensive than a >frank truth. And the fact that many people don't recognize the deception >doesn't make it less offensive! > >It is no exaggeration to say that Marxists have sabotaged the progressive >movement and have been instrumental to the neo-con takeover of the globe >(some are even implementing it personally, after they have marched thru the >institutions and are now top politicians). In the East as well (badly) as >in the West. That's why I detest them. Their ideology is as disgusting as >their often greasy style. They are preposterous enough to tell people that >a _progressive_ _future_ can be built on an _19th-century_ _predator >ideology_. As their neo-con "peers"... > >Today's Swiss minister of public services was in the 1980s a Marxist >demonstrating in the streets with the slogan: "Make cucumber salad of the >state!" (i.e. cut it up, destroy it). In the meantime, he has come to >power and is _implementing_ exactly that: by privatizing the public >services! Which were the world's best-functioning public services before >that (without Marxism). > >Meanwhile, his Marxist buddies in the "trade unions" are pushing our EU >entry with all means, lowering wages, abolishing labor standards, consumer >safety etc. > >--- > >Dave Patterson wrote: > > Chris, I don't know why you have the attitude that this is a street > >fight, but I'm not > > interested. > >What a lame and dismissive excuse for not being able to answer my >questions. Now WHO doesn't want content debate but just personal stuff? > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1814 - Release Date: >11/26/2008 8:53 PM From duanebehrens at cox.net Thu Nov 27 13:45:40 2008 From: duanebehrens at cox.net (Duane Behrens) Date: Thu Nov 27 14:18:03 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Links Message-ID: <20081127144540.PA685.531352.imail@fed1rmwml30> Duane: A collection of the best videos that I am aware of ... Mark Loose Change 2nd Edition: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501) 9/11 Mysteries Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871) Loose Change Final Cut: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598) In plane site: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811) Kevin Ryan Talk: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032) From jomut at yahoo.com Thu Nov 27 14:30:04 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu Nov 27 14:30:12 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <862233.15076.qm@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, ? I still feel that there is an attempt to say something of great moment here and I can detect the great effort being expended in that direction.? Unfortunately, the effort is all in vain because it is not contributing an iota to my understanding.? This could very easily be attributed to my incredible dense and slow uptake, of course, which can be easily understood and filed away,as deserved,?in the bin of oblivion by all men and women of superior wisdom and?understanding. ? Attribute it the same denseness and tardiness of comprehension that, up to this moment in my life, I did not have the slightest idea that I was a Marxist - I have, however,?always imagined that the same Marx?WAS a tower of social understanding, unlike many lesser students of?society, whose opinions deserve to be considered along with those of other stellar students of humanity,?many, but perhaps not all,?of whom, however, are of considerably less intellectual stature than him?-- but, my shortsightedness on this issue has been rudely?set right?by those of greater intellectual insight than I. ? Proceeding in the same rueful vein, I unashamedly aver to the world that inspite of all that has been shouted out about the binary social division (thpse cussed dichotomies! -- depending on which social lens you are viewing the world with)?of? Predator/Producer, there is nothing about this dichotomy that was not taken into consideration by original Marxist analysis.? Capitalist fellow travellers, just like Bolshevik fellow travellers, were very much a focal point of original Marxist analysis, many lumpens happened to fall into this category anyway. My detour into the dicey territory of class situation and consciousness were motivated by an awareness of this problem as well as the careless allusion made elsewhere about proletarians who were capitalists.? Turns out my denseness did not win me many kudos after all.? All this HAD already been said before I uttered it to a world that is ahead of me by several lightyears. Profuse gulps and speepishness are called for here, I suppose. ? Was Marx a deity? Hardly -- not by along shot.? What I (blindly, as I surprisingly have found out) object to is the attempt by little thinkers (from both the conservative and progressive flanks of society) to dismiss him as?a so-so student of society of barely marginal relevance,?even?as I confess a familiarity with the shortcomings of Marxism. ? And all this from a non-marxist.? At least, I hope I am. I might have to be forcefully baptized as one!! ? John ==== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 10:58 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: > It would, however, help for any concerned to understand the difference > ... between a "class situation" ... "class consciousness" And what's the use of understanding this difference (which I do), if you are hooked on the WRONG class dichotomy? (capitalist/proletariat instead of predator/producer) See, you keep diverting the debate from the relevant issues. When I say that the type of class dichotomy matters, you divert to class consciousness. As if that wasn't equally crucial in P/P. > the rather infirm and factually unsupportable declaration of proletarians > being capitalists. Using a wrong definition of "capitalist" (the active agent of exploitation, instead of a supporter or profiteer of capitalism) is part of the deception in Marxism. After all, smoke&mirror propaganda begins with re-defining the very meaning of words. It requires it, in order to make unrealistic Predator theories (appear to) "fit" the reality. But using the real meaning of words, we can debunk these theories as the (here literally) red herring they are. > I just do not have time for this hairsplitting Your ilk is wasting the opposition's time -- and the world's future -- with red herrings and the worst of hairsplitting: of irrelevant issues, diversions. Since the 1960s. That's why things are going downhill since then. The Predators laugh all the way to the bank. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081127/ee311cc5/attachment.html From jomut at yahoo.com Thu Nov 27 14:33:25 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu Nov 27 14:33:32 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <732635.59681.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, ? I still feel that there is an attempt to say something of great moment here and I can detect the great effort being expended in that direction.? Unfortunately, the effort is all in vain because it is not contributing an iota to my understanding.? This could very easily be attributed to my incredible dense and slow uptake, of course, which can be easily understood and filed away,as deserved,?in the bin of oblivion by all men and women of superior wisdom and?understanding. ? Attribute?it to?the same denseness and tardiness of comprehension that, up to this moment in my life, I did not have the slightest idea that I was a Marxist - I have, however,?always imagined that the same Marx?WAS a tower of social understanding, unlike many lesser students of?society, whose opinions deserve to be considered along with those of other stellar students of humanity,?many, but perhaps not all,?of whom, however, are of considerably less intellectual stature than him?-- but, my shortsightedness on this issue has been rudely?set right?by those of greater intellectual insight than I. ? Proceeding in the same rueful vein, I unashamedly aver to the world that inspite of all that has been shouted out about the binary social division (thpse cussed dichotomies! -- depending on which social lens you are viewing the world with)?of? Predator/Producer, there is nothing about this dichotomy that was not taken into consideration by original Marxist analysis.? Capitalist fellow travellers, just like Bolshevik fellow travellers, were very much a focal point of original Marxist analysis, many lumpens happened to fall into this category anyway. My detour into the dicey territory of class situation and consciousness were motivated by an awareness of this problem as well as the careless allusion made elsewhere about proletarians who were capitalists.? Turns out my denseness did not win me many kudos after all.? All this HAD already been said before I uttered it to a world that is ahead of me by several lightyears. Profuse gulps and speepishness are called for here, I suppose. ? Was Marx a deity? Hardly -- not by along shot.? What I (blindly, as I surprisingly have found out) object to is the attempt by little thinkers (from both the conservative and progressive flanks of society) to dismiss him as?a so-so student of society of barely marginal relevance,?even?as I confess a familiarity with the shortcomings of Marxism. ? And all this from a non-marxist.? At least, I hope I am. I might have to be forcefully baptized as one!! ? John ==== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 10:58 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: > It would, however, help for any concerned to understand the difference > ... between a "class situation" ... "class consciousness" And what's the use of understanding this difference (which I do), if you are hooked on the WRONG class dichotomy? (capitalist/proletariat instead of predator/producer) See, you keep diverting the debate from the relevant issues. When I say that the type of class dichotomy matters, you divert to class consciousness. As if that wasn't equally crucial in P/P. > the rather infirm and factually unsupportable declaration of proletarians > being capitalists. Using a wrong definition of "capitalist" (the active agent of exploitation, instead of a supporter or profiteer of capitalism) is part of the deception in Marxism. After all, smoke&mirror propaganda begins with re-defining the very meaning of words. It requires it, in order to make unrealistic Predator theories (appear to) "fit" the reality. But using the real meaning of words, we can debunk these theories as the (here literally) red herring they are. > I just do not have time for this hairsplitting Your ilk is wasting the opposition's time -- and the world's future -- with red herrings and the worst of hairsplitting: of irrelevant issues, diversions. Since the 1960s. That's why things are going downhill since then. The Predators laugh all the way to the bank. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081127/03ba1c63/attachment.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Thu Nov 27 15:57:03 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Thu Nov 27 15:59:10 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: John Mutambirwa wrote: > I did not have the slightest idea that I was a Marxist Marx also said he wasn't a Marxist... Where did I call you a Marxist, anyway? > I have, however, always imagined that the same Marx WAS a tower of social > understanding, unlike many lesser students of society, whose opinions > deserve to be considered along with those of other stellar students of > humanity ... > Was Marx a deity? Hardly -- not by along shot. What I (blindly, as I > surprisingly have found out) object to is the attempt by little thinkers > (from both the conservative and progressive flanks of society) to dismiss > him as a so-so student of society of barely marginal relevance, even as I > confess a familiarity with the shortcomings of Marxism. You may not be a Marxist, but you fall into the traps of Marxism nonetheless and you emphasize his greatness. (And thank you for calling me a little thinker. Btw, I never claimed the patent on P/P. But my thinking is big enough to recognize Marxism as a Predator fraud and P/P as the correct model.) It's NOT about (not) respecting the opinion (sic!) of Marx, nor whether he was a deity. The POINT is that he was a Predator who built a great theory FOR Predators! I don't deny its "size" at all, but it is big AND BAD. Being bad, it would be better if it was only small... but it's so big it has lasted over centuries... > the binary social division (thpse cussed dichotomies! -- depending on which > social lens you are viewing the world with) of Predator/Producer, Well, technically P/P is not a binary dichotomy but a spectrum between the two poles. But in practice, when we talk about Predators, we mean the extreme specimens at the top. These are the ones that are the main problem. They're often capitalists, so short-sighted people think Marx is right. But there are other big predators who are not capitalists! > there is nothing about this dichotomy that was not taken into consideration > by original Marxist analysis. The Marxist "analysis" deliberately MUDDLES the P/P dichotomy (spectrum) by replacing it with the "capitalists/proletariat" dichotomy (which IS binary -- this also shows that it is unrealistic). This is crucial and deliberate, because the goal is to prevent class solidarity among Producers against Predators! With Marx' false dichotomy, you can play out Producers against each other ("capitalists" against "proletariat") while the Predators are laughing all the way to the bank. Also, Predators can get away wearing "sheep's clothing" acting like proletariat, to prevent Producers from opposing them. These two are the main functions of Marxism, and they have worked until today, in the East and in the West! When "communism failed", the Predators in the East simply turned coats and remained in places of power, or even gained power! (Oligarchs, new rich, drug lords etc.) Worse, the Predators in the West also profited from this, because now they can abolish even the modest amount of socialism in the West! (Privatization of public services.) Here it would be useful if you answered my previous questions: Are trade unionists (of the "I'm alright, Jack" kind) part of the proletariat? Do they behave like and/or serve Predators? Are "salon socialists" part of the proletariat? Is Professor Chomsky? Answering these questions may foster your understanding. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From jomut at yahoo.com Thu Nov 27 16:44:33 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Thu Nov 27 16:44:40 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: <75473.40640.qm@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Am still trying to find traction on an icy road of deceptive understanding.? Like C Wright Mills, whom I am more intellectually in line with than anyone else, it is time for me to say "Let everyone choose his intellectual tutor", and I am not going to be surprised at all should many choose your way.? That is why people engage in insightful social debate!! ? I am surprised to learn that I hold the binary "prole vs capitalist" view after all the effort?I expended in drawing attention to Weber's much more sophisticated analysis?of "class", which I had not recognised was crudely binary as is my cussed wont. ? In the same uncooperative vein, I can not yield to the argument that some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social indecency,ergo, marxian analysis is mistaken, since, aside?the logical untenability of this line of thought, I have also noticed, over the past generation, exponents of all shades of progressivist social philosophy, including social democrats, prostrate themselves before the clay-footed juggernaut of neoliberalism. ? I have already referred to Webers analysis, and that puts paid to the reference to Chomsky's credentials. Chomsky is an insightful student of society, period, just like Engels, or Lucas, or Mills, or Galbraith,?whose views are not therefore lessened by?their lack of that qualification exemplified by the?working man's calloused hands. ? Are we going to disqualify Naomi Klein too? ? john =============== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Thu, 11/27/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 9:57 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: > I did not have the slightest idea that I was a Marxist Marx also said he wasn't a Marxist... Where did I call you a Marxist, anyway? > I have, however, always imagined that the same Marx WAS a tower of social > understanding, unlike many lesser students of society, whose opinions > deserve to be considered along with those of other stellar students of > humanity ... > Was Marx a deity? Hardly -- not by along shot. What I (blindly, as I > surprisingly have found out) object to is the attempt by little thinkers > (from both the conservative and progressive flanks of society) to dismiss > him as a so-so student of society of barely marginal relevance, even as I > confess a familiarity with the shortcomings of Marxism. You may not be a Marxist, but you fall into the traps of Marxism nonetheless and you emphasize his greatness. (And thank you for calling me a little thinker. Btw, I never claimed the patent on P/P. But my thinking is big enough to recognize Marxism as a Predator fraud and P/P as the correct model.) It's NOT about (not) respecting the opinion (sic!) of Marx, nor whether he was a deity. The POINT is that he was a Predator who built a great theory FOR Predators! I don't deny its "size" at all, but it is big AND BAD. Being bad, it would be better if it was only small... but it's so big it has lasted over centuries... > the binary social division (thpse cussed dichotomies! -- depending on which > social lens you are viewing the world with) of Predator/Producer, Well, technically P/P is not a binary dichotomy but a spectrum between the two poles. But in practice, when we talk about Predators, we mean the extreme specimens at the top. These are the ones that are the main problem. They're often capitalists, so short-sighted people think Marx is right. But there are other big predators who are not capitalists! > there is nothing about this dichotomy that was not taken into consideration > by original Marxist analysis. The Marxist "analysis" deliberately MUDDLES the P/P dichotomy (spectrum) by replacing it with the "capitalists/proletariat" dichotomy (which IS binary -- this also shows that it is unrealistic). This is crucial and deliberate, because the goal is to prevent class solidarity among Producers against Predators! With Marx' false dichotomy, you can play out Producers against each other ("capitalists" against "proletariat") while the Predators are laughing all the way to the bank. Also, Predators can get away wearing "sheep's clothing" acting like proletariat, to prevent Producers from opposing them. These two are the main functions of Marxism, and they have worked until today, in the East and in the West! When "communism failed", the Predators in the East simply turned coats and remained in places of power, or even gained power! (Oligarchs, new rich, drug lords etc.) Worse, the Predators in the West also profited from this, because now they can abolish even the modest amount of socialism in the West! (Privatization of public services.) Here it would be useful if you answered my previous questions: Are trade unionists (of the "I'm alright, Jack" kind) part of the proletariat? Do they behave like and/or serve Predators? Are "salon socialists" part of the proletariat? Is Professor Chomsky? Answering these questions may foster your understanding. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081127/7c660aed/attachment.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Nov 28 08:36:40 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri Nov 28 08:38:50 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: John, debate is indeed hopeless if you insist on distorting my statements and not answering questions. Again: It is not necessary that you yourself "hold the binary 'prole vs capitalist' view" -- it's bad enough if you fall into Marxist traps and ignore the predatory purpose of Marxism. > In the same uncooperative vein, I can not yield to the argument that > some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social > indecency,ergo, marxian analysis is mistaken, since, aside the logical > untenability of this line of thought, I have also noticed, over the past > generation, exponents of all shades of progressivist social philosophy, > including social democrats, prostrate themselves before the clay-footed > juggernaut of neoliberalism. It's not just that by accident, "some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social indecency". It's that Marxist concepts FIT WELL to the neo-con goals, at least in the results. As I mentioned, the Marxist demonstration slogan "Make cucumber salad of the state" fits exactly the neo-con "reforms" they implement now. They don't attack and abolish predator rule and rip-off, they just replace one set of predators with another (sometimes even with the same individuals in turned coats). Also, the failure of "communism" which was brought about by Marxist mismanagement, plays directly into the hands of the oligarch billionaires and foreign investors who have taken over the people's assets (resources and services). First in the East and now in the West. This would be impossible if they had used the P/P dichotomy/spectrum from the beginning, enabling real change by removing Predators from power and empowering Producers. Also, as I know from discussions on a list of Marxists in Germany, when you bring up the P/P model, they reject it based on their dogma that Predators cannot and must not be blamed personally, but that they are "just following the market forces"! That's exactly the lame excuse of the neo-cons, justifying their grabfest! (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" forcing those poor Predators to grab it all -- if the Predator in power would refuse to grab it, the invisible hand would force another to grab it.) You can't claim that this is a coincidence or accident, nor the acts of a few defectors from Marxism. Marxism is the 5th column of neoliberalism, both in theory and results. Marxism sabotaged the progressive movements and copied neo-con mottos & methods. Marxism provides public distractions from the P/P dichotomy, replacing it by a false dichotomy that enables the con, perpetuating the rule by Predators. It's no coincidence either that Marx himself was a Predator funded and brought to prominence by large Predators. It's the same whether Producers in companies or on farms are ruled by apparatchiks in a commie center of power in a distant capital or by capitalist corporate HQ in a distant capital. Since it's the same, you can replace one by the other, and this is what happened in the East. The Producers lose and are enslaved, while the Predators profit and rule. This can only be changed by ending Predator rule, by making P/P known and uniting Producers, instead of playing them out against each other with Marxism. > Chomsky is an insightful student of society, period, just like Engels No, he's a gatekeeper, and his deliberate ignorance on 9/11 is the clear proof of this. And anyone who supports this, or dismisses it as irrelevant, ends up being a de-facto gatekeeper too, no matter how much pseudo- intellectual smoke they throw to conceal that. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From jomut at yahoo.com Fri Nov 28 14:54:29 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Fri Nov 28 14:54:54 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <286849.58487.qm@web31104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am not sure that I am aware of the questions that you keep on insisting I have ducked. Part of my problem, I should suppose, is that sometimes I throw in a suggestion which I deem, incurable optimist that I am, is pregnant with meaning, and expect my fellow interlocutor to follow in all its fruitful twists and turns.? This is non other than the heuristic method, which I was trying to use by making reference to Weber's contributions to class analysis as a fruitful and rewarding adjunct to the rather hazy and simplistic Marxian rendition of the same.This way of presenting my views sometimes has its shortcomings as I unfortunately am finding out now. ? However, just a few comments, here and there, are in order. ? Let us clear the air of any ambiguities and evasions regarding a theme that keeps on recurring in your arguments.? I could nould not agree more that Marxian thought can be liberally abused by those in power in a state (the Bolshevik apparatchiki are a case in point -- their steady and predictable resort to drearily irrelevant?Marxist quotations in support of an oppressive machinery of human woe is so well known that its not worth repeating here)) or those seeking to ascend to the centres of power by loudly claiming its tutelage.? All these are well known social hazards, as prevalent on our historical?landscape as the ever abused exhortation to democratic beginnings. ? I am, however, in agreement with those who, following the reasoning of Weber on this point,?as opposed to Marx, that the reasons that the concerns of the "producers" (egad, I can only say this with a quick apology to?the many that are rootlessly idle in this accursed world, for no discernible reason of their own) needs and concerns were systematically quashed in both the socialist states and and the "developed democratic" ones can be attributed to the all-embracing appearance of massive bureaucratic forms of organizing life -?a fact that leviathan, rationally organized formations in the west, especially in the private sphere, glibly overlook.? Those bureacratic formations, however, were not (except in a few cases involving the military, e.g)?designed to serve the same social purpose, especially as defined by the overall philosophical guidelines followed by the two major societies of the twentieth century (the US and the Soviet Union). With regard the latter society, and I say this in full cognizance of the Marxian blindspot with regard the mushrooming of bureucratic life, I find it difficult to attribute this development to?the premises of Marxian thought, nor have I yet come across a sanely defensible apology?for it in Marxist terms.? I think Gorbachev's cry of "glasnost" (fenestrating the unbreathable spaces that had?appeared in these bureaucrasies?with a view towards democratic reorganization) along with an intelligently designed perestroika was meant as a fisrtstep in addressing this social ailment.? ALAS! The U.S. very alertly?discouraged such a socially benign approach, as we now know! ? That being said, part of my problem with your manner of arguing is, I sometimes am hard put to?it to separate your ad hominem arguments (as in, "It's no coincidence either that Marx himself was a Predator funded and brought to prominence by large Predators." -- which tell me diddlysquat about the thematic?content of his works) and your incompletely stated claims concerning the confluence of both meaning and practice of Marxian premises and neoliberal ones.? Which you merely allege without concretely spelling out: ? "It's not just that by accident, "some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social indecency".? It's that Marxist concepts FIT WELL to the neo-con goals, at least in the results.? As I mentioned, the Marxist demonstration slogan "Make cucumber salad of the state" fits exactly the neo-con "reforms" they implement now.? They don't attack and abolish predator rule and rip-off, they just replace one set of predators with another (sometimes even with the same individuals in turned coats)." While agreeing with you that, and this was never spelled out?in great detail by Marx himself for reasons - I imagine - concerned with the pitfalls of engaging in dicey, social prophecy, the "withering away of the state" (well, at least that portion of it that does not meet with the approval of those that have been very aptly referred to elsewhere?as the "sirs") seems to suggest a happy freemasonry between former Marxians and Thatcherites, I think it is a bit of stretch (and here I am?mightily?under the spell of?the deity of understatement) to conflate the underlying reason of neoliberal assault on the state (or,again, those aspects of statehood that neoliberals find?offensive) ?with the admittedly hazy predictions of the original Marxian view of statelessness.? In fact, given the factually verifiable instances of "socialist" governance that we have experience of (eg China and the Bolsheviks) the existence of a powerful state was centrally important --?in?both the abuse of the underlying population and the retention of power by a very powerful bureaucratic centre,?as well as?the maddeningly minute management of all aspects of social life.? No salad dressing needed here, they were quite short of the ingredients needed for the appetizer! ? I have to cut this short as I am running out of time, I shall only make one more short comment regarding something you said: ? "Marxism is the 5th column of neoliberalism, both in theory and results. Marxism sabotaged the progressive movements and copied neo-con mottos & methods."? ? It would help no end if you cited concrete instances of your accusations.? My own understanding (which may be wildly inaccurate) is that Marxism is?of earlier birth than neo-liberalism and I am also dying to comprehend?the mottos and?methods that the Marxists have borrowed from neoliberalism?since?its relatively recent appearance on the scene. ? Not fighting a rearguard battle, just trying to undestand! ? John ======================================= John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Fri, 11/28/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 2:36 PM John, debate is indeed hopeless if you insist on distorting my statements and not answering questions. Again: It is not necessary that you yourself "hold the binary 'prole vs capitalist' view" -- it's bad enough if you fall into Marxist traps and ignore the predatory purpose of Marxism. > In the same uncooperative vein, I can not yield to the argument that > some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social > indecency,ergo, marxian analysis is mistaken, since, aside the logical > untenability of this line of thought, I have also noticed, over the past > generation, exponents of all shades of progressivist social philosophy, > including social democrats, prostrate themselves before the clay-footed > juggernaut of neoliberalism. It's not just that by accident, "some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social indecency". It's that Marxist concepts FIT WELL to the neo-con goals, at least in the results. As I mentioned, the Marxist demonstration slogan "Make cucumber salad of the state" fits exactly the neo-con "reforms" they implement now. They don't attack and abolish predator rule and rip-off, they just replace one set of predators with another (sometimes even with the same individuals in turned coats). Also, the failure of "communism" which was brought about by Marxist mismanagement, plays directly into the hands of the oligarch billionaires and foreign investors who have taken over the people's assets (resources and services). First in the East and now in the West. This would be impossible if they had used the P/P dichotomy/spectrum from the beginning, enabling real change by removing Predators from power and empowering Producers. Also, as I know from discussions on a list of Marxists in Germany, when you bring up the P/P model, they reject it based on their dogma that Predators cannot and must not be blamed personally, but that they are "just following the market forces"! That's exactly the lame excuse of the neo-cons, justifying their grabfest! (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" forcing those poor Predators to grab it all -- if the Predator in power would refuse to grab it, the invisible hand would force another to grab it.) You can't claim that this is a coincidence or accident, nor the acts of a few defectors from Marxism. Marxism is the 5th column of neoliberalism, both in theory and results. Marxism sabotaged the progressive movements and copied neo-con mottos & methods. Marxism provides public distractions from the P/P dichotomy, replacing it by a false dichotomy that enables the con, perpetuating the rule by Predators. It's no coincidence either that Marx himself was a Predator funded and brought to prominence by large Predators. It's the same whether Producers in companies or on farms are ruled by apparatchiks in a commie center of power in a distant capital or by capitalist corporate HQ in a distant capital. Since it's the same, you can replace one by the other, and this is what happened in the East. The Producers lose and are enslaved, while the Predators profit and rule. This can only be changed by ending Predator rule, by making P/P known and uniting Producers, instead of playing them out against each other with Marxism. > Chomsky is an insightful student of society, period, just like Engels No, he's a gatekeeper, and his deliberate ignorance on 9/11 is the clear proof of this. And anyone who supports this, or dismisses it as irrelevant, ends up being a de-facto gatekeeper too, no matter how much pseudo- intellectual smoke they throw to conceal that. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081128/257012bc/attachment.html From thinker at thelakebc.ca Fri Nov 28 15:34:03 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Fri Nov 28 15:30:58 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: <286849.58487.qm@web31104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <286849.58487.qm@web31104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200811282130.mASLUkil024277@karma.reboot.ca> Marx was a bum, now a long dead bum, so why not bury him and his theories forever ? I'm always amused to read arguments about what he and other prophets , like Smith, or Ricardo, or Charlie Brown , may have said and what it really meant then and now. Why waste time on such futility and person like Marx, et al ? Today is here and we have to sort things out for ourselves, not bury ourselves into and waste time on the words of long dead bums like Marx? Cheers, d. At 12:54 PM 28/11/2008, you wrote: >I am not sure that I am aware of the questions that you keep on >insisting I have ducked. Part of my problem, I should suppose, is >that sometimes I throw in a suggestion which I deem, incurable >optimist that I am, is pregnant with meaning, and expect my fellow >interlocutor to follow in all its fruitful twists and turns. This >is non other than the heuristic method, which I was trying to use by >making reference to Weber's contributions to class analysis as a >fruitful and rewarding adjunct to the rather hazy and simplistic >Marxian rendition of the same.This way of presenting my views >sometimes has its shortcomings as I unfortunately am finding out now. > >However, just a few comments, here and there, are in order. > >Let us clear the air of any ambiguities and evasions regarding a >theme that keeps on recurring in your arguments. I could nould not >agree more that Marxian thought can be liberally abused by those in >power in a state (the Bolshevik apparatchiki are a case in point -- >their steady and predictable resort to drearily irrelevant Marxist >quotations in support of an oppressive machinery of human woe is so >well known that its not worth repeating here)) or those seeking to >ascend to the centres of power by loudly claiming its tutelage. All >these are well known social hazards, as prevalent on our historical >landscape as the ever abused exhortation to democratic beginnings. > >I am, however, in agreement with those who, following the reasoning >of Weber on this point, as opposed to Marx, that the reasons that >the concerns of the "producers" (egad, I can only say this with a >quick apology to the many that are rootlessly idle in this accursed >world, for no discernible reason of their own) needs and concerns >were systematically quashed in both the socialist states and and the >"developed democratic" ones can be attributed to the all-embracing >appearance of massive bureaucratic forms of organizing life - a fact >that leviathan, rationally organized formations in the west, >especially in the private sphere, glibly overlook. Those >bureacratic formations, however, were not (except in a few cases >involving the military, e.g) designed to serve the same social >purpose, especially as defined by the overall philosophical >guidelines followed by the two major societies of the twentieth >century (the US and the Soviet Union). With regard the latter >society, and I say this in full cognizance of the Marxian blindspot >with regard the mushrooming of bureucratic life, I find it difficult >to attribute this development to the premises of Marxian thought, >nor have I yet come across a sanely defensible apology for it in >Marxist terms. I think Gorbachev's cry of "glasnost" (fenestrating >the unbreathable spaces that had appeared in these bureaucrasies >with a view towards democratic reorganization) along with an >intelligently designed perestroika was meant as a fisrtstep in >addressing this social ailment. ALAS! The U.S. very alertly >discouraged such a socially benign approach, as we now know! > >That being said, part of my problem with your manner of arguing is, >I sometimes am hard put to it to separate your ad hominem arguments >(as in, "It's no coincidence either that Marx himself was a Predator >funded and brought to prominence by large Predators." -- which tell >me diddlysquat about the thematic content of his works) and your >incompletely stated claims concerning the confluence of both meaning >and practice of Marxian premises and neoliberal ones. Which you >merely allege without concretely spelling out: > >"It's not just that by accident, "some former Marxists are now the >leading exponents of neoliberal social indecency". It's that Marxist concepts >FIT WELL to the neo-con goals, at least in the results. As I mentioned, >the Marxist demonstration slogan "Make cucumber salad of the state" >fits exactly the neo-con "reforms" they implement now. They don't >attack and abolish predator rule and rip-off, they just replace one >set of predators >with another (sometimes even with the same individuals in turned coats)." > >While agreeing with you that, and this was never spelled out in >great detail by Marx himself for reasons - I imagine - concerned >with the pitfalls of engaging in dicey, social prophecy, the >"withering away of the state" (well, at least that portion of it >that does not meet with the approval of those that have been very >aptly referred to elsewhere as the "sirs") seems to suggest a happy >freemasonry between former Marxians and Thatcherites, I think it is >a bit of stretch (and here I am mightily under the spell of the >deity of understatement) to conflate the underlying reason of >neoliberal assault on the state (or,again, those aspects of >statehood that neoliberals find offensive) with the admittedly hazy >predictions of the original Marxian view of statelessness. In fact, >given the factually verifiable instances of "socialist" governance >that we have experience of (eg China and the Bolsheviks) the >existence of a powerful state was centrally important -- in both the >abuse of the underlying population and the retention of power by a >very powerful bureaucratic centre, as well as the maddeningly minute >management of all aspects of social life. No salad dressing needed >here, they were quite short of the ingredients needed for the appetizer! > >I have to cut this short as I am running out of time, I shall only >make one more short comment regarding something you said: > >"Marxism is the 5th column of neoliberalism, both in theory and results. >Marxism sabotaged the progressive movements and copied neo-con mottos & >methods." > >It would help no end if you cited concrete instances of your >accusations. My own understanding (which may be wildly inaccurate) >is that Marxism is of earlier birth than neo-liberalism and I am >also dying to comprehend the mottos and methods that the Marxists >have borrowed from neoliberalism since its relatively recent >appearance on the scene. > >Not fighting a rearguard battle, just trying to undestand! > >John >======================================= > >John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) >jomut@yahoo.com >chakane@hotmail.com >http://www.geocities.com/jomut > >--- On Fri, 11/28/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: >From: Christoph Reuss >Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud >To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net >Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 2:36 PM > > >John, > > >debate is indeed hopeless if you insist on distorting my statements and > >not answering questions. Again: It is not necessary that you yourself > >"hold the binary 'prole vs capitalist' view" -- it's bad > >enough if > >you fall into Marxist traps and ignore the predatory purpose of Marxism. > > > > > In the same uncooperative vein, I can not yield to the argument that > > > some former Marxists are now the leading exponents of neoliberal social > > > indecency,ergo, marxian analysis is mistaken, since, aside the logical > > > untenability of this line of thought, I have also noticed, over the past > > > generation, exponents of all shades of progressivist social philosophy, > > > including social democrats, prostrate themselves before the clay-footed > > > juggernaut of neoliberalism. > > >It's not just that by accident, "some former Marxists are now the > >leading > >exponents of neoliberal social indecency". It's that Marxist concepts > >FIT WELL to the neo-con goals, at least in the results. As I mentioned, > >the Marxist demonstration slogan "Make cucumber salad of the state" > >fits > >exactly the neo-con "reforms" they implement now. They don't > >attack and > >abolish predator rule and rip-off, they just replace one set of predators > >with another (sometimes even with the same individuals in turned coats). > > >Also, the failure of "communism" which was brought about by Marxist > >mismanagement, plays directly into the hands of the oligarch billionaires > >and foreign investors who have taken over the people's assets (resources > >and services). First in the East and now in the West. This would be > >impossible if they had used the P/P dichotomy/spectrum from the beginning, > >enabling real change by removing Predators from power and empowering >Producers. > > >Also, as I know from discussions on a list of Marxists in Germany, when > >you bring up the P/P model, they reject it based on their dogma that > >Predators cannot and must not be blamed personally, but that they are > >"just following the market forces"! That's exactly the lame > >excuse of > >the neo-cons, justifying their grabfest! (Adam Smith's "invisible > >hand" > >forcing those poor Predators to grab it all -- if the Predator in power > >would refuse to grab it, the invisible hand would force another to grab it.) > >You can't claim that this is a coincidence or accident, nor the acts of a > >few defectors from Marxism. > > >Marxism is the 5th column of neoliberalism, both in theory and results. > >Marxism sabotaged the progressive movements and copied neo-con mottos & > >methods. Marxism provides public distractions from the P/P dichotomy, > >replacing it by a false dichotomy that enables the con, perpetuating > >the rule by Predators. It's no coincidence either that Marx himself > >was a Predator funded and brought to prominence by large Predators. > > >It's the same whether Producers in companies or on farms are ruled by > >apparatchiks in a commie center of power in a distant capital or by > >capitalist corporate HQ in a distant capital. Since it's the same, > >you can replace one by the other, and this is what happened in the East. > >The Producers lose and are enslaved, while the Predators profit and rule. > > >This can only be changed by ending Predator rule, by making P/P known and > >uniting Producers, instead of playing them out against each other with > >Marxism. > > > > > Chomsky is an insightful student of society, period, just like Engels > > >No, he's a gatekeeper, and his deliberate ignorance on 9/11 is the clear > >proof of this. And anyone who supports this, or dismisses it as irrelevant, > >ends up being a de-facto gatekeeper too, no matter how much pseudo- > >intellectual smoke they throw to conceal that. > > >Chris > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > >"igve". > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1817 - Release Date: >11/28/2008 8:17 AM From jomut at yahoo.com Fri Nov 28 15:59:13 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Fri Nov 28 15:59:17 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] gluteus maximus Message-ID: <962962.81025.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? Hi Ed, ? This did not appear in my inbox.? I just ran across it when I visited the mai-not archive site.? Good that I checked otherwise I would have missed it.? Nice to know?that Marx was a gluteus maximus Ed.?? Cannot for the life of me understand why the fickle world of intellect and politics had its eyes fixed on it for so long!! ? John ? ? Marx was a bum, now a long dead bum, so why not bury him and his theories forever ? I'm always amused to read arguments about what he and other prophets , like Smith, or Ricardo, or Charlie Brown , may have said and what it really meant then and now. Why waste time on such futility and person like Marx, et al ? Today is here and we have to sort things out for ourselves, not bury ourselves into? and waste time on the words of long dead bums like Marx? Cheers, d. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081128/d10bcceb/attachment.html From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Nov 28 16:49:21 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri Nov 28 16:51:24 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: Ed Deak wrote: > Marx was a bum, now a long dead bum, so why not bury him and his > theories forever ? > > I'm always amused to read arguments about what he and other prophets, > like Smith, or Ricardo, or Charlie Brown , may have said and what > it really meant then and now. > > Why waste time on such futility and person like Marx, et al ? Today > is here and we have to sort things out for ourselves, not bury > ourselves into and waste time on the words of long dead bums like Marx? Ironically, not only has Marxism as an ideology been instrumental in sabotaging the progressive movement and perpetuating Predator rule, but also, the endless and artificially complicated discussions about interpretations of his scriptures (which, like the bible, were deliberately vague and completely open to arbitrary interpretations, designed to give "work" to the high priests of every era and opportunities to dodge all criticism to his disciples) have been instrumental in wasting the time and energies of progressive people, just so they won't use them on reasonable approaches like P/P. In other words, Marxism is the perfect Predator tool in every aspect, and never burying Marx is not a bug, it's a feature. The German list I mentioned has been an amazing illustration of this. (Officially, it's not about Marxism but about political implications of open source software.) Literally for years, people there have been discussing the possible meanings of Marxist scriptures and terminology -- even about the differences of earlier vs. later writings of Marx, and why and when he may or may not have changed a nuance over time. All these years of very lengthy discussions have had exactly zero results, except wasting the time & energy of progressive people. The Potemkin village of "constructive" pretexts was so thick that it took me some time to find out that this waste was actually the purpose for the Marxists behind that list. Whenever a Producer accidentally came to that list, like a fly coming into a spider's web, it was amazing to watch how they wasted his time. It was just a matter of time (often long) before the Producer would leave in disgust, after realizing he was just being screwed. I kept watching for sociological interest, and when I finally brought up P/P, I was vigorously attacked and finally banned. The list (about OPEN SOURCE software, supposedly dedicated to FREEDOM of information!) was then put on moderation, in order to avoid any such heretic topic in the future. Whoops, the apparatchiks had shown their true colors. Dunno whether I'll find time tomorrow for another wasted round with John. Cheers, Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Nov 28 21:50:32 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri Nov 28 21:50:47 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky, Zinn, Klein, Marx and others #1 Message-ID: <20081129035033.8B002F906@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081129/848ba762/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Danziger.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 72717 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081129/848ba762/Danziger-0001.jpg From creuss at bluewin.ch Sat Nov 29 09:13:55 2008 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sat Nov 29 09:16:00 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud Message-ID: John Mutambirwa wrote: > I am not sure that I am aware of the questions that you keep on insisting > I have ducked. Well, here they are for the 3rd time: Are trade unionists (of the "I'm alright, Jack" kind) part of the proletariat? Do they behave like and/or serve Predators? Are "salon socialists" part of the proletariat? Is Professor Chomsky? --- I suggest you answer these first, and then I'll answer your later-posed questions. FIFO... But upfront, let me clarify this misunderstanding: > to separate your ad hominem arguments (as in, "It's no coincidence either > that Marx himself was a Predator funded and brought to prominence by large > Predators." -- which tell me diddlysquat about the thematic content of his > works) To assess whether Marxism is a Predator theory (by and for Predators), of course it DOES matter whether Marx himself was a Predator etc.! This is NOT an "ad hominem", as little as it would be an ad hominem to point out that a medical paper author is paid by the tobacco industry. An ad hominem would be that he's gay or something, because that's irrelevant for the content of his writing at hand and only his own private matter. Btw, on the issue of Marxism vs. P/P, you may find Jonathan's video interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymt72RgM9e4 Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From jomut at yahoo.com Sat Nov 29 16:36:54 2008 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Sat Nov 29 16:37:01 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7556.42082.qm@web31105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do?not have enough time today as I must go out with some people but that shouldnt deter me from giving you a short and very quick answer. ? First of all you are forcing me into a strait-jacket that I have already said I do not want to be bound in -- that of the simple capitalist/proletariat dichotomy which I have many times referred to as inadequate but you still want to force down my throat.? But for your information, using the much more sophisicated analysis of Weber, I resolutely say yes the bread-and-and-butter unionists are proles.? Some of them tend to develop habits of thought and action that gibe with those of their capitalist employers.? An extreme example of this would be the company union.? The Venezuelan oil industry unionists are a very good example of retrograde unionist thinking and action.? That being said, I do not see this type of social situation being a killer argument against Marx --not by the least stretch of my febrile imagination. ? Since I have willingly slid into the strait-jacket that you have so eagerly constructed for me, I shall also hasten to venture the stray thought that?I am quite unfamiliar with the property holding profile (or lack of) of Noam Chomsky.? I, however, am very willing to go out on a limb and aver that irrespective of his situation as a property owner or not he is FOR the proletariat even though he may not be of it. I am hoping and praying that he is of it lest I defenestrate his prodigious intellectual output as junk. ? By the bye, about this Naomi Klein thing....... ? John ==================== ? ? John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut@yahoo.com chakane@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Sat, 11/29/08, Christoph Reuss wrote: From: Christoph Reuss Subject: Re: [Mai-not] Chomsky & Zinn "Don't Care" about 9/11 Fraud To: mai-not@globalproblematique.net Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 3:13 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: > I am not sure that I am aware of the questions that you keep on insisting > I have ducked. Well, here they are for the 3rd time: Are trade unionists (of the "I'm alright, Jack" kind) part of the proletariat? Do they behave like and/or serve Predators? Are "salon socialists" part of the proletariat? Is Professor Chomsky? --- I suggest you answer these first, and then I'll answer your later-posed questions. FIFO... But upfront, let me clarify this misunderstanding: > to separate your ad hominem arguments (as in, "It's no coincidence either > that Marx himself was a Predator funded and brought to prominence by large > Predators." -- which tell me diddlysquat about the thematic content of his > works) To assess whether Marxism is a Predator theory (by and for Predators), of course it DOES matter whether Marx himself was a Predator etc.! This is NOT an "ad hominem", as little as it would be an ad hominem to point out that a medical paper author is paid by the tobacco industry. An ad hominem would be that he's gay or something, because that's irrelevant for the content of his writing at hand and only his own private matter. Btw, on the issue of Marxism vs. P/P, you may find Jonathan's video interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymt72RgM9e4 Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not@globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081129/38be64c6/attachment.html From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sat Nov 29 18:29:32 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sat Nov 29 18:29:47 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] HARPER Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin earNARPER Message-ID: <4931A62C.18275.1C163924@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a majority, and failed to get one. This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed....an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his. ..the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared to do... The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely bogus explanation. --Jeffrey Simpson, G&M, Nov 28th , 2008 fyi-janet ================== http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcosimp29/ BNStory/politics/home Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear JEFFREY SIMPSON >From Saturday's Globe and Mail November 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM EST Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a majority, and failed to get one. This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. And they call Mr. Harper a great strategist and superior tactician? Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his. Instead of reaching out, as leader of a minority government and as president-elect Barack Obama is doing by talking to moderate Republicans, he smacked his opponents in the chops. Instead of heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs stimulus, he got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes will be realized. There is a plausible case for caution, to wait a bit until economic issues clarify themselves and until the new American administration settles definitively on its approach. The government therefore, quite credibly, could have gone to Parliament, said it could not offer precise numbers because of unprecedented volatility, said there would be a deficit but a modest one limited in time, promised a budget in January, got a few infrastructure programs speeded up, and asked for suggestions. After all, this was a government that had admitted the economy would be in a "technical recession." That would have been prudent, statesmanlike and economically credible. There would have been no political crisis; the country would have accepted that the government had heard its concerns and worries; and a serious plan could have been developed. Instead, the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared to do. The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely bogus explanation. Said the government: We have already injected $31-billion of stimulus in the economy through tax cuts since 2006. As if tax cuts in 2006 were designed for stimulus in 2009. No one believes that. That would be like President George W. Bush saying his tax cuts of years ago were designed to help the current recession. Conservatives cut taxes mostly when the economy was robust (and therefore at the wrong time and in the wrong way, but that's another matter). The point now is that the stimulus hasn't been enough. The government also gratuitously set off a political firestorm that will damage the Conservative Party. Taxpayer subsidies for political parties exist everywhere around the world, even in the United States, where Mr. Obama refused them because he was raising so much private money. The subsidies exist, there as here, as a quid pro quo for eliminating corporate and union contributions. As such, they help parties finance themselves, do their work, and therefore contribute to democracy. But since the Conservatives have mastered soliciting contributions from individuals better than their opponents, they now propose to eliminate the public subsidy that amounts to a tiny sum relative to total government spending. Nothing the Conservatives have done has been so malevolently partisan as this. Finally, the government created a potential constitutional situation in which it could be defeated and replaced, quite properly under constitutional convention, by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Late yesterday, Mr. Harper refused to modify his economic statement, put off confidence votes for a week to buy himself some time, and in effect dared the Governor-General, should it come to this, not to exercise her proper constitutional authority to ask another party to try to form a government without bringing on an election. He argued that if his government were to be defeated, there would have to be an election, which is not consistent with constitutional convention. He was really threatening a possible constitutional crisis that, again, would be of his own making and that he would hope to turn to his partisan advantage. The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper's strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together. He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad. From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 29 20:04:18 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 29 20:04:22 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Once more... Message-ID: <20081130020419.B6DEC10E0D@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Re Chris and John's latest exchange, I've said it once and will say it again, hoping to persuade them to engage with the observations about Communism without my having to go into any "You said - no I didn't - yes you did" stuff to gain attention: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081129/848ba762/attachment-0001.html It's also there on the list screen without all the computerese gobbledegook in the above version. Dion Giles Western Australia From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 29 22:15:32 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 29 22:15:38 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Zinn etc #2: A problem with dichotomies Message-ID: <20081130041535.A1E41F4E8@fep03.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/b785fd2b/attachment.html From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sat Nov 29 23:56:08 2008 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat Nov 29 23:56:20 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Zinn etc. #3 - Capitalism and socialism deceptive terms Message-ID: <20081130055611.8BE42F4E3@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Social engineers are much more comfortable with systems than with individuals and with activities. Hence terms like "socialist system", "capitalist system". These terms do, however, have a meaning - the aim of the neoliberal social engineers is to convert a mixed economy into a capitalist system. That of the Communist social engineers was to abolish capitalism to clear the way for their own mode of predation. Back in 2001, soon after the US administration had levelled the Twin Towers, I ventured an editorial for a StopMAI (WA) publication examining and comparing these concepts. As part of the current thread I'm attaching this editorial as it seems to remain relevant today. Dion Giles Western Australia -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: editorial.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 16266 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/da9636e3/editorial.rtf From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Nov 30 00:00:11 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun Nov 30 00:00:47 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Support Coalition Govt: Write the GG, Write MPs, Write Opposition Party leaders [E-MAIL Addresses enclosed ] Message-ID: <4931F3AB.891.1D44EEBC@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> TOWARDS A COALITION GOVERNMENT PLEASE WRITE !! [1] Coalition push forces Harper onto the defensive [2] Coalition would be a Victory for Democracy Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party, Nov 28 [3] Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail, Nov 28 [4] Harper backs down on party financing, Council of Canadians Nov 28 [5] Rideau Institute Attention News Editors: Progressive Leaders Urge Opposition Parties to Form Coalition Government; Open Letter - An Urgent Message to St?phane Dion and Jack Layton: Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs [6] [silverdonaldcameron] Fwd: E-mail from journalist Allen Lynch Write the GG ! [7] e-mails of Opposition MP's to write to ! IF YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF THIS COALITION GOVERNMENT, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR SUPPORT TO THE GOVENOR GENERAL, infor@GG.CA Excellency, If the current Conservative Government loses the confidence of the House, I support your appointment of a coalition government to continue the work of the Nation. THE LEADERS Dion.S@parl.gc.ca Layton.J@parl.gc.ca Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca leader@greenparty.ca MPs E-MAILS AT END OF THIS E-MAIL. See # 5 for potential wording for letter. fyi-janet =================================== [1] Coalition push forces Harper onto the defensive http://www.smartvote2008.ca:80/?p=393 Momentum - including open online letter grows to replace minority Conservatives. OTTAWA , November 28, 2008: Momentum is growing for the replacement of the Harper Conservatives by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Two months ago, when the idea was first broached in StraightGoods.ca, almost all parties dismissed the idea. Now, a non-confidence vote could see the government fall as soon as Monday night. All day today, negotiations took place between the opposition parties, with former Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent taking lead roles. Then tonight, Harper took the extraordinary move of making a special address to Parliament and the nation. In it, he postponed a confidence vote on the economic statement finance minister Jim Flaherty made yesterday to a week Monday instead of Monday. And he attacked the opposition as undemocratic for wanting to replace his government without an election. "While we have been working on the economy, the Opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters," Harper said. " They want to take power, not earn it." Ironically, the bulk of reaction to the economic statement was over widespread perceptions that the government's statement showed a lack of work on the economic crisis. Harper has difficulty making the kind of compromises demanded of a minority prime minister. Instead of bringing Canadians together to fight the crisis, Flaherty's statement Thursday was viciously partisan. In it, he trashed longtime political targets like pay equity and labour rights in the public service, as well as political finance rules put in place to level the playing field. Open online letter to Dion and Layton calls for a coalition government. As political leaders huddle in Ottawa, activists across Canada are becoming involved in the push for a coalition. Canadians everywhere are being urged to sign an online open letter calling for coalition that began with a small group pulled together by the Rideau Institute. The letter urges the Liberal's St?phane Dion and the NDP's Jack Layton to "set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy." The letter argues it was bitterly ironic for Stephen Harper to promise to work cooperatively with opposition parties, and then deliver such a partisan attack with no plan to fight the economic crisis and the stated intention not to run deficits, in the face of what other G20 countries are doing. "Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity," states the letter. "Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan. The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary." The original signers of the letter are : Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians Mel Watkins, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Toronto Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Harper Conservative vs. Public Values Frame Ideology and partisanship / Cooperation, coalition Backroom deals / Democracy Entitlements / Level the playing field Posted: November 28, 2008 Harper Index (HarperIndex.ca) is a project of the Golden Lake Institute and the online publication StraightGoods.ca <><><><><> [2] http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/8619 Coalition would be a Victory for Democracy Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party In moving the confidence vote off by one week, Stephen Harper has bought himself until December 8th to try to turn Canadians against the idea of a Coalition Government. Public opinion could impact the momentum for this - the most exciting and encouraging development in Canadian politics since... maybe ever. His first shot across the bow of a coalition is that it is "back room and anti-democratic." Well, as we know, the first-past-the-post system got us another Conservative government with the votes of 5,205,334 Canadians who chose Mr. Harper?s party. The Green vote at 940,747 is 18% of the Conservative. The Conservatives received, as we know, a minority of the votes of the people who voted. Only 37.6% of the voters chose this government. That?s how the system works. They get a shot at a minority government. To make it work, a Prime Minister in a Minority must consult with the Opposition Party leaders and try to develop a consensus. Historically, in a Parliamentary Democracy, a Prime Minister is a "first among equals." It is the House of Commons that is government. Not the Prime Minister by himself. This is especially true in a minority government situation. The Minority Government need the confidence of the House to govern. That?s how our democracy works. After the election, Mr. Harper made some very positive statements about how he wanted to see the next Parliamentary session be more cooperative and less combative. I was in the House for the Opening Day and in the Senate Chambers for the Speech from the Throne. There was good will in the air. But by Thursday in Question Period, the first day of Question Period, it was clear that not much had changed. The heckling and the rudeness seemed only slightly les awful than last spring when the House rose in recess. And then came the economic statement. As I wrote in my last blog, the economic statement failed the demands of the current economic crisis. Entirely. Where the current recession threatens to become deflationary, we need confidence. We need investment. We need an economic stimulus package with investments in green energy and green collar jobs. We needed it yesterday. Granted, it is difficult for the Harper Conservatives to find the resources for a stimulus package. Their bad economic strategies, cuts to GST and massive increases in spending, wiped out the surpluses and the reserve put in place by the previous government. The cupboard is bare. Well, that?s life. We are stuck with where we are. Deficit financing will be necessary. Even Mr. Harper?s claims in the election that deficit financing would be "dangerous" miraculously morphed to him, at the APEC Summit in Peru, describing deficits as "essential." But, as we know, the economic update claimed the government would run a surplus over the next five years. No one believes that. The nations leading economists basically say Flaherty "cooked the books." On top of total abdication of responsibility for the welfare of the nation, the Harper government threw in a "poison pill. A political calculation with nothing to do with responding to the economic crisis. As Jeffrey Simpson wrote in the Globe and Mail (Nov 28), the Conservatives "are trying to use this economic crisis for their partisan advantage." He went on to point out "Canadians fought a long battle to get these inducements for people to give to political parties; they can?t let one party?s naked self-interest push back progress." So, from any perspective, it is impossible to think that Stephen Harper approached the new Parliament with an approach to earn the confidence of the House. He has clearly lost the confidence of the House and he has no one to blame but himself. He could not resist the instinct for non-stop campaigning, for no-holds-barred partisanship. He doesn?t just want to win elections. He wants to permanently eliminate the opposition. Don Martin in the National Post put it this way: "this showdown (is) an unforgivable breach of the trust voters bestowed on Mr. Harper. He was elected to lead a minority government with a spirit of co- operation. He thought he had set a deadly trap for his opponents. He may well find himself as the victim." What can we expect in the next week? I predict we?ll see new Conservative attack ads aimed at the Opposition Parties and the idea of a coalition. No doubt, the attack ads are in production as we speak. They will try to portray a Coalition Government as some sort of evil coup. That argument will be all hype and spin. It is the opposite of truth. When you look at the election results, it is clear that a coalition government is entirely democratic. In fact, it is the most democratic result possible under our current system. Add the Liberal vote (3,629,990) to the NDP vote (2,517,075) and our Green vote (940,747) you get 7,077,812 votes. That is over 7 million votes for parties other than Conservatives without even counting the Bloc Quebecois vote of over one million. So all in all, over 8.4 million Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. In percentages it?s 37.6% versus 61.2%. Clearly the democratic choice is for a coalition government representing the vast majority of Canadians. So in the next week, please do not leave this to the Conservative attack machine to shape public opinion. Sadly, Greens are not in the House, but we are at the grassroots, in neighbourhoods and communities. PLEASE spread the word. Send letters to MPs (what Mr. Harper suggested.) Blog on media sites. Post comments. Write letters to the editor. Organize your own events. Attend the planned climate rallies on December 6th and support the dream of a Coalition government supporting global action at the climate negotiations running in Poland from December 1-13. We could get Canada back on track to join the movement for hope and change south of the border. We could protect savings for seniors. We could act to help low income Canadians and people with disabilities. We could protect jobs and make new ones. Retrofitting homes and buildings is a great economic stimulus, fighting climate change at the same time. We could have an economic stimulus that moves us to renewable energy and better rail service and mass transit. We could have a government that represents what the majority of Canadians want. And that is something worth fighting for. Do not watch this from the sidelines. We don?t have to take over an airport to get a change in government. All we have to do is support Parliamentary Democracy and make it clear the Canadian people support a Coalition and want the Governor General to give it a chance <><><><><> [3] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcosimp29/ BNStory/politics/home Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear JEFFREY SIMPSON >From Saturday's Globe and Mail November 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM EST Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a majority, and failed to get one. This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. And they call Mr. Harper a great strategist and superior tactician? Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his. Instead of reaching out, as leader of a minority government and as president-elect Barack Obama is doing by talking to moderate Republicans, he smacked his opponents in the chops. Instead of heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs stimulus, he got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes will be realized. There is a plausible case for caution, to wait a bit until economic issues clarify themselves and until the new American administration settles definitively on its approach. The government therefore, quite credibly, could have gone to Parliament, said it could not offer precise numbers because of unprecedented volatility, said there would be a deficit but a modest one limited in time, promised a budget in January, got a few infrastructure programs speeded up, and asked for suggestions. After all, this was a government that had admitted the economy would be in a "technical recession." That would have been prudent, statesmanlike and economically credible. There would have been no political crisis; the country would have accepted that the government had heard its concerns and worries; and a serious plan could have been developed. Instead, the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared to do. The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely bogus explanation. Said the government: We have already injected $31-billion of stimulus in the economy through tax cuts since 2006. As if tax cuts in 2006 were designed for stimulus in 2009. No one believes that. That would be like President George W. Bush saying his tax cuts of years ago were designed to help the current recession. Conservatives cut taxes mostly when the economy was robust (and therefore at the wrong time and in the wrong way, but that's another matter). The point now is that the stimulus hasn't been enough. The government also gratuitously set off a political firestorm that will damage the Conservative Party. Taxpayer subsidies for political parties exist everywhere around the world, even in the United States, where Mr. Obama refused them because he was raising so much private money. The subsidies exist, there as here, as a quid pro quo for eliminating corporate and union contributions. As such, they help parties finance themselves, do their work, and therefore contribute to democracy. But since the Conservatives have mastered soliciting contributions from individuals better than their opponents, they now propose to eliminate the public subsidy that amounts to a tiny sum relative to total government spending. Nothing the Conservatives have done has been so malevolently partisan as this. Finally, the government created a potential constitutional situation in which it could be defeated and replaced, quite properly under constitutional convention, by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Late yesterday, Mr. Harper refused to modify his economic statement, put off confidence votes for a week to buy himself some time, and in effect dared the Governor-General, should it come to this, not to exercise her proper constitutional authority to ask another party to try to form a government without bringing on an election. He argued that if his government were to be defeated, there would have to be an election, which is not consistent with constitutional convention. He was really threatening a possible constitutional crisis that, again, would be of his own making and that he would hope to turn to his partisan advantage. The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper's strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together. He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad. <><><><><><><> [4] From:* Brent Patterson *Sent:* Friday, November 28, 2008 10:59 AM *Subject:* [coc-chaps-l] NEWS: Harper backs down on party financing Dear chapter activists, The Canadian Press is reporting this half-hour that, "The Conservative government says an incendiary plan to strip political parties of their public financing won't be included in a confidence vote on the fall fiscal update. Government sources say only tax measures will be part of the ways and means motion that parliamentarians will vote upon on Monday. It's a sharp reversal for the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper." Earlier this morning the Globe and Mail had reported that, "The government has been silent on the matter, although Conservative officials met late into the night in the Prime Minister's Office in the Langevin Block, across from Parliament Hill. Tory MPs seemed thunderstruck late Thursday by the possibility that their second term might come to a sudden end. As some of them piled onto a parliamentary shuttle bus, they were heard incredulously asking opposition MPs if they're serious about a coalition." The National Post reported that, "This morning, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon was a guest on CBC Newsworld and was promptly put on the spot...So enter Mr. Cannon, on the prospect of the Opposition defeating the government: 'If that's what they want to do, then let them do it...Whatever happens, happens.'" The Canadian Press article is at http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5j- vaw1H_MNCsBEEmjJaOuSu_dRSQ? The Globe and Mail report is at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLcoalit ion1128/BNStory/politics/home? The National Post article is at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/11/28/law rence-cannon-aka-tory-spokesman-whatever-happens-happens.aspx? Brent Patterson Director of Campaigns and Communications The Council of Canadians 700-170 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5 1-800-387-7177 ext. 291 bpatterson@canadians.org ? ? www.canadians.org <><><><> [5] Rideau Institute http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2008/28/c5448.html Attention News Editors: Progressive Leaders Urge Opposition Parties to Form Coalition Government OTTAWA, Nov. 28 /CNW Telbec/ - Prominent progressive leaders have come together today to urge St?phane Dion and Jack Layton to put partisan concerns aside and form a coalition government to serve the best interests of citizens suffering from a global economic crisis. The open letter follows. November 28, 2008 An Urgent Message to St?phane Dion and Jack Layton: Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs Dear Leaders, We, the undersigned, write to you during this time of economic crisis to urge that you set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy. At this critical moment, a coalition government would be the most capable of delivering the kind of stewardship the economy needs, and the least likely to put partisan interests ahead of responsible government. Barely five weeks after promising to work cooperatively with the opposition parties - representing a majority of voters - Prime Minister Harper failed to deliver a plan to halt the devastation being wrought upon hard working families. Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity. Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan. The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary. Time is of the essence. You have an unprecedented opportunity to deliver to citizens a coalition that is capable of putting aside partisan ploys and to work cooperatively and swiftly in the interests of all. Despite Mr. Harper's contentions, the outrage of citizens and opposition parties is not about public funding of political parties, but rather, it is about a Conservative plan that would actually deepen our country's economic crisis. The Harper government's taking party funding off the table should not be a reason for backing down from your efforts to construct a coalition government. Please be assured that we all stand ready to offer constructive ideas on ways to help workers, their families and communities weather this storm and emerge stronger than ever. Signatories: Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians Mel Watkins, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Toronto Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador For Disarmament For further information: please contact the respective organizations or Anthony Salloum, Rideau Institute, c. (613) 724-1070, asalloum@rideauinstitute.ca <><><><><> [6] ------- Forwarded message follows ------- To: silverdonaldcameron@yahoogroups.com From: Silver Donald Cameron Date sent: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:54:27 -0400 Subject: [silverdonaldcameron] Fwd: Write the GG! Send reply to: silverdonaldcameron-owner@yahoogroups.com For Canadian readers of this list! Allan Lynch is a fine freelance writer based in the Annapolis Valley. I think he's nailed the argument for defeating this government and swearing in a coalition, if one can be formed, without an election. I'm going to write the GG -- in fact, I'm just going to send Allan's letter onward, with a few additional words -- and if you agree with me that his reasoning is spot-on, I invite you to join me. Cheers, Don PS Tomorrow's column will be about the auto industry, and what I propose requires a government that appreciates both the danger and the opportunity lurking in our present situation. Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:44:30 -0400 >Subject: Write the GG! >From: Allan Lynch > To: Allan Lynch > Dear All, During the recent election we heard from the Harper Conservatives how wonderful they were and how our economy is strong because of them. This of course neglected to mention the 13 consecutive budget surpluses the Liberals generated. Harper also took credit for the solidness of the Canadian banking system. Again, he neglected to mention that it was then-Finance Minister Paul Martin who said no to Canadian bankers when, in the mid-90s, they asked for deregulation of the industry so they could compete with the Americans. Now, we?re learning that the economy isn?t so great, but do Harper and his colleagues offer any ideas to stop the hurt and harm and ally the fears of millions of Canadians? No. He goes for the cheap political shot and to hell with exercising any vision. So now we face the unique situation of defeating the government in the House. Harper also conveniently forgets that not too long ago when he was in opposition he wrote a Governor General asking her not to grant an election writ but to make him PM instead. Holding an election now would reward bad behaviour and lack of vision. The country doesn?t need to spend another $300 million on his vanity. It shouldn?t have to wait six or eight weeks to launch initiatives that would put people to work, secure jobs, prevent deflation and rebuild the economy. The opposition parties have come up with a novel idea to form a coalition government. I see no reason not to give it a try. If it gives us a year, then that?s a year when someone will at least doing something to build the country. The outrage that Harper and his supporters are showing toward the Opposition moves reminds me of the how the police chief in Casablanca acted when he found out there was gambling at Rick?s Caf?. Harper says the people of Canada won?t accept the defeat of his government. Again, his selective memory is at work. Most Canadians didn?t vote for him. Over 60 percent of us said no to a Conservative government. I, for one, would happily entertain a coalition government. I think we should, as individuals, act to counter the subversive Conservative war room tactics of delivering misinformation and fear. I propose we all write the Governor General asking her to consider the best interests of the country by opting for the expediency of a coalition government. If the Prime Minister is so outraged that the public purse is providing $30 million to political parties how can he justify spending another $300 million on a federal election? Few people ever make their voices heard, which is why those who do carry a lot of weight. So let?s be the heavies who shock Ottawa (add your >name and hometown and don?t forget to circulate the idea to everyone you know) and email the GG with a simple statement like: Email: infor@GG.CA Excellency, If the current Conservative Government loses the confidence of the House, I support your appointment of a coalition government to continue the work of the Nation. <><><><> IF YOU SUPPORT THIS COALITION GOVERNMENT, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR SUPPORT TO THE CANADIAN OPPOSITION MPs BELOW. THANK YOU IN THE CAUSE OF WORLD PEACE! [7] ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:26:10 -0800 From: Murray Dobbin To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: ooops...MPs addresses and tax article bellea@parl.gc.ca bigrab@parl.gc.ca freemc@parl.gc.ca lavalc@parl.gc.ca ouellc@parl.gc.ca gagnoc@parl.gc.ca bachac@parl.gc.ca debelc@parl.gc.ca guimoc@parl.gc.ca bourgd@parl.gc.ca thilae@parl.gc.ca bonsaf@parl.gc.ca lalonf@parl.gc.ca asselg@parl.gc.ca ducepg@parl.gc.ca andreg@parl.gc.ca dorioj@parl.gc.ca laforj@parl.gc.ca royj@parl.gc.ca deschj@parl.gc.ca beaudj@parl.gc.ca plamol@parl.gc.ca desnol@parl.gc.ca malol@parl.gc.ca lemaym@parl.gc.ca mouram@parl.gc.ca lafram@parl.gc.ca faillm@parl.gc.ca guimom@parl.gc.ca guaym@parl.gc.ca dufoun@parl.gc.ca demern@parl.gc.ca paillp@parl.gc.ca cretep@parl.gc.ca brunep@parl.gc.ca paquep@parl.gc.ca blaisr@parl.gc.ca menarr@parl.gc.ca nadear@parl.gc.ca bouchr@parl.gc.ca carrir@parl.gc.ca vincer@parl.gc.ca gauder@parl.gc.ca pomerr@parl.gc.ca cardis@parl.gc.ca menars@parl.gc.ca stcyrt@parl.gc.ca lessay@parl.gc.ca levesy@parl.gc.ca mendea@parl.gc.ca tonksa@parl.gc.ca guarna@parl.gc.ca kaniaa@parl.gc.ca nevila@parl.gc.ca rotaa@parl.gc.ca patryb@parl.gc.ca raeb@parl.gc.ca crombb@parl.gc.ca wrzesb@parl.gc.ca murphb@parl.gc.ca wilfeb@parl.gc.ca bennec@parl.gc.ca mctead@parl.gc.ca mcguid@parl.gc.ca coderd@parl.gc.ca leed@parl.gc.ca leblad@parl.gc.ca scarpf@parl.gc.ca valerf@parl.gc.ca regang@parl.gc.ca kenneg@parl.gc.ca byrneg@parl.gc.ca pearsg@parl.gc.ca mahlig@parl.gc.ca fryh@parl.gc.ca cotlei@parl.gc.ca damouj@parl.gc.ca karygj@parl.gc.ca volpej@parl.gc.ca cannij@parl.gc.ca mccalj@parl.gc.ca mckayj@parl.gc.ca murraj@parl.gc.ca footej@parl.gc.ca sgroj@parl.gc.ca trudej@parl.gc.ca martik@parl.gc.ca drydek@parl.gc.ca duncak@parl.gc.ca bagnel@parl.gc.ca macaul@parl.gc.ca zaracl@parl.gc.ca garnem@parl.gc.ca proulm@parl.gc.ca minnam@parl.gc.ca silvam@parl.gc.ca eykinm@parl.gc.ca hollam@parl.gc.ca jennim@parl.gc.ca hallfm@parl.gc.ca pacetm@parl.gc.ca belanm@parl.gc.ca bevilm@parl.gc.ca ignatm@parl.gc.ca savagm@parl.gc.ca simsom@parl.gc.ca bainsn@parl.gc.ca rodrip@parl.gc.ca szabop@parl.gc.ca millip@parl.gc.ca goodar@parl.gc.ca folcor@parl.gc.ca oliphr@parl.gc.ca cuzner@parl.gc.ca dhallr@parl.gc.ca andres@parl.gc.ca brisos@parl.gc.ca simmssc@parl.gc.ca murphs@parl.gc.ca coadys@parl.gc.ca dions@parl.gc.ca dhalis@parl.gc.ca russet@parl.gc.ca dosanu@parl.gc.ca eastew@parl.gc.ca ratany@parl.gc.ca atamea@parl.gc.ca siksab@parl.gc.ca masseb@parl.gc.ca hyerb@parl.gc.ca hughec@parl.gc.ca angusc@parl.gc.ca charlc@parl.gc.ca gravec@parl.gc.ca chrisd@parl.gc.ca blackd@parl.gc.ca savoid@parl.gc.ca bevind@parl.gc.ca davied@parl.gc.ca thibeg@parl.gc.ca mathyi@parl.gc.ca harrij@parl.gc.ca laytoj@parl.gc.ca crowdj@parl.gc.ca malowj@parl.gc.ca comarj@parl.gc.ca raffej@parl.gc.ca wasylj@parl.gc.ca daviel@parl.gc.ca duncal@parl.gc.ca allenm@parl.gc.ca leslim@parl.gc.ca cullen@parl.gc.ca ashton@parl.gc.ca chowo@parl.gc.ca martip@parl.gc.ca dewarp@parl.gc.ca juliap@parl.gc.ca stoffp@parl.gc.ca mulcat@parl.gc.ca martit@parl.gc.ca marstw@parl.gc.ca godiny@parl.gc.ca -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21494 bytes Desc: Mail message body Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/3bf64080/--0004.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 16334 bytes Desc: Mail message body Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/3bf64080/--0005.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$32C8.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 8975 bytes Desc: Mail message body Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/3bf64080/WPM32C8-0001.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 168 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/3bf64080/--0006.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 169 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/3bf64080/--0007.obj From thinker at thelakebc.ca Sun Nov 30 09:30:11 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Sun Nov 30 09:27:04 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] HARPER Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin earNARPER In-Reply-To: <4931A62C.18275.1C163924@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4931A62C.18275.1C163924@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <200811301526.mAUFQs5A001169@karma.reboot.ca> I could never see Harper anything, else, but as a programmed, mindless robot, with only the Totenkopf, or Red Star can missing above his expressionless, empty eyes that have been scaring the hell out of me since I first saw them in his Reform , top lieutenant days. If he has any brains now, and I'm sure the halls of power are in panic mood all over the country, right now, he'll force the immediate resignation of Flaherty and come back with another Minister who's at least half human and patch up some kind of half assed new program the Opposition may be able to accept. Although that would also depend on how far the coalition talks may have progressed on the other side. Can anybody imagine Harper with a majority? On the other hand, here's the most beautiful dream: If he sees that he's losing power to a coalition, there's a very small, but still a chance that he could resign. What a present from St,Nicholas that would be !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers, Ed. At 04:29 PM 29/11/2008, Janet M Eaton wrote: >Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a >majority, and failed to get one. This week, he created a completely >unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. >Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a >political boner. It revealed....an economist with a tin heart and a >politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. >Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to >his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a >time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public >subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit >his. ..the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked >political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming >economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, >premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the >opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the >government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared >to do... The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. >It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely >bogus explanation. --Jeffrey Simpson, G&M, Nov 28th , 2008 >fyi-janet > >================== > > > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcosimp29/ >BNStory/politics/home > >Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear > > >JEFFREY SIMPSON > > >From Saturday's Globe and Mail >November 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM EST > >Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a >majority, and failed to get one. > >This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now >threatens his government's very survival. And they call Mr. Harper a >great strategist and superior tactician? > >Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a >political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of >Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would >eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister >who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin >heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. > >Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to >his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a >time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public >subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit >his. > >Instead of reaching out, as leader of a minority government and as >president-elect Barack Obama is doing by talking to moderate >Republicans, he smacked his opponents in the chops. Instead of >heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs >stimulus, he got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that >offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes >will be realized. > >There is a plausible case for caution, to wait a bit until economic >issues clarify themselves and until the new American administration >settles definitively on its approach. The government therefore, quite >credibly, could have gone to Parliament, said it could not offer >precise numbers because of unprecedented volatility, said there would >be a deficit but a modest one limited in time, promised a budget in >January, got a few infrastructure programs speeded up, and asked for >suggestions. After all, this was a government that had admitted the >economy would be in a "technical recession." > >That would have been prudent, statesmanlike and economically >credible. There would have been no political crisis; the country >would have accepted that the government had heard its concerns and >worries; and a serious plan could have been developed. > >Instead, the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked >political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming >economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, >premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the >opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the >government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared >to do. > >The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. >It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely >bogus explanation. > >Said the government: We have already injected $31-billion of stimulus >in the economy through tax cuts since 2006. As if tax cuts in 2006 >were designed for stimulus in 2009. No one believes that. > >That would be like President George W. Bush saying his tax cuts of >years ago were designed to help the current recession. Conservatives >cut taxes mostly when the economy was robust (and therefore at the >wrong time and in the wrong way, but that's another matter). The >point now is that the stimulus hasn't been enough. > >The government also gratuitously set off a political firestorm that >will damage the Conservative Party. > >Taxpayer subsidies for political parties exist everywhere around the >world, even in the United States, where Mr. Obama refused them >because he was raising so much private money. The subsidies exist, >there as here, as a quid pro quo for eliminating corporate and union >contributions. As such, they help parties finance themselves, do >their work, and therefore contribute to democracy. > >But since the Conservatives have mastered soliciting contributions >from individuals better than their opponents, they now propose to >eliminate the public subsidy that amounts to a tiny sum relative to >total government spending. Nothing the Conservatives have done has >been so malevolently partisan as this. > >Finally, the government created a potential constitutional situation >in which it could be defeated and replaced, quite properly under >constitutional convention, by a Liberal-NDP coalition. > >Late yesterday, Mr. Harper refused to modify his economic statement, >put off confidence votes for a week to buy himself some time, and in >effect dared the Governor-General, should it come to this, not to >exercise her proper constitutional authority to ask another party to >try to form a government without bringing on an election. > >He argued that if his government were to be defeated, there would >have to be an election, which is not consistent with constitutional >convention. He was really threatening a possible constitutional >crisis that, again, would be of his own making and that he would hope >to turn to his partisan advantage. > >The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper's strategy has >accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and >NDP together. > >He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic >crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at >this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad. > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1818 - Release Date: >11/28/2008 7:31 PM From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Nov 30 10:04:18 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun Nov 30 10:04:31 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] HARPER Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin earNARPER In-Reply-To: <20081130152700.JVEE1732.simmts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@simip2-ac.bellnexxia.net> References: <4931A62C.18275.1C163924@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca>, <20081130152700.JVEE1732.simmts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@simip2-ac.bellnexxia.net> Message-ID: <49328142.10896.1F6E06B7@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Well I don't think Harper will back down enough to prevent the Opposition from a vote of no -confidence and by then I think they'll have agreed on some common principles, and an agenda they can mutually support for a requisite period of time. And that would be a wonderful Xmas gift as well. Imagine all of us with activist agendas having an ear in the government of our country and a social Pan Canadian movement [combining peace, social justice and envioronmental networks] emerging which will have impact at all levels and hence opinion polls !! As one poster on vivelecanada said yesterday "Harper is not an adaptive creature but a partisan dinosaur taking his last gasp in the sludge of his ruinous ideology- an ideology of laissez-faire economics rooted in the US that has caused global chaos. "Harper?s government should be relegated to the dungeons of failed sedition and hopefully a bold and inspired coalition government Canadians can be proud of will take its place." all the best, janet On 30 Nov 2008 at 7:30, Ed Deak wrote: Date sent: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:30:11 -0800 To: jmeaton@ns.sympatico.ca,mai-not@globalproblematique.net From: Ed Deak Subject: Re: [Mai-not] HARPER Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin earNARPER I could never see Harper anything, else, but as a programmed, mindless robot, with only the Totenkopf, or Red Star can missing above his expressionless, empty eyes that have been scaring the hell out of me since I first saw them in his Reform , top lieutenant days. If he has any brains now, and I'm sure the halls of power are in panic mood all over the country, right now, he'll force the immediate resignation of Flaherty and come back with another Minister who's at least half human and patch up some kind of half assed new program the Opposition may be able to accept. Although that would also depend on how far the coalition talks may have progressed on the other side. Can anybody imagine Harper with a majority? On the other hand, here's the most beautiful dream: If he sees that he's losing power to a coalition, there's a very small, but still a chance that he could resign. What a present from St,Nicholas that would be !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers, Ed. At 04:29 PM 29/11/2008, Janet M Eaton wrote: >Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a >majority, and failed to get one. This week, he created a completely >unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. >Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a >political boner. It revealed....an economist with a tin heart and a >politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. >Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to >his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a >time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public >subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit >his. ..the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked >political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming >economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, >premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the >opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the >government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared >to do... The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. >It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely >bogus explanation. --Jeffrey Simpson, G&M, Nov 28th , 2008 >fyi-janet > >================== > > > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcosimp29 / >BNStory/politics/home > >Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear > > >JEFFREY SIMPSON > > >From Saturday's Globe and Mail >November 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM EST > >Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a >majority, and failed to get one. > >This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now >threatens his government's very survival. And they call Mr. Harper a >great strategist and superior tactician? > >Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a >political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of >Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would >eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister >who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin >heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. > >Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to >his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a >time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public >subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit >his. > >Instead of reaching out, as leader of a minority government and as >president-elect Barack Obama is doing by talking to moderate >Republicans, he smacked his opponents in the chops. Instead of >heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs >stimulus, he got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that >offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes >will be realized. > >There is a plausible case for caution, to wait a bit until economic >issues clarify themselves and until the new American administration >settles definitively on its approach. The government therefore, quite >credibly, could have gone to Parliament, said it could not offer >precise numbers because of unprecedented volatility, said there would >be a deficit but a modest one limited in time, promised a budget in >January, got a few infrastructure programs speeded up, and asked for >suggestions. After all, this was a government that had admitted the >economy would be in a "technical recession." > >That would have been prudent, statesmanlike and economically >credible. There would have been no political crisis; the country >would have accepted that the government had heard its concerns and >worries; and a serious plan could have been developed. > >Instead, the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked >political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming >economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, >premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the >opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the >government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared >to do. > >The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. >It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely >bogus explanation. > >Said the government: We have already injected $31-billion of stimulus >in the economy through tax cuts since 2006. As if tax cuts in 2006 >were designed for stimulus in 2009. No one believes that. > >That would be like President George W. Bush saying his tax cuts of >years ago were designed to help the current recession. Conservatives >cut taxes mostly when the economy was robust (and therefore at the >wrong time and in the wrong way, but that's another matter). The >point now is that the stimulus hasn't been enough. > >The government also gratuitously set off a political firestorm that >will damage the Conservative Party. > >Taxpayer subsidies for political parties exist everywhere around the >world, even in the United States, where Mr. Obama refused them >because he was raising so much private money. The subsidies exist, >there as here, as a quid pro quo for eliminating corporate and union >contributions. As such, they help parties finance themselves, do >their work, and therefore contribute to democracy. > >But since the Conservatives have mastered soliciting contributions >from individuals better than their opponents, they now propose to >eliminate the public subsidy that amounts to a tiny sum relative to >total government spending. Nothing the Conservatives have done has >been so malevolently partisan as this. > >Finally, the government created a potential constitutional situation >in which it could be defeated and replaced, quite properly under >constitutional convention, by a Liberal-NDP coalition. > >Late yesterday, Mr. Harper refused to modify his economic statement, >put off confidence votes for a week to buy himself some time, and in >effect dared the Governor-General, should it come to this, not to >exercise her proper constitutional authority to ask another party to >try to form a government without bringing on an election. > >He argued that if his government were to be defeated, there would >have to be an election, which is not consistent with constitutional >convention. He was really threatening a possible constitutional >crisis that, again, would be of his own making and that he would hope >to turn to his partisan advantage. > >The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper's strategy has >accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and >NDP together. > >He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic >crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at >this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad. > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not@globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.11/1818 - Release Date: >11/28/2008 7:31 PM From thinker at thelakebc.ca Sun Nov 30 10:58:45 2008 From: thinker at thelakebc.ca (Ed Deak) Date: Sun Nov 30 10:55:36 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] My column, Fiat lux # 224 Message-ID: <200811301655.mAUGtQ38006128@karma.reboot.ca> These are the most interesting times we've seen for many years and I'm taking the unusual step of sending out the draft of my latest column a few minutes after the editor received it. He's good enough to correct my grammatical aberrations. The only paper that would dare to print my stuff is the Gold River Record on Vancouver Island. Cheers, Ed. ===================================================================================== To: record@cablerocket.com Subject: Fiat lux # 224 Fiat lux # 224 Nov. 28. 2008. The advantages of country life far outweigh any disadvantages, but there are times, and occasions, when we're forced behind our city cousins, who have all the newest technologies heaped on them by governments and service providers, leaving us with the scraps. Our local Internet service is hooked up to the phone line, which means the slowest and worst service, where it takes an agonizing time even to send out, or receive, a single photo and when somebody, unthinkingly, sends a few jubilant pictures of a new baby in the family, the machine is tied up, groaning and spending half an hour decyphering a few million digital numbers, trying to put something on our screens. When we heard that we can get a wireless high speed hookup a couple of years ago, we jumped for it, especially because the transmitting tower is in straight line, about a km from our house. We never regretted it , as the radio waves opened up a virtual new world, but there have been the occasional problems, sometimes with the server, on other times with our own equipment, as we found out in the past few weeks. To cut the story short, a combination of unexpected conditions have put our own machine out of service, on and off for days, until, finally our local expert friend managed to figure out what went wrong and now I'm back on the line, most likely to the chagrin of so called "conservative", in reality good old Reform voters, who won't like it at all what I have to say in this hastily patched together piece. It is Saturday night, as I'm writing this, and this country hasn't seen a similar kind of the presently ongoing political crisis for donkeys' years. If ever ? And all of it caused by a fundamentalist, miseducated and brainwashed, ideological fanatic, showing his real intentions and the horrors he would have brought on this country, had he received his prayed for majority. Anybody who'd ever read my columns may remember the times I wrote that Mr.Harper scared the heck out of me since I first saw his photo in his Reform top lieutenant days. He always reminded me, and more than ever right now, as a mindless, programmed puppet, spouting prerecorded messages from below a couple of empty , expressionless eyes, with only the Totenkopf, or Red Star, cap missing above them. I've seen those eyes many times in my life and so, based on this lifelong experience, I have a very good idea what is behind them and what anybody with an iota of human feeling and conscience can expect from their owner. So, now we have a crisis on our hands with a lame duck government trying to assert its ultimate predatorial powers, not only on the opposition parties, who happen to have the majority, but the whole unsuspecting country, where almost 2/3 of the votes went against them. It is difficult even to imagine what made a minority government trying to act so irresponsibly and stupidly, but, at the same time we also have to remember how this present gang have reached their lofty standing, after having been attempting a coup, under the Socred/Reform/CRAPP/Alliance names before a the present cloak of respectability under the Conservative, was virtually sold to them by some opportunists. Can anybody imagine what, these people who are capable of such irresponsible and incomprehensibly stupid action while in minority, would have done to this country, had they received any kind of majority? That was my biggest fear for years and although they didn't, it was bad enough to see them increasing their numbers through the ignorance of the voters, who seem to have had no idea what the plans were and still are. So, what next ? We shall know a lot more by the time our great little paper, with the only bravehearted editor in the province, who'd dare to publish my totally irreverent and iconoclastic offerings, will see the light of day. Right now , the future is a completely new, still in the box, deck of cards, but there are a few things we could not even imagine a few days ago. The Harper government's irresponsible actions have opened the eyes of the Opposition parties to the possibilities of really fighting back, now that they've smelled blood. Even a few days ago, nobody could even think of a coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and PQ leaderships, but now the talks to achieve the unthinkable are going on, even as I am writing these lines. Will they be able to come to an agreement? Nobody knows at this time, but if the leaders can swallow their inflated egoes and the backroom boys their ideological hangups, everything is possible. With their personal and ideological hookups and ambitions set aside, they could make it work, as it has worked with dozens of major governments in recent history. The Churchill government of WW2 Britain would be the best example of the effectiveness of a coalition with the public good, instead of personal ambitions, on their minds. Now here's also a good possibility of the hanging of Mr.Flaherty, whose economic report has caused this mess to begin with, out to dry and to take the full blast and resign. "For the good of the Party", of course, to cover up the fact that the Harper government is nothing more than a set of marionettes dancing on the orders of their great leader, who makes all the major decisions, but sure blew this one. And here comes the most beautiful scenario of them all: The very improbable, but still a slightly possible resignation of Mr.Harper as the leader of the Socred/Reform/CRAPP/Alliance/Conservative Party, not to mention his lobbyist years with the National Citizens Coalition. Have I missed some of the names and nomeclatures under which our friend has been jumping around with, like the usual unmentionable gas in a pair of pants? My apologies if I have, but it is very difficult to remember them all. He could easily be rewarded with the big bucks of a long string of directorships to lobby and pay off political parties to sell out to the economist dream, the corporate control of our lives. From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Nov 30 11:57:01 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun Nov 30 11:57:19 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Why we need a coalition government to deal with the economic crisis - CLC Statement N30 Message-ID: <49329BAD.15950.1FD53812@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:27:53 -0500 From: "Andrew Jackson" To: "Andrew Jackson" Subject: Coalition Government Dear Friends The NDP and Liberals are engaged in serious negotiations to form a coalition government, with the support of the Bloc. I strongly urge you to contact your MP and other Opposition MPs to urge support for this course of action, and to urge your friends to do so also. I have pasted in below the CLC statement which sets out the case for an immediate change in government. Why We Need a Coalition Government to Deal with the Economic Crisis. The Economic and Fiscal Update released by Finance Minister Flaherty on November 27, 2008 demonstrates that the Conservative government has no intention of seriously dealing with the global economic crisis and the prospect of fast rising unemployment. The recent G-20 Summit meeting called on governments to "take urgent and exceptional measures" to stimulate their economies in a co-ordinated way to stop a slide into a global depression. The incoming Obama administration in the United States plans to invest $500 to $700 billion in January 2008 to create 2.5 million jobs over the next two years, with a major focus on public infrastructure, the environment and improved unemployment benefits. The governments of Britain, Australia and China have already followed up on G-20 calls for investments of about 2% of national income, which would amount to $30 billion in the case of Canada. The European Union have just introduced a major package. Instead of acting here, the Conservative Economic and Fiscal Update pretends that yesterday's tax cuts have already done the job and says that "the Government is planning on balanced budgets or better for the current and the next five years." Instead of investing in jobs and people, the Conservative government plans to cut spending by almost $2 billion next year. That is on top of cuts to equalization payments to the provinces of $1.8 billion next year and $5 billion the year after. The government plans to raise more than $2 billion next year by selling off public assets (at what will be fire sale prices). It also signalled a move to shut down pay equity in the federal jurisdiction. The Economic and Fiscal statement put forward a rose-coloured economic forecast which completely ignores the reality of large recent job losses and a looming recession. It forecasts economic growth of 0.3% next year, compared to the TD Bank's forecast of a fall in Gross Domestic Product of 1.1% in 2009. It forecasts an unemployment rate of under 7% next year, while TD Bank forecasts the national unemployment rate will rise from 6.2% today, to 7.6% in 2009, to 7.9% in 2010. In short, the Conservative government has no positive plan to deal with the crisis and intends to respond to a downturn through cuts rather than needed investments in jobs and people. Rather than work to bring Canadians together, they chose to use the excuse of a crisis to try and ram through a partisan and mean-spirited agenda. The Conservatives are unwilling to make Parliament work and refuse to provide Canadians with the leadership they need to weather the deepening economic crisis. We deserve better. The Canadian Labour Congress has called for a major package including: - A multi year public investment program covering basic municipal infrastructure, energy conservation, public transit and renewable energy, twinned to Made in Canada procurement programs; - Investments in job creating public services like child care; - Improvements to Employment Insurance benefits and increased investments in training; - Measures to protect workers' pensions and improve public pensions; - Concrete action to save manufacturing and forestry jobs and to help hard hit industries restructure thorough new investments. We are greatly encouraged that the Opposition parties are prepared to work together around a positive agenda and strongly support efforts to provide Canadians with an alternative that works in the country's best interests. Andrew Jackson National Director Social and Economic Policy Tel. 613 526 7445 Check out the progressive economics blog at: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/relentless/ ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4195 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/b54c2334/-.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4995 bytes Desc: HTML Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/b54c2334/--0001.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 169 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/b54c2334/--0002.obj From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Nov 30 21:53:55 2008 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun Nov 30 21:54:09 2008 Subject: [Mai-not] Note GG's e-mail is -> info@gg.ca Support Coalition Govt: Write the GG, Write MPs, Write Message-ID: <49332793.10352.21F7B198@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Please note incorrect address for Governor General. Apparently it was given incorrectly in the e-mail included below from [6] [silverdonaldcameron] Fwd: E-mail from journalist Allen Lynch Silver Donald has sent out the correction to his list. It should be info@gg.ca all the best, janet ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: Janet M Eaton To: a renewed Mai-Not Subject: Support Coalition Govt: Write the GG, Write MPs, Write Opposition Party leaders [E-MAIL Addresses enclosed ] BCC to: @GLOBALL.PML, jharding@sasktel.net Send reply to: jmeaton@ns.sympatico.ca Date sent: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:00:31 -0400 TOWARDS A COALITION GOVERNMENT PLEASE WRITE !! [1] Coalition push forces Harper onto the defensive [2] Coalition would be a Victory for Democracy Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party, Nov 28 [3] Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail, Nov 28 [4] Harper backs down on party financing, Council of Canadians Nov 28 [5] Rideau Institute Attention News Editors: Progressive Leaders Urge Opposition Parties to Form Coalition Government; Open Letter - An Urgent Message to St?phane Dion and Jack Layton: Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs [6] [silverdonaldcameron] Fwd: E-mail from journalist Allen Lynch Write the GG ! [7] e-mails of Opposition MP's to write to ! IF YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF THIS COALITION GOVERNMENT, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR SUPPORT TO THE GOVENOR GENERAL, infor@GG.CA Excellency, If the current Conservative Government loses the confidence of the House, I support your appointment of a coalition government to continue the work of the Nation. THE LEADERS Dion.S@parl.gc.ca Layton.J@parl.gc.ca Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca leader@greenparty.ca MPs E-MAILS AT END OF THIS E-MAIL. See # 5 for potential wording for letter. fyi-janet =================================== [1] Coalition push forces Harper onto the defensive http://www.smartvote2008.ca:80/?p=393 Momentum - including open online letter grows to replace minority Conservatives. OTTAWA , November 28, 2008: Momentum is growing for the replacement of the Harper Conservatives by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Two months ago, when the idea was first broached in StraightGoods.ca, almost all parties dismissed the idea. Now, a non-confidence vote could see the government fall as soon as Monday night. All day today, negotiations took place between the opposition parties, with former Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent taking lead roles. Then tonight, Harper took the extraordinary move of making a special address to Parliament and the nation. In it, he postponed a confidence vote on the economic statement finance minister Jim Flaherty made yesterday to a week Monday instead of Monday. And he attacked the opposition as undemocratic for wanting to replace his government without an election. "While we have been working on the economy, the Opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters," Harper said. " They want to take power, not earn it." Ironically, the bulk of reaction to the economic statement was over widespread perceptions that the government's statement showed a lack of work on the economic crisis. Harper has difficulty making the kind of compromises demanded of a minority prime minister. Instead of bringing Canadians together to fight the crisis, Flaherty's statement Thursday was viciously partisan. In it, he trashed longtime political targets like pay equity and labour rights in the public service, as well as political finance rules put in place to level the playing field. Open online letter to Dion and Layton calls for a coalition government. As political leaders huddle in Ottawa, activists across Canada are becoming involved in the push for a coalition. Canadians everywhere are being urged to sign an online open letter calling for coalition that began with a small group pulled together by the Rideau Institute. The letter urges the Liberal's St?phane Dion and the NDP's Jack Layton to "set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy." The letter argues it was bitterly ironic for Stephen Harper to promise to work cooperatively with opposition parties, and then deliver such a partisan attack with no plan to fight the economic crisis and the stated intention not to run deficits, in the face of what other G20 countries are doing. "Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity," states the letter. "Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan. The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary." The original signers of the letter are : Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians Mel Watkins, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Toronto Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Harper Conservative vs. Public Values Frame Ideology and partisanship / Cooperation, coalition Backroom deals / Democracy Entitlements / Level the playing field Posted: November 28, 2008 Harper Index (HarperIndex.ca) is a project of the Golden Lake Institute and the online publication StraightGoods.ca <><><><><> [2] http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/8619 Coalition would be a Victory for Democracy Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party In moving the confidence vote off by one week, Stephen Harper has bought himself until December 8th to try to turn Canadians against the idea of a Coalition Government. Public opinion could impact the momentum for this - the most exciting and encouraging development in Canadian politics since... maybe ever. His first shot across the bow of a coalition is that it is "back room and anti-democratic." Well, as we know, the first-past-the-post system got us another Conservative government with the votes of 5,205,334 Canadians who chose Mr. Harper?s party. The Green vote at 940,747 is 18% of the Conservative. The Conservatives received, as we know, a minority of the votes of the people who voted. Only 37.6% of the voters chose this government. That?s how the system works. They get a shot at a minority government. To make it work, a Prime Minister in a Minority must consult with the Opposition Party leaders and try to develop a consensus. Historically, in a Parliamentary Democracy, a Prime Minister is a "first among equals." It is the House of Commons that is government. Not the Prime Minister by himself. This is especially true in a minority government situation. The Minority Government need the confidence of the House to govern. That?s how our democracy works. After the election, Mr. Harper made some very positive statements about how he wanted to see the next Parliamentary session be more cooperative and less combative. I was in the House for the Opening Day and in the Senate Chambers for the Speech from the Throne. There was good will in the air. But by Thursday in Question Period, the first day of Question Period, it was clear that not much had changed. The heckling and the rudeness seemed only slightly les awful than last spring when the House rose in recess. And then came the economic statement. As I wrote in my last blog, the economic statement failed the demands of the current economic crisis. Entirely. Where the current recession threatens to become deflationary, we need confidence. We need investment. We need an economic stimulus package with investments in green energy and green collar jobs. We needed it yesterday. Granted, it is difficult for the Harper Conservatives to find the resources for a stimulus package. Their bad economic strategies, cuts to GST and massive increases in spending, wiped out the surpluses and the reserve put in place by the previous government. The cupboard is bare. Well, that?s life. We are stuck with where we are. Deficit financing will be necessary. Even Mr. Harper?s claims in the election that deficit financing would be "dangerous" miraculously morphed to him, at the APEC Summit in Peru, describing deficits as "essential." But, as we know, the economic update claimed the government would run a surplus over the next five years. No one believes that. The nations leading economists basically say Flaherty "cooked the books." On top of total abdication of responsibility for the welfare of the nation, the Harper government threw in a "poison pill. A political calculation with nothing to do with responding to the economic crisis. As Jeffrey Simpson wrote in the Globe and Mail (Nov 28), the Conservatives "are trying to use this economic crisis for their partisan advantage." He went on to point out "Canadians fought a long battle to get these inducements for people to give to political parties; they can?t let one party?s naked self-interest push back progress." So, from any perspective, it is impossible to think that Stephen Harper approached the new Parliament with an approach to earn the confidence of the House. He has clearly lost the confidence of the House and he has no one to blame but himself. He could not resist the instinct for non-stop campaigning, for no-holds-barred partisanship. He doesn?t just want to win elections. He wants to permanently eliminate the opposition. Don Martin in the National Post put it this way: "this showdown (is) an unforgivable breach of the trust voters bestowed on Mr. Harper. He was elected to lead a minority government with a spirit of co- operation. He thought he had set a deadly trap for his opponents. He may well find himself as the victim." What can we expect in the next week? I predict we?ll see new Conservative attack ads aimed at the Opposition Parties and the idea of a coalition. No doubt, the attack ads are in production as we speak. They will try to portray a Coalition Government as some sort of evil coup. That argument will be all hype and spin. It is the opposite of truth. When you look at the election results, it is clear that a coalition government is entirely democratic. In fact, it is the most democratic result possible under our current system. Add the Liberal vote (3,629,990) to the NDP vote (2,517,075) and our Green vote (940,747) you get 7,077,812 votes. That is over 7 million votes for parties other than Conservatives without even counting the Bloc Quebecois vote of over one million. So all in all, over 8.4 million Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. In percentages it?s 37.6% versus 61.2%. Clearly the democratic choice is for a coalition government representing the vast majority of Canadians. So in the next week, please do not leave this to the Conservative attack machine to shape public opinion. Sadly, Greens are not in the House, but we are at the grassroots, in neighbourhoods and communities. PLEASE spread the word. Send letters to MPs (what Mr. Harper suggested.) Blog on media sites. Post comments. Write letters to the editor. Organize your own events. Attend the planned climate rallies on December 6th and support the dream of a Coalition government supporting global action at the climate negotiations running in Poland from December 1-13. We could get Canada back on track to join the movement for hope and change south of the border. We could protect savings for seniors. We could act to help low income Canadians and people with disabilities. We could protect jobs and make new ones. Retrofitting homes and buildings is a great economic stimulus, fighting climate change at the same time. We could have an economic stimulus that moves us to renewable energy and better rail service and mass transit. We could have a government that represents what the majority of Canadians want. And that is something worth fighting for. Do not watch this from the sidelines. We don?t have to take over an airport to get a change in government. All we have to do is support Parliamentary Democracy and make it clear the Canadian people support a Coalition and want the Governor General to give it a chance <><><><><> [3] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcosimp29/ BNStory/politics/home Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear JEFFREY SIMPSON >From Saturday's Globe and Mail November 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM EST Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a majority, and failed to get one. This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. And they call Mr. Harper a great strategist and superior tactician? Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage. Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his. Instead of reaching out, as leader of a minority government and as president-elect Barack Obama is doing by talking to moderate Republicans, he smacked his opponents in the chops. Instead of heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs stimulus, he got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes will be realized. There is a plausible case for caution, to wait a bit until economic issues clarify themselves and until the new American administration settles definitively on its approach. The government therefore, quite credibly, could have gone to Parliament, said it could not offer precise numbers because of unprecedented volatility, said there would be a deficit but a modest one limited in time, promised a budget in January, got a few infrastructure programs speeded up, and asked for suggestions. After all, this was a government that had admitted the economy would be in a "technical recession." That would have been prudent, statesmanlike and economically credible. There would have been no political crisis; the country would have accepted that the government had heard its concerns and worries; and a serious plan could have been developed. Instead, the government unsheathed its ideological swords, attacked political opponents, public-sector unions, disregarded overwhelming economic advice in the country (including from deficit hawks, premiers, and conservative-minded economists) and dared the opposition parties to turn the other cheek - a move, to the government's apparent surprise, the other parties were not prepared to do. The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front. It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely bogus explanation. Said the government: We have already injected $31-billion of stimulus in the economy through tax cuts since 2006. As if tax cuts in 2006 were designed for stimulus in 2009. No one believes that. That would be like President George W. Bush saying his tax cuts of years ago were designed to help the current recession. Conservatives cut taxes mostly when the economy was robust (and therefore at the wrong time and in the wrong way, but that's another matter). The point now is that the stimulus hasn't been enough. The government also gratuitously set off a political firestorm that will damage the Conservative Party. Taxpayer subsidies for political parties exist everywhere around the world, even in the United States, where Mr. Obama refused them because he was raising so much private money. The subsidies exist, there as here, as a quid pro quo for eliminating corporate and union contributions. As such, they help parties finance themselves, do their work, and therefore contribute to democracy. But since the Conservatives have mastered soliciting contributions from individuals better than their opponents, they now propose to eliminate the public subsidy that amounts to a tiny sum relative to total government spending. Nothing the Conservatives have done has been so malevolently partisan as this. Finally, the government created a potential constitutional situation in which it could be defeated and replaced, quite properly under constitutional convention, by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Late yesterday, Mr. Harper refused to modify his economic statement, put off confidence votes for a week to buy himself some time, and in effect dared the Governor-General, should it come to this, not to exercise her proper constitutional authority to ask another party to try to form a government without bringing on an election. He argued that if his government were to be defeated, there would have to be an election, which is not consistent with constitutional convention. He was really threatening a possible constitutional crisis that, again, would be of his own making and that he would hope to turn to his partisan advantage. The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper's strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together. He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad. <><><><><><><> [4] From:* Brent Patterson *Sent:* Friday, November 28, 2008 10:59 AM *Subject:* [coc-chaps-l] NEWS: Harper backs down on party financing Dear chapter activists, The Canadian Press is reporting this half-hour that, "The Conservative government says an incendiary plan to strip political parties of their public financing won't be included in a confidence vote on the fall fiscal update. Government sources say only tax measures will be part of the ways and means motion that parliamentarians will vote upon on Monday. It's a sharp reversal for the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper." Earlier this morning the Globe and Mail had reported that, "The government has been silent on the matter, although Conservative officials met late into the night in the Prime Minister's Office in the Langevin Block, across from Parliament Hill. Tory MPs seemed thunderstruck late Thursday by the possibility that their second term might come to a sudden end. As some of them piled onto a parliamentary shuttle bus, they were heard incredulously asking opposition MPs if they're serious about a coalition." The National Post reported that, "This morning, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon was a guest on CBC Newsworld and was promptly put on the spot...So enter Mr. Cannon, on the prospect of the Opposition defeating the government: 'If that's what they want to do, then let them do it...Whatever happens, happens.'" The Canadian Press article is at http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5j- vaw1H_MNCsBEEmjJaOuSu_dRSQ? The Globe and Mail report is at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLcoalit ion1128/BNStory/politics/home? The National Post article is at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/11/28/law rence-cannon-aka-tory-spokesman-whatever-happens-happens.aspx? Brent Patterson Director of Campaigns and Communications The Council of Canadians 700-170 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5 1-800-387-7177 ext. 291 bpatterson@canadians.org ? ? www.canadians.org <><><><> [5] Rideau Institute http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2008/28/c5448.html Attention News Editors: Progressive Leaders Urge Opposition Parties to Form Coalition Government OTTAWA, Nov. 28 /CNW Telbec/ - Prominent progressive leaders have come together today to urge St?phane Dion and Jack Layton to put partisan concerns aside and form a coalition government to serve the best interests of citizens suffering from a global economic crisis. The open letter follows. November 28, 2008 An Urgent Message to St?phane Dion and Jack Layton: Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs Dear Leaders, We, the undersigned, write to you during this time of economic crisis to urge that you set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy. At this critical moment, a coalition government would be the most capable of delivering the kind of stewardship the economy needs, and the least likely to put partisan interests ahead of responsible government. Barely five weeks after promising to work cooperatively with the opposition parties - representing a majority of voters - Prime Minister Harper failed to deliver a plan to halt the devastation being wrought upon hard working families. Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity. Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan. The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary. Time is of the essence. You have an unprecedented opportunity to deliver to citizens a coalition that is capable of putting aside partisan ploys and to work cooperatively and swiftly in the interests of all. Despite Mr. Harper's contentions, the outrage of citizens and opposition parties is not about public funding of political parties, but rather, it is about a Conservative plan that would actually deepen our country's economic crisis. The Harper government's taking party funding off the table should not be a reason for backing down from your efforts to construct a coalition government. Please be assured that we all stand ready to offer constructive ideas on ways to help workers, their families and communities weather this storm and emerge stronger than ever. Signatories: Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians Mel Watkins, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Toronto Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador For Disarmament For further information: please contact the respective organizations or Anthony Salloum, Rideau Institute, c. (613) 724-1070, asalloum@rideauinstitute.ca <><><><><> [6] ------- Forwarded message follows ------- To: silverdonaldcameron@yahoogroups.com From: Silver Donald Cameron Date sent: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:54:27 -0400 Subject: [silverdonaldcameron] Fwd: Write the GG! Send reply to: silverdonaldcameron-owner@yahoogroups.com For Canadian readers of this list! Allan Lynch is a fine freelance writer based in the Annapolis Valley. I think he's nailed the argument for defeating this government and swearing in a coalition, if one can be formed, without an election. I'm going to write the GG -- in fact, I'm just going to send Allan's letter onward, with a few additional words -- and if you agree with me that his reasoning is spot-on, I invite you to join me. Cheers, Don PS Tomorrow's column will be about the auto industry, and what I propose requires a government that appreciates both the danger and the opportunity lurking in our present situation. Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:44:30 -0400 >Subject: Write the GG! >From: Allan Lynch > To: Allan Lynch > Dear All, During the recent election we heard from the Harper Conservatives how wonderful they were and how our economy is strong because of them. This of course neglected to mention the 13 consecutive budget surpluses the Liberals generated. Harper also took credit for the solidness of the Canadian banking system. Again, he neglected to mention that it was then-Finance Minister Paul Martin who said no to Canadian bankers when, in the mid-90s, they asked for deregulation of the industry so they could compete with the Americans. Now, we?re learning that the economy isn?t so great, but do Harper and his colleagues offer any ideas to stop the hurt and harm and ally the fears of millions of Canadians? No. He goes for the cheap political shot and to hell with exercising any vision. So now we face the unique situation of defeating the government in the House. Harper also conveniently forgets that not too long ago when he was in opposition he wrote a Governor General asking her not to grant an election writ but to make him PM instead. Holding an election now would reward bad behaviour and lack of vision. The country doesn?t need to spend another $300 million on his vanity. It shouldn?t have to wait six or eight weeks to launch initiatives that would put people to work, secure jobs, prevent deflation and rebuild the economy. The opposition parties have come up with a novel idea to form a coalition government. I see no reason not to give it a try. If it gives us a year, then that?s a year when someone will at least doing something to build the country. The outrage that Harper and his supporters are showing toward the Opposition moves reminds me of the how the police chief in Casablanca acted when he found out there was gambling at Rick?s Caf?. Harper says the people of Canada won?t accept the defeat of his government. Again, his selective memory is at work. Most Canadians didn?t vote for him. Over 60 percent of us said no to a Conservative government. I, for one, would happily entertain a coalition government. I think we should, as individuals, act to counter the subversive Conservative war room tactics of delivering misinformation and fear. I propose we all write the Governor General asking her to consider the best interests of the country by opting for the expediency of a coalition government. If the Prime Minister is so outraged that the public purse is providing $30 million to political parties how can he justify spending another $300 million on a federal election? Few people ever make their voices heard, which is why those who do carry a lot of weight. So let?s be the heavies who shock Ottawa (add your >name and hometown and don?t forget to circulate the idea to everyone you know) and email the GG with a simple statement like: Email: infor@GG.CA Excellency, If the current Conservative Government loses the confidence of the House, I support your appointment of a coalition government to continue the work of the Nation. <><><><> IF YOU SUPPORT THIS COALITION GOVERNMENT, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR SUPPORT TO THE CANADIAN OPPOSITION MPs BELOW. THANK YOU IN THE CAUSE OF WORLD PEACE! [7] ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:26:10 -0800 From: Murray Dobbin To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: ooops...MPs addresses and tax article bellea@parl.gc.ca bigrab@parl.gc.ca freemc@parl.gc.ca lavalc@parl.gc.ca ouellc@parl.gc.ca gagnoc@parl.gc.ca bachac@parl.gc.ca debelc@parl.gc.ca guimoc@parl.gc.ca bourgd@parl.gc.ca thilae@parl.gc.ca bonsaf@parl.gc.ca lalonf@parl.gc.ca asselg@parl.gc.ca ducepg@parl.gc.ca andreg@parl.gc.ca dorioj@parl.gc.ca laforj@parl.gc.ca royj@parl.gc.ca deschj@parl.gc.ca beaudj@parl.gc.ca plamol@parl.gc.ca desnol@parl.gc.ca malol@parl.gc.ca lemaym@parl.gc.ca mouram@parl.gc.ca lafram@parl.gc.ca faillm@parl.gc.ca guimom@parl.gc.ca guaym@parl.gc.ca dufoun@parl.gc.ca demern@parl.gc.ca paillp@parl.gc.ca cretep@parl.gc.ca brunep@parl.gc.ca paquep@parl.gc.ca blaisr@parl.gc.ca menarr@parl.gc.ca nadear@parl.gc.ca bouchr@parl.gc.ca carrir@parl.gc.ca vincer@parl.gc.ca gauder@parl.gc.ca pomerr@parl.gc.ca cardis@parl.gc.ca menars@parl.gc.ca stcyrt@parl.gc.ca lessay@parl.gc.ca levesy@parl.gc.ca mendea@parl.gc.ca tonksa@parl.gc.ca guarna@parl.gc.ca kaniaa@parl.gc.ca nevila@parl.gc.ca rotaa@parl.gc.ca patryb@parl.gc.ca raeb@parl.gc.ca crombb@parl.gc.ca wrzesb@parl.gc.ca murphb@parl.gc.ca wilfeb@parl.gc.ca bennec@parl.gc.ca mctead@parl.gc.ca mcguid@parl.gc.ca coderd@parl.gc.ca leed@parl.gc.ca leblad@parl.gc.ca scarpf@parl.gc.ca valerf@parl.gc.ca regang@parl.gc.ca kenneg@parl.gc.ca byrneg@parl.gc.ca pearsg@parl.gc.ca mahlig@parl.gc.ca fryh@parl.gc.ca cotlei@parl.gc.ca damouj@parl.gc.ca karygj@parl.gc.ca volpej@parl.gc.ca cannij@parl.gc.ca mccalj@parl.gc.ca mckayj@parl.gc.ca murraj@parl.gc.ca footej@parl.gc.ca sgroj@parl.gc.ca trudej@parl.gc.ca martik@parl.gc.ca drydek@parl.gc.ca duncak@parl.gc.ca bagnel@parl.gc.ca macaul@parl.gc.ca zaracl@parl.gc.ca garnem@parl.gc.ca proulm@parl.gc.ca minnam@parl.gc.ca silvam@parl.gc.ca eykinm@parl.gc.ca hollam@parl.gc.ca jennim@parl.gc.ca hallfm@parl.gc.ca pacetm@parl.gc.ca belanm@parl.gc.ca bevilm@parl.gc.ca ignatm@parl.gc.ca savagm@parl.gc.ca simsom@parl.gc.ca bainsn@parl.gc.ca rodrip@parl.gc.ca szabop@parl.gc.ca millip@parl.gc.ca goodar@parl.gc.ca folcor@parl.gc.ca oliphr@parl.gc.ca cuzner@parl.gc.ca dhallr@parl.gc.ca andres@parl.gc.ca brisos@parl.gc.ca simmssc@parl.gc.ca murphs@parl.gc.ca coadys@parl.gc.ca dions@parl.gc.ca dhalis@parl.gc.ca russet@parl.gc.ca dosanu@parl.gc.ca eastew@parl.gc.ca ratany@parl.gc.ca atamea@parl.gc.ca siksab@parl.gc.ca masseb@parl.gc.ca hyerb@parl.gc.ca hughec@parl.gc.ca angusc@parl.gc.ca charlc@parl.gc.ca gravec@parl.gc.ca chrisd@parl.gc.ca blackd@parl.gc.ca savoid@parl.gc.ca bevind@parl.gc.ca davied@parl.gc.ca thibeg@parl.gc.ca mathyi@parl.gc.ca harrij@parl.gc.ca laytoj@parl.gc.ca crowdj@parl.gc.ca malowj@parl.gc.ca comarj@parl.gc.ca raffej@parl.gc.ca wasylj@parl.gc.ca daviel@parl.gc.ca duncal@parl.gc.ca allenm@parl.gc.ca leslim@parl.gc.ca cullen@parl.gc.ca ashton@parl.gc.ca chowo@parl.gc.ca martip@parl.gc.ca dewarp@parl.gc.ca juliap@parl.gc.ca stoffp@parl.gc.ca mulcat@parl.gc.ca martit@parl.gc.ca marstw@parl.gc.ca godiny@parl.gc.ca Attachments: C:\DOCUME~1\JANETM~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\WPM$4436.PM$ C:\DOCUME~1\JANETM~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\WPM$2525.PM$ C:\DOCUME~1\JANETM~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\WPM$6B96.PM$ C:\DOCUME~1\JANETM~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\WPM$2923.PM$ C:\DOCUME~1\JANETM~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\WPM$1023.PM$ ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$334D.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 31931 bytes Desc: Mail message body Url : http://www.globalproblematique.net/pipermail/mai-not/attachments/20081130/c3e33235/WPM334D-0001.obj