From siamdave at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 1 09:07:41 2010 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:07:41 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] may we all have a good new year - Message-ID: <201001020007410046.032362DE@smtp.totisp.net> - and may 2010 see the fight to retake our country make some better progress than we have recently - in the hope of which I have penned the following small essay - this is a bit of a pre-release, I am putting the final touches on it now, any comments (esp constructive criticism - you forgot this, or what about this, or your assertion X is questionable because of fact Y, that sort of thing - I know it's long, but I'm not of the twitter generation..) would be appreciated, if you get snowed in or otherwise have a bit of reading time over what's left of the holiday - dave ================================= In the 60s we were a few short steps away from the dream of democratic peace and prosperity our ancestors had fought for for centuries - and here we are as the first decade of the 21st century stumbles to an end on the edge of the abyss with nothing but grim in sight as chaos and turmoil threaten from all sides - What happened?!? by Dave Patterson January 2010 For over 200 years our ancestors worked and struggled to make Canada one of the bright spots on the world map - peaceful, democratic, progressive, prosperous, providing an ever-improving life for all of its people, a country consistently rated among the best in the world with the brightest of futures. And then something happened during the 1970s - although some things certainly continued progressing - technology, for instance, never stopped looking for and finding new and better ways of doing things - other things stopped progressing and started regressing. Instead of general living conditions for everyone getting better as the years went by, things started going backwards. Poorer jobs with poorer wages and less security for the average family instead of better jobs with more money and security. Regressing social safety nets, our national health care program getting attacked instead of strengthened. Less safety and honesty and civility throughout our land, less democracy, less openness and accountability from our politicians, less honesty and intelligence and more propaganda and superficiality from our media, a people more and more becoming petty and mean and angry and bitter and grasping rather than happy and content and generous and enjoying the fruits of a life well-lived. From wherever ancestors go, ours must be wondering what happened ... - more (much more) here - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Jan 1 10:15:47 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] American Monetary Inst. Holiday message- World ... ripe for meaningful monetary reform! Message-ID: <4B3E0393.21695.ABFADCF@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> We must hold economics to a much higher standard than we've experienced from it.... What is crucial is to enact structural reforms that begin a process that does the opposite of unfairly concentrating wealth. That means a process which fairly de-concentrates unearned, obscene wealth - a process based in morality and justice. A process with much greater long term effect than mere temporary regulation. .. The American Monetary and Financial Security Act, represents the needed reform. The Act places the Federal Reserve System within the US Treasury; it removes the banks accounting privilege of creating our money supply when they make loans, ending the fractional reserve system; and it facilitates Government to create money and spend it into circulation debt free and interest free to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and education. --- AMI Christmas & Holiday Message fyi-janet ================== ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:49:13 -0600 From: AMI Organization: American Monetary Institute To: AMI Subject: Christmas and holiday message Dear Friends of the American Monetary Institute, Warmest Christmas and holiday greetings to all. The World is getting ripe for meaningful monetary reform! Yes, 2009 was disappointing when so many in our legislative and executive branches ignored the wishes of our people and the requirements of progress and of justice, and put forwardmiserable health care proposals. The farcical battle continues. But do not conclude that we are losing and have no power to affect our government to do much better. That power is there and is exercised by replacing those legislators who made such a mockery of our system of government and the needs of our nation. That their malfeasance is obvious represents a much greater loss to the established plutocracy, than to the people. For that establishment depends on the idea that the Statue of Liberty means something. Exposing that fiction, identifying the real nature of our society's predicament, can lead to progress; as only the truth can do. That's up to us! More disappointing for many has been how a Bright young President elected specifically to achieve meaningful change, has at best, demonstrated pitiful negotiating skills and an inability to act based on what he is really up against. Shortly after the election we were told for the first time, how much the President enjoyed the company of economists. That would have been a huge red flag to those who understand how less than useless nearly all the economics "profession" has been towards improving society. One of the best of them once summarized it to me in these words: "There is no good macro-economic theory!" It's understandable how a capable legal mind, with substantial but limited real world experience, such as the President's, could be unduly swayed by economists. Good legal methodology depends a lot on analytical deductive reasoning; drawing conclusions from axioms/laws. Such methodology is also valuable in making moral judgments, as was done by the Catholic Scholastics from about 1100 to 1500 AD (See LSM chapter 7). Therefore such a legal mind as the President's might not be alarmed by economists using similar methodology. Such a mind might not realize the inappropriateness of economics relying so heavily on theory, and ignoring actual results as economics has done for centuries. The Scholastics minimized such problems because their focus was primarily on moral issues. But modern economists have removed morality from their "science," proudly announcing they ignore what they call "normative considerations." If they used plain language and said that they don't consider morality in their theories, people would better understand how skewed and inappropriate economics has become to society. We must hold economics to a much higher standard than we've experienced from it. Especially at this Christmas moment, when more of us focus on fairness and good will toward others, and feel the wonder and heartwarming feedback of those sentiments. Lets keep that in mind, as we look forward to 2010, and the financial legislation which will finally become the focus of attention. We must demand not mere regulation, but reform. Regulation of a system that unfairly concentrates wealth is not enough. As wealth becomes concentrated in unfair ways and obscene amounts, that concentration overcomes regulation through outright bribery, and similar methods of influence. It allows those criminal elements which create our financial difficulties, to use our government to bail them out of their errors and crimes through various bailout mechanisms. What is crucial is to enact structural reforms that begin a process that does the opposite of unfairly concentrating wealth. That means a process which fairly de-concentrates unearned, obscene wealth - a process based in morality and justice. A process with much greater long term effect than mere temporary regulation. Christmas is a good time to realize that. The American Monetary and Financial Security Act, represents the needed reform. The Act places the Federal Reserve System within the US Treasury; it removes the banks accounting privilege of creating our money supply when they make loans, ending the fractional reserve system; and it facilitates Government to create money and spend it into circulation debt free and interest free to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and education. You can see the most recent version of it at http://www.monetary.org where you may send comments and suggestions on it, and read the valuable monetary articles there and can also help the AMI in its continuing work by making a $ contribution $ to our efforts. Thanks much for your attention. Lets now look forward to great and real progress in 2010. Stephen Zarlenga Director, AMI -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4969 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5477 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 1 10:46:22 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:46:22 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] American Monetary Inst. Holiday message- World ... ripe for meaningful monetary reform! In-Reply-To: <4B3E0393.21695.ABFADCF@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B3E0393.21695.ABFADCF@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100101184615.DD0341703A61@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> I received the following quotation on another list: Jean-Paul Kauffmann said: "The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters." My reply of quotations: ------------------------------------------- Thanks .XXXXXXX.........If I ever see 2 economists agree what the time of day will be at 2 pm tomorrow, I'll faint. How is it that they didn't predict the recent meltdown, or the dire consequences of bank deregulation, when many people , capable of rational thought, have been writing about it for years ? Here's one from Lord Maynard Keynes, who died in 1946, and still had some brains, including the correct prediction for the consequences of the post WW1 Versailles treaty that brought on Hitler and WW2 and whatever is happening in the world today: "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men , who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist" The Club or Rome predicted the following in 1972, 38 years ago and we can see the results today : "The behaviour mode of the system....is clearly that of overshoot and collapse....the collapse occurs because of nonrenewable resource depletion. The industrial capital stock grows to a level that requires an enormous input of resources. In the very process of that growth it depletes a large fraction of the reserves available. As resource prices rise and mines are depleted, more and more capital must be used for obtaining resources, leaving less to be invested in future growth. Finally, investment cannot keep up with depreciation, and the industrial base collapses, taking with it the service and agricultural systems, which have become dependent on industrial outputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, hospital laboratories, computers and especially energy for mechanization) For a short time the situation is especially serious because population with the delays inherent in the age structure and the process of social development, keeps rising. Population finally decreases when the death rate is driven upward by lack of food and health services" In 1980, ordered by President Carter a report was prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, called "Global 2000 Report to the President": " If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, more vulnerable to disruption that the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than today. For hundreds of millions of the desperately poor, the outlook for food and other necessities of life will be no better. For many it will be worse. Barring revolutionary advances in technology, life for most people on earth will be more precarious in 2000 tan it is now- unless the nations of the world act decisively to alter current trends" --------------------------------------- So, what has changed, or improved since this 30 year old study? Has the teaching of economics improved, or changed ? What has the "moving to the centre", whatever that idiocy means, has achieved ? Happy thoughts for the New Year and New Decade, with our politicians standing there with their fingers up their butts, bleating "Baaaaaaaaaaa!" Cheers, Ed. ===================================================== At 10:15 AM 01/01/2010, you wrote: >We must hold economics to a much higher standard than we've >experienced from it.... > >What is crucial is to enact structural reforms that begin a process >that does the opposite of unfairly concentrating wealth. That means a >process which fairly de-concentrates unearned, obscene wealth - a >process based in morality and justice. A process with much greater >long term effect than mere temporary regulation. .. > >The American Monetary and Financial Security Act, represents the >needed reform. The Act places the Federal Reserve System within the >US Treasury; it removes the banks accounting privilege of creating >our money supply when they make loans, ending the fractional reserve >system; and it facilitates Government to create money and spend it >into circulation debt free and interest free to rebuild the nation's >infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and >education. --- AMI Christmas & Holiday Message > >fyi-janet > >================== > From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 1 11:41:24 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:41:24 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] may we all have a good new year - In-Reply-To: <201001020007410046.032362DE@smtp.totisp.net> References: <201001020007410046.032362DE@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20100101194118.3EAA8167C323@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Dave, Great article, but the one thing you didn't mention is the fraudulent teaching of economics in our universities for the past 35 or so years, which gave the crooks the pseudo religious legalization of colonization, enslavement and mass murder, the same way past priesthoods legalized the colonizations as the "spreading of the faith", or "defending the faith", which is the moral justification of the suicide bombers of today. The main weapons in their armoury are : 1. Bank deregulation, permitting the perceived power of non existing, imaginary capital to be used as weapons of enslavement and the control of the world's resources. Stalin collectivized farms and the economic system with bayonets, causing the death of millions through starvation and imprisonment, his brothers under the skin , international capitalism , are doing it with imaginary money , causing the deaths of tens of millions through starvation and poverty. WW1 and WW2, plus the death camps of Stalin, Hitler and Mao took about 70 years to kill some 110 or 120 million, the neoclassical capitalist, market economic theory, taught in our universities, kills the same millions in about 4 years. 2. The presently used fraudulent definition of economic efficiency, legalizing the ignoring of unbreakable physical laws and contradicting the laws of physical efficiency with destructive results 3. The fraudulent accounting systems used by economists, such as the GDP, growth and productivity figures, totally meaningless, yet enslaving and destroying the ecology and humanity. Once again I'm enclosing my 1991 Principle which has appeared on many worldwide economic forums and remains unbreakable. The only opposition I've heard in almost 20 years was that "this would wreck our present economic system". Bloody good riddance I would say. I took out the copyright to establish the date and not for monetary reasons, as I haven't invented anything only collected information and .everything is based on long known, but ignored facts, The solution is an economic system freed of all religious and ideological ties and claptrap that can be twisted into the legalization of mass murder, and the turning to a physical laws based system that can not be distorted, makes everybody equal and has to be governed democratically. And the first step should be the independent, scientific examination of the crap and BS taught in our universities as so called "economics". Not a science, but the pseudo religion of the Money God. Happy new year and 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, i.e. 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", i.e. 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 at xplornet.com At 09:07 AM 01/01/2010, you wrote: >- and may 2010 see the fight to retake our country make some better >progress than we have recently - in the hope of which I have penned >the following small essay - this is a bit of a pre-release, I am >putting the final touches on it now, any comments (esp constructive >criticism - you forgot this, or what about this, or your assertion X >is questionable because of fact Y, that sort of thing - I know it's >long, but I'm not of the twitter generation..) would be appreciated, >if you get snowed in or otherwise have a bit of reading time over >what's left of the holiday - > >dave > >================================= > >In the 60s we were a few short steps away from the dream of >democratic peace and prosperity our ancestors had fought for for >centuries - and here we are as the first decade of the 21st century >stumbles to an end on the edge of the abyss with nothing but grim in >sight as chaos and turmoil threaten from all sides - > >What happened?!? > >by >Dave Patterson >January 2010 > >For over 200 years our ancestors worked and struggled to make Canada >one of the bright spots on the world map - peaceful, democratic, >progressive, prosperous, providing an ever-improving life for all of >its people, a country consistently rated among the best in the world >with the brightest of futures. And then something happened during >the 1970s - although some things certainly continued progressing - >technology, for instance, never stopped looking for and finding new >and better ways of doing things - other things stopped progressing >and started regressing. Instead of general living conditions for >everyone getting better as the years went by, things started going >backwards. Poorer jobs with poorer wages and less security for the >average family instead of better jobs with more money and security. >Regressing social safety nets, our national health care program >getting attacked instead of strengthened. Less safety and honesty >and civility throughout our land, less democracy, less openness and >accountability from our politicians, less honesty and intelligence >and more propaganda and superficiality from our media, a people more >and more becoming petty and mean and angry and bitter and grasping >rather than happy and content and generous and enjoying the fruits >of a life well-lived. From wherever ancestors go, ours must be >wondering what happened ... >- more (much more) here >- >http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2596 - Release Date: >01/01/10 01:20:00 From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Fri Jan 1 18:52:55 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 13:52:55 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] essential holiday reading Message-ID: <00b401ca8b56$afc8a110$47ad57ca@jfos> http://lahaine.org/petras/articulo.php?p=1794&more Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Fri Jan 1 19:28:59 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:28:59 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Structural reform in the real sector of the Russian economy Message-ID: <00ea01ca8b5b$c659a910$47ad57ca@jfos> Short article about the situation in Russia. Has been released as an introduction to the ARS magazine "Maximalist". http://revsoc.org/english One must be lazy to not talk of the crisis nowadays. In a song defiantly titled "Anticrisis", Seva, a popular Russian Internet rapper, even raps about smiling more and taking chances to free ride as the crisis endures. While in Kiev, an open-air cinema in one of the city's parks displayed a pop video where a singer and his revealingly dressed female crew insisted on forgetting about the crisis and relaxing. Show business certainly gives interesting advise, but it's hardly possible for all those ordinary working people to relax while bearing the brunt of the crisis on their shoulders. And there's all the less reason to smile for those millions who were laid off. Even more so for the students - who, having graduated into a dead labour market, can all but free ride. Let alone the pupils who will face a lack of free places in universities. The CIS countries have been hit the worst by the capitalist crisis (the second quarter of 2009 brought a fall of 10.9% to Russia's GDP). It makes it all the more bizarre that the crisis for some people is no more than smiling and free riding. It's impossible to distinguish the politicians from the pop singers within this concert of absurdity. Mr. Kudrin, Russia's minister of finance, assured: "We still do not have the final data for the second quarter, but we expect Russia's economy to grow in the third quarter compared to the second quarter, and the third quarter will mark the end of recession.*" Sounds great! But in reality, we can say that Russian GDP contracted all the way through 2009, and most optimistic prediction would be an end of contraction, but certainly not growth. It seems that the Russian and CIS economies are simply crawling along the bottom, having no more vertical space underneath them for now. Mr. Sokolin, the head of the chief statistics agency Rosstat, did not share Mr. Kudrin's wild optimism: "I'm no politician, I am a statistician; only in 3 to 4 months will it become clear if there is any growth. For now all I see is a horizontal trend." Meanwhile, in mid-2009 the Ministry of Finance predicted that the budget deficit would reach 3.2 trillion by the end of 2009, although recently the scale was revised down. The real figures are yet to be revealed. How do the authorities respond to such conditions? They quite simply look to free ride and line their pockets while doing so. The vice prime minister, Mr. Shuvalov, said that "the time when we can revert to privatisation will return" in an interview with Bloomberg TV. Kudrin has already let everyone know that he agrees. The government has resumed selling off state assets, allegedly due to the budged deficit, and the premier Putin labelled privatisation as "one of the instruments of structural reform in the real sector of the economy". The state can now count on an influx of 80 billion roubles by the end of 2010, and income will be generated mainly through sending "strategic" state enterprises under the hammer. So what is behind all the rhetoric? The state, as the primary capitalist, is juggling capital between abstract legal forms. The "new" private owners will likely remain the same state bureaucrats who will acquire freebie "strategic" capital by free riding on their positions in critical economic conditions. While in most countries anticyclical measures are based around up scaling state intervention, Russian overlords are planning a second privatisation. A saying goes: "You can't get Russia with the brain". But what is there to get? If the elites of the developed centres of capital are acting rationally (as far as this is possible in chaotic markets), on the assumption that scorched earth isn't profitable in the long run, the Russian elites are then psychologically fatalistic compradors unconcerned with any kind of strategy. The stunted two-head chicken of the Russian state and business is addicted to the oil needle and other prospects of investment are marginal to their scope of interest. The rate of profit in the bloated oil industry satisfy it's addiction for now, and what happens once its reserves are flushed is beyond it's capacity - it's a chicken, it doesn't think. Both nationalisation and privatisation are always done in the interests of the ruling class, in accordance to the famous principle of "nationalising the losses and privatising the profits". If the core capitalist countries undertake nationalisation as a means to preserve the sum of capital at the expense of individual capitalists, and undertake privatisation as a means to boost the sum of capital through boosting individual capital, then in Russia's case both are routine means to rob working people irregardless of any structures or reforms, even Putin claims otherwise. Prior to the crisis, a multitude of so-called state corporations mushroomed, irrigated by a heavy rain of petrodollars. These allegedly occupied priority niches of the economy. For example, Chubais (the chief "privatiser" of the early '90s) became the director of "Rosnano", the state corporation in the much popularised nano-technologies niche. But all niches and sectors remained as deserted as before, even if the likes of Chubais have attracted countless millions (state enterprise directors had a salary higher than most private directors) from public funds, which then disappeared down the black hole of their pockets. Nowadays these state corporations are out of favour and a wave of privatisation is looming; it appears that money flows will be diverted from one pocket and into the other. At one point, Putin was hailed as the new Ivan III, the "gatherer of Russian lands". But in the epoch of late capitalism, the Russian ruling class has rendered incapable of any kind of modernisation of their country in their own interests, unlike what the country saw under Peter the Great and Stalin. In fact, the contemporary Russian ruling class is consciously reverting its country into a semi-colony; for example, in September 2009, the new president Medvedev and the Chinese chairman Hu Jintao agreed on a plan of cooperation until 2018 regarding the exploitation of Siberian raw materials for the benefit of new industries producing furniture, lead, electrical appliances, cars and other commodities in China's North-East. In this act of providing Siberia to China, Russia has de jure accepted its status as China's raw material periphery and semi-colony, evidently due to its own inability of independent investment into national processing capacities. The Russian ruling class is far from being able to modernise its economy for the sake of long-term profits, and is even further from constructing same kind of democratic facade for its rule. All liberal hopes invested into creating a Russian liberal democracy are unwitting fallacies in the conditions of the direct state and business symbiosis that percolates down to the individual level. The Russian working class, which has had quite enough of bourgeois democracy in its sham Russian incarnation, is of great disappointment to the liberals, for whom a revolt of the masses is worse than a sadistic tsar. Such illiberal conditions certainly won't help the success of pro-(bourgeois)democratic slogans, which the likes of some Trotskyites uphold. In fact, such slogans merely distract the working class from a direct confrontation with it class enemy outside the hostile field of bourgeois legality. In some aspects modern Russia reminds us of Tsarist Russia of the early XX century; the same economic backwardness (with petrodollars instead of agrodollars), the same political impotence. When a rise of welfare of the oppressed is no longer possible, and legal traps such as "democracy" or "trade unions" no longer function, the oppressive yet impotent regime is in for a rough ride, 1917-style. Fear already grips them. During a meeting with the Civic Chamber, Mr. Surkov, the regime's ideological architect, explained that the main idea behind Medvedev's articled in a football nationalist manner titled "Go Russia!" is a smooth modernisation of the country and an attempt to avoid the repeat of 1917. A member of the chamber, Mr. Svanidze, has full-heartedly agreed with Surkov: "Reform can come only from above - we don't feel a constructive impulse from below, only a brewing revolt". They fear the masses, but remain just as impotent. They have no energy for modernisation. "The economy can be restored through the boom and bust cycle", according to a prediction by the firm "Renaissance Capital". It seems likely that after the 2009 plunge, GDP growth will hover around 6% in 2010-2012. But after a brief revitalisation in 2010, a peak in 2011 and a slowdown in 2012, 2013 will bring a new contraction. A new crisis in Russian economy will probably emerge in response to global economic conjuncture when new hastily inflated bubbles burst. The "W" scenario (fall, rise, fall) is also predicted by the CMASF (the Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting); according to its economist Mr. Belousov, "The bubble will go through another cycle, as the existing misbalances are here to stay". He also predicts that the next "W" will appear in the years 2016 and 2017. We have no way to tell if 2017 will be marked by a social upheaval, but we better prepare for the worst (or best) turn of events. To be prepared we must know the history of victories and defeats of past upheavals, their strengths and weaknesses, and everything great and inspiring that they contained within. This issue of "The Maximalist" will therefore be dedicated to methods and strategies of class struggle. * - Quotes taken from the site http://www.kommersant.ru ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From papadop at peak.org Sat Jan 2 11:39:17 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:39:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Peter Dale Scott -Obama and Afghanistan:(annotated) Message-ID: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16713 Global Research, January 1, 2010 Obama and Afghanistan: America's Drug-Corrupted War By Prof Peter Dale Scott ------------ Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. ------------ The presidential electoral campaign of Barack Obama in 2008, it was thought, "changed the political debate in a party and a country that desperately needed to take a new direction."[1] Like most preceding presidential winners dating back at least to John F. Kennedy, what moved voters of all descriptions to back Obama was the hope he offered of significant change. Yet within a year Obama has taken decisive steps, not just to continue America's engagement in Bush's Afghan War, but significantly to enlarge it into Pakistan. If this was change of a sort, it was a change that few voters desired. Those of us convinced that a war machine prevails in Washington were not surprised. The situation was similar to the disappointment experienced with Jimmy Carter: Carter was elected in 1976 with a promise to cut the defense budget. Instead, he initiated both an expansion of the defense budget and also an expansion of U.S. influence into the Indian Ocean.[2] As I wrote in The Road to 9/11, after Carter's election: It appeared on the surface that with the blessing of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, the traditional U.S. search for unilateral domination would be abandoned. But... the 1970s were a period in which a major "intellectual counterrevolution" was mustered, to mobilize conservative opinion with the aid of vast amounts of money... By the time SALT II was signed in 1979, Carter had consented to significant new weapons programs and arms budget increases (reversing his campaign pledge).[3] I noted further that the complex strategy for reversing Carter's promises was revived for a new mobilization in the 1990s during the Clinton presidency, in which a commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld was prominent.[4] The Vietnam War as a Template for Afghanistan It is as if Washington had emerged with only one objective from America's failure in Vietnam: the urge to do it again and get it right. But the principal obstacle to victory in Afghanistan is the same as in Vietnam: the lack of a viable government to defend. The importance of this similarity has been stressed by Thomas H. Johnson, coordinator of anthropological research studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, and his co-author Chris Mason. In their memorable phrase, "the Vietnam War is less a metaphor for the conflict in Afghanistan than it is a template:" It is an oft-cited maxim that in all the conflicts of the past century, the United States has refought its last war. A number of analysts and journalists have mentioned the war in Vietnam recently in connection with Afghanistan. Perhaps fearful of taking this analogy too far, most have backed away from it. They should not?the Vietnam War is less a metaphor for the conflict in Afghanistan than it is a template. For eight years, the United States has engaged in an almost exact political and military reenactment of the Vietnam War, and the lack of self-awareness of the repetition of events 50 years ago is deeply disturbing.[5] Many of the common features of an unpopular corrupted government have been well summarized by Johnson and Mason. In their words, quoting Jeffrey Record, "the fundamental political obstacle to an enduring American success in Vietnam [was] a politically illegitimate, militarily feckless, and thoroughly corrupted South Vietnamese client regime." Substitute the word "Afghanistan" for the words "South Vietnam" in these quotations and the descriptions apply precisely to today's government in Kabul. Like Afghanistan, South Vietnam at the national level was a massively corrupt collection of self-interested warlords, many of them deeply implicated in the profitable opium trade, with almost nonexistent legitimacy outside the capital city. The purely military gains achieved at such terrible cost in our nation's blood and treasure in Vietnam never came close to exhausting the enemy's manpower pool or his will to fight, and simply could not be sustained politically by a venal and incompetent set of dysfunctional state institutions where self-interest was the order of the day.[6] If Johnson had written a little later, he might have added that a major CIA asset in Afghanistan was Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai; and that Ahmed Wali Karzai was a major drug trafficker who used his private force to help arrange a flagrantly falsified election result.[7] This is a fairly exact description of Ngo dinh Nhu in Vietnam, President Ngo dinh Diem's brother, an organizer of the Vietnamese drug traffic whose dreaded Can Lao secret police helped, among other things, to organize a falsified election result there.[8] This pattern of a corrupt near relative, often involved in drugs, is a recurring feature of regimes installed or supported by U.S. influence. There were similar allegations about Chiang Kai-shek's brother-in-law T.V. Soong, Mexican President Echevarr?a's brother-in-law Rub?n Zuno Arce, and the Shah of Iran's sister. In the case of Ngo dinh Nhu, it was the absence of a popular base for his externally installed presidential brother that led to drug involvement, "to provide the necessary funding" for political repression.[9] This analogy to the Karzais is pertinent. An additional similarity, not noted by Johnson, is that America initially engaged in Vietnam in support of an embattled and unpopular minority, the Roman Catholics who had thrived under the French. America has twice made the same mistake in Afghanistan. Initially, after the Russian invasion of 1980, the bulk of American aid went to Gulbeddin Hekmatyar, a leader both insignificant in and unpopular with the mujahedin resistance; the CIA is said to have supported Hekmatyar, who became a drug trafficker to compensate for his lack of a popular base, because he was the preferred client of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which distributed American and Saudi aid. When America re-engaged in 2001, it was to support the Northern Alliance, a drug-trafficking Tajik-Uzbek minority coalition hateful to the Pashtun majority south of the Hindu Kush. Just as America's initial commitment to the Catholic Diem family fatally alienated the Vietnamese countryside, so the American presence in Afghanistan is weakened by its initial dependence on the Tajiks of the minority Northern Alliance. (The Roman Catholic minority in Vietnam at least shared a language with the Buddhists in the countryside. The Tajiks speak Dari, a version of Persian unintelligible to the Pashtun majority.) According to an important article by Gareth Porter, Contrary to the official portrayal of the Afghan National Army (ANA) as ethnically balanced, the latest data from U.S. sources reveal that the Tajik minority now accounts for far more of its troops than the Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group... Tajik domination of the ANA feeds Pashtun resentment over the control of the country's security institutions by their ethnic rivals, while Tajiks increasingly regard the Pashtun population as aligned with the Taliban. The leadership of the army has been primarily Tajik since the ANA was organised in 2002, and Tajiks have been overrepresented in the officer corps from the beginning. But the original troop composition of the ANA was relatively well-balanced ethnically. The latest report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, issued Oct. 30, shows that Tajiks, which represent 25 percent of the population, now account for 41 percent of all ANA troops who have been trained, and that only 30 percent of the ANA trainees are now Pashtuns. A key reason for the predominance of Tajik troops is that the ANA began to have serious problems recruiting troops in the rural areas of Kandahar and Helmand provinces by mid-2007.[10] This problem derives from a major strategic error committed by the U.S. first in Vietnam and now repeated: the effort to impose central state authority on a country that had always been socially and culturally diverse.[11] Johnson and Mason illustrate Diem's lack of legitimacy with a quote from Eric Bergerud: The Government of Vietnam (GVN) lacked legitimacy with the rural peasantry, the largest segment of the population... The peasantry perceived the GVN to be aloof, corrupt, and inefficient... South Vietnam's urban elite possessed the outward manifestations of a foreign culture... more importantly, this small group held most of the wealth and power in a poor nation, and the attitude of the ruling elite toward the rural population was, at best, paternalistic and, at worst, predatory.[12] Thomas Johnson rightly deplores the U.S. effort to impose Kabul's will on an even more diverse Afghanistan. As he has written elsewhere, The characterization of Afghanistan by the 19th Century British diplomat Sir Henry Rawlinson as 'consist[ing] of a mere collection of tribes, of unequal power and divergent habits, which are held together more or less closely, according to the personal character of the chief who rules them. The feeling of patriotism, as it is known in Europe, cannot exist among Afghans, for there is no common country' is still true today and suggests critical nuances for any realistic Afghanistan reconstruction and future political agenda."[13] According to Thomas Johnson, the first eight years of the U.S. in Afghanistan have also seen the Army repeating the strategy of targeting the enemy that failed in Vietnam: Since 2002, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan?at all levels?has been based on an implied strategy of attrition via clearing operations virtually identical to those pursued in Vietnam. In Vietnam, they were dubbed "search and destroy missions;" in Afghanistan they are called "clearing operations" and "compound searches," but the purpose is the same?to find easily replaced weapons or clear a tiny, arbitrarily chosen patch of worthless ground for a short period, and then turn it over to indigenous security forces who can't hold it, and then go do it again somewhere else... General McChrystal is the first American commander since the war began to understand that protecting the people, not chasing illiterate teenage boys with guns around the countryside, is the basic principle of counterinsurgency. Yet four months into his command, little seems to have changed, except for an eight-year overdue order to stop answering the enemy's prayers by blowing up compounds with air strikes to martyr more of the teenage boys[14] Johnson and Mason's depiction of the Vietnam template underlying Afghanistan is important. But there is a glaring omission in their description of power in the Afghan countryside: When it is in equilibrium, rural Afghan society is a triangle of power formed by the tribal elders, the mullahs, and the government... In times of peace and stability, the longest side of the triangle is that of the tribal elders, constituted through the jirga system. The next longest, but much shorter side is that of the mullahs. Traditionally and historically, the government side is a microscopic short segment. However, after 30 years of blowback from the Islamization of the Pashtun begun by General Zia in Pakistan and accelerated by the Soviet-Afghan War, the religious side of the triangle has become the longest side of jihad has grown stronger and more virulent. This remains true, but is dated by its omission of drug-trafficking, and the militias supported by drug-trafficking, which since 1980 have become a more and more important element in the power-balance. Sometimes the drug-traffic adds to the power of tribal elders like Jalaluddin Haqqani or Haji Bashir Noorzai, with tribal drug networks often passed from father to son. But today one of the most important power-holders is the drug-trafficker Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a Ghilzai Pashtun from the north without a significant tribal base. Hekmatyar is much like General Dan Van Quang during the Vietnam War, in that his power continues to depend in part on his sophisticated heroin trafficking network in Afghanistan's Kunar and Nuristan provinces.[15] The more we recognize that today drugs are a major factor in both the economy and the power structure of Afghanistan, the more we must recognize that an even better template for the Afghan war is not the Vietnam war, where drugs were important but not central, but the CIA's drug-funded undeclared war in Laos, 1959-75. Afghanistan and the Laos Template I have quoted at great length from Johnson's pessimistic essay in Military Review, partly because I believe it deserves to be read by a non-military audience, but also because I believe that his excellent analogies to Vietnam are even more pertinent if we recall the CIA's hopeless fiasco in Laos. Vietnam, for all its problems with Catholic and Montagnard minorities, was essentially a state with a single language and a single, French-imposed system of law. Laos, in contrast, was little more than an arbitrary collection of about 100 tribes with different languages, in which the dominant Tai-speaking Lao Loum tribes compromised, in the 1960s, little more than half of the total population. Faced with an intractable mountainous terrain, the French wisely devoted little energy to establishing a central power in Laos, which then had one capital for the north and another for the south.[16] Like Afghanistan and in contrast to Nepal, Laos remained and remains one of the world's last countries without a railroad. To supplement their own minimal presence in Laos, the French relied on two minorities with two completely different non-Tai languages, the Vietnamese and the M?o or Hmong. The protracted French war in Indochina produced two combating armies in Laos, the pro-French Royal Laotian Army, in uneasy alliance with Hmong guerrillas, and the pro-Vietnamese Pathet Lao. Thus Laos, when it became nominally independent in 1954, was a quasi-state with two armies, a collection of tribes with different languages and customs, and tribe-dividing borders defined arbitrarily to suit western convenience. All this might have remained relatively stable, had not Americans arrived with na?ve notions of "nation-building." Misguided efforts to establish a strong central government rapidly produced two dominating consequences: massive corruption (even worse than Vietnam's), and civil war.[17] It would appear that the CIA in Laos, reflecting the opposition of the Dulles brothers to any form of neutralism, intended to divide the country and make it an anti-Communist battlefield, rather than let it slumber quietly under the guidance of its first post-French prime minister, the neutralist Souvanna Phouma (nephew of the king). A CIA officer told Time magazine in 1961 that the CIA's aim "was to ?polarize' the communist and anti-communist factions in Laos."[18] If this was truly the aim, the CIA succeeded, creating a conflict in which the U.S. dropped more than two million tons of bombs on one part of Laos, more than in both Europe and the Pacific during World War Two.[19] Despite this absurd and criminal U.S. over-commitment, the end result was to turn Laos, a profoundly Buddhist nation with an anti-Vietnamese bias, into what is nominally one of the last remaining Communist countries in the world. And our principal ally, a Hmong faction allied earlier with the French, suffered devastating, almost genocidal casualties. (The London Guardian charged in 1971 that Hmong villages who "try to find their own way out of the war ? even if it is simply by staying neutral and refusing to send their 13-year-olds to fight in the CIA army ? are immediately denied American rice and transport, and ultimately bombed by the U.S. Air Force.")[20] No one has ever claimed that in Laos, as opposed to Vietnam, "the system worked,"[21] or that the U.S. might have prevailed had it not been for faulty decision-making at the civilian level.[22] From a humanitarian standpoint, America's campaign in Laos, was from the outset a disaster if not indeed a major war crime. Only one faction profited from that war, international drug traffickers ? whether Corsican, Nationalist Chinese, or American. With the beginning of CIA support for him in 1959, the CIA's client Phoumi Nosavan, for the first time, directly involved his army in the opium traffic, "as an alternative source of income for his [Laotian] army and government... This decision ultimately led to the growth of northwest Laos as one of the largest heroin-producing centers in the world" in the late 1960s.[23] (The CIA not only supported General Ouan Rattikone (Phoumi's successor) and his drug-funded army, it even supplied airplanes to senior Laotian generals which soon "ran opium for them" without interference.)[24] Conversely, when the US withdrew from Laos in the 1970s, opium production plummeted, from an estimated 200 tons in 1975 to 30 tons in 1984.[25] America's Addiction to Drug-Assisted War: Afghanistan the 1980s It is hard to demonstrate the CIA, when unilaterally initiating a military conflict in Laos in 1959, foresaw the resulting huge increase in Laotian opium production. But two decades later this experience did not deter Brzezinski, Carter's national security adviser, from unilaterally initiating contact with drug-trafficking Afghans in 1978 and 1979. It is clear that this time the Carter White House foresaw the drug consequences. In 1980 White House drug advisor David Musto told the White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse that "we were going into Afghanistan to support the opium growers... Shouldn't we try to avoid what we had done in Laos?"[26] Denied access by the CIA to data to which he was legally entitled, Musto took his concerns public in May 1980, noting in a New York Times Op Ed that Golden Crescent heroin was already (and for the first time) causing a medical crisis in New York. And he warned, presciently, that "this crisis is bound to worsen."[27] The CIA, in conjunction with its creation the Iranian intelligence agency SAVAK, was initially trying to move to the right the regime of Afghan president Mohammed Daoud Khan, whose objectionable policy (like that of Souvanna Phouma before him) was to maintain good relations with both the Soviet Union and the west. In 1978 SAVAK- and CIA-supported Islamist agents soon arrived from Iran "with bulging bankrolls," trying to mobilize a purge of left-wing officers in the army and a clamp-down on their party the PDPA. The result of this provocative polarization was the same as in Laos: a confrontation in which the left, and not the right, soon prevailed.[28] In a coup that was at least partly defensive, left-wing officers overthrew and killed Daoud; they installed in his place a left-wing regime so extreme and unpopular that by 1980 the USSR (as Brzezinski had predicted) intervened to install a more moderate faction.[29] By May 1979 the CIA was in touch with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the mujahedin warlord with perhaps the smallest following inside Afghanistan, and also the leading mujahedin drug-trafficker.[30] Hekmatyar, famous for throwing acid in the faces of women not wearing burkas, was not the choice of the Afghan resistance, but of the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI), perhaps because he was the only Afghan leader willing to accept the British-drawn Durand Line as the Afghan-Pakistan boundary. As an Afghan leader in 1994 told Tim Weiner of the New York Times: "We didn't choose these leaders. The United States made Hekmatyar by giving him his weapons. Now we want the United States to shake these leaders and make them stop the killing, to save us from them."[31] Robert D. Kaplan reported his personal experience that Hekmatyar was "loathed by all the other party leaders, fundamentalist and moderate alike."[32] This decision by ISI and CIA belies the usual American rhetoric that the US was assisting an Afghan liberation movement.[33] In the next decade of anti-Soviet resistance, more than half of America's aid went to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who soon became "one of Afghanistan's leading drug lords." Brzezinski was also soon in contact with Pakistan's emissary Fazle ul-Haq, a man who by 1982 would be listed by Interpol as an international narcotics trafficker.[34] The consequences were swiftly felt in America, where heroin from the Golden Crescent, negligible before 1979, amounted in 1980 to 60 percent of the U.S. market.[35] And by 1986, for the first time, the region supplied 70 percent of the high-grade heroin in the world, and supplied a new army of 650,000 addicts in Pakistan itself. Witnesses confirmed that the drug was shipped out of the area on the same Pakistan Army trucks which shipped in "covert" US military aid.[36] Yet before 1986 the only high-level heroin bust in Pakistan was made at the insistence of a single Norwegian prosecutor; none were instigated by the seventeen narcotics officers in the U.S. Embassy. Eight tons of Afghan-Pakistani morphine base from a single Pakistani source supplied the Sicilian mafia "Pizza Connection" in New York, said by the FBI supervisor on the case to have been responsible for 80% of the heroin reaching the United States between 1978 and 1984.[37] Meanwhile, CIA Director William Casey appears to have promoted a plan suggested to him in 1980 by the former French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches, that the CIA supply drugs on the sly to Soviet troops.[38] Although de Marenches subsequently denied that the plan, Operation Mosquito, went forward, there are reports that heroin, hashish, and even cocaine from Latin America soon reached Soviet troops; and that along with the CIA-ISI-linked bank BCCI, "a few American intelligence operatives were deeply enmeshed in the drug trade" before the war was over.[39] Maureen Orth heard from Mathea Falco, head of International Narcotics Control for the State Department under Jimmy Carter, that the CIA and ISI together encouraged the mujahedin to addict the Soviet troops.[40] America's Return in 2001, Again With the Support of Drug-Traffickers The social costs of this drug-assisted war are still with us: there are said, for example, to be now five million heroin addicts in Pakistan alone. And yet America in 2001 decided to do it again: to try, with the assistance of drug traffickers, to impose nation-building on a quasi-state with at least a dozen major ethnic groups speaking unrelated languages. In a close analogy to the use of the Hmong in Laos, America initiated its Afghan campaign in 2001 in concert with a distinct minority, the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance. In a closer analogy still, the CIA in 2000 (in the last weeks of Clinton's presidency) chose as its principal ally Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance, despite the objection of other national security advisers that "Massoud was a drug trafficker; if the CIA established a permanent base [with him] in the Panjshir, it risked entanglement with the heroin trade."[41] There was no ambiguity about the U.S. intention to use drug traffickers to initiate its ground position in Afghanistan. The CIA mounted its coalition against the Taliban in 2001 by recruiting and even importing drug traffickers, usually old assets from the 1980s. An example was Haji Zaman who had retired to Dijon in France, whom "British and American officials... met with and persuaded... to return to Afghanistan."[42] In Afghanistan in 2001 as in 1980, and as in Laos in 1959, the U.S. intervention has since been a bonanza for the international drug syndicates. With the increase of chaos in the countryside, and number of aircraft flying in and out of the country, opium production more than doubled, from 3276 metric tonnes in 2000 (and 185 in 2001, the year of a Taliban ban on opium) to 8,200 metric tonnes in 2007. Why does the U.S. intervene repeatedly on the same side as the most powerful local drug traffickers? Some years ago I summarized the conventional wisdom on this matter: Partly this has been from realpolitik - in recognition of the local power realities represented by the drug traffic. Partly it has been from the need to escape domestic political restraints: the traffickers have supplied additional financial resources needed because of US budgetary limitations, and they have also provided assets not bound (as the U.S. is) by the rules of war... These facts... have led to enduring intelligence networks involving both oil and drugs, or more specifically both petrodollars and narcodollars. These networks, particularly in the Middle East, have become so important that they affect, not just the conduct of US foreign policy, but the health and behavior of the US government, US banks and corporations, and indeed the whole of US society.[43] Persuaded in part by the analysis of authors like Michel Chossudovsky and James Petras, I would now stress more heavily that American banks, as well as oil majors, benefit significantly from drug trafficking. A Senate staff report has estimated "that $500 billion to $1 trillion in criminal proceeds are laundered through banks worldwide each year, with about half of that amount moved through United States banks."[44] The London Independent reported in 2004 that drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade."[45] Petras concludes that the U.S. economy has become a narco-capitalist one, dependent on the hot or dirty money, much of it from the drug traffic. As Senator Levin summarizes the record: "Estimates are that $500 billion to $1 trillion of international criminal proceeds are moved internationally and deposited into bank accounts annually. It is estimated half of that money comes to the United States"... Washington and the mass media have portrayed the U.S. in the forefront of the struggle against narco trafficking, drug laundering and political corruption: the image is of clean white hands fighting dirty money from the Third world (or the ex-Communist countries). The truth is exactly the opposite. U.S. banks have developed a highly elaborate set of policies for transferring illicit funds to the U.S., investing those funds in legitimate businesses or U.S. government bonds and legitimating them. The U.S. Congress has held numerous hearings, provided detailed expos?s of the illicit practices of the banks, passed several laws and called for stiffer enforcement by any number of public regulators and private bankers. Yet the biggest banks continue their practices, the sums of dirty money grows exponentially, because both the State and the banks have neither the will nor the interest to put an end to the practices that provide high profits and buttress an otherwise fragile empire.[46] In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, this analysis found support from the claim of Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, that "Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis." According to the London Observer, Costa said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (?216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result... Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he said.[47] Why This Drug-Corrupted War Will Continue Thus the war machine that co-opted Obama into his incipient escalations of an unwinnable war is not just a bureaucratic cabal inside Washington. It is solidly grounded in and supported by a wide coalition of forces in our society. For this reason the war machine will not be dissuaded by sensible advice from within the establishment, such as the recommendation for Afghan counterterrorism from the RAND Corporation: Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.[48] It will not be dissuaded by the conclusion of a recent study for the Carnegie Endowment that "the presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban."[49] To justify its global strategic posture of what it calls "full-spectrum dominance," the Pentagon badly needs the "war against terror" in Afghanistan, just as a decade ago it needed the counter-productive "war against drugs" in Colombia. Full-spectrum dominance is of course not just an end in itself, it is also lobbied for by far-flung American corporations overseas, especially oil companies like Exxon Mobil with huge investments in Kazakhstan and elsewhere in Central Asia. As Michael Klare noted in his book Resource Wars, a secondary objective of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan was "to consolidate U.S. power in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea area, and to ensure continued flow of oil."[50] The global drug traffic itself will continue to benefit from the protracted conflict generated by "full-spectrum dominance" in Afghanistan, and some of the beneficiaries may have been secretly lobbying for it. And I fear that all the client intelligence assets organized about the movement of Afghan heroin through Central Asia and beyond will, without a clear change in policy, continue as before to be protected by the CIA. And America's superbanks like Citibank ? the banks allegedly "too big to fail" ? are now since the downturn even more dependant than before on the hundreds of billions of illicit profits which they launder each year.[51] In both Afghanistan and Laos (as opposed to Vietnam) heroin has been by far the principal export, and so important that simply to curtail the production of opium has risked impoverishing those in the areas where opium was grown. This was the reason given for not disrupting heroin flows in the severe winter of 2001-02, the first year of the American invasion of Afghanistan. The economy was so devastated that, without income from opium, large numbers of Afghans might have starved. According to Australian journalist Michael Ware, Time Magazine's correspondent in Kandahar, opium is still the main support of the Afghan economy, as well the main support for both the Karzai government and the Taliban opposition: You take away the opium and you suck the oxygen out of this economy and you'll be treading on the toes of significant players who have built empires around the opium trade, and that includes political and military figures as well as criminal and business figures here in Kandahar.[52] A consistent bias of U.S. news reporting on opium and heroin in Afghanistan has been to blame the Taliban for their production, and not also the government. For example, the New York Times reported on November 27, 2008 that "Afghanistan has produced so much opium in recent years that the Taliban are cutting poppy cultivation and stockpiling raw opium in an effort to support prices and preserve a major source of financing for the insurgency, Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the United Nations drug office [UNODC], says."[53] But as Jeremy Hammond responds, In commentary attached to the UNODC report, Mr. Costa asks, "Who collects this money? Local strong men. In other words, by year end, war-lords, drug-lords and insurgents will have extracted almost half a billion dollars of tax revenue from drug farming, production and trafficking." Notably, Mr. Costa does not answer his question with "the Taliban", but includes a much broader range of participants who profit from the trade that includes, but is in no way limited to, the Taliban.[54] Citing the statistics in the UNODC's annual reports, Hammond estimates that the reported Taliban revenues from opium ($75-100 million) are only about 3 percent of the total earned income in Afghanistan ($3.4 billion), which in turn is only about five percent of the UNODC estimate of what that crop is worth in the world market ($64 billion).[55] It is because of the larger share of drug profits going to supporters of the Kabul government that U.S. strategies to attack the Afghan drug trade are explicitly limited to attacking drug traffickers supporting the Taliban.[56] Such strategies have the indirect effect of increasing the opium market share of the past and present CIA assets in the Karzai regime (headed by Hamid Karzai, a former CIA asset),[57] such as the president's brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, an active CIA asset, and Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former CIA asset.[58] As I have observed elsewhere about the U.S. campaign against the FARC and cocaine in Colombia, the aim of all U.S. anti drug campaigns abroad has never been the hopeless ideal of eradication. The aim of all such campaigns has been to alter market share: to target specific enemies and thus ensure that the drug traffic remains under the control of those traffickers who are allies of the state security apparatus and/or the CIA. This was notably true of Laos in the 1960s, when the CIA intervened militarily with air support to assist Ouan Rattikone's army, in a battle over a contested opium caravan in Laos.[59] Consequences for America of a Drug-Corrupted War But this toleration of the traffic has led to another similarity with Vietnam and Laos in the 1960s: the increasing addiction of GIs to heroin, Afghanistan's principal export. Despite the denial one has come to expect from high places, it is (according to Salon's Shaun McCanna), not difficult to find a soldier who has returned from Afghanistan with an addiction. Nearly every veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom I have spoken with was familiar with heroin's availability on base, and most knew at least one soldier who used while deployed.[60] And the reported easy availability of heroin outside Afghanistan's Bagram air base, like that four decades ago outside Vietnam's American base at Long Binh, points to another alarming similarity. Just as at the height of the Vietnam war, heroin was shipped to the United States in body bags containing cadavers,[61] so now we hear from Heneral Mahmut Gareev, a former Soviet commander in Afghanistan that Americans themselves admit that drugs are often transported out of Afghanistan on American planes. Drug trafficking in Afghanistan brings them about 50 billion dollars a year ? which fully covers the expenses tied to keeping their troops there. Essentially, they are not going to interfere and stop the production of drugs.[62] Gareev's charge has been repeated in one form or another by a number of other sources, including Pakistani General Hamid Gul, a former ISI commander: "Abdul Wali Karzai is the biggest drug baron of Afghanistan," he stated bluntly. He added that the drug lords are also involved in arms trafficking, which is "a flourishing trade" in Afghanistan. "But what is most disturbing from my point of view is that the military aircraft, American military aircraft are also being used. You said very rightly that the drug routes are northward through the Central Asia republics and through some of the Russian territory, and then into Europe and beyond. But some of it is going directly. That is by the military aircraft. I have so many times in my interviews said, ?Please listen to this information, because I am an aware person.' We have Afghans still in Pakistan, and they sometimes contact and pass on the stories to me. And some of them are very authentic. I can judge that. So they are saying that the American military aircraft are being used for this purpose. So, if that is true, it is very, very disturbing indeed."[63] Another slightly different testimony is from General Khodaidad Khodaidad, the current Afghan minister of counter narcotics: The Afghan minister of counter narcotics says foreign troops are earning money from drug production in Afghanistan. General Khodaidad Khodaidad said the majority of drugs are stockpiled in two provinces controlled by troops from the US, the UK, and Canada, IRNA reported on Saturday. He went on to say that NATO forces are taxing the production of opium in the regions under their control.[64] I do not accept these charges as proven, despite the number of additional sources for them. None of the sources quoted here can be considered an objective source with no axe to grind, and worse charges still are easy to find in wilds of the Internet. However the charges are plausible, because of history. Just as in Vietnam and Laos, the United States made its initial alliances in Afghanistan with drug traffickers, both in 1980 and again in 2001; and this is a major factor explaining the endemic corruption of the U.S.-sponsored Karzai regime today. There should be an official Congressional investigation whether the United States did not intend for its Afghan assets, just as earlier in Burma, Laos, and Thailand, to supplement their CIA subsidies with income from drug trafficking. In short, the impasse the U.S. faces in Afghanistan, in its efforts to support an unpopular and corrupt regime, must be understood in the light of its past relations to the drug traffic there ? a situation which resembles the past U.S. involvement in Laos even more than in Vietnam. It is this sustained pattern of intervention in support of drug economies, and with the support of drug traffickers, that so depresses observers who had hoped desperately that, in this respect, Obama would bring a change. The question remains: how many Americans, Afghans, and Pakistanis will have to die, before we can put an end to this drug-corrupted and drug-corrupting war? Notes [1] John Nichols, "Obama's Campaign Merits a Peace Prize," Nation (blogs), October 10, 2009, http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/482916/obama_s_campaign_merits_a_peace_prize. [2] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 65-69. [3] Scott, The Road to 9/11, 66-67. [4] Scott, Road to 9/11, 67-68, referring to the Rumsfeld Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. [5] Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason, "Refighting the Last War: Afghanistan and the Vietnam Template," Military Review, November-December 2009, 1. [6] Johnson and Mason, "Refighting the Last War,", 5, citing Jeffrey Record, "How America's Own Military Performance in Vietnam Aided and Abetted the "North's" Victory, in Marc Jason Gilbert, ed. Why the North Won the Vietnam War (New York: Palgrave, 2002), 119. [7] New York Times, October 28, 2009. [8] Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History (New York: Penguin, 1997), 239; A.J. Langguth, Our Vietnam (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), 99; Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books/ Chicago Review Press, 2003), 203 (drugs). [9] McCoy, The Politics of Heroin, 203. [10] Gareth Porter, "Tajik Grip on Afghan Army Signals New Ethnic War," IPS News, November 28, 2009, http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49461. [11] Spencer Tucker, Vietnam (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1999), 87. [12] Eric Bergerud, The Dynamics Of Defeat: The Vietnam War In Hau Nghia Province (Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 1991) 3; quoted in Johnson and Mason, "Afghanistan and the Vietnam Template," 5. [13] Thomas H. Johnson, "Ismail Khan, Heart, and Iranian Influence," Strategic Insights, July 2004, http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jul/johnsonJul04.asp. [14] Johnson and Mason, "Refighting the Last War," 7-8. [15] Gretchen Peters, Seeds of Terror: How Heroin Is Bankrolling the Taliban and Al Qaeda (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press, 2009), 127-29. [16] The southern provinces were administered directly by a r?sident sup?rieur in Vientiane, who also supervised , but indirectly, the quasi-independent northern Kingdom of Louangphrabang. [17] Corruption within the U.S. Aid program (or boondoggle) in Laos, centered about bribes paid by CIA contractor Willis Bird, produced a Congressional investigation. See Scott, Drugs, Oil and War, 196, Martin E. Goldstein, American Policy Toward Laos, 186-87; U.S. Congress, House U.S. Aid Operations in Laos, House Report no. 546, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington: GPO, 1959). [18] Time, March 17, 1961; discussion in Scott, War Conspiracy, 78. [19] Keith Quincy, Hmong: history of a people Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University, 1995), 163. To this day the CIA's fact sheet on Cambodia lists, as the chief environmental problem in Laos, "unexploded ordnance" (all of it American); see CIA, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/la.html. [20] Guardian (London), October 14, 1971. Cf. McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 320-21. [21] Cf. Leslie H. Gelb and Richard K. Betts, The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1979). [22] Mark Moyar, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). [23] McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 300. [24] John Prados, Lost Crusader: the Secret Wars of CIA Director William Colby (New York: Oxford UP: 2003), 168. [25] Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 40. [26] McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 461; citing interview with Dr. David Musto. [27] David Musto, New York Times, May 22, 1980; quoted in McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 462. [28] Douglas Little, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 223; Diego Cordovez and Selig S. Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: the Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 16-17, 23-28. [29] Scott, Road to 9/11, 77-79; Little, American Orientalism, 150. [30] Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 46, 49; McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 475-78. [31] New York Times, 3/13/94. [32] Robert D. Kaplan, Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan (New York: Random House, 1990), 68-69. [33] Brzezinski for example writes that "I pushed a decision through the SCC to be more sympathetic to those Afghans who were determined to preserve their country's independence" (Brzezinski, Power and Principle, 427). On the same page he writes that "I also consulted with the Saudis and the Egyptians regarding the fighting in Afghanistan." He is silent about the early, decisive, and ill-fated contact with Pakistan. [34] Scott, Road to 9/11, 73-75, citing Christina Lamb, Waiting for Allah: Pakistan's Struggle for Democracy (London: H. Hamilton, 1991), 222; cf. McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 479. Fazle ul-Haq was the governor of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province; at the same time he was also an important CIA contact and supporter of the Afghan mujahideen, some of whom -- it was no secret -- were supporting themselves by major opium and heroin trafficking through the NWFP. However, after lengthy correspondence with Fazle ul-Haq's son, I am persuaded that there are no known grounds to accuse Fazle ul-Haq of having profited personally from the drug traffic. See "Clarification from Peter Dale Scott re. Fazle Haq," 911Truth.org, http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090223165146219. [35] Scott, Road to 9/11, 73-75; citing McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 475 (leading drug lords), 464 (60 percent). [36] McCoy, Politics of Heroin, 461-64, 474-80; Lawrence Lifshultz, "Inside the Kingdom of Heroin," Nation, November 14, 1988: Peters, Seeds of Terror, 37-39. [37] Ralph Blumenthal, Last Days of the Sicilians (New York: Pocket Books, 1988), 119, 314. [38] Cooley, Unholy Wars, 128-29; Beaty and Gwynne, Outlaw Bank, 305-06. [39] Beaty and Gwynne, 306; cf. 82; also Allix, La petite cuill?re, 35, 95; Peters, Seeds of Terror, 45-46. [40] Maureen Orth, Vanity Fair, March 2002, 170-71. A Tajik sociologist added that she knew "drugs were massively distributed at that time," and that she often heard how Russian soldiers were "invited to taste." [41] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), 536. [42] Philip Smucker, Al Qaeda's Great Escape: The Military and the Media on Terror's Trail (Washington: Brassey's, 2004), 9. On December 4, 2001, Asia Times reported that a convicted Pakistani drug baron and former parliamentarian, Ayub Afridi, was also released from prison to participate in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CL04Df01.html); Scott, Road to 9/11, 125. [43] Peter Dale Scott, "Afghanistan, Colombia, Vietnam: The Deep Politics of Drugs and Oil," http://www.peterdalescott.net/qov.html. [44] U.S. Congress, Senate, Minority staff report for Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Hearing on Private Banking and Money Laundering: a Case Study of Opportunities and Vulnerabilities (November 9, 1999), http://hsgac.senate.gov/110999_report.htm. These figures are both much used and much disputed, along with their relevance. But even if the real figures are only half those estimated by the Senate report, dirty money would appear to be a structural part of the U.S. economy. Those who deny this remind me of the economists who, as late as the 1950s, argued that U.S. foreign trade (then listed at about 2 percent of GNP) was too small to be a significant element in the U.S. GNP. No one would make that argument today. [45] Independent (London), February 29, 2004. Cf. Michel Chossudovsky, "The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade," GlobalResearch, May 5, 2005, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050614&articleId=91. [46] James Petras, "`Dirty Money' Foundation of U.S. Growth and Empire," from La Jornada, May 19, 2001, Narco News 2001, http://www.narconews.com/petras1.html. [47] Rajeev Syal, "Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor," Observer, December 13, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims. [48] RAND Corporation, "How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa'ida," Research Brief, RB-9351-RC (2008), http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html. [49] Gilles Dorronsoro, "Focus and Exit: an Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2009, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/afghan_war-strategy.pdf. [50] Michael T. Klare. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (Henry Holt, New York 2001; quoted in David Michael Smith, "The U.S. War in Afghanistan," The Canadian, April 19, 2006, http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/04/19/01181.html, emphasis added. Cf. Scott, Road to 9/11, 169-70. [51] U.S. Congress, Senate, Minority staff report for Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Hearing on Private Banking and Money Laundering: a Case Study of Opportunities and Vulnerabilities (November 9, 1999), http://hsgac.senate.gov/110999_report.htm. [52] "Afghanistan - America's Blind Eye," ABC/TV (Australia), April 10, 2002, Reporter: Mark Corcoran, http://www.mickware.info/2002/files/2b3c5632e1c8fa1ad68b6f83ae91a8c3-93.php. [53] Kirk Kraeutler, "U.N. Reports That Taliban Is Stockpiling Opium," New York Times, November 27, 2008. [54] Jeremy R. Hammond, "New York Times Misleads on Taliban Role in Opium Trade," Foreign Policy Journal, November 29, 2008, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2008/11/29/new-york-times-misleads-on-taliban-role-in-opium-trade/. [55] Personal communication of December 29, 2009, citing UNODC Reports of 2008 and 2009. [56] James Risen, U.S. to Hunt Down Afghan Lords Tied to Taliban, New York Times, August 10, 2009: "United States military commanders have told Congress that... only those [drug traffickers] providing support to the insurgency would be made targets." [57] Nick Mills, Karzai: the failing American intervention and the struggle for Afghanistan (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2007), 79. [58] New York Times, October 27, 2009. [59] Valentine, Strength of the Pack, 333. [60] Shaun McCanna, "It's Easy for Soldiers to Score Heroin in Afghanistan,"Salon, August 1, 2007, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/07/afghan_heroin/. Cf. Megan Carpentier, "Is The Military Ignoring The Heroin Problem In The Ranks?", AirAmerica.com, October 20, 2009, http://airamerica.com/politics/10-20-2009/military-ignoring-its-heroin-problem/?p=all; Gerald Posner, "The Taliban's Heroin Ploy," The Daily Beast, October 19, 2009, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-19/the-heroin-bomb/full/. [61] Douglas Valentine, The Strength of the Pack: The People, Politics and Espionage Intrigues that Shaped the DEA (Springfield, OR: TrineDay, 2009), 171; cf. 103. [62] Gen. Mahmut Gareev, ""Afghan drug trafficking brings US $50 billion a year," RussiaToday. August 20, 2009, http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-08-20/afghanistan-us-drug-trafficking.html. [63] Jeremy R. Hammond, "Pakistan: General Hamid Gul on Destabilizing Pakistan," Foreign Policy Journal, August 27, 2009, http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56790.shtml. [64] "Occupiers involved in drug trade: Afghan minister," IranPressTV, November 1, 2009, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=110130§ionid=351020403. From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Sat Jan 2 22:31:09 2010 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:31:09 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] American Monetary Inst. Holiday message- World ... ripe for meaningful monetary reform! In-Reply-To: <4B3E0393.21695.ABFADCF@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B3E0393.21695.ABFADCF@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <19B3894B-0DB9-4506-B3BF-A08F1FC1A556@powerup.com.au> Janet, Thanks for this clear statement of proposed reform. Among issues that might need clarfication to assemble wide support I'd like to see a simple explanation of the phrase "the fractional reserve system" and why you mention it.. - Doug Everingham ==== On 02/01/2010, at 4:15 AM, Janet M Eaton wrote: > We must hold economics to a much higher standard than we've > experienced from it.... > > What is crucial is to enact structural reforms that begin a process > that does the opposite of unfairly concentrating wealth. That means a > process which fairly de-concentrates unearned, obscene wealth - a > process based in morality and justice. A process with much greater > long term effect than mere temporary regulation. .. > > The American Monetary and Financial Security Act, represents the > needed reform. The Act places the Federal Reserve System within the > US Treasury; it removes the banks accounting privilege of creating > our money supply when they make loans, ending the fractional reserve > system; and it facilitates Government to create money and spend it > into circulation debt free and interest free to rebuild the nation's > infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and > education. --- AMI Christmas & Holiday Message > > fyi-janet > > ================== > > > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > Date sent: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:49:13 -0600 > From: AMI > Organization: American Monetary Institute > To: AMI > Subject: Christmas and holiday message > > Dear Friends of the American Monetary Institute, > > Warmest Christmas and holiday greetings to all. > > The World is getting ripe for meaningful monetary reform! > > Yes, 2009 was disappointing when so many in our legislative and > executive branches ignored the wishes of our people and the > requirements of progress and of justice, and put forwardmiserable > health care proposals. The farcical battle continues. > > But do not conclude that we are losing and have no power to affect > our government to do much better. That power is there and is > exercised by replacing those legislators who made such a mockery of > our system of government and the needs of our nation. That their > malfeasance is obvious represents a much greater loss to the > established plutocracy, than to the people. For that establishment > depends on the idea that the Statue of Liberty means something. > Exposing that fiction, identifying the real nature of our society's > predicament, can lead to progress; as only the truth can do. That's > up to us! > > More disappointing for many has been how a Bright young President > elected specifically to achieve meaningful change, has at best, > demonstrated pitiful negotiating skills and an inability to act based > on what he is really up against. > > Shortly after the election we were told for the first time, how much > the President enjoyed the company of economists. That would have been > a huge red flag to those who understand how less than useless nearly > all the economics "profession" has been towards improving society. > One of the best of them once summarized it to me in these words: > "There is no good macro-economic theory!" > > It's understandable how a capable legal mind, with substantial but > limited real world experience, such as the President's, could be > unduly swayed by economists. > > Good legal methodology depends a lot on analytical deductive > reasoning; drawing conclusions from axioms/laws. Such methodology is > also valuable in making moral judgments, as was done by the Catholic > Scholastics from about 1100 to 1500 AD (See LSM chapter 7). > > Therefore such a legal mind as the President's might not be alarmed > by economists using similar methodology. Such a mind might not > realize the inappropriateness of economics relying so heavily on > theory, and ignoring actual results as economics has done for > centuries. The Scholastics minimized such problems because their > focus was primarily on moral issues. > > But modern economists have removed morality from their "science," > proudly announcing they ignore what they call "normative > considerations." If they used plain language and said that they don't > consider morality in their theories, people would better understand > how skewed and inappropriate economics has become to society. > > We must hold economics to a much higher standard than we've > experienced from it. Especially at this Christmas moment, when more > of us focus on fairness and good will toward others, and feel the > wonder and heartwarming feedback of those sentiments. > > Lets keep that in mind, as we look forward to 2010, and the financial > legislation which will finally become the focus of attention. We must > demand not mere regulation, but reform. Regulation of a system that > unfairly concentrates wealth is not enough. As wealth becomes > concentrated in unfair ways and obscene amounts, that concentration > overcomes regulation through outright bribery, and similar methods of > influence. > > It allows those criminal elements which create our financial > difficulties, to use our government to bail them out of their errors > and crimes through various bailout mechanisms. > What is crucial is to enact structural reforms that begin a process > that does the opposite of unfairly concentrating wealth. That means a > process which fairly de-concentrates unearned, obscene wealth - a > process based in morality and justice. A process with much greater > long term effect than mere temporary regulation. Christmas is a good > time to realize that. > > The American Monetary and Financial Security Act, represents the > needed reform. The Act places the Federal Reserve System within the > US Treasury; it removes the banks accounting privilege of creating > our money supply when they make loans, ending the fractional reserve > system; and it facilitates Government to create money and spend it > into circulation debt free and interest free to rebuild the nation's > infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of health care and > education. > > You can see the most recent version of it at http://www.monetary.org > where you may send comments and suggestions on it, and read the > valuable monetary articles there and can also help the AMI in its > continuing work by making a $ contribution $ to our efforts. > > Thanks much for your attention. Lets now look forward to great and > real progress in 2010. > Stephen Zarlenga > Director, AMI > > > <-> > <-> > <-> > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 4 13:39:31 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:39:31 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] =?windows-1252?q?Fw=3A_Review=3A_-_Hollywood=92s_Human_?= =?windows-1252?q?Terrain_-_Avatar?= Message-ID: <004d01ca8d86$66d10970$47ad57ca@jfos> Avatar is the 4th highest grossing film of all time with $1 billion in world box office takings. Currently just behind "Titanic" ($1.84 billion), "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of The King" ($1.12 billion) and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.07 billion)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron Going Native Hollywood?s Human Terrain Avatars By DAVID PRICE This week, as James Cameron?s 3D cinematic science fiction saga dominates the American box office, and tie-in products permeate fast food franchises and toy stores, it is worth noting an interesting bit of cultural leakage tying our own real militarized state to Cameron?s virtual world of Avatar. http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/avatar-2009-and-human-terrain-systems/ Avatar is set in a world where the needs of corporate military units align against the interests of indigenous blue humanoids long inhabiting a planet with mineral resources desired by the high tech militarized invaders. The exploitation of native peoples to capture valuable resources is a story obviously older than Hollywood, and much older than the discipline of anthropology itself; though the last century and a half has found anthropologists? field research used in recurrent instances to make indigenous populations vulnerable to exploitation in ways reminiscent of Avatar. Avatar draws on classic sci-fi themes in which individuals break through barriers of exoticness, to accept alien others in their own terms as equals, not as species to be conquered and exploited, and to turn against the exploitive mission of their own culture. These sorts of relationships, where invaders learn about those they?d conquer and come to understand them in ways that shake their loyalties permeate fiction, history and anthropology. Films like Local Hero, Little Big Man, Dersu Uzala, or even the musical The Music Man use themes where outsider exploitive adventurists trying to abuse local customs are seduced by their contact with these cultures. These are themes of a sort of boomeranging cultural relativism gone wild. Fans of Avatar are understandably being moved by the story?s romantic anthropological message favoring the rights of people to not have their culture weaponized against them by would be foreign conquerors, occupiers and betrayers. It is worth noting some of the obvious the parallels between these elements in this virtual film world, and those found in our world of real bullets and anthropologists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2007, the occupying U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan have deployed Human Terrain Teams (HTT), complete with HTT ?social scientists? using anthropological-ish methods and theories to ease the conquest and occupation of these lands. HTT has no avatared-humans; just supposed ?social scientists? who embed with battalions working to reduce friction so that the military can get on with its mission without interference from local populations. For most anthropologists these HTT programs are an outrageous abuse of anthropology, and earlier this month a lengthy report by a commission of the American Anthropological Association (of which I was a member and report co-author) concluded that the Human Terrain program crossed all sorts of ethical, political and methodological lines, finding that: ?when ethnographic investigation is determined by military missions, not subject to external review, where data collection occurs in the context of war, integrated into the goals of counterinsurgency, and in a potentially coercive environment ? all characteristic factors of the HTT concept and its application ? it can no longer be considered a legitimate professional exercise of anthropology.? The American Anthropological Association?s executive board found Human Terrain to be a ?mistaken form of anthropology?. But even with these harsh findings, the Obama administration?s call for increased counterinsurgency will increase demands for such non-anthropological uses of ethnography for pacification. There are other anthropological connections to Avatar. James Cameron used University of Southern California anthropologist, Nancy Lutkehaus, as a consultant on the film. I recently wrote Lutkehaus to see if her role in consulting for Cameron had included adding information on how anthropologists have historically, or presently, aided the suppression of native uprisings; but Lutkehaus wrote me that her consultation had nothing to do with these plot elements, her expertise drew upon her fieldwork in Papua New Guinea to consult with choreographer, Lula Washington, who designed scenes depicting a gorgeous coming-of-age-ritual depicted in the film. Among the more interesting parallels between Avatar and Human Terrain Systems is the way that the video logs that the avatar-ethnographers were required to record were quietly sifted-through by military strategists interested in finding vulnerability to exploit among the local populous. Last week a story in Time magazine quoted Human Terrain Team social scientist in training Ben Wintersteen admitting that in battlefield situations ??there?s definitely an intense pressure on the brigade staff to encourage anthropologists to give up the subject..There?s no way to know when people are violating ethical guidelines on the field;? and the AAA?s recent report found that ?Reports from HTTs are circulated to all elements of the military, including intelligence assets, both in the field and stateside.? Like the HTT counterparts, the Avatar teams openly talked about trying to win the ?hearts, mind, and trust? of the local population (a population that the military derisively called ?blue monkeys?) that the military was simply interested in moving or killing. And most significantly, the members of the avatar unit had a naive understanding of the sort of role they could conceivably play in directing the sort of military action that would inevitably occur. Sigourney Weaver?s character, the chain-smoking, pose striking, tough talking Avatar Terrain Team chief social scientist, Grace Augustine, displayed the same sort of unrealistic understanding of what would be done with her research that appears in the seemingly endless Human Terrain friendly features appearing in newspapers and magazines. Past wars found anthropologists working much more successfully as insurgents, rather than counterinsurgents: in World War II it was Edmund Leach leading an armed insurgent gang in Burma, Charlton Coon training terrorists in North African, Tom Harrisson arming native insurgents in Sarawak. These episodes found anthropologists aligned with the (momentary) interests of the people they studied (but also aligned with the interests of their own nation states), not subjugating them in occupation and suppressing their efforts for liberation as misshapen forms of ethnography like Human Terrain. Anthropologically informed counterinsurgency efforts like the Human Terrain program are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. One measure of the extent that these programs come to understand and empathize with the culture and motivations of the people they study might be the occurrence of militarized ethnographers ?going native? in ways parallel to the plot of Avatar. If Human Terrain Teams employed anthropologists who came to live with and freely interact with and empathize with occupied populations, I suppose you would eventually find some rogue anthropologists standing up to their masters in the field. But so far mostly what we find with the Human Terrain ?social scientists? is a revolving cadre of well paid misfits with marginal training in the social sciences who do not understand or reject normative anthropological notions of research ethics, who rotate out and come home with misgivings about the program and what they accomplished. On the big screen the transformation of fictional counterinsurgent avatar-anthropologists into insurgents siding with the blue skinned Na?vi endears the avatars to the audience, yet off the screen in our world, this same audience is regularly bombarded by media campaigns designed to endear HTT social scientists embedded with the military to an audience of the American people. The engineered inversions of audience sympathies for anthropologists resisting a military invasion in fiction, and pro-military-anthropologists in nonfiction is easily accomplished because the fictional world of a distant future is not pollinated with the forces of nationalism and jingoistic patriotism that permeate our world; a world where anything aligned with militarism is championed over the understanding of others (for reasons other than conquest). David Price is a member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologist. http://concerned.anthropologists.googlepages.com/home He is the author of Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, published by Duke University Press, and a contributor to the Network of Concerned Anthropologists? new book The Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual published last month by Prickly Paradigm Press. He can be reached at dprice ? a t ? stmartin . edu At a moment when the U.S. military decided it needed cultural expertise as much as smart bombs to prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon?s Counterinsurgency Field Manual offered a blueprint for mobilizing anthropologists for war. The Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual critiques that strategy and offers a blueprint for resistance. Written by the founders of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, the Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual explores the ethical and intellectual conflicts of the Pentagon?s Human Terrain System; argues that there are flaws in the Counterinsurgency Field Manual (ranging from plagiarism to a misunderstanding of anthropology); probes the increasing militarization of academic knowledge since World War II; identifies the next frontiers for the Pentagon?s culture warriors; and suggests strategies for resisting the deformation and exploitation of anthropological knowledge by the military... for anyone concerned that the human sciences are losing their way in an age of Empire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 4 17:19:45 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:19:45 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: [S] CREW Cuts: Top Ten Scandals, Sen. McCain Ethics Complaint, Settlement in Missing Emails Lawsuit and more... Message-ID: <00bc01ca8dad$1ec55d30$16ad57ca@jfos> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 CREW Cuts The Monthly Newsletter of CREW January 2010 // Issue No. 33 Headlines CREW Unveils Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009 CREW and Obama Admin. Reach Settlement in Lawsuit Over Missing Bush White House Emails CREW Files Ethics Complaint Against Sen. John McCain Over NRSC-Funded Robocalls CREW Urges Senate Ethics Committee to Enforce Ban on Secret Holds Spotlight Melanie Sloan Discusses CREW's Smoke Screen Report on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show As world leaders gathered at the U.N.'s Copenhagen summit on climate change, CREW's executive director Melanie Sloan went on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss Smoke Screen - CREW's new report documenting former Bush administration officials who seamlessly moved from the Bush White House's climate team to jobs in the energy industry. Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted - And Still Influence - America's Debate Over Climate Change lists at least 22 former officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) who later accepted positions representing powerful oil, gas and mining interests. Some of these former officials, such as former CEQ chief of staff Philip Cooney, were infamous for distorting the facts on climate change during the Bush years. Click here to watch the segment and click here to donate to CREW today. CREW Unveils Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009 On December 22, CREW released its third-annual roundup of the year's most outrageous ethical lapses in government - The Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009. The unranked list covers scandals in a variety of government agencies and legislative bodies, including: . the federal pay-czar who didn't stop the use of TARP funds for executive bonuses, . the likely gutting of the honest services fraud statute, . the ethical violations surrounding Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Gov. Mark Sanford's (R-SC) extramarital affairs, and . the total inaction of the House ethics committee. 2009 proved to be a busy year for ethics watchdogs - will 2010 be any better? CREW hardly expects the culture of corruption to vanish overnight, but we can always hope that spotlighting these misdeeds will remind public officials that someone is watching. Learn more Read CREW's Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009 report Read the Mother Jones story Back to Top ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- CREW and Obama Admin. Reach Settlement in Lawsuit over Missing Bush White House Emails On December 14, CREW and the Obama administration announced a settlement agreement in CREW's long-running lawsuit challenging the failure of the Bush White House and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to recover and properly archive millions of emails that had gone missing from White House servers over a two and a half year period. The settlement stipulates the Executive Office of the President (EOP) will restore a total of 94 days of missing emails, which will then be sent to NARA for preservation and, eventually, public access. CREW and the National Security Archive, which also filed a lawsuit, worked with the Obama administration to choose which dates' emails will be restored based on lowered volume and historic dates. In addition, the EOP will continue to provide CREW with documents relating to the discovery by the Bush White House in late 2005 of the missing emails and what, if any, steps the Bush administration took in response. Finally, the Obama administration now has in place an effective system for managing and preserving its emails. So far, documents released in the suit have shown the Bush White House unquestionably lied when it claimed there was no email archiving problem and, instead, ignored the crisis and knowingly allowed it to worsen. All documents CREW has received so far have been posted on www.governmentdocs.org for public review, and future documents will be added as CREW receives them. The Obama administration has lived up to its promise of openness and transparency by working with CREW to sort out this mess. Thanks to all involved parties, critical records of recent infamous chapters of our nation's history will be saved. Several questions remain, but this legal victory represents a great win for those who advocate for government accountability and transparency. Learn more Read the settlement agreement Review documents on www.govenmentdocs.org Read the Associated Press story Back to Top ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- CREW Files Ethics Complaint Against Sen. John McCain Over NRSC-Funded Robocalls On December 9, CREW sent a complaint to the Senate ethics committee requesting a full investigation of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). In direct violation of Senate Rule 38, Sen. McCain used funds provided by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) to pay for robocalls in four states in early December. The calls asked listeners to contact Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) to urge their support for Sen. McCain's motion to send the then-pending health care reform bill back to the Senate finance committee. This activity is unambiguously related to Sen. McCain's official duties: he engaged in grassroots lobbying to support his own motion. By using NRSC money to pay for these calls, Sen. McCain used an outside entity's funds to pay for expenses related to his official duties in violation of Rule 38. Senators cannot pick and choose when it is convenient for them to break or follow the rules. The Senate ethics committee must investigate this matter and hold Sen. McCain accountable for his actions. Learn more Read CREW's letter to the Senate ethics committee Read The Huffington Post story Back to Top ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- CREW Urges Senate Ethics Committee to Enforce Ban on Secert Holds On December 2, CREW sent a letter to the Senate ethics committee requesting an investigation into senators' continued use of "secret holds" despite a ban on the practice in a 2007 ethics reform bill. Senators often use holds to stall or block legislation and presidential nominations. Secret holds, which allow a senator to issue a hold anonymously, were banned by a provision of the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). Nevertheless, the practice has continued. CREW examined the Senate Calendar of Business in the two years following HLOGA's passage and found only two bills that had been flagged with notices of "intent to place a hold" as HLOGA requires. The hold that delayed Hilda Solis's nomination to be Secretary of Labor and the hold placed on a veterans health care bill, for example, were made anonymously - and therefore, improperly. Senators should follow the rules, but it is particularly ironic that they are ignoring a rule included in an ethics reform package enacted with great fanfare. Learn more Read CREW's letter to the Senate ethics committee Read the Roll Call story Read The New York Times editorial Back to Top ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- ? 2010 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. All rights reserved. Click here to unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 4 22:10:39 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:10:39 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Ridding America Of The Warmongers Message-ID: <01e001ca8dd1$a5a3fef0$16ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "The major goal, as Chalmers Johnson writes in "The Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt), is for Americans to "retake control of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies.(snip) "The time for preventive action is now," writes Francis Boyle in "Protesting Power,"(Rowan & Littlefield). Civil resistance is one important strategy. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial, and authoritarian regimes in former Communist countries throughout Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, Latin America, and recently in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to exercise people power here in the United States." ############################################ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24301.htm Ridding America Of The Warmongers By Sherwood Ross January 01, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Disgusted Americans who vote for politicians that talk peace yet, once elected, support wars, need to get active in between elections. Just voting every four years won't hack it. As MIT activist philosopher Noam Chomsky points out in his book "Failed States"(Metropolitan), "Opportunities for education and organizing abound. As in the past, rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or won by intermittent actions-attending a few demonstrations or pushing a lever in the personalized quadrennial extravaganzas that are depicted as 'democratic politics' .These tasks require dedicated day-by-day engagement." Failure to grasp these opportunities "is likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the world, and for future generations." The major goal, as Chalmers Johnson writes in "The Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt), is for Americans to "retake control of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies." He's right, of course America today is a warfare state, the most powerful ever, and its leaders lie when they claim that small countries half way around the world with $5 billion annual military budgets represent a threat to Washington, which spends roughly $800 billion a year for war. That's more, by the way, than the $780 billion all 50 state governments combined collected in 2008 to run the country. In his book, "House of War(Houghton Mifflin), James Carroll points out the Pentagon "exceeding agency and intention, has mutated into the great white whale of anarchy and destruction." One way to reform Congress is to stop elected officials from accepting donations, (i.e., bribes,) and instead to conduct their business exclusively with public funds. In "Free Lunch"(Portfolio), Pulitzer Prize-winner David Cay Johnston writes, "Let each member of Congress spend however much he or she deems necessary to do his or her job. If we can imbue representatives and senators with the power to make laws, surely we can give them the authority to manage their own expense accounts." Johnston explains, "This would come at a price: No more free trips, no more free meals, and no more gifts. Senator, if you need to inspect the cleanliness of the sink behind the bar at a resort in Tahiti, go right ahead, just give us the receipts with an explanation of the costs. We will collect the receipts from every elected representative monthly and post it all on the Internet in a format that makes for easy analysis." Johnston urges, "Every dollar, and every meeting, must be disclosed. And we will pay for it all, subject only to the usual penalties for embezzling, the punishments accorded by the full House or Senate because of their exclusive right to judge the fitness of members, or the decision by voters to oust a spendthrift." "The time for preventive action is now," writes Francis Boyle in "Protesting Power,"(Rowan & Littlefield). Civil resistance is one important strategy. People power can overcome power politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, dictatorial, and authoritarian regimes in former Communist countries throughout Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, Latin America, and recently in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to exercise people power here in the United States." Boyle explains that under the First Amendment, civil-resistance protesters are exercising their right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." He writes that amendment "does not require their assembly to be 'lawful' in a positivist technical sense, only that it be peaceable. Certainly ongoing criminal activity committed by officials of the U.S. government itself is the type of grievance the American people should have a right to petition for the redress of by means of civil resistance." David Swanson, author of "Daybreak,"(Seven Stories) suggests, "Work on what moves you, what would make a difference in your life and your family's life. Mobilize your community, your school, your clubs and organizations." Hundreds of peace-seeking organizations are listed at http://afterdowningstreet.org/coalition, he says. He warns, "As the Obama presidency advances, and the ones after it as well, we will see each abuse and distortion of power that has gone uncorrected further entrenched and established and quite possibly abused and expanded upon, unless we act." Chomsky in "Imperial Ambitions"(Metropolitan) writes that labor unions "are one of the few mechanisms by which ordinary people can get together and compensate for the concentration of capital and power. That's why the United States has a very violent labor history, with repeated efforts to destroy unions anytime they make any progress." Action required? Organize, for better wages and for peace. Another way to strengthen "people power" is to re-enfranchise the 5.3 million citizens "still barred from the polling stations because of some prior conviction," writes Greg Palast in "Armed Madhouse"(Plume). "The Right to Vote campaign is fighting this Soviet-style loss of citizenship. Notably, lifetime loss of citizenship is imposed by only seven states of the Old Confederacy under laws originally created at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan." Palast also urges citizens to check their voter registration. "Check online with your Secretary of State's office or call your County Board of Elections. Then register your girlfriend, your wife, your mailman, and your mommy. Contact Operation PUSH, the League of Women Voters, and your local party organization, and commit to a couple of days of door-to-door registration, especially in minority neighborhoods or at social service agency offices." Sherwood Ross formerly reported for major dailies and wire services. To contact him or contribute to his Anti-War News Service: sherwoodr1 @ yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Jan 4 22:48:21 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:48:21 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Ridding America Of The Warmongers In-Reply-To: <01e001ca8dd1$a5a3fef0$16ad57ca@jfos> References: <01e001ca8dd1$a5a3fef0$16ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <20100105064822.1DD4510ACF@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> What a great call to realistic action - Dion Giles At 14:10 05/01/2010, John Foster wrote: >Excerpt: "The major goal, as Chalmers Johnson writes in "The >Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt), is for Americans to "retake control >of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that >have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a >genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the >supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies.(snip) > >"The time for preventive action is now," writes Francis Boyle in >"Protesting Power,"(Rowan & Littlefield). Civil resistance is one >important strategy. People power can overcome power politics. >Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, >dictatorial, and authoritarian regimes in former Communist countries >throughout Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, Latin America, and >recently in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to exercise >people power here in the United States." > > >############################################ > >http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24301.htm > > Ridding America Of The Warmongers > > By Sherwood Ross > > January 01, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- > Disgusted Americans who vote for politicians that talk > peace yet, once elected, support wars, need to get active in > between elections. Just voting every four years won't hack it. > > As MIT activist philosopher Noam Chomsky points out in > his book "Failed States"(Metropolitan), "Opportunities for > education and organizing abound. As in the past, rights are not > likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or won by > intermittent actions-attending a few demonstrations or pushing a > lever in the personalized quadrennial extravaganzas that are > depicted as 'democratic politics' .These tasks require dedicated > day-by-day engagement." Failure to grasp these opportunities "is > likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the > world, and for future generations." > > The major goal, as Chalmers Johnson writes in "The > Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt), is for Americans to "retake control > of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that > have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a > genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the > supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies." > > He's right, of course America today is a warfare state, > the most powerful ever, and its leaders lie when they claim that > small countries half way around the world with $5 billion annual > military budgets represent a threat to Washington, which spends > roughly $800 billion a year for war. That's more, by the way, than > the $780 billion all 50 state governments combined collected in > 2008 to run the country. In his book, "House of War(Houghton > Mifflin), James Carroll points out the Pentagon "exceeding agency > and intention, has mutated into the great white whale of anarchy > and destruction." > > One way to reform Congress is to stop elected officials > from accepting donations, (i.e., bribes,) and instead to conduct > their business exclusively with public funds. In "Free > Lunch"(Portfolio), Pulitzer Prize-winner David Cay Johnston writes, > "Let each member of Congress spend however much he or she deems > necessary to do his or her job. If we can imbue representatives and > senators with the power to make laws, surely we can give them the > authority to manage their own expense accounts." > > Johnston explains, "This would come at a price: No more > free trips, no more free meals, and no more gifts. Senator, if you > need to inspect the cleanliness of the sink behind the bar at a > resort in Tahiti, go right ahead, just give us the receipts with an > explanation of the costs. We will collect the receipts from every > elected representative monthly and post it all on the Internet in a > format that makes for easy analysis." > > Johnston urges, "Every dollar, and every meeting, must > be disclosed. And we will pay for it all, subject only to the usual > penalties for embezzling, the punishments accorded by the full > House or Senate because of their exclusive right to judge the > fitness of members, or the decision by voters to oust a spendthrift." > > "The time for preventive action is now," writes Francis > Boyle in "Protesting Power,"(Rowan & Littlefield). Civil resistance > is one important strategy. People power can overcome power > politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, > dictatorial, and authoritarian regimes in former Communist > countries throughout Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, Latin > America, and recently in the Middle East. It is time for Americans > to exercise people power here in the United States." > > Boyle explains that under the First Amendment, > civil-resistance protesters are exercising their right "peaceably > to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of > grievances." He writes that amendment "does not require their > assembly to be 'lawful' in a positivist technical sense, only that > it be peaceable. Certainly ongoing criminal activity committed by > officials of the U.S. government itself is the type of grievance > the American people should have a right to petition for the redress > of by means of civil resistance." > > David Swanson, author of "Daybreak,"(Seven Stories) > suggests, "Work on what moves you, what would make a difference in > your life and your family's life. Mobilize your community, your > school, your clubs and organizations." Hundreds of peace-seeking > organizations are listed at > http://afterdowningstreet.org/coalition, he says. He warns, "As the > Obama presidency advances, and the ones after it as well, we will > see each abuse and distortion of power that has gone uncorrected > further entrenched and established and quite possibly abused and > expanded upon, unless we act." > > Chomsky in "Imperial Ambitions"(Metropolitan) writes > that labor unions "are one of the few mechanisms by which ordinary > people can get together and compensate for the concentration of > capital and power. That's why the United States has a very violent > labor history, with repeated efforts to destroy unions anytime they > make any progress." Action required? Organize, for better wages and for peace. > > Another way to strengthen "people power" is to > re-enfranchise the 5.3 million citizens "still barred from the > polling stations because of some prior conviction," writes Greg > Palast in "Armed Madhouse"(Plume). "The Right to Vote campaign is > fighting this Soviet-style loss of citizenship. Notably, lifetime > loss of citizenship is imposed by only seven states of the Old > Confederacy under laws originally created at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan." > > Palast also urges citizens to check their voter > registration. "Check online with your Secretary of State's office > or call your County Board of Elections. Then register your > girlfriend, your wife, your mailman, and your mommy. Contact > Operation PUSH, the League of Women Voters, and your local party > organization, and commit to a couple of days of door-to-door > registration, especially in minority neighborhoods or at social > service agency offices." > Sherwood Ross formerly reported for major dailies and > wire services. To contact him or contribute to his Anti-War News > Service: sherwoodr1 @ yahoo.com > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Provided by Australis >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Provided by Australis >http://www.australis.com.au/ > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4743 (20100104) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 4 23:00:27 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:00:27 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] The Spoils After Leaving Office Message-ID: <022801ca8dd4$c86c14b0$16ad57ca@jfos> >From The Sunday Times January 3, 2010 Tony Blair's ?1m-a-year paymaster seeks giant Iraqi oil deal Jon Ungoed-Thomas a.. 34 Comments Recommend? (18) (Jason DeCrow) Blair: consultancy role A Middle Eastern investment fund that pays Tony Blair about ?1m a year as an international adviser is in talks to develop one of Iraq's biggest oilfields. Mubadala, a United Arab Emirates investment firm, is in negotiations to join a consortium of western oil companies developing the Zubair oilfield in southern Iraq. More than ?6 billion of investment is required for the project. Blair has always insisted that the Iraq conflict was never linked to the country's vast oil reserves, but he was facing criticism this weekend over his role with Mubadala. The investment firm, which receives 80% of its revenues from oil and gas, intends to build the biggest oil company in the eastern hemisphere. It has been confirmed that Mubadala's oil and gas division is in talks with Occidental Petroleum, an American company, about sharing some of its stake in the Zubair deal, which is to be developed by a consortium headed by Eni, the Italian energy firm. The talks were confirmed to financial analysts in a public briefing by Ray Irani, Occidental's chief executive. Related Links a.. It's only Brits who don't appreciate me, says Blair a.. What Tony did next after Downing Street a.. A word in defence of phoney Tony Zubair is one of Iraq's largest oilfields, with four billion barrels of reserves. The Baghdad administration offered contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields to foreign companies for the first time last year and the Eni-led consortium has the preliminary go-ahead for the Zubair field. Ruth Tanner, the campaigns and policy director at War on Want, the anti-poverty charity based in London, said: "Foreign oil companies have been demanding that Iraq privatises its oil since the invasion. It is shocking news that rather than being held to account for his actions in Iraq, Tony Blair now appears to be profiting at the expense of the Iraqi people." Blair, who is due to give evidence to the Iraq inquiry by early February, is combining pro bono work in Africa with corporate consultancies and serving as an international peace envoy in the Middle East. These roles are generating the biggest fortune earned so far by a former British prime minister. Blair's consultancy roles with Mubadala, JP Morgan, Zurich Financial Services and the Kuwait government pay him at least ?6m a year. He also earns millions on the lecture circuit, with fees of as much as ?6,000 a minute. Asked about his roles with Mubadala and JP Morgan in a Sunday Times interview last month, Blair said: "Because I am travelling the world I can help to explain where I think politics is going." Mubadala already has oil and gas contracts in Libya, Kazakhstan and Bahrain. It is in partnership with Occidental in the operation of a gas pipeline from Oman to Qatar. Blair was accused of supporting the interests of the western oil companies with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but dismissed the allegations as a conspiracy theory. He proposed that oil revenues should be placed in a United Nations-administered fund for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The fund was initially administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and overseen by an advisory body with UN representatives. This body subsequently highlighted "inadequate controls" by the CPA. Funds were being stolen and oil was being smuggled illegally out of the country. After Saddam Hussein was deposed, western oil firms helped to draft a law under which they would have gained a strong role in controlling Iraq's huge reserves. This was defeated and the current deals are widely viewed as being more fair to the Iraqis, although some MPs in the country are highly critical of the contracts. Mubadala declined to comment on any talks, but said: "We are always looking for opportunities overseas and have an expertise in oil and gas." Occidental declined to comment. A spokesman for Blair said: "This is not an issue Tony Blair has had anything to do with." Your Comments Michael Guess wrote: Cicero summed up Blair perfectly back in Roman times when he said "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself." January 3, 2010 12:14 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (17) Report Abuse Permalink Chris Palmer wrote: It is ridiculous that we, the tax paying public, are stuck with the bill for providing this individual with security. Presumably it is to protect him from us! He earns more than enough to pay for his own security, and should be made to do so the day after the next general election. As for him being in any way a peace envoy in the middle east, this story shows his role up for the biased sham it is. January 3, 2010 10:42 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (22) Report Abuse Permalink Alan Barrett wrote: I assume,despite Blair's new found wealth,the taxpayer is paying the massive bill for personal bodyguards and 24/7 security allocated to the Blair family. January 3, 2010 10:16 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (12) Report Abuse Permalink ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 11165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 2291 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jomut at yahoo.com Tue Jan 5 12:06:52 2010 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:06:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: Tax refund of AUD $250.50. Message-ID: <902930.16138.qm@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut ? ? Hi, ? Just stumbled across this one in my mailbox.? Wanted to copy and paste it but soon discovered that the sender had disabled?both options, so I decided to forward it instead. ? Being a new recruit to Wall Street's lucratively wily way?of conducting business, I am hardly loath to accepting such unmerited offerings.? Please do not rat on me to the OZ authorities though! ? John ======================= --- On Sat, 1/2/10, Australian Taxation Office wrote: From: Australian Taxation Office Subject: Tax refund of AUD $250.50. To: admin at info.com Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 11:16 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gdy52150 at spiritone.com Tue Jan 5 14:32:20 2010 From: gdy52150 at spiritone.com (gdy52150 at spiritone.com) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:32:20 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Ridding America Of The Warmongers Message-ID: <201001052232.o05MWKrB023134@sapphire.spiritone.com> I'm afrasid there are too many wing nuts for anyything short of an armed revolution to work. Since the election there has been far too much money spent on ammunition. I've had gun dealer tell me of customers buying $4000 dollars of ammo at one time. Thats serious money for tyhe average wing nut and makes me think that alot of small corp ceos are stocking up This morning put salt in my coffee. I put my shoes on the wrong feet. I'm losin' my mind, I swear; It might be the death of me, But I don't care. Dion Giles wrote: > What a great call to realistic action - Dion Giles > > At 14:10 05/01/2010, John Foster wrote: > >Excerpt: "The major goal, as Chalmers Johnson writes in "The > >Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt), is for Americans to "retake control > >of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that > >have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a > >genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the > >supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies.(snip) > > > >"The time for preventive action is now," writes Francis Boyle in > >"Protesting Power,"(Rowan & Littlefield). Civil resistance is one > >important strategy. People power can overcome power politics. > >Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, > >dictatorial, and authoritarian regimes in former Communist countries > >throughout Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, Latin America, and > >recently in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to exercise > >people power here in the United States." > > > > > >############################################ > > > >http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24301.htm > > > > Ridding America Of The Warmongers > > > > By Sherwood Ross > > > > January 01, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- > > Disgusted Americans who vote for politicians that talk > > peace yet, once elected, support wars, need to get active in > > between elections. Just voting every four years won't hack it. > > > > As MIT activist philosopher Noam Chomsky points out in > > his book "Failed States"(Metropolitan), "Opportunities for > > education and organizing abound. As in the past, rights are not > > likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or won by > > intermittent actions-attending a few demonstrations or pushing a > > lever in the personalized quadrennial extravaganzas that are > > depicted as 'democratic politics' .These tasks require dedicated > > day-by-day engagement." Failure to grasp these opportunities "is > > likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the > > world, and for future generations." > > > > The major goal, as Chalmers Johnson writes in "The > > Sorrows of Empire"(Henry Holt), is for Americans to "retake control > > of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted election laws that > > have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a > > genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the > > supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies." > > > > He's right, of course America today is a warfare state, > > the most powerful ever, and its leaders lie when they claim that > > small countries half way around the world with $5 billion annual > > military budgets represent a threat to Washington, which spends > > roughly $800 billion a year for war. That's more, by the way, than > > the $780 billion all 50 state governments combined collected in > > 2008 to run the country. In his book, "House of War(Houghton > > Mifflin), James Carroll points out the Pentagon "exceeding agency > > and intention, has mutated into the great white whale of anarchy > > and destruction." > > > > One way to reform Congress is to stop elected officials > > from accepting donations, (i.e., bribes,) and instead to conduct > > their business exclusively with public funds. In "Free > > Lunch"(Portfolio), Pulitzer Prize-winner David Cay Johnston writes, > > "Let each member of Congress spend however much he or she deems > > necessary to do his or her job. If we can imbue representatives and > > senators with the power to make laws, surely we can give them the > > authority to manage their own expense accounts." > > > > Johnston explains, "This would come at a price: No more > > free trips, no more free meals, and no more gifts. Senator, if you > > need to inspect the cleanliness of the sink behind the bar at a > > resort in Tahiti, go right ahead, just give us the receipts with an > > explanation of the costs. We will collect the receipts from every > > elected representative monthly and post it all on the Internet in a > > format that makes for easy analysis." > > > > Johnston urges, "Every dollar, and every meeting, must > > be disclosed. And we will pay for it all, subject only to the usual > > penalties for embezzling, the punishments accorded by the full > > House or Senate because of their exclusive right to judge the > > fitness of members, or the decision by voters to oust a spendthrift." > > > > "The time for preventive action is now," writes Francis > > Boyle in "Protesting Power,"(Rowan & Littlefield). Civil resistance > > is one important strategy. People power can overcome power > > politics. Popular movements have succeeded in toppling tyrannical, > > dictatorial, and authoritarian regimes in former Communist > > countries throughout Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, Latin > > America, and recently in the Middle East. It is time for Americans > > to exercise people power here in the United States." > > > > Boyle explains that under the First Amendment, > > civil-resistance protesters are exercising their right "peaceably > > to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of > > grievances." He writes that amendment "does not require their > > assembly to be 'lawful' in a positivist technical sense, only that > > it be peaceable. Certainly ongoing criminal activity committed by > > officials of the U.S. government itself is the type of grievance > > the American people should have a right to petition for the redress > > of by means of civil resistance." > > > > David Swanson, author of "Daybreak,"(Seven Stories) > > suggests, "Work on what moves you, what would make a difference in > > your life and your family's life. Mobilize your community, your > > school, your clubs and organizations." Hundreds of peace-seeking > > organizations are listed at > > http://afterdowningstreet.org/coalition, he says. He warns, "As the > > Obama presidency advances, and the ones after it as well, we will > > see each abuse and distortion of power that has gone uncorrected > > further entrenched and established and quite possibly abused and > > expanded upon, unless we act." > > > > Chomsky in "Imperial Ambitions"(Metropolitan) writes > > that labor unions "are one of the few mechanisms by which ordinary > > people can get together and compensate for the concentration of > > capital and power. That's why the United States has a very violent > > labor history, with repeated efforts to destroy unions anytime they > > make any progress." Action required? Organize, for better wages and for peace. > > > > Another way to strengthen "people power" is to > > re-enfranchise the 5.3 million citizens "still barred from the > > polling stations because of some prior conviction," writes Greg > > Palast in "Armed Madhouse"(Plume). "The Right to Vote campaign is > > fighting this Soviet-style loss of citizenship. Notably, lifetime > > loss of citizenship is imposed by only seven states of the Old > > Confederacy under laws originally created at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan." > > > > Palast also urges citizens to check their voter > > registration. "Check online with your Secretary of State's office > > or call your County Board of Elections. Then register your > > girlfriend, your wife, your mailman, and your mommy. Contact > > Operation PUSH, the League of Women Voters, and your local party > > organization, and commit to a couple of days of door-to-door > > registration, especially in minority neighborhoods or at social > > service agency offices." > > Sherwood Ross formerly reported for major dailies and > > wire services. To contact him or contribute to his Anti-War News > > Service: sherwoodr1 @ yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Provided by Australis > >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Provided by Australis > >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >signature database 4743 (20100104) __________ > > > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > >http://www.eset.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Tue Jan 5 17:18:08 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:18:08 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: US Aid Tied to Purchase of Arms Message-ID: <00dd01ca8e6e$2573c010$12ad57ca@jfos> Published on Friday, January 1, 2010 by The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) US Aid Tied to Purchase of Arms by Anne Davies WASHINGTON - Just before Christmas, the US President, Barack Obama, signed into law one of his country's biggest aid pledges of the year. It was bound not for Africa or any of the many struggling countries on the World Bank's list. An Iraqi army soldier poses for a picture with his weapon during a mission in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, March 30, 2008. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Richard Del Vecchio) (www.army.mil) It was a deal for $US2.77 billion ($3 billion) to go to Israel in 2010 and a total of $US30 billion over the next decade. Israel is bound by the agreement to use 75 per cent of the aid to buy military hardware made in the US: in the crisis-racked US economy, those military factories are critical to many towns. For the first time the US is also providing $US500 million to the Palestinian Authority, including $US100 million to train security forces, under the strict proviso that the authority's leadership recognises Israel. For many years Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid, followed by Egypt ($US1.75 billion), which also receives most of its assistance in tied military aid. The Congressional Research Service says that the US spent 17 per cent of its total aid budget - or $US5.1 billion - on military aid in 2008, of which $US4.7 billion was grants to enable governments to receive equipment from the US. The lion's share of political and strategic aid to Iraq and Afghanistan comes from separate funds and from the defence budget. Between 2003 and last year $US49 billion was poured into Iraq through the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund and the defence budget. The Afghanistan program over the same period consisted of $US11 billion in traditional foreign aid and another $US15 billion in defence funds. Under the Obama Administration, this year's aid budget has been increased by 10 per cent to nearly $US50 billion to support his counter-terrorism strategy. Assistance to Pakistan was recently tripled, with an additional $US1.5 billion a year for the next five years. The author of the bill, Senator John Kerry, said it would ''build a relationship with the people [of Pakistan] to show that what we want is a relationship that meets their interests and needs''. But officials at the US embassy in Islamabad have alleged that Pakistan has diverted elsewhere 70 per cent of the $US9 billion in military assistance paid since 2001. The Obama Administration is finding that other expensive fronts are emerging in the fight against terrorism, the latest being Yemen. In the 2010 fiscal year US development and security assistance to Yemen is expected to rise 56 per cent to $US63 million. But this does not include so-called 1206 Pentagon counter-terrorism funds. Last year Yemen received $US67 million of those, up from just $US5 million. After the events of the past week or so, countries like Yemen are highly likely to receive significantly more this year. Copyright ? 2010. Fairfax Digital ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 11701 bytes Desc: not available URL: From siamdave at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 5 17:35:05 2010 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:35:05 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] maybe not! (Re: Fw: Tax refund of AUD $250.50. In-Reply-To: <902930.16138.qm@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <902930.16138.qm@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201001060835050265.000F1321@smtp.totisp.net> Hi John, And hope you all have a good new year in sunny Australia. I am never sure how firmly your tongue is planted in your cheek sometimes, but in case it's not in this case, I would advise you to be very careful about responding to emails such as this one purporting to be from the Aus gov - it has all the earmarks of a 'phishing' email, in which someone is trying to get you to give over information about your email account somewhere to use for nefarious purposes. If you are not sure, you might just get on your browser and go directly to the Aus gov tax department, and see what they have to say about small windfall tax refunds such as this - my expectation is that you will find nothing. Dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10-01-05 at 12:06 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut Hi, Just stumbled across this one in my mailbox. Wanted to copy and paste it but soon discovered that the sender had disabled both options, so I decided to forward it instead. Being a new recruit to Wall Street's lucratively wily way of conducting business, I am hardly loath to accepting such unmerited offerings. Please do not rat on me to the OZ authorities though! John ======================= --- On Sat, 1/2/10, Australian Taxation Office wrote: From: Australian Taxation Office Subject: Tax refund of AUD $250.50. To: admin at info.com Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 11:16 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Tue Jan 5 17:39:10 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:39:10 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A__The_Pictures_of_War_You_Aren=27t?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_Supposed_to_See?= Message-ID: <012901ca8e71$26cc91f0$12ad57ca@jfos> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/04-1 Excerpt: "Look beyond the nationalist cant used to justify war. Look beyond the seduction of the weapons and the pornography of violence. Look beyond Barack Obama's ridiculous rhetoric about finishing the job or fighting terror. Focus on the evil of war. War begins by calling for the annihilation of the others but ends ultimately in self-annihilation. It corrupts souls and mutilates bodies. It destroys homes and villages and murders children on their way to school. It grinds into the dirt all that is tender and beautiful and sacred." Published on Monday, January 4, 2010 by TruthDig.com The Pictures of War You Aren't Supposed to See by Chris Hedges War is brutal and impersonal. It mocks the fantasy of individual heroism and the absurdity of utopian goals like democracy. In an instant, industrial warfare can kill dozens, even hundreds of people, who never see their attackers. The power of these industrial weapons is indiscriminate and staggering. They can take down apartment blocks in seconds, burying and crushing everyone inside. They can demolish villages and send tanks, planes and ships up in fiery blasts. The wounds, for those who survive, result in terrible burns, blindness, amputation and lifelong pain and trauma. No one returns the same from such warfare. And once these weapons are employed all talk of human rights is a farce. In Peter van Agtmael's "2nd Tour Hope I don't Die" and Lori Grinker's "Afterwar: Veterans From a World in Conflict," two haunting books of war photographs, we see pictures of war which are almost always hidden from public view. These pictures are shadows, for only those who go to and suffer from war can fully confront the visceral horror of it, but they are at least an attempt to unmask war's savagery. "Over ninety percent of this soldier's body was burned when a roadside bomb hit his vehicle, igniting the fuel tank and burning two other soldiers to death," reads the caption in Agtmael's book next to a photograph of the bloodied body of a soldier in an operating room. "His camouflage uniform dangled over the bed, ripped open by the medics who had treated him on the helicopter. Clumps of his skin had peeled away, and what was left of it was translucent. He was in and out of consciousness, his eyes stabbing open for a few seconds. As he was lifted from the stretcher to the ER bed, he screamed 'Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Daddy,' then 'Put me to sleep, please put me to sleep.' There was another photographer in the ER, and he leaned his camera over the heads of the medical staff to get an overhead shot. The soldier yelled, 'Get that fucking camera out of my face.' Those were his last words. I visited his grave one winter afternoon six months later," Agtmael writes, "and the scene of his death is never far from my thoughts." "There were three of us inside, and the jeep caught fire," Israeli soldier Yossi Arditi, quoted in Grinker's book, says of the moment when a Molotov cocktail exploded in his vehicle. "The fuel tank was full and it was about to explode, my skin was hanging from my arms and face-but I didn't lose my head. I knew nobody could get inside to help me, that my only way out was through the fire to the doors. I wanted to take my gun, but I couldn't touch it because my hands were burning." [To see long excerpts from "Afterwar" and to read an introduction written by Chris Hedges, click here.] Arditi spent six months in the hospital. He had surgery every two or three months, about 20 operations, over the next three years. Filmic and most photographic images of war are shorn of the heart-pounding fear, awful stench, deafening noise and exhaustion of the battlefield. Such images turn confusion and chaos, the chief element of combat, into an artful war narrative. They turn war into porn. Soldiers and Marines, especially those who have never seen war, buy cases of beer and watch movies like "Platoon," movies meant to denounce war, and as they do so revel in the despicable power of the weapons shown. The reality of violence is different. Everything formed by violence is senseless and useless. It exists without a future. It leaves behind nothing but death, grief and destruction. Chronicles of war, such as these two books, that eschew images and scenes of combat begin to capture war's reality. War's effects are what the state and the press, the handmaiden of the war makers, work hard to keep hidden. If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be harder to embrace the myth of war. If we had to stand over the mangled corpses of the eight schoolchildren killed in Afghanistan a week ago and listen to the wails of their parents we would not be able to repeat clich?s about liberating the women of Afghanistan or bringing freedom to the Afghan people. This is why war is carefully sanitized. This is why we are given war's perverse and dark thrill but are spared from seeing war's consequences. The mythic visions of war keep it heroic and entertaining. And the press is as guilty as Hollywood. During the start of the Iraq war, television reports gave us the visceral thrill of force and hid from us the effects of bullets, tank rounds, iron fragmentation bombs and artillery rounds. We tasted a bit of war's exhilaration, but were protected from seeing what war actually does. The wounded, the crippled and the dead are, in this great charade, swiftly carted off stage. They are war's refuse. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they tell is too painful for us to hear. We prefer to celebrate ourselves and our nation by imbibing the myth of glory, honor, patriotism and heroism, words that in combat become empty and meaningless. And those whom fate has decreed must face war's effects often turn and flee. Saul Alfaro, who lost his legs in the war in El Salvador, speaks in Grinker's book about the first and final visit from his girlfriend as he lay in an army hospital bed. "She had been my girlfriend in the military and we had planned to be married," he says. "But when she saw me in the hospital-I don't know exactly what happened, but later they told me when she saw me she began to cry. Afterwards, she ran away and never came back." The public manifestations of gratitude are reserved for veterans who dutifully read from the script handed to them by the state. The veterans trotted out for viewing are those who are compliant and palatable, those we can stand to look at without horror, those who are willing to go along with the lie that war is about patriotism and is the highest good. "Thank you for your service," we are supposed to say. They are used to perpetuate the myth. We are used to honor it. Gary Zuspann, who lives in a special enclosed environment in his parent's home in Waco, Texas, suffering from Gulf War syndrome, speaks in Grinker's book of feeling like "a prisoner of war" even after the war had ended. "Basically they put me on the curb and said, okay, fend for yourself," he says in the book. "I was living in a fantasy world where I thought our government cared about us and they take care of their own. I believed it was in my contract, that if you're maimed or wounded during your service in war, you should be taken care of. Now I'm angry." I went back to Sarajevo after covering the 1990s war for The New York Times and found hundreds of cripples trapped in rooms in apartment blocks with no elevators and no wheelchairs. Most were young men, many without limbs, being cared for by their elderly parents, the glorious war heroes left to rot. Despair and suicide grip survivors. More Vietnam veterans committed suicide after the war than were killed during it. The inhuman qualities drilled into soldiers and Marines in wartime defeat them in peacetime. This is what Homer taught us in "The Iliad," the great book on war, and "The Odyssey," the great book on the long journey to recovery by professional killers. Many never readjust. They cannot connect again with wives, children, parents or friends, retreating into personal hells of self-destructive anguish and rage. "They program you to have no emotion-like if somebody sitting next to you gets killed you just have to carry on doing your job and shut up," Steve Annabell, a British veteran of the Falklands War, says to Grinker. "When you leave the service, when you come back from a situation like that, there's no button they can press to switch your emotions back on. So you walk around like a zombie. They don't deprogram you. If you become a problem they just sweep you under the carpet." "To get you to join up they do all these advertisements-they show people skiing down mountains and doing great things-but they don't show you getting shot at and people with their legs blown off or burning to death," he says. "They don't show you what really happens. It's just bullshit. And they never prepare you for it. They can give you all the training in the world, but it's never the same as the real thing." Those with whom veterans have most in common when the war is over are often those they fought. "Nobody comes back from war the same," says Horacio Javier Benitez, who fought the British in the Falklands and is quoted in Grinker's book. "The person, Horacio, who was sent to war, doesn't exist anymore. It's hard to be enthusiastic about normal life; too much seems inconsequential. You contend with craziness and depression." "Many who served in the Malvinas," he says, using the Argentine name of the islands, "committed suicide, many of my friends." "I miss my family," reads a wall graffito captured in one of Agtmael's photographs. "Please God forgive the lives I took and let my family be happy if I don't go home again." Next to the plea someone had drawn an arrow toward the words and written in thick, black marker "Fag!!!" Look beyond the nationalist cant used to justify war. Look beyond the seduction of the weapons and the pornography of violence. Look beyond Barack Obama's ridiculous rhetoric about finishing the job or fighting terror. Focus on the evil of war. War begins by calling for the annihilation of the others but ends ultimately in self-annihilation. It corrupts souls and mutilates bodies. It destroys homes and villages and murders children on their way to school. It grinds into the dirt all that is tender and beautiful and sacred. It empowers human deformities-warlords, Shiite death squads, Sunni insurgents, the Taliban, al-Qaida and our own killers-who can speak only in the despicable language of force. War is a scourge. It is a plague. It is industrial murder. And before you support war, especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, look into the hollow eyes of the men, women and children who know it. ? 2010 TruthDig.com Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 58497 bytes Desc: not available URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Jan 5 18:26:27 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:26:27 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Why they let the bomber board the plane Message-ID: <20100106022628.A4E79F28E@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> The US secret police, in cahoots with the British securocrats, stood back and let a known and identified terrorist enter an airliner intending to kill everyone on board - with instructions to make sure it happened just before reaching Detroit. These are the same secret political police that rigorously enforced watch lists and no fly orders on decent people identified as political dissidents. At http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16786 ,William Engdahl traces the imperial ambitions behind this psy-op. Editing is needed, and Global Research doesn't seem to have heard of line breaks for readability, but there is a lot of information for reference in the article. Dion Giles From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Jan 6 15:05:28 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:05:28 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: [S] Working Stiffs, Union Maids, Reds, and Riffraff Message-ID: <00e401ca8f24$bd423d70$11ad57ca@jfos> Working Stiffs, Union Maids, Reds, and Riffraff by Tom Zaniello This wonderful book is an encyclopedic guide to 350 labor films from around the world, ranging from those you?ve heard of -- Salt of the Earth, The Grapes of Wrath, Roger & Me -- to those you?ve never heard of but will fall in love with once you see them. Zaniello describes all the films in detail, tells you whether they?re available for rental or purchase, and, if so, where. Fiction and nonfiction, the films are about unions, labor history, working-class life, political movements, and the struggle between labor and capital. Each entry includes critical commentary, production data, cast list, suggested related films, and annotated references to books and Web sites for further reading. This most recent edition, published in 2003, addresses both historical and contemporary films and features documentaries and hard-to-find information about agitprop and union-financed films. ?With close attention to detail, Tom Zaniello has created a long overdue guide to films that tell entertaining and heartfelt stories of working people -- stories that are as vital today as ever before. It would take years to find all the information contained in this one book. [It is] a wonderful compilation of hidden treasures for audiences everywhere.? BARBARA KOPPLE, FILMMAKER 434 pages paperback On 06/01/2010, ...Labourstart is very pleased to be co-sponsoring the online labor film database together with the DC Labor Film Fest. https://laborfilms.dabbledb.com/page/laborfilms/ePjMknLk# This extraordinary resource includes no fewer than 1,465 union films and videos; it's a fantastic resource for trade unionists everywhere and we should all be grateful to Chris Garlock and the Washington DC Metro Labor Council for putting this together. We're also now co-sponsoring the online labor film festival site, now featuring thirty such festivals around the world -- featuring festivals in Argentina, Canada, Ireland, Korea, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, and the USA. http://www.dclabor.org/ht/d/ProgramDetails/i/23256/pid/46784 https://laborfilms.dabbledb.com/page/laborfilms/oohjaYNX# You can help keep this list up-to-date and inclusive by emailing cgarlock at dclabor dot org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Jan 6 17:29:12 2010 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:29:12 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: Left unity in Australia, Le Blanc on Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Copenhagen, Fifth International, Dennis Brutus, Muslims in Australia Message-ID: <4B4538E8.5060702@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Left unity in Australia, Le Blanc on Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Copenhagen, Fifth International, Dennis Brutus, Muslims in Australia * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Australia: New era of left unity as DSP votes to merge with the Socialist Alliance [The following speech, to the opening rally of the seventh national conference of the Socialist Alliance on January 2, 2010, was delivered by Peter Boyle, former national secretary of the Democratic Socialist Perspective .] Comrades, My job tonight is to make the unusual - if not unexpected - announcement that the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) decided today at its 24th congress to effectively dissolve into the Socialist Alliance and to transfer all that it has built up, over some four decades of its existence, to the Socialist Alliance. * Read more `Second assassination' of Trotsky -- Paul Le Blanc reviews Robert Service's biography of Trotsky Trotsky: A Biography By Robert Service Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009 600 pages December 25, 2009 -- Robert Service has written, to great acclaim, a new biography of Leon Trotsky. "Trotsky moved like a bright comet across the political sky," Service tells us. Along with Lenin and other leaders of the Russian Revolution associated with the Bolshevik - soon renamed Communist - party, "he first came to global attention in 1917. ... He lived a life full of drama played out with the world as his stage. The October Revolution changed the course of history, and Trotsky had a prominent role in the transformation. ... There is no denying Trotsky's exceptional qualities. He was an outstanding speaker, organizer and leader." ( * Read more Copenhagen: Why the West tries to blame China and the poor for COP15 fiasco By Roy Wilkes December 27, 2009 -- Something rotten happened in Denmark. The fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP15), in which so many had invested so much hope, began as farce and ended in tragedy. Anyone who still had the faintest illusion that the climate crisis could be resolved within capitalism has now seen it fatally dashed against the rocks of Copenhagen. Of course, our rulers cannot blame themselves for this fiasco. So, who then is to blame? "China", screams a furious Ed Milliband [the British Labour government's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change] upon his return to London, with the media machine joining the chorus. Blame China! Blame Venezuela! Blame the poor countries who obstructed "The Deal"! Blame the victims who dared to ask for a 1.5 degree C limit, those unrealistic fools who dared to ask to be allowed to live. * Read more Labour Party Pakistan endorses Fifth Socialist International process The Labour Party Pakistan's National Committee meeting on December 26-27, 2009, held in Islamabad agreed to endorse the declaration for the fifth international. The LPP leadership discussed in detail the different aspects of the declaration and found in agreement on the issues. * Read more Troubadour politics: How Dennis Brutus maintained 'stubborn hope' By Patrick Bond January 1, 2010 -- World-renowned political organiser and one of Africa's most celebrated poets, Dennis Vincent Brutus, died early on December 26 in Cape Town, in his sleep, aged 85. Poetry and Protest: A Dennis Brutus Reader is the title of the autobiographical sketches and verse published in 2006 by Haymarket Books of Chicago and the University of KwaZulu-Natal Press. What links these aspects of your life, I once asked the itinerant Dennis Brutus, and he replied, "The role of the troubadour." * Read more Rosa Luxemburg and Marxist politics By Graham Milner Rosa Luxemburg (1870-1919) is one of the greatest figures ever produced by the international socialist movement. Her contribution, as theorist and activist, deserves to be recognised and celebrated by the newer generations of socialist activists who have become involved in the movement in recent decades. Those of us who have been involved in the socialist left for rather longer may also benefit from a critical review of the achievements of this great woman. * Read more People's power in Copenhagen December 30, 2009 -- Green Left Weekly writer and Australian Socialist Alliance climate change activist Simon Butler talks about the the Copenhagen climate talks with Radio Adelaide's Backstory. * Read more Australia: How governments and the capitalist media marginalise the Muslim community By Helen Patterson December 15, 2009 -- The antipathy of mainstream Australian society toward Muslims is not a new development. As early as 1912, Australians were being cautioned about the danger of Australia falling under Islamic control. The adoption of camel transport had brought Muslim men from Afghanistan to Australia in increasing numbers from 1860 until they controlled the camel transport business. Despite their valuable contribution to the expeditions carried out by the European "explorers" and their vital role in establishing a transport system in the harsh outback conditions, the early Muslim immigrants were considered inferior to the dominant, white, Christian Europeans and marginalised in a similar way to the detribalised Aboriginal community. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 7 05:18:51 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:18:51 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Canada's PM prorogues parliament again [ Comedian Rick Mercer on 'prorogue Harper'] Message-ID: <4B45A6FB.22547.28960611@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Dear All: Neocon libertarian PM Stephen Harper's latest tactic in defying, decrying and denying democracy is proroguing our Parliament until mid- March after the Olympics are over - just a year since he prorogued Parliament to avoid combined opposition parties from taking over government so bad had his tenure as Minority government leader been at that time. This recent prorogation ostensibly was to give his government time to prepare a new agenda for 2010 in difficult economic times after less than a year since his last throne speech and budget. All the while he sidesteps embarrassing questions from the opposition about the scandalous behaviour of his government's allowing of Afghan prisoners to be turned over to Afghan police in 2006 knowing they would be tortured, sidesteps difficult questions about the 'tar sands' and climate change after a less than stellar performace in Copenhagen and gets to bask on the international stage as host of the Winter Olympic Games in British Colombia which will serve as a counterbalance to his otherwise dismal international reputation in regard to Copenhagen, China, Afghanistan and disdain for the UN etc etc This is almost the last straw in regard to a long list of Harper's anti-democratic actions from gagging his Cabinet Ministers, muzzling the media, shutting down parliamentary committees, maligning oppositin leaders with attack ads, cutting back funds for public broadcasting, denying freedom of information, cutting off funding for major human rights and social justice groups, and even threatening to cut off funding for political parties which was what rallied opposition parties to form a coalition to defeat his government in the fall of 2008 which led him to ask the Governor General if he could prorogue parliament which permission she granted as she has again done in December of 2009. Canadians are finally asking is this the 'tipping point' ? Comedian Rick Mercer hits the nail on the head in responding to this latest anti-democratic move of Harpers. fyi-janet =================== http://www.rickmercer.com/blog/index.cfm/2010/1/5/22-Days-of-Snow- Days RickMercer.com Days of Snow Days Posted At : January 5, 2010 5:35 PM There's a very good reason why the word prorogue doesn't come up that often in our society. Why would it? The word has absolutely no resonance with anyone in Canada because the notion that you can shut down anything for months at a time is a total fantasy. That's the thing about life; it's relentless. If you are an adult, and live in the real world, proroguing isn't on the agenda in much the same way levitating isn't. God knows I love the idea of proroguing. Everyone in Canada has lay in bed and prayed for the elusive snow day. The idea that while you slept the heavens opened up and dumped so much snow on the ground that the front door can't open and the school bus just can't come. We all remember snow days and that glorious feeling that the deadlines, the tests, the irritating people, the routine and the responsibilities could be avoided for one entire magnificent day with no consequences whatsoever. And if you didn't do your homework, or you were heading into what you knew was going to be a world of hurt, a snow day meant you dodged the bullet. But snow days happen to children. If you are an adult it doesn't matter how much snow falls you still have to get to work and you still have to shovel the walk. Snow days don't apply to adults unless you happen to be the prime minister of Canada, who with one phone call has the ability to give every member of parliament two months off. We elect these men and women to travel to Ottawa and represent us in the House of Commons. Well forget that notion. That is old fashioned and democratic. Welcome to Canada 2010 - we embark on a brand new decade as a country that has taxation without representation. It is ironic that while our parliament has been suspended we are a nation at war. On New Year's Eve we greeted the news that five Canadians were killed in a single day with sadness but not surprise. We are at war because ostensibly we are helping bring democracy to Afghanistan. How the mission is progressing is open for debate but this much is certain - at present there is a parliament in Afghanistan that it is very much open for business. Canada has no such institution. In Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's government faces fierce opposition at every turn; many of his cabinet choices have been rejected in a secret ballot by the more than 200 parliamentarians that sit in the legislature. Simply closing parliament down and operating without their consent is not an option for Hamid Karzai; to do so would be blatantly undemocratic or at the very least downright Canadian. If Hamid Karzai suspended parliament on a whim we might be forced to ask why Canadians are dying to bring democracy to that country. Stephen Harper doesn't have that problem. The Parliament of Canada has been suspended for no other reason than the prime minister simply can't be bothered with the relentless checks and balances that democracy affords us. He doesn't want to have to stand in the House of Commons and hear anyone question him on any subject. I don't blame him. Parliament is filled with jackals, opportunists and boors. The problem is, like it or not, they were elected. I also don't blame the Prime Minister for wanting to keep his ministers out of the spotlight. This is a prime minister who could argue he is Canada's greenest PM simply because he's the only one who has gone out of his way to give potted plants key portfolios. The problem is he is the one who appointed Cabinet and like it or not they are supposed to be accountable. A minister's job is not to hide in their riding; it is to be accountable in Ottawa - or at least that was the promise. This prime minister has gone from the promise of an open, accessible and accountable government to a government that is simply closed. It is too bad that prorogation isn't something that our soldiers have in their arsenal. When faced with the order to head out on a foot patrol in the Panjwaii district of southern Afghanistan, to risk their lives to bring democracy to that place, wouldn't it be nice if they could simply prorogue and roll over and go back to sleep. Soldiers don't get that luxury. That is afforded only to the people who ultimately order them to walk down those dangerous dusty roads in the first place. From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Thu Jan 7 13:56:35 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:56:35 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: International Terror Levels Message-ID: <00b401ca8fe4$4833cbf0$72ad57ca@jfos> FW: NO OFFENCE MEANT - yeah right Something to make you laugh The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross " The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance warning level was during the great fire of 1666. The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the frontline in the British army for the last 300 years. The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides." The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose". Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels . The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy. Americans meanwhile are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their allies, just in case. New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". Due to continuing defense cutbacks (the airforce being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "Shit, I hope Austrulia will come end rescue us". In the event of invasion, New Zealanders will be asked to gather together in a strategic defensive position called "Bondi". Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to She'll be all right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!', I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level \ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Thu Jan 7 14:39:15 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:39:15 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: International Terror Levels In-Reply-To: <00b401ca8fe4$4833cbf0$72ad57ca@jfos> References: <00b401ca8fe4$4833cbf0$72ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <20100107223925.3247616101E6@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> This is priceless John. Reminds me of the European wartime joke about the "Three most useless things on Earth": Men's breasts The Pope's "manhood" The Italian army, Cheers, Ed. At 01:56 PM 07/01/2010, you wrote: >Something to make you laugh > > >The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist >threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to >"Peeved." Soon, though >security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross >" The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea >supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome >to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance >warning level was during the great fire of 1666. > >The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the >Bastards" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have >been used on the frontline in the British army for the last 300 years. > >The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror >alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are >Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire >that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the >country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a >heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout >loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels >remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides." > >The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to >Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: >"Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose". > >Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only >threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels . > >The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. >These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy >can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy. > >Americans meanwhile are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their >allies, just in case. > >New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". >Due to continuing defense cutbacks (the airforce being a squadron of spotty >teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in the Prime >Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which >is "Shit, I hope Austrulia will come end rescue us". In the event of >invasion, New Zealanders will be asked to gather together in a strategic >defensive position called "Bondi". > >Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to >She'll be all right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!', >I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is >cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final >escalation level > > > > >\ >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.129/2605 - Release Date: >01/06/10 23:35:00 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 7 15:49:58 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:49:58 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Growing movement vs 'Pro rogue' Harper's assault on democracy [ Summary of 6 items, Jan 7 ] Message-ID: <4B463AE6.6472.2AD7D419@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Dear All: Below you will find a summary and links to latest media coverage against Stephen Harper's proroguing of Parliament with a challenge to join the movement. Social justice and democracy expert and advocate from Ryerson University - Judy Rebick provides an excellent overview of the many signs of a growing movement against Harper's latest move to stifle and stymie parliamentary procedure and to deny and defy democracy in this country. As she notes it seems to be akin to the grassroots opposition to Elizabeth May's initial exclusion from the Leader's debate last year, and the brief but powerful grassroots organizing that supported the coalition [to unseat Harper in 2008] , but it seems to be much broader and more powerful. And what's more she notes it has media support, which is rare for any grassroots opposition to anything these days.... The Toronto Star is on what looks like a campaign against it. And columnists and op-ed writers are filling up pages with denunciations of Harper's various assaults on democracy. [1] CBC Comedian Rick Mercer satirizes Harper's prorogation in "Days of Snow Days" where he says that snow days only happen to children. "If you are an adult it doesn't matter how much snow falls you still have to get to work and you still have to shovel the walk. Snow days don't apply to adults unless you happen to be the prime minister of Canada, who with one phone call has the ability to give every member of parliament two months off. "We elect these men and women to travel to Ottawa and represent us in the House of Commons. Well forget that notion. That is old fashioned and democratic. Welcome to Canada 2010 - we embark on a brand new decade as a country that has taxation without representation. " "This prime minister has gone from the promise of an open, accessible and accountable government to a government that is simply closed. " [2] Even the influential "Economist' has chimed in according to the Globe and Mail's "The Economist vents spleen on PM's decision to prorogue" "Mr. Harper?s move looks like naked self-interest," the magazine said in a strongly-worded editorial entitled Harper Goes Prorogue that accompanied a longer story on the Canadian Parliamentary suspension. "A gathering storm of media criticism has extended even to the Calgary Herald, the main newspaper in his political home city, which denounced him for `a cynical political play?" said the story, pointing out that there are a host of demonstrations planned across Canada for the Saturday before Parliament was due to return following the Christmas break. Proroguing Parliament twice in two years sets what many constitutionalists say is a dangerous precedent, the magazine said. [3] An editorial in today's Globe and Mail 'tactical diminishment' criticized Mr. Harper's statement in a recent CBC interview that proroguing Parliament was a "fairly standard procedure," and a "routine constitutional matter" noting that the manner of the prorogation, and its effect, are neither standard or routine. His actions, they said constitute an insult to Parliament, including to Governor-General Micha?lle Jean, and can serve only to diminish Canada's national institutions. It is a high price to pay for a minor tactical convenience. [4] A 5th piece also from the Globe and Mail "Prorogation 'has hit a nerve' " looks at two recent polls both of which indicate that Harper's proroguing of Parliament does not sit well with Canadians. "An EKOS poll conducted after Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced last week that Parliament would be suspended until March shows support for the Conservatives falling. The poll of 1,744 Canadians, conducted on Jan. 4 and Jan. 5, suggests that just 33.1 per cent of voters would mark their ballots for the Conservatives if the election were held this week. The poll shows that the Tory lead over the Liberals, which was as high as 15 percentage points in October, is now about 5. "Those are the worst numbers we?ve seen for them in at least six months," EKOS president Frank Graves said in a telephone interview. Meanwhile, an Angus Reid online poll also released Thursday suggests that the move has been rejected even by Conservative supporters. Mr. Harper and his party "must be hearing footsteps," the pollster said. "Instead of pondering how their majority is going to work out, they are closer to sitting on the other side of the House." [5] See also http://citizensfordemocracy.ca/ for updates on this growing movement and sign the petition there [6] Petition: Whereas Canadians elected Parliament to work and debate issues important to us and ensure proper checks and balances on the government; Whereas Stephen Harper suspended Parliament in late December until March 3rd and in effect denied Canadians a functioning democracy; Whereas Stephen Harper?s actions are against Canada?s principles of democracy and accountability; We the undersigned Canadians demand that our Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Members of Parliament get back to work on January 25th on issues important to Canada and uphold principles of democracy and accountability. Sincerely, Undersigned http://citizensfordemocracy.ca/ - and check out locations for the January 23rd Rallies across Canada: Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament - Rally Saturday, January 23, 2010 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm Various Locations Across Canada See http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=227662474562&ref=ts Specific details for each city to follow soon, details are being coordinated. Halifax, NS, Toronto, ON, Ottawa, ON, Hamilton, ON, Kitchener- Waterloo, ON, Whitby/Oshawa, ON, Montreal, QC, Winnipeg, MB, Saskatoon, SK, Edmonton, AB, Vancouver, BC, Victoria, BC As Rebick says "Growing public opposition to Harper shutting down Parliament is being felt at every level of Canadian society. Whatever you are doing, whatever your issue, however cynical you may be about electoral politics, please join this profound grassroots rebellion against Stephen Harper's assault on democracy." So get on line, blog, twitter, e-mail, petition, protest, write letter to editors, MPs, leaders etc. Forward this to friends, family , e-mail lists. A tipping point has been reached and it is time for the citizens of Canada to lead the charge in the routing this rogue from Parliament. all the best, janet p.s It should be noted that this latest tactic of Harper's is part of an on-going and deepening disdain he has shown for democratic procedures and Parliamentary process and traditions some of which include: [] Gagging of his own MPs as well as bureaucratic officials [] Muzzling the media -refusing to give press conferences for the parliamentary press gallery [] making it increasingly difficult for media and citizens to access information [] shutting down parliamentary committees [] producing a manual for his MPs on how to obstruct and disrupt parliamentary committees for partisan advantage [] attacking opposition with maligning ads [] cutting off funding for social justice and human rights groups, feminist, anti-poverty, legal aid, peace groups [] attempting to cut off funding for political parties [] Resorting to proroguing parliament 2008 to stop a coalition of opposition parties from potentially forming government [] has been unfair and undemocratic in failing to engage with opposition and NGOs to define authentic climate change policies commensurate with the potentialy catastrophic events threatening eco- systems, the planet, citizens in drought ridden states, and citizens and ecosystems of many islands and low-lying states and cities. [] continuing support for global economic and free trade polices that override and emasculate democratically achieved legislation put in place to protect citizens and the environment. He continues to sign on to bi-lateral Free Trade Agreements the most egregious being with Colombia [ off the table for now with prorogation] and most recently is attempting, without any public discussion, to push NAFTA -like measures such as Ch 11 investor rights disciplines into interprovincial agreements under the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and TILMA the Trade Investment, Labour and Mobility Agreement as well as attempting to make NAFTA apply to sub-national governments in the proposed Can - EU FTA. These agreements tilt at the very heart of democracy and open the way for corporate challenges to legislation put in place at the provincial and municipal level to protect us and our environment e.g. pesticide bylaws, land use planning and zoning bylaws, local or socially responsible procurement polices, business regulation and licensing, environment and green space protection, contracting in public services etc etc. ======================== [1] Grassroots movement to defend democracy against Harper building fast http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2010/01/grassroots-movement- defend-democracy-against-harper-building-fast By Judy Rebick | January 7, 2010 [2] http://www.rickmercer.com/blog/index.cfm/2010/1/5/22-Days-of-Snow- Days Days of Snow Days Posted January 5, 2010 5:35 PM [3] The Economist vents spleen on PM's decision to prorogue Gloria Galloway http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-economist-vents- spleen-on-pms-decision-to-prorogue/article1422507/ Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:47 PM [4] Tactical diminishment http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/tactical- diminishment/article1421783/ Globe editorial Thursday, Jan. 07, 2010 8:04AM EST [5] Prorogation 'has hit a nerve' [polls show] Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:36 AM http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit- a-nerve/article1422003/ Prorogation 'has hit a nerve' [polls show] Gloria Galloway [6] http://citizensfordemocracy.ca/ for updates on this growing movement and sign the petition there [7] Editorial cartoon by Brian Gable/The Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit- a-nerve/article1422003/ [8] Bruce MacKinnon Cartoon - Halifax Chronicle Herald Stephen Harper is a 'pro rogue' http://zone.artizans.com/image/MAC1845/stephen-harper-is-a-pro-rogue/ From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Thu Jan 7 16:35:51 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:35:51 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Growing movement vs 'Pro rogue' Harper's assault on democracy [ Summary of 6 items, Jan 7 ] In-Reply-To: <4B463AE6.6472.2AD7D419@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B463AE6.6472.2AD7D419@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100108003552.975AFF5EE@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Harper is coming close to showing that a Prime Minister can be even worse than John Howard. Nobody but nobody in the parliamentary system could manage worse than Bob Menzies. Oops - I forgot Tony Bliar. Dion Giles At 07:49 08/01/2010, you wrote: >Dear All: > >Below you will find a summary and links to latest media coverage >against Stephen Harper's proroguing of Parliament with a challenge to >join the movement. > > Social justice and democracy expert and advocate from Ryerson >University - Judy Rebick provides an excellent overview of the many >signs of a growing movement against Harper's latest move to stifle >and stymie parliamentary procedure and to deny and defy democracy in >this country. As she notes it seems to be akin to the grassroots >opposition to Elizabeth May's initial exclusion from the Leader's >debate last year, and the brief but powerful grassroots organizing >that supported the coalition [to unseat Harper in 2008] , but it >seems to be much broader and more powerful. And what's more she notes > it has media support, which is rare for any grassroots opposition to >anything these days.... The Toronto Star is on what looks like a >campaign against it. And columnists and op-ed writers are filling up >pages with denunciations of Harper's various assaults on democracy. >[1] > >CBC Comedian Rick Mercer satirizes Harper's prorogation in "Days of >Snow Days" where he says that snow days only happen to children. >"If you are an adult it doesn't matter how much snow falls you still >have to get to work and you still have to shovel the walk. Snow days >don't apply to adults unless you happen to be the prime minister of >Canada, who with one phone call has the ability to give every member >of parliament two months off. >"We elect these men and women to travel to Ottawa and represent us in >the House of Commons. Well forget that notion. That is old fashioned >and democratic. Welcome to Canada 2010 - we embark on a brand new >decade as a country that has taxation without representation. " >"This prime minister has gone from the promise of an open, accessible >and accountable government to a government that is simply closed. " >[2] > >Even the influential "Economist' has chimed in according to the Globe >and Mail's "The Economist vents spleen on PM's decision to prorogue" >"Mr. Harper?s move looks like naked self-interest," the magazine said >in a strongly-worded editorial entitled Harper Goes Prorogue that >accompanied a longer story on the Canadian Parliamentary suspension. >"A gathering storm of media criticism has extended even to the >Calgary Herald, the main newspaper in his political home city, which >denounced him for `a cynical political play?" said the story, >pointing out that there are a host of demonstrations planned across >Canada for the Saturday before Parliament was due to return following >the Christmas break. Proroguing Parliament twice in two years sets >what many constitutionalists say is a dangerous precedent, the >magazine said. [3] > >An editorial in today's Globe and Mail 'tactical diminishment' >criticized Mr. Harper's statement in a recent CBC interview that >proroguing Parliament was a "fairly standard procedure," and a >"routine constitutional matter" noting that the manner of the >prorogation, and its effect, are neither standard or routine. His >actions, they said constitute an insult to Parliament, including to >Governor-General Micha?lle Jean, and can serve only to diminish >Canada's national institutions. It is a high price to pay for a minor >tactical convenience. [4] > >A 5th piece also from the Globe and Mail "Prorogation 'has hit a >nerve' " looks at two recent polls both of which indicate that >Harper's proroguing of Parliament does not sit well with Canadians. >"An EKOS poll conducted after Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced >last week that Parliament would be suspended until March shows >support for the Conservatives falling. The poll of 1,744 Canadians, >conducted on Jan. 4 and Jan. 5, suggests that just 33.1 per cent of >voters would mark their ballots for the Conservatives if the election >were held this week. The poll shows that the Tory lead over the >Liberals, which was as high as 15 percentage points in October, is >now about 5. "Those are the worst numbers we?ve seen for them in at >least six months," EKOS president Frank Graves said in a telephone >interview. >Meanwhile, an Angus Reid online poll also released Thursday suggests >that the move has been rejected even by Conservative supporters. >Mr. Harper and his party "must be hearing footsteps," the pollster >said. "Instead of pondering how their majority is going to work out, >they are closer to sitting on the other side of the House." [5] > >See also > http://citizensfordemocracy.ca/ for updates on this growing movement >and sign the petition there [6] >Petition: >Whereas Canadians elected Parliament to work and debate issues >important to us and ensure proper checks and balances on the >government; >Whereas Stephen Harper suspended Parliament in late December until >March 3rd and in effect denied Canadians a functioning democracy; >Whereas Stephen Harper?s actions are against Canada?s principles of >democracy and accountability; >We the undersigned Canadians demand that our Prime Minister Stephen >Harper and Members of Parliament get back to work on January 25th on >issues important to Canada and uphold principles of democracy and >accountability. >Sincerely, >Undersigned >http://citizensfordemocracy.ca/ >- > >and check out locations for the January 23rd Rallies across Canada: >Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament - Rally >Saturday, January 23, 2010 >1:00 pm - 4:00 pm >Various Locations Across Canada >See http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=227662474562&ref=ts > >Specific details for each city to follow soon, details are being >coordinated. >Halifax, NS, Toronto, ON, Ottawa, ON, Hamilton, ON, Kitchener- >Waterloo, ON, Whitby/Oshawa, ON, Montreal, QC, Winnipeg, MB, >Saskatoon, SK, Edmonton, AB, Vancouver, BC, Victoria, BC > > As Rebick says >"Growing public opposition to Harper shutting down Parliament is >being felt at every level of Canadian society. Whatever you are >doing, whatever your issue, however cynical you may be about >electoral politics, please join this profound grassroots rebellion >against Stephen Harper's assault on democracy." > >So get on line, blog, twitter, e-mail, petition, protest, write >letter to editors, MPs, leaders etc. Forward this to friends, family >, e-mail lists. A tipping point has been reached and it is time for >the citizens of Canada to lead the charge in the routing this rogue >from Parliament. > >all the best, >janet > >p.s > > It should be noted that this latest tactic of Harper's is part of an >on-going and deepening disdain he has shown for democratic >procedures and Parliamentary process and traditions some of which >include: > >[] Gagging of his own MPs as well as bureaucratic officials > >[] Muzzling the media -refusing to give press conferences for the >parliamentary press gallery > >[] making it increasingly difficult for media and citizens to access >information > >[] shutting down parliamentary committees > >[] producing a manual for his MPs on how to obstruct and disrupt >parliamentary committees for partisan advantage > >[] attacking opposition with maligning ads > >[] cutting off funding for social justice and human rights groups, >feminist, anti-poverty, legal aid, peace groups > >[] attempting to cut off funding for political parties > >[] Resorting to proroguing parliament 2008 to stop a coalition of >opposition parties from potentially forming government > >[] has been unfair and undemocratic in failing to engage with >opposition and NGOs to define authentic climate change policies >commensurate with the potentialy catastrophic events threatening eco- >systems, the planet, citizens in drought ridden states, and citizens >and ecosystems of many islands and low-lying states and cities. > >[] continuing support for global economic and free trade polices >that override and emasculate democratically achieved legislation put >in place to protect citizens and the environment. > He continues to sign on to bi-lateral Free Trade Agreements the >most egregious being with Colombia [ off the table for now with >prorogation] and most recently is attempting, without any public >discussion, to push NAFTA -like measures such as Ch 11 investor >rights disciplines into interprovincial agreements under the >Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) and TILMA the Trade Investment, >Labour and Mobility Agreement as well as attempting to make NAFTA >apply to sub-national governments in the proposed Can - EU FTA. > These agreements tilt at the very heart of democracy and open the >way for corporate challenges to legislation put in place at the >provincial and municipal level to protect us and our environment >e.g. pesticide bylaws, land use planning and zoning bylaws, local or >socially responsible procurement polices, business regulation and >licensing, environment and green space protection, contracting in >public services etc etc. > >======================== > >[1] Grassroots movement to defend democracy against Harper building >fast >http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2010/01/grassroots-movement- >defend-democracy-against-harper-building-fast >By Judy Rebick | January 7, 2010 > > >[2] http://www.rickmercer.com/blog/index.cfm/2010/1/5/22-Days-of-Snow- >Days >Days of Snow Days >Posted January 5, 2010 5:35 PM > > >[3] The Economist vents spleen on PM's decision to prorogue >Gloria Galloway >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-economist-vents- >spleen-on-pms-decision-to-prorogue/article1422507/ >Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:47 PM > > > [4] Tactical diminishment >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/tactical- >diminishment/article1421783/ >Globe editorial Thursday, Jan. 07, 2010 8:04AM EST > >[5] Prorogation 'has hit a nerve' [polls show] >Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:36 AM >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit- >a-nerve/article1422003/ >Prorogation 'has hit a nerve' [polls show] >Gloria Galloway > >[6] http://citizensfordemocracy.ca/ for updates on this growing >movement and sign the petition there > >[7] Editorial cartoon by Brian Gable/The Globe and Mail >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit- >a-nerve/article1422003/ > >[8] Bruce MacKinnon Cartoon - Halifax Chronicle Herald >Stephen Harper is a 'pro rogue' >http://zone.artizans.com/image/MAC1845/stephen-harper-is-a-pro-rogue/ >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 >Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4752 (20100107) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Jan 8 07:04:31 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:04:31 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] US : Fixing NAFTA's Flaws [ Kevin Gallagher & Timothy Wise Guardian Jan 7] Message-ID: <4B47113F.9991.2E1D201F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> US trade agreements should let nations set their own priorities, rather than be undermined by private companies In a welcome move President Obama?s US trade representative, Ron Kirk, has made a new year?s resolution to craft "a new kind of trade agreement for the 21st century " as stated in his letter to congressional leaders notifying them of the administration?s intent to negotiate the Trans-Pacific partnership agreement Kirk told the Washington International Trade Association he expected the TPP to "serve as a model for the future of American trade." NAFTA?s shortcomings should guide the administration?s efforts to chart a new course for US trade. This month is the 16th anniversary of NAFTA coming into force... In the US, the agreement is blamed for job losses, for adding downward pressure on wages, particularly in manufacturing, and for contributing to a large US trade deficit. In Canada, critics point to job losses, the declining competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, and the constraints Nafta has put on Canada to deploy adequate policies for public welfare. Lessons from Mexico Under Nafta, the agreement has shown slow growth, weak domestic investment, anaemic job creation, and increased economic vulnerability - decimating many existing sources of livelihood, particularly in agriculture. Mexico?s economic performance is now among the worst in the hemisphere. In all three countries, legal scholars and government officials decry the capability granted for foreign investors to sue governments if legislation negatively affects their profits or expected profits. Kirk told the Washington International Trade Association he expected the TPP to "serve as a model for the future of American trade." NAFTA?s shortcomings should guide the administration?s efforts to chart a new course for US trade. President Obama should also make good on his promise to fix NAFTA as well. It is welcome news that the administration has picked 2010 to chart a new course for US trade policy. It is clear that a 21st century trade agreement should not look like NAFTA. Neither should NAFTA. --- Kevin Gallagher and Timothy Wise fyi-janet Kevin Gallagher is professor of international relations at Boston University and a research fellow at the Global Development and Environment Institute and Timothy Wise is deputy director of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University ----------------------------------------------- http://www.guardian.co.uk Fixing Nafta?s flaws US trade agreements should let nations set their own priorities, rather than be undermined by private companies By Kevin Gallagher and Timothy Wise Guardian.co.uk Thursday 7 January 2010 22.00 GMT In a welcome move President Obama?s US trade representative, Ron Kirk, has made a new year?s resolution to craft "a new kind of trade agreement for the 21st century." Those were the words he used in his letter to congressional leaders notifying them of the administration?s intent to negotiate the Trans- Pacific partnership agreement (TPP), a proposed eight-country trade deal with countries as diverse as New Zealand , Chile and Vietnam . The trade pact would be the largest US endeavour since the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) was signed between Canada , Mexico and the US. Kirk is yet to unveil many specifics, but a 21st century trade agreement that brings growth, stability, and prosperity to the US and its trading partners will have to abandon the out-dated Nafta-model. This month is the 16th anniversary of Nafta coming into force, so the agreement is now old enough to be tried as an adult. In the US, the agreement is blamed for job losses, for adding downward pressure on wages, particularly in manufacturing, and for contributing to a large US trade deficit. In Canada, critics point to job losses, the declining competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, and the constraints Nafta has put on Canada to deploy adequate policies for public welfare. As we detail with Mexican economist Eduardo Zepeda in a new report, Rethinking Trade Policy for Development : Lessons from Mexico Under Nafta, the agreement has shown slow growth, weak domestic investment, anaemic job creation, and increased economic vulnerability - decimating many existing sources of livelihood, particularly in agriculture. Mexico?s economic performance is now among the worst in the hemisphere. In all three countries, legal scholars and government officials decry the capability granted for foreign investors to sue governments if legislation negatively affects their profits or expected profits. Kirk told the Washington International Trade Association he expected the TPP to "serve as a model for the future of American trade." NAFTA?s shortcomings should guide the administration?s efforts to chart a new course for US trade. Earlier this year Boston University?s Frederick Pardee Centre hosted some of North America?s Nafta experts from Mexico, Canada, and the US - which included the two of us - to form a task force to offer an ambitious set of proposals for improving on the Nafta model. The subsequent report, The Future of North American Trade Policy : Lessons from Nafta, did applaud Bush-era changes to the US trade template for making minor but significant modifications in some labour, environmental and intellectual property provisions that were later reflected in US-Peru free trade agreement. More forcefully, the task force noted that those Bush-era reforms do not go deep enough to fix the flaws in Nafta and establish a template for a 21st century trade agreement. The report offers proposals for fixing provisions on labour, agriculture, investment, services, intellectual property and the environment. It also discusses development finance and migration. A key recommendation by the task force is that any 21st century trade agreements should not elevate the rights of private firms over governments and should provide safeguard measures to make sure nations can adequately address financial, environmental and development-related challenges. Currently, US trade agreements allow private companies to undermine national efforts to regulate for the public interest. Under current rules, it is not clear that proposals for financial regulatory reform, climate change mitigation or poverty alleviation would be allowed under trade agreements because they could be construed as "tantamount to expropriation," as not providing a stable regulatory environment, or simply because some agreements don?t provide safeguards for public welfare provisions. Nafta offers lessons for future agreements, but what about North America? President Obama should also make good on his promise to fix Nafta as well. Canada and Mexico are the US?s first and third biggest trading partners and account for more than one quarter of total US trade. Key to revitalizing Nafta would be a reforming the rules and invigorating the North American Development Bank to help address the pre-existing development asymmetries among Nafta partners that have only been accentuated by the agreement. Nafta should not merely serve as a pilot project for other, less economically important, trade agreements. Nafta?s failures in Mexico have direct repercussions in the United States , be it migration, the drug trade or weak demand for US exports. It is welcome news that the administration has picked 2010 to chart a new course for US trade policy. It is clear that a 21st century trade agreement should not look like Nafta. Neither should Nafta. From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Jan 8 07:31:27 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:31:27 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] US wising up on trade In-Reply-To: <4B47113F.9991.2E1D201F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B47113F.9991.2E1D201F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100108153128.88131126FF@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Re: [Mai-not] US : Fixing NAFTA's Flaws [ Kevin Gallagher & Timothy Wise Guardian Jan 7 That's excellent news. Not as good a move as setting prohibitive tariff barriers against slave-made goods but it's a start. Dion Giles From jomut at yahoo.com Fri Jan 8 13:35:57 2010 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:35:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] on tax returns Message-ID: <239462.37970.qm@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut Hi dave Am sending you this message truncated. Couldn't send it before (twice) because the Yahoo mailer is misbehaving. If it does not get through this time, Ill send it from an alternate email service. John ======================== Thanx Dave. Tried to send you a message about half an hour back but could not get it through because of certain technical complications from the Yahoo mail service. Was just saying that I was not expecting such a modest windfall from the Oz Revenue Authority, but since word must have got to them (the people at the Revenue authority, that is) that I get just a pittance in tax returns from the Revenue authority in Ottawa, they kindly decided to top up that modest sum thusly!! Would have much rather preferred a top up from the US, of course, where, according to chatter on the grapevine, the taxers' hangman is much more benign than in other jurisdictions. The mutter, in certain discontented circles, however, has it that this begninity is cleverly designed to benefit those such as the Wall Street crowd -- not mere beggaring badgers like yours truly. Did not reply directly to my mysterious benefactor since it brilliantly occurred to me that by adopting a like anonymous stance as beneficiary, I would greatly enhance my chances of gypping the Oz revenue guys!! John ==================== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Wed, 1/6/10, Dave Patterson wrote: From: Dave Patterson Subject: [Mai-not] maybe not! (Re: Fw: Tax refund of AUD $250.50. To: mai-not at globalproblematique.net Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 1:35 AM Hi John, And hope you all have a good new year in sunny Australia. I am never sure how firmly your tongue is planted in your cheek sometimes, but in case it's not in this case, I would advise you to be very careful about responding to emails such as this one purporting to be from the Aus gov - it has all the earmarks of a 'phishing' email, in which someone is trying to get you to give over information about your email account somewhere to use for nefarious purposes. If you are not sure, you might just get on your browser and go directly to the Aus gov tax department, and see what they have to say about small windfall tax refunds such as this - my expectation is that you will find nothing. Dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10-01-05 at 12:06 PM John Mutambirwa wrote: John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut Hi, Just stumbled across this one in my mailbox. Wanted to copy and paste it but soon discovered that the sender had disabled both options, so I decided to forward it instead. Being a new recruit to Wall Street's lucratively wily way of conducting business, I am hardly loath to accepting such unmerited offerings. Please do not rat on me to the OZ authorities though! John ======================= --- On Sat, 1/2/10, Australian Taxation Office wrote: From: Australian Taxation Office Subject: Tax refund of AUD $250.50. To: admin at info.com Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 11:16 PM From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Fri Jan 8 14:06:45 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:06:45 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan [Interview with Murray Dobbin ] rabble.ca Message-ID: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/01/elizabeth-may-interview Elizabeth May: Executing the Green master plan By Murray Dobbin | January 8, 2010 PrintWrite to editor Support rabble Corrections I had the opportunity recently to talk to Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada about her party, its policies, its electoral chances and its place on the political landscape in Canada. As always, Ms. May was articulate, enthusiastic and pretty straight forward about the challenges she faces. When she took over the leadership in August 2006, the Greens had high hopes from the high- energy former head of the Sierra Club. Her ability to attract media interest, her personal commitment to the environment, her personal appeal, all seemed to hold great promise. But it hasn't been that simple. Powerful conservative forces still operate within the party creating tensions. Without a presence in the House of Commons you really are off the bus -- the media and the other parties ignore you because you aren't part of the daily calculations preceding question period. In the next election, the party and May are determined to spend big to get her a seat. It's their number one priority. But it is still a long shot -- money can't buy you love, or necessarily, votes. Here's what Elizabeth May had to say: Murray Dobbin: What has to happen to ensure that the Conservatives do not get a majority in the next election? Elizabeth May: The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either have to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper continuing his government. In the next election I draw hope in believing that we can shake the 42 per cent of Canadians who chose not to vote in the last election to get engaged and that would change the whole picture. For those who deliberately chose not to vote it had a lot to do with voter disgust and the behaviour and political culture. We have to convince a good chunk of those who chose not to vote that not voting does not punish the people that you find despicable. MD: Do you think Harper has deliberately set out to discourage people from voting? Advertising EM: Absolutely. People thought that Harper had become more popular between the 2006 and 2008 elections but not so: 170,000 fewer people voted for a Conservative candidate in 2008 than in 2006. His larger seat count is a tribute to his ability to discourage people from voting. The 700,000 fewer people voting for the Liberals did so on the basis of attack ads. None of what the attack ads do is to make people like the Conservatives more -- it's a question of framing, first Stephane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff in the worst possible terms based on the most sophisticated marketing genius of the Karl Rove variety. All of these things add up. The next best option to proportional representation is to figure out how to -- through whatever mobilization, viral, citizen grassroots campaign -- to say not only am I going to vote, I am going to make sure that I talk to my friends and neighbours who I don't usually talk to about politics and make sure they vote -- not how they're going to vote just that they vote. MD: You once told me that very few environmental organizations really understand political power and only a handful ever even lobby a cabinet minister or politician. Has that changed at all in terms of the role they need to play and could play if they are going to change things? EM: I have a terrible feeling of a weakening of resolve in the movement though I am not involved much any more as I am doing my environmental advocacy in a different way now. And for good reasons they don't share things with me for fear of being partisan. But the environmental movement is changing a lot because there's the establishment groups which have big infrastructure and tend to be vested in saying that something (like Copenhagen) is a success even if it's not. But what's new is the strength of the youth climate movement which doesn't have that same problem and the 350.org movement which is almost entirely viral and they're not going to fall for safe targets and not-good-enough positions. There's a grassroots movement happening without the benefit of a famous leader or a common manifesto. MD: One of the persistent features of progressive Canadian politics is the huge divide between party politics and extra-parliamentary politics. It's almost unique to Canada that movement groups are so rigidly non-partisan when it comes to elections. How do we deal with that? EM: Well, one of the things that has to happen is that the Revenue Canada rules around charitable status have to change. Look at the David Suzuki Foundation for instance. David is acknowledged as one of the top 10 Canadians. He made a very strong comment about Harper on the CBC's George Strombolopoulos show. Now his organization as a result of that is having its charitable tax status threatened. He cannot possibly support the Green Party. But the fact is that you don't have to tell people how to vote -- you just have to tell people to get out and vote. The call is -- "Hey people, look at the numbers. Do you think that all those people who stayed at home in 2008 would have voted for Harper if they'd gotten off their duff to vote?" MD: I wanted to get back to the idea of the coalition. Harper basically forced Ignatieff into a corner last spring and got him to say unequivocally that he would not consider a coalition government with the NDP. Is Ignatieff really unalterably opposed to the idea? EM: It all depends on what his caucus tells him he should do. He did not follow advice to him in his leader's office. I thought it was a collective decision not to go with the coalition but apparently it was Ignatieff personally who rejected it. He's made it very difficult to now support a coalition. MD: The Green Party has been accused of splitting the vote and helping Stephen Harper become prime minister. And before you became Green leader you took the position that the party should not be trying to elect members but should be pushing the other parties on environmental issues. You changed your position and are now running candidates in every riding. EM: That's not me. To make it clear the leader of the Greens doesn't determine the strategy for election campaigns and I don't have any particular personal allegiance to the idea that we should run a candidate in every riding across the country. I can tell you that the people in the party who make the decisions have a very strong allegiance to that idea. My own view is that the Greens' primary goal is not gain power -- though it is important to have seats in the House of Commons. But I don't think that the measure of our value in political terms is measured by whether we could ever form government. MD: You have often said that the GP is neither left nor right but in examining your detailed policies I would to say that since I last examined them in 2007, the Green Party is much more consistently on the left -- for example labour policies, international affairs, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the call for a Tobin tax, abrogating NAFTA, social policy, health care, justice issues. Doesn't this shift to the left put you more in direct competition with the NDP for votes? EM: In a multi-party system every party splits the vote. Where we have the capacity to get Conservative votes is that we say and mean it that we are fiscally responsible -- that we have a better plan to get ourselves out of deficit and it won't be on the back of workers and small business. Instead of increasing CPP and EI premiums like Flaherty is planning, we would be cutting those. We would also be introducing income splitting which in terms of tax fairness resonates with a lot of people who see themselves as Progressive Conservatives. We would not tax anyone who is making under $20,000 a year and let's really get on with the agenda of the guaranteed livable income -- which is not just a left-wing idea. MD: I want to explore the persistent controversy around the idea of co-operating with the NDP. It is pretty well established that Jack Layton and the NDP have simply refused to talk to you. Ironically that makes it much easier for you to occupy the moral high ground without actually having to publicly offer anything substantive. So would the Green Party be prepared to leave some ridings uncontested to assist the NDP if the NDP were willing to reciprocate -- details aside? EM: Given that we did so in the leadership courtesy agreement in 2008 with Dion, and did not run a Green against Independent Bill Casey, we have shown a willingness to consider such efforts. I would take any proposal for cooperation to the party council, but, as you point out, first we have to have something to talk about. MD: In the 2006 election well over half the Green candidates were chosen by party headquarters. How many Green candidates for the next election will actually be chosen by riding associations? EM: Our political director thinks it will likely be fewer than 70 appointed, but she stresses that our "appointments" are really more "acclamations" as they generally come from a local area, but without an established Electoral District Association. For many reasons, we try to keep the candidate search local and, only very rarely, have what we call a "right to vote Green" candidate (otherwise called a "paper candidate.") In the 2006 and 2008 elections there was no strategy that said getting the leader elected was more important than getting any one of a group of 10 or 20 other candidates elected. But in the fall of 2008 and into the spring of 2009 the party decided to ask me to be prepared to move with the idea being we have to put our strongest candidate, which turned out to me as leader, into a riding where the voters are most willing to be somewhat mobile in their allegiance. And that was Saanich-Gulf Islands. MD: There have been rumours that the party is really struggling financially -- will you have the resources to run a national campaign given that your priority is to win your seat? Or will your resources be focused on your strongest ridings? EM: We, like the other opposition parties, have debt from the 2008 campaign. In the last year, we have paid off more than $1.4 million and have a little less than a million to be repaid. We are trying to accelerate that debt repayment in order to be ready for the next election. We have every intention of running a strong national campaign, focus on winning in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and help in a number of targeted ridings across Canada. MD: You have said you entered politics because you wanted to help get rid of Stephen Harper. So if someone who shared that goal -- who desperately wanted to see Stephen Harper defeated -- and they asked you why should I vote Green, what would you say? EM: If people feel when they go to the polls why should I vote for you, you're not gong to be government, then my choices are only voting for Harper or voting for Ignatieff. The pressure to vote strategically just reduces voter turn out. If you feel sick when you leave the polling booth you are less likely to come back the next time and vote the right way -- or to vote for anyone the next time. If we ask why should you vote Green, in a system where we are manifestly unhappy with the results and the results are too many elections, too close together, just to get one minority government over another. If that's the way you feel, and you like our policies and you like the direction we would take the discussion within this country then you ought to vote for what you want. MD: I wanted to touch on a few of your policies, taken from "Vision Green" -- which would have been your election platform had the election been called in the fall. When I look at your tax policies I think they really do fall short in terms of paying for the other things you say you want to do. The country today is short $100 billion a year in revenue due to huge tax cuts by the Liberals and Conservatives -- not counting the ones still scheduled. In multiple places in your policy document you talk about a "revenue neutral green tax shift." That might have worked before these massive cuts took place but the horse has left the barn -- a huge chunk of the money is gone. Are you prepared to roll back some of those cuts which benefitted the wealthy and corporations disproportionately. EM: In our updated platform documents in terms of how do we get out of the current deficit situation and not increase taxes on EI and CPP or on individuals the only way to do that is through cancelling the upcoming, scheduled corporate tax breaks -- we don't have to roll back the existing corporate tax cuts in order to deliver on this. MD: When you say you would lower taxes "on individuals" that includes everyone, including very high income earners. We used to have 10 tax brackets -- taxing the last dollar earned by many wealthy people at over 80 per cent. Would you consider returning to a more multi-tiered personal income tax system -- which is still the fairest of all taxes? EM: I wouldn't say "no" at all. We are always debating -- within our shadow cabinet -- whether we've got it right on exactly how the carbon tax is applied, on top of that how the cap and trade will work. We may not have it exactly right yet. We are always willing to take ideas from elsewhere because we want to have the fairest possible highest level of social justice and lowest gap between the wealthy and the poor. MD: I wanted to talk about your party's economic policy partly because of the financial crisis but also because so much rests on what kind of economy we build. Your Vision Green document states: "The central driving principle of Green Economic Policy is maximizing efficiency." That really surprised me because it is such a core principle in the neo-liberal approach to the economy. Knowing you as I do, I wonder why the party does not have as its guiding economic principle equity and justice? EM: The language that makes sense to Greens in that sentence comes from the assessment of consumer society as inherently wasteful and wasteful of human lives and the human spirit and community. It's not a neo-liberal statement. MD: Why wouldn't you then say our central driving principle is equity and justice because that captures much more than just energy efficiency? EM: In writing about creating a green economy we get preoccupied with that but in terms of the guiding global green principles we are committed to all of them: social justice, respect for human rights, grassroots democracy, seeking a culture of peace and non-violence and environmental sustainability -- those are all green principles that imbue the entire range of our policies MD: In looking at your detailed economic policy it seems pretty conventional given that you are the party which stakes out the ground on the environment, climate change and the depletion of the earth's resources. There is a new economic movement developing in Europe characterized by the notion of "prosperity without growth." Is there any place in the party for this concept -- developed explicitly to respond to the economic and climate crises? EM: We're looking at as much as possible localizing access to venture capital, localizing the economy, support for the family farm, local food support for local industry and that comes through in a couple of different strands of economic policy. One is a commitment that we assure municipalities have a committed sources of funds because we know of all revenue collected by governments only eight per cent goes to municipalities. There are also green transit initiatives. There's the idea that we should be directing RRSP investments to municipal bonds. MD: I wanted to explore the whole question of how we protect the environment or more broadly how we control the behaviour of corporations in the public interest. I am struck by a lack of reference in the policy document to really strong regulation -- and by that I mean enhanced inspection and really punitive fines for violations. Why not, for example, have a forensic accountant determine how much money a corporation saved by breaking the law and fine them 50 times that amount? EM: We want regulation and we want market mechanisms. Where you have regulation is to make sure you have a bottom line where no one falls below it. I am convinced that a company that wants to exceed all expectations will move faster and will innovate the technological solutions that others can grab. It's never all about regulation but it certainly isn't about the "invisible green hand of the marketplace and that's all you need." That is not sensible. On the ground in Germany the Greens brought in major regulatory instruments to make sure that renewables would take off in Germany. They used a combination of regulations and market mechanisms. The Swedish Greens did the same. We need to make it very clear that we are not afraid as a society, that when a corporate entity so egregiously violates its social contract with us that this unnatural (corporate) life is terminated. We have to shift the relationship between society and economy so that the economy's purpose is supporting healthy communities. MD: Lastly, there is almost no prospect of the current configuration of political parties agreeing to implement proportional representation. By your own assessment the media and other political parties seem content to essentially ignore you without a seat in the House. You are accustomed to having major influence on the environmental debate, so if you do not win your seat in the next election will you be content to continue in your present situation -- sidelined in the struggle for the environment? EM: I have learned my lesson in politics and no longer answer hypothetical questions! I do plan on winning the seat. And I would have been entirely sidelined as ED of Sierra Club of Canada. As long as Stephen Harper is prime minister, work within the environmental movement is totally sidelined. I think I can do more good in this scenario as leader of the Greens. From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 8 14:58:49 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:58:49 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan [Interview with Murray Dobbin ] rabble.ca In-Reply-To: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100108225902.6B907C878E6@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> I don't think either of them has any idea what the word "efficiency" means, it has been so badly corrupted by the monetary priesthood of so called economists? Cheers, Ed =========================================================================== At 02:06 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/01/elizabeth-may-interview > >Elizabeth May: Executing the Green master plan > >By Murray Dobbin | January 8, 2010 PrintWrite to editor Support >rabble Corrections >I had the opportunity recently to talk to Elizabeth May, leader of >the Green Party of Canada about her party, its policies, its >electoral chances and its place on the political landscape in Canada. >As always, Ms. May was articulate, enthusiastic and pretty straight >forward about the challenges she faces. When she took over the >leadership in August 2006, the Greens had high hopes from the high- >energy former head of the Sierra Club. > >Her ability to attract media interest, her personal commitment to the >environment, her personal appeal, all seemed to hold great promise. >But it hasn't been that simple. Powerful conservative forces still >operate within the party creating tensions. Without a presence in the >House of Commons you really are off the bus -- the media and the >other parties ignore you because you aren't part of the daily >calculations preceding question period. > >In the next election, the party and May are determined to spend big >to get her a seat. It's their number one priority. But it is still a >long shot -- money can't buy you love, or necessarily, votes. Here's >what Elizabeth May had to say: > > >Murray Dobbin: What has to happen to ensure that the Conservatives do >not get a majority in the next election? > >Elizabeth May: The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because >we are a multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either >have to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to >change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are >going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition was >a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the >political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow through >with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi between the >Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper continuing his >government. > >In the next election I draw hope in believing that we can shake the >42 per cent of Canadians who chose not to vote in the last election >to get engaged and that would change the whole picture. For those who >deliberately chose not to vote it had a lot to do with voter disgust >and the behaviour and political culture. We have to convince a good >chunk of those who chose not to vote that not voting does not punish >the people that you find despicable. > >MD: Do you think Harper has deliberately set out to discourage people >from voting? > >Advertising >EM: Absolutely. People thought that Harper had become more popular >between the 2006 and 2008 elections but not so: 170,000 fewer people >voted for a Conservative candidate in 2008 than in 2006. His larger >seat count is a tribute to his ability to discourage people from >voting. The 700,000 fewer people voting for the Liberals did so on >the basis of attack ads. None of what the attack ads do is to make >people like the Conservatives more -- it's a question of framing, >first Stephane Dion and now Michael Ignatieff in the worst possible >terms based on the most sophisticated marketing genius of the Karl >Rove variety. > >All of these things add up. The next best option to proportional >representation is to figure out how to -- through whatever >mobilization, viral, citizen grassroots campaign -- to say not only >am I going to vote, I am going to make sure that I talk to my friends >and neighbours who I don't usually talk to about politics and make >sure they vote -- not how they're going to vote just that they vote. > >MD: You once told me that very few environmental organizations really >understand political power and only a handful ever even lobby a >cabinet minister or politician. Has that changed at all in terms of >the role they need to play and could play if they are going to change >things? > >EM: I have a terrible feeling of a weakening of resolve in the >movement though I am not involved much any more as I am doing my >environmental advocacy in a different way now. And for good reasons >they don't share things with me for fear of being partisan. > >But the environmental movement is changing a lot because there's the >establishment groups which have big infrastructure and tend to be >vested in saying that something (like Copenhagen) is a success even >if it's not. But what's new is the strength of the youth climate >movement which doesn't have that same problem and the 350.org >movement which is almost entirely viral and they're not going to fall >for safe targets and not-good-enough positions. > >There's a grassroots movement happening without the benefit of a >famous leader or a common manifesto. > >MD: One of the persistent features of progressive Canadian politics >is the huge divide between party politics and extra-parliamentary >politics. It's almost unique to Canada that movement groups are so >rigidly non-partisan when it comes to elections. How do we deal with >that? > >EM: Well, one of the things that has to happen is that the Revenue >Canada rules around charitable status have to change. Look at the >David Suzuki Foundation for instance. David is acknowledged as one of >the top 10 Canadians. He made a very strong comment about Harper on >the CBC's George Strombolopoulos show. Now his organization as a >result of that is having its charitable tax status threatened. He >cannot possibly support the Green Party. > >But the fact is that you don't have to tell people how to vote -- you >just have to tell people to get out and vote. The call is -- "Hey >people, look at the numbers. Do you think that all those people who >stayed at home in 2008 would have voted for Harper if they'd gotten >off their duff to vote?" > >MD: I wanted to get back to the idea of the coalition. Harper >basically forced Ignatieff into a corner last spring and got him to >say unequivocally that he would not consider a coalition government >with the NDP. Is Ignatieff really unalterably opposed to the idea? > >EM: It all depends on what his caucus tells him he should do. He did >not follow advice to him in his leader's office. I thought it was a >collective decision not to go with the coalition but apparently it >was Ignatieff personally who rejected it. He's made it very difficult >to now support a coalition. > >MD: The Green Party has been accused of splitting the vote and >helping Stephen Harper become prime minister. And before you became >Green leader you took the position that the party should not be >trying to elect members but should be pushing the other parties on >environmental issues. You changed your position and are now running >candidates in every riding. > >EM: That's not me. To make it clear the leader of the Greens doesn't >determine the strategy for election campaigns and I don't have any >particular personal allegiance to the idea that we should run a >candidate in every riding across the country. I can tell you that the >people in the party who make the decisions have a very strong >allegiance to that idea. My own view is that the Greens' primary goal >is not gain power -- though it is important to have seats in the >House of Commons. But I don't think that the measure of our value in >political terms is measured by whether we could ever form government. > >MD: You have often said that the GP is neither left nor right but in >examining your detailed policies I would to say that since I last >examined them in 2007, the Green Party is much more consistently on >the left -- for example labour policies, international affairs, the >Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the call for a Tobin tax, abrogating >NAFTA, social policy, health care, justice issues. Doesn't this shift >to the left put you more in direct competition with the NDP for >votes? > >EM: In a multi-party system every party splits the vote. Where we >have the capacity to get Conservative votes is that we say and mean >it that we are fiscally responsible -- that we have a better plan to >get ourselves out of deficit and it won't be on the back of workers >and small business. Instead of increasing CPP and EI premiums like >Flaherty is planning, we would be cutting those. We would also be >introducing income splitting which in terms of tax fairness resonates >with a lot of people who see themselves as Progressive Conservatives. >We would not tax anyone who is making under $20,000 a year and let's >really get on with the agenda of the guaranteed livable income -- >which is not just a left-wing idea. > >MD: I want to explore the persistent controversy around the idea of >co-operating with the NDP. It is pretty well established that Jack >Layton and the NDP have simply refused to talk to you. Ironically >that makes it much easier for you to occupy the moral high ground >without actually having to publicly offer anything substantive. So >would the Green Party be prepared to leave some ridings uncontested >to assist the NDP if the NDP were willing to reciprocate -- details >aside? > >EM: Given that we did so in the leadership courtesy agreement in 2008 >with Dion, and did not run a Green against Independent Bill Casey, we >have shown a willingness to consider such efforts. I would take any >proposal for cooperation to the party council, but, as you point out, >first we have to have something to talk about. > >MD: In the 2006 election well over half the Green candidates were >chosen by party headquarters. How many Green candidates for the next >election will actually be chosen by riding associations? > >EM: Our political director thinks it will likely be fewer than 70 >appointed, but she stresses that our "appointments" are really more >"acclamations" as they generally come from a local area, but without >an established Electoral District Association. For many reasons, we >try to keep the candidate search local and, only very rarely, have >what we call a "right to vote Green" candidate (otherwise called a >"paper candidate.") > >In the 2006 and 2008 elections there was no strategy that said >getting the leader elected was more important than getting any one of >a group of 10 or 20 other candidates elected. But in the fall of 2008 >and into the spring of 2009 the party decided to ask me to be >prepared to move with the idea being we have to put our strongest >candidate, which turned out to me as leader, into a riding where the >voters are most willing to be somewhat mobile in their allegiance. >And that was Saanich-Gulf Islands. > >MD: There have been rumours that the party is really struggling >financially -- will you have the resources to run a national campaign >given that your priority is to win your seat? Or will your resources >be focused on your strongest ridings? > >EM: We, like the other opposition parties, have debt from the 2008 >campaign. In the last year, we have paid off more than $1.4 million >and have a little less than a million to be repaid. We are trying to >accelerate that debt repayment in order to be ready for the next >election. We have every intention of running a strong national >campaign, focus on winning in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and help in a >number of targeted ridings across Canada. > >MD: You have said you entered politics because you wanted to help get >rid of Stephen Harper. So if someone who shared that goal -- who >desperately wanted to see Stephen Harper defeated -- and they asked >you why should I vote Green, what would you say? > >EM: If people feel when they go to the polls why should I vote for >you, you're not gong to be government, then my choices are only >voting for Harper or voting for Ignatieff. The pressure to vote >strategically just reduces voter turn out. If you feel sick when you >leave the polling booth you are less likely to come back the next >time and vote the right way -- or to vote for anyone the next time. > >If we ask why should you vote Green, in a system where we are >manifestly unhappy with the results and the results are too many >elections, too close together, just to get one minority government >over another. If that's the way you feel, and you like our policies >and you like the direction we would take the discussion within this >country then you ought to vote for what you want. > >MD: I wanted to touch on a few of your policies, taken from "Vision >Green" -- which would have been your election platform had the >election been called in the fall. When I look at your tax policies I >think they really do fall short in terms of paying for the other >things you say you want to do. The country today is short $100 >billion a year in revenue due to huge tax cuts by the Liberals and >Conservatives -- not counting the ones still scheduled. In multiple >places in your policy document you talk about a "revenue neutral >green tax shift." That might have worked before these massive cuts >took place but the horse has left the barn -- a huge chunk of the >money is gone. Are you prepared to roll back some of those cuts which >benefitted the wealthy and corporations disproportionately. > >EM: In our updated platform documents in terms of how do we get out >of the current deficit situation and not increase taxes on EI and CPP >or on individuals the only way to do that is through cancelling the >upcoming, scheduled corporate tax breaks -- we don't have to roll >back the existing corporate tax cuts in order to deliver on this. > >MD: When you say you would lower taxes "on individuals" that includes >everyone, including very high income earners. We used to have 10 tax >brackets -- taxing the last dollar earned by many wealthy people at >over 80 per cent. Would you consider returning to a more multi-tiered >personal income tax system -- which is still the fairest of all >taxes? > >EM: I wouldn't say "no" at all. We are always debating -- within our >shadow cabinet -- whether we've got it right on exactly how the >carbon tax is applied, on top of that how the cap and trade will >work. We may not have it exactly right yet. We are always willing to >take ideas from elsewhere because we want to have the fairest >possible highest level of social justice and lowest gap between the >wealthy and the poor. > >MD: I wanted to talk about your party's economic policy partly >because of the financial crisis but also because so much rests on >what kind of economy we build. Your Vision Green document states: >"The central driving principle of Green Economic Policy is maximizing >efficiency." That really surprised me because it is such a core >principle in the neo-liberal approach to the economy. Knowing you as >I do, I wonder why the party does not have as its guiding economic >principle equity and justice? > >EM: The language that makes sense to Greens in that sentence comes >from the assessment of consumer society as inherently wasteful and >wasteful of human lives and the human spirit and community. It's not >a neo-liberal statement. > >MD: Why wouldn't you then say our central driving principle is equity >and justice because that captures much more than just energy >efficiency? > >EM: In writing about creating a green economy we get preoccupied with >that but in terms of the guiding global green principles we are >committed to all of them: social justice, respect for human rights, >grassroots democracy, seeking a culture of peace and non-violence and >environmental sustainability -- those are all green principles that >imbue the entire range of our policies > >MD: In looking at your detailed economic policy it seems pretty >conventional given that you are the party which stakes out the ground >on the environment, climate change and the depletion of the earth's >resources. There is a new economic movement developing in Europe >characterized by the notion of "prosperity without growth." Is there >any place in the party for this concept -- developed explicitly to >respond to the economic and climate crises? > >EM: We're looking at as much as possible localizing access to venture >capital, localizing the economy, support for the family farm, local >food support for local industry and that comes through in a couple of >different strands of economic policy. One is a commitment that we >assure municipalities have a committed sources of funds because we >know of all revenue collected by governments only eight per cent goes >to municipalities. There are also green transit initiatives. There's >the idea that we should be directing RRSP investments to municipal >bonds. > >MD: I wanted to explore the whole question of how we protect the >environment or more broadly how we control the behaviour of >corporations in the public interest. I am struck by a lack of >reference in the policy document to really strong regulation -- and >by that I mean enhanced inspection and really punitive fines for >violations. Why not, for example, have a forensic accountant >determine how much money a corporation saved by breaking the law and >fine them 50 times that amount? > >EM: We want regulation and we want market mechanisms. Where you have >regulation is to make sure you have a bottom line where no one falls >below it. I am convinced that a company that wants to exceed all >expectations will move faster and will innovate the technological >solutions that others can grab. > >It's never all about regulation but it certainly isn't about the >"invisible green hand of the marketplace and that's all you need." >That is not sensible. On the ground in Germany the Greens brought in >major regulatory instruments to make sure that renewables would take >off in Germany. They used a combination of regulations and market >mechanisms. The Swedish Greens did the same. > >We need to make it very clear that we are not afraid as a society, >that when a corporate entity so egregiously violates its social >contract with us that this unnatural (corporate) life is terminated. >We have to shift the relationship between society and economy so that >the economy's purpose is supporting healthy communities. > >MD: Lastly, there is almost no prospect of the current configuration >of political parties agreeing to implement proportional >representation. By your own assessment the media and other political >parties seem content to essentially ignore you without a seat in the >House. You are accustomed to having major influence on the >environmental debate, so if you do not win your seat in the next >election will you be content to continue in your present situation -- >sidelined in the struggle for the environment? > >EM: I have learned my lesson in politics and no longer answer >hypothetical questions! I do plan on winning the seat. And I would >have been entirely sidelined as ED of Sierra Club of Canada. As long >as Stephen Harper is prime minister, work within the environmental >movement is totally sidelined. I think I can do more good in this >scenario as leader of the Greens. > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.130/2607 - Release Date: >01/07/10 23:35:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Jan 8 18:26:30 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:26:30 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan [Interview with Murray Dobbin ] rabble.ca In-Reply-To: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> >Elizabeth May: The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because >we are a multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either >have to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to >change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are >going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition was >a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the >political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow through >with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi between the >Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper continuing his >government. There is no possibility of that delivering democracy - only perhaps more stable representation. Only referenda can establish a democratic decision by the people. The attaching of Canada to NAFTA without the permission of the people by direct vote is proof that anything less is not democracy. The people are required to obey an agreement they have never adopted, just as the people of Europe (other than Ireland where they voted for it) being stuck with the EU constitution. That is the direct antithesis of democracy and would still be so even if a fully representative government agreed to it. Dion Giles From hermann at picknowl.com.au Fri Jan 8 19:27:22 2010 From: hermann at picknowl.com.au (John Hermann) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:57:22 +1030 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan ... In-Reply-To: <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <201001090327.o093RO0q010063@mail12.tpg.com.au> At 12:56 PM 9/01/2010, Elizabeth May wrote: >>The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a >>multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either have to >>move to a system of proportional representation or we have to >>change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are >>going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition >>was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the >>political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow >>through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi >>between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper continuing >>his government. > >There is no possibility of that delivering democracy - only perhaps >more stable representation. Only referenda can establish a >democratic decision by the people. The attaching of Canada to NAFTA >without the permission of the people by direct vote is proof that >anything less is not democracy. The people are required to obey an >agreement they have never adopted, just as the people of Europe >(other than Ireland where they voted for it) being stuck with the EU >constitution. That is the direct antithesis of democracy and would >still be so even if a fully representative government agreed to >it. Dion Giles Yes, I agree with Dion. Proportional representation is better than minority government, but direct democracy (including citizens' initiated referendum) - especially on matters of great public import - is even better. Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Democracy is NOT government of the people, by the representatives of vested interests, and for the benefit of those vested interests. John Hermann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 8 19:45:21 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:45:21 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan ... In-Reply-To: <201001090327.o093RO0q010063@mail12.tpg.com.au> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <201001090327.o093RO0q010063@mail12.tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <20100109034530.DD5421AC7C7@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> The most disgusting experience was in 1988, when the Mulroney government was pushing the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, a bloody lie if there ever was one, on the public. Mulroney's gang received 43% of the votes, which still gave him a majority and we got the FTA and later the NAFTA, without any public inputs, or consultations. What we have is a system where a government with any kind of majority, or even minority, like the present gang, receive dictatorial powers for 4 years and the public is welcome jump up and down. 2 days after Mulroney's majority, before the FTA was implemented, but sure to happen, Gillette was the first company to announce their leaving of Canada. I threw out all the Gillette products from our house then and never bought any since. But what's the use ? Friends gave me several pairs of Kodiak socks for Christmas, an old and usually very good Canadian name and products. Made in bloody China. Now back to my usual, fantastic column writing ................ Cheers, Ed. At 07:27 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >At 12:56 PM 9/01/2010, Elizabeth May wrote: >>>The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a >>>multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either have >>>to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to >>>change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are >>>going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition >>>was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the >>>political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow >>>through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi >>>between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper >>>continuing his government. >> >>There is no possibility of that delivering democracy - only perhaps >>more stable representation. Only referenda can establish a >>democratic decision by the people. The attaching of Canada to >>NAFTA without the permission of the people by direct vote is proof >>that anything less is not democracy. The people are required to >>obey an agreement they have never adopted, just as the people of >>Europe (other than Ireland where they voted for it) being stuck >>with the EU constitution. That is the direct antithesis of >>democracy and would still be so even if a fully representative >>government agreed to it. Dion Giles > > >Yes, I agree with Dion. Proportional representation is better than >minority government, but direct democracy (including citizens' >initiated referendum) - especially on matters of great public import >- is even better. > >Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the >people. Democracy is NOT government of the people, by the >representatives of vested interests, and for the benefit of those >vested interests. > >John Hermann > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >01/08/10 11:35:00 From siamdave at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 8 19:58:33 2010 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:58:33 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan ... In-Reply-To: <20100109034530.DD5421AC7C7@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <201001090327.o093RO0q010063@mail12.tpg.com.au> <20100109034530.DD5421AC7C7@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <201001091058330152.003F60BB@smtp.totisp.net> Actually, with a huge (for Canada) turnout of around 70%, Mulroney managed about 30% of approval from 'elibile voters' for the FTA, and the NAFTA was even a worse joke, as Chretien, I am sure you will recall, ran promising to 'abrogate or renegotiate!!', for which he did get his majority - and then promptly signed the NAFTA as was, a complete betrayal of those who voted for him. We always have an option, of course, we can unelect such people the next time they decide to call an election ... Democracy in Action!! - and so it shall remain, until We the People stand up and say NO MORE!! (unfortunately, there don't seem to be many We the People types out there - mostly 'I'm a good citizen who does and believes as s/he's told' types sitting in front of their tvs these days, lining up for their flu shots or choosing teams for the upcoming "election"... ) *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10-01-08 at 7:45 PM Ed Deak wrote: The most disgusting experience was in 1988, when the Mulroney government was pushing the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, a bloody lie if there ever was one, on the public. Mulroney's gang received 43% of the votes, which still gave him a majority and we got the FTA and later the NAFTA, without any public inputs, or consultations. What we have is a system where a government with any kind of majority, or even minority, like the present gang, receive dictatorial powers for 4 years and the public is welcome jump up and down. 2 days after Mulroney's majority, before the FTA was implemented, but sure to happen, Gillette was the first company to announce their leaving of Canada. I threw out all the Gillette products from our house then and never bought any since. But what's the use ? Friends gave me several pairs of Kodiak socks for Christmas, an old and usually very good Canadian name and products. Made in bloody China. Now back to my usual, fantastic column writing ................ Cheers, Ed. At 07:27 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >At 12:56 PM 9/01/2010, Elizabeth May wrote: >>>The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a >>>multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either have >>>to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to >>>change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are >>>going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition >>>was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the >>>political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow >>>through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi >>>between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper >>>continuing his government. >> >>There is no possibility of that delivering democracy - only perhaps >>more stable representation. Only referenda can establish a >>democratic decision by the people. The attaching of Canada to >>NAFTA without the permission of the people by direct vote is proof >>that anything less is not democracy. The people are required to >>obey an agreement they have never adopted, just as the people of >>Europe (other than Ireland where they voted for it) being stuck >>with the EU constitution. That is the direct antithesis of >>democracy and would still be so even if a fully representative >>government agreed to it. Dion Giles > > >Yes, I agree with Dion. Proportional representation is better than >minority government, but direct democracy (including citizens' >initiated referendum) - especially on matters of great public import >- is even better. > >Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the >people. Democracy is NOT government of the people, by the >representatives of vested interests, and for the benefit of those >vested interests. > >John Hermann > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >01/08/10 11:35:00 _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: 01/08/10 19:35:00 From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 8 20:36:47 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:36:47 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan ... In-Reply-To: <201001091058330152.003F60BB@smtp.totisp.net> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <201001090327.o093RO0q010063@mail12.tpg.com.au> <20100109034530.DD5421AC7C7@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <201001091058330152.003F60BB@smtp.totisp.net> Message-ID: <20100109043655.2E28050766@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Yes Dave, I remember it all, very well. I fought against the FTA for 2 years, wrote letter, articles, talked to people and still have a filing drawer full FTA material. The corruption surrounding the FTA and NAFTA was and still is unbelievable. And now the present bunch of pimps wants to sign the same crime wave with the EU, that will, apparently, open up all medical and municipal services for takeovers. And the public just takes it, because "it will create jobs and wealth"...............as usual. Like the 12 Canadian companies and half million, well paying manufacturing jobs wiped out by the FTA so we can buy Chinese junk.. Cheers, Ed. At 07:58 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >Actually, with a huge (for Canada) turnout of around 70%, Mulroney >managed about 30% of approval from 'elibile voters' for the FTA, and >the NAFTA was even a worse joke, as Chretien, I am sure you will >recall, ran promising to 'abrogate or renegotiate!!', for which he >did get his majority - and then promptly signed the NAFTA as was, a >complete betrayal of those who voted for him. We always have an >option, of course, we can unelect such people the next time they >decide to call an election ... Democracy in Action!! - and so it >shall remain, until We the People stand up and say NO MORE!! >(unfortunately, there don't seem to be many We the People types out >there - mostly 'I'm a good citizen who does and believes as s/he's >told' types sitting in front of their tvs these days, lining up for >their flu shots or choosing teams for the upcoming "election"... ) > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 10-01-08 at 7:45 PM Ed Deak wrote: > >The most disgusting experience was in 1988, when the Mulroney >government was pushing the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, a bloody >lie if there ever was one, on the public. Mulroney's gang received >43% of the votes, which still gave him a majority and we got the FTA >and later the NAFTA, without any public inputs, or >consultations. What we have is a system where a government with any >kind of majority, or even minority, like the present gang, receive >dictatorial powers for 4 years and the public is welcome jump up and down. > >2 days after Mulroney's majority, before the FTA was implemented, but >sure to happen, Gillette was the first company to announce their >leaving of Canada. I threw out all the Gillette products from our >house then and never bought any since. > >But what's the use ? Friends gave me several pairs of Kodiak socks >for Christmas, an old and usually very good Canadian name and >products. Made in bloody China. > >Now back to my usual, fantastic column writing ................ > >Cheers, Ed. > > >At 07:27 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: > >At 12:56 PM 9/01/2010, Elizabeth May wrote: > >>>The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a > >>>multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either have > >>>to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to > >>>change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are > >>>going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition > >>>was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the > >>>political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow > >>>through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi > >>>between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper > >>>continuing his government. > >> > >>There is no possibility of that delivering democracy - only perhaps > >>more stable representation. Only referenda can establish a > >>democratic decision by the people. The attaching of Canada to > >>NAFTA without the permission of the people by direct vote is proof > >>that anything less is not democracy. The people are required to > >>obey an agreement they have never adopted, just as the people of > >>Europe (other than Ireland where they voted for it) being stuck > >>with the EU constitution. That is the direct antithesis of > >>democracy and would still be so even if a fully representative > >>government agreed to it. Dion Giles > > > > > >Yes, I agree with Dion. Proportional representation is better than > >minority government, but direct democracy (including citizens' > >initiated referendum) - especially on matters of great public import > >- is even better. > > > >Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the > >people. Democracy is NOT government of the people, by the > >representatives of vested interests, and for the benefit of those > >vested interests. > > > >John Hermann > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mai-not mailing list > >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: > >01/08/10 11:35:00 > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >01/08/10 19:35:00 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >01/08/10 11:35:00 From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 8 20:44:59 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:44:59 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Elizabeth May: Executing the Green Master Plan ... In-Reply-To: <20100109043655.2E28050766@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> References: <4B477435.426.2F9FB024@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <20100109022631.3667311FBA@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <201001090327.o093RO0q010063@mail12.tpg.com.au> <20100109034530.DD5421AC7C7@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <201001091058330152.003F60BB@smtp.totisp.net> <20100109043655.2E28050766@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20100109044507.EE6A11AC7C4@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Correction: It should be 12,000 Canadian companies................... I'm still trying to write my column in between Cheers, Ed. At 08:36 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >Yes Dave, I remember it all, very well. I fought against the FTA for >2 years, wrote letter, articles, talked to people and still have a >filing drawer full FTA material. The corruption surrounding the FTA >and NAFTA was and still is unbelievable. And now the present bunch >of pimps wants to sign the same crime wave with the EU, that will, >apparently, open up all medical and municipal services for >takeovers. And the public just takes it, because "it will create >jobs and wealth"...............as usual. Like the 12 Canadian >companies and half million, well paying manufacturing jobs wiped >out by the FTA so we can buy Chinese junk.. > >Cheers, Ed. > > > > >At 07:58 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >>Actually, with a huge (for Canada) turnout of around 70%, Mulroney >>managed about 30% of approval from 'elibile voters' for the FTA, >>and the NAFTA was even a worse joke, as Chretien, I am sure you >>will recall, ran promising to 'abrogate or renegotiate!!', for >>which he did get his majority - and then promptly signed the NAFTA >>as was, a complete betrayal of those who voted for him. We always >>have an option, of course, we can unelect such people the next time >>they decide to call an election ... Democracy in Action!! - and so >>it shall remain, until We the People stand up and say NO MORE!! >>(unfortunately, there don't seem to be many We the People types out >>there - mostly 'I'm a good citizen who does and believes as s/he's >>told' types sitting in front of their tvs these days, lining up for >>their flu shots or choosing teams for the upcoming "election"... ) >> >>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >>On 10-01-08 at 7:45 PM Ed Deak wrote: >> >>The most disgusting experience was in 1988, when the Mulroney >>government was pushing the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, a bloody >>lie if there ever was one, on the public. Mulroney's gang received >>43% of the votes, which still gave him a majority and we got the FTA >>and later the NAFTA, without any public inputs, or >>consultations. What we have is a system where a government with any >>kind of majority, or even minority, like the present gang, receive >>dictatorial powers for 4 years and the public is welcome jump up and down. >> >>2 days after Mulroney's majority, before the FTA was implemented, but >>sure to happen, Gillette was the first company to announce their >>leaving of Canada. I threw out all the Gillette products from our >>house then and never bought any since. >> >>But what's the use ? Friends gave me several pairs of Kodiak socks >>for Christmas, an old and usually very good Canadian name and >>products. Made in bloody China. >> >>Now back to my usual, fantastic column writing ................ >> >>Cheers, Ed. >> >> >>At 07:27 PM 08/01/2010, you wrote: >> >At 12:56 PM 9/01/2010, Elizabeth May wrote: >> >>>The solutions lie in some fundamental changes because we are a >> >>>multi-party society in a two-party voting system. We either have >> >>>to move to a system of proportional representation or we have to >> >>>change our attitude towards minority governments and decide we are >> >>>going to make them work. I still feel that the aborted coalition >> >>>was a very hopeful thing even to just have had it floated on the >> >>>political stage. I regret Ignatieff's decision not to follow >> >>>through with what had been set out as a workable modus operandi >> >>>between the Liberals and the NDP to avoid Stephen Harper >> >>>continuing his government. >> >> >> >>There is no possibility of that delivering democracy - only perhaps >> >>more stable representation. Only referenda can establish a >> >>democratic decision by the people. The attaching of Canada to >> >>NAFTA without the permission of the people by direct vote is proof >> >>that anything less is not democracy. The people are required to >> >>obey an agreement they have never adopted, just as the people of >> >>Europe (other than Ireland where they voted for it) being stuck >> >>with the EU constitution. That is the direct antithesis of >> >>democracy and would still be so even if a fully representative >> >>government agreed to it. Dion Giles >> > >> > >> >Yes, I agree with Dion. Proportional representation is better than >> >minority government, but direct democracy (including citizens' >> >initiated referendum) - especially on matters of great public import >> >- is even better. >> > >> >Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the >> >people. Democracy is NOT government of the people, by the >> >representatives of vested interests, and for the benefit of those >> >vested interests. >> > >> >John Hermann >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Mai-not mailing list >> >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >> >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> > >> > >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >> >01/08/10 11:35:00 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >>01/08/10 19:35:00 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >>01/08/10 11:35:00 > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: >01/08/10 11:35:00 From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Fri Jan 8 22:52:31 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:52:31 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: CAUT report reveals effects of occupation of Palestine on higher education workers Message-ID: <00d101ca90f8$93594230$18ad57ca@jfos> http://www.palestinecenterblog.org/2010/01/canadian-teachers-group-israeli.html Canadian Association of University Teachers report reveals effects of occupation of Palestine on higher education workers from CAUT and Education International http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=849 =================== Note: Education International is the global union federation representing more than 30 million teachers and education workers in 172 countries and territories. The Canadian Association of University Teachers represents more than 67,000 academic and general staff at colleges and universities across Canada. Basic Academic Freedoms and Rights Violated in Israel and Palestinian Territories The academic freedom and professional rights of higher education teaching personnel in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are increasingly under assault as a result of the continuing political conflict in the region, according to a report released today by Education International and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. ?Both Israeli and Palestinian academics are facing greater pressure from outside political influences and from within the academy itself,? says David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT and author of the report. ?There are clear and consistent violations of internationally recognized academic rights as detailed in UNESCO?s 1997 Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel.? The study, The Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, found that the strong polarization of opinions within Israel over the political conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has generated several prominent academic freedom controversies in recent years. In addition, proposed changes to the governance of Israeli universities threaten to weaken institutional autonomy and academic freedom. However, it is in the Palestinian territories that the report finds the most serious violations of basic academic freedoms and rights. ?Many of the violations of academic freedom in the West Bank and Gaza are a result of the Israeli occupation,? says Robinson. ?Israel unquestionably has legitimate security concerns and has a right and responsibility to defend its citizens. However, as documented in the report, the near complete blockade of the Gaza Strip and the tight travel restrictions imposed on residents within the West Bank go beyond what can be reasonably justified and have seriously disrupted the work of Palestinian scholars.? Limits imposed on freedom of movement within the Palestinian territories make it difficult and in many cases impossible for Palestinian academics and students to attend conferences or study abroad, and have forced local universities to shut down early and to close entirely for extended periods. There are bans on the import of certain research equipment and materials needed to pursue scholarly activities, and many academics face arbitrary arrest and detention by both Israeli and Palestinian authorities. The report argues that the restrictions on academic freedom are undermining the democratic development of the West Bank and Gaza and are frustrating the peace process. ?Israeli and Palestinian universities and colleges have a critical role to play in helping find peaceful solutions to the conflict,? says Monique Fouilhoux, deputy general secretary of Education International. ?But they can only do this if their scholars are free to express their views and debate controversial matters without fear of recrimination.? The report recommends ways that higher education associations and unions worldwide can provide expertise and support to Israeli and Palestinian colleagues to help improve their conditions of employment and assert their professional rights as recognized by the UNESCO Recommendation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Sat Jan 9 11:08:30 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:08:30 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Resisting global ecological change Message-ID: <20100109190838.C47F8E891B7@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> This is like whistling against the wind in our economic /political system built on blind faith in the impossible, but at least some are waking up. Cheers, Ed. January 5, 2010 EARTH MEANDERS: Resisting Global Ecological Change By Dr. Glen Barry, Ecological Internet Earth Meanders come from Earth's Newsdesk Shared survival requires powering down, going back to the land, and ecological resistance. The human family faces imminent and (Copenhagen would suggest) inevitable collapse of the biosphere ? the thin layer of life upon an otherwise lifeless planet ? that makes Earth habitable. Marshes and rivers and forests and fish are far more than resources ? they and all natural ecosystems are a necessity for humanity?s existence upon Earth. A few centuries of historically unprecedented explosion in human numbers and surging, albeit inequitable, consumption and resultant resource use, ecosystem destruction and pollution; is needlessly destroying being for all living things. Revolutionary action such as ending coal use, reforming industrial agriculture and protecting and restoring old forests and other natural ecosystems, is a requirement for the continuation of shared human being. Earth is threatened by far more than a changing atmosphere causing climate change. Cumulative ecosystem destruction ? not only in climate, but also water, forests, oceans, farmland, soils and toxics -- in the name of ?progress? and ?development? -- threatens each of us, our families and communities, as well as the Earth System in total and all her creatures. Any chance of achieving global ecological sustainability depends urgently upon shifting concerns regarding climate change to more sufficiently transform ourselves and society to more broadly resist global ecological change. Global ecological, social and economic collapse may be inevitable, but its severity, duration and likelihood of recovery are being determined by us now. It does not look good as the environmental movement has been lacking in its overall vision, ambition and implementation. The growing numbers of ecologically literate global citizens must come forward to together start considering ecologically sufficient emergency measures to protect and restore global ecosystems. We need a plan that allows humans and as many other species as possible to survive the coming great ecological collapse, even as we work to soften the collapse, and to restore to the extent practicable the Earth?s ecosystems. This mandates full protection for all remaining large natural ecosystems and working to reconnect and enlarge biologically rich smaller remnants that still exist. It is time for a hard radical turn back to a fully functioning and restored natural Earth which will require again regaining our bond with land (and air, water and oceans), powering down our energy profligacy, and taking whatever measures are necessary to once again bring society into balance with ecosystems. This may mean taking all measures necessary to stop those known to be destroying ecosystems for profit. As governments dither and the elite profit, it has become dreadfully apparent that the political, economic and social structures necessary to stop human ecocide of our and all life?s habitats does not yet exist. The three hundred year old hyper-capitalistic and nationalistic growth machine eating ecosystems is not going to willingly stop growing. But unless it does, human and most or all other life will suffer a slow and excruciating apocalyptic death. Actions can be taken now to soften ecological collapse while maximizing the likelihood that a humane and ecologically whole Earth remains to be renewed. Geoengineering Won?t Work The only ?Plan B? offered by the ruling elite is to actively consider geoengineering global ecological processes and countless other techno-fixes. Rather than power down or sacrifice, it appears we as a species are willing to gamble with long odds with our and all lives. As if scouring all sorts of ecosystems of their life, global polluting industrialism, and embrace of consumption as the meaning of life is not enough of a load for global ecosystems. Now it is proposed we further alter oceans and the atmosphere unnaturally at a global scale to engineer a biosphere. Humans cannot control most invasive species, keep oil out of water, or feed everyone; yet now we are fit to run the biosphere? Unintended, inequitable and horrendous consequences are assured. Gaia ? the Earth System ? is far too complex to engineer and trying will seal the demise of our shared, finely honed, and naturally evolved biosphere. Geoengineering and the blind faith in technology it represents can only lead to further degradation of ecosystems and biosphere, over population and consumption, while virtually annihilating any chance of maintaining a natural and habitable Earth. It would be far better to embrace ecological restoration and other necessary policy measures including ending coal, industrial agricultural and old forest logging. A biosphere can never be engineered, but it may be planted, tended and assisted to restore itself. First you take the pressure off ecosystems, and then allow and assist them to naturally recover. Global ecological protection and restoration is the only sort of human ecosystem manipulation that can save us now. Given the momentum of seven billion super-predators consuming ecosystems to meet their every (and endless) whims, it is not possible to stop social, economic and ecological collapse. But there is a still chance of a worthy human society post economic and ecological collapse if we return to the land, power down and resist. It is all about having as much intact ecosystems as possible to lighten the blow and reconstitute society and ecosystems post-collapse. Here, and in my forth-coming book ?New Earth Rising?, as a political ecologist I offer a very different plan to the blind faith in technological progress that removes us more from natural life-giving ecosystem processes and patterns. Perhaps this can be called Plan ?ER? for Earth Restoration. Powering Down It is a global ecological imperative that we begin dismantling the industrial growth machine to return to honest, well-lived and simple lifestyles ? protecting, tending and restoring natural agro-ecosystems. Though terribly difficult given the choices society presents us, each of us must begin the process of getting off the grid, dramatically cutting our energy use and refusing to consume energy from burning fossil fuels. There will come a time where dismantling roads, industries and cities will be appropriate. We must insist that society?s resources are used towards these ends. But make no mistake, no amount of ?renewable energy? can allow current, much less predicted, excessive energy usage for everything from our food to our transport to our housing to continue. The ?slowing? economy in the over-developed world is the logical conclusion of disease like growth in human populations, resource use and consumption. Highly satisfying for some for awhile, but such ecocidal resource binging cannot and will not last. And now the entire world, including the 2 billion that live on under $2 a day, understandably and justly want better lives. Sadly though, through the power of corporate media, most poor style the ideal life upon the excesses of the West. This means they undervalue their own more ecologically sustainable and personally satisfying lifestyles and livelihoods driven by community and sharing. Life is clearly more than what you own and consume, it is what you do and who you are that counts. And it is never too late to make positive changes. Both personally and societally we must wean ourselves from gluttonous energy use and conspicuous over-consumption, and demand political and social structures that compel others do so as well. As individuals we are faced with much outside of our control, so it won?t all happen at once, but each of us must begin disengaging ourselves from the dominant growth paradigm, and begin to achieve some measure of self-sufficiency. Start by becoming as independent from slave wage labor and marketing neuroses as fast as financially feasible. Those that voluntarily begin to power down will be at an enormous advantage as the ecological shit hits the fan. And there is no better place to start than loving and being one with a piece of land. The land, think always of the land. Back to the Land The age of Ecological Restoration will be predicated upon a return to the land to practice local agrarian democracy. There is no chance of survival post economic, social and ecological collapse if you do not have a homestead ? a piece of land, with water, good soils, tools, seeds and other implements of self-sufficiency. Cities are artificial constructs that consume resources from far and wide, and whose resource use and pollution can never be sustained. When collapse hits, billions will die there in a very short time, as the modern and ecologically illiterate learn food and water does not come from grocery stores and taps. Living the good life ? or for that matter any life at all ? will soon not be possible unless you have prepared your land and are willing and able to defend it. This does not necessarily suggest survivalist paranoia, as when the rains stop and Earth grows parched, it is highly likely mobility will cease and we will be left to live where we are. Prepare to live upon land within the limits of your bioregion. There are many opportunities to pursue alternative sharing communities. Large numbers of well-networked people locally, and on the Internet for as long as it lasts, going back to the land to live in an ecologically sustainable manner is the second component of a radical turn away from inappropriate technology and economic growth; to a restoration economy, living more fulfilling lives with the land and reintegrating humans with nature. Even the richest countries still possess relatively inexpensive land with remnant ecosystems that can be assisted to enlarge. Not-yet-over-developed countries still hold much potential for self-support. We must all relearn to plant and tend our forest gardens, organic permaculture and native ecosystems starting now and for eternity. As with any animal, we cannot long persist without intact habitat. Human well-being all comes back to the state of the land and its soil and biota. When we protect and restore land ? water, oceans and atmosphere are much improved as well. It has long been known that full and sensible lives are possible from living within a local bioregion?s bounty. The explosive growth in everything is a new phenomenon and cannot and will not be sustained under any conditions. It is not necessary to work so hard to acquire stuff. Much satisfaction comes from being one with land, having a loving family and community, and enjoying the arts, sports, literature and other aspects of culture we love. Ecological collapse will still be wrenching, but on the land you and a civilized way of life have a fighting chance. Live simply, laugh often and love deeply. Ecological Resistance The next stage towards ecological enlightenment and serving Gaia is passive refusal to participate in the system, escalating through various stages of resistance until known ecocidal activities are ended ? and ecosystems protected and widely restored ? as soon as possible. No one including this political ecologist is suggesting that imminently we should start waging violent revolution against the speculative industrial growth machine that is killing us all. At this time we would lose an outright fight. But clearly it is time to have a conversation regarding what other types of protest activities besides petitions and protests are valid in a dying world, even within supposed democracies. What the Earth System needs badly right now is a million acts of resistance to obstruct and eventually destroy the ecologically unsustainable economic growth machine. There is an immediate need to vigorously obstruct the growth machine through active non-participation in the speculative industrial system. At some point others may wish to consider destruction of Earth destroying equipment through carefully targeted acts of sabotage. And if this fails, we may come to realize a need to pursue more revolutionary acts, such as insurgency and guerrilla warfare. From time to time through human history it has been necessary to wage war to promote greater justice, equity and freedom ? and now perhaps ecological sustainability as well. Those that are so enamored with Gandhi and King that they cannot even broach the subject of possible revolutionary tactics are na?ve and misunderstand history. There are times when society has decades to change, and can do so entirely peacefully using patient tactics, and there are others where the elite rule and their own violence to Earth and the poor is so pervasive, that only rapidly escalating acts of resistance offer any hope. There has never been such justification ? the destruction of the Earth as a whole and all its attendant parts ? to at least consider various revolutionary acts to bring about a personal and social revolution in humanity?s relationship to Gaia. Collapse is inevitable and large numbers are going to die, the question in regard to our current actions is whether Earth, humanity and our sister species will persist and resurge or not. Those on their moral high horses that refuse to even discuss destroying known perpetrators of ecocide, and ostracizing those that do, are dooming the Earth to an apocalyptic death. I state this fully realizing how devastating wars are. Yet much of the world lives in abject want and indelible violence of the existing industrial capitalistic system already, and the rest will soon join them as ecosystems and their economies collapse. We can stop the violence being done to Earth, humanity and all creatures in the name of ?progress?; or we can wait passively for the coming anarchy. Our ability to withstand and recover from collapse depends intimately upon ending the destruction and beginning an era of Revolutionary Ecological Restoration. Time is short and ecosystems failing. Almost certainly Earth is more resilient than generally supposed. But ecological limits exist and global ecosystems have never encountered such massive disturbance so quickly from one species. While I feel compelled to present this biocentric vision, it is one that does not come easily for me either. This thought of a less consumptive and more local living scares me too. I like technology and the comforts it provides. On several occasions, including after a nervous breakdown several years ago, I wanted nothing to do with this lifestyle. But now I realize it is the only humane and just way that allows humanity to survive and, perhaps along with all Earth?s life, prosper again. Earth is dying. You can sit back and enjoy creature comforts for awhile more, participating in the slaying of Gaia, and then witness and feel personally the disintegration of being, or you can start crafting the land stewardship, resource renewal and political systems that will allow humanity to minimize the disruption and persist well post collapse. And the resulting death and mayhem will certainly be lessened if you and your friends decide to take a hard turn back to nature starting now ? and choose to power down, go back to the land, and actively resist. Discuss this academic essay at: http://www.ecoearth.info/blog/ Posted by Dr. Glen Barry on January 5, 2010 12:57 AM | More on ecological restoration revolution Comments This book presents an argument, that, although global warming is inevitable, we are not late to save at least part of human civilization. Nikita Ecosystem Posted by: Nikita Ecosystem | January 5, 2010 6:11 AM Dear Friends, Perhaps necessary change is in the offing. As currently structured, the global economy appears not to be working well and could be fast approaching a point in human history when the manmade "economic colossus" becomes too big not to fail because of its unsustainability in the finite and frangible world we inhabit. Although many of you appear to be correct in so much of what you report, I have held onto hope for more, much more intellectual honesty, moral courage and bold action from leaders in my not-so-great generation as a way of responding ably to the global challenges that have emerged in my lifetime. Perhaps there is still time available to reasonably acknowledge and sensibly address the converging global challenges that loom before humanity now. At least one of these ominous global challenges, the human overpopulation of Earth, is clearly visible for all to see if not for the willful blindness, hysterical deafness and elective mutism of many too many leaders and experts. Their disregard of the best available science as well as their specious ideological presumptions, the ones derived from the culturally extolled virtue of unbridled greed on one hand and the endless global growth of human production, consumption and propagation activities on the other, appear to be directing the children down a short, patently unsustainable "primrose path" to an unimaginable confrontation with some sort of colossal ecological wreckage, I suppose. Thanks again to all for speaking out loudly and clearly. Sincerely, Steve Posted by: Steve Salmony | January 5, 2010 8:42 AM While it is indeed risky, there is no evidence that a biosphere must never be engineered. Perhaps there are lifeforms elsewhere in the universe who have done so successfully. Posted by: Marcia Earth | January 5, 2010 12:02 PM Sin duda alguna el deterioramiento del planeta tierra es cada vez mas evidente y se hace presente de manera mas palpable en nuestras vidas. Ciudades en las cuales no es posible respirar aire puro, racionamientos de agua y energia. La falta de liderasgo de los lideres mundiales hacia los problemas ambientales que estamos afrontando hace mas confusa y dificil la manera de encontrar una salida ha este proble. Mientras como en paises en via de desarrollo de donde provengo los politicos maquinan las diferentes formas de robarce el dinero destinado a los proyectos de desarrollo, los politicos de los paises desarrollados parecen divertirce y disfrutar la corrupcion que nos agobia. Como individuo y habitante de Gaia busco ayudar a la problematica ambiental estudiando las formas de administrar los recursos naturales y procurar su eficiente uso. Esta es una tarea muy dificil por que me enfrento a personas cuyo objetivo es acumular riqueza sin importar el precio que los ecosistemas tenga que pagar. Invito a todas las personas que se interezan por el medio ambiente a que estudien los diferentes ecosistemas que nos ofrece este maravilloso planeta, se enamoren de el, y nos consienticemos que la vida es mas que acumular riquezas. Gracias a todos las personas de mente abierta que entiende que la atmosfera es la misma para todos en este planeta tierra. Posted by: Ronald Castle | January 5, 2010 12:08 PM You guys need to keep up this great work.. I mean where else would we get this information? You are the only daring, gutsy, truly progressive environmental group out there. I admire you. And as soon as I have some $$$ (in a minute, I hope!) I will be donating to you for sure. Rock on. Posted by: Caroline | January 5, 2010 5:41 PM Consciously and willfully getting it wrong in a time when greed rules. Please consider that the neo-classical economics practiced today could be an example of pathological growth... a particularly virulent disease infecting the human community that may not be 'discovered' until it is too late to do anything about it. http://www.thestreet.com/story/10652904/1/hey-fed-whats-going-on.html?puc=_tscrss Hey Fed, What's Going On? By Eric Jackson 12/30/09 - 06:05 AM EST Last week, Canadian hedge fund manager Eric Sprott published a white paper titled, "Is it all just a Ponzi scheme?" . The document digs into who is actually purchasing the recent Federal Reserve U.S. Treasury auctions and concludes that the biggest new buyer this year vs. last year is actually the U.S. government. Hence the Ponzi scheme allusion: One arm of the federal government is running huge deficits and quantitative easing programs that are being financed in part by another arm of that government. How can this story not get more attention from others in the press, in politics, or in the market? Sprott is an unapologetic bear. He and David Rosenberg must hang out in the same coffee shops of Toronto and share notes. Therefore, his views regularly get dismissed by some with a rosier view of life. At some point, if you're a relentless bear -- like Roubini, Rogers, Rosenberg, Abelson, and probably Whitney now -- people stop listening to your content. "This is the 'end-of-the-world' guy again," you think, "I know what he's about and don't have to listen." Yet, Sprott is also Canada's most successful hedge fund manager and clearly someone who does his homework. Here's his argument about what's gone on with the Fed and Treasury purchases this year. In order to fund bigger deficits, the U.S. government in 2009 has had to sell three times the amount of debt it issued in 2008. That amounts to an extra $1.89 trillion in debt sales as of December, according to the U.S. Treasury. So who is buying these additional issuances? According to the Fed's own disclosures, foreign buyers have stepped up their purchases, but only by an additional 23% over 2008 levels. The Fed itself has increased its purchases by 60% from last year. The third group, which has increased its debt purchases from $90 billion in 2008 to $680 billion this year, if it keeps on its current trajectory, is "other investors." And who are these other investors? Sprott identifies that $528 billion of the $680 billion for this category was for Treasury purchases made by "the Household Sector." It turns out that this sub-grouping isn't actual households buying Treasuries but a general catch-all sub-category for any residuals left over from the other categories. Specifically quoting the Fed's definition of this sub-category: "The amounts of Treasury securities held by all other sectors, obtained from asset data reported by the companies or institutions themselves, are subtracted from total Treasury securities outstanding, obtained from the Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government and the balance is assigned to the household sector." In other words, it's not clear who is making these additional $528 billion in purchases this year -- or roughly 28% of the total. Sprott's conclusion is that it's the Fed itself that is responsible for these purchases and he then makes the link between this and running a giant Ponzi scheme. Sprott, to back up his assertion, also notes that Bill Gross -- who is no longer purchasing U.S. Treasuries for the world's largest mutual fund -- has referred to the U.S. as a "ponzi-style economy." It bothers me that a sole hedge fund manager is connecting these dots, rather than other journalists, politicians, regulators, or other market actors. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has yet to be held accountable for what's going on with these purchases. The Fed's own data here is sufficient to call out for a more explicit explanation of what's going on. We endlessly hear about Ron Paul's quixotic campaign to "audit the Fed." Yet, where is he on this issue that's already in plain sight, not requiring any additional audit? It gives me little confidence that even if he's granted special powers to go in and examine what's going on at the Fed, he will be able to first identify and then correct problems that warrant attention. Growing up, we all watched Mike Wallace go after crime and corruption on "60 Minutes," but no equivalent to him exists today in the business press. "60 Minutes" itself, when it does cover economic news, covers it either in an overly simplistic way that plays to "Joe Main Street" but doesn't lead to any changes. Examples are the TV news magazine's "expose" on credit default swaps or a chummy Steve Kroft interview with President Obama. We assume the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or Barron's will turn up the kinds of interesting data that Sprott did and turn it into a Page One story until it gets rectified in some way. But even these fabled institutions have missed this story. I don't care if the economy is in a fragile state: Taxpayers deserve to know what's really going on. We're after truth here. Market actors are grown-ups actually. They should know exactly what's on the books of Citigroup(C Quote), Wells Fargo(WFC Quote) and what's going on at the Fed. These types of self-dealing shenanigans are the stuff that stunk up Enron. And now we have the whiff of it happening at the Federal Reserve and no one's taken a look at this? We live in an age in which we all piously pronounce, after the fact, that it was obvious Dubai and Greece were going to blow up. We all knew housing was a bubble. We denounce Alan Greenspan as having been way behind the curve. Yet where were those criticisms before the fact? No doubt that if trouble comes next year which relates back to Fed self-dealing, we'll all say, "Oh yeah, we talked about that possibility last Christmas, remember? Yeah, we all knew something wasn't right." This is human rationalization, but not foresight. We lack the courage and the will to talk about this stuff now in the moment and actually force the Fed to account for itself. Instead, we look away while the Fed tries to reflate this economy like a beat-up old bicycle in the back garage. We all hope the Fed's efforts work and since we don't have any better ideas we shrug our shoulders and get back to our day jobs. It worries me though that no matter how much you try to keep reflating a bicycle wheel with holes in it it still has the holes. Posted by: Steven Earl Salmony | January 7, 2010 8:05 AM Post a Comment If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here. (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style) ? Copyright 1999-2009, EcoEarth.Info a Project of Ecological Internet | Campaigns | FAQ | Disclaimer | Privacy _______________________________________________ Sunrise mailing list Sunrise at ml.islandnet.com http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/sunrise No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2609 - Release Date: 01/08/10 23:35:00 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Jan 10 00:00:23 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:00:23 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Economists among The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2009 [foreignpolicy.org] Message-ID: <4B4950D7.2564.2F74395@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Here are the economists, mostly mainstream and orthodox, along with a few high profile pundits, who although not economists, write about the global economy and or financial crisis all of whom are on the list of Foreign Policy Magazine's end of year picks of the Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2009. I've also included political scientist Elinor Ostrom, winner of the Nobel for economics, for her ideas on the Commons which challenge the notion of both privatization and government regulation thereof. The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/ the_fp_top_100_global _thinkers?page=full fyi-janet ==================================== >From the brains behind Iran's Green Revolution to the economic Cassandra who actually did have a crystal ball, they had the big ideas that shaped our world in 2009. Read on to see the 100 minds that mattered most in the year that was. Special Edition of Foreign Policy Magazine The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/ the_fp_top_100_global _thinkers?page=full DECEMBER 2009 1. Ben Bernanke for staving off a new Great Depression. CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE | WASHINGTON The Zen-like chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve might not have topped the list solely for turning his superb academic career into a blueprint for action, for single-handedly reinventing the role of a central bank, or for preventing the collapse of the U.S. economy. But to have done all of these within the span of a few months is certainly one of the greatest intellectual feats of recent years. Not long ago a Princeton University professor writing paper after paper on the Great Depression, "Helicopter Ben" spent 2009 dropping hundreds of billions in bailouts seemingly from the skies, vigilantly tracking interest rates, and coordinating with counterparts across the globe. His key insight? The need for massive, damn-the-torpedoes intervention in financial markets. Winning over critics who have since praised his "radical" moves (including Nouriel Roubini, No. 4 on this list), he now faces an uphill battle in his bid for permanently expanded Fed powers. The radicalism is far from over. "Those who doubt that there is much connection between the economy of the 1930s and the supercharged, information-age economy of the twenty- first century are invited to look at the current economic headlines -- about high unemployment, failing banks, volatile financial markets, currency crises, and even deflation. The issues raised by the Depression, and its lessons, are still relevant today." --Bernanke, Essays on the Great Depression 4. Nouriel Roubini for accurately forecasting the global financial pandemic. ECONOMIST | NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK Sometimes it takes a crisis to turn a madman into a prophet. And that's just what has happened to New York University economist Nouriel Roubini, known fondly by economy-watchers as Dr. Doom. When he predicted back in 2006 that the bursting of the housing bubble would decimate global credit markets, causing a broad, international recession, he sounded crazy, IMF economist Prakash Loungani told the New York Times. Not so after 2007: "He was a prophet when he returned." Today, "prophet" is certainly an apt word for the gloomy man who is perhaps the world's most sought-after economic advisor. Central bankers have come to appreciate his ability to peer around dark corners of the global economy, seeing potential busts where others see booms. As his NYU colleague Tunku Varadarajan put it, he's "the nearest thing to a rock star among the economists." "Last year's worst-case scenarios came true. The global financial pandemic that I and others had warned about is now upon us. But we are still only in the early stages of this crisis. My predictions for the coming year, unfortunately, are even more dire: The bubbles, and there were many, have only begun to burst." --Roubini, Foreign Policy, January 2009 Read more: "Market Riot," By Noam Scheiber ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Win McNamee/Getty Images 5. Rajendra Pachauri for ending the debate over whether climate change matters. CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE | INDIA As the link between human activity and climate change becomes conventional wisdom and governments work urgently to establish a global climate treaty, Pachauri deserves no small amount of credit for creating such an extraordinary shift in public opinion. Pachauri, an engineering and economics Ph.D., has since 2002 chaired the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. Since then, Pachauri has raised the specter of large-scale population displacement and the existential threat that global warming poses to low-lying island nations, while arguing that large, industrializing countries such as China and India will not act on the issue before the Western world curbs its own greenhouse gas emissions. He has also backed the adoption of extremely ambitious emissions cuts, recently recommending that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations be kept below 350 parts per million. Any progress toward thwarting climate change this year owes a great deal to Pachauri. 7. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler for taking behavioralism from niche to necessary. WHITE HOUSE POLICY ADVISOR | WASHINGTON ECONOMIST | UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO | CHICAGO Sunstein and Thaler describe themselves as "libertarian paternalists," but you probably know them more simply as the behavioralism gurus. Their big idea -- to use small policy tweaks to overcome human capriciousness -- has turned the field of economics upside down and, most recently, won them an ear at the Obama White House. Humans, the two men argue in their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, tend to be emotional, rash, and uninformed, and value the present more than the future. They're far from the rational creatures upon which so much economic policy is based. So what's a responsible government to do? Use free market policies that "nudge" citizens toward the smart options they wouldn't otherwise select, such as setting "opting in" as the default choice for retirement funds and organ donation. It's a quietly revolutionary idea from two brainy guys: Thaler is a University of Chicago-trained economist whose name has been mentioned along with "Nobel" more than a few times; Sunstein is a Harvard-trained lawyer who clerked for Thurgood Marshall and "seems to write a book about as often as most people run the dishwasher," as one 2008 profile put it. Clearly, people in power are reading: Thaler is reportedly advising the British Conservative Party on economic policy, and Sunstein, as the new head of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is nudging Obama administration rules on everything from avian flu to student loans. Sunstein and his wife, Samantha Power (No. 80), are the only married couple to be named individually to this year's Global Thinkers list. "The concept behind libertarian paternalism is that it's possible to maintain freedom of choice -- that's libertarian -- while also moving people in directions that make their own lives a bit better -- that's paternalism. We think it's possible to combine two reviled concepts." --Sunstein, Grist 9. Zhou Xiaochuan for reminding the world that we can't take the dollar for granted. GOVERNOR, PEOPLE'S BANK OF CHINA | CHINA These days, China's politicians rarely miss an opportunity to lecture the United States on its fiscal recklessness. But Zhou, the People's Bank of China governor, worried about the safety of the $1 trillion in U.S. debt held by Beijing, has gone much further, drafting a proposal to fundamentally overhaul the entire global financial system. In a market-shaking speech this March, China's chief economist proposed a new form of synthetic international reserve currency under the management of the IMF, which, he argued, would afford far greater global economic stability. Despite his measured words, Zhou's well-publicized proposal and his critiques of U.S. economic planning have been interpreted as a sign of Beijing's growing confidence in its own financial prescriptions. Shortly afterward, Russia released its version of Zhou's plan, while U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he was "quite open" to the idea. As if to prove Zhou's point, Geithner's off-the-cuff response quickly sent the dollar tumbling. 14. Larry Summers for being the brains behind Obama's economic policy. CHIEF WHITE HOUSE ECONOMICS ADVISOR | WASHINGTON The famously combative Summers is, put simply, one of his generation's finest economists, if not the very best. And over the past year he has managed to put his ego aside to work with Obama and Timothy Geithner in easing the world out of crisis. Well before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Summers -- accused by some of being an architect of the bubble with his advocacy of light banking regulations and low interest rates -- had been warning about impending dire macroeconomic trouble, starting with the housing and financial markets. His prescience led to his White House job as the behind-the-scenes arbitrator in the midst of the global crisis. He drove the debate over the size of the stimulus, arguing forcefully for a 10-digit bill (which ended up 15 percent lower). He has also taken a strong and surprising lead on housing policy, climate change, health-care reform, and the automaker bankruptcies, helping tailor White House proposals for maximum job creation. By his account, he has helped walk the U.S. economy "some substantial distance back from the abyss." 21. Thomas Friedman for his genius at popularizing complex ideas. COLUMNIST | NEW YORK TIMES | BETHESDA, MD. War correspondent, globalization evangelist, public intellectual, environmentalist; few have cast their nets so wide while maintaining such tight focus as Friedman. Now, the paradigm shift that characterized his 2005 work The World Is Flat has found a new and perhaps surprising incarnation in the service of the environmental movement. Hot, Flat, and Crowded is Friedman's manifesto on the climate crisis. The free market, he argues, can be a major positive force in tackling overconsumption, thus saving us from ourselves. The challenge is decoupling it from the fossil fuel industry and allowing it to "tell the ecological truth." Once this has been achieved, more sustainable modes of living should rapidly become the norm. If Washington gets serious about clean energy investment and innovation, and if the next generation of Americans embraces a greener future, Friedman will deserve no small part of the credit. Reading list: South of Broad, by Pat Conroy; Forces of Fortune, by Vali Nasr. Wants to visit: If security wasn't an issue, I would want to go to South Waziristan. Best idea: Greg Mortenson's idea for building schools for girls in the Arab Muslim world. Worst idea: That the world's big problem is going to be global cooling, not global warming. Gadget: Never looked at either Facebook or Twitter. BlackBerry. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22. Robert Shiller for warning us -- over and over -- about dangerous bubbles. ECONOMIST | YALE UNIVERSITY | NEW HAVEN, CONN. For much of his career, Shiller has explained bubbles and watched them pop. He was studying them in the early 1990s when he joined with economist Karl Case to create a standard measure of home prices: the S&P/Case-Shiller index, a signal macroeconomic metric. His 2000 book, Irrational Exuberance, asserted that the U.S. stock market was in the midst of a bubble right before it burst (and proved him right). This go-round, he was in the exclusive club of experts who warned of the housing bubble that led to the financial bubble that led to the recession. He recognized not just that home prices were inflated, but also that zero-money-down mortgages and complex financial derivatives meant the banking system was grossly underestimating, mismanaging, and multiplying risk. His latest book, Animal Spirits -- co-written with University of California-Berkeley's George Akerlof -- examines the emotional, irrational "spirits" that drive investors. It also encapsulates much of Shiller's insight on behavioral economics; in the 1980s, he was one of the early skeptics of the then-ascendant efficient-markets hypothesis and a keen explainer of the irrationality of markets. He spoke with Foreign Policy this fall: On Ben Bernanke's performance at the Fed: He's been a great Fed chairman because he's taken really decisive steps. He was slow to see the crisis coming. But once he saw it was there, and saw the parallels to the Great Depression, he acted decisively and with some courage. He's filled in a gap. Congress was not likely to do enough to deal with this crisis. He had authority from a law from the 1930s to lend to non-bank institutions under exigent and unusual circumstances. He took that authority and challenged Congress to say no to him. But they were ready to let him take responsibility and do it. So he created all those lending facilities and doubled the balance sheet, from $1 to $2 trillion. That was the most significant thing: It wasn't the stimulus -- it was the bailout. It was controversial, but it prevented the systemic collapse that we saw during the Great Depression. Bernanke didn't want to see that happen, and it looks like a success. On the future of the U.S. economy: The longer-run thing is worrisome. We set up an example for the too-big-to-fail institutions -- and that could hold back the economy. What it means is that the big institutions are safe and they become like dinosaurs. And it's hard to compete against them because you're competing against the government. 25. Joseph Stiglitz for relentlessly questioning economic dogma. ECONOMIST | COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK When the bottom fell out of the U.S. economy in the winter of 2008, Stiglitz was standing over the wreckage proclaiming: I told you so. The Columbia University and former World Bank economist has long warned that excessive deregulation could spell doom for the U.S. economy. But throughout his career, he has been an equal-opportunity gadfly. Stiglitz won the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics for showing how information asymmetries can cause markets to fail. Best known for arguing that globalization works against poor countries, he more recently has joined the chorus calling for a new reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar. His iconoclasm has often placed Stiglitz on the outside looking in on the policymaking process. But with the financial crisis calling into question core principles of the economic system, politicians from France's Nicolas Sarkozy to China's Hu Jintao are turning to America's most prominent economic dissident for answers. 28. Elinor Ostrom for showing us that the global commons isn't such a tragic place after all. POLITICAL SCIENTIST | INDIANA UNIVERSITY | BLOOMINGTON, IND. Ostrom has spent her career arguing that the phrase "tragedy of the commons" paints an unnecessarily gloomy picture. After studying examples ranging from irrigation systems in Nepal to deforestation in Bolivia, Ostrom concluded that individuals often manage common resources better than conventional economic models predict. Her seminal book, Governing the Commons, identified key "design principles" for successful collective use of resources, such as the creation of a monitoring system, agreed to by all participants, that includes punishments for violations. Following these principles, she found, frequently yielded better results for the management of a resource than either privatization or government regulation. In recognition of her work, Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics, the first woman to do so. Now, policymakers are scouring her research for ideas on how to prevent the greatest potential tragedy of all -- climate change. 29. Paul Krugman for proving that a Nobel Prize winner can also be a prolific pundit and unerringly correct doomsayer. ECONOMIST | COLUMNIST | PRINCETON UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK TIMES | PRINCETON, N.J. The pessimistic, acerbic, and undeniably brilliant Krugman is an economist with impeccable bona fides: a tenured professor at Princeton and the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics for his work on economic geography. This year, his prominent job moonlighting as writer of a twice-weekly column and a popular blog for the New York Times has made him an indispensable guide to the financial crisis. More an unabashed partisan than a dispassionate academic, Krugman was an invaluable critic of rising income inequality during the Bush administration and over the past year has written original, provocative commentary with no fealty to reigning economic, financial, or political dogma. Today he is Obama's sharpest critic from the left -- the strongest voice with the loudest bullhorn, advocating for more government spending and inveighing against the bank bailouts. 33. Robert Zoellick and Dominique Strauss-Kahn for using the crisis in service of a good cause: helping the world's poor. PRESIDENT, WORLD BANK | WASHINGTON // MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND | WASHINGTON Zoellick and Strauss-Kahn have led the world's banks through what has surely been one of their most pivotal years. Just months before the Wall Street crash, the two institutions were verging on irrelevance. But after the world plunged into recession, Strauss-Kahn positioned the IMF as the world's go-to lender of last resort and won the support of the G-20 summit. As the IMF was bailing out such countries as Latvia and Ukraine and getting flexible credit lines to the likes of Colombia and Mexico, Zoellick's more development-minded World Bank was warning that almost 100 million people would be driven into poverty by the crisis. Though Zoellick is a free-trader and Strauss-Kahn a French socialist, both are on the same page when it comes to involving emerging markets more intimately in the decision-making and direction of the financial institutions. Together, they pushed for, and got, reform -- not just within countries, but at the international level, where they created a broader role for developing countries, envisioning a post-crisis world that will be truly multipolar. Robert Zoellick: Best idea: Broadening global economic governance beyond the G-7. Worst idea: That the global economic crisis is over. It's far from over -- especially in the developing world, where more than 90 million more people will be trapped in extreme poverty and tens of millions more people will be out of work. 35. Nicholas Stern for figuring out the costs of climate change and the politics of a solution. CLIMATE ECONOMIST | LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS | BRITAIN Studious, bespectacled, and self-effacing, Stern is not exactly the climate-change movement's Bono. But perhaps this is precisely the point -- the cold, hard logic of his groundbreaking 2006 "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" dragged the issue out from the preserve of ecowarriors and into the global mainstream. In a government-sponsored study, Stern and his team concluded that decisive early action would cost humanity far less in the long run than allowing rising sea levels, dwindling freshwater supplies, and shrinking habitats to reduce global GDP a projected 20 percent. These days, Stern is focusing on how to build the international alliances needed to find workable ways forward. His new book, The Global Deal, adds an increasingly rare element to the global climate debate: optimism. As he puts it, "Collective pessimism about our inability to act will deliver an inability to act." "What's the alternative to optimism? Unless we act as if we can sort this out, you might as well just get a hat and some suntan lotion and write a letter of apology to your grandchildren." --Stern, speech at the London School of Economics, April 21, 2009 38. George Soros for showing us that billionaires can be thinkers, too. PHILANTHROPIST AND INVESTOR | OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE | NEW YORK Over the course of 40 years, Budapest native George Soros built a multibillion-dollar fortune speculating on global currency markets. A philosophy and politics aficionado, Soros has used his wealth to bankroll democratic revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe and promote institutional reforms around the world. Lately, though, Soros has committed himself not just to earning capital and giving it away, but to reforming capitalism from the inside out. To this end, he has launched a think tank to foster fresh research, the Institute for New Economic Thinking, saying that "the entire edifice of global financial markets has been erected on the false premise that markets can be left to their own devices. We must find a new paradigm." Most recently, Soros has started pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into green technology, a sure sign of a financial opportunity -- or another bubble-on the horizon. 39. Jeffrey D. Sachs for being the global poor's most persistent advocate among the global elite. ECONOMIST | COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK As with his colleague and sometime rival William Easterly (tied at No. 39), the financial crisis had Sachs even more worried about the poor than usual. He had just spent the last decade trying to convince rich countries to devote a solid chunk of their GDP to bringing about The End of Poverty, as one of his recent book titles proclaims. As special advisor to then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (No. 30), Sachs was instrumental in drafting the Millennium Development Goals, the eight broad poverty-reduction targets the United Nations declared in 2000. In the years since, he has led the U.N. Millennium Project to develop model "villages" across Africa where all eight areas are addressed in tandem. Will the downturn derail his work? In 2009, Sachs fought to keep global leaders honest even in the face of fiscal hardship. After this April's G-20 summit he wrote, "The poorest countries, by and large, were not in the room. As usual, their plight came far behind the immediate concerns of the high-income and middle- income countries." 39. William Easterly for raising inconvenient truths about the foreign-aid business. ECONOMIST | NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK After a half-century of what Easterly sees as a failed experiment in international aid, the world risks losing all the hard-won progress it has made in the turmoil of the financial crisis. But not if this outspoken economist and cranky aid skeptic has anything to do with it. After finishing a 16-year stint at the World Bank, Easterly has made it his life's work to puncture holes in what he calls the "ideology of development." His voluminous commentary -- including his explosive 2006 book The White Man's Burden, a seemingly endless spat with nemesis Jeffrey Sachs, and now a blog and prolific Twitter feed - - is necessary reading for those who care about the world's belated and frequently disastrous efforts to help its most benighted citizens. 46. Muhammad Yunus for proving that the poor are profitable. ECONOMIST | GRAMEEN BANK | BANGLADESH Yunus might be the only banker to escape the financial crisis not just unscathed, but noticeably buoyant. A quarter-century after its founding as the world's first microlender to the poor, Yunus's Grameen Bank looks the very model of modern capitalism. The poor, Yunus has found, pay back their debts at least as well as their better-off peers, so much so that Grameen Bank now turns a profit. Yunus, whose work on microcredit earned him a Nobel Peace Prize and a U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, among other honors, has been an outspoken advocate of financial reform this year, calling for the global democratization of credit. "The real issue" is not charity, he writes in his autobiography. It's "giving every human being a fair chance." 56. Niall Ferguson for his intelligent, incessant questioning of dogma. HISTORIAN | HARVARD UNIVERSITY | CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Ferguson has made a career out of challenging sacred cows, both within academia and the popular imagination. A Financial Times columnist and author of the recent The Ascent of Money, among other books, he has worried that the United States' massive fiscal stimulus plan will cause an inexorable rise in long-term interest rates, crushing the hoped-for economic recovery. He has also been skeptical about the ability of government regulation to fix the economic mess, noting that the crisis began in the banking sector, the most heavily regulated area of the economy. As he said in June, "It took decades to get from the highly regulated economies of the 1970s to the free- wheeling, highly globalized economies of 2007. It takes a lot less time to destroy globalization.... We are already moving very rapidly away from globalization." 58. Amartya Sen for showing how democracy prevents famine. ECONOMIST | HARVARD UNIVERSITY | CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Sen is that rarest of hybrids -- "the only recent or living economist who takes philosophy seriously," in the words of Martha Nussbaum (No. 93). Taking his cue from such diverse figures as Karl Marx and Adam Smith (whom he hails as an underappreciated moral philosopher), Sen earned a Nobel Prize in economics in 1998 for his groundbreaking insight: Food scarcity doesn't kill people; bad governments do. Central to his thinking is the concept of "capabilities" -- the idea that it is not just the distribution of resources in a society that matters, but the ability of its members to make informed choices about the use of those resources and to punish leaders who fail them. A decade later, Sen remains a prominent political voice. In September he partnered with Joseph Stiglitz (No. 25) to release a study urging governments to incorporate noneconomic variables into assessments of well-being, and in October his new book The Idea of Justice topped the best-seller list in his native India. Best idea: That global politics demands uncompromising multilateralism. Worst idea: That the present Afghan problems are similar to those in Vietnam. 72. Jamais Cascio for being our moral guide to the future. FUTURIST | INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES | SAN FRANCISCO Climate change is coming, and geoengineering -- the prospect of artificially manipulating the world's climate -- may seem like an easy save. But in fact it's threatening and ethically complex, putting a literally earth-shaking power in the hands of a few, says Cascio in his new book, Hacking the Earth, the most subtle analysis so far on the subject. This year, Cascio, guru of all things on the horizon and founder of the website Open the Future, agitated to strengthen the global financial system through decentralization; argued passionately that resilience, not sustainability, must be the new goal of environmentalists; and has become a leading thinker on robot ethics. 74. Gordon Brown for his leadership during the financial crisis. PRIME MINISTER | BRITAIN Brown will very likely not be prime minister of Britain for much longer. The Labour Party will almost certainly suffer ignominious defeat in a national election sometime by mid-2010. The prime minister, who as chancellor of the exchequer under Prime Minister Tony Blair oversaw the inflation of massive housing and financial bubbles, will be known by his caricature in the British press, as a paranoid, bellowing, and incompetent leader. But even if Brown did not do enough to stop the bubbles from developing, he proved one of the world's most courageous leaders after they had burst. His government may not have quite "saved the world," as he claimed to much derision last December, but in acting immediately and forcefully to prevent disaster by nationalizing failing banks, pushing through massive stimulus measures, and urging his counterparts to do the same, he just may have saved his reputation. 86. Jacques Attali for defining public intellectual in the country that invented them. ECONOMIST | FRANCE For 20 years, Attali has been a major figure in French public life, as an advisor to President Fran?ois Mitterrand in the 1980s and then as an investor, the head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the author of numerous books. This year, at the request of President Nicolas Sarkozy, an Attali-led committee produced a groundbreaking report advising the president on how to kick-start growth by shrinking the lumbering French bureaucracy and implementing dozens of free market reforms. Attali also published a follow-up to the acclaimed Millennium, his 1991 book warning of the endpoint of globalization: a stateless world, populated by the hyperwealthy and the destitute poor. His prediction in 2009's A Brief History of the Future is that his globalized vision will come true -- but not before the end of American hegemony and horrific bloody wars. 100. Paul Kennedy for looking ahead to the decline of the American empire. HISTORIAN | YALE UNIVERSITY | NEW HAVEN, CONN. Kennedy literally wrote the book on imperial decline. His classic, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, charts the course of the great European empires, describing the pattern of economic expansion, territorial conquest, and imperial overstretch to which countries from Spain to Britain fell victim. Now, Kennedy has trained his sights on the United States, which, he says, is nearing the end of its own imperial dominance. "Our dependency upon foreign investors will approximate more and more the state of international indebtedness we historians associate with the reigns of Philip II of Spain and Louis XIV of France -- attractive propositions at first, then steadily losing glamour," he wrote this year, adding, "Uncle Sam may have to come down a peg or two." __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 Visit Your Group Start a New Topic MARKETPLACE Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest o Unsubscribe o Terms of Use . __,_._,___ ------- End of forwarded message ------- From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 10 00:41:39 2010 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:41:39 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] Economists among The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2009 [foreignpolicy.org] In-Reply-To: <4B4950D7.2564.2F74395@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B4950D7.2564.2F74395@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <201001101541390828.000A6DEC@smtp.totisp.net> It seems to me there is a fundamental fallacy in saying something like 'they had the big ideas that shaped our world..' - what it seems to me happens is, you have the people who are running the world, who want something akin to 'plausible denial', in the sense of 'plausible excuse' to justify what they want to do, so they fund and support and give big attention to people who come up with 'theories' that support their desires, and marginalize anyone with different ideas. That's what the whole history of the world has been about the lsat 30 years - 'free' trade, globalisation, all the rest - there are many, many people presenting solid ideas pointing out the problems with these things, but the rulers want them, so the academics and economists who come up with ideas however far-fetched supporting what they wanted to do became famous and widely publicized and got the top jobs in the American gov - and the rest toil away thanklessly for NGOs. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10-01-10 at 4:00 AM Janet M Eaton wrote: Here are the economists, mostly mainstream and orthodox, along with a few high profile pundits, who although not economists, write about the global economy and or financial crisis all of whom are on the list of Foreign Policy Magazine's end of year picks of the Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2009. I've also included political scientist Elinor Ostrom, winner of the Nobel for economics, for her ideas on the Commons which challenge the notion of both privatization and government regulation thereof. The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/ the_fp_top_100_global _thinkers?page=full fyi-janet ==================================== >From the brains behind Iran's Green Revolution to the economic Cassandra who actually did have a crystal ball, they had the big ideas that shaped our world in 2009. Read on to see the 100 minds that mattered most in the year that was. Special Edition of Foreign Policy Magazine The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/ the_fp_top_100_global _thinkers?page=full DECEMBER 2009 1. Ben Bernanke for staving off a new Great Depression. CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE | WASHINGTON The Zen-like chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve might not have topped the list solely for turning his superb academic career into a blueprint for action, for single-handedly reinventing the role of a central bank, or for preventing the collapse of the U.S. economy. But to have done all of these within the span of a few months is certainly one of the greatest intellectual feats of recent years. Not long ago a Princeton University professor writing paper after paper on the Great Depression, "Helicopter Ben" spent 2009 dropping hundreds of billions in bailouts seemingly from the skies, vigilantly tracking interest rates, and coordinating with counterparts across the globe. His key insight? The need for massive, damn-the-torpedoes intervention in financial markets. Winning over critics who have since praised his "radical" moves (including Nouriel Roubini, No. 4 on this list), he now faces an uphill battle in his bid for permanently expanded Fed powers. The radicalism is far from over. "Those who doubt that there is much connection between the economy of the 1930s and the supercharged, information-age economy of the twenty- first century are invited to look at the current economic headlines -- about high unemployment, failing banks, volatile financial markets, currency crises, and even deflation. The issues raised by the Depression, and its lessons, are still relevant today." --Bernanke, Essays on the Great Depression 4. Nouriel Roubini for accurately forecasting the global financial pandemic. ECONOMIST | NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK Sometimes it takes a crisis to turn a madman into a prophet. And that's just what has happened to New York University economist Nouriel Roubini, known fondly by economy-watchers as Dr. Doom. When he predicted back in 2006 that the bursting of the housing bubble would decimate global credit markets, causing a broad, international recession, he sounded crazy, IMF economist Prakash Loungani told the New York Times. Not so after 2007: "He was a prophet when he returned." Today, "prophet" is certainly an apt word for the gloomy man who is perhaps the world's most sought-after economic advisor. Central bankers have come to appreciate his ability to peer around dark corners of the global economy, seeing potential busts where others see booms. As his NYU colleague Tunku Varadarajan put it, he's "the nearest thing to a rock star among the economists." "Last year's worst-case scenarios came true. The global financial pandemic that I and others had warned about is now upon us. But we are still only in the early stages of this crisis. My predictions for the coming year, unfortunately, are even more dire: The bubbles, and there were many, have only begun to burst." --Roubini, Foreign Policy, January 2009 Read more: "Market Riot," By Noam Scheiber ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Win McNamee/Getty Images 5. Rajendra Pachauri for ending the debate over whether climate change matters. CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE | INDIA As the link between human activity and climate change becomes conventional wisdom and governments work urgently to establish a global climate treaty, Pachauri deserves no small amount of credit for creating such an extraordinary shift in public opinion. Pachauri, an engineering and economics Ph.D., has since 2002 chaired the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. Since then, Pachauri has raised the specter of large-scale population displacement and the existential threat that global warming poses to low-lying island nations, while arguing that large, industrializing countries such as China and India will not act on the issue before the Western world curbs its own greenhouse gas emissions. He has also backed the adoption of extremely ambitious emissions cuts, recently recommending that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations be kept below 350 parts per million. Any progress toward thwarting climate change this year owes a great deal to Pachauri. 7. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler for taking behavioralism from niche to necessary. WHITE HOUSE POLICY ADVISOR | WASHINGTON ECONOMIST | UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO | CHICAGO Sunstein and Thaler describe themselves as "libertarian paternalists," but you probably know them more simply as the behavioralism gurus. Their big idea -- to use small policy tweaks to overcome human capriciousness -- has turned the field of economics upside down and, most recently, won them an ear at the Obama White House. Humans, the two men argue in their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, tend to be emotional, rash, and uninformed, and value the present more than the future. They're far from the rational creatures upon which so much economic policy is based. So what's a responsible government to do? Use free market policies that "nudge" citizens toward the smart options they wouldn't otherwise select, such as setting "opting in" as the default choice for retirement funds and organ donation. It's a quietly revolutionary idea from two brainy guys: Thaler is a University of Chicago-trained economist whose name has been mentioned along with "Nobel" more than a few times; Sunstein is a Harvard-trained lawyer who clerked for Thurgood Marshall and "seems to write a book about as often as most people run the dishwasher," as one 2008 profile put it. Clearly, people in power are reading: Thaler is reportedly advising the British Conservative Party on economic policy, and Sunstein, as the new head of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is nudging Obama administration rules on everything from avian flu to student loans. Sunstein and his wife, Samantha Power (No. 80), are the only married couple to be named individually to this year's Global Thinkers list. "The concept behind libertarian paternalism is that it's possible to maintain freedom of choice -- that's libertarian -- while also moving people in directions that make their own lives a bit better -- that's paternalism. We think it's possible to combine two reviled concepts." --Sunstein, Grist 9. Zhou Xiaochuan for reminding the world that we can't take the dollar for granted. GOVERNOR, PEOPLE'S BANK OF CHINA | CHINA These days, China's politicians rarely miss an opportunity to lecture the United States on its fiscal recklessness. But Zhou, the People's Bank of China governor, worried about the safety of the $1 trillion in U.S. debt held by Beijing, has gone much further, drafting a proposal to fundamentally overhaul the entire global financial system. In a market-shaking speech this March, China's chief economist proposed a new form of synthetic international reserve currency under the management of the IMF, which, he argued, would afford far greater global economic stability. Despite his measured words, Zhou's well-publicized proposal and his critiques of U.S. economic planning have been interpreted as a sign of Beijing's growing confidence in its own financial prescriptions. Shortly afterward, Russia released its version of Zhou's plan, while U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he was "quite open" to the idea. As if to prove Zhou's point, Geithner's off-the-cuff response quickly sent the dollar tumbling. 14. Larry Summers for being the brains behind Obama's economic policy. CHIEF WHITE HOUSE ECONOMICS ADVISOR | WASHINGTON The famously combative Summers is, put simply, one of his generation's finest economists, if not the very best. And over the past year he has managed to put his ego aside to work with Obama and Timothy Geithner in easing the world out of crisis. Well before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Summers -- accused by some of being an architect of the bubble with his advocacy of light banking regulations and low interest rates -- had been warning about impending dire macroeconomic trouble, starting with the housing and financial markets. His prescience led to his White House job as the behind-the-scenes arbitrator in the midst of the global crisis. He drove the debate over the size of the stimulus, arguing forcefully for a 10-digit bill (which ended up 15 percent lower). He has also taken a strong and surprising lead on housing policy, climate change, health-care reform, and the automaker bankruptcies, helping tailor White House proposals for maximum job creation. By his account, he has helped walk the U.S. economy "some substantial distance back from the abyss." 21. Thomas Friedman for his genius at popularizing complex ideas. COLUMNIST | NEW YORK TIMES | BETHESDA, MD. War correspondent, globalization evangelist, public intellectual, environmentalist; few have cast their nets so wide while maintaining such tight focus as Friedman. Now, the paradigm shift that characterized his 2005 work The World Is Flat has found a new and perhaps surprising incarnation in the service of the environmental movement. Hot, Flat, and Crowded is Friedman's manifesto on the climate crisis. The free market, he argues, can be a major positive force in tackling overconsumption, thus saving us from ourselves. The challenge is decoupling it from the fossil fuel industry and allowing it to "tell the ecological truth." Once this has been achieved, more sustainable modes of living should rapidly become the norm. If Washington gets serious about clean energy investment and innovation, and if the next generation of Americans embraces a greener future, Friedman will deserve no small part of the credit. Reading list: South of Broad, by Pat Conroy; Forces of Fortune, by Vali Nasr. Wants to visit: If security wasn't an issue, I would want to go to South Waziristan. Best idea: Greg Mortenson's idea for building schools for girls in the Arab Muslim world. Worst idea: That the world's big problem is going to be global cooling, not global warming. Gadget: Never looked at either Facebook or Twitter. BlackBerry. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22. Robert Shiller for warning us -- over and over -- about dangerous bubbles. ECONOMIST | YALE UNIVERSITY | NEW HAVEN, CONN. For much of his career, Shiller has explained bubbles and watched them pop. He was studying them in the early 1990s when he joined with economist Karl Case to create a standard measure of home prices: the S&P/Case-Shiller index, a signal macroeconomic metric. His 2000 book, Irrational Exuberance, asserted that the U.S. stock market was in the midst of a bubble right before it burst (and proved him right). This go-round, he was in the exclusive club of experts who warned of the housing bubble that led to the financial bubble that led to the recession. He recognized not just that home prices were inflated, but also that zero-money-down mortgages and complex financial derivatives meant the banking system was grossly underestimating, mismanaging, and multiplying risk. His latest book, Animal Spirits -- co-written with University of California-Berkeley's George Akerlof -- examines the emotional, irrational "spirits" that drive investors. It also encapsulates much of Shiller's insight on behavioral economics; in the 1980s, he was one of the early skeptics of the then-ascendant efficient-markets hypothesis and a keen explainer of the irrationality of markets. He spoke with Foreign Policy this fall: On Ben Bernanke's performance at the Fed: He's been a great Fed chairman because he's taken really decisive steps. He was slow to see the crisis coming. But once he saw it was there, and saw the parallels to the Great Depression, he acted decisively and with some courage. He's filled in a gap. Congress was not likely to do enough to deal with this crisis. He had authority from a law from the 1930s to lend to non-bank institutions under exigent and unusual circumstances. He took that authority and challenged Congress to say no to him. But they were ready to let him take responsibility and do it. So he created all those lending facilities and doubled the balance sheet, from $1 to $2 trillion. That was the most significant thing: It wasn't the stimulus -- it was the bailout. It was controversial, but it prevented the systemic collapse that we saw during the Great Depression. Bernanke didn't want to see that happen, and it looks like a success. On the future of the U.S. economy: The longer-run thing is worrisome. We set up an example for the too-big-to-fail institutions -- and that could hold back the economy. What it means is that the big institutions are safe and they become like dinosaurs. And it's hard to compete against them because you're competing against the government. 25. Joseph Stiglitz for relentlessly questioning economic dogma. ECONOMIST | COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK When the bottom fell out of the U.S. economy in the winter of 2008, Stiglitz was standing over the wreckage proclaiming: I told you so. The Columbia University and former World Bank economist has long warned that excessive deregulation could spell doom for the U.S. economy. But throughout his career, he has been an equal-opportunity gadfly. Stiglitz won the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics for showing how information asymmetries can cause markets to fail. Best known for arguing that globalization works against poor countries, he more recently has joined the chorus calling for a new reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar. His iconoclasm has often placed Stiglitz on the outside looking in on the policymaking process. But with the financial crisis calling into question core principles of the economic system, politicians from France's Nicolas Sarkozy to China's Hu Jintao are turning to America's most prominent economic dissident for answers. 28. Elinor Ostrom for showing us that the global commons isn't such a tragic place after all. POLITICAL SCIENTIST | INDIANA UNIVERSITY | BLOOMINGTON, IND. Ostrom has spent her career arguing that the phrase "tragedy of the commons" paints an unnecessarily gloomy picture. After studying examples ranging from irrigation systems in Nepal to deforestation in Bolivia, Ostrom concluded that individuals often manage common resources better than conventional economic models predict. Her seminal book, Governing the Commons, identified key "design principles" for successful collective use of resources, such as the creation of a monitoring system, agreed to by all participants, that includes punishments for violations. Following these principles, she found, frequently yielded better results for the management of a resource than either privatization or government regulation. In recognition of her work, Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics, the first woman to do so. Now, policymakers are scouring her research for ideas on how to prevent the greatest potential tragedy of all -- climate change. 29. Paul Krugman for proving that a Nobel Prize winner can also be a prolific pundit and unerringly correct doomsayer. ECONOMIST | COLUMNIST | PRINCETON UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK TIMES | PRINCETON, N.J. The pessimistic, acerbic, and undeniably brilliant Krugman is an economist with impeccable bona fides: a tenured professor at Princeton and the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics for his work on economic geography. This year, his prominent job moonlighting as writer of a twice-weekly column and a popular blog for the New York Times has made him an indispensable guide to the financial crisis. More an unabashed partisan than a dispassionate academic, Krugman was an invaluable critic of rising income inequality during the Bush administration and over the past year has written original, provocative commentary with no fealty to reigning economic, financial, or political dogma. Today he is Obama's sharpest critic from the left -- the strongest voice with the loudest bullhorn, advocating for more government spending and inveighing against the bank bailouts. 33. Robert Zoellick and Dominique Strauss-Kahn for using the crisis in service of a good cause: helping the world's poor. PRESIDENT, WORLD BANK | WASHINGTON // MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND | WASHINGTON Zoellick and Strauss-Kahn have led the world's banks through what has surely been one of their most pivotal years. Just months before the Wall Street crash, the two institutions were verging on irrelevance. But after the world plunged into recession, Strauss-Kahn positioned the IMF as the world's go-to lender of last resort and won the support of the G-20 summit. As the IMF was bailing out such countries as Latvia and Ukraine and getting flexible credit lines to the likes of Colombia and Mexico, Zoellick's more development-minded World Bank was warning that almost 100 million people would be driven into poverty by the crisis. Though Zoellick is a free-trader and Strauss-Kahn a French socialist, both are on the same page when it comes to involving emerging markets more intimately in the decision-making and direction of the financial institutions. Together, they pushed for, and got, reform -- not just within countries, but at the international level, where they created a broader role for developing countries, envisioning a post-crisis world that will be truly multipolar. Robert Zoellick: Best idea: Broadening global economic governance beyond the G-7. Worst idea: That the global economic crisis is over. It's far from over -- especially in the developing world, where more than 90 million more people will be trapped in extreme poverty and tens of millions more people will be out of work. 35. Nicholas Stern for figuring out the costs of climate change and the politics of a solution. CLIMATE ECONOMIST | LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS | BRITAIN Studious, bespectacled, and self-effacing, Stern is not exactly the climate-change movement's Bono. But perhaps this is precisely the point -- the cold, hard logic of his groundbreaking 2006 "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" dragged the issue out from the preserve of ecowarriors and into the global mainstream. In a government-sponsored study, Stern and his team concluded that decisive early action would cost humanity far less in the long run than allowing rising sea levels, dwindling freshwater supplies, and shrinking habitats to reduce global GDP a projected 20 percent. These days, Stern is focusing on how to build the international alliances needed to find workable ways forward. His new book, The Global Deal, adds an increasingly rare element to the global climate debate: optimism. As he puts it, "Collective pessimism about our inability to act will deliver an inability to act." "What's the alternative to optimism? Unless we act as if we can sort this out, you might as well just get a hat and some suntan lotion and write a letter of apology to your grandchildren." --Stern, speech at the London School of Economics, April 21, 2009 38. George Soros for showing us that billionaires can be thinkers, too. PHILANTHROPIST AND INVESTOR | OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE | NEW YORK Over the course of 40 years, Budapest native George Soros built a multibillion-dollar fortune speculating on global currency markets. A philosophy and politics aficionado, Soros has used his wealth to bankroll democratic revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe and promote institutional reforms around the world. Lately, though, Soros has committed himself not just to earning capital and giving it away, but to reforming capitalism from the inside out. To this end, he has launched a think tank to foster fresh research, the Institute for New Economic Thinking, saying that "the entire edifice of global financial markets has been erected on the false premise that markets can be left to their own devices. We must find a new paradigm." Most recently, Soros has started pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into green technology, a sure sign of a financial opportunity -- or another bubble-on the horizon. 39. Jeffrey D. Sachs for being the global poor's most persistent advocate among the global elite. ECONOMIST | COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK As with his colleague and sometime rival William Easterly (tied at No. 39), the financial crisis had Sachs even more worried about the poor than usual. He had just spent the last decade trying to convince rich countries to devote a solid chunk of their GDP to bringing about The End of Poverty, as one of his recent book titles proclaims. As special advisor to then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (No. 30), Sachs was instrumental in drafting the Millennium Development Goals, the eight broad poverty-reduction targets the United Nations declared in 2000. In the years since, he has led the U.N. Millennium Project to develop model "villages" across Africa where all eight areas are addressed in tandem. Will the downturn derail his work? In 2009, Sachs fought to keep global leaders honest even in the face of fiscal hardship. After this April's G-20 summit he wrote, "The poorest countries, by and large, were not in the room. As usual, their plight came far behind the immediate concerns of the high-income and middle- income countries." 39. William Easterly for raising inconvenient truths about the foreign-aid business. ECONOMIST | NEW YORK UNIVERSITY | NEW YORK After a half-century of what Easterly sees as a failed experiment in international aid, the world risks losing all the hard-won progress it has made in the turmoil of the financial crisis. But not if this outspoken economist and cranky aid skeptic has anything to do with it. After finishing a 16-year stint at the World Bank, Easterly has made it his life's work to puncture holes in what he calls the "ideology of development." His voluminous commentary -- including his explosive 2006 book The White Man's Burden, a seemingly endless spat with nemesis Jeffrey Sachs, and now a blog and prolific Twitter feed - - is necessary reading for those who care about the world's belated and frequently disastrous efforts to help its most benighted citizens. 46. Muhammad Yunus for proving that the poor are profitable. ECONOMIST | GRAMEEN BANK | BANGLADESH Yunus might be the only banker to escape the financial crisis not just unscathed, but noticeably buoyant. A quarter-century after its founding as the world's first microlender to the poor, Yunus's Grameen Bank looks the very model of modern capitalism. The poor, Yunus has found, pay back their debts at least as well as their better-off peers, so much so that Grameen Bank now turns a profit. Yunus, whose work on microcredit earned him a Nobel Peace Prize and a U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, among other honors, has been an outspoken advocate of financial reform this year, calling for the global democratization of credit. "The real issue" is not charity, he writes in his autobiography. It's "giving every human being a fair chance." 56. Niall Ferguson for his intelligent, incessant questioning of dogma. HISTORIAN | HARVARD UNIVERSITY | CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Ferguson has made a career out of challenging sacred cows, both within academia and the popular imagination. A Financial Times columnist and author of the recent The Ascent of Money, among other books, he has worried that the United States' massive fiscal stimulus plan will cause an inexorable rise in long-term interest rates, crushing the hoped-for economic recovery. He has also been skeptical about the ability of government regulation to fix the economic mess, noting that the crisis began in the banking sector, the most heavily regulated area of the economy. As he said in June, "It took decades to get from the highly regulated economies of the 1970s to the free- wheeling, highly globalized economies of 2007. It takes a lot less time to destroy globalization.... We are already moving very rapidly away from globalization." 58. Amartya Sen for showing how democracy prevents famine. ECONOMIST | HARVARD UNIVERSITY | CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Sen is that rarest of hybrids -- "the only recent or living economist who takes philosophy seriously," in the words of Martha Nussbaum (No. 93). Taking his cue from such diverse figures as Karl Marx and Adam Smith (whom he hails as an underappreciated moral philosopher), Sen earned a Nobel Prize in economics in 1998 for his groundbreaking insight: Food scarcity doesn't kill people; bad governments do. Central to his thinking is the concept of "capabilities" -- the idea that it is not just the distribution of resources in a society that matters, but the ability of its members to make informed choices about the use of those resources and to punish leaders who fail them. A decade later, Sen remains a prominent political voice. In September he partnered with Joseph Stiglitz (No. 25) to release a study urging governments to incorporate noneconomic variables into assessments of well-being, and in October his new book The Idea of Justice topped the best-seller list in his native India. Best idea: That global politics demands uncompromising multilateralism. Worst idea: That the present Afghan problems are similar to those in Vietnam. 72. Jamais Cascio for being our moral guide to the future. FUTURIST | INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES | SAN FRANCISCO Climate change is coming, and geoengineering -- the prospect of artificially manipulating the world's climate -- may seem like an easy save. But in fact it's threatening and ethically complex, putting a literally earth-shaking power in the hands of a few, says Cascio in his new book, Hacking the Earth, the most subtle analysis so far on the subject. This year, Cascio, guru of all things on the horizon and founder of the website Open the Future, agitated to strengthen the global financial system through decentralization; argued passionately that resilience, not sustainability, must be the new goal of environmentalists; and has become a leading thinker on robot ethics. 74. Gordon Brown for his leadership during the financial crisis. PRIME MINISTER | BRITAIN Brown will very likely not be prime minister of Britain for much longer. The Labour Party will almost certainly suffer ignominious defeat in a national election sometime by mid-2010. The prime minister, who as chancellor of the exchequer under Prime Minister Tony Blair oversaw the inflation of massive housing and financial bubbles, will be known by his caricature in the British press, as a paranoid, bellowing, and incompetent leader. But even if Brown did not do enough to stop the bubbles from developing, he proved one of the world's most courageous leaders after they had burst. His government may not have quite "saved the world," as he claimed to much derision last December, but in acting immediately and forcefully to prevent disaster by nationalizing failing banks, pushing through massive stimulus measures, and urging his counterparts to do the same, he just may have saved his reputation. 86. Jacques Attali for defining public intellectual in the country that invented them. ECONOMIST | FRANCE For 20 years, Attali has been a major figure in French public life, as an advisor to President Fran?ois Mitterrand in the 1980s and then as an investor, the head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the author of numerous books. This year, at the request of President Nicolas Sarkozy, an Attali-led committee produced a groundbreaking report advising the president on how to kick-start growth by shrinking the lumbering French bureaucracy and implementing dozens of free market reforms. Attali also published a follow-up to the acclaimed Millennium, his 1991 book warning of the endpoint of globalization: a stateless world, populated by the hyperwealthy and the destitute poor. His prediction in 2009's A Brief History of the Future is that his globalized vision will come true -- but not before the end of American hegemony and horrific bloody wars. 100. Paul Kennedy for looking ahead to the decline of the American empire. HISTORIAN | YALE UNIVERSITY | NEW HAVEN, CONN. Kennedy literally wrote the book on imperial decline. His classic, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, charts the course of the great European empires, describing the pattern of economic expansion, territorial conquest, and imperial overstretch to which countries from Spain to Britain fell victim. Now, Kennedy has trained his sights on the United States, which, he says, is nearing the end of its own imperial dominance. "Our dependency upon foreign investors will approximate more and more the state of international indebtedness we historians associate with the reigns of Philip II of Spain and Louis XIV of France -- attractive propositions at first, then steadily losing glamour," he wrote this year, adding, "Uncle Sam may have to come down a peg or two." __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 Visit Your Group Start a New Topic MARKETPLACE Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest o Unsubscribe o Terms of Use . __,_._,___ ------- End of forwarded message ------- _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.132/2610 - Release Date: 01/09/10 19:35:00 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Jan 10 11:12:59 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:12:59 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] The Ottawa Raging Grannies' video against prorogation + musings Re: Growing movement vs 'Pro rogue' Harper's assault .. Message-ID: <4B49EE7B.11373.E94F99@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> This is really great - if possible have a look at this video sent to me by Jo Wood of Ottawa, a friend, peace activist, raging granny and stalwart member of Nowar - Paix [NOWAR-PAIX (Network to Oppose War And Racism] You'll see and hear the Ottawa Grans singing three great songs they've crafted to expose Steve the pro rogue PM and there is a link to the words as well which I've included below. Please forward this along to your friends, communities and networks. Perhaps copy the lyrics to take along to the January 23rd protest against prorogation nearest you. A rousing roasting of 'our man' Steve might be just the trick to imortalize through satire the extent of this man's indiscretion, and his threat to democracy while helping to keep his actions in the public eye long enough to make a difference at the polls next time around. Here are lyrics to their three songs SLIPPERY SLOPPERY OUR MAN STEVE TUNE: Twinkle, twinkle little star Slippery sloppery our man Steve Gives new meaning to that word sleaze Ducks and runs when the truth comes near Climate? detainees? - scared to hear. Slippery sloppery our man Steve Tars our country with that word sleaze. Jiggery pokery that man Steve Undercuts democracy with practiced ease. Slinks away from embarrasing facts Dodging transparency. Quite an act. Jiggery pokery that man Steve Side-steps legality with practiced ease. Slippery trickery sleazy Steve An artful dodger. Who?d believe That righteous Stephen would change so quick >From paragon of virtue to a brazen trick Slippery trickery sleazy Steve Killing Parliament, who'd believe??? WE'VE GOT STEPHEN HARPER TUNE: Lilli Marlene We've got Stephen Harper Thinks he's here to stay When there's opposition He won't want to play There's no committee hearings now, Embarrassing, and showing how His government knew torture Was what it would allow. He's our great dictator He calls all the shots Don't say climate's warming, Banish all those thoughts. Better to bask in Olympic glow, His close-up's on the screen, you know It's bossy Stephen Harper He's got to run the show. YES! MY NAME IS STEPHEN HARPER TUNE: Long way to Tipperary Yes my name is Stephen Harper I'm the country's PM I know how to keep my office 'Cause I know I'm such a gem Just be sure to target critics And to knock them one by one If that fails I simply shut the house down And I just 'cut and run.' I can't stand it if they question What we did in Afghanistan All that torture's not important Who cares if we broke the ban? And the voters will forget that The inquiry's not been done Because I have simply shut the house down And I just 'cut and run.' Speaking of Tipperary and World War I, there is a video that has been shown a couple of times on CPAC - "One Incredible Year" that documents the tumult and triumph of 12 months that changed the nation in 1917. It reveals the impact of total war on families in 1917 and the crusade to victory that built a modern Canada. Produced by veteran journalist Holly Doan and featuring lively interviews and extraordinary archival film never before seen on television, the hour- long documentary recaptures the intense wartime fervor that inspired sweeping political reforms, from income tax and votes for women to prohibition and Daylight Savings Time. One thing related to singing our way to victory that was documented in this video on 1917 was that the song ' Long Way to Tipperary' became a sensation in Canada that year, almost overnight, when simply everyone in the country was singing it-The elderly individuals interviewed who lived through those times spoke of it as something that galvanized the nation around the war assisting in infusing the determination and spirit necessary to face the hardships and losses. Is there a lesson there for us ? Is it time to take a united stand as citizens ? Do we need a song/ songs to unite us through satire and spur us on to decisive action ? As some pundits have suggested it may be time for citizens, civil society to drive the changes necessary to fix the broken systems collapsing around us and to help in the imperative shift beyond outdated paradigms ! All the best, Janet ========================== ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:20:12 -0500 From: Jo Wood Hi Janet, Thanks for the great summary of this and many other issues. Have a look at this video made by the Ottawa Raging Grannies. Maybe you could pass it on to your lists. Thanks, Jo The Ottawa Raging Grannies' video against prorogation is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeR2BZYT7gM You can get the words to the songs at http://www.ottawagrans.net/songs/Politics Janet M Eaton wrote: > Dear All: > > Below you will find a summary and links to latest media coverage > against Stephen Harper's proroguing of Parliament with a challenge to > join the movement. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 11624 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From papadop at peak.org Sun Jan 10 11:25:01 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:25:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Whitehouse v Helen Thomas Message-ID: http://www.truthout.org/1091012McGovern Answering Helen Thomas on Why They Want to Harm Us by: Ray McGovern, ######### Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a 27-year career at CIA, he served under nine directors and in all four of CIA's main directorates, including operations. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). ########### Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day. After Obama briefly addressed L'Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote "must do better" on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the vapid remarks about channeling "intelligence streams," fixing "no-fly" lists, deploying "behavior detection officers," and buying more body-imaging scanners. Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public. SHE ASKED WHY ABDULMUTALLAB DID WHAT HE DID. Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why." Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents... They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death." Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?" Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way." Thomas: "Why?" Brennan: "I think this is a - long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland." Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how evil al Qaeda continues to pervert a religion and entice and exploit impressionable young men. There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. OBAMA'S NON-ANSWER I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President limited himself to a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before he walked away from the podium: "It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations ... to do their bidding. ... And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death ... while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. ... That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists." But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to "justice and progress"? Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do is "communicate clearly to Muslims" that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and its allies, that brings "misery and death"? Does any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that for "misery and death"? Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than with the Muslim world. But why isn't there a frank discussion by America's leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive? PEEKING BEHIND THE SCREEN We witnessed a similar phenomenon when the 9/11 Commission Report tiptoed into a cautious discussion of possible motives behind the 9/11 attacks. To their credit, the drafters of that report apparently went as far as their masters would allow, in gingerly introducing a major elephant into the room: "America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world." (p. 376) When asked later about the flabby way that last sentence ended, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, explained that there had been a Donnybrook over whether that paragraph could be included at all. The drafters also squeezed in the reason given by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as to why he "masterminded" the attacks on 9/11: "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed ... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Would you believe that former Vice President Dick Cheney also has pointed to U.S. support for Israel as one of the "true sources of resentment"? This unique piece of honesty crept into his speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009. Sure, he also trotted out the bromide that the terrorists hate "all the things that make us a force for good in the world." But the Israel factor did slip into the speech, perhaps an inadvertent acknowledgement of the Israeli albatross adorning the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Very few pundits and academicians are willing to allude to this reality, presumably out of fear for their future career prospects. Former senior CIA officer Paul Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, is one of the few willing to refer, in his typically understated way, to "all the other things ... including policies and practices that affect the likelihood that people ... will be radicalized, and will try to act out the anger against us." One has to fill in the blanks regarding what those "other things" are. But no worries. Secretary Napolitano has a fix for this unmentionable conundrum. It's called "counter-radicalization," which she describes thusly: "How do we identify someone before they become radicalized to the point where they're ready to blow themselves up with others on a plane? And how do we communicate better American values and so forth ... around the globe?" BETTER COMMUNICATION. THAT'S THE TICKET. HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE TALK But Napolitano doesn't acknowledge the underlying problem, which is that many Muslims have watched Washington's behavior closely for many years and view pious U.S. declarations about peace, justice, democracy and human rights as infuriating examples of hypocrisy and double talk. So, Washington's sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world. After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents. The purpose of U.S. "public diplomacy" appears more designed to shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism or sympathizing with "the enemy." Commentators who are neither na ve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). Salon.com's Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained loudly about "how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.," and how it is taboo to point this out. Greenwald recently called attention to a little-noticed Associated Press report on the possible motives of the 23-year-old Nigerian Abdulmutallab. The report quoted his Yemeni friends to the effect that the he was "not overtly extremist." But they noted that he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel's actions in Gaza. (Emphasis added) Former CIA specialist on al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, has been still more outspoken on what he sees as Israel's tying down the American Gulliver in the Middle East. Speaking Monday on C-SPAN, he complained bitterly that any debate on the issue of American support for Israel and its effects is normally squelched. Scheuer added that the Israel Lobby had just succeeded in getting him removed from his job at the Jamestown Foundation think tank for saying that Obama was "doing what I call the Tel Aviv Two-Step." More to the point, Scheuer asserted: "For anyone to say that our support for Israel doesn't hurt us in the Muslim world ... is to just defy reality." Beyond loss of work, those who speak out can expect ugly accusations. The Israeli media network Arutz Sheva, which is considered the voice of the settler movement, weighed in strongly, branding Scheuer's C-SPAN remarks "blatantly anti-Semitic." MEDIA SQUELCHING As for media squelching, I continue to be amazed at how otherwise informed folks express total surprise when I refer them to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's statement about his motivation for attacking the United States, as cited on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report. Here is the full sentence (shortened above): "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." One can understand how even those following such things closely can get confused. On Aug. 30, 2009, five years after the 9/11 Commission Report was released, readers of the neoconservative Washington Post were given a diametrically different view, based on what the Post called "an intelligence summary:" "KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States - which included a brief jail-stay because of unpaid bills - almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist ... He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country." Apparently, the Post found this revisionist version politically more convenient, in that it obscured Mohammed's other explanation implicating "U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." It's much more comforting to view KSM as a disgruntled visitor who nursed his personal grievances into justification for mass murder. An unusually candid view of the dangers accruing from the U.S. identification with Israel's policies appeared five years ago in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004. Contradicting President George W. Bush, the board stated: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. "Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." ABDULMUTALLAB'S ATTACK Getting back to Abdulmutallab and his motive in trying to blow up the airliner, how was this individual without prior terrorist affiliations suddenly transformed into an international terrorist ready to die while killing innocents? If, as John Brennan seems to suggest, al Qaeda terrorists are hard-wired at birth for the "wanton slaughter of innocents," how are they also able to jump-start a privileged 23-year old Nigerian, inculcate in him the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and persuade him to do the bidding of al Qaeda/Persian Gulf? As indicated above, the young Nigerian seems to have had particular trouble with Israel's wanton slaughter of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza a year ago, a brutal campaign that was defended in Washington as justifiable self-defense. Moreover, it appears that Abdulmutallab is not the only anti-American "terrorist" so motivated. When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of al Qaeda announced that they were uniting into "al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula," their combined rhetoric railed against the Israeli attack on Gaza. And on Dec. 30, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 32-year-old Palestinian-born Jordanian physician, killed seven American CIA operatives and one Jordanian intelligence officer near Khost, Afghanistan, when he detonated a suicide bomb. Though most U.S. media stories treated al-Balawi as a fanatical double agent driven by irrational hatreds, other motivations could be gleaned by carefully reading articles about his personal history. Al-Balawi's mother told Agence France-Presse that her son had never been an "extremist." Al-Balawi's widow, Defne Bayrak, made a similar statement to Newsweek. In a New York Times article, al-Balawi's brother was quoted as describing him as a "very good brother" and a "brilliant doctor." So what led al-Balawi to take his own life in order to kill U.S. and Jordanian intelligence operatives? Al-Balawi's widow said her husband "started to change" after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His brother said al-Balawi "changed" during last year's three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians. (Emphasis added) When al-Balawi volunteered with a medical organization to treat injured Palestinians in Gaza, he was arrested by Jordanian authorities, his brother said. It was after that arrest that the Jordanian intelligence service apparently coerced or "recruited" al-Balawi to become a spy who would penetrate al Qaeda's hierarchy and provide actionable intelligence to the CIA. "If you catch a cat and put it in a corner, she will jump on you," the brother said in explaining why al-Balawi would turn to suicide attack. "My husband was anti-American; so am I," his widow told Newsweek. Her two little girls would grow up fatherless, but she had no regrets. ANSWERING HELEN Are we starting to get the picture of what the United States is up against in the Muslim world? Does Helen Thomas deserve an adult answer to her question about motive? Has President Obama been able to assimilate all this? Or is the U.S. political/media establishment incapable of confronting this reality and/or taking meaningful action to alleviate the underlying causes of the violence? Is the reported reaction of a CIA official to al-Balawi's attack the appropriate one: "Last week's attack will be avenged. Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day." REVENGE HAS NOT ALWAYS TURNED OUT VERY WELL IN THE PAST. Does anyone remember the brutal killing of four Blackwater contractors on March 31, 2004, when they took a bad turn and ended up in the wrong neighborhood of the Iraqi city of Fallujah - and how U.S. forces virtually leveled that large city in retribution after George W. Bush won his second term the following November? If you read only the Fawning Corporate Media, you would blissfully think that the killing of the four Blackwater operatives was the work of fanatical animals who got - along with their neighbors - the reprisal they deserved. You wouldn't know that the killings represented the second turn in that specific cycle of violence. On March 22, 2004, Israeli forces assassinated the then-spiritual leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin - a withering old man, blind and confined to a wheelchair. (Emphasis added) That murder, plus sloppy navigation by the Blackwater men, set the stage for the next set of brutalities. The Blackwater operatives were killed by a group that described itself as the "Sheikh Yassin Revenge Brigade." Pamphlets and posters were all over the scene of the attack; one of the trucks that pulled around body parts of the mercenaries had a large poster photo of Yassin in its window, as did store fronts all over Fallujah. We can wish Janet Napolitano luck with her "counter-radicalization" project and President Obama with his effort to "communicate clearly to Muslims," but there will be no diminution in the endless cycles of violence unless legitimate grievances are addressed on all sides. It would certainly also help if the American people were finally let in on the root causes for what otherwise gets portrayed as unprovoked savagery by Muslims. From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Jan 10 11:38:16 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:38:16 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fiat lux 248 Message-ID: <20100110193830.12FBB1459117@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> To: record at cablerocket.com Subject: Fiat lux 248 Fiat lux 248, Jan 8. 2010. The news are full with the pictures of thousands of people waiting for hours and days at airports where neither they, or the staff knows what they're permitted to take onto the planes, following an attempt by another nutcase trying to make a quick trip to the seventh heaven by killing hundreds of infidels. My wife and I have figured out a very easy and pleasant solution to bypass such problems, by not flying anywhere. "Oh, my God ! Not flying? How can you survive?" Very well thank you, in peace and quiet in our own comfortable home, not bothered by anyone. The same way humanity survived for a million, oh well at least for seven thousand years, to please our own faithful, including our Prime Minister. We crossed the Atlantic from England to Montreal in ten very pleasant days in 1955 on a rickety Greek Line, former Dutch ship, with a German crew and the best food we could imagine, having a nice rest and vacation. Then, instead of crossing to Vancouver by train in four, or five, days, we did it on a motorcycle in four weeks, enjoying every minute, seeing the country and meeting people all the way. across That was about the last time we had any holidays, apart from a few days of camping now and then. Come to think of it, the last holiday I can remember have been three days of camping at Osoyoos, back in the late sixties. The rest of the time we have worked long hours, and work even now, seven days a week, building and making things, painting pictures, loving every minute of our freedom of being able to do things dear to us, without any interference by anybody, while surrounded by beauty at every step we take outside, or look out of the window. Definitely not by dragging pathetic suitcases around, waiting for endless hours in endless lines to be somewhere else, then wasting our lives on the same agonies on the way back.. I was involved in long distance car rallies in the sixties, which meant that sometimes I had to fly across the country to starts, and from finishes of events in other cities. Flying was a pleasant experience in those days. Vancouver airport was a simple, small building. We arrived about half hour before departure, registered, checked our luggage, walked to the plane and away we flew. Nobody searched us, or our luggage, for forbidden properties, like tubes of toothpaste. I've been carrying a pocket knife since I was six and always had it in my pocket, on every plane on every occasion. But then came, first the "Kooba..Kooba." maniacs, then the Palestinians, sometimes hijacking several planes in one day, and so they started searching people. The last time I flew was to and from a motorsport convention in Calgary, in a Bristol Britannia turboprop, in 1968. That was before they started searching people like criminals and it turned my stomach to submit myself to such indignities, and so I.stopped flying and have absolutely no wish to fly anywhere, ever again. . Now come the horrified questions : " You mean you never went, or want to go "home" ?" What home? I am at home. Am I, or anybody, supposed to be mentally enslaved for life by some overcrowded, miserable dump we happened to be born in ? We had homes in several countries and our home is right where we're now, having enjoyed every minute of the past 31 years we've spent here, breathing free, and having nobody to bother us, ordering us around with his or her hands in our pockets . I came to hate this ongoing propaganda, mental enslavement and compulsion by air travel and anything connected with it and it warms my heart when I see the wringers people are put through. Perhaps some will come to their senses and quit this mental enslavement and the destruction of the ecology catering for this madness.. One of the most welcome sights that I can recall happened on the news some months ago, showing some 200 airliners mothballed and parked in the desert somewhere in Arizona, or Colorado and I hope a few more hundreds, or thousands, will join them soon. It should be quite obvious for any thinking person that while air travel may be necessary for certain, small percentage of people for good reasons, for the vast majority it is nothing more than self induced hysteria to "travel" and be somewhere else. Apart from the military, air travel is now one of the worst and most environmentally damaging and polluting crimes, without any logical reason. I would like to see ninety percent of these needless monsters parked and junked forever. The world would be a much better and less destructive place both for the ecology and the presently enslaved human minds, with the insidious propaganda persuading people to waste their lives and resources on this nonsense. And now a few words on the also ongoing propaganda by the Priesthood of the Money God, our so called economists, that this so called "recession" is over and people should go and spend . Don't believe a word of it. While many of us of the unwashed have been warning for years that a financial crisis was looming, caused mainly the irresponsible deregulation of the banks by bought and paid for politicians, now sitting in very lucrative directorships, like our dear Brian Mulroney, can anybody remember any economist, or professor giving a single beep of warning? No. For them everything was just peachy, until the collapse. Because they either have no idea of what really is going on, or are paid off to spread the chains of profitable enslavement of humanity by debt . We keep hearing them screeching about the national debt, but there's not a single word mentioning that the Canadian public's personal debt of $1.3 trillion is not only also part of the national debt, but exceeds it by several times. So, who is going to pay it off ? The executives with multimillion salaries, or with the sale of the country for imaginary capital created from the air by some foreign bank so that colonizing predators can take us over under yet another "free trade" racket? From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Jan 10 14:48:48 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:48:48 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Whitehouse v Helen Thomas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100110224907.3F14A932556@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> It should also be remembered, as I pointed it out in my Fiat lux column, that those who die in defence of the faith are immediately invited into the 7th level of heaven, which makes suicide bombing very attractive to some, as nothing in any Christian sect offers any such rewards, in fact some consider suicide a deadly sin that prevents the victims from entering heaven. Which, of course, doesn't excuse, or justify American actions in the Middle East. Cheers, Ed. ==================================================================================== At 11:25 AM 10/01/2010, you wrote: >http://www.truthout.org/1091012McGovern > >Answering Helen Thomas on Why They Want to Harm Us > by: Ray McGovern, > >######### >Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the >ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a >27-year career at CIA, he served under nine directors and in all >four of CIA's main directorates, including operations. He is >co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). >########### > >Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at >the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a >flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an >airliner on Christmas Day. > >After Obama briefly addressed L'Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote >"must do better" on the report cards of the national security >schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President >turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and >Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. > >It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break >through the vapid remarks about channeling "intelligence streams," >fixing "no-fly" lists, deploying "behavior detection officers," and >buying more body-imaging scanners. > >Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as >her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and >asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult >query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter >terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the >liberties and privacy of the traveling public. > >SHE ASKED WHY ABDULMUTALLAB DID WHAT HE DID. > >Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the motivation? >We never hear what you find out on why." > >Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder >and wanton slaughter of innocents... They attract individuals like >Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was >motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al >Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, >so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda >has the agenda of destruction and death." > >Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?" > >Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that >used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way." > >Thomas: "Why?" > >Brennan: "I think this is a - long issue, but al Qaeda is just >determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland." > >Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." > >Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. >political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the >boilerplate about how evil al Qaeda continues to pervert a religion >and entice and exploit impressionable young men. > >There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim >world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to >resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. > >OBAMA'S NON-ANSWER > >I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what >drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President limited >himself to a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This >is what he said before he walked away from the podium: > >"It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals >without known terrorist affiliations ... to do their bidding. ... >And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the >world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of >misery and death ... while the United States stands with those who >seek justice and progress. ... That's the vision that is far more >powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists." > >But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't >they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in >Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on how >we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously >demonstrating our commitment to "justice and progress"? > >Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need >to do is "communicate clearly to Muslims" that it is al Qaeda, not >the U.S. and its allies, that brings "misery and death"? Does any >informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of >Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 >million from their homes? How is that for "misery and death"? > >Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to >rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish >with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American >population than with the Muslim world. > >But why isn't there a frank discussion by America's leaders and >media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United >States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy >but central question of motive? > >PEEKING BEHIND THE SCREEN > >We witnessed a similar phenomenon when the 9/11 Commission Report >tiptoed into a cautious discussion of possible motives behind the >9/11 attacks. To their credit, the drafters of that report >apparently went as far as their masters would allow, in gingerly >introducing a major elephant into the room: > >"America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is >simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian >conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of >popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world." (p. 376) > >When asked later about the flabby way that last sentence ended, >former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, >explained that there had been a Donnybrook over whether that >paragraph could be included at all. > >The drafters also squeezed in the reason given by Khalid Sheikh >Mohammed as to why he "masterminded" the attacks on 9/11: > >"By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed >... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." > >Would you believe that former Vice President Dick Cheney also has >pointed to U.S. support for Israel as one of the "true sources of >resentment"? This unique piece of honesty crept into his speech to >the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009. > >Sure, he also trotted out the bromide that the terrorists hate "all >the things that make us a force for good in the world." But the >Israel factor did slip into the speech, perhaps an inadvertent >acknowledgement of the Israeli albatross adorning the neck of U.S. >policy in the Middle East. > >Very few pundits and academicians are willing to allude to this >reality, presumably out of fear for their future career prospects. > >Former senior CIA officer Paul Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown >University, is one of the few willing to refer, in his typically >understated way, to "all the other things ... including policies and >practices that affect the likelihood that people ... will be >radicalized, and will try to act out the anger against us." One has >to fill in the blanks regarding what those "other things" are. > >But no worries. Secretary Napolitano has a fix for this >unmentionable conundrum. It's called "counter-radicalization," which >she describes thusly: > >"How do we identify someone before they become radicalized to the >point where they're ready to blow themselves up with others on a >plane? And how do we communicate better American values and so forth >... around the globe?" > >BETTER COMMUNICATION. THAT'S THE TICKET. > >HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE TALK > >But Napolitano doesn't acknowledge the underlying problem, which is >that many Muslims have watched Washington's behavior closely for >many years and view pious U.S. declarations about peace, justice, >democracy and human rights as infuriating examples of hypocrisy and >double talk. > >So, Washington's sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism >seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world. > >After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians >have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab >dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo >without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, >Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped >punishment for slaughtering innocents. > >The purpose of U.S. "public diplomacy" appears more designed to >shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead >feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most >American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out >of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism >or sympathizing with "the enemy." > >Commentators who are neither na > >ve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media >(FCM). Salon.com's Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained >loudly about "how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions >fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.," and how it is taboo to point this out. > >Greenwald recently called attention to a little-noticed Associated >Press report on the possible motives of the 23-year-old Nigerian >Abdulmutallab. The report quoted his Yemeni friends to the effect >that the he was "not overtly extremist." But they noted that he was >open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over >Israel's actions in Gaza. (Emphasis added) > >Former CIA specialist on al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, has been still >more outspoken on what he sees as Israel's tying down the American >Gulliver in the Middle East. Speaking Monday on C-SPAN, he >complained bitterly that any debate on the issue of American support >for Israel and its effects is normally squelched. > >Scheuer added that the Israel Lobby had just succeeded in getting >him removed from his job at the Jamestown Foundation think tank for >saying that Obama was "doing what I call the Tel Aviv Two-Step." > >More to the point, Scheuer asserted: > "For anyone to say that our support for Israel doesn't hurt > us in the Muslim world ... is to just defy reality." > >Beyond loss of work, those who speak out can expect ugly >accusations. The Israeli media network Arutz Sheva, which is >considered the voice of the settler movement, weighed in strongly, >branding Scheuer's C-SPAN remarks "blatantly anti-Semitic." > >MEDIA SQUELCHING > >As for media squelching, I continue to be amazed at how otherwise >informed folks express total surprise when I refer them to Khalid >Sheikh Mohammed's statement about his motivation for attacking the >United States, as cited on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report. >Here is the full sentence (shortened above): > >"By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed >not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his >violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." > >One can understand how even those following such things closely can >get confused. On Aug. 30, 2009, five years after the 9/11 Commission >Report was released, readers of the neoconservative Washington Post >were given a diametrically different view, based on what the Post >called "an intelligence summary:" > >"KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States - which >included a brief jail-stay because of unpaid bills - almost >certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist ... >He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed >his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country." > >Apparently, the Post found this revisionist version politically more >convenient, in that it obscured Mohammed's other explanation >implicating "U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." It's much more >comforting to view KSM as a disgruntled visitor who nursed his >personal grievances into justification for mass murder. > >An unusually candid view of the dangers accruing from the U.S. >identification with Israel's policies appeared five years ago in an >unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense >Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004. Contradicting President George W. >Bush, the board stated: > >"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our >policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what >they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against >Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support >for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, >Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. > >"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy >to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." > >ABDULMUTALLAB'S ATTACK > >Getting back to Abdulmutallab and his motive in trying to blow up >the airliner, how was this individual without prior terrorist >affiliations suddenly transformed into an international terrorist >ready to die while killing innocents? > >If, as John Brennan seems to suggest, al Qaeda terrorists are >hard-wired at birth for the "wanton slaughter of innocents," how are >they also able to jump-start a privileged 23-year old Nigerian, >inculcate in him the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and >persuade him to do the bidding of al Qaeda/Persian Gulf? > >As indicated above, the young Nigerian seems to have had particular >trouble with Israel's wanton slaughter of more than a thousand >civilians in Gaza a year ago, a brutal campaign that was defended in >Washington as justifiable self-defense. > >Moreover, it appears that Abdulmutallab is not the only >anti-American "terrorist" so motivated. When the Saudi and Yemeni >branches of al Qaeda announced that they were uniting into "al Qaeda >of the Arabian Peninsula," their combined rhetoric railed against >the Israeli attack on Gaza. > >And on Dec. 30, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 32-year-old >Palestinian-born Jordanian physician, killed seven American CIA >operatives and one Jordanian intelligence officer near Khost, >Afghanistan, when he detonated a suicide bomb. > >Though most U.S. media stories treated al-Balawi as a fanatical >double agent driven by irrational hatreds, other motivations could >be gleaned by carefully reading articles about his personal history. > >Al-Balawi's mother told Agence France-Presse that her son had never >been an "extremist." Al-Balawi's widow, Defne Bayrak, made a similar >statement to Newsweek. In a New York Times article, al-Balawi's >brother was quoted as describing him as a "very good brother" and a >"brilliant doctor." > >So what led al-Balawi to take his own life in order to kill U.S. and >Jordanian intelligence operatives? > >Al-Balawi's widow said her husband "started to change" after the >American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His brother said al-Balawi >"changed" during last year's three-week-long Israeli offensive in >Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians. (Emphasis added) > >When al-Balawi volunteered with a medical organization to treat >injured Palestinians in Gaza, he was arrested by Jordanian >authorities, his brother said. > >It was after that arrest that the Jordanian intelligence service >apparently coerced or "recruited" al-Balawi to become a spy who >would penetrate al Qaeda's hierarchy and provide actionable >intelligence to the CIA. > >"If you catch a cat and put it in a corner, she will jump on you," >the brother said in explaining why al-Balawi would turn to suicide attack. > >"My husband was anti-American; so am I," his widow told Newsweek. >Her two little girls would grow up fatherless, but she had no regrets. > >ANSWERING HELEN > >Are we starting to get the picture of what the United States is up >against in the Muslim world? > >Does Helen Thomas deserve an adult answer to her question about >motive? Has President Obama been able to assimilate all this? > >Or is the U.S. political/media establishment incapable of >confronting this reality and/or taking meaningful action to >alleviate the underlying causes of the violence? > >Is the reported reaction of a CIA official to al-Balawi's attack the >appropriate one: "Last week's attack will be avenged. Some very bad >people will eventually have a very bad day." > >REVENGE HAS NOT ALWAYS TURNED OUT VERY WELL IN THE PAST. > >Does anyone remember the brutal killing of four Blackwater >contractors on March 31, 2004, when they took a bad turn and ended >up in the wrong neighborhood of the Iraqi city of Fallujah - and how >U.S. forces virtually leveled that large city in retribution after >George W. Bush won his second term the following November? > >If you read only the Fawning Corporate Media, you would blissfully >think that the killing of the four Blackwater operatives was the >work of fanatical animals who got - along with their neighbors - the >reprisal they deserved. You wouldn't know that the killings >represented the second turn in that specific cycle of violence. > >On March 22, 2004, Israeli forces assassinated the then-spiritual >leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin - a withering old man, blind >and confined to a wheelchair. (Emphasis added) > >That murder, plus sloppy navigation by the Blackwater men, set the >stage for the next set of brutalities. The Blackwater operatives >were killed by a group that described itself as the "Sheikh Yassin >Revenge Brigade." > >Pamphlets and posters were all over the scene of the attack; one of >the trucks that pulled around body parts of the mercenaries had a >large poster photo of Yassin in its window, as did store fronts all >over Fallujah. > >We can wish Janet Napolitano luck with her "counter-radicalization" >project and President Obama with his effort to "communicate clearly >to Muslims," but there will be no diminution in the endless cycles >of violence unless legitimate grievances are addressed on all sides. > >It would certainly also help if the American people were finally let >in on the root causes for what otherwise gets portrayed as >unprovoked savagery by Muslims. > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.132/2611 - Release Date: >01/09/10 23:35:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Jan 10 17:55:46 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:55:46 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Whitehouse v Helen Thomas In-Reply-To: <20100110224907.3F14A932556@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> References: <20100110224907.3F14A932556@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20100111015547.CE40FF7BA@fep01.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Also not excusing US actions in the Middle East, which are not about self-defence and not about freedom or human rights but are about control of the world's energy resources, anyone who values the freedoms expressed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights needs to be implacably opposed to any threat to them including religious and ideological threats. Whether they emanate in the US administration or not. And whether are "balanced" by similar threats from other sources or not - as there can be no such things balancing one threat to the people's rights against another. This item in the Australian Rationalists' journal seems to relate directly to this: http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/83/32-34%20Human%20Rights%20Ibn.pdf. How much of the mass displays of anger by those men who react against insults to their superstitions are motivated by outrage at the prospect of their domestic female property getting uppity? Three of the most gross imperialist violations of the rights of the people of the Middle East (among many colonialist violations) are the establishment of Israel and all that follows, the CIA's activities against secular, progressive regimes such as that of Dr Mossadeq in Persia, and the blatant aggression against Iraq. But beyond this the list remains enormous. That is no excuse, though, to treat as a side-issue direct suppression of the human rights of people anywhere at all by anyone at all. Enemies of freedom anywhere are enemies of freedom everywhere. Dion Giles At 06:48 11/01/2010, Ed wrote: >It should also be remembered, as I pointed it out in my Fiat lux >column, that those who die in defence of the faith are immediately >invited into the 7th level of heaven, which makes suicide bombing >very attractive to some, as nothing in any Christian sect offers any >such rewards, in fact some consider suicide a deadly sin that >prevents the victims from entering heaven. > >Which, of course, doesn't excuse, or justify American actions in >the Middle East. > >Cheers, Ed. >==================================================================================== > >At 11:25 AM 10/01/2010, you wrote: >>http://www.truthout.org/1091012McGovern >> >>Answering Helen Thomas on Why They Want to Harm Us >> by: Ray McGovern, >> >>######### >>Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the >>ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a >>27-year career at CIA, he served under nine directors and in all >>four of CIA's main directorates, including operations. He is >>co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). >>########### >> >>Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at >>the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a >>flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an >>airliner on Christmas Day. >> >>After Obama briefly addressed L'Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote >>"must do better" on the report cards of the national security >>schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President >>turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and >>Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. >> >>It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break >>through the vapid remarks about channeling "intelligence streams," >>fixing "no-fly" lists, deploying "behavior detection officers," and >>buying more body-imaging scanners. >> >>Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as >>her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and >>asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult >>query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter >>terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the >>liberties and privacy of the traveling public. >> >>SHE ASKED WHY ABDULMUTALLAB DID WHAT HE DID. >> >>Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the >>motivation? We never hear what you find out on why." >> >>Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder >>and wanton slaughter of innocents... They attract individuals like >>Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was >>motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al >>Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, >>so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda >>has the agenda of destruction and death." >> >>Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?" >> >>Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that >>used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way." >> >>Thomas: "Why?" >> >>Brennan: "I think this is a - long issue, but al Qaeda is just >>determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland." >> >>Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." >> >>Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. >>political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the >>boilerplate about how evil al Qaeda continues to pervert a religion >>and entice and exploit impressionable young men. >> >>There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the >>Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are >>inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. >> >>OBAMA'S NON-ANSWER >> >>I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what >>drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President limited >>himself to a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. >>This is what he said before he walked away from the podium: >> >>"It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit >>individuals without known terrorist affiliations ... to do their >>bidding. ... And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims >>around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt >>vision of misery and death ... while the United States stands with >>those who seek justice and progress. ... That's the vision that is >>far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists." >> >>But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't >>they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in >>Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on >>how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while >>simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to "justice and progress"? >> >>Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we >>need to do is "communicate clearly to Muslims" that it is al Qaeda, >>not the U.S. and its allies, that brings "misery and death"? Does >>any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion >>of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 >>million from their homes? How is that for "misery and death"? >> >>Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to >>rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish >>with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American >>population than with the Muslim world. >> >>But why isn't there a frank discussion by America's leaders and >>media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United >>States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the >>touchy but central question of motive? >> >>PEEKING BEHIND THE SCREEN >> >>We witnessed a similar phenomenon when the 9/11 Commission Report >>tiptoed into a cautious discussion of possible motives behind the >>9/11 attacks. To their credit, the drafters of that report >>apparently went as far as their masters would allow, in gingerly >>introducing a major elephant into the room: >> >>"America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is >>simply a fact that American policy regarding the >>Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are >>dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim >>world." (p. 376) >> >>When asked later about the flabby way that last sentence ended, >>former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, >>explained that there had been a Donnybrook over whether that >>paragraph could be included at all. >> >>The drafters also squeezed in the reason given by Khalid Sheikh >>Mohammed as to why he "masterminded" the attacks on 9/11: >> >>"By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed >>... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." >> >>Would you believe that former Vice President Dick Cheney also has >>pointed to U.S. support for Israel as one of the "true sources of >>resentment"? This unique piece of honesty crept into his speech to >>the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009. >> >>Sure, he also trotted out the bromide that the terrorists hate "all >>the things that make us a force for good in the world." But the >>Israel factor did slip into the speech, perhaps an inadvertent >>acknowledgement of the Israeli albatross adorning the neck of U.S. >>policy in the Middle East. >> >>Very few pundits and academicians are willing to allude to this >>reality, presumably out of fear for their future career prospects. >> >>Former senior CIA officer Paul Pillar, now a professor at >>Georgetown University, is one of the few willing to refer, in his >>typically understated way, to "all the other things ... including >>policies and practices that affect the likelihood that people ... >>will be radicalized, and will try to act out the anger against us." >>One has to fill in the blanks regarding what those "other things" are. >> >>But no worries. Secretary Napolitano has a fix for this >>unmentionable conundrum. It's called "counter-radicalization," >>which she describes thusly: >> >>"How do we identify someone before they become radicalized to the >>point where they're ready to blow themselves up with others on a >>plane? And how do we communicate better American values and so >>forth ... around the globe?" >> >>BETTER COMMUNICATION. THAT'S THE TICKET. >> >>HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE TALK >> >>But Napolitano doesn't acknowledge the underlying problem, which is >>that many Muslims have watched Washington's behavior closely for >>many years and view pious U.S. declarations about peace, justice, >>democracy and human rights as infuriating examples of hypocrisy and >>double talk. >> >>So, Washington's sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism >>seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world. >> >>After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians >>have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up >>Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo >>without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in >>Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped >>punishment for slaughtering innocents. >> >>The purpose of U.S. "public diplomacy" appears more designed to >>shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead >>feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most >>American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out >>of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism >>or sympathizing with "the enemy." >> >>Commentators who are neither na >> >>ve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media >>(FCM). Salon.com's Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained >>loudly about "how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions >>fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.," and how it is taboo to point this out. >> >>Greenwald recently called attention to a little-noticed Associated >>Press report on the possible motives of the 23-year-old Nigerian >>Abdulmutallab. The report quoted his Yemeni friends to the effect >>that the he was "not overtly extremist." But they noted that he was >>open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger >>over Israel's actions in Gaza. (Emphasis added) >> >>Former CIA specialist on al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, has been still >>more outspoken on what he sees as Israel's tying down the American >>Gulliver in the Middle East. Speaking Monday on C-SPAN, he >>complained bitterly that any debate on the issue of American >>support for Israel and its effects is normally squelched. >> >>Scheuer added that the Israel Lobby had just succeeded in getting >>him removed from his job at the Jamestown Foundation think tank for >>saying that Obama was "doing what I call the Tel Aviv Two-Step." >> >>More to the point, Scheuer asserted: >> "For anyone to say that our support for Israel doesn't >> hurt us in the Muslim world ... is to just defy reality." >> >>Beyond loss of work, those who speak out can expect ugly >>accusations. The Israeli media network Arutz Sheva, which is >>considered the voice of the settler movement, weighed in strongly, >>branding Scheuer's C-SPAN remarks "blatantly anti-Semitic." >> >>MEDIA SQUELCHING >> >>As for media squelching, I continue to be amazed at how otherwise >>informed folks express total surprise when I refer them to Khalid >>Sheikh Mohammed's statement about his motivation for attacking the >>United States, as cited on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report. >>Here is the full sentence (shortened above): >> >>"By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed >>not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his >>violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." >> >>One can understand how even those following such things closely can >>get confused. On Aug. 30, 2009, five years after the 9/11 >>Commission Report was released, readers of the neoconservative >>Washington Post were given a diametrically different view, based on >>what the Post called "an intelligence summary:" >> >>"KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States - which >>included a brief jail-stay because of unpaid bills - almost >>certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist ... >>He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed >>his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country." >> >>Apparently, the Post found this revisionist version politically >>more convenient, in that it obscured Mohammed's other explanation >>implicating "U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." It's much more >>comforting to view KSM as a disgruntled visitor who nursed his >>personal grievances into justification for mass murder. >> >>An unusually candid view of the dangers accruing from the U.S. >>identification with Israel's policies appeared five years ago in an >>unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense >>Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004. Contradicting President George W. >>Bush, the board stated: >> >>"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our >>policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what >>they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against >>Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support >>for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, >>Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. >> >>"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing >>democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than >>self-serving hypocrisy." >> >>ABDULMUTALLAB'S ATTACK >> >>Getting back to Abdulmutallab and his motive in trying to blow up >>the airliner, how was this individual without prior terrorist >>affiliations suddenly transformed into an international terrorist >>ready to die while killing innocents? >> >>If, as John Brennan seems to suggest, al Qaeda terrorists are >>hard-wired at birth for the "wanton slaughter of innocents," how >>are they also able to jump-start a privileged 23-year old Nigerian, >>inculcate in him the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and >>persuade him to do the bidding of al Qaeda/Persian Gulf? >> >>As indicated above, the young Nigerian seems to have had particular >>trouble with Israel's wanton slaughter of more than a thousand >>civilians in Gaza a year ago, a brutal campaign that was defended >>in Washington as justifiable self-defense. >> >>Moreover, it appears that Abdulmutallab is not the only >>anti-American "terrorist" so motivated. When the Saudi and Yemeni >>branches of al Qaeda announced that they were uniting into "al >>Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula," their combined rhetoric railed >>against the Israeli attack on Gaza. >> >>And on Dec. 30, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 32-year-old >>Palestinian-born Jordanian physician, killed seven American CIA >>operatives and one Jordanian intelligence officer near Khost, >>Afghanistan, when he detonated a suicide bomb. >> >>Though most U.S. media stories treated al-Balawi as a fanatical >>double agent driven by irrational hatreds, other motivations could >>be gleaned by carefully reading articles about his personal history. >> >>Al-Balawi's mother told Agence France-Presse that her son had never >>been an "extremist." Al-Balawi's widow, Defne Bayrak, made a >>similar statement to Newsweek. In a New York Times article, >>al-Balawi's brother was quoted as describing him as a "very good >>brother" and a "brilliant doctor." >> >>So what led al-Balawi to take his own life in order to kill U.S. >>and Jordanian intelligence operatives? >> >>Al-Balawi's widow said her husband "started to change" after the >>American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His brother said al-Balawi >>"changed" during last year's three-week-long Israeli offensive in >>Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians. (Emphasis added) >> >>When al-Balawi volunteered with a medical organization to treat >>injured Palestinians in Gaza, he was arrested by Jordanian >>authorities, his brother said. >> >>It was after that arrest that the Jordanian intelligence service >>apparently coerced or "recruited" al-Balawi to become a spy who >>would penetrate al Qaeda's hierarchy and provide actionable >>intelligence to the CIA. >> >>"If you catch a cat and put it in a corner, she will jump on you," >>the brother said in explaining why al-Balawi would turn to suicide attack. >> >>"My husband was anti-American; so am I," his widow told Newsweek. >>Her two little girls would grow up fatherless, but she had no regrets. >> >>ANSWERING HELEN >> >>Are we starting to get the picture of what the United States is up >>against in the Muslim world? >> >>Does Helen Thomas deserve an adult answer to her question about >>motive? Has President Obama been able to assimilate all this? >> >>Or is the U.S. political/media establishment incapable of >>confronting this reality and/or taking meaningful action to >>alleviate the underlying causes of the violence? >> >>Is the reported reaction of a CIA official to al-Balawi's attack >>the appropriate one: "Last week's attack will be avenged. Some very >>bad people will eventually have a very bad day." >> >>REVENGE HAS NOT ALWAYS TURNED OUT VERY WELL IN THE PAST. >> >>Does anyone remember the brutal killing of four Blackwater >>contractors on March 31, 2004, when they took a bad turn and ended >>up in the wrong neighborhood of the Iraqi city of Fallujah - and >>how U.S. forces virtually leveled that large city in retribution >>after George W. Bush won his second term the following November? >> >>If you read only the Fawning Corporate Media, you would blissfully >>think that the killing of the four Blackwater operatives was the >>work of fanatical animals who got - along with their neighbors - >>the reprisal they deserved. You wouldn't know that the killings >>represented the second turn in that specific cycle of violence. >> >>On March 22, 2004, Israeli forces assassinated the then-spiritual >>leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin - a withering old man, blind >>and confined to a wheelchair. (Emphasis added) >> >>That murder, plus sloppy navigation by the Blackwater men, set the >>stage for the next set of brutalities. The Blackwater operatives >>were killed by a group that described itself as the "Sheikh Yassin >>Revenge Brigade." >> >>Pamphlets and posters were all over the scene of the attack; one of >>the trucks that pulled around body parts of the mercenaries had a >>large poster photo of Yassin in its window, as did store fronts all >>over Fallujah. >> >>We can wish Janet Napolitano luck with her "counter-radicalization" >>project and President Obama with his effort to "communicate clearly >>to Muslims," but there will be no diminution in the endless cycles >>of violence unless legitimate grievances are addressed on all sides. >> >>It would certainly also help if the American people were finally >>let in on the root causes for what otherwise gets portrayed as >>unprovoked savagery by Muslims. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.132/2611 - Release Date: >>01/09/10 23:35:00 > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4759 (20100110) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Jan 11 02:39:46 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:39:46 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] When they speak of free markets. . . Message-ID: <20100111103946.BCF61F50F@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Jan 11 06:22:46 2010 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:22:46 +0100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fiat lux 248 Message-ID: > The news are full with the pictures of thousands of people waiting > for hours and days at airports where neither they, or the staff knows > what they're permitted to take onto the planes, following an attempt > by another nutcase trying to make a quick trip to the seventh heaven > by killing hundreds of infidels. I think the clown who "tried to blow up his underpants" is yet another false-flag operation. There had been a controversial debate for a while now about these new "nude scanners" that the zionist "security" industry is peddling, and these scanners were rejected due to privacy concerns, because they show the "private parts" of the passengers. (Article from January 2009: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3978990,00.html ) It took exactly someone who "hid explosives in his underwear" to turn the debate around, and voil?: Suddenly, the "nude scanners" are accepted and will be installed at airports -- the EU has even been told to make them mandatory. "Security" is a multi-billion business, and main export "industry" of Israel, with the convenient sidekick of vilifying Arabs/Muslims... Cheers, Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Jan 11 06:26:06 2010 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:26:06 +0100 Subject: [Mai-not] When they speak of free markets. . . Message-ID: > In time of crisis, barter works and may have saved Russia in 1998 Well, some call it "black market" (barter as a way to avoid taxes, i.a.), which happens to be called "the ULTIMATE free market" even by some freetrade fanatics... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Mon Jan 11 06:32:17 2010 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:32:17 +0100 Subject: [Mai-not] Resisting global ecological change Message-ID: > EARTH MEANDERS: Resisting Global Ecological Change > > By Dr. Glen Barry > Given the momentum of seven billion > super-predators consuming ecosystems to meet > their every (and endless) whims, it is not > possible to stop social, economic and ecological > collapse. When you read that "we ALL are predators" ("7 billion super-predators"), you can be sure that the author himself is a predator. It's the typical predator PR -- predators hiding in the masses like a fleeing thief in a bazaar. Cheers, Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Mon Jan 11 07:40:22 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:40:22 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fiat lux 248 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100111154047.45875F935@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Absolutely. The whole thing has false flag written all over it. They say the guy was supposed to have been a well-known security risk, on all sorts of lists all over the securocrat world, yet somehow they all stood back and let him board a plane for the USA. It's the 9/11 US Air Force stand-down all over again. Yes, the enhanced powers for securocrat vermin would be an objective. I think Yemen may have been a bigger one. Meanwhile the bloke who set his underpants on fire (wonder if he had protection underneath?) is at some risk of being suicided in custody, or killed by a crazed inmate. They'll waste the fool, same as they wasted everyone recruited to stage the false flag London bombings - including the wrong guy because they stuffed up. They never have the wit to change their MO - remember Lee Harvey Oswald getting silenced? And John Wilkes Booth? And Saddam Hussein? And Guy Fawkes for that matter. Co-operating with state psy-ops is dangerous! Dion Giles At 22:22 11/01/2010, Chris Reuss wrote: > > The news are full with the pictures of thousands of people waiting > > for hours and days at airports where neither they, or the staff knows > > what they're permitted to take onto the planes, following an attempt > > by another nutcase trying to make a quick trip to the seventh heaven > > by killing hundreds of infidels. > >I think the clown who "tried to blow up his underpants" is yet another >false-flag operation. There had been a controversial debate for a while >now about these new "nude scanners" that the zionist "security" industry >is peddling, and these scanners were rejected due to privacy concerns, >because they show the "private parts" of the passengers. (Article from >January 2009: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3978990,00.html ) > >It took exactly someone who "hid explosives in his underwear" to turn the >debate around, and voil?: Suddenly, the "nude scanners" are accepted and >will be installed at airports -- the EU has even been told to make them >mandatory. > >"Security" is a multi-billion business, and main export "industry" of Israel, >with the convenient sidekick of vilifying Arabs/Muslims... > >Cheers, >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 >Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4761 (20100111) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com From thinker at xplornet.com Mon Jan 11 08:29:02 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:29:02 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] When they speak of free markets. . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100111162922.6474F265199A@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> We went through the black market agonies for years during and especially after the war in Austria, when money was virtually worthless and could only be used for officially rationed items. It was sheer hell. We need money alright, under public control and not as a weapon of colonization and enslavement It should be quite obvious by now that all the bad things we predicted when we were fighting against the US-Canada free trade baloney in 1987 -88 have come true in spades and the purpose of the whole racket has been, and is now even more than before, colonization. Cheers, Ed. At 06:26 AM 11/01/2010, you wrote: > > In time of crisis, barter works and may have saved Russia in 1998 > >Well, some call it "black market" (barter as a way to avoid taxes, i.a.), >which happens to be called "the ULTIMATE free market" even by some >freetrade fanatics... > >Chris > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.133/2612 - Release Date: >01/10/10 11:35:00 From mcpogo at aol.com Mon Jan 11 09:35:08 2010 From: mcpogo at aol.com (mcpogo at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:35:08 EST Subject: [Mai-not] No Taxation without Representation! Against Proroguing Parliament! Rallies Info Message-ID: <804a.1bc74403.387cbb4c@aol.com> It continues to amaze me that politicians (of all stripes) continually speak as if they are always speaking my/our mind(s) on every issue they make a stand on. Don' the taxpayers of this country get tired of being used/spoken for all the time even when these political morons don't speak for any of us at all! McPogo Get Involved, use your democratic rights or eventually lose them! Harper uses proroguing Parliament like someone uses an ant-acid for a tummy ache. The guy is a cowardly, immature, self-interested thug that all Canadians would be well rid of! >From the Net A not-disinterested observer?which is to say, for the record, someone who works for a political party that has some interest in this matter?passes along the _January 6th issue_ (http://www.stalbertgazette.com/eEditions/2010/GAZETTE/10-01-06.pdf) of the St. Albert Gazette, which includes an _interview_ (http://www.stalbertgazette.com/news/2010/0106/top6.htm) with Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber, during which he apparently said the following, a gem that should surely be repeated no matter the source of the tip. ? Democracy and Parliament are not being sidestepped ? they are only being suspended. ? ?Democracy and Parliament are not being sidestepped ? they are only being suspended.? Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber (http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2009/03/blogging-for-harper-free-canada.html) Join in and let Mr. Harper know he doesn't speak for you either! January 23rd, join Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament and protest the undemocratic move to "_suspend democracy and Parliament_ (http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/how-democracy-in-canada-is-like-gilbert-arenas/) ". Keep an eye on the official event details for updates. _Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament - Rally!_ (http://www.facebook.com/events.php?ref=sb#/event.php?eid=227662474562&index=1) Let's stand up together and make our voices heard-Parliament should resume on January 25th 2010 with or without Harper! Specific details for each city to follow soon, we are just coordinating details at the moment with various volunteers across the country. Generally speaking protests in major cities will be held at government legislative buildings, in smaller cities locations will be announced well in advance of the protest. Protests are peaceful demonstrations, generally with guest speakers, music and entertainment. These events are family friendly. At this time we are most definitely holding protests in: Halifax, NS RALLY LOCATION: Province House (1726 Hollis Street) DATE: January 23rd at 1pm local time. HALIFAX RALLY PLANNING MEETING: Wednesday, January 13 @ 630pm. Location TBA-email NoProrogueHFX at gmail.com (please put PLANNING in the subject). http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=232710139093&ref=nf Fredericton, NB http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=234542215868 St John's, NL http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=254088136128 Charlottetown, PEI http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=238766311734 Toronto, ON RALLY LOCATION: Dundas Square. Rally March to the Square: TBA RALLY DATE: Saturday January 23rd 2010, 1pm local time http://www.facebook.com/specialshi?ref=name#/group.php?gid=267871867124&ref= nf http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=222828077823&ref=nf Contact: Justin - jpeg.Arjoon at gmail.com RALLY PLANNING MEETING 2: Friday Jan 15th at 5:15 pm at Hart House http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=274247710020&ref=nf Ottawa, ON http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=240574036819 http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=233886494638&index=1 OTTAWA RALLY PLANNING MEETING: Friday, January 8, 2010, 6:00pm - 9:00pm Ottawa University UNI Centre Kingston, ON RALLY LOCATION: Market Square (behind City Hall) RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 1pm local time http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=237399244708&index=1 Sudbury, ON http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=240530574180&%3Bref=mf Barrie, ON RALLY LOCATION: Fred Grant Memorial Square (on Dunlop St) RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 1pm local time http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=237914414270&ref=mf Belleville, ON http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=416217500077 Peterborough, ON PETERBOROUGH RALLY PLANNING MEETING January 8th at 5:30 @ Dreams of Beans Cafe downtown http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=254193200352 Thunder Bay, ON http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=233166837771&ref=mf Javier Espinoza ORGANIZING MEETING for Thunder Bay Date: Saturday Jan. 9, 2010 Place:Lakehead University - Agora Cafe Time: 2:00 pm Sault Ste. Marie, ON RALLY LOCATION: Outside Tony Martin's Office, 369 Queen St. East http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=237469588921 Whitby/Oshawa, ON http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=235987597683 Hamilton, ON RALLY LOCATION: Gore Park, by Jackson Square (at the intersection of King and James) RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 1pm local time http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151408734954 Mississauga, ON MISSISSAUGA RALLY PLANNING MEETING Wednesday January 6th 2010 Location: University of Toronto Mississauga - Student Center - Room 100 (Green Room) - 3359 Mississauga Road North Time: 5 - 6:00 p.m. Contact: 416-625-7712 Kitchener-Waterloo, ON RALLY LOCATION: Waterloo Public Square (on King Street South, in front of the Waterloo Town Square Mall) RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 11am local time http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=239179835749 Guelph, ON RALLY LOCATION: St George Square RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 1pm local time http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=236495265747 London, ON http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=239854508755 Windsor, ON http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=257142152929&ref=mf Montreal, QC http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=240931110839 RALLY PLANNING MEETING: Monday January 11 @ 6:30 at the McGill University Centre (3480 McTavish) room 433A http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=243651298149&index=1 Quebec City, QC http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=236838174131 Winnipeg, MB http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=275343198311 Saskatoon, SK http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=264977381210 Regina, SK http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=253266656648 Calgary, AB http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=233912789510 Edmonton, AB http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=236454117347 Vancouver, BC VANCOUVER RALLY PLANNING SESSION: Saturday January 9, Time and location TBA http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=265618470844 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/event.php?eid=252413915768&ref=nf Victoria, BC http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=247451223296 Kelowna-Okanagan, BC RALLY LOCATION: Corner of Gordon and Hwy 97, Kelowna RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 1pm local time http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=394885890526 Whitehorse, YT RALLY DETAILS: Saturday January 23rd @ 1pm outside the Elijah Smith building (300 Main Street, Whitehorse, YT). -Special events include speakers, MPs in attendance, and possibly live music (weather permitting). Yellowknife, NWT RALLY LOCATION: NTFL Headquarters, Stanton Plaza RALLY DATE: January 23rd at 11am local time http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=241319536066&ref=mf#/event.php?eid=241 319536066&ref=mf INTERNATIONAL RALLIES London, England (and other international locations) http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=238374178935&ref=mf If you're interested in helping organize a protest in any major city, including the ones listed, let us know! You can FB message the creator of the group hosting it (Shilo Davis), or you can simply email Shilo at daviss3 at mcmaster.ca. ***The amount of emails I've received have crashed my mcmaster email server! Please email me at shiloadavis at gmail.com*** This is your chance to make your voice heard Canada. Stand up for democracy on January 23rd! ***Details on locations and specifics for each protest will be posted at least 10 days in advance!*** ***Want to get involved in the meantime?*** 1) Write to your local paper(s) 2) Write to your MP and your MPP 3) Write to the GG, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Micha?lle Jean (By Email: info at gg.ca By Mail: Rideau Hall, 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A1 NO POSTAGE REQUIRED By Fax: 613-998-8760) 4) Write to the Queen about the GG and Harper (Her Majesty The Queen Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA, United Kingdom) 5) Spread the word to friends, family, and coworkers! The more Canadians we can get on board, the stronger our voice will be -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Mon Jan 11 16:50:32 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:50:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Genetically manipulation in My Backyard Message-ID: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/01/safety-of-gm-sugar-beets-subject-of-hearing/ Lawsuits & Litigation Safety of GM Sugar Beets Subject of Hearing by Eric Burkett | Jan 11, 2010 Could a federal judge in San Francisco who has already found the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacking when it comes to making sure genetically modified sugar beets are safe end up blocking planting of Roundup Ready sugar beets this spring? The schedule for ongoing litigation between Monsanto, Forbes Magazine's Company of the Year and the maker of Roundup Ready sugar beet, and a list of opponents that includes the Center for Food Safety, the Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club makes its less likely. The parties, who have until Feb. 4 to hold a settlement conference on their own, are scheduled for a hearing on June 11th, well after most Roundup Ready sugar beets will be in the ground in the western and upper Midwestern states that grow them. The collection of plaintiffs are hoping that discovery information the court expects to receive in March will convince Judge Jeffery White to halt planting of the next crop of GM sugar beets, expected to begin in April. It was Judge White, appointed to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush, who last September ordered USDA to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the safety of Roundup Ready sugar beets. That decision was seen as a "procedural win" for the plaintiff groups. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council found no issue with the safety of the Roundup Ready sugar beets, which are now favored by 95 percent of the acreage dedicated to sugar beets. USDA deregulated Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2006, and the plaintiff groups filed their lawsuit in January 2008. The case was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Since the EIS decision, both sides have been shoring up their evidence and gathering evidence. Judge White's order for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is being reviewed by the agency, according to Suzanne Bond, the service's assistant director of public affairs. Beets are among the most labor-intensive of crops and Roundup Ready sugar beets dramatically reduce the need for weeding and fuel, as well as water, said Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugar Beet Growers Association. Introduced into the market in 2008, farmers apparently agreed and Roundup Ready sugar beets saw the fastest adoption rate by farmers of any genetically modified crop. Sugar beets account for more than half of the United States' sugar production, and since the GM beets were deregulated nearly four years ago, nearly 95 percent of sugar beets produced in the US are genetically modified. For organic seed growers like Frank Morton of Philomath, Ore., however, it's only made matters more complicated. Philomath is situated in Oregon's Willamette Valley where nearly all the country's sugar beet seeds--both conventional and organic--are produced. "I was concerned that contamination events would begin to occur that would make my seed worthless," Morton told Capital Press, an agricultural newspaper, last December. Morton approached the Center for Food Safety in December, 2007 and they filed suit against the USDA the following month. Sugar beets, along with chard and table beets, are members of the Beta vulgaris family, and the three groups easily cross pollinate, a fact acknowledged by both Morton and Monsanto. In addition to the potential that genetically modified beets could cross pollinate with organic crops thereby destroying the organics' value, there is considerable worry about other dangers from genetically modified food crops. "For both organic and conventional consumers, they should be concerned because there are insufficient claims that say those products are safe," said Zelig Kevin Golden, staff attorney for CFS in San Francisco. Monsanto bases those claims on very short term studies, he said, and those studies were conducted over periods of time too short to really determine whether the sugar beets are truly safe Monsanto officials consider the plaintiffs' concerns overwrought. "Activists are making some pretty dramatic claims, but that's why there are stewardship agreements," said Garrett Kasper, public affairs manager for Monsanto in St. Louis. "There's a lot of stewardship and training. Growing is by very well trained seed partners." Activists' concerns go well beyond contamination of organic fields, however. "There are new studies coming out primarily in Europe that demonstrate genetically engineered corn varieties are toxic to organic functions," said CFS's attorney Golden. Genetically engineered soybeans have been shown to be toxic, he said. "I wouldn't say they'll kill, no one actually knows that," said Golden. "We're being experimented upon because no one actually knows that." From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Mon Jan 11 18:42:31 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:42:31 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors Message-ID: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him to evade democratic accountability. ?The Prime Minister is not only making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our system of democratic government..... Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous questioning. The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an important condition of democratic government - the ability of the people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the government accountable for its actions. fyi-janet =========================== http://www.noprorogation-nonprorogation.ca/ Against the Prorogation of Parliament As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him to evade democratic accountability. ?The Prime Minister is not only making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our system of democratic government. It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver Olympics. The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen?s representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly unusual - and improper - to request it in circumstances like these. What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing Parliament? Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules. Think of the idea of a "loyal opposition" so central to our practice of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to hold the government to a high standard of justification. The opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly partisan purposes. We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country?s common good. If it isn?t, then the opposition has failed to do its job. What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament and the Canadian people. The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament?s request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that question. The normal way in which a government secures a break in a parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception of private members? bills, have to be introduced again, at the very first step of the process. The government?s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to Parliament. Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous questioning. The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an important condition of democratic government - the ability of the people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the government accountable for its actions. Cosignataires - Cosigners: Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor, Deparment of Political Science, McGill University Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Alberta Laurie E. Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Alberta Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University Sophie-Jan Arrien, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Philosophie, Universit? Laval Barbara Arneil, Professor, Department of Political Science, The University of British Columbia Richard T.W. Arthur, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University Keith G. Banting, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University Jean-Guy Belley, Professeur, Chaire William C. Macdonald, Facult? de Droit, Universit? McGill Charles Blattberg, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, Universit? de Montr?al Ronald Beiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga Karim Benyekhlef, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de Montr?al Samuel Black, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University Idil Boran, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York University Pierre Bosset, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM Sophie Bourgault, Professeur Adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Laurel Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek and Roman Studies, University of Victoria Susan B. Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Martin Breaugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, York University Samantha Brennan, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University of Western Ontario Andrew Brook, Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy, Carleton University Conrad G. Brunk, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Victoria Anne Brydon, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University Marie-France Bureau, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Universit? de Sherbrooke Margaret Anne Cameron, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Victoria Angela Campbell, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Director of the McGill Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University Joseph H. Carens, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Simone Chambers, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Ryoa Chung, Professeure agr?g?e, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Jean-Pierre Couture, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Yves Couture, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM Wesley Cragg, Professor Emeritus, School of Business, Department of Philosophy, York University Fran?ois Cr?peau, Trudeau Fellow 2008-2011, Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University Shelagh Crooks, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint Mary's University Frank Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and of Political Science, Cities Centre, University of Toronto Hugo Cyr, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor, Department of History, University of Toronto Monique Deveaux, Associate professor, Department of Political Science, Williams College Aaron A. Dhir, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School York University Peter Dietsch, Professeur, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al David Docherty, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University Michael W. Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto Me Genevi?ve Dufour, Professeure, Facult? de droit, Universit? de Sherbrooke Francis Dupuis-Deri, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM Avigail Eisenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill University Jaye Dana Ellis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Environment, McGill University Diane Enns, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University William F. Flanagan, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University Pascale Fournier, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de Droit Civil, Universit? d'Ottawa Ursula Martius Franklin, research physicist, Retired Professor, University of Toronto Alain-G. Gagnon, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQ?M Donald Galloway, Professor of Law, University of Victoria Lisa Gannett, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint Mary's University Jean-Fran?ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de Montr?al Dalie Giroux, Professeure adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Peter Graefe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster University David Grondin, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Trevor Harrison, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Lethbridge Melissa Haussman, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University Elisabeth Heaman, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill University Cressida J Heyes, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Gender and Sexuality, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta Janet L. Hiebert, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University David Hitchcock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Assistant Professor, The Glendon School of Public and International Affairs, York University Raffaele Iacovino, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University Richard Alexander Janda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Charles Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, The University of Western Ontario David Kahane, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Alberta Dimitrios Karmis, Professeur agr?g?, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Joshua Karton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University Rebecca E. Kingston, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto Mark Kingwell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto Rahul Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University Wim Kymlicka, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University Guy Laforest, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, Universit? Laval David Lametti, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University Diane Lamoureux, Professeure, D?partement de science politique, Universit? Laval Thierry Lapointe, Professeur, D?partement de Science Politique, Coll?ge Universitaire de Saint-BonifaceHenry Laycock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University Richard Leblanc, Associate Professor, School of Administrative Studies, York University Steven Lecce. Assistant professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba Robert Leckey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University Jean Leclair, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Montr?al Lawrence LeDuc, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Paul Leduc Browne, Professeur, D?partement de travail social et des sciences sociales, Universit? du Qu?bec en Outaouais Richard B. Lee, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Catherine C. LeGrand, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill University Hester A. Lessard, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Brian Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill University Dominique Leydet, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM Andrew Lister, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University Mary Liston, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University Darren E. Lund, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary Vaughan Lyon, Professor, Department of Political Science, Trent University Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint Mary's University Patrick Macklem, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of TorontoAlice MacLachlan, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York University Alistair Macleod, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University Colin Macleod, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Victoria Jocelyn Maclure, Professeur Agr?g?, Facult? de Philosophie, Universit? Laval Laurence McFalls, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, Universit? de Montr?al John McGarry, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and Democracy, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University Michael Milde, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University of Western Ontario Carman Miller, Prodessor, Department of History, McGill University Douglas Moggach, Professeur titulaire, Chaire de recherche de l'Universit? d'Ottawa en pens?e politique, ?cole d'?tudes Politique, Universit? d'Ottawa Margaret Moore, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History, McGill University Robert Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York University Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Christian Nadeau, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al Robert Nichols, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta Ken E. Norman, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan James Orbinski, Associate Professor of Medicine and Political Science, University of Toronto Michael Orsini, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Martin Papillon, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Justin Paulson, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University R?jean Pelletier, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, Universit? Laval Dennis Pilon, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria Tim Quigley, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan Marc Ramsay, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Acadia University Denise R?aume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Philip Resnick, Professor, Department of Political Science, The University of British Columbia Andrew Reynolds PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University David Robichaud, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? d'Ottawa Fran?ois Roch, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M David Rondel, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent University Serge Rousselle, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Moncton Bruce B. Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Paul Russell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science University of Toronto Arthur Schafer, Professor, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba Richard Schultz, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University Signa A. Daum Shanks, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan Rhonda Semple, Professor, History Department, St. Francis Xavier University Hasana Sharp, Professor, Deparment of Philosophy, McGill University Augustin Simard, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Science Politique, Universit? de Montr?al Grace Skogstad, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto at Scarborough Susan Spronk, Professeure, ?cole de d?veloppement internationale et mondialisation, Universit? d'OttawaRichard Simeon, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Christine Straehle, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM Richard Stubbs, Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster University Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa Christine Sypnowich, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University Brian Tanguay, Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University Fran?ois Tanguay-Renaud, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Christine Tappolet, Professeure titulaire, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al Christina Tarnopolsky, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University Charles Taylor, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McGill University Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor, School of Education, Bishop's University William Tetley, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University Sophie Th?riault, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Section de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa Jean-Fran?ois Thibault, Professeur agr?g?, D?partement de science politique, Universit? de Moncton Hugh Thorburn, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Queen's University Malcolm Thorburn, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University James Hamilton Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria Luc Turgeon, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? d'Ottawa Patrick Turmel, Professeur adjoint, Facult? de Philosophie, Universit? Laval Gus Van Harten, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regin Mark Walters, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University Catherine Walsh, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University Wil Waluchow, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster's University Mark E. Warren, Professor, Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the Study of Democracy, The University of British Columbia Jeremy Webber, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, York University Graham White, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Melissa Williams, Professor, Department of Political Science, Director of the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. Scott F. Woodcock,?Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy,?University of Victoria James Young, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Victoria Margot Young, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of British Columbia ? ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 20086 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 36039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 157 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From dale_young at telus.net Mon Jan 11 19:34:31 2010 From: dale_young at telus.net (Dale Young) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:34:31 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors In-Reply-To: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <4B4BEDC7.4080608@telus.net> Hi Janet, Is this clear denunciation of Harper's actions open for reprinting in the Lower Island News? I would love to put it into my next issue if it is permissible. Thanks, Dale On 11/01/2010 6:42 PM, Janet M Eaton wrote: > As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students > about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime > Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue > Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him > to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only > making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in > our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our > system of democratic government..... > > Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by > prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose > served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the > trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover > that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system > of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for > the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we > make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to > face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous > questioning. > > The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an > important condition of democratic government - the ability of the > people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the > government accountable for its actions. > > fyi-janet > > =========================== > > http://www.noprorogation-nonprorogation.ca/ > > Against the Prorogation of Parliament > > As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students > about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime > Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue > Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him > to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only > making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in > our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our > system of democratic government. > > It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did > nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued > and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver > Olympics. > > The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request > prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to > request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen?s > representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly > unusual - and improper - to request it in circumstances like these. > > What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing > Parliament? > Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not > just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules. > Think of the idea of a "loyal opposition" so central to our practice > of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to > hold the government to a high standard of justification. The > opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being > servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly > partisan purposes. > > We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be > vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in > democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated > by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country?s common > good. If it isn?t, then the opposition has failed to do its job. > What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of > the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated > there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the > Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and > that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that > means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he > possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament > and the Canadian people. > > The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister > clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when > it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence > motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is > being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee > looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament?s > request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that > question. > > The normal way in which a government secures a break in a > parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the > institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. > Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once > the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of > Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception > of private members? bills, have to be introduced again, at the very > first step of the process. > > The government?s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near > having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly > invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which > is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of > Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to > Parliament. > > Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by > prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose > served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the > trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover > that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system > of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for > the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we > make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to > face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous > questioning. > > The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an > important condition of democratic government - the ability of the > people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the > government accountable for its actions. > > Cosignataires - Cosigners: > > Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor, Deparment of Political Science, > McGill University > Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor, Department of Political Science, > University of Alberta > Laurie E. Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political > Science, University of Alberta > Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's > University > Sophie-Jan Arrien, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Philosophie, > Universit? Laval > Barbara Arneil, Professor, Department of Political Science, The > University of British Columbia > Richard T.W. Arthur, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster > University > Keith G. Banting, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's > University > Jean-Guy Belley, Professeur, Chaire William C. Macdonald, Facult? de > Droit, Universit? McGill > Charles Blattberg, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, > Universit? de Montr?al > Ronald Beiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University > of Toronto at Mississauga > Karim Benyekhlef, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de > Montr?al > Samuel Black, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon > Fraser University > Idil Boran, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York > University > Pierre Bosset, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM > Sophie Bourgault, Professeur Adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Laurel Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek and Roman > Studies, University of Victoria > Susan B. Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, > University of British Columbia > Martin Breaugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, > York University > Samantha Brennan, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University > of Western Ontario > Andrew Brook, Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy, Carleton > University > Conrad G. Brunk, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of > Victoria > Anne Brydon, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Wilfrid > Laurier University > Marie-France Bureau, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, > Universit? de Sherbrooke > Margaret Anne Cameron, Professor, Department of Philosophy, > University of Victoria > Angela Campbell, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Director of > the McGill Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University > Joseph H. Carens, Professor, Department of Political Science, > University of Toronto > Simone Chambers, Professor, Department of Political Science, > University of Toronto > Ryoa Chung, Professeure agr?g?e, D?partement de Philosophie, > Universit? de Montr?al > Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto > Jean-Pierre Couture, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Yves Couture, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM > Wesley Cragg, Professor Emeritus, School of Business, Department of > Philosophy, York University > Fran?ois Cr?peau, Trudeau Fellow 2008-2011, Hans& Tamar Oppenheimer > Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill > University > Shelagh Crooks, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint > Mary's University > Frank Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and of Political > Science, Cities Centre, University of Toronto > Hugo Cyr, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M > Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor, Department of History, University of > Toronto > Monique Deveaux, Associate professor, Department of Political > Science, Williams College > Aaron A. Dhir, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School York > University > Peter Dietsch, Professeur, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de > Montr?al > David Docherty, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, > Wilfrid Laurier University > Michael W. Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, > University of Toronto > Me Genevi?ve Dufour, Professeure, Facult? de droit, Universit? de > Sherbrooke > Francis Dupuis-Deri, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, > UQAM > Avigail Eisenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political > Science, University of Victoria > Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History, > McGill University > Jaye Dana Ellis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and School of > Environment, McGill University > Diane Enns, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University > William F. Flanagan, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's > University > Pascale Fournier, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de > Droit Civil, Universit? d'Ottawa > Ursula Martius Franklin, research physicist, Retired Professor, > University of Toronto > Alain-G. Gagnon, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQ?M > Donald Galloway, Professor of Law, University of Victoria > Lisa Gannett, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint > Mary's University > Jean-Fran?ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Professeur, Facult? de droit, > Universit? de Montr?al > Dalie Giroux, Professeure adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Peter Graefe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, > McMaster University > David Grondin, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Trevor Harrison, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of > Lethbridge > Melissa Haussman, Associate Professor, Department of Political > Science, Carleton University > Elisabeth Heaman, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill > University > Cressida J Heyes, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of > Gender and Sexuality, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta > Janet L. Hiebert, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's > University > David Hitchcock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster > University > Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Assistant Professor, The Glendon School of > Public and International Affairs, York University > Raffaele Iacovino, Assistant Professor, Department of Political > Science, Carleton University > Richard Alexander Janda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill > University > Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Assistant Professor, Department of Political > Science, Simon Fraser University > Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of > Victoria > Charles Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, > The University of Western Ontario > David Kahane, Professor, Department of Political Science, University > of Alberta > Dimitrios Karmis, Professeur agr?g?, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Joshua Karton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's > University > Rebecca E. Kingston, Assistant Professor of Political Science, > University of Toronto > Mark Kingwell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of > Toronto > Rahul Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's > University > Wim Kymlicka, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University > Guy Laforest, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, > Universit? Laval > David Lametti, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University > Diane Lamoureux, Professeure, D?partement de science politique, > Universit? Laval > Thierry Lapointe, Professeur, D?partement de Science Politique, > Coll?ge Universitaire de Saint-BonifaceHenry Laycock, Professor, > Department of Philosophy, Queen's University > Richard Leblanc, Associate Professor, School of Administrative > Studies, York University > Steven Lecce. Assistant professor, Department of Political Studies, > University of Manitoba > Robert Leckey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University > Jean Leclair, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Montr?al > Lawrence LeDuc, Professor, Department of Political Science, > University of Toronto > Paul Leduc Browne, Professeur, D?partement de travail social et des > sciences sociales, Universit? du Qu?bec en Outaouais > Richard B. Lee, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of > Toronto > Catherine C. LeGrand, Associate Professor, Department of History, > McGill University > Hester A. Lessard, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of > Victoria > Brian Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill > University > Dominique Leydet, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM > Andrew Lister, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, > Queen's University > Mary Liston, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of > British Columbia > Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, > McGill University > Darren E. Lund, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University > of Calgary > Vaughan Lyon, Professor, Department of Political Science, Trent > University > Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint > Mary's University > Patrick Macklem, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of > TorontoAlice MacLachlan, Assistant Professor, Department of > Philosophy, York University > Alistair Macleod, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, > Queen's University > Colin Macleod, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, > University of Victoria > Jocelyn Maclure, Professeur Agr?g?, Facult? de Philosophie, > Universit? Laval > Laurence McFalls, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science > politique, Universit? de Montr?al > John McGarry, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and > Democracy, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University > Michael Milde, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, The > University of Western Ontario > Carman Miller, Prodessor, Department of History, McGill University > Douglas Moggach, Professeur titulaire, Chaire de recherche de > l'Universit? d'Ottawa en pens?e politique, ?cole > d'?tudes Politique, Universit? d'Ottawa > Margaret Moore, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's > University > Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History, McGill University > Robert Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York > University > Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York > University > Christian Nadeau, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? > de Montr?al > Robert Nichols, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of > Alberta > Ken E. Norman, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan > James Orbinski, Associate Professor of Medicine and Political > Science, University of Toronto > Michael Orsini, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? > d'Ottawa > Martin Papillon, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? > d'Ottawa > Justin Paulson, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and > Anthropology, Carleton University > R?jean Pelletier, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science > politique, Universit? Laval > Dennis Pilon, Professor, Department of Political Science, University > of Victoria > Tim Quigley, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan > Marc Ramsay, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Acadia > University > Denise R?aume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto > Philip Resnick, Professor, Department of Political Science, The > University of British Columbia > Andrew Reynolds PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy > and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University > David Robichaud, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Philosophie, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Fran?ois Roch, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M > David Rondel, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent > University > Serge Rousselle, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Moncton > Bruce B. Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York > University > Paul Russell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of > British Columbia > Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science > University of Toronto > Arthur Schafer, Professor, Director of the Centre for Professional > and Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba > Richard Schultz, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill > University > Signa A. Daum Shanks, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University > of Saskatchewan > Rhonda Semple, Professor, History Department, St. Francis Xavier > University > Hasana Sharp, Professor, Deparment of Philosophy, McGill University > Augustin Simard, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Science > Politique, Universit? de Montr?al > Grace Skogstad, Professor, Department of Political Science, > University of Toronto at Scarborough > Susan Spronk, Professeure, ?cole de d?veloppement internationale et > mondialisation, Universit? d'OttawaRichard Simeon, Department of > Political Science, University of Toronto > Christine Straehle, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM > Richard Stubbs, Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster > University > Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section > de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa > Christine Sypnowich, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's > University > Brian Tanguay, Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid > Laurier University > Fran?ois Tanguay-Renaud, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law > School, York University > Christine Tappolet, Professeure titulaire, D?partement de > philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al > Christina Tarnopolsky, Assistant Professor, Department of Political > Science, McGill University > Charles Taylor, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McGill > University > Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor, School of Education, Bishop's > University > William Tetley, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University > Sophie Th?riault, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Section de > droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa > Jean-Fran?ois Thibault, Professeur agr?g?, D?partement de science > politique, Universit? de Moncton > Hugh Thorburn, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, > Queen's University > Malcolm Thorburn, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's > University > James Hamilton Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, > Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria > Luc Turgeon, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, > Universit? d'Ottawa > Patrick Turmel, Professeur adjoint, Facult? de Philosophie, > Universit? Laval > Gus Van Harten, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York > University > Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate > School of Public Policy, University of Regin > Mark Walters, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University > Catherine Walsh, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University > Wil Waluchow, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster's > University > Mark E. Warren, Professor, Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the > Study of Democracy, The University of British Columbia > Jeremy Webber, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, > Faculty of Law, University of Victoria > Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, > York University > Graham White, Professor, Department of Political Science, University > of Toronto > Melissa Williams, Professor, Department of Political Science, > Director of the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. > Scott F. Woodcock, Associate Professor, Department of > Philosophy, University of Victoria > James Young, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of > Victoria > Margot Young, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of > British Columbia > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Jan 11 19:24:04 2010 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:24:04 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] What's new at Links: John Bellamy Foster, Fifth International, Fidel Castro, DSP merges, Malaysia, Cuba pamphlet, Morning Star@80, Honduras, Bolivia Message-ID: <4B4BEB54.9090409@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: John Bellamy Foster, Fifth International, Fidel Castro, DSP merges, Malaysia, Cuba pamphlet, Morning Star at 80, Honduras, Bolivia * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * John Bellamy Foster: Why ecological revolution? By John Bellamy Foster January 2010 -- It is now universally recognised within science that humanity is confronting the prospect -- if we do not soon change course -- of a planetary ecological collapse. Not only is the global ecological crisis becoming more and more severe, with the time in which to address it fast running out, but the dominant environmental strategies are also forms of denial, demonstrably doomed to fail, judging by their own limited objectives. This tragic failure, I will argue, can be attributed to the refusal of the powers that be to address the roots of the ecological problem in capitalist production and the resulting necessity of ecological and social revolution. * Read more Fidel Castro: 51 years after the revolution, the struggle is now to save our species By Fidel Castro January 3, 2010 -- As the Cuban Revolution celebrated its 51st anniversary two days ago, memories of that January 1, 1959, came to mind. The outlandish idea that, after half a century -- which flew by -- we would remember it as if it were yesterday, never occurred to any of us. * Read more Australia: New era of left unity as DSP votes to merge with the Socialist Alliance [The following speech, to the opening rally of the seventh national conference of the Socialist Alliance on January 2, 2010, was delivered by Peter Boyle, former national secretary of the Democratic Socialist Perspective.] Comrades, My job tonight is to make the unusual - if not unexpected - announcement that the Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) decided today at its 24th congress to effectively dissolve into the Socialist Alliance and to transfer all that it has built up, over some four decades of its existence, to the Socialist Alliance. * Read more Party of Socialism and Liberty, Brazil: Chavez's call to form the Fifth International and the world situation By Pedro Fuentes January 11, 2010 -- At the meeting of left-wing political parties and socialists held in Caracas on the eve of the congress of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called for the formation the Fifth Socialist International. In a strong speech in which he summarised the history of international socialist organisations, Chavez said, Confronting the capitalist crisis and the threat of war that threatens the future of humanity, it is time to convene the Fifth International, towards the unity of the left parties and revolutionaries willing to fight for socialism ... of the parties and socialist currents and social movements in the world to create a common strategy for the fight against imperialism, the overthrow of capitalism by socialism. * Read more Socialist Party of Malaysia: `No more racism! Freedom of religion to all! Statement by Socialist Party of Malaysia central committee PSM condemns attacks on churches! Najib and Hishamuddin should take full responsibility! January 8, 2010 -- The Parti Socialist Malaysia (PSM) is shocked to learn that three churches have been attacked in the last 12 hours in the Klang Valley - the Assumption Church in Jalan Templer, Petaling Jaya, the Life Chapel in Section 17, Petaling Jaya, and the Metro Tabernacle Church in Desa Melawati, Kuala Lumpur. The three-storey Metro Tabernacle church in Desa Melawati, part of the Assemblies of God movement, was set ablaze in the attack which took place around midnight. * Read more Free pamphlet to download: `Cuba -- How the workers and peasants made the revolution' On January 1, 1959 -- 51 years ago -- the hated US-backed Batista dictatorship in Cuba was overthrown by the workers, peasants and students. To mark that momentous occasion Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal is making freely available Resistance Books' Cuba: How the workers and peasants made the revolution, by Chris Slee (2008). * Download Britain: `Morning Star' celebrates 80th year of publication By Mick Hall January 6, 2010 -- Despite all its shortcomings and some might say murky history, the Morning Star is about to celebrate its 80th year of publication. Which in today's economic climate would be an achievement for any newspaper, but this is especially so for a radical left of centre daily and must surely be something to celebrate. * Read more Honduras: Video -- Which Way? Audio -- Ricardo Salgado discusses situation after the `election January 10, 2010 -- In October, 2009, a delegation of human rights observers from Chicago visited Honduras to witness the popular resistance to the coup d'etat. We interviewed many leaders of the movement, and recorded abuses against them perpetrated by the coup regime and its military apparatus. This video is a short example of the spirit of the resistance by the Honduran people, which continues despite the fraudulent election that took place on November 29, 2009. * Read more Australia: International greetings to the Socialist Alliance's 7th national conference January 9, 2010 -- Sydney -- The Socialist Alliance conference -- held January 2-5, 2010 -- was attended by representatives of a number of parties and organisations overseas, who presented verbal greetings to the conference. The greetings below were sent by organisations and activists unable to attend the conference. * Read more Bolivia: Invitation to the Peoples' World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth's Rights By Evo Morales, president of Bolivia January 5, 2010 -- Considering that climate change represents a real threat to the existence of humanity, of living beings and our Mother Earth as we know it today; Noting the serious danger that exists to islands, coastal areas, glaciers in the Himalayas, the Andes and mountains of the world, the poles of the Earth, warm regions like Africa, water sources, populations affected by increasing natural disasters, plants and animals, and ecosystems in general; Making clear that those most affected by climate change will be the poorest in the world who will see their homes and their sources of survival destroyed, and who will be forced to migrate and seek refuge; Confirming that 75% of historical emissions of greenhouse gases originated in the countries of the global North that followed a path of irrational industrialisation; * Read more Australia: 'It's time for the DSP to merge into the Socialist Alliance' [This report, presented by Peter Boyle on behalf of the Australian Democratic Socialist Perspective (DSP) national executive was adopted, by the 24th DSP congress on January 2, 2010. See also ``Australia: New era of left unity as DSP votes to merge with the Socialist Alliance ' '.] We are proposing to take an important step forward in our party building effort, an effort that has now spanned some four decades. We propose, at this 24th congress, to merge the Democratic Socialist Perspective into the Socialist Alliance, to take everything we have learned and built over these years of political struggle (organised through the DSP) into a broader political organisation, an organisation which has a majority of members who don't come from the DSP. * Read more Labour Party Pakistan endorses Fifth Socialist International process The Labour Party Pakistan's National Committee meeting on December 26-27, 2009, held in Islamabad agreed to endorse the declaration for the Fifth International. The LPP leadership discussed in detail the different aspects of the declaration and found in agreement on the issues. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Mon Jan 11 19:55:17 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:55:17 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors In-Reply-To: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100112035544.B06CE1435664@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> What I found interesting that there are names representing a great variety of disciplines, but not one from any economics dept. Unless I missed one. Cheers, Ed. At 06:42 PM 11/01/2010, you wrote: >As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >system of democratic government..... > >Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >questioning. > >The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >government accountable for its actions. > >fyi-janet > >=========================== > >http://www.noprorogation-nonprorogation.ca/ > >Against the Prorogation of Parliament > >As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >system of democratic government. > >It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did >nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued >and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver >Olympics. > >The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request >prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to >request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen?s >representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly >unusual - and improper - to request it in circumstances like these. > >What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing >Parliament? >Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not >just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules. >Think of the idea of a "loyal opposition" so central to our practice >of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to >hold the government to a high standard of justification. The >opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being >servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly >partisan purposes. > >We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be >vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in >democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated >by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country?s common >good. If it isn?t, then the opposition has failed to do its job. >What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of >the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated >there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the >Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and >that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that >means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he >possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament >and the Canadian people. > >The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister >clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when >it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence >motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is >being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee >looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament?s >request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that >question. > >The normal way in which a government secures a break in a >parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the >institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. >Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once >the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of >Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception >of private members? bills, have to be introduced again, at the very >first step of the process. > >The government?s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near >having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly >invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which >is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of >Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to >Parliament. > >Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >questioning. > >The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >government accountable for its actions. > >Cosignataires - Cosigners: > >Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor, Deparment of Political Science, >McGill University >Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Alberta >Laurie E. Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political >Science, University of Alberta >Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >Sophie-Jan Arrien, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Philosophie, >Universit? Laval >Barbara Arneil, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >University of British Columbia >Richard T.W. Arthur, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >University >Keith G. Banting, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's >University >Jean-Guy Belley, Professeur, Chaire William C. Macdonald, Facult? de >Droit, Universit? McGill >Charles Blattberg, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >Universit? de Montr?al >Ronald Beiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Toronto at Mississauga >Karim Benyekhlef, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >Montr?al >Samuel Black, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon >Fraser University >Idil Boran, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >University >Pierre Bosset, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM >Sophie Bourgault, Professeur Adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Laurel Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek and Roman >Studies, University of Victoria >Susan B. Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, >University of British Columbia >Martin Breaugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, >York University >Samantha Brennan, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University >of Western Ontario >Andrew Brook, Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy, Carleton >University >Conrad G. Brunk, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Victoria >Anne Brydon, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Wilfrid >Laurier University >Marie-France Bureau, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, >Universit? de Sherbrooke >Margaret Anne Cameron, Professor, Department of Philosophy, >University of Victoria >Angela Campbell, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Director of >the McGill Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University >Joseph H. Carens, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Simone Chambers, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Ryoa Chung, Professeure agr?g?e, D?partement de Philosophie, >Universit? de Montr?al >Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >Jean-Pierre Couture, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Yves Couture, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM >Wesley Cragg, Professor Emeritus, School of Business, Department of >Philosophy, York University >Fran?ois Cr?peau, Trudeau Fellow 2008-2011, Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer >Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill >University >Shelagh Crooks, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >Mary's University >Frank Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and of Political >Science, Cities Centre, University of Toronto >Hugo Cyr, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor, Department of History, University of >Toronto >Monique Deveaux, Associate professor, Department of Political >Science, Williams College >Aaron A. Dhir, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School York >University >Peter Dietsch, Professeur, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de >Montr?al >David Docherty, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >Wilfrid Laurier University >Michael W. Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Me Genevi?ve Dufour, Professeure, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >Sherbrooke >Francis Dupuis-Deri, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >UQAM >Avigail Eisenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political >Science, University of Victoria >Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History, >McGill University >Jaye Dana Ellis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and School of >Environment, McGill University >Diane Enns, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University >William F. Flanagan, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >Pascale Fournier, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de >Droit Civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >Ursula Martius Franklin, research physicist, Retired Professor, >University of Toronto >Alain-G. Gagnon, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQ?M >Donald Galloway, Professor of Law, University of Victoria >Lisa Gannett, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >Mary's University >Jean-Fran?ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Professeur, Facult? de droit, >Universit? de Montr?al >Dalie Giroux, Professeure adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Peter Graefe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >McMaster University >David Grondin, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Trevor Harrison, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of >Lethbridge >Melissa Haussman, Associate Professor, Department of Political >Science, Carleton University >Elisabeth Heaman, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >University >Cressida J Heyes, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of >Gender and Sexuality, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta >Janet L. Hiebert, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >University >David Hitchcock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >University >Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Assistant Professor, The Glendon School of >Public and International Affairs, York University >Raffaele Iacovino, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >Science, Carleton University >Richard Alexander Janda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill >University >Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >Science, Simon Fraser University >Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >Victoria >Charles Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >The University of Western Ontario >David Kahane, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Alberta >Dimitrios Karmis, Professeur agr?g?, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Joshua Karton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >Rebecca E. Kingston, Assistant Professor of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Mark Kingwell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Toronto >Rahul Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >University >Wim Kymlicka, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >Guy Laforest, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, >Universit? Laval >David Lametti, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Diane Lamoureux, Professeure, D?partement de science politique, >Universit? Laval >Thierry Lapointe, Professeur, D?partement de Science Politique, >Coll?ge Universitaire de Saint-BonifaceHenry Laycock, Professor, >Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >Richard Leblanc, Associate Professor, School of Administrative >Studies, York University >Steven Lecce. Assistant professor, Department of Political Studies, >University of Manitoba >Robert Leckey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Jean Leclair, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Montr?al >Lawrence LeDuc, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Paul Leduc Browne, Professeur, D?partement de travail social et des >sciences sociales, Universit? du Qu?bec en Outaouais >Richard B. Lee, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of >Toronto >Catherine C. LeGrand, Associate Professor, Department of History, >McGill University >Hester A. Lessard, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >Victoria >Brian Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >University >Dominique Leydet, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >Andrew Lister, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, >Queen's University >Mary Liston, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >British Columbia >Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >McGill University >Darren E. Lund, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University >of Calgary >Vaughan Lyon, Professor, Department of Political Science, Trent >University >Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >Mary's University >Patrick Macklem, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >TorontoAlice MacLachlan, Assistant Professor, Department of >Philosophy, York University >Alistair Macleod, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, >Queen's University >Colin Macleod, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, >University of Victoria >Jocelyn Maclure, Professeur Agr?g?, Facult? de Philosophie, >Universit? Laval >Laurence McFalls, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >politique, Universit? de Montr?al >John McGarry, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and >Democracy, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University >Michael Milde, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, The >University of Western Ontario >Carman Miller, Prodessor, Department of History, McGill University >Douglas Moggach, Professeur titulaire, Chaire de recherche de >l'Universit? d'Ottawa en pens?e politique, ?cole >d'?tudes Politique, Universit? d'Ottawa >Margaret Moore, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >University >Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History, McGill University >Robert Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >University >Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >University >Christian Nadeau, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? >de Montr?al >Robert Nichols, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Alberta >Ken E. Norman, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan >James Orbinski, Associate Professor of Medicine and Political >Science, University of Toronto >Michael Orsini, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >d'Ottawa >Martin Papillon, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >d'Ottawa >Justin Paulson, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and >Anthropology, Carleton University >R?jean Pelletier, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >politique, Universit? Laval >Dennis Pilon, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Victoria >Tim Quigley, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan >Marc Ramsay, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Acadia >University >Denise R?aume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >Philip Resnick, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >University of British Columbia >Andrew Reynolds PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy >and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University >David Robichaud, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Philosophie, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Fran?ois Roch, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >David Rondel, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent >University >Serge Rousselle, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Moncton >Bruce B. Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >University >Paul Russell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >British Columbia >Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science >University of Toronto >Arthur Schafer, Professor, Director of the Centre for Professional >and Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba >Richard Schultz, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill >University >Signa A. Daum Shanks, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University >of Saskatchewan >Rhonda Semple, Professor, History Department, St. Francis Xavier >University >Hasana Sharp, Professor, Deparment of Philosophy, McGill University >Augustin Simard, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Science >Politique, Universit? de Montr?al >Grace Skogstad, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto at Scarborough >Susan Spronk, Professeure, ?cole de d?veloppement internationale et >mondialisation, Universit? d'OttawaRichard Simeon, Department of >Political Science, University of Toronto >Christine Straehle, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >Richard Stubbs, Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster >University >Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section >de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >Christine Sypnowich, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >University >Brian Tanguay, Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid >Laurier University >Fran?ois Tanguay-Renaud, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law >School, York University >Christine Tappolet, Professeure titulaire, D?partement de >philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al >Christina Tarnopolsky, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >Science, McGill University >Charles Taylor, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McGill >University >Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor, School of Education, Bishop's >University >William Tetley, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Sophie Th?riault, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Section de >droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >Jean-Fran?ois Thibault, Professeur agr?g?, D?partement de science >politique, Universit? de Moncton >Hugh Thorburn, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >Queen's University >Malcolm Thorburn, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >James Hamilton Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, >Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria >Luc Turgeon, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Patrick Turmel, Professeur adjoint, Facult? de Philosophie, >Universit? Laval >Gus Van Harten, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >University >Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate >School of Public Policy, University of Regin >Mark Walters, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University >Catherine Walsh, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Wil Waluchow, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster's >University >Mark E. Warren, Professor, Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the >Study of Democracy, The University of British Columbia >Jeremy Webber, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, >Faculty of Law, University of Victoria >Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >York University >Graham White, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Toronto >Melissa Williams, Professor, Department of Political Science, >Director of the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. >Scott F. Woodcock, Associate Professor, Department of >Philosophy, University of Victoria >James Young, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Victoria >Margot Young, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of >British Columbia > > > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=Plain text >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=HTML text >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=Plain text >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=Plain text >Content-description: "AVG certification" >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: >270.14.135/2615 - Release Date: 01/11/10 11:35:00 From thinker at xplornet.com Mon Jan 11 20:01:22 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:01:22 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors In-Reply-To: <4B4BEDC7.4080608@telus.net> References: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <4B4BEDC7.4080608@telus.net> Message-ID: <20100112040142.9C1BA24A7BEA@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Hi Janet, I support Dale's request, she's running an excellent, periodic paper with the best of contents, fighting for democracy. . Cheers, Ed. At 07:34 PM 11/01/2010, you wrote: >Hi Janet, > >Is this clear denunciation of Harper's actions >open for reprinting in the Lower Island News? I >would love to put it into my next issue if it is permissible. > >Thanks, >Dale > >On 11/01/2010 6:42 PM, Janet M Eaton wrote: >> >>As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >>about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >>Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >>Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >>to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >>making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >>our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >>system of democratic government..... >> >>Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >>prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >>served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >>trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >>that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >>of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >>the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >>make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >>face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >>questioning. >> >>The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >>important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >>people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >>government accountable for its actions. >> >>fyi-janet >> >>=========================== >> >>http://www.noprorogation-nonprorogation.ca/ >> >>Against the Prorogation of Parliament >> >>As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >>about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >>Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >>Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >>to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >>making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >>our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >>system of democratic government. >> >>It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did >>nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued >>and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver >>Olympics. >> >>The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request >>prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to >>request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen?s >>representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly >>unusual - and improper - to request it in circumstances like these. >> >>What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing >>Parliament? >>Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not >>just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules. >>Think of the idea of a "loyal opposition" so central to our practice >>of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to >>hold the government to a high standard of justification. The >>opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being >>servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly >>partisan purposes. >> >>We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be >>vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in >>democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated >>by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country?s common >>good. If it isn?t, then the opposition has failed to do its job. >>What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of >>the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated >>there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the >>Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and >>that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that >>means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he >>possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament >>and the Canadian people. >> >>The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister >>clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when >>it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence >>motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is >>being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee >>looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament?s >>request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that >>question. >> >>The normal way in which a government secures a break in a >>parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the >>institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. >>Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once >>the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of >>Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception >>of private members? bills, have to be introduced again, at the very >>first step of the process. >> >>The government?s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near >>having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly >>invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which >>is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of >>Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to >>Parliament. >> >>Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >>prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >>served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >>trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >>that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >>of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >>the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >>make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >>face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >>questioning. >> >>The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >>important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >>people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >>government accountable for its actions. >> >>Cosignataires - Cosigners: >> >>Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor, Deparment of Political Science, >>McGill University >>Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Alberta >>Laurie E. Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political >>Science, University of Alberta >>Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>Sophie-Jan Arrien, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Philosophie, >>Universit? Laval >>Barbara Arneil, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >>University of British Columbia >>Richard T.W. Arthur, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >>University >>Keith G. Banting, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's >>University >>Jean-Guy Belley, Professeur, Chaire William C. Macdonald, Facult? de >>Droit, Universit? McGill >>Charles Blattberg, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >>Universit? de Montr?al >>Ronald Beiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Toronto at Mississauga >>Karim Benyekhlef, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >>Montr?al >>Samuel Black, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon >>Fraser University >>Idil Boran, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >>University >>Pierre Bosset, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM >>Sophie Bourgault, Professeur Adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Laurel Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek and Roman >>Studies, University of Victoria >>Susan B. Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, >>University of British Columbia >>Martin Breaugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, >>York University >>Samantha Brennan, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University >>of Western Ontario >>Andrew Brook, Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy, Carleton >>University >>Conrad G. Brunk, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Victoria >>Anne Brydon, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Wilfrid >>Laurier University >>Marie-France Bureau, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, >>Universit? de Sherbrooke >>Margaret Anne Cameron, Professor, Department of Philosophy, >>University of Victoria >>Angela Campbell, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Director of >>the McGill Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University >>Joseph H. Carens, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Simone Chambers, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Ryoa Chung, Professeure agr?g?e, D?partement de Philosophie, >>Universit? de Montr?al >>Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >>Jean-Pierre Couture, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Yves Couture, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM >>Wesley Cragg, Professor Emeritus, School of Business, Department of >>Philosophy, York University >>Fran?ois Cr?peau, Trudeau Fellow 2008-2011, Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer >>Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill >>University >>Shelagh Crooks, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >>Mary's University >>Frank Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and of Political >>Science, Cities Centre, University of Toronto >>Hugo Cyr, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >>Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor, Department of History, University of >>Toronto >>Monique Deveaux, Associate professor, Department of Political >>Science, Williams College >>Aaron A. Dhir, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School York >>University >>Peter Dietsch, Professeur, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de >>Montr?al >>David Docherty, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>Wilfrid Laurier University >>Michael W. Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Me Genevi?ve Dufour, Professeure, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >>Sherbrooke >>Francis Dupuis-Deri, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >>UQAM >>Avigail Eisenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political >>Science, University of Victoria >>Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History, >>McGill University >>Jaye Dana Ellis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and School of >>Environment, McGill University >>Diane Enns, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University >>William F. Flanagan, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>Pascale Fournier, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de >>Droit Civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Ursula Martius Franklin, research physicist, Retired Professor, >>University of Toronto >>Alain-G. Gagnon, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQ?M >>Donald Galloway, Professor of Law, University of Victoria >>Lisa Gannett, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >>Mary's University >>Jean-Fran?ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Professeur, Facult? de droit, >>Universit? de Montr?al >>Dalie Giroux, Professeure adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Peter Graefe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>McMaster University >>David Grondin, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Trevor Harrison, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of >>Lethbridge >>Melissa Haussman, Associate Professor, Department of Political >>Science, Carleton University >>Elisabeth Heaman, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >>University >>Cressida J Heyes, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of >>Gender and Sexuality, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta >>Janet L. Hiebert, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >>University >>David Hitchcock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >>University >>Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Assistant Professor, The Glendon School of >>Public and International Affairs, York University >>Raffaele Iacovino, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >>Science, Carleton University >>Richard Alexander Janda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill >>University >>Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >>Science, Simon Fraser University >>Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>Victoria >>Charles Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>The University of Western Ontario >>David Kahane, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Alberta >>Dimitrios Karmis, Professeur agr?g?, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Joshua Karton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>Rebecca E. Kingston, Assistant Professor of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Mark Kingwell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Toronto >>Rahul Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >>University >>Wim Kymlicka, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >>Guy Laforest, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, >>Universit? Laval >>David Lametti, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Diane Lamoureux, Professeure, D?partement de science politique, >>Universit? Laval >>Thierry Lapointe, Professeur, D?partement de Science Politique, >>Coll?ge Universitaire de Saint-BonifaceHenry Laycock, Professor, >>Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >>Richard Leblanc, Associate Professor, School of Administrative >>Studies, York University >>Steven Lecce. Assistant professor, Department of Political Studies, >>University of Manitoba >>Robert Leckey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Jean Leclair, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Montr?al >>Lawrence LeDuc, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Paul Leduc Browne, Professeur, D?partement de travail social et des >>sciences sociales, Universit? du Qu?bec en Outaouais >>Richard B. Lee, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of >>Toronto >>Catherine C. LeGrand, Associate Professor, Department of History, >>McGill University >>Hester A. Lessard, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>Victoria >>Brian Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >>University >>Dominique Leydet, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >>Andrew Lister, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, >>Queen's University >>Mary Liston, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>British Columbia >>Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>McGill University >>Darren E. Lund, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University >>of Calgary >>Vaughan Lyon, Professor, Department of Political Science, Trent >>University >>Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >>Mary's University >>Patrick Macklem, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>TorontoAlice MacLachlan, Assistant Professor, Department of >>Philosophy, York University >>Alistair Macleod, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, >>Queen's University >>Colin Macleod, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, >>University of Victoria >>Jocelyn Maclure, Professeur Agr?g?, Facult? de Philosophie, >>Universit? Laval >>Laurence McFalls, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >>politique, Universit? de Montr?al >>John McGarry, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and >>Democracy, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University >>Michael Milde, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, The >>University of Western Ontario >>Carman Miller, Prodessor, Department of History, McGill University >>Douglas Moggach, Professeur titulaire, Chaire de recherche de >>l'Universit? d'Ottawa en pens?e politique, ?cole >>d'?tudes Politique, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Margaret Moore, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >>University >>Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History, McGill University >>Robert Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >>University >>Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >>University >>Christian Nadeau, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? >>de Montr?al >>Robert Nichols, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Alberta >>Ken E. Norman, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan >>James Orbinski, Associate Professor of Medicine and Political >>Science, University of Toronto >>Michael Orsini, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >>d'Ottawa >>Martin Papillon, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >>d'Ottawa >>Justin Paulson, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and >>Anthropology, Carleton University >>R?jean Pelletier, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >>politique, Universit? Laval >>Dennis Pilon, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Victoria >>Tim Quigley, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan >>Marc Ramsay, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Acadia >>University >>Denise R?aume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >>Philip Resnick, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >>University of British Columbia >>Andrew Reynolds PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy >>and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University >>David Robichaud, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Philosophie, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Fran?ois Roch, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >>David Rondel, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent >>University >>Serge Rousselle, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Moncton >>Bruce B. Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >>University >>Paul Russell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>British Columbia >>Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science >>University of Toronto >>Arthur Schafer, Professor, Director of the Centre for Professional >>and Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba >>Richard Schultz, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill >>University >>Signa A. Daum Shanks, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University >>of Saskatchewan >>Rhonda Semple, Professor, History Department, St. Francis Xavier >>University >>Hasana Sharp, Professor, Deparment of Philosophy, McGill University >>Augustin Simard, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Science >>Politique, Universit? de Montr?al >>Grace Skogstad, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto at Scarborough >>Susan Spronk, Professeure, ?cole de d?veloppement internationale et >>mondialisation, Universit? d'OttawaRichard Simeon, Department of >>Political Science, University of Toronto >>Christine Straehle, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >>Richard Stubbs, Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster >>University >>Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section >>de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Christine Sypnowich, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >>University >>Brian Tanguay, Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid >>Laurier University >>Fran?ois Tanguay-Renaud, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law >>School, York University >>Christine Tappolet, Professeure titulaire, D?partement de >>philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al >>Christina Tarnopolsky, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >>Science, McGill University >>Charles Taylor, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McGill >>University >>Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor, School of Education, Bishop's >>University >>William Tetley, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Sophie Th?riault, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Section de >>droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Jean-Fran?ois Thibault, Professeur agr?g?, D?partement de science >>politique, Universit? de Moncton >>Hugh Thorburn, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >>Queen's University >>Malcolm Thorburn, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>James Hamilton Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, >>Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria >>Luc Turgeon, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Patrick Turmel, Professeur adjoint, Facult? de Philosophie, >>Universit? Laval >>Gus Van Harten, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >>University >>Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate >>School of Public Policy, University of Regin >>Mark Walters, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University >>Catherine Walsh, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Wil Waluchow, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster's >>University >>Mark E. Warren, Professor, Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the >>Study of Democracy, The University of British Columbia >>Jeremy Webber, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, >>Faculty of Law, University of Victoria >>Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >>York University >>Graham White, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Toronto >>Melissa Williams, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>Director of the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. >>Scott F. Woodcock, Associate Professor, Department of >>Philosophy, University of Victoria >>James Young, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Victoria >>Margot Young, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of >>British Columbia >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: >270.14.135/2615 - Release Date: 01/11/10 11:35:00 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Mon Jan 11 22:53:33 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:53:33 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors In-Reply-To: <20100112035544.B06CE1435664@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> References: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca>, <20100112035544.B06CE1435664@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <4B4BE42D.2221.3FC26B1@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Isn't that interesting Ed- The most insular discipline of all silent ! I suppose we shouldn't be surprized lnowing they've abandonned the world in general , and the planet, why would they care about their own contry? Those econometric minds seem to find pleasure in their own mathematical model while ignoring the internal contradictions and incoherencies between their assumptions and reality ! all the best janet On 11 Jan 2010 at 19:55, Ed Deak wrote: Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:55:17 -0800 To: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca, A renewed Mai-Not From: Ed Deak Subject: Re: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors What I found interesting that there are names representing a great variety of disciplines, but not one from any economics dept. Unless I missed one. Cheers, Ed. At 06:42 PM 11/01/2010, you wrote: >As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >system of democratic government..... > >Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >questioning. > >The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >government accountable for its actions. > >fyi-janet > >=========================== > >http://www.noprorogation-nonprorogation.ca/ > >Against the Prorogation of Parliament > >As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >system of democratic government. > >It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did >nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued >and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver >Olympics. > >The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request >prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to >request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen?s >representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly >unusual - and improper - to request it in circumstances like these. > >What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing >Parliament? >Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not >just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules. >Think of the idea of a "loyal opposition" so central to our practice >of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to >hold the government to a high standard of justification. The >opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being >servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly >partisan purposes. > >We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be >vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in >democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated >by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country?s common >good. If it isn?t, then the opposition has failed to do its job. >What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of >the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated >there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the >Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and >that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that >means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he >possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament >and the Canadian people. > >The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister >clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when >it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence >motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is >being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee >looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament?s >request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that >question. > >The normal way in which a government secures a break in a >parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the >institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. >Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once >the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of >Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception >of private members? bills, have to be introduced again, at the very >first step of the process. > >The government?s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near >having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly >invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which >is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of >Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to >Parliament. > >Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >questioning. > >The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >government accountable for its actions. > >Cosignataires - Cosigners: > >Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor, Deparment of Political Science, >McGill University >Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Alberta >Laurie E. Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political >Science, University of Alberta >Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >Sophie-Jan Arrien, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Philosophie, >Universit? Laval >Barbara Arneil, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >University of British Columbia >Richard T.W. Arthur, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >University >Keith G. Banting, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's >University >Jean-Guy Belley, Professeur, Chaire William C. Macdonald, Facult? de >Droit, Universit? McGill >Charles Blattberg, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >Universit? de Montr?al >Ronald Beiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Toronto at Mississauga >Karim Benyekhlef, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >Montr?al >Samuel Black, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon >Fraser University >Idil Boran, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >University >Pierre Bosset, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM >Sophie Bourgault, Professeur Adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Laurel Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek and Roman >Studies, University of Victoria >Susan B. Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, >University of British Columbia >Martin Breaugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, >York University >Samantha Brennan, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University >of Western Ontario >Andrew Brook, Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy, Carleton >University >Conrad G. Brunk, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Victoria >Anne Brydon, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Wilfrid >Laurier University >Marie-France Bureau, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, >Universit? de Sherbrooke >Margaret Anne Cameron, Professor, Department of Philosophy, >University of Victoria >Angela Campbell, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Director of >the McGill Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University >Joseph H. Carens, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Simone Chambers, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Ryoa Chung, Professeure agr?g?e, D?partement de Philosophie, >Universit? de Montr?al >Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >Jean-Pierre Couture, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Yves Couture, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM >Wesley Cragg, Professor Emeritus, School of Business, Department of >Philosophy, York University >Fran?ois Cr?peau, Trudeau Fellow 2008-2011, Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer >Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill >University >Shelagh Crooks, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >Mary's University >Frank Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and of Political >Science, Cities Centre, University of Toronto >Hugo Cyr, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor, Department of History, University of >Toronto >Monique Deveaux, Associate professor, Department of Political >Science, Williams College >Aaron A. Dhir, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School York >University >Peter Dietsch, Professeur, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de >Montr?al >David Docherty, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >Wilfrid Laurier University >Michael W. Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Me Genevi?ve Dufour, Professeure, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >Sherbrooke >Francis Dupuis-Deri, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >UQAM >Avigail Eisenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political >Science, University of Victoria >Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History, >McGill University >Jaye Dana Ellis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and School of >Environment, McGill University >Diane Enns, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University >William F. Flanagan, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >Pascale Fournier, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de >Droit Civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >Ursula Martius Franklin, research physicist, Retired Professor, >University of Toronto >Alain-G. Gagnon, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQ?M >Donald Galloway, Professor of Law, University of Victoria >Lisa Gannett, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >Mary's University >Jean-Fran?ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Professeur, Facult? de droit, >Universit? de Montr?al >Dalie Giroux, Professeure adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Peter Graefe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >McMaster University >David Grondin, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Trevor Harrison, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of >Lethbridge >Melissa Haussman, Associate Professor, Department of Political >Science, Carleton University >Elisabeth Heaman, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >University >Cressida J Heyes, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of >Gender and Sexuality, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta >Janet L. Hiebert, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >University >David Hitchcock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >University >Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Assistant Professor, The Glendon School of >Public and International Affairs, York University >Raffaele Iacovino, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >Science, Carleton University >Richard Alexander Janda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill >University >Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >Science, Simon Fraser University >Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >Victoria >Charles Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >The University of Western Ontario >David Kahane, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Alberta >Dimitrios Karmis, Professeur agr?g?, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Joshua Karton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >Rebecca E. Kingston, Assistant Professor of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Mark Kingwell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Toronto >Rahul Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >University >Wim Kymlicka, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >Guy Laforest, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, >Universit? Laval >David Lametti, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Diane Lamoureux, Professeure, D?partement de science politique, >Universit? Laval >Thierry Lapointe, Professeur, D?partement de Science Politique, >Coll?ge Universitaire de Saint-BonifaceHenry Laycock, Professor, >Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >Richard Leblanc, Associate Professor, School of Administrative >Studies, York University >Steven Lecce. Assistant professor, Department of Political Studies, >University of Manitoba >Robert Leckey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Jean Leclair, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Montr?al >Lawrence LeDuc, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto >Paul Leduc Browne, Professeur, D?partement de travail social et des >sciences sociales, Universit? du Qu?bec en Outaouais >Richard B. Lee, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of >Toronto >Catherine C. LeGrand, Associate Professor, Department of History, >McGill University >Hester A. Lessard, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >Victoria >Brian Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >University >Dominique Leydet, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >Andrew Lister, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, >Queen's University >Mary Liston, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >British Columbia >Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >McGill University >Darren E. Lund, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University >of Calgary >Vaughan Lyon, Professor, Department of Political Science, Trent >University >Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >Mary's University >Patrick Macklem, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >TorontoAlice MacLachlan, Assistant Professor, Department of >Philosophy, York University >Alistair Macleod, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, >Queen's University >Colin Macleod, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, >University of Victoria >Jocelyn Maclure, Professeur Agr?g?, Facult? de Philosophie, >Universit? Laval >Laurence McFalls, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >politique, Universit? de Montr?al >John McGarry, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and >Democracy, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University >Michael Milde, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, The >University of Western Ontario >Carman Miller, Prodessor, Department of History, McGill University >Douglas Moggach, Professeur titulaire, Chaire de recherche de >l'Universit? d'Ottawa en pens?e politique, ?cole >d'?tudes Politique, Universit? d'Ottawa >Margaret Moore, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >University >Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History, McGill University >Robert Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >University >Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >University >Christian Nadeau, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? >de Montr?al >Robert Nichols, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Alberta >Ken E. Norman, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan >James Orbinski, Associate Professor of Medicine and Political >Science, University of Toronto >Michael Orsini, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >d'Ottawa >Martin Papillon, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >d'Ottawa >Justin Paulson, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and >Anthropology, Carleton University >R?jean Pelletier, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >politique, Universit? Laval >Dennis Pilon, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Victoria >Tim Quigley, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan >Marc Ramsay, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Acadia >University >Denise R?aume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >Philip Resnick, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >University of British Columbia >Andrew Reynolds PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy >and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University >David Robichaud, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Philosophie, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Fran?ois Roch, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >David Rondel, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent >University >Serge Rousselle, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Moncton >Bruce B. Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >University >Paul Russell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >British Columbia >Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science >University of Toronto >Arthur Schafer, Professor, Director of the Centre for Professional >and Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba >Richard Schultz, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill >University >Signa A. Daum Shanks, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University >of Saskatchewan >Rhonda Semple, Professor, History Department, St. Francis Xavier >University >Hasana Sharp, Professor, Deparment of Philosophy, McGill University >Augustin Simard, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Science >Politique, Universit? de Montr?al >Grace Skogstad, Professor, Department of Political Science, >University of Toronto at Scarborough >Susan Spronk, Professeure, ?cole de d?veloppement internationale et >mondialisation, Universit? d'OttawaRichard Simeon, Department of >Political Science, University of Toronto >Christine Straehle, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >Richard Stubbs, Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster >University >Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section >de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >Christine Sypnowich, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >University >Brian Tanguay, Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid >Laurier University >Fran?ois Tanguay-Renaud, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law >School, York University >Christine Tappolet, Professeure titulaire, D?partement de >philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al >Christina Tarnopolsky, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >Science, McGill University >Charles Taylor, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McGill >University >Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor, School of Education, Bishop's >University >William Tetley, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Sophie Th?riault, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Section de >droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >Jean-Fran?ois Thibault, Professeur agr?g?, D?partement de science >politique, Universit? de Moncton >Hugh Thorburn, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >Queen's University >Malcolm Thorburn, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >University >James Hamilton Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, >Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria >Luc Turgeon, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >Universit? d'Ottawa >Patrick Turmel, Professeur adjoint, Facult? de Philosophie, >Universit? Laval >Gus Van Harten, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >University >Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate >School of Public Policy, University of Regin >Mark Walters, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University >Catherine Walsh, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >Wil Waluchow, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster's >University >Mark E. Warren, Professor, Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the >Study of Democracy, The University of British Columbia >Jeremy Webber, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, >Faculty of Law, University of Victoria >Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >York University >Graham White, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >of Toronto >Melissa Williams, Professor, Department of Political Science, >Director of the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. >Scott F. Woodcock, Associate Professor, Department of >Philosophy, University of Victoria >James Young, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >Victoria >Margot Young, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of >British Columbia > > > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=Plain text >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=HTML text >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=Plain text >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name="-"; type=Plain text >Content-description: "AVG certification" >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="-" > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: >270.14.135/2615 - Release Date: 01/11/10 11:35:00 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Mon Jan 11 22:55:53 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:55:53 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors In-Reply-To: <20100112040142.9C1BA24A7BEA@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca>, <4B4BEDC7.4080608@telus.net>, <20100112040142.9C1BA24A7BEA@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <4B4BE4B9.16269.3FE46F1@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Thanks Ed I've just written to Dale to say she can certainly pubicize any of the things I've been posting. all the best, janet On 11 Jan 2010 at 20:01, Ed Deak wrote: Date sent: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:01:22 -0800 To: dale_young at telus.net, A renewed Mai-Not From: Ed Deak Subject: Re: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors Send reply to: A renewed Mai-Not Hi Janet, I support Dale's request, she's running an excellent, periodic paper with the best of contents, fighting for democracy. . Cheers, Ed. At 07:34 PM 11/01/2010, you wrote: >Hi Janet, > >Is this clear denunciation of Harper's actions >open for reprinting in the Lower Island News? I >would love to put it into my next issue if it is permissible. > >Thanks, >Dale > >On 11/01/2010 6:42 PM, Janet M Eaton wrote: >> >>As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >>about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >>Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >>Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >>to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >>making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >>our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >>system of democratic government..... >> >>Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >>prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >>served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >>trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >>that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >>of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >>the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >>make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >>face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >>questioning. >> >>The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >>important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >>people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >>government accountable for its actions. >> >>fyi-janet >> >>=========================== >> >>http://www.noprorogation-nonprorogation.ca/ >> >>Against the Prorogation of Parliament >> >>As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students >>about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime >>Minister Stephen Harper?s decision to use his power to prorogue >>Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him >>to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only >>making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in >>our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our >>system of democratic government. >> >>It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did >>nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued >>and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver >>Olympics. >> >>The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request >>prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to >>request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen?s >>representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly >>unusual - and improper - to request it in circumstances like these. >> >>What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing >>Parliament? >>Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not >>just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules. >>Think of the idea of a "loyal opposition" so central to our practice >>of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to >>hold the government to a high standard of justification. The >>opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being >>servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly >>partisan purposes. >> >>We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be >>vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in >>democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated >>by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country?s common >>good. If it isn?t, then the opposition has failed to do its job. >>What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of >>the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated >>there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the >>Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and >>that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that >>means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he >>possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament >>and the Canadian people. >> >>The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister >>clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when >>it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence >>motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is >>being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee >>looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament?s >>request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that >>question. >> >>The normal way in which a government secures a break in a >>parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the >>institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. >>Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once >>the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of >>Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception >>of private members? bills, have to be introduced again, at the very >>first step of the process. >> >>The government?s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near >>having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly >>invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which >>is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of >>Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to >>Parliament. >> >>Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by >>prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose >>served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the >>trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover >>that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system >>of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for >>the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we >>make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to >>face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous >>questioning. >> >>The Prime Minister?s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an >>important condition of democratic government - the ability of the >>people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the >>government accountable for its actions. >> >>Cosignataires - Cosigners: >> >>Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor, Deparment of Political Science, >>McGill University >>Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Alberta >>Laurie E. Adkin, Associate Professor, Department of Political >>Science, University of Alberta >>Sharryn J. Aiken, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>Sophie-Jan Arrien, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Philosophie, >>Universit? Laval >>Barbara Arneil, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >>University of British Columbia >>Richard T.W. Arthur, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >>University >>Keith G. Banting, Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's >>University >>Jean-Guy Belley, Professeur, Chaire William C. Macdonald, Facult? de >>Droit, Universit? McGill >>Charles Blattberg, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >>Universit? de Montr?al >>Ronald Beiner, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Toronto at Mississauga >>Karim Benyekhlef, Professeur, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >>Montr?al >>Samuel Black, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon >>Fraser University >>Idil Boran, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >>University >>Pierre Bosset, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQAM >>Sophie Bourgault, Professeur Adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Laurel Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek and Roman >>Studies, University of Victoria >>Susan B. Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, >>University of British Columbia >>Martin Breaugh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, >>York University >>Samantha Brennan, Professor, Department of Philosophy, The University >>of Western Ontario >>Andrew Brook, Chancellor's Professor of Philosophy, Carleton >>University >>Conrad G. Brunk, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Victoria >>Anne Brydon, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Wilfrid >>Laurier University >>Marie-France Bureau, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, >>Universit? de Sherbrooke >>Margaret Anne Cameron, Professor, Department of Philosophy, >>University of Victoria >>Angela Campbell, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Director of >>the McGill Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University >>Joseph H. Carens, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Simone Chambers, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Ryoa Chung, Professeure agr?g?e, D?partement de Philosophie, >>Universit? de Montr?al >>Brenda Cossman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >>Jean-Pierre Couture, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Yves Couture, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQAM >>Wesley Cragg, Professor Emeritus, School of Business, Department of >>Philosophy, York University >>Fran?ois Cr?peau, Trudeau Fellow 2008-2011, Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer >>Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill >>University >>Shelagh Crooks, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >>Mary's University >>Frank Cunningham, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and of Political >>Science, Cities Centre, University of Toronto >>Hugo Cyr, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >>Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor, Department of History, University of >>Toronto >>Monique Deveaux, Associate professor, Department of Political >>Science, Williams College >>Aaron A. Dhir, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School York >>University >>Peter Dietsch, Professeur, D?partement de philosophie, Universit? de >>Montr?al >>David Docherty, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>Wilfrid Laurier University >>Michael W. Donnelly, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Me Genevi?ve Dufour, Professeure, Facult? de droit, Universit? de >>Sherbrooke >>Francis Dupuis-Deri, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, >>UQAM >>Avigail Eisenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political >>Science, University of Victoria >>Elizabeth Elbourne, Associate Professor, Department of History, >>McGill University >>Jaye Dana Ellis, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and School of >>Environment, McGill University >>Diane Enns, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster University >>William F. Flanagan, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>Pascale Fournier, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section de >>Droit Civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Ursula Martius Franklin, research physicist, Retired Professor, >>University of Toronto >>Alain-G. Gagnon, Professeur, D?partement de science politique, UQ?M >>Donald Galloway, Professor of Law, University of Victoria >>Lisa Gannett, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >>Mary's University >>Jean-Fran?ois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Professeur, Facult? de droit, >>Universit? de Montr?al >>Dalie Giroux, Professeure adjointe, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Peter Graefe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>McMaster University >>David Grondin, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Trevor Harrison, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of >>Lethbridge >>Melissa Haussman, Associate Professor, Department of Political >>Science, Carleton University >>Elisabeth Heaman, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >>University >>Cressida J Heyes, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of >>Gender and Sexuality, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta >>Janet L. Hiebert, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >>University >>David Hitchcock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster >>University >>Louis-Philippe Hodgson, Assistant Professor, The Glendon School of >>Public and International Affairs, York University >>Raffaele Iacovino, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >>Science, Carleton University >>Richard Alexander Janda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill >>University >>Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >>Science, Simon Fraser University >>Rebecca Johnson, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>Victoria >>Charles Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>The University of Western Ontario >>David Kahane, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Alberta >>Dimitrios Karmis, Professeur agr?g?, ?cole d'?tudes politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Joshua Karton, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>Rebecca E. Kingston, Assistant Professor of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Mark Kingwell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Toronto >>Rahul Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >>University >>Wim Kymlicka, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >>Guy Laforest, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science politique, >>Universit? Laval >>David Lametti, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Diane Lamoureux, Professeure, D?partement de science politique, >>Universit? Laval >>Thierry Lapointe, Professeur, D?partement de Science Politique, >>Coll?ge Universitaire de Saint-BonifaceHenry Laycock, Professor, >>Department of Philosophy, Queen's University >>Richard Leblanc, Associate Professor, School of Administrative >>Studies, York University >>Steven Lecce. Assistant professor, Department of Political Studies, >>University of Manitoba >>Robert Leckey, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Jean Leclair, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Montr?al >>Lawrence LeDuc, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto >>Paul Leduc Browne, Professeur, D?partement de travail social et des >>sciences sociales, Universit? du Qu?bec en Outaouais >>Richard B. Lee, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of >>Toronto >>Catherine C. LeGrand, Associate Professor, Department of History, >>McGill University >>Hester A. Lessard, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>Victoria >>Brian Lewis, Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill >>University >>Dominique Leydet, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >>Andrew Lister, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, >>Queen's University >>Mary Liston, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>British Columbia >>Catherine Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, >>McGill University >>Darren E. Lund, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University >>of Calgary >>Vaughan Lyon, Professor, Department of Political Science, Trent >>University >>Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Saint >>Mary's University >>Patrick Macklem, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of >>TorontoAlice MacLachlan, Assistant Professor, Department of >>Philosophy, York University >>Alistair Macleod, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, >>Queen's University >>Colin Macleod, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, >>University of Victoria >>Jocelyn Maclure, Professeur Agr?g?, Facult? de Philosophie, >>Universit? Laval >>Laurence McFalls, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >>politique, Universit? de Montr?al >>John McGarry, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and >>Democracy, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University >>Michael Milde, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, The >>University of Western Ontario >>Carman Miller, Prodessor, Department of History, McGill University >>Douglas Moggach, Professeur titulaire, Chaire de recherche de >>l'Universit? d'Ottawa en pens?e politique, ?cole >>d'?tudes Politique, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Margaret Moore, Professor, Department of Political Studies, Queen's >>University >>Suzanne Morton, Professor, Department of History, McGill University >>Robert Myers, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, York >>University >>Roxanne Mykitiuk, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >>University >>Christian Nadeau, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, Universit? >>de Montr?al >>Robert Nichols, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Alberta >>Ken E. Norman, Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan >>James Orbinski, Associate Professor of Medicine and Political >>Science, University of Toronto >>Michael Orsini, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >>d'Ottawa >>Martin Papillon, Professeur, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, Universit? >>d'Ottawa >>Justin Paulson, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology and >>Anthropology, Carleton University >>R?jean Pelletier, Professeur titulaire, D?partement de science >>politique, Universit? Laval >>Dennis Pilon, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Victoria >>Tim Quigley, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan >>Marc Ramsay, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Acadia >>University >>Denise R?aume, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto >>Philip Resnick, Professor, Department of Political Science, The >>University of British Columbia >>Andrew Reynolds PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy >>and Religious Studies, Cape Breton University >>David Robichaud, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Philosophie, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Fran?ois Roch, Professeur, D?partement des sciences juridiques, UQ?M >>David Rondel, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Trent >>University >>Serge Rousselle, Professeur, Facult? de Droit, Universit? de Moncton >>Bruce B. Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >>University >>Paul Russell, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>British Columbia >>Peter H. Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science >>University of Toronto >>Arthur Schafer, Professor, Director of the Centre for Professional >>and Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Manitoba >>Richard Schultz, Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill >>University >>Signa A. Daum Shanks, Assistant Professor, College of Law, University >>of Saskatchewan >>Rhonda Semple, Professor, History Department, St. Francis Xavier >>University >>Hasana Sharp, Professor, Deparment of Philosophy, McGill University >>Augustin Simard, Professeur adjoint, D?partement de Science >>Politique, Universit? de Montr?al >>Grace Skogstad, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>University of Toronto at Scarborough >>Susan Spronk, Professeure, ?cole de d?veloppement internationale et >>mondialisation, Universit? d'OttawaRichard Simeon, Department of >>Political Science, University of Toronto >>Christine Straehle, Professeur, D?partement de Philosophie, UQAM >>Richard Stubbs, Professor, Department of Political Science, McMaster >>University >>Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de Droit, Section >>de droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Christine Sypnowich, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Queen's >>University >>Brian Tanguay, Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid >>Laurier University >>Fran?ois Tanguay-Renaud, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law >>School, York University >>Christine Tappolet, Professeure titulaire, D?partement de >>philosophie, Universit? de Montr?al >>Christina Tarnopolsky, Assistant Professor, Department of Political >>Science, McGill University >>Charles Taylor, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McGill >>University >>Lisa Taylor, Assistant Professor, School of Education, Bishop's >>University >>William Tetley, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Sophie Th?riault, Professeure adjointe, Facult? de droit, Section de >>droit civil, Universit? d'Ottawa >>Jean-Fran?ois Thibault, Professeur agr?g?, D?partement de science >>politique, Universit? de Moncton >>Hugh Thorburn, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >>Queen's University >>Malcolm Thorburn, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's >>University >>James Hamilton Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, >>Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria >>Luc Turgeon, Professeur adjoint, ?cole d'?tudes Politiques, >>Universit? d'Ottawa >>Patrick Turmel, Professeur adjoint, Facult? de Philosophie, >>Universit? Laval >>Gus Van Harten, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York >>University >>Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate >>School of Public Policy, University of Regin >>Mark Walters, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University >>Catherine Walsh, Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University >>Wil Waluchow, Professor, Department of Philosophy, McMaster's >>University >>Mark E. Warren, Professor, Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the >>Study of Democracy, The University of British Columbia >>Jeremy Webber, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Law and Society, >>Faculty of Law, University of Victoria >>Reg Whitaker, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, >>York University >>Graham White, Professor, Department of Political Science, University >>of Toronto >>Melissa Williams, Professor, Department of Political Science, >>Director of the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto. >>Scott F. Woodcock, Associate Professor, Department of >>Philosophy, University of Victoria >>James Young, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of >>Victoria >>Margot Young, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of >>British Columbia >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai- not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: >270.14.135/2615 - Release Date: 01/11/10 11:35:00 _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Tue Jan 12 06:27:22 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:27:22 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] US: The Bad Job Numbers and the Secret Second Stimulus [Jan 2010 Robert Reich ] Message-ID: <4B4C4E8A.28690.59BA1AA@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> The Labor Department reports that 85,000 jobs were lost in December. The official rate of unemployment (which measures how many people are looking for jobs) held steady at 10 percent [actually 10.4 percent cent he says if you count those who've stopped looking] These statistics mask an even more troubling reality. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, around 10.6 million jobs overall have been lost. But this doesn't include all the people who, in a growing national population, would have entered the labor market had there been jobs for them.. There's no way to make this up for years. The most painful political truth for Democrats is the nation won't possibly be out of this jobs hole by the presidential election of 2012, even if the recovery is vigorous. Only two things are keeping unemployment from rising more: The stimulus package, which is approaching its peak spending; and the Fed, which continues to keep a loose rein on the money supply and buy up mortgage-backed securities. ... Democrats are looking into the cross-hairs of a mid-term election that won't be pretty, to say the least. So expect the Dems to move toward more spending - more unemployment benefits, more cash for clunkers, more help for small businesses, maybe a new jobs tax credit. A larger defense budget will also be part of the stimulus. But don't expect any of this to be dressed up as a "second stimulus package." That would give Republicans too much ammunition to attack Dems as big spenders.... Republicans will demagogue the deficit and debt like mad in coming months. I hope the President doesn't take the bait and begin talking about deficits and debts, when he should be talking only about creating more jobs. How issues are framed for the public makes all the difference. ----Robert Reich p.s Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Supercapitalism. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes. ============================== http://robertreich.org/post/323699652/the-bad-job- numbers-and-the- secret-second-stimulus The Bad Job Numbers and the Secret Second Stimulus Friday, January 8, 2010 The Labor Department reports that 85,000 jobs were lost in December. The official rate of unemployment (which measures how many people are looking for jobs) held steady at 10 percent nonetheless. That's because so many more people have stopped looking. Reportedly, 661,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force last month, deciding there was no hope of finding a job. Had they continued to look, the official unemployment rate would have been 10.4 percent. These statistics mask an even more troubling reality. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, around 8 million jobs have been lost. But this doesn't include all the people who, in a growing national population, would have entered the labor market had there been jobs for them. These "never entereds" amount to an estimated 2.5 million. So, in truth, the national economy is down by 10.6 million jobs overall. There's no way to make this up for years. The most painful political truth for Democrats is the nation won't possibly be out of this jobs hole by the presidential election of 2012, even if the recovery is vigorous. Do the math. In order to get out of the hole, we'd need an average monthly increase of 400,000 jobs between now and then. But even at the peak of the 1990s jobs boom, the highest we ever got was 280,000 jobs a month. At the peak of the last recovery, in 2005, we got no higher than 212,000 jobs a month. Bottom line: Obama will be going into an election year with a higher total level of unemployment than before the Great Recession. He will have to argue that, were it not for his policies, things would be even worse. Counter-factuals like this do not sit well on bumper stickers. Almost 40 percent of the jobless have been without work for over six months. That's a record. People who have been out of the labor force for more than six months have a particularly hard time getting back in. Many never do. What worries me most about all this is the trend line. If we were coming out of a recession with any potential strength in the job market, we'd at least see growth in the length of the average workweek. But there's no sign of any growth. The average workweek held steady in December at 33.2 hours. Employers aren't even giving their own workers more hours. Big American companies are more profitable, to be sure. But there's a massive disconnect between profitability and employment. Companies are increasing profits by cutting their costs (including payrolls), outsourcing more jobs abroad, and selling more abroad. But American workers - and, therefore, American consumers - are still stuck in a deep recession. Only two things are keeping unemployment from rising more: The stimulus package, which is approaching its peak spending; and the Fed, which continues to keep a loose rein on the money supply and buy up mortgage-backed securities. After December's discouraging job's report, don't expect the Fed to tighten any time soon - probably not until after the middle of 2010, at the earliest. What about fiscal policy? A second stimulus? Yes, to this extent: Democrats are looking into the cross-hairs of a mid-term election that won't be pretty, to say the least. Pelosi has to hold on to 40 seats. In the Senate, Dodd's and Dorgan's departures pose a huge problem. Without 60 reliable votes, the Senate Dems won't be able to do much of anything. Rarely in history have the Republicans in both chambers been so relentlessly united. The dismal jobs picture makes Republicans salivate over 2010 and 2012. Dems know they have to do something to show voters they're focused on jobs. A victory on health care won't cut it. So expect the Dems to move toward more spending - more unemployment benefits, more cash for clunkers, more help for small businesses, maybe a new jobs tax credit. A larger defense budget will also be part of the stimulus. But don't expect any of this to be dressed up as a "second stimulus package." That would give Republicans too much ammunition to attack Dems as big spenders and try to focus the public's attention on the widening deficit and growing federal debt. The truth, of course, is that the most important fiscal indicator is the ratio of the debt to the GDP. And the most important issue there is how quickly America can get jobs back and the GDP growing again. More spending in the short term is the only way to accelerate a jobs recovery, and reduce the debt-GDP ratio over the longer term. In other words, more deficit spending is a good thing to do now, a but a bad thing three or four or five years from now when the economy is back to normal. (I should admit at this point that I don't think we'll ever get back to "normal" because I believe "normal" got us into the pickle we're now in, but I'll save this for another time.) Yet Republicans will demagogue the deficit and debt like mad in coming months. I hope the President doesn't take the bait and begin talking about deficits and debts, when he should be talking only about creating more jobs. How issues are framed for the public makes all the difference. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5332 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 16048 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Tue Jan 12 08:09:24 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:09:24 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Poll for The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for Economics [ real-world economics review blog - journal of the post-autistic economi Message-ID: <4B4C6674.18877.5F90988@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Dear All: More and more the criticsm of the classical economic model is being amplified as its inconsistencies, outlandish assumptions, disconnect from reality, and criminal and catastrophic legacy etc are being exposed. [ Ed finally has some more folks moving into his corner of the ring] In that context the Post Autistic Economics Network [PAEN] is a fascinating attempt originated by university students in France, speading subsequently to other countries in Europe and Britain, to have the current curriculum of academic economic departments changed to provide a more realistic exposure to economic history, different models etc. We had posts about it on mai-not at the time when the french students began their protests. See next e-mail for over view of PAEN The following project of the PAEN Real-world economics review is further evidence of this spreading desire to nudge the sleeping and brain dead economic 'elephant in the room' out of its comfort zone in academia and beyond. ! The Real-World Economics Review Blog [formerly the Post Autistic Economic Review.] is holding a poll to determine the awarding of two prizes: The Ignoble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the three economists who contributed most to enabling the Global Financial Collapse (GFC), and The Noble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the three economists who first and most cogently warned of the coming calamity. It appears that Nominations for both prizes are open to the international community of economists. Their website provides some suggestions for Nominees and Submission of Evidence for the Ignoble Prize for Economics Alan Greenspan Ben Bernanke Edward Prescott Eugene Fama Fisher Black Larry Summers Milton Friedman Myron Scholes Timothy Geithner all the best, janet p.s This poll and the real -world economic review are projects of the post-autistic economics network: heterodox economics sanity, humanity and science pluralism in economics http://www.paecon.net/ I have recently subscribed to the real-world economics review free http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=332386 and a link to latest 157 page issue of journal real-world economics review just arrived. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue50/whole50.pdf Subscribers: 11, 156 from over 150 countries Content of the latest :issue: What is Minsky all about, anyway? 3 Korkut Ert?rk and G?kcer ?zg?r The policy implications of the General Theory 16 Geoff Tily Ecological macroeconomics: Consumption, investment, and climate change 34 Jonathan M. Harris Peak oil - coming soon but when? 48 Lewis L. Smith The financial crisis - Part V America?s exhausted should the collapse of the world financial system affect economics? - Part III It is agreed that the current economic crisis has shown that the standard models of academic economics are seriously wanting. Should the main emphasis of reform be on developing new formal models or to an opening up of economics to methods other than traditional modelling? The Dahlem Group on Economic Modeling 118 Tony Lawson 122 Economists and economics: What does the crisis tell us? 132 Luigi Spaventa Mainstream economics and Iceland's economic collapse 143 Gunnar T?masson Goodbye, homo economicus 151 Anatole Kaletsky =================== http://rwer.wordpress.com/ ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: real-world economics review Send reply to: real-world economics review To: jmeaton Date sent: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:03:20 -0500 Subject: real-world economics review - The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for Economics For Immediate Release ? The Real-World Economics Review Blog is holding polls to determine the awarding of two prizes: The Ignoble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the three economists who contributed most to enabling the Global Financial Collapse (GFC), and The Noble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the three economists who first and most cogently warned of the coming calamity. It is accepted fact that the economics profession through its teachings, pronouncements and policy recommendations facilitated the GFC.? We also know that danger signs became visible long before the event and that some economists (those with their eyes on the real- world) gave public warnings which if acted upon would have averted the human disaster. With other learned professions entrusted with public confidence, such as medicine and engineering, it is inconceivable that their professional bodies would not at the very least censure members who had successfully persuaded governments and public opinion to ignore elementary safety measures, so causing epidemics and widespread building collapses. To date, however, the world?s major economics associations have declined to censure the major facilitators of the GFC or even to publicly identify them.? This silence, this indifference to causing human suffering, constitutes grave moral failure.? It also gives license to economists to continue to indulge in axiom-happy behaviour.? Nor has the economics establishment offered recognition to those economists who were not taken in by fads and fashion and whose competence, if listened to, would have prevented the collapse. These two silences reveal a continuing moral crisis within the economics profession .?The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for Economics are being offered as small first steps towards a cure. ? Poll Procedures for the Ignoble Prize for Economics Stage One: Nominations and Evidence Nominations for both prizes are open to the international community of economists, rather than limited to a closed and secret shop.? For each nominated economist an evidence page will be opened on http://rwer.wordpress.com/ to which people can leave evidential comments. In this way a documented case for (and against) each candidate will be built up.? ?There are two ways, one direct and the other indirect, by which you can nominate and post evidence. Direct Method You can nominate economist X ?or economists X and Y, or X, Y and Z (maximum of three) by leaving a comment on the? Nominations for the Ignoble Prize for Economics page for which there is a link?near the top of the blog?s home page?s right hand column.? Your comment needs only to say "I nominate X . . . for the Ignoble Prize for Economics." ?You can post evidence regarding a nominated economist by leaving a comment on their evidence page, which in most cases will be opened within 24 hours of their nomination. These pages are sub-pages of the "Nominees and Submission of Evidence" page and will be link-listed in a box near the top of the home page?s right hand column. ?Indirect Method Because of the current nature of the economics profession, some economists will fear that going public with their professional views on these matters could jeopardize their careers or those of people associated with them. Therefore nominations and evidence can be put forward anonymously by emailing them to pae_news at btinternet.com , preferably with the subject heading "Nominations and Evidence".? The editor will then post the material on the relevant pages.? Strict confidentiality will be maintained. ?Stage Two: Short List After an appropriate interval, most likely one month, nominations and the submission of evidence will be closed.? Through consultation,?authors of the Real-World Economics Review Blog will compile a short list of the strongest nominees, probably 10 or 12.? At this time a final dossier, based on the evidential comments posted on the blog, will be compiled and posted for each short-listed candidate.? Voting will then open. ?Stage Three: Voting ?The voting will be conducted using PollDaddy.? Its system uses cookies to prevent repeat voting.? A voting box showing the short- listed candidates will be displayed prominently on the home page of the Real-World Economics Review Blog.? Close by will be links to each candidate?s final dossier.? Voting is open to all interested parties. Each voter can vote for up to three of the listed candidates. ?The ballots are secret. ?Voting will remain open for several weeks.? No results will be announced before closing the poll. ?Stage Four: Results Within 24 hours of the closing of the poll, the results will be announced.? The three economists receiving the highest number of votes will be declared the joint winners of the prize. General Rules Only economists may be nominated, and they must have been active during part of the last quarter century.? Joke nominations (e.g., Baker, Keen or Roubini for the Ignoble Prize) or ones suspected of being motivated by malice or for which no supporting evidence is forthcoming will not be accepted or allowed to stand.? Likewise evidence submitted must be substantive, accurate and presented in good taste. Poll Procedures for the Noble Prize for Economics These will be approximately the same as for the Ignoble Prize, but may be adjusted in view of lessons learnt.? It is expected that nominations and submission of evidence for this prize will commence when voting for the Ignoble Prize begins. Nominations and submissions of evidence for the Ignoble Prize for Economics are now open at http://rwer.wordpress.com/ ? ? Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "real-world economics review" or change your subscription or subscribe Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5926 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 20457 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Tue Jan 12 08:22:50 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:22:50 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] "Against the Prorogation fo Parliament " 100 Canadian Professors In-Reply-To: <4B4BE42D.2221.3FC26B1@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B4BA957.8865.316505F@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> <20100112035544.B06CE1435664@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> <4B4BE42D.2221.3FC26B1@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100112162303.33D182DD292@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> At 10:53 PM 11/01/2010, Janet M Eaton wrote: >Isn't that interesting Ed- >The most insular discipline of all silent ! >I suppose we shouldn't be surprized lnowing they've abandonned the >world in general , and the planet, why would they care about their >own contry? Those econometric minds seem to find pleasure in their >own mathematical model while ignoring the internal contradictions and >incoherencies between their assumptions and reality ! > >all the best >janet >====================================================== Hi Janet, It backs up my long held contention that economics have either ceased to be, or have never been a science, but the Religion of the Almighty Money God, who hath no physical presence, but liveth in computers. They've long lost any contact with realities and any concept of democracy, or human rights, because no religion can exist as a democracy . Harper with his Masters degree in this crime wave is the prime example and the rest must be looking at him as the Primate, always infallible by divine order. So, when are you, the rest of the professors, start questioning the crap that's being taught in your universities' economics departments, at the intellectual level of the Rosenberg Gottglaubig religion ? ( -:) I hope to live to see the day, because I think the rest of the professors of any university could knock this garbage faith over in one day. I never took economics, but remembering the atmosphere of my Cambridge days, I'm certain that if any professor had tried to teach the presently accepted tenets of neoclassical market economics, he or she would have been laughed out of the classroom. Now, of course, it is all gone, buried under oppression and blackmail. When the French and Belgian students revolted against the criminal nonsense, the Cambridge students agreed, but didn't dare to sign their names. Cheers, Ed. From papadop at peak.org Tue Jan 12 11:30:56 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:30:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] (no subject) Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8453305.stm BBC Bews , Tuesday, 12 January 2010 DUTCH INQUIRY SAYS IRAQ WAR HAD NO MANDATE Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, December 2009 Jan-Peter Balkenende lent political support to the Iraq war An inquiry into the Netherlands' support for the invasion of Iraq says it was not justified by UN resolutions. The Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said UN Security Council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003". The inquiry was launched after foreign ministry memos were leaked that cast doubt on the legal basis for the war. The Netherlands gave political support to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but had no military role. The report demolishes the Dutch case for supporting the invasion, says the BBC's Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond. It could also be taken to reinforce the international case against the Iraq war, he says. The report accuses ministers of a selective use of intelligence reports, and says Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende "gave little or no leadership to debates over the Iraq question", which was steered by the foreign minister at the time, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Mr Balkenende formally thanked the committee for its report, but said he needed time to study it before responding. POLITICAL LOYALTY Mr Balkenende decided to join the "coalition of the willing" assembled by US President George W Bush because, he said, Saddam Hussein had consistently flouted UN resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Dutch parliament opposed the decision to back the invasion. Committee chairman, Willibrord Davids, said the Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK had taken precedence over the need to ensure the legality of the invasion. The committee said there had been no UN mandate for the attack, putting the decision to join at odds with international law. It said "the wording of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force". Iraq's alleged breach of Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify its invasion. However, a memo from the time by Dutch foreign ministry lawyers, subsequently leaked, suggested the war was in fact illegal under international law. The inquiry said there was no evidence to support rumours that the Dutch military took part in the invasion. While the government has always said its military was not involved, questions had been raised because Dutch troops were taking part in exercises nearby at the time. Dutch forces became part of the stabilisation force that was deployed to Iraq in the years after the war. The Dutch parliament is likely now to consider whether the prime minister misled parliament, and whether to launch a formal parliamentary inquiry. From jomut at yahoo.com Tue Jan 12 11:45:10 2010 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:45:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Poll for The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for Economics [ real-world economics review blog - journal of the post-autistic economi Message-ID: <353391.61077.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, Perched atop my Laputan satellite -- with a panoramic view of earth and all her myriad absurdities that are?generously complemented by an imposing scarcity of good sense -- I can assure you that I have lapsed into a highly creative brownstudy that will soon yield brilliant sparks of pathfinding imagination?which will, in turn,?shed a blinding light on all this ignorant foofaraw. Be assured that all this brilliance will be reduced to an elegantly long equation which will (again, unsurprisingly) take the merely drunkenly ignorant of this accursed planet a few decades to grasp -- and?this?is in reference to its rudiments only. ? In the meantime, I am in the midst of?constructing a brilliant algebraic formula that will add the name of? F.C. Hayek to the list of deserving recipients of economic unwisdom. ? You would all be well advised to nudge me?carefully?from my state of?contemplative hibernation after a few weeks so as to enable me to continue with my bouts of celestial contemplation and the?happy, if fitful, enlightenment of the earth. ? John ==================== John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Janet M Eaton wrote: > From: Janet M Eaton > Subject: [Mai-not] Poll for The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for Economics [ real-world economics review blog - journal of the post-autistic economi > To: "a renewed Mai-Not" > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 4:09 PM > Dear All: > > More and more the criticsm of the classical economic model > is being > amplified as its inconsistencies, outlandish assumptions, > disconnect > from reality, and criminal and catastrophic legacy etc are > being > exposed. [ Ed finally has some more folks moving into his > corner of > the ring] > > In that context the Post Autistic Economics Network [PAEN] > is a > fascinating attempt originated? by university students > in France, > speading subsequently to other countries in Europe and > Britain, to > have the current curriculum of academic economic > departments changed > to provide a more realistic exposure to economic history, > different > models etc. We had posts about it on mai-not at the time > when the > french students began their protests.? See next e-mail > for over view > of PAEN > > The following project of the PAEN Real-world economics > review is > further evidence of this spreading desire to nudge the > sleeping and > brain dead economic 'elephant in the room' out of its > comfort zone in > academia and beyond. ! > > The? Real-World Economics Review Blog [formerly > the? Post Autistic > Economic Review.] is holding a poll to determine the > awarding of two > prizes: > > The Ignoble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the > three > economists who contributed most to enabling the Global > Financial > Collapse (GFC), and The Noble Prize for Economics , to be > awarded to > the three economists who first and most cogently warned of > the coming > calamity. > > It appears that Nominations for both prizes are open to > the > international community of economists. > > Their website provides some? suggestions for Nominees > and Submission > of Evidence for the Ignoble Prize for Economics > Alan Greenspan > Ben Bernanke > Edward Prescott > Eugene Fama > Fisher Black > Larry Summers > Milton Friedman > Myron Scholes > Timothy Geithner > > all the best, > janet > > p.s > This poll and the real -world economic review are projects > of the > post-autistic economics network: heterodox economics > sanity, humanity > and science pluralism in economics???http://www.paecon.net/ > > I have recently subscribed to the real-world economics > review free > http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=332386 and? a > link to latest > 157 page issue of journal real-world economics review? > just arrived. > http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue50/whole50.pdf > Subscribers: 11, 156 from over 150 countries > Content of the latest :issue: > What is Minsky all about, anyway? 3 > Korkut Ert?rk and G?kcer ?zg?r > The policy implications of the General Theory 16 > Geoff Tily > Ecological macroeconomics: Consumption, investment, and > climate > change 34 > Jonathan M. Harris > Peak oil - coming soon but when? 48 > Lewis L. Smith > The financial crisis - Part V > America?s exhausted? should the collapse of the world > financial > system affect economics? - > Part III It is agreed that the current economic crisis has > shown that > the standard models of academic economics are seriously > wanting. > Should the main emphasis of reform be on developing new > formal models > or to an opening up of economics to methods other than > traditional > modelling? > The Dahlem Group on Economic Modeling 118 > Tony Lawson 122 > Economists and economics: What does the crisis tell us? > 132 > Luigi Spaventa > Mainstream economics and Iceland's economic collapse 143 > Gunnar T?masson > Goodbye, homo economicus 151 > Anatole Kaletsky > > =================== > > > http://rwer.wordpress.com/ > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > From:??? real-world economics review > Send reply to:??? real-world economics > review > To:??? jmeaton > Date sent:??? Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:03:20 > -0500 > Subject:??? real-world economics review - > The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for Economics > > For Immediate Release > ? > The Real-World Economics Review Blog is holding polls to > determine > the awarding of two prizes: > > The Ignoble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the > three > economists who contributed most to enabling the Global > Financial > Collapse (GFC), and > The Noble Prize for Economics , to be awarded to the three > economists > who first and most cogently warned of the coming calamity. > > It is accepted fact that the economics profession through > its > teachings, pronouncements and policy recommendations > facilitated the > GFC.? We also know that danger signs became visible long > before the > event and that some economists (those with their eyes on > the real- > world) gave public warnings which if acted upon would have > averted > the human disaster. > > With other learned professions entrusted with public > confidence, such > as medicine and engineering, it is inconceivable that > their > professional bodies would not at the very least censure > members who > had successfully persuaded governments and public opinion > to ignore > elementary safety measures, so causing epidemics and > widespread > building collapses. > > To date, however, the world?s major economics associations > have > declined to censure the major facilitators of the GFC or > even to > publicly identify them.? This silence, this indifference > to causing > human suffering, constitutes grave moral failure.? It also > gives > license to economists to continue to indulge in > axiom-happy > behaviour.? Nor has the economics establishment offered > recognition > to those economists who were not taken in by fads and > fashion and > whose competence, if listened to, would have prevented the > collapse. > > These two silences reveal a continuing moral crisis within > the > economics profession .?The Ignoble and Noble Prizes for > Economics are > being offered as small first steps towards a cure. > ? > Poll Procedures for the Ignoble Prize for Economics > > Stage One: Nominations and Evidence > > Nominations for both prizes are open to the international > community > of economists, rather than limited to a closed and secret > shop.? For > each nominated economist an evidence page will be opened > on > http://rwer.wordpress.com/ to which people can leave > evidential > comments. In this way a documented case for (and against) > each > candidate will be built up.? > > ?There are two ways, one direct and the other indirect, by > which you > can nominate and post evidence. > > Direct Method > > You can nominate economist X ?or economists X and Y, or X, > Y and Z > (maximum of three) by leaving a comment on the? > Nominations for the > Ignoble Prize for Economics page for which there is a > link?near the > top of the blog?s home page?s right hand column.? Your > comment needs > only to say "I nominate X . . . for the Ignoble Prize for > Economics." > > ?You can post evidence regarding a nominated economist by > leaving a > comment on their evidence page, which in most cases will be > opened > within 24 hours of their nomination. These pages are > sub-pages of the > "Nominees and Submission of Evidence" page and will be > link-listed in > a box near the top of the home page?s right hand column. > > ?Indirect Method > > Because of the current nature of the economics profession, > some > economists will fear that going public with their > professional views > on these matters could jeopardize their careers or those of > people > associated with them. Therefore nominations and evidence > can be put > forward anonymously by emailing them to pae_news at btinternet.com > , > preferably with the subject heading "Nominations and > Evidence".? The > editor will then post the material on the relevant pages.? > Strict > confidentiality will be maintained. > > ?Stage Two: Short List > > After an appropriate interval, most likely one month, > nominations and > the submission of evidence will be closed.? Through > consultation,?authors of the Real-World Economics Review > Blog will > compile a short list of the strongest nominees, probably 10 > or 12.? > At this time a final dossier, based on the evidential > comments posted > on the blog, will be compiled and posted for each > short-listed > candidate.? Voting will then open. > > ?Stage Three: Voting > > ?The voting will be conducted using PollDaddy.? Its > system uses > cookies to prevent repeat voting.? A voting box showing > the short- > listed candidates will be displayed prominently on the home > page of > the Real-World Economics Review Blog.? Close by will be > links to each > candidate?s final dossier.? Voting is open to all > interested parties. > Each voter can vote for up to three of the listed > candidates. ?The > ballots are secret. ?Voting will remain open for several > weeks.? No > results will be announced before closing the poll. > > ?Stage Four: Results > > Within 24 hours of the closing of the poll, the results > will be > announced.? The three economists receiving the highest > number of > votes will be declared the joint winners of the prize. > > General Rules > > Only economists may be nominated, and they must have been > active > during part of the last quarter century.? Joke nominations > (e.g., > Baker, Keen or Roubini for the Ignoble Prize) or ones > suspected of > being motivated by malice or for which no supporting > evidence is > forthcoming will not be accepted or allowed to stand.? > Likewise > evidence submitted must be substantive, accurate and > presented in > good taste. > > Poll Procedures for the Noble Prize for Economics > > These will be approximately the same as for the Ignoble > Prize, but > may be adjusted in view of lessons learnt.? It is expected > that > nominations and submission of evidence for this prize will > commence > when voting for the Ignoble Prize begins. > > Nominations and submissions of evidence for the Ignoble > Prize for > Economics are now open at http://rwer.wordpress.com/ ? ? > > Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "real-world > economics > review" or change your subscription or subscribe > > Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, > 9 Thoreau > Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 > > ? > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Tue Jan 12 11:46:20 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Brit inquiry Into Iraq War decision Message-ID: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8453116.stm BBC News Tuesday, 12 January 2010 Alastair Campbell defends 'every word' of Iraq dossier Alastair Campbell: "Tony Blair's genuine belief was that Iraq had to be confronted" Tony Blair's ex-spokesman Alastair Campbell has said he "defends every single word" of the 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He told the UK's Iraq war inquiry that parts could have been "clearer" but it did not "misrepresent" Iraq's threat. The UK should be "proud" of its role "in changing Iraq from what it was to what it is now becoming", he argued. But he said Mr Blair told President Bush privately in 2002 the UK would back military action if necessary. Critics of the war have called for private correspondence between the two leaders about their views on Iraq to be published. COUNTDOWN TO WAR Mr Campbell is the most prominent figure to appear so far before the inquiry, which is looking at UK policy before and after the 2003 war. The BBC's Security Correspondent Frank Gardner said he had given a defiant performance, showing no contrition over the controversial decision to go to war or the arguments used to justify the action. CAMPBELL FACTS An ex-journalist, Alastair Campbell was Tony Blair's press secretary between 1994 and 2003 and No 10 director of communications from 1997 to 2003. ANALYSIS: NO REGRETS Mr Campbell said the prime minister recognised the deep opposition to military action amongst much of the British public but believed there would be a "bigger day of reckoning" to come with Saddam if he was not confronted at the time. As No 10 director of communications between 1997 and 2003, he played a key role in the drawing-up of the government's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, containing the controversial claim that they could be deployed within 45 minutes. "Could things have been done differently, almost certainly," he said of the March 2003 invasion. "Any decision, you can go back over it, but on the big picture, on the leadership that he [Tony Blair ] showed, on the leadership that the British government showed on this issue, I was privileged to be there and I'm very very proud of the part that I was able to play." He added: "I think that Britain, far from beating ourselves up about this, should be really proud of the role that we played in changing Iraq from what it was to what it is now becoming." Mr Campbell said he was "very close" to the prime minister but stressed that Mr Blair fully consulted other key ministers on Iraq policy - including the then Chancellor Gordon Brown. Mr Campbell, who has given evidence to three previous inquiries on Iraq, said claims that Mr Blair endorsed regime change after a meeting with President Bush at his Crawford ranch in April 2002 were not true. AT THE INQUIRY BBC World Affairs correspondent Peter Biles Officials of the Iraq Inquiry completely under-estimated the length of time needed to question Alastair Campbell. It had been expected that a three hour morning session would suffice. In the event, the hearing rolled on for another two hours into the afternoon, with Mr Campbell having ample opportunity to defend Tony Blair's premiership and the decision to take Britain to war in Iraq. At this rate, two days rather than one will be needed when Mr Blair arrives to present his evidence in two or three weeks' time. The former Downing Street spin-doctor was generally at ease as he faced the Inquiry. Interestingly, the Chairman, Sir John Chilcot, took little part in today's session, and left the questioning to his four colleagues. For once, there were some quite lively exchanges as the committee sought to square Mr Campbell's version of events with some of the earlier evidence heard. British policy was still focused on disarming Iraq and getting it to abide by UN resolutions, he argued, as Mr Blair "genuinely believed" Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction must be dealt with. Mr Blair was clear that military action should be regarded as a last resort if the diplomatic process failed and still hoped that the issue could be "peacefully resolved" right up to the eve of war. "You seem to be wanting me to say that Tony Blair signed up to saying, regardless of the facts and WMD, we are going to get rid of this guy," he said. "It was not like this." But he revealed that Mr Blair had written to President Bush during 2002 about the disarmament strategy, saying: "If that cannot be done diplomatically and it is to be done militarily, Britain will be there. That would be the tenor of the communication to the president." The Lib Dems, who opposed the invasion, have called for the letters to be published, saying Mr Campbell's evidence cast further doubt on the legality of the war. Former Conservative Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who opposed the invasion, said the letters would show the extent to which Tony Blair and George Bush were "hand in glove" over the issue and should be available to the public. Asked about weapons of mass destruction, Mr Campbell said Tony Blair believed Iraq posed a "unique threat" because Saddam Hussein had used them before and there was no means of dialogue with him. Mr Campbell said he had provided "presentational" support on the key September 2002 dossier but, at no stage, did No 10 try to "beef up or over-ride" the judgements of the intelligence agencies. Describing it as a "cautious" assessment, he insisted it had not been designed to present the "case for war" but to highlight why Mr Blair was increasingly "concerned" about the threat posed by Iraq. "I don't believe the dossier in any sense misrepresented the position." The dossier included a foreword by Mr Blair in which he wrote that he believed the intelligence had established "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons. Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, told the inquiry last month that the foreword was "overtly political" and "quite separate" from the rest of the dossier. 45-MINUTE CLAIM Mr Campbell, who drafted the first version of the foreword - ultimately approved by Mr Blair - said no-one in intelligence challenged this statement which, he added, never suggested Saddam Hussein "was able to do something terrible to the British mainland". On the 45-minute claim, which was retracted after the war, he said the dossier "obviously" could have been clearer about it referring to battlefield munitions. But he insisted Mr Blair put forward a balanced argument in the House of Commons on the issue and the 45-minute claim was only given "iconic" status by the press. INQUIRY TIMELINE January-February: Tony Blair, Jack Straw and other politicians to appear before the panel March: Inquiry to adjourn ahead of the general election campaign July-August: Inquiry expected to resume with Gordon Brown and David Miliband among those appearing Report set to be published in late 2010 or early 2011 Iraq inquiry: Day-by-day timeline Q&A: Iraq war inquiry Questions about Mr Campbell's role in the dossier were at the centre of a post-war row with the BBC culminating in the death of the government weapons expert Dr David Kelly and the subsequent Hutton inquiry. Mr Campbell said he was "never in doubt" that Iraq would be found to have weapons of mass destruction and the realisation that they did not was "very difficult". On the invasion's aftermath, he said it became clear within a week that things were not going well and there was a lack of "grip". He argued that Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short, who resigned shortly after the invasion in protest about post-war strategy, was "difficult to handle" and suggested there was a fear she might leak things she did not agree with. Former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will give evidence to the inquiry next week with Mr Blair expected to appear at a later date. His successor as prime minister, Gordon Brown, will not give evidence until after the general election, expected to take place in May. The SNP have called for Mr Brown to give evidence before the election as it was he, as chancellor, who "bankrolled" the military campaign. The Iraq Inquiry's final report is due to be published by early next year. From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Jan 12 22:01:44 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:01:44 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Brit inquiry Into Iraq War decision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100113060144.D93A310F20@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Shoe.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Wed Jan 13 17:20:27 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:20:27 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] FW: A quantum leap in investigation of 9/11 Message-ID: <20100114012055.269AC8A4CA4@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> > > >[] > > > > >An estimated 1400 cars parked near the World Trade Center melted on 9/11. > >Metal vehicles caught on fire, while paper scattered around them did >not ignite and other items one would expect to burn remained undamaged. > >Most were 1/2 mile or more away from the Word Trade Center. > > > >[] > > > >A quantum leap in investigation....what could this engineering prof. >have discovered regarding the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11? > > > >I took over five hours to review the photos and presentations by Dr. >Judy Wood >If you are not patient....then take a few days to slowly make it >through these presentations. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzSN7dKSAaM > >Her website shows more detailed photos....and raises more >out-of-the-box questions. >http://drjudywood.com/ But I suggest >watching the entire video presentation and then referring to her >specific photos. > >Before making any decisions....I suggest taking the time to view her >photos and video documented presentations....All of them! >Each segment is ten minutes....there are five segments in the first >part and another five segments in the second part. Her presentation >hosts a wide range of questions surrounding the 9/11 tower >destruction. She poses no answers ....but what she presents is like >a paradigm shift from anything I have seen to date. > > > >Additional Details > > > >Unfortunately, it is not something one can just 'skip' through. She >does ask a lot of questions with back-up photos. The second part >with 10 minute segments gives more direction....but she is careful >not to start making claims. > > >this link here provides some info....but not as interesting as Dr. >Judy Woods analysis >Molecular dissociation >http://911u.org/Physics/ > >As a final note....It is easy to stop an investigation when you find >a 'piece to the puzzle that does not quite fit'.....however, this >professor of engineering is attempting to guide us into a new domain >that takes a lot of thought, a lot of time, and a lot of attention to details. > >For example: >Understanding the difference between nano-particles and pulverized >concrete is something I previously never considered. Seeing 9/11 >cars with engine blocks disintegrated....and yet back tires still >intact ....is an astounding observation to say the least. Noticing >that dump trucks were leaving dirt over the site from the first >evening of 9/11 poses a bigger question does it not? Her >observations and photos showing melted cars....and yet unburnt paper >scattered about, pose more questions. > >Photos of distorted and twisted supporting steel beams that were in >buildings beside the twin towers....are a noteworthy observation? > >This engineering expert brings some amazing material forward....if >you can just move through her material and hold any judgement until >after viewing the presentation. > >-Bill > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8b1db5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 99712 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8b1dd4.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 33587 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Wed Jan 13 18:18:48 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:18:48 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Ministerial Statement on Haiti: Wednesday, January 13, 7:30 a.m. Message-ID: <4B4E46C8.30765.D4D52B2@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: news-nouvelles at international.gc.ca To: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Subject: Ministerial Statement on Haiti: Wednesday, January 13, 7:30 a.m. Date sent: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:21:34 -0500 To view this document on the department website, please click on the following link: http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news- communiques/2010/013.aspx Ministerial Statement on Haiti: Wednesday,January 13, 7:30a.m. (No. 13 - January 13, 2010 - 5:45 p.m. EST) The following is an edited transcript of a statement made to media by the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the situation in Haiti. The statement was made at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada headquarters at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 13, 2010: "On behalf of the Canadian people, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and our government, I offer heartfelt condolences to the people of Haiti. Haiti is a priority for this government, and Canada is committed to supporting the Haitian people in these devastating times. "We understand the situation is very chaotic and damage is extensive. We feel for all Haitian people, Canadians in Haiti and Canadians of Haitian descent and their families here in Canada. Our government will continue to stand by all of you. "I spoke to Canada?s Ambassador to Haiti, Gilles Rivard, again this morning. The Embassy building has been evacuated as a precautionary measure. Canadian citizens continue to take refuge in the Embassy compound. Tents, food, water and medical assistance are available there. "The first elements of Canada?s emergency assistance to Haiti are being deployed this morning. The DART [Disaster Assistance Response Team] reconnaissance team will further assess the needs on the ground and provide additional recommendations on the Government of Canada?s response options. "This team will precede the deployment of a larger DART force, possibly including a C-17 transport aircraft with medical equipment, and two searchandrescue Griffon helicopters. More equipment will be deployed based on needs assessment. "An interdepartmental strategic support team is also en route to Haiti to conduct a humanitarian needs assessment and identify actions that Canada can take to support the relief and recovery efforts. "We continue to collect information as Canadians come to the Embassy and contact us, and are helping to facilitate calls home to reassure families. "We have no reports of Canadian casualties. At this point, we can report one Canadian with minor injuries. There are 82 Canadian police officers, 7 Corrections Canada officers and 5 Canadian Forces personnel who are deployed with the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti. We are currently working to account for all of them. "We now have received over 750 calls at our Emergency Operations Centre, and officials continue to assist Canadians, 247. "We know that 707 Canadians are registered with our Registration of Canadians Abroad system, but it is estimated that 6,000 Canadians reside in the country. "I spoke to Quebec Premier Jean Charest yesterday evening. Premier Charest has offered to assist, and I briefed him on the situation. "Canadians wishing to help those affected by this disaster should consult the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website for advice on how best to help. The fastest and most efficient way to get help to people in need is to donate money-not clothing or food-to experienced humanitarian organizations. "I am working closely with my colleagues, the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, and the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation, to further assist Haiti. Minister Oda will update media on additional aid assistance later today. "The interdepartmental team here in Ottawa is holding another working meeting this morning and we will continue to provide further information as it becomes available." For more information, including advice on how to help those affected by the disaster, please visit Earthquake in Haiti. - 30 - For further information, media representatives may contact: Natalie Sarafian Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs 613-995-1851 Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 613-995-1874 --- You are currently subscribed as: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca. To unsubscribe, please visit the following link: http://www.listserv.dfait- maeci.gc.ca/u?id=800681.73fe7c3b87ac57b3506574b1cedae6b3&n=T&l=001_for eign_affairs_eng&o=2789403 It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken. You may also send a blank leave-2789403- 800681.73fe7c3b87ac57b3506574b1cedae6b3 at listserv.dfait-maeci.gc.ca ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5504 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 14 03:50:30 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:50:30 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Our role in Haiti's plight [ Guardian UK Jan 13] Message-ID: <4B4ECCC6.17892.F58BB7E@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> If we are serious about assisting this devastated land we must stop trying to control and exploit it The full scale of the destruction resulting from this earthquake may not become clear for several weeks. Even minimal repairs will take years to complete, and the long- term impact is incalculable. What is already all too clear, however, is the fact that this impact will be the result of an even longer-term history of deliberate impoverishment and disempowerment. Haiti is routinely described as the "poorest country in the western hemisphere". This poverty is the direct legacy of perhaps the most brutal system of colonial exploitation in world history, compounded by decades of systematic postcolonial oppression. The noble "international community" which is currently scrambling to send its "humanitarian aid" to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce. Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti's people to move (in former president Jean- Bertrand Aristide's phrase) "from absolute misery to a dignified poverty" has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies. The international community has been effectively ruling Haiti since the 2004 coup. The same countries scrambling to send emergency help to Haiti now, however, have during the last five years consistently voted against any extension of the UN mission's mandate beyond its immediate military purpose. Proposals to divert some of this "investment" towards poverty reduction or agrarian development have been blocked, in keeping with the long-term patterns that continue to shape the distribution of international "aid". --The Guardian Jan 13 fyi-janet ============================ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/our-role-in- haitis-plight Our role in Haiti's plight by Peter Hallward guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 20.30 GMT If we are serious about assisting this devastated land we must stop trying to control and exploit it Any large city in the world would have suffered extensive damage from an earthquake on the scale of the one that ravaged Haiti's capital city on Tuesday afternoon, but it's no accident that so much of Port- au-Prince now looks like a war zone. Much of the devastation wreaked by this latest and most calamitous disaster to befall Haiti is best understood as another thoroughly manmade outcome of a long and ugly historical sequence. The country has faced more than its fair share of catastrophes. Hundreds died in Port-au-Prince in an earthquake back in June 1770, and the huge earthquake of 7 May 1842 may have killed 10,000 in the northern city of Cap Haitien alone. Hurricanes batter the island on a regular basis, mostly recently in 2004 and again in 2008; the storms of September 2008 flooded the town of Gona?ves and swept away much of its flimsy infrastructure, killing more than a thousand people and destroying many thousands of homes. The full scale of the destruction resulting from this earthquake may not become clear for several weeks. Even minimal repairs will take years to complete, and the long- term impact is incalculable. What is already all too clear, however, is the fact that this impact will be the result of an even longer-term history of deliberate impoverishment and disempowerment. Haiti is routinely described as the "poorest country in the western hemisphere". This poverty is the direct legacy of perhaps the most brutal system of colonial exploitation in world history, compounded by decades of systematic postcolonial oppression. The noble "international community" which is currently scrambling to send its "humanitarian aid" to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce. Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti's people to move (in former president Jean- Bertrand Aristide's phrase) "from absolute misery to a dignified poverty" has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies. Aristide's own government (elected by some 75% of the electorate) was the latest victim of such interference, when it was overthrown by an internationally sponsored coup in 2004 that killed several thousand people and left much of the population smouldering in resentment. The UN has subsequently maintained a large and enormously expensive stabilisation and pacification force in the country. Haiti is now a country where, according to the best available study, around 75% of the population "lives on less than $2 per day, and 56% - four and a half million people - live on less than $1 per day". Decades of neoliberal "adjustment" and neo-imperial intervention have robbed its government of any significant capacity to invest in its people or to regulate its economy. Punitive international trade and financial arrangements ensure that such destitution and impotence will remain a structural fact of Haitian life for the foreseeable future. It is this poverty and powerlessness that account for the full scale of the horror in Port-au-Prince today. Since the late 1970s, relentless neoliberal assault on Haiti's agrarian economy has forced tens of thousands of small farmers into overcrowded urban slums. Although there are no reliable statistics, hundreds of thousands of Port-au-Prince residents now live in desperately sub-standard informal housing, often perched precariously on the side of deforested ravines. The selection of the people living in such places and conditions is itself no more "natural" or accidental than the extent of the injuries they have suffered. As Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Ju stice and Democracy in Haiti, points out: "Those people got their parents were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies specifically designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities; by definition they are people who would not be able to afford to build earthquake resistant houses." Meanwhile the city's basic infrastructure - running water, electricity, roads, etc - remains woefully inadequate, often non- existent. The government's ability to mobilise any sort of disaster relief is next to nil. The international community has been effectively ruling Haiti since the 2004 coup. The same countries scrambling to send emergency help to Haiti now, however, have during the last five years consistently voted against any extension of the UN mission's mandate beyond its immediate military purpose. Proposals to divert some of this "investment" towards poverty reduction or agrarian development have been blocked, in keeping with the long-term patterns that continue to shape the distribution of international "aid". The same storms that killed so many in 2008 hit Cuba just as hard but killed only four people. Cuba has escaped the worst effects of neoliberal "reform", and its government retains a capacity to defend its people from disaster. If we are serious about helping Haiti through this latest crisis then we should take this comparative point on board. Along with sending emergency relief, we should ask what we can do to facilitate the self-empowerment of Haiti's people and public institutions. If we are serious about helping we need to stop trying to control Haiti's government, to pacify its citizens, and to exploit its economy. And then we need to start paying for at least some of the damage we've already done. From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 14 06:55:08 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] =?utf-8?q?Prorogation_-_Conservatives_on_=27razor?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_edge_of_losing_government=27__G=26M_J14_=5Bre?= =?utf-8?q?_new_polls_=5D?= Message-ID: <4B4EF80C.12187.1001C5D8@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> "From comfortable majority and kudos in October to the razor?s edge of losing government altogether," says pollster Frank Graves, whose new survey finds that Canadians simply don?t like the Parliamentary shutdown. "Clearly it has a significant impact. It has become a proxy and a catalyst for a whole bunch of broader frustrations and anxieties that the public are feeling about the government." fyi-janet ================ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/conservatives-on- razors-edge-of-losing-government/article1430715/ Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:36 AM Conservatives on 'razor?s edge of losing government' Jane Taber 1. A breathtaking shift. Stephen Harper?s Conservatives would lose 33 seats if an election were held today and only maintain a tenuous hold on minority government, according to a new EKOS poll. "From comfortable majority and kudos in October to the razor?s edge of losing government altogether," says pollster Frank Graves, whose new survey finds that Canadians simply don?t like the Parliamentary shutdown. "Clearly it has a significant impact. It has become a proxy and a catalyst for a whole bunch of broader frustrations and anxieties that the public are feeling about the government." Indeed, the EKOS data is consistent with two polls released yesterday showing the Tories and Michael Ignatieff?s Liberals effectively tied for support and that Canadians are displeased with Mr. Harper?s decision to prorogue Parliament. Mr. Graves?s poll of 3,730 Canadians, conducted between January 6 and January 12, puts the Tories with 30.9 per cent support compared to 29.3 per cent for the Liberals. The NDP are at 15.3 per cent; the Bloc is at 10.2 per cent and the Green Party has 11.9 per cent. More interesting, however, is Mr. Graves?s seat projections based on the latest numbers. If an election were held today, he says, the Tories would have only 112 seats compared to the 145 they have now. Last fall, when his polls had the Tories in majority government territory, Mr. Graves had the Harper team winning 177 seats. Now, they would see their biggest losses in Ontario, dropping to 33 from 51seats. The Liberals, meanwhile, would make gains in Ontario, taking 60 seats from their current 38. Nationally, Mr. Graves has the Ignatieff team winning 107 seats compared to the 77 seats they have now. His figures suggest the NDP would win 33 seats, down from the 37 they have now. And the Bloc Quebecois would win five more seats, going to 53 from 48 seats. From thinker at xplornet.com Thu Jan 14 07:50:34 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:50:34 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] The tragedy of Haiti Message-ID: <20100114155047.4A91119C5264@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Haiti is one of the prime examples of "wealth can not be created, only taken" and the results of the devastation caused by the big, especially agribusiness mafia, jamming people into city slums. How can we help? How can we be certain that any financial help we may send is not going to end up in the pockets of our own executives with multimillion salaries, or the local crooks ? Cheers. Ed. =========================================================================================== http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/our-role-in- haitis-plight Our role in Haiti's plight by Peter Hallward guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 20.30 GMT If we are serious about assisting this devastated land we must stop trying to control and exploit it Any large city in the world would have suffered extensive damage from an earthquake on the scale of the one that ravaged Haiti's capital city on Tuesday afternoon, but it's no accident that so much of Port- au-Prince now looks like a war zone. Much of the devastation wreaked by this latest and most calamitous disaster to befall Haiti is best understood as another thoroughly manmade outcome of a long and ugly historical sequence. The country has faced more than its fair share of catastrophes. Hundreds died in Port-au-Prince in an earthquake back in June 1770, and the huge earthquake of 7 May 1842 may have killed 10,000 in the northern city of Cap Haitien alone. Hurricanes batter the island on a regular basis, mostly recently in 2004 and again in 2008; the storms of September 2008 flooded the town of Gona?ves and swept away much of its flimsy infrastructure, killing more than a thousand people and destroying many thousands of homes. The full scale of the destruction resulting from this earthquake may not become clear for several weeks. Even minimal repairs will take years to complete, and the long- term impact is incalculable. What is already all too clear, however, is the fact that this impact will be the result of an even longer-term history of deliberate impoverishment and disempowerment. Haiti is routinely described as the "poorest country in the western hemisphere". This poverty is the direct legacy of perhaps the most brutal system of colonial exploitation in world history, compounded by decades of systematic postcolonial oppression. The noble "international community" which is currently scrambling to send its "humanitarian aid" to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce. Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti's people to move (in former president Jean- Bertrand Aristide's phrase) "from absolute misery to a dignified poverty" has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies. Aristide's own government (elected by some 75% of the electorate) was the latest victim of such interference, when it was overthrown by an internationally sponsored coup in 2004 that killed several thousand people and left much of the population smouldering in resentment. The UN has subsequently maintained a large and enormously expensive stabilisation and pacification force in the country. Haiti is now a country where, according to the best available study, around 75% of the population "lives on less than $2 per day, and 56% - four and a half million people - live on less than $1 per day". Decades of neoliberal "adjustment" and neo-imperial intervention have robbed its government of any significant capacity to invest in its people or to regulate its economy. Punitive international trade and financial arrangements ensure that such destitution and impotence will remain a structural fact of Haitian life for the foreseeable future. It is this poverty and powerlessness that account for the full scale of the horror in Port-au-Prince today. Since the late 1970s, relentless neoliberal assault on Haiti's agrarian economy has forced tens of thousands of small farmers into overcrowded urban slums. Although there are no reliable statistics, hundreds of thousands of Port-au-Prince residents now live in desperately sub-standard informal housing, often perched precariously on the side of deforested ravines. The selection of the people living in such places and conditions is itself no more "natural" or accidental than the extent of the injuries they have suffered. As Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Ju stice and Democracy in Haiti, points out: "Those people got their parents were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies specifically designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities; by definition they are people who would not be able to afford to build earthquake resistant houses." Meanwhile the city's basic infrastructure - running water, electricity, roads, etc - remains woefully inadequate, often non- existent. The government's ability to mobilise any sort of disaster relief is next to nil. The international community has been effectively ruling Haiti since the 2004 coup. The same countries scrambling to send emergency help to Haiti now, however, have during the last five years consistently voted against any extension of the UN mission's mandate beyond its immediate military purpose. Proposals to divert some of this "investment" towards poverty reduction or agrarian development have been blocked, in keeping with the long-term patterns that continue to shape the distribution of international "aid". The same storms that killed so many in 2008 hit Cuba just as hard but killed only four people. Cuba has escaped the worst effects of neoliberal "reform", and its government retains a capacity to defend its people from disaster. If we are serious about helping Haiti through this latest crisis then we should take this comparative point on board. Along with sending emergency relief, we should ask what we can do to facilitate the self-empowerment of Haiti's people and public institutions. If we are serious about helping we need to stop trying to control Haiti's government, to pacify its citizens, and to exploit its economy. And then we need to start paying for at least some of the damage we've already done. From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 14 09:09:49 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:09:49 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] RABBLE.CA's Not Rex Murphy Contest Message-ID: <4B4F179D.9265.107D122D@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Great to see the reaction to the demise of democracy in this country emerging on so many levels including creative ideas like the following !! all the best, janet ============== http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/notrex Tens of thousands agree: We have had enough of Rex Murphy and his reactionary, mean-spirited attacks on all the things that make Canada a great place to live. Since CBC hasn't put any balancing voices to Rex on their flagship news show The National, rabble.ca will do our part. We are pleased to announce the Not Rex Murphy Contest. The winner(s) of the Not Rex contest will be featured presenting a video commentary on rabble.ca on the same nights as Mr. Murphy presents commentary on CBC. You can join the contest in two ways: 1) You can simply nominate yourself as Rex's replacement, or 2) if you think there is someone out there who would be a great replacement, you can nominate them and we will contact them to see if they are willing to join the contest. Only those who actually share the values and aspirations of the majority of Canadians; who trust that a genuine democracy would actually deliver what Canadians want, who don't think it's a good idea to give corporations almost unlimited and totally unregulated power and who - unlike Rex - understand that there is no serious scientific debate about humans' role in the climate crises, need apply or be nominated. How do you nominate yourself? OPTION 1. Share a short video (under 3 minutes) using our YouTube direct account, describing why you should replace Rex (or a sample video commentary) along with a resume that highlights your qualifications. (Tech and submission details below.) OPTION 2. Send us a short (300 word max) statement of why you should replace Rex for rabble.ca. along with a resume that highlights your qualifications. (Option: you can also send a sample commentary script under 500 words along with your statement.) How do you nominate someone else? Send us their name, contact information and a why you think they would be great and we will contact them. Please include your name and contact information with the nomination. Who are the judges? Our intrepid judges (people who care about the country and are media savvy) are: New media journalist, consultant, video podcaster and web 2.0 guru Amber MacArthur; journalist, broadcaster, author and guest senior contributing editor Murray Dobbin; rabble tv editor Tor Sandberg; rabble publisher Kim Elliott and you (finalist chosen by vote). How are the winners chosen? The judges will choose a short list. Each short listed candidate will be asked to produce a sample TV commentary (with rabble's help if needed) within some guidelines, focusing on a national political topic of their choice. The videos by those short-listed will be posted on rabble and rabble readers will get to vote for their favorite "Not Rex." All short listed contestants will receive a copy of the most recent "best of rabble" book. Taking on Rex The winner will do the first three rabble commentaries - on the same night that Rex delivers his annoying and sanctimonious ravings - providing Canadians with critical insights, inspiration, vision and, most importantly, an antidote to The Rex. Reflecting rabble's distaste for reality TV and the American obsession with winners and losers, the remaining contestants may be given the opportunity to do commentaries as well. rabble reserves the right, post-contest, to add commentators as opportunities and clever, caring Canadians present themselves. Let the contest begin! Tech details and Submission requirements The Not Rex Murphy contest will debut our use of YouTube Direct allowing you to send your videos straight to our Not Rex video section of our site. Videos will be reviewed by staff before going live. Upload your video right now using YouTube direct. Submit a video (under 3 minutes) right here. We are taking submissions through Valentine's Day February 14th (to show our love of independent news and views). Submit a video by clicking the link below. You will be directed to login to your Youtube account and be asked to authorize access to your account. This is OK. Follow the instructions from there. Submit your video here! Send questions and written submissions to: notrex at rabble.ca Listen to your mom and follow the rules The stuff you use must be yours, or you must have permission to use it. In other words you need written permission to use any copyrighted material which includes (but is not limited to) video, music, photographs, artwork that is not your own. Please note that videos should be targeted toward a general audience ("can it be shown on TV?" is a good question to ask about the video). By clicking "upload video" you are representing that this video does not violate YouTube' s Term of Service and that you own all copyrights in this video or have authorization to upload it. Note: our t-rex image is adapted from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rezon_t-rex_debian_150ppp.png by Rezon.rwan under the creative commons license From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 14 17:13:09 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:13:09 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Haitian Earthquake: Made in the USA [commondreams.org] Message-ID: <4B4F88E5.1669.12379503@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> In Haiti this week, don't blame tectonic plates. Ninety-nine percent of the death toll is attributable to poverty. So the question is relevant. How'd Haiti become so poor? The story begins in 1910, when a U.S. State Department-National City Bank of New York (now called Citibank) consortium bought the Banque National d'Ha?ti ................ >From 1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines imposed harsh military occupation, murdered Haitians patriots and diverted 40 percent of Haiti's gross domestic product to U.S. bankers..... ...civil disorder prevailed until 1957, when the CIA installed President-for-Life Fran?ois "Papa Doc" Duvalier.... Upon Papa Doc's death in 1971, the torch passed to his even more dissolute 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. Under U.S. influence, Baby Doc virtually eliminated import tariffs for U.S. goods. Soon Haiti was awash in predatory agricultural imports dumped by American firms. Domestic rice farmers went bankrupt. A nation that had been agriculturally self-sustaining collapsed. Farms were abandoned. Hundreds of thousands of farmers migrated to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. We twice deposed the populist and popular democratically-elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The second time, in 2004, we even gave him a free flight to the Central African Republic! And still, we haven't given up. American companies like Disney generously pay wages to their sweatshop workers 28 cents an hour. - Ted Rall, author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?, writing in Common Dreams fyi-janet ================== http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/14-13 CommonDreams.org January 14, 2010 Haitian Earthquake: Made in the USA Why the Blood Is on Our Hands by Ted Rall As grim accounts of the earthquake in Haiti came in, the accounts in U.S.-controlled state media all carried the same descriptive sentence: "Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere..." Gee, I wonder how that happened? You'd think Haiti would be loaded. After all, it made a lot of people rich. How did Haiti get so poor? Despite a century of American colonialism, occupation, and propping up corrupt dictators? Even though the CIA staged coups d'?tat against every democratically elected president they ever had? It's an important question. An earthquake isn't just an earthquake. The same 7.0 tremor hitting San Francisco wouldn't kill nearly as many people as in Port-au-Prince. "Looking at the pictures, essentially it looks as if (the buildings are of) breezeblock or cinderblock construction, and what you need in an earthquake zone is metal bars that connect the blocks so that they stay together when they get shaken," notes Sandy Steacey, director of the Environmental Science Research Institute at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. "In a wealthy country with good seismic building codes that are enforced, you would have some damage, but not very much." When a pile of cinderblocks falls on you, your odds of survival are long. Even if you miraculously survive, a poor country like Haiti doesn't have the equipment, communications infrastructure or emergency service personnel to pull you out of the rubble in time. And if your neighbors get you out, there's no ambulance to take you to the hospital--or doctor to treat you once you get there. Earthquakes are random events. How many people they kill is predetermined. In Haiti this week, don't blame tectonic plates. Ninety-nine percent of the death toll is attributable to poverty. So the question is relevant. How'd Haiti become so poor? The story begins in 1910, when a U.S. State Department-National City Bank of New York (now called Citibank) consortium bought the Banque National d'Ha?ti--Haiti's only commercial bank and its national treasury--in effect transferring Haiti's debts to the Americans. Five years later, President Woodrow Wilson ordered troops to occupy the country in order to keep tabs on "our" investment. >From 1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines imposed harsh military occupation, murdered Haitians patriots and diverted 40 percent of Haiti's gross domestic product to U.S. bankers. Haitians were banned from government jobs. Ambitious Haitians were shunted into the puppet military, setting the stage for a half-century of U.S.-backed military dictatorship. The U.S. kept control of Haiti's finances until 1947. Still--why should Haitians complain? Sure, we stole 40 percent of Haiti's national wealth for 32 years. But we let them keep 60 percent. Whiners. Despite having been bled dry by American bankers and generals, civil disorder prevailed until 1957, when the CIA installed President-for- Life Fran?ois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. Duvalier's brutal Tonton Macoutes paramilitary goon squads murdered at least 30,000 Haitians and drove educated people to flee into exile. But think of the cup as half- full: fewer people in the population means fewer people competing for the same jobs! Upon Papa Doc's death in 1971, the torch passed to his even more dissolute 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. The U.S., cool to Papa Doc in his later years, quickly warmed back up to his kleptomaniacal playboy heir. As the U.S. poured in arms and trained his army as a supposed anti-communist bulwark against Castro's Cuba, Baby Doc stole an estimated $300 to $800 million from the national treasury, according to Transparency International. The money was placed in personal accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere. Under U.S. influence, Baby Doc virtually eliminated import tariffs for U.S. goods. Soon Haiti was awash predatory agricultural imports dumped by American firms. Domestic rice farmers went bankrupt. A nation that had been agriculturally self-sustaining collapsed. Farms were abandoned. Hundreds of thousands of farmers migrated to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. The Duvalier era, 29 years in all, came to an end in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. forces to whisk Baby Doc to exile in France, saving him from a popular uprising. Once again, Haitians should thank Americans. Duvalierism was "tough love." Forcing Haitians to make do without their national treasury was our nice way or encouraging them to work harder, to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Or, in this case, flipflops. Anyway. The U.S. has been all about tough love ever since. We twice deposed the populist and popular democratically-elected president Jean- Bertrand Aristide. The second time, in 2004, we even gave him a free flight to the Central African Republic! (He says the CIA kidnapped him, but whatever.) Hey, he needed a rest. And it was kind of us to support a new government formed by former Tonton Macoutes. Yet, despite everything we've done for Haiti, they're still a fourth- world failed state on a fault line. And still, we haven't given up. American companies like Disney generously pay wages to their sweatshop workers of 28 cents an hour. What more do these ingrates want? Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$44C6.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7513 bytes Desc: Mail message body URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Fri Jan 15 18:01:15 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:01:15 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: [S] aMaizing: Three Approved GMO's Linked to Organ Damage Message-ID: <031801ca9667$0921fa20$0100007f@jfos> Excerpt: "Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMO's are wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals." http://www.truthout.org/article/three-approved-gmos-linked-organ-damage Three Approved GMO's Linked to Organ Damage Friday 08 January 2010 In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize. All three varieties of GM corn - Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto's confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world. The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto's 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide-producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup? herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize. The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric S?ralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen. Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMO's, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose. Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data. Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating: "The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data." [Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. "Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by S?ralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)." Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.] In an email to me, S?ralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto's analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al, ignored: "Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data." Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations. Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.] Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO ? with its isogenic non-GM equivalent." The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them. They have called for "an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMO's and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods." Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMO's are wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals. Further Reading: Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center. Creative Commons License This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications, including three books on election fraud. Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations and as a paralegal. She spent seven years as an editor, two of them as a web editor for a site with 20,000 members. In December 2003, she graduated from The Ohio State University's School of Agriculture with a BS in Natural Resources. NOTES from COMMENTS Check out the documentary film "King Corn" then be even more aware of the poison that is being pumped into all of us through ubiquitous corn products and byproducts. ...the documentary, "Food, Inc."--it's final long segment documents Monsanto's corruption of our federal government's legislative system, ruthless suppression of any farmer's resisting the use off Monsanto's patented seeds, corn, soybeans, its infiltration into high government positions, e.g., Clarence Thomas had been a Monsanto Lawyer. Always look for High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and MSG, and Aspartame, And Trans Fats, as Partially Hydrogenated Veg. oil. Most Yellow corn is GM, 90% of Soy is GM, but then again Soy is not intended to be eaten by humans, unless it is Fermented. - Monsanto is trying to GE wheat and Barley, so far they don't have a license yet. It is absolutely wrong to claim that 99% of GMO foods contain or tolerate an insecticide. This is glaringly false. As I pointed out before, there are 2 broad classes of GM foods - those that contain BT a naturally occurring insecticide, and those that tolerate an herbicide [usually Monsanto's Roundup]. An insecticide kills insects, an herbicide kills herbs [plants]. Any farmer or gardener knows this. And the land area planted to herbicide resistant crops is probably greater than the land area planted to crops containing the BT insecticide, because so much land is planted with Roundup Ready soy. The research in this article is about the dangers of eating certain GM foods those that contain BT, an insecticide. There is a lot wrong with all GM crops, and people should not eat them. But in helping people understand the dangers of these corporate promoted GM crops we need to keep our facts straight, and when comments are posted that are critical, we need to have the honesty to post them on-line. I am the widow of a Vietnam veteran & founder of Agent Orange Legacy. Monsanto produced more agent orange during the Vietnam/American war than any of the other 36+ chemical companies. Even though agent orange or TCDD was banned Monsanto has gone on to produce more & more harmful products. The class action suit brought against the chemical companies by Vietnam veterans didn't pay a nickel to my husband or many other veterans. My husband didn't become ill until 1998 and all the money was gone by 1994. Monsanto & the other chemical companies have, managed once again, to have gotten away with out paying Vietnam veterans and their families last year, 2009. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the chemical companies. Not only have Vietnam veterans not been compensated, neither have many other agent orange victims including the Vietnamese or the children of Vietnam veterans. I hope that someday they will be held accountable for the harmful products they continue to produce but until then I will 'Speak Out' against them and other chemical companies like them. If you are the child of a Vietnam veteran and feel that your are ill as a result of your parent(s) service in Vietnam join us: http://www.agentorangelegacy.ning.com. Learn more about our 'Lobbying Campaign' http://www.agentorangelegacy.us Sincerely, Sharon L. Perry Founder Agent Orange Legacy Children of American Vietnam Veterans aolegacy at gmail.com From papadop at peak.org Sat Jan 16 16:19:02 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:19:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] About Haiti . . . Message-ID: fwd From: Janette Rainwater Dear All: I thought I had sworn off sending out political stuff after the last mailing list collapse, but CNN shots of the elite rescue crews rescuing the Americans from the Hotel Montana interspersed with shots of feeding frenzy downtown have prompted me to send you the following potpourri: ############ 1--- Posted by: "Simon mcguinness" simonmcguinness at oceanfree.net simonmcguinness1 Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:12 am (PST) MEDIA ADVISORY - 1/14/2010 18:21H HAITIAN EARTHQUAKE 344 CUBAN MEDICS TREAT EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS There are 344 Cuban medics working in Haiti today, they have two improvisedhospitals where they are providing services to the earthquake victims. Onlytwo of them were injured in the earthquake, both of whom have received treatment for minor injuries and remain there to assist the disaster victims. Cuban doctors are working in all 10 "departments" (administrative regions) of Haiti. They are assisted by approximately 400 Haitian medical interns who have completed medical degrees on full scholarships in Cuba. Cuba has provided free public health care to the poor of Haiti since 1989 - the only public medicine available in that country. During the recent coup and subsequent US/French/Canadian invasion which deposed the Aristide presidency, Cuban doctors continued to provide medical care when other hospitals closed down and other doctors fled the country. The Cuban government has offered condolences to the people of Haiti and pledged immediate additional medical assistance if the Haitian government requires it. Cuba's "Henry Reeve Contingent", a volunteer contingent of 1,000 medics, fully equipped and entirely self sustaining for 30 days, can land on any airstrip in the world at 72 hours notice. Haiti is 32 miles from Cuba; members of the Henry Reeve Contingent could be there within hours of a request. Cuban doctors will go where no doctor has gone before, live in conditions that no doctor has ever lived in before and deliver life saving medical care to people who have never even seen a doctor before. And they do all this for free. Each doctor feels privileged to be able to use their skills to help people who are in such desperate need of medical care. 35,000 Cuban medics currently provide healthcare in 78 countries around the world, more than the World Health Organisation and Medecins sans Frontiers put together. Cuban doctors have unique experience of working in earthquake zones in third world countries without infrastructure. There are Cuban medics currently working on the frozen slopes of the Himalayas in Pakistan following their unmatched medical support provided during the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Many hiked for days over mudslides to reach the isolated communities of theregion to deliver medical assistance. To this day, Pakistanis parents in the earthquake region name their children after the Cuban doctors who helped deliver them. For Further information contact: Simon McGuinness, National Coordinator, Cuba Support Group Ireland, 15 Merrion Square, Dublin 2. 2. From: "Gary Crethers" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:44 PM Subject: [R-G] Disaster Capitalism In Action - Haiti Aid In Haiti Withheld, Disaster Capitalism In Action.January 15th, 2010 It seems to me that after 4 days and no aid being distributed, it proves that there are political interests that are keeping the aid from being distributed. This is not a question of a lack of infrastructure, it is a matter of a lack of will on the part of the organizing bodies. The roads are clear enough for the media to get through but why no aid? The specialized crews that help get people out of the crushed buildings seem to have been sent to luxury hotels where there might be westerners trapped. They don't seem to be taking any care for the average people but seem to befocused on the centers of affluence. Today former President Aristide has requested that he be allowed to return. This is so strange that he a citizen of Haiti has to ask permission from the United States to return to his own country. Aristide could mobilize the poor people who are the majority to act. But perhaps that is why they don't want him, they are affraid he will mobilize people to take control of their own country. The airport there has been taken over by the US military. He cannot enter with out American permission. Castro, former president of Cuba has noted that Haiti, a nation that has been subject to American tutelage for so long is a basket case where as his nation which was also conquered by America but followed a path that put the people first is in much better condition. Today on Democracy Now several people interviewed mentioned that the situation in Haiti has been exacerbated by the presence of NGOs. On NPR the experts were spouting the neo colonial line saying that what Haiti needs is a firm hand with American occupation but we have occupied Haiti for decades on and off for a century. What Haiti needs is another model. Castro seems to be offering another way. Cuban doctors are there and if the Americans allow them, Cubans can offer the manpower and expertise to create a socialist model. What they need is the economic support from a major power that does not insist on making a profit off of other peoples misery. The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more. Will Obama's America allow a truly socialist model to develop there? Will Obama allow the Cubans and Aristide to mobilize the majority of the people to create a new way? Hardly, already they are creating the conditions of chaos by withholding the aid. This will lead to gangs forming and using violence. This will be the excuse to justify a military take over. This will lead to a total take over of the nation by western corporatist forces that will force Haiti to take out loans that they will never be able to repay. It will lead to revolution, sooner or later. On CNN they are emphasizing the danger from the 4000 persons who escaped from prison and are showing pictures of guys with machetes and are reporting about people robbing banks. This is to excuse the lack of aid, the excuse being that the country is not safe enough to distribute aid in. It is racist and classist. This is a modified form of genocide. They are deliberately trying to kill off a percentage of the population to make it a place where there are fewer poor to care for and where the survivors will be desperate for any work at any wage. This is the ultimate of disaster capitalism. 3.--- Why the Blood Is on Our Hands By Ted Rall January 14, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- As grim accounts of the earthquake in Haiti came in, the accounts in U.S.-controlled state media all carried the same descriptive sentence: "Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere..." Gee, I wonder how that happened? You'd think Haiti would be loaded. After all, it made a lot of people rich. How did Haiti get so poor? Despite a century of American colonialism, occupation, and propping up corrupt dictators? Even though the CIA staged coups d'etat against every democratically elected president they ever had? It's an important question. An earthquake isn't just an earthquake. The same 7.0 tremor hitting San Francisco wouldn't kill nearly as many people as in Port-au-Prince. "Looking at the pictures, essentially it looks as if (the buildings are of) breezeblock or cinderblock construction, and what you need in an earthquake zone is metal bars that connect the blocks so that they stay together when they get shaken," notes Sandy Steacey, director of the Environmental Science Research Institute at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. "In a wealthy country with good seismic building codes that are enforced, you would have some damage, but not very much." When a pile of cinderblocks falls on you, your odds of survival are long. Even if you miraculously survive, a poor country like Haiti doesn't have the equipment, communications infrastructure or emergency service personnel to pull you out of the rubble in time. And if your neighbors get you out, there's no ambulance to take you to the hospital--or doctor to treat you once you get there. Earthquakes are random events. How many people they kill is predetermined. In Haiti this week, don't blame tectonic plates. Ninety-nine percent of the death toll is attributable to poverty. So the question is relevant. How'd Haiti become so poor? The story begins in 1910, when a U.S. State Department-National City Bank of New York (now called Citibank) consortium bought the Banque National d'Ha?ti--Haiti's only commercial bank and its national treasury--in effect transferring Haiti's debts to the Americans. Five years later, President Woodrow Wilson ordered troops to occupy the country in order to keep tabs on "our" investment. >From 1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines imposed harsh military occupation, murdered Haitians patriots and diverted 40 percent of Haiti's gross domestic product to U.S. bankers. Haitians were banned from government jobs. Ambitious Haitians were shunted into the puppet military, setting the stage for a half-century of U.S.-backed military dictatorship. The U.S. kept control of Haiti's finances until 1947. Still--why should Haitians complain? Sure, we stole 40 percent of Haiti's national wealth for 32 years. But we let them keep 60 percent. Whiners. Despite having been bled dry by American bankers and generals, civil disorder prevailed until 1957, when the CIA installed President-for-Life Fran?ois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. Duvalier's brutal Tonton Macoutes paramilitary goon squads murdered at least 30,000 Haitians and drove educated people to flee into exile. But think of the cup as half-full: fewer people in the population means fewer people competing for the same jobs! Upon Papa Doc's death in 1971, the torch passed to his even more dissolute 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. The U.S., cool to Papa Doc in his later years, quickly warmed back up to his kleptomaniacal playboy heir. As the U.S. poured in arms and trained his army as a supposed anti-communist bulwark against Castro's Cuba, Baby Doc stole an estimated $300 to $800 million from the national treasury, according to Transparency International. The money was placed in personal accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere. Under U.S. influence, Baby Doc virtually eliminated import tariffs for U.S. goods. Soon Haiti was awash predatory agricultural imports dumped by American firms. Domestic rice farmers went bankrupt. A nation that had been agriculturally self-sustaining collapsed. Farms were abandoned. Hundreds of thousands of farmers migrated to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. The Duvalier era, 29 years in all, came to an end in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. forces to whisk Baby Doc to exile in France, saving him from a popular uprising. Once again, Haitians should thank Americans. Duvalierism was "tough love." Forcing Haitians to make do without their national treasury was our nice way or encouraging them to work harder, to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Or, in this case, flipflops. Anyway. The U.S. has been all about tough love ever since. We twice deposed the populist and popular democratically-elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The second time, in 2004, we even gave him a free flight to the Central African Republic! (He says the CIA kidnapped him, but whatever.) Hey, he needed a rest. And it was kind of us to support a new government formed by former Tonton Macoutes. Yet, despite everything we've done for Haiti, they're still a fourth-world failed state on a fault line. And still, we haven't given up. American companies like Disney generously pay wages to their sweatshop workers of 28 cents an hour. What more do these ingrates want? Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. http://www.rall.com/rants.html 4.--- Analysis: Ashley Smith http://socialistworker.org/2010/01/14/catastrophe-haiti Catastrophe in Haiti Ashley Smith describes the natural and not-so-natural factors that contributed to the devastation when Haiti was struck by a strong earthquake. January 14, 2010 A DEVASTATING earthquake, the worst in 200 years, struck Port-au-Prince on Tuesday, laying waste to the city and killing untold numbers of people. The quake measured 7.0 on the Richter scale, and detonated more than 30 aftershocks, all more than 4.5 in magnitude, through the night and into Wednesday morning. The earthquake toppled poorly constructed houses, hotels, hospitals and even the capital city's main political buildings, including the presidential palace. The collapse of so many structures sent a giant cloud into the sky, which hovered over the city, raining dust down onto the wasteland below. According to some estimates, more than 100,000 people may have died, in a metropolis of 2 million people. Those that survived are living in the streets, afraid to return inside any building that remains standing. Around the world, Haitians struggled to contact their family and friends in the devastated country. But most could not reach their loved ones since phone lines were down throughout the country. One person who did reach relatives, Garry Pierre-Pierre, editor and publisher of the Brooklyn-based Haitian Times, stated, "People are in shock. They're afraid to go out in the streets for obvious reasons, and most of them can't get inside their homes. A lot of people are sitting or sleeping in front of the rubble that used to be their homes." President Ren? Pr?val issued an emergency appeal for humanitarian aid. He described the scene in Port-au-Prince as "unimaginable. Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed. There are a lot of schools that have a lot of dead people in them. All the hospitals are packed with people. It's a catastrophe." The weak government was unable to respond to the crisis, and the United Nations--which occupies Haiti with close to 9,000 troops--was completely unprepared to manage the situation. Many UN leaders and troops died in buildings that collapsed, including their own headquarters. International Red Cross spokesman Paul Conneally said that 3 million out of Haiti's 9 million people would need international emergency aid in the coming weeks just to survive. The UN, U.S., European Union, Canada and countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have promised humanitarian aid. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WHILE MOST people reacted to the crisis by trying to find a way to help or donate money, Christian Right fanatic Pat Robertson stooped to new depths of racism. He explained that Haitians were cursed because they made a pact with the devil to liberate themselves from their French slave masters in the Haitian revolution two centuries ago. The corporate media at least reported that shifting tectonic plates along a fault line underneath Port-au-Prince caused the earthquake--and that Haiti's poverty and the incapacity of the Preval government made the disaster so much worse. But they didn't delve below the surface. "The media coverage of the earthquake is marked by an almost complete divorce of the disaster from the social and political history of Haiti," Canadian Haiti solidarity activist Yves Engler said in an interview. "They repeatedly state that the government was completely unprepared to deal with the crisis. This is true. But they left out why." Why were 60 percent of the buildings in Port-au-Prince shoddily constructed and unsafe in normal circumstances, according to the city's mayor? Why are there no building regulations in a city that sits on a fault line? Why has Port-au-Prince swelled from a small town of 50,000 in the 1950s to a population of 2 million desperately poor people today? Why was the state completely overwhelmed by the disaster? To understand these facts, we have to look at a second fault line--U.S. imperial policy toward Haiti. The U.S. government, the UN, and other powers have aided the Haitian elite in subjecting the country to neoliberal economic plans that have impoverished the masses, deforested the land, wrecked the infrastructure and incapacitated the government. The fault line of U.S. imperialism interacted with the geological one to turn the natural disaster into a social catastrophe. During the Cold War, the U.S. supported the dictatorships of Papa Doc Duvalier and then Baby Doc Duvalier--which ruled the country from 1957 to 1986--as an anti-communist counterweight to Castro's Cuba nearby. Under guidance from Washington, Baby Doc Duvalier opened the Haitian economy up to U.S. capital in the 1970s and 1980s. Floods of U.S. agricultural imports destroyed peasant agriculture. As a result, hundred of thousands of people flocked to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince to labor for pitifully low wages in sweatshops located in U.S. export processing zones. In the 1980s, masses of Haitians rose up to drive the Duvaliers from power--later, they elected reformer Jean-Bertrand Aristide to be president on a platform of land reform, aid to peasants, reforestation, investment in infrastructure for the people, and increased wages and union rights for sweatshop workers. The U.S. in turn backed a coup that drove Aristide from power in 1991. Eventually, the elected president was restored to power in 1994 when Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops to the island--but on the condition that he implement the U.S. neoliberal plan--which Haitians called the "plan of death." Aristide resisted parts of the U.S. program for Haiti, but implemented other provisions, undermining his hoped-for reforms. Eventually, though, the U.S. grew impatient with Aristide's failure to obey completely, especially when he demanded $21 billion in reparations during his final year in office. The U.S. imposed an economic embargo that strangled the country, driving peasants and workers even deeper into poverty. In 2004, Washington collaborated with Haiti's ruling elite to back death squads that toppled the government, kidnapped and deported Aristide. The United Nations sent troops to occupy the country, and the puppet government of G?rard Latortue was installed to continue Washington's neoliberal plans. Latortue's brief regime was utterly corrupt--he and his cronies pocketed large portions of the $4 billion poured into the country by the U.S. and other powers when they ended their embargo. The regime dismantled the mild reforms Aristide had managed to implement. Thus, the pattern of impoverishment and degradation of the country's infrastructure accelerated. In 2006 elections, the Haitian masses voted in longtime Aristide ally Ren? Preval as president. But Preval has been a weak figure who collaborated with U.S. plans for the country and failed to address the growing social crisis. In fact, the U.S., UN and other imperial powers effectively bypassed the Preval government and instead poured money into NGOs. "Haiti now has the highest per capita presence of NGOs in the world," says Yves Engler. The Preval government has become a political fig leaf, behind which the real decisions are made by the imperial powers, and implemented through their chosen international NGOs. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE REAL state power isn't the government, but the U.S.-backed United Nations occupation. Under Brazilian leadership, UN forces have protected the rich and collaborated with--or turned a blind eye to--right-wing death squads who terrorize supporters of Aristide and his Lavalas Party. The occupiers have done nothing to address the poverty, wrecked infrastructure and massive deforestation that have exacerbated the effects of a series of natural disasters--severe hurricanes in 2004 and 2008, and now the Port-au-Prince earthquake. Instead, they merely police a social catastrophe, and in so doing, have committed the normal crimes characteristic of all police forces. As Dan Beeton wrote in NACLA Report on the Americas, "The UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which began its mission in June 2004, has been marred by scandals of killings, rape and other violence by its troops almost since it began." First the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have used the coup and social and natural crises to expand the U.S.'s neoliberal economic plans. Under Obama, the U.S. has granted Haiti $1.2 billion in debt relief, but it hasn't canceled all of Haiti's debt--the country still pays huge sums to the Inter-American Development Bank. The debt relief is classic window-dressing for Obama's real Haiti policy, which is the same old Haiti policy. In close collaboration with the new UN Special Envoy to Haiti, former President Bill Clinton, Obama has pushed for an economic program familiar to much of the rest of the Caribbean--tourism, textile sweatshops and weakening of state control of the economy through privatization and deregulation. In particular, Clinton has orchestrated a plan for turning the north of Haiti into a tourist playground, as far away as possible from the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. Clinton lured Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines into investing $55 million to build a pier along the coastline of Labadee, which it has leased until 2050. From there, Haiti's tourist industry hopes to lead expeditions to the mountaintop fortress Citadelle and the Palace of Sans Souci, both built by Henri Christophe, one of the leaders of Haiti's slave revolution. According to the Miami Herald: The $40 million plan involved transforming the now quaint town of Milot, home to the Citadelle and Palace of Sans Souci ruin, into a vibrant tourist village, with arts and crafts markets, restaurants and stoned streets. Guests would be ferried past a congested Cap-Haitien to a bay, then transported by bus past peasant plantations. Once in Milot, they would either hike or horseback to the Citadelle...named a world heritage site in 1982... Eco-tourism, archaeological exploration and voyeuristic visits to Vodou rituals are all being touted by Haiti's struggling boutique tourism industry, as Royal Caribbean plans to bring the world largest cruise ship here, sparking the need for excursions. So while Pat Robertson denounces Haiti's great slave revolution as a pact with the devil, Clinton is helping to reduce it to a tourist trap. At the same time, Clinton's plans for Haiti include an expansion of the sweatshop industry to take advantage of cheap labor available from the urban masses. The U.S. granted duty-free treatment for Haitian apparel exports to make it easy for sweatshops to return to Haiti. Clinton celebrated the possibilities of sweatshop development during a whirlwind tour of a textile plant owned and operated by the infamous Cintas Corp. He announced that George Soros had offered $50 million for a new industrial park of sweatshops that could create 25,000 jobs in the garment industry. Clinton explained at a press conference that Haiti's government could create "more jobs by lowering the cost of doing business, including the cost of rent." As TransAfrica founder Randall Robinson told Democracy Now! "That isn't the kind of investment that Haiti needs. It needs capital investment. It needs investment so that it can be self-sufficient. It needs investment so that it can feed itself." One of the reasons why Clinton could be so unabashed in celebrating sweatshops is that the U.S.-backed coup repressed any and all resistance. It got rid of Aristide and his troublesome habit of raising the minimum wage. It banished him from the country, terrorized his remaining allies and barred his political party, Fanmi Lavalas, the most popular in the country, from running for office. The coup regime also attacked union organizers within the sweatshops themselves. As a result, Clinton could state to business leaders: "Your political risk in Haiti is lower than it has ever been in my lifetime." Thus, as previous U.S. presidencies have done before, the Obama administration has worked to aid Haiti's elite, sponsor international corporations taking advantage of cheap labor, weaken the ability of the Haitian state to regulate the society, and repress any political resistance to that agenda. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THESE POLICIES led directly to the incapacitated Haitian state, dilapidated infrastructure, poorly constructed buildings and desperate poverty that combined with the hurricanes and now the earthquake to turn natural disasters into social catastrophes. While everyone should support the current outpouring of aid to help Haiti, no one should do so with political blinders on. As Engler said: Aid in Haiti has always been used to further imperial interests. This is obvious when you look at how the U.S. and Canada treated the Aristide government in contrast to the coup regime. The U.S. and Canada starved Aristide of almost all aid. But then after the coup, they opened a floodgate of money to back some of the most reactionary forces in Haitian society. We should therefore agitate against any attempt by the U.S. and other powers to use this crisis to further impose their program on a prostrate country. We should also be wary of the role of international NGOs. While many NGOs are trying to address the crisis, the U.S. and other governments are funneling aid to them in order to undermine Haitians' democratic right to self-determination. The international NGOs are unaccountable to either the Haitian state or Haitian population. So the aid funneled through them further weakens what little hold Haitians have on their own society. The Obama administration should also immediately lift the ban against Aristide's return to Haiti, as well as the political ban on his party, Fanmi Lavalas, from participating in the electoral process. After all, a known drug criminal and coup leader, Guy Philippe, and his party Front for National Reconstruction (FRN) has been allowed to participate in the electoral process. Aristide and his party, by contrast, are still the most popular political force in the country and should have the right to participate in an open and fair vote. The U.S. should also stop deportations of Haitians who have fled their crisis-torn country and grant Temporary Protected Status to Haitian refugees. That would allow any Haitians who have fled the political and social crisis since the coup, the hurricanes and now the earthquake to remain legally in the U.S. On top of that, we must demand that the U.S. stop imposing its neoliberal plans. The U.S. has plundered Haitian society for decades. Instead of Haiti owing any debt to the U.S., other countries or international financial institutions, the reverse is the case. The U.S., France, Canada and the UN owe the people of Haiti reparations to redress the imperial plunder of the country. With these funds and political space, Haitians would be finally able to begin shaping their own political and economic future--the dream of the great slave revolution 200 years ago. From papadop at peak.org Sat Jan 16 16:42:56 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:42:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Jack Straw's secret warning to Blair Message-ID: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6991087.ece Sunday Times (London) Jan 17, '10 From The Sunday Times Revealed: Jack Straw's secret warning to Tony Blair on Iraq Michael Smith * Jack Straw A "SECRET and personal" letter from Jack Straw, the then foreign secretary, to Tony Blair reveals damning doubts at the heart of government about Blair's plans for Iraq a year before war started. The letter, a copy of which is published for the first time today, warned the prime minister that the case for military action in Iraq was of dubious legality and would be no guarantee of a better future for Iraq even if Saddam Hussein were removed. It was sent 10 days before Blair met George Bush, then the US president, in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. The document clearly implies that Blair was already planning for military action even though he continued to insist to the British public for almost another year that no decision had been made. The letter will be a key piece of evidence at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war when it questions Straw this week. The document begins in a way that now appears eerily prophetic: "The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few ... there is at present no majority inside the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] for any military action against Iraq." Straw said Iraq posed no greater threat to the UK than it had done previously. The letter said there was "no credible evidence" linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda and that the "threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September" . Implying Blair was already seeking an excuse for war, it warned of two legal "elephant traps" . It states "regime change per se is no justification for military action" and "the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required" . The letter went on to question the very objective of military action. Straw warned Blair: "We have also to answer the big question ? what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything." Straw said there was "no certainty that the replacement regime will be better" than that of Saddam Hussein. Despite this warning a year ahead of the war, the planning by Blair and other coalition leaders for the aftermath of war was dismal. Iraq descended into bloody chaos that cost more lives than the war itself. Straw later wrote a further secret memo in early 2003 again doubting that the case for war had been made. The release of Straw's letter will pile further pressure on Blair ahead of the former prime minister giving evidence to the inquiry sometime between January 25 and February 5. The issue of the war remains highly sensitive among the public. A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times this weekend shows that 52% of people believe Blair deliberately misled the country over the war. Almost one in four -- 23 % -- think he should be tried as a war criminal. The inquiry burst into life last week during tense questioning of Alastair Campbell. Blair's former communications director rejected evidence from Sir Christopher Meyer, former UK ambassador in Washington, that Blair agreed to regime change at the Crawford summit. Campbell claimed the agreement came later in a series of private letters to Bush. Philippe Sands QC, an expert on the legality of the war, said: "Mr Campbell sought to persuade Chilcot that there was no early decision [on war]: the Straw letter is plainly inconsistent with Mr Campbell's narrative." In addition, a Cabinet Office briefing paper, previously leaked to The Sunday Times, contradicts Campbell's evidence. The briefing paper states: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." The YouGov poll shows that 49% of people believe Campbell did not tell the truth about the Iraq war at the time and is still not telling the truth, while 31% think he told the truth as he saw it at the time. Other witnesses appearing before the Chilcot inquiry next week include Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, and Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary. Hoon is expected to be asked about his contribution to a war cabinet meeting in July 2002. The minutes of the meeting were leaked to The Sunday Times in May 2005 and have since become widely known as "the Downing Street memo" . It recorded that "military action was now seen as inevitable in Washington" and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" . The memo also refers to Hoon saying that "spikes of activity" had already begun. These were attacks on Iraqi military installations in preparation for the ground invasion. The RAF took part in them. ########## http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6991102.ece SECRET AND PERSONAL PM/02/019 PRIME MINISTER CRAWFORD/IRAQ 1. The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few. The risks are high, both for you and for the Government. I judge that there is at present no majority inside the PLP for any military action against Iraq, (alongside a greater readiness in the PLP to surface their concerns). Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad. Making that case is easy. But we have a long way to go to convince them as to: (a) the scale of the threat from Iraq and why this has got worse recently: (b) what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of eg Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action; (c) the justification for any military action in terms of international law: and (d) whether the consequence of military action really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government. 2. The whole exercise is made much more difficult to handle as long as conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is so acute. THE SCALE OF THE THREAT 3. The Iraqi regime plainly poses a most serious threat to its neighbours, and therefore to international security. However, in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly differently from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action (see below). WHAT IS WORSE NOW? 4. If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnessed on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IRAQ, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA 5. By linking these countries together in this "axis of evil speech' President Bush implied an identity between them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat. A lot of work will now need to be to de-link the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case -- that Iraq poses a unique and present danger -- rests on the facts that it: * invaded a neighbour; * has used WMD and would use them again; * is in breach of nine UNSCRs. THE POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 6. That Iraq is in flagrant breach of international legal obligations imposed on it by the UNSC provides us with the core of a strategy, and one which is based on international law. Indeed, if the argument is to be won, the whole case against Iraq and in favour (if necessary) of military action, needs to be narrated with reference to the international rule of law. 7. We also have better to sequence the explanation of what we are doing and why. Specifically, we need to concentrate in the early stages on: * making operational the sanctions regime foreshadowed by UNSCR 1382; * demanding the readmission of weapons inspectors, but this time to operate in a free and unfettered way (a similar formula to that which Cheney used at your joint press conference, as I recall). 8. I know there are those who say that an attack on Iraq would be justified whether or not weapons inspectors were readmitted. But I believe that a demand for the unfettered readmission of weapons inspectors in essential, in terms of public explanation, and in terms of legal sanction for any subsequent military action. 9. Legally there are two potential elephant traps: (i) regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal. Of course, we may want credibly to assert that regime change is an essential part of the strategy by which we have to achieve our ends -- that of the elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity; but the latter has to be the goal; (ii) on whether any military action would require a fresh UNSC mandate (Desert Fox did not). The US are likely to oppose any idea of a fresh mandate. On the other side, the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh mandate may well be required. There is no doubt that a new UNSCR would transform the climate in the PLP. Whilst that (a new mandate) is very unlikely, given the US's position, a draft resolution against military action with 13 in favour (or handsitting) and two vetoes against could play very badly here. THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY MILITARY ACTION 10. A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient pre-condition for military action. We have also to answer the big question -- what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better. 11. Iraq has had no history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience. (JACK STRAW) Foreign and Commonwealth Office From papadop at peak.org Sat Jan 16 16:51:37 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:51:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] SCoTUS agrees to hear genetic manipulation case Message-ID: http://truefoodnow.org/fety Legal Victory to Highest Court Posted on January 15, 2010 Monsanto Takes Center for Food Safety Legal Victory to Highest Court Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops. The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto?s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture's approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case -- in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto's insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Posted on January 14, 2010 by Heather In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous analysis known as an environmental impact statement (or EIS). USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009. A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop. Therefore, the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops. Read more and tell the USDA you DO care about GE contamination of organics! USDA AGAIN AIMS TO ALLOW UNLIMITED PLANTING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ALFALFA Posted on December 15, 2009 by Heather Center for Food Safety to lead coalition to protect public, farmers and environment from GE crop hazards The Center for Food Safety today announced that it will lead a coalition of concerned farmers, consumers and environmentalists to hold USDA accountable in its responsibility to protect all farmers and consumers. The move comes in response to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) release of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that sets forth its plans to once again allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of genetically-engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA plans to move ahead despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment. From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 16 17:20:35 2010 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:20:35 +1300 Subject: [Mai-not] About Haiti . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great post - thanks for sharing!! Peter > > fwd From: Janette Rainwater > > Dear All: > > I thought I had sworn off sending out political stuff after the last > mailing list collapse, but CNN shots of the elite rescue crews > rescuing the Americans from the Hotel Montana interspersed with > shots of feeding frenzy downtown have prompted me to send you the > following potpourri: > > ############ > 1--- > Posted by: "Simon mcguinness" simonmcguinness at oceanfree.net > simonmcguinness1 > Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:12 am (PST) > MEDIA ADVISORY - 1/14/2010 18:21H > > HAITIAN EARTHQUAKE > 344 CUBAN MEDICS TREAT EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS > > There are 344 Cuban medics working in Haiti today, they have two > improvisedhospitals where they are providing services to the > earthquake victims. Onlytwo of them were injured in the earthquake, > both of whom have received treatment for minor injuries and remain > there to assist the disaster victims. > > Cuban doctors are working in all 10 "departments" (administrative > regions) of Haiti. They are assisted by approximately 400 Haitian > medical interns who have completed medical degrees on full > scholarships in Cuba. > > Cuba has provided free public health care to the poor of Haiti since > 1989 - the only public medicine available in that country. During > the recent coup and subsequent US/French/Canadian invasion which > deposed the Aristide presidency, Cuban doctors continued to provide > medical care when other hospitals closed down and other doctors fled > the country. > > The Cuban government has offered condolences to the people of Haiti > and pledged immediate additional medical assistance if the Haitian > government requires it. > > Cuba's "Henry Reeve Contingent", a volunteer contingent of 1,000 > medics, fully equipped and entirely self sustaining for 30 days, can > land on any airstrip in the world at 72 hours notice. Haiti is 32 > miles from Cuba; members of the Henry Reeve Contingent could be > there within hours of a request. > > Cuban doctors will go where no doctor has gone before, live in > conditions that no doctor has ever lived in before and deliver life > saving medical care to people who have never even seen a doctor > before. And they do all this for free. Each doctor feels > privileged to be able to use their skills to help people who are in > such desperate need of medical care. 35,000 Cuban medics currently > provide healthcare in 78 countries around the world, more than the > World Health Organisation and Medecins sans Frontiers put together. > > Cuban doctors have unique experience of working in earthquake zones > in third world countries without infrastructure. There are Cuban > medics currently working on the frozen slopes of the Himalayas in > Pakistan following their unmatched medical support provided during > the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. > > Many hiked for days over mudslides to reach the isolated communities > of theregion to deliver medical assistance. To this day, Pakistanis > parents in the earthquake region name their children after the Cuban > doctors who helped deliver them. > > For Further information contact: > > Simon McGuinness, > National Coordinator, > Cuba Support Group Ireland, > 15 Merrion Square, Dublin 2. > > 2. From: "Gary Crethers" > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:44 PM > Subject: [R-G] Disaster Capitalism In Action - Haiti > > Aid In Haiti Withheld, Disaster Capitalism In Action.January 15th, > 2010 > > It seems to me that after 4 days and no aid being distributed, it > proves that there are political interests that are keeping the aid > from being distributed. This is not a question of a lack of > infrastructure, it is a matter of a lack of will on the part of the > organizing bodies. The roads are clear enough for the media to get > through but why no aid? > > The specialized crews that help get people out of the crushed > buildings seem to have been sent to luxury hotels where there might > be westerners trapped. They don't seem to be taking any care for the > average people but seem to befocused on the centers of affluence. > > Today former President Aristide has requested that he be allowed to > return. This is so strange that he a citizen of Haiti has to ask > permission from the United States to return to his own country. > Aristide could mobilize the poor people who are the majority to act. > But perhaps that is why they don't want him, they are affraid he > will mobilize people to take control of their own country. The > airport there has been taken over by the US military. He cannot > enter with out American permission. > > Castro, former president of Cuba has noted that Haiti, a nation that > has been subject to American tutelage for so long is a basket case > where as his nation which was also conquered by America but followed > a path that put the people first is in much better condition. > > Today on Democracy Now several people interviewed mentioned that the > situation in Haiti has been exacerbated by the presence of NGOs. On > NPR the experts were spouting the neo colonial line saying that what > Haiti needs is a firm hand with American occupation but we have > occupied Haiti for decades on and off for a century. What Haiti > needs is another model. Castro seems to be offering another way. > Cuban doctors are there and if the Americans allow them, Cubans can > offer the manpower and expertise to create a socialist model. What > they need is the economic support from a major power that does not > insist on making a profit off of other peoples misery. The Soviet > Union doesn't exist any more. Will Obama's America allow a truly > socialist model to develop there? Will Obama allow the Cubans and > Aristide to mobilize the majority of the people to create a new way? > > Hardly, already they are creating the conditions of chaos by > withholding the aid. This will lead to gangs forming and using > violence. This will be the excuse to justify a military take over. > This will lead to a total take over of the nation by western > corporatist forces that will force Haiti to take out loans that they > will never be able to repay. It will lead to revolution, sooner or > later. > > On CNN they are emphasizing the danger from the 4000 persons who > escaped from prison and are showing pictures of guys with machetes > and are reporting about people robbing banks. This is to excuse the > lack of aid, the excuse being that the country is not safe enough to > distribute aid in. It is racist and classist. This is a modified > form of genocide. They are deliberately trying to kill off a > percentage of the population to make it a place where there are > fewer poor to care for and where the survivors will be desperate for > any work at any wage. This is the ultimate of disaster capitalism. > > 3.--- > Why the Blood Is on Our Hands > > By Ted Rall > > January 14, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- As grim accounts of > the earthquake in Haiti came in, the accounts in U.S.-controlled > state media all carried the same descriptive sentence: "Haiti is the > poorest country in the Western hemisphere..." > > Gee, I wonder how that happened? > > You'd think Haiti would be loaded. After all, it made a lot of > people rich. > > How did Haiti get so poor? Despite a century of American > colonialism, occupation, and propping up corrupt dictators? Even > though the CIA staged coups d'etat against every democratically > elected president they ever had? > > It's an important question. An earthquake isn't just an earthquake. > The same 7.0 tremor hitting San Francisco wouldn't kill nearly as > many people as in Port-au-Prince. > > "Looking at the pictures, essentially it looks as if (the buildings > are of) breezeblock or cinderblock construction, and what you need > in an earthquake zone is metal bars that connect the blocks so that > they stay together when they get shaken," notes Sandy Steacey, > director of the Environmental Science Research Institute at the > University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. "In a wealthy country with > good seismic building codes that are enforced, you would have some > damage, but not very much." > > When a pile of cinderblocks falls on you, your odds of survival are > long. Even if you miraculously survive, a poor country like Haiti > doesn't have the equipment, communications infrastructure or > emergency service personnel to pull you out of the rubble in time. > And if your neighbors get you out, there's no ambulance to take you > to the hospital--or doctor to treat you once you get there. > > Earthquakes are random events. How many people they kill is > predetermined. In Haiti this week, don't blame tectonic plates. > Ninety-nine percent of the death toll is attributable to poverty. > > So the question is relevant. How'd Haiti become so poor? > > The story begins in 1910, when a U.S. State Department-National City > Bank of New York (now called Citibank) consortium bought the Banque > National d'Ha?ti--Haiti's only commercial bank and its national > treasury--in effect transferring Haiti's debts to the Americans. > Five years later, President Woodrow Wilson ordered troops to occupy > the country in order to keep tabs on "our" investment. > >> From 1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines imposed harsh military >> occupation, > murdered Haitians patriots and diverted 40 percent of Haiti's gross > domestic product to U.S. bankers. Haitians were banned from > government jobs. Ambitious Haitians were shunted into the puppet > military, setting the stage for a half-century of U.S.-backed > military dictatorship. > > The U.S. kept control of Haiti's finances until 1947. > > Still--why should Haitians complain? Sure, we stole 40 percent of > Haiti's national wealth for 32 years. But we let them keep 60 percent. > > Whiners. > > Despite having been bled dry by American bankers and generals, civil > disorder prevailed until 1957, when the CIA installed President-for- > Life Fran?ois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. Duvalier's brutal Tonton Macoutes > paramilitary goon squads murdered at least 30,000 Haitians and drove > educated people to flee into exile. But think of the cup as half- > full: fewer people in the population means fewer people competing > for the same jobs! > > Upon Papa Doc's death in 1971, the torch passed to his even more > dissolute 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. The > U.S., cool to Papa Doc in his later years, quickly warmed back up to > his kleptomaniacal playboy heir. As the U.S. poured in arms and > trained his army as a supposed anti-communist bulwark against > Castro's Cuba, Baby Doc stole an estimated $300 to $800 million from > the national treasury, according to Transparency International. The > money was placed in personal accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere. > > Under U.S. influence, Baby Doc virtually eliminated import tariffs > for U.S. goods. Soon Haiti was awash predatory agricultural imports > dumped by American firms. Domestic rice farmers went bankrupt. A > nation that had been agriculturally self-sustaining collapsed. Farms > were abandoned. Hundreds of thousands of farmers migrated to the > teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. > > The Duvalier era, 29 years in all, came to an end in 1986 when > President Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. forces to whisk Baby Doc to > exile in France, saving him from a popular uprising. > > Once again, Haitians should thank Americans. Duvalierism was "tough > love." Forcing Haitians to make do without their national treasury > was our nice way or encouraging them to work harder, to lift > themselves up by their bootstraps. Or, in this case, flipflops. > Anyway. > > The U.S. has been all about tough love ever since. We twice deposed > the populist and popular democratically-elected president Jean- > Bertrand Aristide. The second time, in 2004, we even gave him a free > flight to the Central African Republic! (He says the CIA kidnapped > him, but whatever.) Hey, he needed a rest. And it was kind of us to > support a new government formed by former Tonton Macoutes. > > Yet, despite everything we've done for Haiti, they're still a fourth- > world failed state on a fault line. > > And still, we haven't given up. American companies like Disney > generously pay wages to their sweatshop workers of 28 cents an hour. > > What more do these ingrates want? > > Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is > Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic > novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. http://www.rall.com/rants.html > > 4.--- > Analysis: Ashley Smith http://socialistworker.org/2010/01/14/catastrophe-haiti > > > Catastrophe in Haiti > Ashley Smith describes the natural and not-so-natural factors that > contributed to the devastation when Haiti was struck by a strong > earthquake. > > January 14, 2010 > > A DEVASTATING earthquake, the worst in 200 years, struck Port-au- > Prince on Tuesday, laying waste to the city and killing untold > numbers of people. The quake measured 7.0 on the Richter scale, and > detonated more than 30 aftershocks, all more than 4.5 in magnitude, > through the night and into Wednesday morning. > > The earthquake toppled poorly constructed houses, hotels, hospitals > and even the capital city's main political buildings, including the > presidential palace. The collapse of so many structures sent a giant > cloud into the sky, which hovered over the city, raining dust down > onto the wasteland below. > > According to some estimates, more than 100,000 people may have died, > in a metropolis of 2 million people. Those that survived are living > in the streets, afraid to return inside any building that remains > standing. > > Around the world, Haitians struggled to contact their family and > friends in the devastated country. But most could not reach their > loved ones since phone lines were down throughout the country. > > One person who did reach relatives, Garry Pierre-Pierre, editor and > publisher of the Brooklyn-based Haitian Times, stated, "People are > in shock. They're afraid to go out in the streets for obvious > reasons, and most of them can't get inside their homes. A lot of > people are sitting or sleeping in front of the rubble that used to > be their homes." > > President Ren? Pr?val issued an emergency appeal for humanitarian > aid. He described the scene in Port-au-Prince as "unimaginable. > Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have > collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed. There are a lot of schools that > have a lot of dead people in them. All the hospitals are packed with > people. It's a catastrophe." > > The weak government was unable to respond to the crisis, and the > United Nations--which occupies Haiti with close to 9,000 troops--was > completely unprepared to manage the situation. Many UN leaders and > troops died in buildings that collapsed, including their own > headquarters. > > International Red Cross spokesman Paul Conneally said that 3 million > out of Haiti's 9 million people would need international emergency > aid in the coming weeks just to survive. The UN, U.S., European > Union, Canada and countless non-governmental organizations (NGOs) > have promised humanitarian aid. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > WHILE MOST people reacted to the crisis by trying to find a way to > help or donate money, Christian Right fanatic Pat Robertson stooped > to new depths of racism. He explained that Haitians were cursed > because they made a pact with the devil to liberate themselves from > their French slave masters in the Haitian revolution two centuries > ago. > > The corporate media at least reported that shifting tectonic plates > along a fault line underneath Port-au-Prince caused the earthquake-- > and that Haiti's poverty and the incapacity of the Preval government > made the disaster so much worse. But they didn't delve below the > surface. > > "The media coverage of the earthquake is marked by an almost > complete divorce of the disaster from the social and political > history of Haiti," Canadian Haiti solidarity activist Yves Engler > said in an interview. "They repeatedly state that the government was > completely unprepared to deal with the crisis. This is true. But > they left out why." > > Why were 60 percent of the buildings in Port-au-Prince shoddily > constructed and unsafe in normal circumstances, according to the > city's mayor? Why are there no building regulations in a city that > sits on a fault line? Why has Port-au-Prince swelled from a small > town of 50,000 in the 1950s to a population of 2 million desperately > poor people today? Why was the state completely overwhelmed by the > disaster? > > To understand these facts, we have to look at a second fault line-- > U.S. imperial policy toward Haiti. The U.S. government, the UN, and > other powers have aided the Haitian elite in subjecting the country > to neoliberal economic plans that have impoverished the masses, > deforested the land, wrecked the infrastructure and incapacitated > the government. > > The fault line of U.S. imperialism interacted with the geological > one to turn the natural disaster into a social catastrophe. > > During the Cold War, the U.S. supported the dictatorships of Papa > Doc Duvalier and then Baby Doc Duvalier--which ruled the country > from 1957 to 1986--as an anti-communist counterweight to Castro's > Cuba nearby. > > Under guidance from Washington, Baby Doc Duvalier opened the Haitian > economy up to U.S. capital in the 1970s and 1980s. Floods of U.S. > agricultural imports destroyed peasant agriculture. As a result, > hundred of thousands of people flocked to the teeming slums of Port- > au-Prince to labor for pitifully low wages in sweatshops located in > U.S. export processing zones. > > In the 1980s, masses of Haitians rose up to drive the Duvaliers from > power--later, they elected reformer Jean-Bertrand Aristide to be > president on a platform of land reform, aid to peasants, > reforestation, investment in infrastructure for the people, and > increased wages and union rights for sweatshop workers. > > The U.S. in turn backed a coup that drove Aristide from power in > 1991. Eventually, the elected president was restored to power in > 1994 when Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops to the island--but on the > condition that he implement the U.S. neoliberal plan--which Haitians > called the "plan of death." > > Aristide resisted parts of the U.S. program for Haiti, but > implemented other provisions, undermining his hoped-for reforms. > Eventually, though, the U.S. grew impatient with Aristide's failure > to obey completely, especially when he demanded $21 billion in > reparations during his final year in office. The U.S. imposed an > economic embargo that strangled the country, driving peasants and > workers even deeper into poverty. > > In 2004, Washington collaborated with Haiti's ruling elite to back > death squads that toppled the government, kidnapped and deported > Aristide. The United Nations sent troops to occupy the country, and > the puppet government of G?rard Latortue was installed to continue > Washington's neoliberal plans. > > Latortue's brief regime was utterly corrupt--he and his cronies > pocketed large portions of the $4 billion poured into the country by > the U.S. and other powers when they ended their embargo. The regime > dismantled the mild reforms Aristide had managed to implement. Thus, > the pattern of impoverishment and degradation of the country's > infrastructure accelerated. > > In 2006 elections, the Haitian masses voted in longtime Aristide > ally Ren? Preval as president. But Preval has been a weak figure who > collaborated with U.S. plans for the country and failed to address > the growing social crisis. > > In fact, the U.S., UN and other imperial powers effectively bypassed > the Preval government and instead poured money into NGOs. "Haiti now > has the highest per capita presence of NGOs in the world," says Yves > Engler. The Preval government has become a political fig leaf, > behind which the real decisions are made by the imperial powers, and > implemented through their chosen international NGOs. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > THE REAL state power isn't the government, but the U.S.-backed > United Nations occupation. Under Brazilian leadership, UN forces > have protected the rich and collaborated with--or turned a blind eye > to--right-wing death squads who terrorize supporters of Aristide and > his Lavalas Party. > > The occupiers have done nothing to address the poverty, wrecked > infrastructure and massive deforestation that have exacerbated the > effects of a series of natural disasters--severe hurricanes in 2004 > and 2008, and now the Port-au-Prince earthquake. > > Instead, they merely police a social catastrophe, and in so doing, > have committed the normal crimes characteristic of all police > forces. As Dan Beeton wrote in NACLA Report on the Americas, "The UN > Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which began its mission > in June 2004, has been marred by scandals of killings, rape and > other violence by its troops almost since it began." > > First the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have > used the coup and social and natural crises to expand the U.S.'s > neoliberal economic plans. > > Under Obama, the U.S. has granted Haiti $1.2 billion in debt relief, > but it hasn't canceled all of Haiti's debt--the country still pays > huge sums to the Inter-American Development Bank. The debt relief is > classic window-dressing for Obama's real Haiti policy, which is the > same old Haiti policy. > > In close collaboration with the new UN Special Envoy to Haiti, > former President Bill Clinton, Obama has pushed for an economic > program familiar to much of the rest of the Caribbean--tourism, > textile sweatshops and weakening of state control of the economy > through privatization and deregulation. > > In particular, Clinton has orchestrated a plan for turning the north > of Haiti into a tourist playground, as far away as possible from the > teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. Clinton lured Royal Caribbean > Cruise Lines into investing $55 million to build a pier along the > coastline of Labadee, which it has leased until 2050. > > From there, Haiti's tourist industry hopes to lead expeditions to > the mountaintop fortress Citadelle and the Palace of Sans Souci, > both built by Henri Christophe, one of the leaders of Haiti's slave > revolution. According to the Miami Herald: > > The $40 million plan involved transforming the now quaint town of > Milot, home to the Citadelle and Palace of Sans Souci ruin, into a > vibrant tourist village, with arts and crafts markets, restaurants > and stoned streets. Guests would be ferried past a congested Cap- > Haitien to a bay, then transported by bus past peasant plantations. > Once in Milot, they would either hike or horseback to the > Citadelle...named a world heritage site in 1982... > > Eco-tourism, archaeological exploration and voyeuristic visits to > Vodou rituals are all being touted by Haiti's struggling boutique > tourism industry, as Royal Caribbean plans to bring the world > largest cruise ship here, sparking the need for excursions. > > So while Pat Robertson denounces Haiti's great slave revolution as a > pact with the devil, Clinton is helping to reduce it to a tourist > trap. > > At the same time, Clinton's plans for Haiti include an expansion of > the sweatshop industry to take advantage of cheap labor available > from the urban masses. The U.S. granted duty-free treatment for > Haitian apparel exports to make it easy for sweatshops to return to > Haiti. > > Clinton celebrated the possibilities of sweatshop development during > a whirlwind tour of a textile plant owned and operated by the > infamous Cintas Corp. He announced that George Soros had offered $50 > million for a new industrial park of sweatshops that could create > 25,000 jobs in the garment industry. Clinton explained at a press > conference that Haiti's government could create "more jobs by > lowering the cost of doing business, including the cost of rent." > > As TransAfrica founder Randall Robinson told Democracy Now! "That > isn't the kind of investment that Haiti needs. It needs capital > investment. It needs investment so that it can be self-sufficient. > It needs investment so that it can feed itself." > > One of the reasons why Clinton could be so unabashed in celebrating > sweatshops is that the U.S.-backed coup repressed any and all > resistance. It got rid of Aristide and his troublesome habit of > raising the minimum wage. It banished him from the country, > terrorized his remaining allies and barred his political party, > Fanmi Lavalas, the most popular in the country, from running for > office. The coup regime also attacked union organizers within the > sweatshops themselves. > > As a result, Clinton could state to business leaders: "Your > political risk in Haiti is lower than it has ever been in my > lifetime." > > Thus, as previous U.S. presidencies have done before, the Obama > administration has worked to aid Haiti's elite, sponsor > international corporations taking advantage of cheap labor, weaken > the ability of the Haitian state to regulate the society, and > repress any political resistance to that agenda. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > THESE POLICIES led directly to the incapacitated Haitian state, > dilapidated infrastructure, poorly constructed buildings and > desperate poverty that combined with the hurricanes and now the > earthquake to turn natural disasters into social catastrophes. > > While everyone should support the current outpouring of aid to help > Haiti, no one should do so with political blinders on. As Engler said: > > Aid in Haiti has always been used to further imperial interests. > This is obvious when you look at how the U.S. and Canada treated the > Aristide government in contrast to the coup regime. The U.S. and > Canada starved Aristide of almost all aid. But then after the coup, > they opened a floodgate of money to back some of the most > reactionary forces in Haitian society. > > We should therefore agitate against any attempt by the U.S. and > other powers to use this crisis to further impose their program on a > prostrate country. > > We should also be wary of the role of international NGOs. While many > NGOs are trying to address the crisis, the U.S. and other > governments are funneling aid to them in order to undermine > Haitians' democratic right to self-determination. The international > NGOs are unaccountable to either the Haitian state or Haitian > population. So the aid funneled through them further weakens what > little hold Haitians have on their own society. > > The Obama administration should also immediately lift the ban > against Aristide's return to Haiti, as well as the political ban on > his party, Fanmi Lavalas, from participating in the electoral > process. After all, a known drug criminal and coup leader, Guy > Philippe, and his party Front for National Reconstruction (FRN) has > been allowed to participate in the electoral process. Aristide and > his party, by contrast, are still the most popular political force > in the country and should have the right to participate in an open > and fair vote. > > The U.S. should also stop deportations of Haitians who have fled > their crisis-torn country and grant Temporary Protected Status to > Haitian refugees. That would allow any Haitians who have fled the > political and social crisis since the coup, the hurricanes and now > the earthquake to remain legally in the U.S. > > On top of that, we must demand that the U.S. stop imposing its > neoliberal plans. The U.S. has plundered Haitian society for > decades. Instead of Haiti owing any debt to the U.S., other > countries or international financial institutions, the reverse is > the case. The U.S., France, Canada and the UN owe the people of > Haiti reparations to redress the imperial plunder of the country. > > With these funds and political space, Haitians would be finally able > to begin shaping their own political and economic future--the dream > of the great slave revolution 200 years ago. > > _______________________________________________ > Mai-not mailing list > Mai-not at globalproblematique.net > http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sat Jan 16 22:15:51 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:15:51 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: Haiti Disaster - Bush & Clinton Message-ID: <012d01ca973f$983dc800$33ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "Now, the Clinton and Bush duo is pleading with Americans to donate to Haiti relief by way of them. What percentage of donated money and goods will ever reach those in need if Bush and his circle of thieves are involved? Remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember the people on rooftops, waving for rescue, day after day on the television news? Remember when day after day no one came to their aid? Remember Katrina. Remember who sent Blackwater assassins to New Orleans during Katrina relief? Remember the toxic FEMA trailer houses for the poor? Remember the good ole boys that said shooting blacks after Katrina was like "pheasant hunting in South Dakota" (as documented in film)? This is George Bush's legacy during Katrina relief. (snip) Why bring back Bush? For anyone who doubted who Obama is, and what he is up to, the choice of Bush should make it clear." "In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, the U.S. response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti earthquake offers opportunities to re-shape Haiti's long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region." http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/13/things-to-remember-while-helping-haiti/ Haiti Disaster Stop Them Before They Shock Again http://www.naomiklein.org/main http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/15/bush_was_responsible_for_destroying_haitian HAITI SOCIETY & HISTORY http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-contextualising-of-haitis-society.html also http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-selects-george-bush-for-haiti.html Obama's selection of Bush for Haiti relief, ties with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize as the most horrendous error. Profiteering from misery is what Bush does best. 'Face of the Empire' By Brenda Norrell Narcosphere President Obama selected war criminal and corporate thief George W. Bush to head up US relief efforts to Haiti, along with Bill Clinton. No, this is not a joke or satire. It is not a Saturday Night Live spoof. It is a fact. Now, the Clinton and Bush duo is pleading with Americans to donate to Haiti relief by way of them. What percentage of donated money and goods will ever reach those in need if Bush and his circle of thieves are involved? Remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember the people on rooftops, waving for rescue, day after day on the television news? Remember when day after day no one came to their aid? Remember Katrina. Remember who sent Blackwater assassins to New Orleans during Katrina relief? Remember the toxic FEMA trailer houses for the poor? Remember the good ole boys that said shooting blacks after Katrina was like "pheasant hunting in South Dakota" (as documented in film)? This is George Bush's legacy during Katrina relief. Remember the Bush/Cheney years, with torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions, with kidnappings and secret prisons and the corporate warmongering and genocide that caused the US to become one of the most hated nations in the world? Why bring back Bush? For anyone who doubted who Obama is, and what he is up to, the choice of Bush should make it clear. New York Times article on the selection of Bush for Haiti relief: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/14/us/politics/politics-us-quake-haiti-obama.html ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Sat Jan 16 23:59:22 2010 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:59:22 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] Haiti Earthquake References: <1152280980-1463747838-1263697489@boing.topica.com> Message-ID: <89FEF28A-F895-400B-881B-E6D0AEF101E0@powerup.com.au> Extract by Doug Everingham from forwarded message: ==== From: Frank Legge Date: 17 January 2010 1:04:44 PM To: humanist at topica.com Subject: Re: [CAHS] Religion and the Haiti Earthquake Reply-To: humanist at topica.com Overpopulation is certainly a factor, however it should never be forgotten that while Haiti pays off its unjustified debt the IMF requires that no agricultural subsidy be given to the farmers. This puts them at a disadvantage against the US farmers who are subsidized. As a result grain is imported, local farmers cannot survive, move to the city, and are exploited. Just one more example of the evil influence of the US around the world, while it preaches that it is beneficial. See: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/ 20080503-134390/US-IMF-role-in-Haitis-food-riots Frank Margit Alm wrote: > Whether god,the devil, Lucifer or the angels were responsible for > it, overpopulation is the problem. Wikipedia tells me that there > are 27750 sq.km shared by 8.5m people, that is in excess of 300 per > sq.km. 2/3 of the population practises subsistence farming. The > people never got their act together and were then brutally > exploited by those who were supposed to help them. > That of course does not mean that overpopulation caused the > earthquake, which is a natural catastrophe, and a magnitude of 7 on > the Richter scale is not even excessively high. But if you had > fewer people living in better accommodation the death toll may have > been less. > They say that Haiti needs to be totally rebuilt, in a totally > different way from today. I just hope that the rebuilding process > will also include massive amounts of education including family > planning. > Margit > > ... > Discussion list of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dni4.b4fUC8.ZG5ldnJn Or send an email to: humanist-unsubscribe at topica.com For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Jan 17 05:53:11 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:53:11 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Haiti Earthquake In-Reply-To: <89FEF28A-F895-400B-881B-E6D0AEF101E0@powerup.com.au> References: <1152280980-1463747838-1263697489@boing.topica.com> <89FEF28A-F895-400B-881B-E6D0AEF101E0@powerup.com.au> Message-ID: <20100117135312.3A01EF649@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Jan 17 08:01:11 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:01:11 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Haiti Earthquake In-Reply-To: <20100117135312.3A01EF649@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <1152280980-1463747838-1263697489@boing.topica.com> <89FEF28A-F895-400B-881B-E6D0AEF101E0@powerup.com.au> <20100117135312.3A01EF649@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <20100117160128.963FF24A3437@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Overpopulation is a great problem alright. All of these overpopulated countries, the whole of Europe, are parasite economies, surviving on food imports. As we've found out after the war, when we were starving for years. If it hadn't been for the large food donations from the USA, millions might have starved to death. Now, with a population increase of 50% in Europe, since those days, the situation is even worse. 100% in North America and 3 to 400 % globally. The subsistence farmers may have rough lives, but at least they can feed their families somehow. Now, with millions thrown off their lands by "cheap imports", a gimmick by the corporate mafia to enslave the world, the situation is even worse. If a million or two of Haitians had been permitted, and empowered, to stay on their lands, the death toll and the problems of the aftermath would be fractional of what it is now. The same all over the world, with no end in sight, as the Priesthood of the Money God, the so called "economists" are misadvising governments and the public. We haven't trusted any ideology since the war and had an idea that this would happen, which was one of the main reasons for our decision to leave Vancouver, after 24 years. It was an excellent decision that made us self sufficient to a large degree, giving us the chance to live very well on a very small income, while others in the cities are surviving on dogfood. Now,. when we see the pictures of the disgusting mess that overpopulated worldclass dump has become, we're just about ready to throw up. Sold in some magazines as one of the "most livable cities on Earth". I can't see how and why birth control would in any way infringe on women's rights and consider it about the only good thing that comes from slave labour China. There was a time when the Indian government was paying men to get vasectomy, with a loud hue and cry against it as the "emasculation of men". Like hell !!!!! I had it done after our 3rd, it cost me $35. at the time and the best 35 bucks I've ever spent. The only regret we had was that I didn't do it after, or even before the first one. Cheers, Ed. At 05:53 AM 17/01/2010, you wrote: >Malthusians obsess over population numbers, but the Haitian people >are not what's wrong in Haiti. Haiti has 350-odd people per square >kilometre. Less than Holland (400), South Korea (486), Mauritius >(631). Taiwan (639), Malta (1308), Singapore (7023), Macau >(18534). New Jersey and Rhode Island have a greater population >density than Haiti, and Massachusetts comes close. > >Social progress (if it is allowed) and especially the empowerment of >women will be what causes the population both locally and globally >to level off and start to fall to what all but the most zealous >Malthusians would regard as sustainable. > >Education about contraception will scarcely scratch the population >surface while subjugation of women in all but the most civilised >countries works demographically the other way. Indira Gandhi tried a >direct attack on population through victimisation of women but as >India is a civilised country the electors were able to put a stop to >it and did so. China, being a giant slave-labour prison where >there's no such thing as electors, is systematically violating the >reproductive rights of women (and it is violation whether or not it >is the right to reproduce or the right not to that is being >denied). Are these violations what the Malthusian community have in >mind if and when education about contraception doesn't have much of >an effect, or are even more drastic measures to cull the population >lurking in the background? The constant refrain that there are too >many (other) people diverts from the struggle for social progress >and human rights for all, of either gender. Social progress will >lead to lower population pressure when social progress is treated as >an objective in its own right. > >Poverty brought about by colonialists and neocolonialists is the >problem in Haiti (e.g. see Janet's post, Ed's, Jeanette Rainwater's >via Michael). > >Dion Giles > > > > > >At 15:59 17/01/2010, you wrote: >>Extract by Doug Everingham from forwarded message: >>==== >>From: Frank Legge <flegge at iinet.net.au> >>Date: 17 January 2010 1:04:44 PM >>To: humanist at topica.com >>Subject: Re: [CAHS] Religion and the Haiti Earthquake >>Reply-To: humanist at topica.com >> >>Overpopulation is certainly a factor, however it should never be >>forgotten that while Haiti pays off its unjustified debt the IMF >>requires that no agricultural subsidy be given to the farmers. This >>puts them at a disadvantage against the US farmers who are >>subsidized. As a result grain is imported, local farmers cannot >>survive, move to the city, and are exploited. Just one more example >>of the evil influence of the US around the world, while it preaches >>that it is beneficial. See: >>http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html >>http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080503-134390/US-IMF-role-in-Haitis-food-riots >> >>Frank >> >>Margit Alm wrote: >>>Whether god,the devil, Lucifer or the angels were responsible for >>>it, overpopulation is the problem. Wikipedia tells me that there >>>are 27750 sq.km shared by 8.5m people, that is in excess of 300 >>>per sq.km. 2/3 of the population practises subsistence >>>farming. The people never got their act together and were then >>>brutally exploited by those who were supposed to help them. >>>That of course does not mean that overpopulation caused the >>>earthquake, which is a natural catastrophe, and a magnitude of 7 >>>on the Richter scale is not even excessively high. But if you >>>had fewer people living in better accommodation the death toll may >>>have been less. >>>They say that Haiti needs to be totally rebuilt, in a totally >>>different way from today. I just hope that the rebuilding >>>process will also include massive amounts of education including >>>family planning. >>>Margit >>> >>> ... >> >>>Discussion list of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies >> >> >>--^---------------------------------------------------------------- >>This email was sent to: >>dnevrghm at powerup.com.au >> >>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: >> >>http://topica.com/u/?b1dni4.b4fUC8.ZG5ldnJn >>Or send an email to: >> >>humanist-unsubscribe at topica.com >> >>For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: >> >>http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER >>--^---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>signature database 4778 (20100116) __________ >> >>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >>http://www.eset.com >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >> >>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>signature database 4778 (20100116) __________ >> >>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >>http://www.eset.com >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.725 / Virus Database: 270.14.146/2627 - Release Date: >01/16/10 11:35:00 From papadop at peak.org Sun Jan 17 11:32:42 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:32:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] US removal of "illegal" Haitians put on hold after earthquake Message-ID: Who made them "illegal" in the first place ? M. ############### http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/01/us-removal-of-illegal-haitians-put-on.php Saturday, January 16, 2010 Haitian nationals already present in the US on January 12 have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and will be allowed to continue living and working in the US for the next 18 months regardless of their immigration status, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Friday. Speaking days after a devastating earthquake hit the Caribbean nation Tuesday, Napolitano said that "[p]roviding a temporary refuge for Haitian nationals who are currently in the United States and whose personal safety would be endangered by returning to Haiti is part of this Administration's continuing efforts to support Haiti's recovery." Groups such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the NAACP had called on the administration to grant Haitians TPS and halt any deportation or removal proceedings against some of them. The conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform criticized the TPS as likely to "touch off a mass exodus" of Haitians and chastised the administration for having "no interdiction plan in place [nor any] off-shore holding facility to detain and repatriate large numbers of people heading for the U.S." TPS may be granted to foreign nationals when conditions in their country of origin temporarily prevent them from returning safely, such as during a civil war or natural disaster. On January 12, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake caused at least 50,000 deaths and massive damage to property and infrastructure in Haiti. The most devastated city is the capital, Port-au-Prince, where the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti has said that up to 50% of buildings have been destroyed or damaged, including the country's presidential palace, the UN Mission headquarters, and the country's main prison . From papadop at peak.org Sun Jan 17 11:44:43 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] The Right Testicle of Hell: History of a Haitian Holocaust Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:12:00 -0500 From: Greg Palast The Right Testicle of Hell: History of a Haitian Holocaust; Blackwater before drinking water Greg Palast for The Huffington Post Sunday 17 January 2010 1. Bless the President for having rescue teams in the air almost immediately. That was President Olafur Grimsson of Iceland. On Wednesday, the AP reported that the President of the United States promised, "The initial contingent of 2,000 Marines could be deployed to the quake-ravaged country within the next few days." "In a few days," Mr. Obama? 2. There's no such thing as a 'natural' disaster. 200,000 Haitians have been slaughtered by slum housing and IMF "austerity" plans. 3. A friend of mine called. Do I know a journalist who could get medicine to her father? And she added, trying to hold her voice together, "My sister, she's under the rubble. Is anyone going who can help, anyone?" Should I tell her, "Obama will have Marines there in 'a few days'"? 4. China deployed rescuers with sniffer dogs within 48 hours. China, Mr. President. China: 8,000 miles distant. Miami: 700 miles close. US bases in Puerto Rico: right there. 5. Obama's Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "I don't know how this government could have responded faster or more comprehensively than it has." We know Gates doesn't know. 6. From my own work in the field, I know that FEMA has access to ready-to-go potable water, generators, mobile medical equipment and more for hurricane relief on the Gulf Coast. It's all still there. Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honor?, who served as the task force commander for emergency response after Hurricane Katrina, told the Christian Science Monitor, "I thought we had learned that from Katrina, take food and water and start evacuating people." Maybe we learned but, apparently, Gates and the Defense Department missed school that day. 7. Send in the Marines. That's America's response. That's what we're good at. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson finally showed up after three days. With what? It was dramatically deployed without any emergency relief supplies. It has sidewinder missiles and 19 helicopters. 8. But don't worry, the International Search and Rescue Team, fully equipped and self-sufficient for up to seven days in the field, deployed immediately with ten metric tons of tools and equipment, three tons of water, tents, advanced communication equipment and water purifying capability. They're from Iceland. 9. Gates wouldn't send in food and water because, he said, there was no "structure ... to provide security." For Gates, appointed by Bush and allowed to hang around by Obama, it's security first. That was his lesson from Hurricane Katrina. Blackwater before drinking water. 10. Previous US presidents have acted far more swiftly in getting troops on the ground on that island. Haiti is the right half of the island of Hispaniola. It's treated like the right testicle of Hell. The Dominican Republic the left. In 1965, when Dominicans demanded the return of Juan Bosch, their elected President, deposed by a junta, Lyndon Johnson reacted to this crisis rapidly, landing 45,000 US Marines on the beaches to prevent the return of the elected president. 11. How did Haiti end up so economically weakened, with infrastructure, from hospitals to water systems, busted or non-existent - there are two fire stations in the entire nation - and infrastructure so frail that the nation was simply waiting for "nature" to finish it off? Don't blame Mother Nature for all this death and destruction. That dishonor goes to Papa Doc and Baby Doc, the Duvalier dictatorship, which looted the nation for 28 years. Papa and his Baby put an estimated 80% of world aid into their own pockets - with the complicity of the US government happy to have the Duvaliers and their voodoo militia, Tonton Macoutes, as allies in the Cold War. (The war was easily won: the Duvaliers' death squads murdered as many as 60,000 opponents of the regime.) 12. What Papa and Baby didn't run off with, the IMF finished off through its "austerity" plans. An austerity plan is a form of voodoo orchestrated by economists zomby-fied by an irrational belief that cutting government services will somehow help a nation prosper. 13. In 1991, five years after the murderous Baby fled, Haitians elected a priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resisted the IMF's austerity diktats. Within months, the military, to the applause of Papa George HW Bush, deposed him. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. The farce was George W. Bush. In 2004, after the priest Aristide was re-elected President, he was kidnapped and removed again, to the applause of Baby Bush. 14. Haiti was once a wealthy nation, the wealthiest in the hemisphere, worth more, wrote Voltaire in the 18th century, than that rocky, cold colony known as New England. Haiti's wealth was in black gold: slaves. But then the slaves rebelled - and have been paying for it ever since. From 1825 to 1947, France forced Haiti to pay an annual fee to reimburse the profits lost by French slaveholders caused by their slaves' successful uprising. Rather than enslave individual Haitians, France thought it more efficient to simply enslave the entire nation. 15. Secretary Gates tells us, "There are just some certain facts of life that affect how quickly you can do some of these things." The Navy's hospital boat will be there in, oh, a week or so. Heckuva job, Brownie! 16. Note just received from my friend. Her sister was found, dead; and her other sister had to bury her. Her father needs his anti-seizure medicines. That's a fact of life too, Mr. President. *** Through our journalism network, we are trying to get my friend's medicines to her father. If any reader does have someone getting into or near Port-au-Prince, please contact Haiti at GregPalast.com immediately. Urgently recommended reading - The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, the history of the successful slave uprising in Hispaniola by the brilliant CLR James. From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Sun Jan 17 17:16:48 2010 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:16:48 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] Haiti Earthquake References: <1808027072-1463792126-1263706419@boing.topica.com> Message-ID: EXTRACT RELAYED BY Doug Everingham ==== Begin forwarded message: > From: Gideon Polya > Date: 17 January 2010 3:33:37 PM > To: humanist at topica.com > Subject: RE: [CAHS] Religion and the Haiti Earthquake > Reply-To: humanist at topica.com > Well said, Frank. > > > Of course Haiti has been subject to repeated military invasions and > occupations by the US as is made clear in the following succinct > summary from my book ?Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since > 1950? (see: http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/ > body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html ). > > ?Haiti: Pre-colonial Arawak people; 1492, Spanish discovery by > Columbus followed by brutal invasion and decimation of indigenous > people; 1697, French acquisition of Haiti Western half from Spain; > 18th century, huge African slave importation for coffee and sugar > plantations; 1789, French revolution led to African revolt; 1793, > British invasion; 1795, Spain ceded Eastern half to France; 1801, > Toussaint L?Ouverture conquered the whole island; 1804, French > defeated and a black African republic proclaimed; 19th - 20th > century, increasing US interference and repeated invasion and > occupation; 1915-1934, US invasion and occupation; subsequent US- > compliant, surrogate oligarchic administrations; 1960s-1980s, ?Papa > Doc? Duvalier and thence ?Baby Doc? Duvalier dictatorships with > Tonton Macoute state terror; 1986, uprising, ?Baby Doc? evacuated > by US military, followed by successive coups; 1991, restoration of > democracy, Aristide elected; 2004, military revolt, Aristide > ?kidnapped? and removed to Africa by US, US invasion and US-French > military presence with Canadians and Chileans; 2004, UN peace > keeping force led by Brazil began replacing US and other forces. > > Foreign occupation: Spain, France, US (pre-1950); US (post-1950); > post-1950 foreign military presence: US, France; post-1950 excess > mortality/2005 population = 4.098m/8.549m = 47.9%; post-1950 > under-5 infant mortality/2005 population = 2.142m/8.549m = 25.1%. ? > > > > Nobel Peace Prize winner President Teddy Roosevelt invaded nearby > Cuba and the Philippines; Nobel Peace Prize winner Woodrow Wilson > invaded Haiti; and now Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has re- > invaded Haiti, sending 10,000 soldiers (= 10,000 persons x 100 kg > per person = 1,000,000 kg or the equivalent by weight of 1,000,000 > litres of sorely needed WATER). > > > > In the tropics you need to drink about 2 litres of water daily. > > > > The Haitians urgently need WATER as well as food, medicine, > shelter) ? not gun-toting American Empire killers of civilians > (civilian avoidable deaths in post-1950 US Asian wars ALONE total > 23 million). . > > > > Gideon Polya, Melbourne > > > > From: Frank Legge [mailto:flegge at iinet.net.au] > Sent: Sunday, 17 January 2010 2:05 PM > To: humanist at topica.com > Subject: Re: [CAHS] Religion and the Haiti Earthquake > > > > Overpopulation is certainly a factor, however it should never be > forgotten that while Haiti pays off its unjustified debt the IMF > requires that no agricultural subsidy be given to the farmers. This > puts them at a disadvantage against the US farmers who are > subsidized. As a result grain is imported, local farmers cannot > survive, move to the city, and are exploited. Just one more example > of the evil influence of the US around the world, while it preaches > that it is beneficial. See: > http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html > http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/ > 20080503-134390/US-IMF-role-in-Haitis-food-riots > Frank > > Margit Alm wrote: > > Whether god,the devil, Lucifer or the angels were responsible for > it, overpopulation is the problem. Wikipedia tells me that there > are 27750 sq.km shared by 8.5m people, that is in excess of 300 per > sq.km. 2/3 of the population practises subsistence farming. The > people never got their act together and were then brutally > exploited by those who were supposed to help them. > > That of course does not mean that overpopulation caused the > earthquake, which is a natural catastrophe, and a magnitude of 7 on > the Richter scale is not even excessively high. But if you had > fewer people living in better accommodation the death toll may have > been less. > > They say that Haiti needs to be totally rebuilt, in a totally > different way from today. I just hope that the rebuilding process > will also include massive amounts of education including family > planning. > > Margit > > ... ... > > > Discussion list of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies > > --^^--------------------------------------------------------------- > This email was sent to: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au > > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/? > b1dni4.b4fUC8.ZG5ldnJn > Or send an email to: humanist-unsubscribe at topica.com > > For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: > http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER > --^^--------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Sun Jan 17 19:42:53 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:42:53 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Haiti Earthquake In-Reply-To: <20100117160128.963FF24A3437@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <1152280980-1463747838-1263697489@boing.topica.com> <89FEF28A-F895-400B-881B-E6D0AEF101E0@powerup.com.au> <20100117135312.3A01EF649@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <20100117160128.963FF24A3437@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20100118034254.82E0BF4B3@fep06.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sun Jan 17 19:54:25 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:54:25 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: Yemen: Terrorist Haven, or Chess Piece? Message-ID: <032d01ca97f2$c9775040$66ad57ca@jfos> > Dispatches From The Edge > > Yemen: Terrorist Haven, or Chess Piece? > By Conn Hallinan > > "The instability in Yemen is a threat to > regional stability and even global stability" > > U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. > > "Yemen is a regional and global threat" > > British Prime Minister Gordon Brown > > "Yemen could be the ground of America's > next overseas war if Washington does not > take preemptive action to root out al-Qaeda there" > > U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) > > A few facts: > > Yemen - a country slightly smaller than France with a > population of 22 million - perches on the southern tip of > the Arabian Peninsula. It is the poorest country in the > region, with one of the most explosive birthrates in > the world. Unemployment hovers above 40 percent and > projections are that its oil - which makes up 70 percent > of its GDP - will run out in 2017, as will water for the > capital, Sana, in 2015. > > It is a bit of a patchwork nation. It was formerly two > countries-North Yemen and the Democratic People's > Republic of Yemen (south), which merged in 1990 and > fought a nasty civil war in 1994. > > The current government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh > is corrupt, despotic, and presently fighting a two- > front war against northern Shiites, called "Houthis," > and separatist-minded southerners. Based in the north, > Saleh's government has limited influence outside of the > capital. Whoever runs the place, according to The > Independent's Middle East reporter Patrick Cockburn, > has to contend with "tribal confederations, tribes, > clans, and powerful families. Almost everybody has a > gun, usually at least an AK-47 assault rifle, but > tribesmen often own heavier armament." > > To make things even more complex, Yemen's northern > neighbor, Saudi Arabia, has sent troops and warplanes > to back up Saleh. According to Reuters, "The conflict > in Yemen's northern mountains has killed hundreds and > displaced tens of thousands." Aid groups put the number > of refugees at 150,000. The Saleh government and the > Saudis claim the Shiia uprising is being directed by > Iran- there is no evidence to back up the charge-thus > escalating a local civil war to a regional face off > between Riyadh and Teheran. > > And this is a place that Hillary, Gordon and Joe think > we need to intervene? > > In a sense, of course, the U.S. is already in Yemen, > and was so even before the attempted bombing Christmas > Day of a Northwest Airlines flight by a young Nigerian. > For most Americans, Yemen first appeared on their radar > screens when the USS Cole was attacked in the port of > Aden by al-Qaeda in 1990, killing 17 sailors. It > reappeared this past November when a U.S. Army officer > linked to a Muslim cleric in Yemen killed 13 people at > Fort Hood, Colorado. The Christmas Day attacker said he > was trained by al-Qaeda, and the group took credit for > the failed operation. > > But U.S. involvement in Yemen goes back almost 40 > years. In 1979, the Carter Administration blew a minor > border incident between north and south Yemen into a > full-blown East- West crisis, accusing the Soviets of > aggression. The White House dispatched an aircraft > carrier and several warships to the Arabian Sea, and > sent tanks, armored personal carriers and warplanes to > the North Yemen government. > > The tension between the two Yemens was hardly > accidental. According to UPI, the CIA funneled $4 > million a year to Jordan's King Hussein to help brew up > a civil war between the conservative North and the > wealthier and socialist south. > > The merger between the two countries never quite took. > Southern Yemenis complain that the north plunders its > oil and wealth and discriminates against southerners. > Demonstrations and general strikes by the Southern > Movement demanding independence have increased over the > past year. The Saleh government has generally responded > with clubs, tear gas and guns. > > When Yemen refused to back the 1991 Gulf War to expel > Iraq from Kuwait, the U.S. cancelled $70 million in > foreign aid to Sana and supported a decision by Saudi > Arabia to expel 850,000 Yemeni workers. Both moves had > a catastrophic impact on the Yemeni economy that played > a major role in initiating the current instability > gripping the country. > > In 2002 the Bush administration used armed drones to > assassinate several Yemenis it accused of being al- > Qaeda members. The New York Times reported that the > Obama administration launched a cruise missile attack > Dec. 17 at suspected al-Qaeda members that, according > to Agence France Presse, killed 49 civilians, including > 23 children and 17 women. The attack has sparked > widespread anger throughout Yemen that al-Qaeda > organizers have heavily exploited. > > So is the current uproar over Yemen a case of a U.S. > administration overreacting and stumbling into yet > another quagmire in the Middle East? Or is this talk > about a "global danger" just a smokescreen to allow the > Americans to prop up the increasingly isolated and > unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia? > > Maybe both, but at least one respected analyst suggests > that the game in play is considerably larger than the > Arabian Peninsula and may have more to do with the > control of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea > than with hunting down al-Qaeda in the Yemeni > wilderness. > > The Asia Times' M.K. Bhadrakumar, a career Indian > diplomat who served in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, > and Turkey, argues that the current U.S. concern with > Yemen is actually about the strategic port of Aden. > "Control of Aden and the Malacca Straits will put the > U.S. in an unassailable position in the `great game' of > the Indian Ocean," he writes. > > Aden controls the strait of Bab el-Mandab, the entrance > to the Red Sea though which passes 3.5 million barrels > of oil a day. The Malacca Straits, between the southern > Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, > is one of the key passages that link the Indian Ocean > with the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. > > Bhadrakumar says the Indian Ocean and the Malacca > Straits are "literally the jugular veins of the Chinese > economy." Indeed, a quarter of the world's sea-borne > trade passes through the area, including 80 percent of > China's oil and gas. > > In 2005 the Bush Administration pressed India to > counter the rise of China by joining an alliance with > South Korea, Japan, and Australia. As a quid pro quo > for coming aboard, Washington agreed to sell uranium to > India, in spite of New Delhi's refusal to sign the > Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. Only countries > that sign the Treaty can purchase uranium in the > international market. The Bush administration also > agreed to sell India the latest in military technology. > The Obama administration has continued the same > policies. > > China and India have indeed beefed up their naval > forces in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. > Beijing is also developing a "string of pearls"- ports > that will run from East Africa to Southeast Asia. India > has just established a formal naval presence in Oman at > the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf. > > According to Bhadrakumar, the growing U.S. > rapprochement with Myanmar and Sri Lanka is aimed at > checkmating China's influence in both nations, and > cutting off efforts by Beijing to reduce its reliance > on ocean-borne energy transportation by constructing > land-based pipelines. China just opened such a pipeline > to Central Asia. > > "The U.S., on the contrary, is determined that China > remain vulnerable to the choke points between Indonesia > and Malaysia," writes the former Indian diplomat. > > Checkmating China would also explain some of the > pressure that the Obama administration is exerting on > Pakistan. > > "The U.S. is unhappy with China's efforts to reach the > warm waters of the Persian Gulf through the Central > Asian region and Pakistan. Slowly but steadily, > Washington is tightening the noose around the neck of > the Pakistani elites -civilian and military- and forcing > them to make a strategic choice between the U.S. and > China," writes Bhadrakumar. > > This would help explain the increasing tension between > China and India over a Himalayan border region that has > sparked a military buildup in Chinese-occupied Tibet > and India's Arunachai Pradesh state. Former Indian Air > Marshall Fali Homi told the Hindustan Times that China > was now a bigger threat than Pakistan, and former > Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra > predicts an India-China war within five years. > > "Energy security" has been at the heart of U.S. foreign > policy for decades. The 1980's "Carter Doctrine" made > it explicit that the U.S. would use military if its > energy supplies were ever threatened. Whether the > administration was Republican or Democratic made little > difference when it came to controlling gas and oil > supplies, and the greatest concentration of U.S. > military forces is in the Middle East, where 60 percent > of the world's energy supplies lie. > > Except for using Special Forces and supplying weapons, > it is unlikely that the U.S. will intervene in a major > way in Yemen. But through military aid it can exert a > good deal of influence over the Sana government, > including extracting basing rights. > > The White House has elevated the 200 or so "al-Qaeda in > the Arabian Peninsula" members in Yemen into what the > President calls a "serious problem," and there are dark > hints that the country is on its way to becoming a > "failed state," the green light for a more robust > intervention. > > However, as Jon Alterman, Middle East Director of the > Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues, > "The problems in Yemen are not fundamentally problems > that military operations can solve." > > But then the "problems" of Yemen may be simply a > prelude for a much wider and potentially dangerous > strategy focused on China. > > "The U.S. cannot give up on its global dominance > without putting up a real fight," says Bhadrakumar. > "And the reality of all such momentous struggles is > that they cannot be fought piecemeal. You cannot fight > China without occupying Yemen." > > _____________________________________________ > > Portside aims to provide material of interest > to people on the left that will help them to > interpret the world and to change it. > > Submit via email: moderator at portside.org > Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit > Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq > Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe > Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe > Account assistance: portside.org/contact > Search the archives: portside.org/archive > ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Jan 17 20:24:48 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:24:48 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] The lesson of Haiti Reflections of Fidel castro Message-ID: <4B53AA50.32233.225A31D7@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Reflections of Fidel castro The lesson of Haiti January 14, 2010 TWO days ago, at almost six o?clock in the evening Cuban time and when, given its geographical location, night had already fallen in Haiti, television stations began to broadcast the news that a violent earthquake - measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale - had severely struck Port-au-Prince. The seismic phenomenon originated from a tectonic fault located in the sea just 15 kilometers from the Haitian capital, a city where 80% of the population inhabit fragile homes built of adobe and mud. The news continued almost without interruption for hours. There was no footage, but it was confirmed that many public buildings, hospitals, schools and more solidly-constructed facilities were reported collapsed. I have read that an earthquake of the magnitude of 7.3 is equivalent to the energy released by an explosion of 400,000 tons of TNT. Tragic descriptions were transmitted. Wounded people in the streets were crying out for medical help, surrounded by ruins under which their relatives were buried. No one, however, was able to broadcast a single image for several hours. The news took all of us by surprise. Many of us have frequently heard about hurricanes and severe flooding in Haiti, but were not aware of the fact that this neighboring country ran the risk of a massive earthquake. It has come to light on this occasion that 200 years ago, a massive earthquake similarly affected this city, which would have been the home of just a few thousand inhabitants at that time. At midnight, there was still no mention of an approximate figure in terms of victims. High-ranking United Nations officials and several heads of government discussed the moving events and announced that they would send emergency brigades to help. Given that MINUSTAH (United Stabilization Mission in Haiti) troops are deployed there - UN forces from various countries - some defense ministers were talking about possible casualties among their personnel. It was only yesterday, Wednesday morning, when the sad news began to arrive of enormous human losses among the population, and even institutions such as the United Nations mentioned that some of their buildings in that country had collapsed, a word that does not say anything in itself but could mean a lot. For hours, increasingly more traumatic news continued to arrive about the situation in this sister nation. Figures related to the number of fatal victims were discussed, which fluctuated, according to various versions, between 30,000 and 100,000. The images are devastating; it is evident that the catastrophic event has been given widespread coverage around the world, and many governments, sincerely moved by the disaster, are making efforts to cooperate according to their resources. The tragedy has genuinely moved a significant number of people, particularly those in which that quality is innate. But perhaps very few of them have stopped to consider why Haiti is such a poor country. Why does almost 50% of its population depend on family remittances sent from abroad? Why not analyze the realities that led Haiti to its current situation and this enormous suffering as well? The most curious aspect of this story is that no one has said a single word to recall the fact that Haiti was the first country in which 400,000 Africans, enslaved and trafficked by Europeans, rose up against 30,000 white slave masters on the sugar and coffee plantations, thus undertaking the first great social revolution in our hemisphere. Pages of insurmountable glory were written there. Napoleon?s most eminent general was defeated there. Haiti is the net product of colonialism and imperialism, of more than one century of the employment of its human resources in the toughest forms of work, of military interventions and the extraction of its natural resources. This historic oversight would not be so serious if it were not for the real fact that Haiti constitutes the disgrace of our era, in a world where the exploitation and pillage of the vast majority of the planet?s inhabitants prevails. Billions of people in Latin American, Africa and Asia are suffering similar shortages although perhaps not to such a degree as in the case of Haiti. Situations like that of that country should not exist in any part of the planet, where tens of thousands of cities and towns abound in similar or worse conditions, by virtue of an unjust international economic and political order imposed on the world. The world population is not only threatened by natural disasters such as that of Haiti, which is a just a pallid shadow of what could take place in the planet as a result of climate change, which really was the object of ridicule, derision, and deception in Copenhagen. It is only just to say to all the countries and institutions that have lost citizens or personnel because of the natural disaster in Haiti: we do not doubt that in this case, the greatest effort will be made to save human lives and alleviate the pain of this long- suffering people. We cannot blame them for the natural phenomenon that has taken place there, even if we do not agree with the policy adopted with Haiti. But I have to express the opinion that it is now time to look for real and lasting solutions for that sister nation. In the field of healthcare and other areas, Cuba - despite being a poor and blockaded country - has been cooperating with the Haitian people for many years. Around 400 doctors and healthcare experts are offering their services free of charge to the Haitian people. Our doctors are working every day in 227 of the country?s 337 communes. On the other hand, at least 400 young Haitians have trained as doctors in our homeland. They will now work with the reinforcement brigade which traveled there yesterday to save lives in this critical situation. Thus, without any special effort being made, up to 1,000 doctors and healthcare experts can be mobilized, almost all of whom are already there willing to cooperate with any other state that wishes to save the lives of the Haitian people and rehabilitate the injured. Another significant number of young Haitians are currently studying medicine in Cuba. We are also cooperating with the Haitian people in other areas within our reach. However, there can be no other form of cooperation worthy of being described as such than fighting in the field of ideas and political action in order to put an end to the limitless tragedy suffered by a large number of nations such as Haiti. The head of our medical brigade reported: "The situation is difficult, but we have already started saving lives." He made that statement in a succinct message hours after his arrival yesterday in Port-au-Prince with additional medical reinforcements. Later that night, he reported that Cuban doctors and ELAM?s Haitian graduates were being deployed throughout the country. They had already seen more than 1,000 patients in Port-au-Prince, immediately establishing and putting into operation a hospital that had not collapsed and using field hospitals where necessary. They were preparing to swiftly set up other centers for emergency care. We feel a wholesome pride for the cooperation that, in these tragic instances, Cuba doctors and young Haitian doctors who trained in Cuba are offering our brothers and sisters in Haiti! Fidel Castro Ruz January 14, 2009 8:25 p.m. Translated by Granma International - Reflections oF Fidel From mcpogo at aol.com Mon Jan 18 10:49:39 2010 From: mcpogo at aol.com (mcpogo at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:49:39 EST Subject: [Mai-not] Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces Message-ID: <32a91.7092545e.38860743@aol.com> I am a Canadian observer, very interested in World and especially US Politics. I believe we were taught in our world history & politics courses that one of the major tenets of the US Constitution was no one could legally justify trying/codifying into law or otherwise attempt to permit the use of US Federal Military Forces against their own American citizens within the United States. I was just wondering then how President Barrack Obama's Executive Order #13528 "Integration of State and Federal Military Forces" that he signed on January 11, 2010 could be allowed Constitutionally? Would this not be a Federal Crime or Treasonous Act under the US Constitution, specifically with regard to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? Just wondering after reading the following political analysis from a Canadian Think Tank. Any thoughts from my fellow Mai-not members? Paul McLean RR 5 Owen Sound, Ont Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Big Brother: Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces Executive Order Seeks to "Synchronize and Integrate" January 18, 2010 by Tom Burghardt URL of this article: _www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17006_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17006) _Global Research_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) , January 17, 2010 _Antifascist Calling..._ (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/) - 2010-01-16 In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barrack Obama signed _Executive Order 13528_ (http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-00705_PI.pdf) on January 11. Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency." According to the White House _press release_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-gov ernors) , the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards." "When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defence; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defence, and civil support activities." Clearly designed to weaken the _Posse Comitatus Act of 1878_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html) which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of manoeuvres by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability. One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (_USNORTHCOM_ (http://www.northcom.mil/) ), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism's endless "War on Terror." At the time, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946." The real-world consequences of those changes weren't long in coming. Following their criminal inaction during 2005's Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance. At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the _Insurrection Act_ (http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/InsurrectionAct/index.html) , a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to "suppress rebellion." How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina's flood waters could be twisted into an act of "rebellion" was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: "Drowning while Black." Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media's deafening silence on Obama's Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in "new normal" America. Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans such as _Cable Splicer_ (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Cable_Splicer) and _Garden Plot_ (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/garden_plot.htm) , both of which are continuously updated, our "change" President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power. Under color of the _2008 National Defense Authorization Act_ (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1585eh. txt.pdf) , an unsavoury piece of Bushist legislative detritus, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions." The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defence no less, "shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defence or the Co-Chairs of the Council." Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated "to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defence; the Secretary of Homeland Security" and "the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism." Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will "exchange views" include, "the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Homeland Defence and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defence, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defence or the Secretary of Homeland Security." In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, "Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defence; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defence, and civil support activities." When news first broke last summer of Obama's proposal to expand the military's authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA). _Congressional Quarterly_ (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000003189757) reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it "would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote. According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defence for Homeland Defence and Americas' Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that "without assigning a governor tactical control" of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the "strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander." With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defence spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power. These manoeuvres as I have previously _written_ (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2008/10/militarizing-homeland-northcoms-joint.html) , have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State's writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people. Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for "conspiracy theorists" railing against "FEMA concentration camps," Continuity of Government, and the nexus of "civil support" programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter. Indeed, even members of Congress are considered "unauthorized parties" denied access "to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities," according to a Pentagon _document_ (http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdf) published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House _web site_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/NSPD%2051/HSPD%2020) . As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "_Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?_ (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2008/11/vigilant-shield-09-cover-for-illegal.html) "), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page _report_ (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34737.pdf) in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a "civil support" operation that war games various disaster scenarios. Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (_EO 12656_ (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/EO12656.htm) ) that "directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises." EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as "as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States." Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (_HSPD-8_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/homeland%20security%20presidential%20directive%208) ), also removed from the White House web site, established "a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises." CRS avers, "The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities." The Defense Department's role during such emergencies were intended to focus "principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events." DoD would play a "significant role" in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners. The primary DoD entity responsible for "civil support," a focus of Obama's EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to "synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities," USNORTHCOM's role is shrouded in secrecy. As researcher Peter Dale Scott _revealed_ (http://www.counterpunch.org/scott03312008.html) in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: "DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing." One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, _Army Times_ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/) reported, that the "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home." Analyst Michel Chossudovsky _commented_ (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10341) , "What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a 'war theatre' thereby justifying the deployment of combat units." According to Chossudovsky, "The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement." "It is noteworthy, the _World Socialist Web Site_ (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mili-s25.shtml) commented, "that the deployment of US combat troops 'as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters' ... coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s." "Justified as a response to terrorist threats," socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, "the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability." Since USNORTHCOM's deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people. After all, where the defence of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 11697 bytes Desc: not available URL: From papadop at peak.org Mon Jan 18 11:46:20 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Opening US public documents a little Message-ID: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/17/AR2010011702092.html Washington Post --Monday, January 18, 2010 PROTECTING STATE secrets and safeguarding national security are paramount. But needlessly keeping classified records under lock and key for more than 25 years or slapping "classified" on unworthy documents helps neither the American people nor history. The four elements of an executive order issued by President Obama last month will change that. The overriding principle is that "no information may remain classified indefinitely." To that end, a National Declassification Center (NDC) will be established at the National Archives that would allow staff from relevant agencies to review documents set for public release under one roof. The new center would have until Dec. 31, 2013, to eliminate a backlog of 400 million records that go as far back as World War II. To ensure that records are being properly classified, Mr. Obama ordered agencies to review their guidelines. He reemphasized the standing rule that an agency seeking to classify a record must identify the damage to national security its release would cause. Also, the order makes it more difficult to reclassify information after it already has been properly declassified. After 25 years, documents are automatically declassified unless they reveal sensitive information, such as details on U.S. military plans that remain in effect. Under the Obama order, an agency could seek to extend the period through a review at the NDC. In most cases, the material would have to be made public not more than 50 years from the date of origin. Information that receives an extension will automatically be declassified after 75 years, unless the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) approves a request to keep the record secret. Only information revealing a human intelligence source or key elements of weapons of mass destruction could hold the record back. Mr. Obama eliminated a rule involving ISCAP set by President George W. Bush in 2003. In that order, if the director of national intelligence didn't want a record declassified, he could prevent it over the objections of a majority of the panel. Now, if the director or any other agency has an objection, an appeal must be made directly to the president. According to William J. Bosanko, ISCAP's executive secretary, based on the panel's experience so far, it is not anticipated that this will ever happen. More changes are expected. Mr. Obama said he looks forward to recommendations from Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, "to design a more fundamental transformation of the security classification system." We understand the tug of war between protecting national security and the public's right to know. But we hope Gen. Jones finds a balance that significantly increases the openness that the president seeks. From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Mon Jan 18 12:52:04 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] The Right Testicle of Hell: History of a Haitian Holocaust - Blackwater before drinking water - Greg Palast Jan 17 Message-ID: <4B5491B4.22706.25E21123@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> http://www.gregpalast.com/the-right-testicle-of-hell-history-of-a- haitian-holocaust/ The Right Testicle of Hell: History of a Haitian Holocaust Blackwater before drinking water by Greg Palast for The Huffington Post Sunday 17 January 2010 Just in! Our plea to send medicine to a friend's father in Haiti was answered by Democracy Now! producer Sharif Abdel-Kouddous who will make the delivery in Port-au-Prince. Apparently DN, unlike the US government, doesn't require armed "Security" to save lives. 1. Bless the President for having rescue teams in the air almost immediately. That was President Olafur Grimsson of Iceland. On Wednesday, the AP reported that the President of the United States promised, "The initial contingent of 2,000 Marines could be deployed to the quake-ravaged country within the next few days." "In a few days," Mr. Obama? 2. There's no such thing as a 'natural' disaster. 200,000 Haitians have been slaughtered by slum housing and IMF "austerity" plans. 3. A friend of mine called. Do I know a journalist who could get medicine to her father? And she added, trying to hold her voice together, "My sister, she's under the rubble. Is anyone going who can help, anyone?" Should I tell her, "Obama will have Marines there in 'a few days'"? 4. China deployed rescuers with sniffer dogs within 48 hours. China, Mr. President. China: 8,000 miles distant. Miami: 700 miles close. US bases in Puerto Rico: right there. 5. Obama's Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "I don't know how this government could have responded faster or more comprehensively than it has." We know Gates doesn't know. 6. From my own work in the field, I know that FEMA has access to ready-to-go potable water, generators, mobile medical equipment and more for hurricane relief on the Gulf Coast. It's all still there. Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honor?, who served as the task force commander for emergency response after Hurricane Katrina, told the Christian Science Monitor, "I thought we had learned that from Katrina, take food and water and start evacuating people." Maybe we learned but, apparently, Gates and the Defense Department missed school that day. 7. Send in the Marines. That's America's response. That's what we're good at. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson finally showed up after three days. With what? It was dramatically deployed - without any emergency relief supplies. It has sidewinder missiles and 19 helicopters. 8. But don't worry, the International Search and Rescue Team, fully equipped and self-sufficient for up to seven days in the field, deployed immediately with ten metric tons of tools and equipment, three tons of water, tents, advanced communication equipment and water purifying capability. They're from Iceland. 9. Gates wouldn't send in food and water because, he said, there was no "structure ... to provide security." For Gates, appointed by Bush and allowed to hang around by Obama, it's security first. That was his lesson from Hurricane Katrina. Blackwater before drinking water. 10. Previous US presidents have acted far more swiftly in getting troops on the ground on that island. Haiti is the right half of the island of Hispaniola. It's treated like the right testicle of Hell. The Dominican Republic the left. In 1965, when Dominicans demanded the return of Juan Bosch, their elected President, deposed by a junta, Lyndon Johnson reacted to this crisis rapidly, landing 45,000 US Marines on the beaches to prevent the return of the elected president. 11. How did Haiti end up so economically weakened, with infrastructure, from hospitals to water systems, busted or non- existent - there are two fire stations in the entire nation - and infrastructure so frail that the nation was simply waiting for "nature" to finish it off? Don't blame Mother Nature for all this death and destruction. That dishonor goes to Papa Doc and Baby Doc, the Duvalier dictatorship, which looted the nation for 28 years. Papa and his Baby put an estimated 80% of world aid into their own pockets - with the complicity of the US government happy to have the Duvaliers and their voodoo militia, Tonton Macoutes, as allies in the Cold War. (The war was easily won: the Duvaliers' death squads murdered as many as 60,000 opponents of the regime.) 12. What Papa and Baby didn't run off with, the IMF finished off through its "austerity" plans. An austerity plan is a form of voodoo orchestrated by economists zomby-fied by an irrational belief that cutting government services will somehow help a nation prosper. 13. In 1991, five years after the murderous Baby fled, Haitians elected a priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resisted the IMF's austerity diktats. Within months, the military, to the applause of Papa George HW Bush, deposed him. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. The farce was George W. Bush. In 2004, after the priest Aristide was re-elected President, he was kidnapped and removed again, to the applause of Baby Bush. 14. Haiti was once a wealthy nation, the wealthiest in the hemisphere, worth more, wrote Voltaire in the 18th century, than that rocky, cold colony known as New England. Haiti's wealth was in black gold: slaves. But then the slaves rebelled - and have been paying for it ever since. >From 1825 to 1947, France forced Haiti to pay an annual fee to reimburse the profits lost by French slaveholders caused by their slaves' successful uprising. Rather than enslave individual Haitians, France thought it more efficient to simply enslave the entire nation. 15. Secretary Gates tells us, "There are just some certain facts of life that affect how quickly you can do some of these things." The Navy's hospital boat will be there in, oh, a week or so. Heckuva job, Brownie! 16. Note just received from my friend. Her sister was found, dead; and her other sister had to bury her. Her father needs his anti- seizure medicines. That's a fact of life too, Mr. President. *** Through our journalism network, we are trying to get my friend's medicines to her father. If any reader does have someone getting into or near Port-au-Prince, please contact Haiti at GregPalast.com immediately. Urgently recommended reading - The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution, the history of the successful slave uprising in Hispaniola by the brilliant CLR James. =================== From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 18 15:47:25 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:47:25 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: "Footnotes in Gaza" : A People's Cartoon History of Gaza Message-ID: <01a501ca9898$d2b070f0$26ad57ca@jfos> http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij01132010.html January 13, 2010 Joe Sacco's "Footnotes in Gaza" A People's Cartoon History of Gaza By PAUL de ROOIJ The massacre at the Rafah school's entrance as recounted by one of the victims and drawn by Joe Sacco. The launch of a new book by Joe Sacco is a major event, and with considerable expectation a crowd recently gathered in London to hear the great Maltese-American cartoonist and author discuss his latest book: Footnotes in Gaza. [1] Sacco spent seven years researching and drawing about two sordid events that took place in November 1956 when Israeli forces invaded Gaza as part of the joint British-French attack against Egypt. The Israeli army conducted two massacres where hundreds of Palestinians were murdered, and Sacco set out to collate the oral histories of the Palestinians who witnessed or were the victims of the events. Sacco engaged in a detailed investigative work finding the witnesses who could credibly recollect what happened, sifted through the accounts to eliminate the factual inconsistencies due to the deteriorated memories, and then spent four years bringing these histories to life in his inimitable style. The book doesn't only focus on the past, but the present is also very much part of his account; in present day Gaza giant armoured bulldozers flatten houses in Rafah and where the ongoing siege affects everybody's lives. Sacco says: ". the past and the present cannot be so easily disentangled; they are part of a remorseless continuum." Contemporary history is usually written by academics with access to the main protagonists, usually politicians or military commanders, inert archives, and press accounts. This history is usually antiseptic - there are no piles of corpses to embarrass the generals. It is also imbued with certainty - historians usually don't question the politician's say-so. It is rare for mainstream historians to listen to victims; their accounts are seldom incorporated into the victor's history. What sets Joe Sacco apart is that not only is he a great artist, but also a peoples' historian who is willing to listen to the victims; his historiography is imbued with sympathy and respect for the these victims; their history is worthwhile recording. Sacco also focused on a usually-ignored slice of history. In 2001, he travelled in Gaza with Chris Hedges, the American journalist, to research an article about the 1956 massacres for an article for Harper's magazine. When the article finally appeared, the history of the massacres had been editorially expunged; not all histories are treated equally. Perhaps it was this incident that piqued his interest to write about the neglected massacres. Sacco quotes Abed El-Rantisi, the Hamas leader who was subsequently assassinated, saying about the 1956 massacres: ". this sort of action can never be forgotten. they planted hatred in our hearts." To understand the Palestinians it is important to take into account the history that moulded their politics and social currents; this history should also inform future discussions about possible solutions. It is cynically facile for the likes of Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, to urge Palestinians to "look forward" and ignore the past. However, negotiations and a future reconciliation will only be possible if the victims of the Israeli colonial project are accorded a modicum of justice and recognition for their suffering. The future reconciliation will require a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission where the massacres at Deir Yassin, Safat, Jenin 2002, Gaza 2009, . and Khan Yunis and Rafah 1956 are acknowledged. The massacre Sacco's images depicting the massacres are haunting. The men older than 15-years of age were herded along a road constantly beaten, pushed against walls, terrorized with over-the-head gunfire, and then forced to pass a gauntlet at a school entrance where soldiers with large wooden clubs beat the entrants; those who passed this deadly hurdle had to jump over rolls of barbed wire. Thereafter the Palestinians were either singled out if they were wearing uniforms, if they were betrayed by collaborators, or merely if they stood out because of their appearance. In Rafah, some of the "wanted" men were taken to a side road and shot or beaten to death; others were loaded onto buses and taken to prison in Israel. Sacco's images not only capture the horror of the events, but also the painful memories, or the conflicting reports. It is a slightly blurred rendition of history, very much like the nature of the witnesses' memories. The tyranny of explanations Contemporary reportage about Gaza or the Palestinian condition usually describes the latest barbarity dispensed by the Israelis, and then automatically adds an Israeli-justification helpfully provided by the smooth Israeli military public relations officers. These are some of the lame justifications: "the men were killed because they were 'wanted men'"; "the house was demolished because there were 'militants' there"; "the wall is being built for security"; "Gaza was attacked in 2009 to 'stop the rocket attacks'"; and so on. Much of the Israeli rationale provided for the latest outrage is self-serving and often simply suggests that there was a justification in a given action. If there was a rationale, then the killing of civilians is deemed "understandable" and, the spokesman will add in an undertone, that the so-called collateral damage - the civilians killed - is regrettable, and it was unintentional. Seldom are such banal justifications challenged. Providing the Israeli rationale for the massacres without a wider context is possibly a questionable part of the book. Sacco inserts Moshe Dayan's rationale for the 1956 assault on Gaza and it looks absurd when juxtaposed to the victims' accounts. Israelis purportedly rounded up the Palestinians to root out the fedayeen who were conducting raids into what is considered Israel. Sacco also quotes Mordechai Bar-On, Moshe Dayan's right-hand-man, to provide this self-serving justification. However, one only has to remember what happened a few years earlier, in 1948, to find a more plausible rationale for the massacre. Yosef Nahmani, an Israeli witness to the massacre in Safat on 6 November 1948, described how that massacre was conducted, and it is eerily reminiscent of what happened in Rafah 1956 [2]. In both instances, the men were herded down the streets into a corridor where they were beaten with wooden clubs and gunned down. Unlike 1956, the 1948 massacre did not require a pretext. What unifies both sordid episodes is that they were part of the means to make the Israeli colonial project possible, i.e., driving the people off the land. Maybe some more context is needed to provide this more accurate understanding of the massacres. It is all in a footnote. What Sacco has done in this book is to rescue the 1956 massacres at Rafah and Khan Yunis from oblivion. The footnotes, the title of his book, really refer to the massacres in 1956. The importance of this history, even if they are only footnotes, is that it puts current events into perspective. The time frame explaining what is happening in Gaza doesn't start with the rockets fired at Sderot in 2008; taking a broader context highlights the nature of the mass crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people during many decades. It also shows that for a people without a future, the past and the present are compressed; the massacres of the past resonate closely with the everyday violence perpetrated against the Palestinians enduring a siege and further dispossession today. Sacco has produced much more than a beautifully crafted book. It deserves to be read and studied by historians who might seek to transform these footnotes into a bona fide chapter of history that deserves to be remembered. Sacco's book is also an act of solidarity; indicating that if someone's history is important enough to write about, it suggests that one is in solidarity with those people today. And that is something the Palestinians under siege in Gaza today are in dire need of; never before in history have the victims of colonial oppression been boycotted and ostracized by Europeans and Americans. Reading about their history also reminds us that they have been treated in this shoddy and barbaric manner for decades. Paul de Rooij is a writer living in London. He can be reached at proox at hotmail.com (NB: all emails with attachments will be automatically deleted.) ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 29276 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8845 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 18 16:01:29 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:01:29 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Feel-Good Education - Styling: the Charter School Look Message-ID: <01ce01ca989a$91bba5e0$26ad57ca@jfos> http://www.counterpunch.org/wolff12142009.html December 14, 2009 Feel-Good Education Styling: the Charter School Look By DANIEL WOLFF It only makes sense that the article appeared in the Style section of the New York Times. Sure, it's about hedge fund managers supporting New York City's charter schools. But if we are to believe the breezy slant of the piece (Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009, "Scholarly Investments"), these young turks pick out charters the way their fathers shopped for the latest fedora. Cause it's fashionable. Cause it reflects their inner selves. Cause it makes them feel good. The author, Nancy Hass, admits that thirty-something multimillionaires embracing public education "may seem odd." Their kids, after all, are far more likely to go to Greenwich Country Day. But the explanation is simple enough if you know what she calls "the sociology of Wall Street." These guys from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have a certain level of "nerdiness," and charter schools appeal to their "maverick instincts." According to this benign scenario, the same analysts who spend all day in cut-throat financial competition toss away their Blackberries come dusk and do the right thing by joining the boards of charter schools. Privately run and often non-union, charters are seen by their advocates as the free market alternative to traditional public schools. Or, as the article puts it, "an entrepreneurial answer to the nation's education woes." Typically, we're told, a charter board consists of a dozen or so members who are asked to donate or raise $1.3 million over three years. Let's see . that's around $36,000 a board member per year. Certainly sizable but not gigantic given their annual "eight-figure incomes." Especially since donations to organizations like Democrats for Education Reform are tax deductible. Whitney Tilson, on the board of a company that manages charter schools, says they "present the kind of opportunity that 'electrifies' hedge fund managers." Tilson calls it "the most important cause in the nation, obviously." He adds, "With the state providing so much of the money, outside contributions are insanely well leveraged." Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. New York State provides 75 to 90 percent of the per-student cost at a charter school. That's because schools like the Harlem Success Academies are still technically public and draw from public funds. So if the young analysts look at their donations as an investment - which the article insists they do not . or not that kind of investment - then their dollars are heavily backed by tax dollars. That is to say, by our dollars. Ravenal Boykin Curry IV of Eagle Capital Management has co-founded two girls prep schools and is head of the board of a third. He explains that he's been "knee deep in educational issues" since his 20's. Almost in passing he adds that these schools are: "exactly the kind of investment people in our industry spend our days trying to stumble on, with incredible cash flow, even if in this case we don't ourselves get any of it." So maybe the Blackberries and the financial acumen don't disappear at night? Perhaps charter schools appeal to the investors' "maverick instincts" because they look a lot like the instruments these guys fight over (or in Mr. Curry's more benevolent term "stumble on") during the day? That has certainly proven the case across the country, where start-up management firms see charters as prime, for-profit ventures. Through various real estate deals and cost-cutting practices (like paying teachers less), these private/public schools have already shown themselves to be potential money makers. One real estate trust recently sunk $170 million into 22 charters. Said its CEO: "The charter public schools offer lenders/leaseholders a dependable revenue stream backed by a government payer. It's a very desirable equation." The young turks may not profit directly from their board work. But as the Style article makes clear, New York City's charter school network is the new country club. It's where the elite meet, where potential business connections are made. And even if these Masters of the Universe don't "get any" from the schools they back, they're in on the ground floor of a growth industry. Their experience in New York City may well influence their financial recommendations and investments elsewhere. "The underlying drive," as John Petry, partner at Gotham Capital and member of the Success Charter Network, puts it, "is to build something that can spread, can be recreated in different cities; otherwise it's not as meaningful to us." Only 2.5% of the city's public school students are in charters, the article states, but that's more like 20% in Harlem and parts of Brooklyn. And the movement gets that much more "meaningful" in New Orleans, for example, where over half the kids are in newly formed charters. A national string of hedge-fund-backed, privately run schools begins to look like a real option: a chain competing with and siphoning funding from standard public schools. As Robert Reffkin, a vice president at Goldman Sachs, puts it his peers now "understand what's at stake and what the return can be." Except the educational return is still unclear. There's no conclusive evidence that charters do a better job than traditional public schools. Meanwhile, the investments these young tycoons have made are already changing public education - and changing it to more closely resemble the financial models they work with during the day. Those models, as we've learned over the last couple years, don't always pan out. If they don't? If the charter bubble bursts? Where does that leave the kids who've switched over from the less sexy, less well-funded, regular system? Charter schools, the article states, are today's "hot cause." But what happens tomorrow, when styles change? Daniel Wolff lives in Nyack, N.Y. His newest book is How Lincoln Learned to Read. His other books include "4th of July/Asbury Park: A History of the Promised Land." He is a co-producer of the forthcoming Jonathan Demme documentary about New Orleans, "Right to Return." He can be reached at: ziwolff at optonline.net ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 12001 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 18 16:11:40 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:11:40 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: We Need a Step Program - The American Pathology Message-ID: <01f901ca989b$fd0d2390$26ad57ca@jfos> http://www.counterpunch.org/beattie12112009.html Weekend Edition December 11-13, 2009 We Need a Step Program The American Pathology By MISSY COMLEY BEATTIE "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." -- Chris Hedges: War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning In 1935, Dr. Bob Smith and Bill Wilson founded Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) with its principles to overcome the denial that characterizes the disease of alcoholism. Since its inception, AA has proven to be salvation for countless individuals and families. Its 12-step program has translated to many areas of pathology in reaching those with other dependencies. I can think of a huge area of pathology-this landmass in which we reside-the USA. Our drug-addicted nation has been brought to its knees by a consumption-based lifestyle and a power grab to underwrite the excesses. If this intemperance continues, we will be lost. We may be already. With this in mind, I propose a step program. However, in the interest of separation of church and state, I'm going for a non-theistic approach, one abridged, and which I slightly amended, by the American Psychological Association: Admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion Recognizing a greater power that can give strength Examining past errors Making amends for these errors Learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior Helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions Obviously, recognition of the problem is necessary-owning our powerlessness over power and greed. Next, we must understand that something greater than ourselves can restore us to reason. This could be our collective humanity and the conviction that recovery will be defined by a pledge to value all men, women, and children, that we will champion equal rights in concert with a commitment to end war, poverty, and the degradation of our environment. The practice of examining past mistakes is critical. To contend that we are spreading democracy is bullshit. We must stare into the truth of our invasions and occupations and see the depravity of our actions, the killing and maiming, the displacement of millions, and the misery inflicted by the Military Industrial Complex. We have to acknowledge that our gluttony and lust for resources fuel the nationalism that furthers a warmongering ideology for troop recruitment, sending our own flesh and blood to fight in conquest-oriented and craven campaigns like Shock and Awe to kill someone else's flesh and blood. This is the record for which we must be accountable. How do we make amends to those we've harmed? We'd have to start with Native Americans and African Americans, the citizens of the many countries where we've launched attacks with our own troop presence and by proxy. The victims of torture, the victims of a corrupt Department of Justice, of Katrina, Wall Street, of trade agreements, of poverty, homelessness, of Big Insurance and Big Pharma. Again, this step is daunting. There are so many victims, too many to list. How do we atone for our atrocities? How do we compensate the casualties of injustice? How can we address effectively the issue of global warming-a problem so potentially devastating it supersedes the others? By following a new code of behavior, one of compassion and cooperation, we can avoid repeating our mistakes. But our path can't exclude those who live only within the US country code, a certain social strata, or race. With an empathetic and sober domestic and foreign policy, we could restore all that is represented by the Statue of Liberty: freedom from slavery, oppression, and tyranny. Just as the statue's torch symbolizes enlightenment, our commitment to real change, not just a campaign slogan, might inspire hope throughout the world. Missy Beattie lives in New York City. She's written for National Public Radio and Nashville Life Magazine. An outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq, she's a member of Gold Star Families for Peace. She completed a novel last year, but since the death of her nephew, Marine Lance Cpl. Chase J. Comley, in Iraq on August 6,'05, she has been writing political articles. She can be reached at: Missybeat at aol.com ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 18 16:47:05 2010 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:47:05 +1300 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: We Need a Step Program - The American Pathology In-Reply-To: <01f901ca989b$fd0d2390$26ad57ca@jfos> References: <01f901ca989b$fd0d2390$26ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: > > > > With an empathetic and sober domestic and foreign policy, we could restore all that is represented by the Statue of Liberty: freedom from slavery, oppression, and tyranny. Just as the statue's torch symbolizes enlightenment, our commitment to real change, not just a campaign slogan, might inspire hope throughout the world. > Maybe. But let's not hold our breath... P -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Mon Jan 18 18:48:07 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:48:07 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education Message-ID: <026f01ca98b1$d52d9c90$26ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "Higher education is a hard-won democratic achievement and it is time that parents, faculty, students, alumni and concerned citizens reclaim higher education as a fundamental public good rather than merely a training ground for corporate interests, values, and profits. Education is not only about issues of work and economics-as important as these may be, but also about matters of justice, freedom, and the capacity for democratic agency, action, and change as well as the related issues of power, exclusion, and citizenship. Education at its best is about enabling students to take seriously questions about how they ought to live their lives, uphold the ideals of a just society, learn how to translate personal issues into public considerations, and act upon the promises of a strong democracy.(snip) Schooling offers more than the promise of a decent job, however elusive that has become; more importantly, it offers the promise of a just and democratic society." http://www.counterpunch.org/giroux09082009.html September 8, 2009 Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? The Corporate Stranglehold on Education By HENRY A. GIROUX As the school year begins, colleges and universities in North America are doing everything possible to attract students, including making themselves over in the image of a high-end mall or a cool brand name. Some institutions are giving students free Apple iPhones and Internet-capable iPods. Others are building attractive athletic facilities, developing more retail stores on campus, and providing plenty of specialized coffee shops. Some welcome this change as a brilliant market strategy while others believe that any face lift will improve the often stodgy academic image many colleges project. Even as more and more students are excluded from a decent higher education because of the recession, educators seem less concerned about the plight of poor students than they do about how they can find the right brand to sell themselves to attract new students. But there is more at work here than the development of a new campus aesthetic or a recognition that students are now considered clients who represent an important market niche. There is also the move on the part of many universities towards embracing market mechanisms as a way of redefining almost every aspect of university life-in spite of the failure and excesses of this system as exemplified in the Bernie Madoff scandal, outrageous executive bonuses, financial corruption, the subprime mortgage crisis, and the corporate greed that caused the current economic recession. Rather than challenge the economic irresponsibility, ecological damage, and human suffering, and culture of cruelty unleashed by free market fundamentalism, higher education appears to be one of its staunchest defenders, uncritically embracing a view of itself based on a market model of the academy. It seems that few educators have recognized that universities are in need of a moral bailout given that they are embracing the very market values, identities, and social relations that not only perpetuated the cut-throat values that caused the economic crisis, but also put many of them in the dire financial crisis they are currently experiencing. The corporate stranglehold over higher education gets stronger regardless of how devalued market fundamentalism has become during one of the greatest economic crisis the United States has ever experienced. Strapped for money and increasingly defined in the language of corporate culture, many universities seem less interested in higher learning than in becoming licensed storefronts for brand name corporations--selling space, buildings, and endowed chairs to rich corporate donors. Not surprisingly, students are now referred to as "customers," while some university presidents even argue that professors be labeled as "academic entrepreneurs." Instead of using their platforms to address important social issues, university presidents are now called CEOs and are viewed primarily as fund raisers. In the age of money and profit, academic subjects gain stature almost exclusively through their exchange value on the market. Twice as many students major in business studies than in any other major. The liberal arts increasingly appear to be merely ornamental, a dying vestige of an age not dominated by Gilded Age excess and disposability. Whereas the university was once prized as a place where students learned how to be engaged citizens educated in the knowledge, skills, values, and virtues of democracy, today they are trained to be workers and adept consumers. Educational value is now measured according to cost/benefit formulas, and the only rationality that matters is one of economic exchange. Education is increasingly reduced to a narrow instrumental logic, only recognizable as a form of training, just as teaching is removed from the language of social and moral responsibility, critical imagination, and civic courage. In the age of increasing specializations, pay for grades schemes, excessive instrumentalism, and an increasing contempt for critical thinking, higher education is producing new forms of political and civic illiteracy, turning out students who have little understanding of the complexities of the larger world, unaware of their power as social agents, and removed from those capacities that combine critique and a yearning for social justice, knowledge and social change, learning and a compassion for others. And the outcome can be seen in a growing generation of young people and adults who are barely literate, live in an utterly privatized world, and are either indifferent or complicit with a growing culture of cruelty. As higher education is transformed into a business or increasingly militarized, young people find themselves on campuses that look more like malls or recruiting stations for the national security state. Moreover, they are increasingly taught by professors who are hired on a contractual basis, have obscene work loads, and can barely make enough money to survive. Tenured faculty members are now called upon to generate grants, establish close partnerships with corporations, and teach courses that have practical value in the marketplace. What was once the hidden curriculum of many universities-the subordination of higher education to corporate values-has now become an open and much celebrated policy of both public and private higher education. There is little in this vision of the university that imagines young people as critical citizens or critical agents, educated to take seriously their role in addressing important social issues and bearing some responsibility for strengthening and deepening the reach of a real and substantive democracy. Addressing education as a democratic endeavour begins with the recognition that higher education is more than an investment opportunity, citizenship is about more than consuming, learning is about more than preparing for a job, and democracy is about more the false choices offered under a rigged corporate state and marketplace. Higher education may be one of the few sites left in which students learn the knowledge and skills that enable them to not only mediate critically between democratic values and the demands of corporate power, but also to distinguish between identities founded on democratic principles and identities steeped in forms of competitive, unbridled individualism that celebrate self-interest, profit making, and greed. Put differently, higher education should neither confuse education with training nor should it suggest that the only obligation of citizenship is consuming. Higher education is a hard-won democratic achievement and it is time that parents, faculty, students, alumni and concerned citizens reclaim higher education as a fundamental public good rather than merely a training ground for corporate interests, values, and profits. Education is not only about issues of work and economics-as important as these may be, but also about matters of justice, freedom, and the capacity for democratic agency, action, and change as well as the related issues of power, exclusion, and citizenship. Education at its best is about enabling students to take seriously questions about how they ought to live their lives, uphold the ideals of a just society, learn how to translate personal issues into public considerations, and act upon the promises of a strong democracy. These are educational and political issues and should be addressed as part of a broader concern for renewing the struggle for social justice and democracy. Let's give our students the education they deserve in a substantive democracy. Schooling offers more than the promise of a decent job, however elusive that has become; more importantly, it offers the promise of a just and democratic society. Henry A. Giroux holds the Global TV Network chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Canada. His most recent books include: "Take Back Higher Education" (co-authored with Susan Searls Giroux, 2006), "The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex" (2007) and "Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics Beyond the Age of Greed" (2008). His most recent book is Youth in a Suspect Society: Democracy or Disposability? has just been published by Palgrave Macmillan ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 3604 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Mon Jan 18 20:19:03 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:19:03 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education In-Reply-To: <026f01ca98b1$d52d9c90$26ad57ca@jfos> References: <026f01ca98b1$d52d9c90$26ad57ca@jfos> Message-ID: <20100119041919.E3F3A4686B0@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> I don't know much about Canadian universities, but wish these jerks could have experienced an English university town 50-60 years ago, when universities were still the places of learning, instead of brainwash. . Cheers, Ed. =================================================================================================== At 06:48 PM 18/01/2010, you wrote: >Excerpt: > >"Higher education is a hard-won democratic achievement and it is >time that parents, faculty, students, alumni and >concerned citizens reclaim higher education as a fundamental public >good rather than merely a training ground for >corporate interests, values, and profits. Education is not only >about issues of work and economics-as important as >these may be, but also about matters of justice, freedom, and the >capacity for democratic agency, action, and change as >well as the related issues of power, exclusion, and citizenship. >Education at its best is about enabling students to >take seriously questions about how they ought to live their lives, >uphold the ideals of a just society, learn how to >translate personal issues into public considerations, and act upon >the promises of a strong democracy.(snip) > >Schooling offers more than the promise of a decent job, however >elusive that has become; more importantly, it offers the >promise of a just and democratic society." > > >http://www.counterpunch.org/giroux09082009.html > >September 8, 2009 > >Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? >The Corporate Stranglehold on Education >By HENRY A. GIROUX > >As the school year begins, colleges and universities in North >America are doing everything possible to attract students, including >making themselves over in the image of a high-end mall or a cool >brand name. Some institutions are giving students free Apple iPhones >and Internet-capable iPods. Others are building attractive athletic >facilities, developing more retail stores on campus, and providing >plenty of specialized coffee shops. Some welcome this change as a >brilliant market strategy while others believe that any face lift >will improve the often stodgy academic image many colleges project. > >Even as more and more students are excluded from a decent higher >education because of the recession, educators seem less concerned >about the plight of poor students than they do about how they can >find the right brand to sell themselves to attract new students. But >there is more at work here than the development of a new campus >aesthetic or a recognition that students are now considered clients >who represent an important market niche. > >There is also the move on the part of many universities towards >embracing market mechanisms as a way of redefining almost every >aspect of university life-in spite of the failure and excesses of >this system as exemplified in the Bernie Madoff scandal, outrageous >executive bonuses, financial corruption, the subprime mortgage >crisis, and the corporate greed that caused the current economic >recession. Rather than challenge the economic irresponsibility, >ecological damage, and human suffering, and culture of cruelty >unleashed by free market fundamentalism, higher education appears to >be one of its staunchest defenders, uncritically embracing a view of >itself based on a market model of the academy. > >It seems that few educators have recognized that universities are in >need of a moral bailout given that they are embracing the very >market values, identities, and social relations that not only >perpetuated the cut-throat values that caused the economic crisis, >but also put many of them in the dire financial crisis they are >currently experiencing. The corporate stranglehold over higher >education gets stronger regardless of how devalued market >fundamentalism has become during one of the greatest economic crisis >the United States has ever experienced. Strapped for money and >increasingly defined in the language of corporate culture, many >universities seem less interested in higher learning than in >becoming licensed storefronts for brand name corporations--selling >space, buildings, and endowed chairs to rich corporate donors. Not >surprisingly, students are now referred to as "customers," while >some university presidents even argue that professors be labeled as >"academic entrepreneurs." Instead of using their platforms to >address important social issues, university presidents are now >called CEOs and are viewed primarily as fund raisers. > >In the age of money and profit, academic subjects gain stature >almost exclusively through their exchange value on the >market. Twice as many students major in business studies than in >any other major. The liberal arts increasingly appear to be merely >ornamental, a dying vestige of an age not dominated by Gilded Age >excess and disposability. Whereas the university was once prized as >a place where students learned how to be engaged citizens educated >in the knowledge, skills, values, and virtues of democracy, today >they are trained to be workers and adept consumers. Educational >value is now measured according to cost/benefit formulas, and the >only rationality that matters is one of economic exchange. > >Education is increasingly reduced to a narrow instrumental logic, >only recognizable as a form of training, just as teaching is removed >from the language of social and moral responsibility, critical >imagination, and civic courage. In the age of increasing >specializations, pay for grades schemes, excessive instrumentalism, >and an increasing contempt for critical thinking, higher education >is producing new forms of political and civic illiteracy, turning >out students who have little understanding of the complexities of >the larger world, unaware of their power as social agents, and >removed from those capacities that combine critique and a yearning >for social justice, knowledge and social change, learning and a >compassion for others. And the outcome can be seen in a growing >generation of young people and adults who are barely literate, live >in an utterly privatized world, and are either indifferent or >complicit with a growing culture of cruelty. > >As higher education is transformed into a business or increasingly >militarized, young people find themselves on campuses that look more >like malls or recruiting stations for the national security >state. Moreover, they are increasingly taught by professors who are >hired on a contractual basis, have obscene work loads, and can >barely make enough money to survive. Tenured faculty members are now >called upon to generate grants, establish close partnerships with >corporations, and teach courses that have practical value in the >marketplace. What was once the hidden curriculum of many >universities-the subordination of higher education to corporate >values-has now become an open and much celebrated policy of both >public and private higher education. There is little in this vision >of the university that imagines young people as critical citizens or >critical agents, educated to take seriously their role in >addressing important social issues and bearing some responsibility >for strengthening and deepening the reach of a real and substantive >democracy. Addressing education as a democratic endeavour begins >with the recognition that higher education is more than an >investment opportunity, citizenship is about more than consuming, >learning is about more than preparing for a job, and democracy is >about more the false choices offered under a rigged corporate state >and marketplace. > >Higher education may be one of the few sites left in which students >learn the knowledge and skills that enable them to not only mediate >critically between democratic values and the demands of corporate >power, but also to distinguish between identities founded on >democratic principles and identities steeped in forms of >competitive, unbridled individualism that celebrate self-interest, >profit making, and greed. Put differently, higher education should >neither confuse education with training nor should it suggest that >the only obligation of citizenship is consuming. > >Higher education is a hard-won democratic achievement and it is time >that parents, faculty, students, alumni and concerned citizens >reclaim higher education as a fundamental public good rather than >merely a training ground for corporate interests, values, and >profits. Education is not only about issues of work and >economics-as important as these may be, but also about matters of >justice, freedom, and the capacity for democratic agency, action, >and change as well as the related issues of power, exclusion, and >citizenship. Education at its best is about enabling students to >take seriously questions about how they ought to live their lives, >uphold the ideals of a just society, learn how to translate personal >issues into public considerations, and act upon the promises of a >strong democracy. These are educational and political issues and >should be addressed as part of a broader concern for renewing the >struggle for social justice and democracy. Let's give our students >the education they deserve in a substantive democracy. Schooling >offers more than the promise of a decent job, however elusive that >has become; more importantly, it offers the promise of a just and >democratic society. > >Henry A. Giroux holds the Global TV Network chair in English and >Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Canada. His most recent >books include: "Take Back Higher Education" (co-authored with Susan >Searls Giroux, 2006), "The University in Chains: Confronting the >Military-Industrial-Academic Complex" (2007) and "Against the Terror >of Neoliberalism: Politics Beyond the Age of Greed" (2008). His most >recent book is Youth in a Suspect Society: Democracy or >Disposability? has just been published by Palgrave Macmillan > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------ >Provided by Australis >http://www.australis.com.au/ > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 270.14.149/2631 - Release Date: >01/18/10 08:56:00 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Mon Jan 18 20:43:23 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:43:23 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Cynthia McKinney: Haiti 2010: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux [note refs to oil and rollback of foreign policy re SA democracies] Message-ID: <4B55002B.4137.27919343@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Note the references herein - which have not appeared in the critical articles I've seen so far on Haiti's subjugation over the years - to OIL AND ROLLBACK: OIL: "Therefore, we note here the writings of Ms. Marguerite Laurent, whom I met in her capacity as attorney for ousted President of Haiti Jean- Bertrand Aristide. Ms. Laurent reminds us of Haiti's offshore oil and other mineral riches and recent revivial of an old idea to use Haiti and an oil refinery to be built there as a transshipment terminal for U.S. supertankers. Ms. Laurent, also known as Ezili Danto of the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network (HLLN), writes: "There is evidence that the United States found oil in Haiti decades ago and due to the geopolitical circumstances and big business interests of that era made the decision to keep Haitian oil in reserve for when Middle Eastern oil had dried up. This is detailed by Dr. Georges Michel in an article dated March 27, 2004 outlining the history of oil explorations and oil reserves in Haiti and in the research of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin. "There is also good evidence that these very same big US oil companies and their inter-related monopolies of engineering and defense contractors made plans, decades ago, to use Haiti's deep water ports either for oil refineries or to develop oil tank farm sites or depots where crude oil could be stored and later transferred to small tankers to serve U.S. and Caribbean ports. This is detailed in a paper about the Dunn Plantation at Fort Liberte in Haiti." AND ROLLBACK POLICY RE SOUTH AMERICAN DEMOCRACIES: "I shudder to think that the "rollback" policies believed in by some foreign policy advisors to President Obama could use a prolonged U.S. military presence in Haiti as a springboard for rollback of areas in Latin America that have liberated themselves from U.S. neo-colonial domination. I would hate to think that this would even be attempted under the Presidency of Barack Obama. All of us must have our eyes wide open on Haiti and other parts of the world now dripping in blood as a result of the relentless onward march of the U.S. military machine." -- Cynthia mcKinney, former US Congresswoman serving six terms in US House of Representatives and Green Party US candidate in 2008 presidential election. FYI-JANET ========================= http://gpblackcaucus.blogspot.com/2010/01/from-cynthia-mckinney- unwelcome-katrina.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17063 El silencio es la peor arma de destrucci?n masiva. >From Cynthia McKinney: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux President Obama's response to the tragedy in Haiti has been robust in military deployment and puny in what the Haitians need most: food; first responders and their specialized equipment; doctors and medical facilities and equipment; and engineers, heavy equipment, and heavy movers. Sadly, President Obama is dispatching Presidents Bush and Clinton, and thousands of Marines and U.S. soldiers. By contrast, Cuba has over 400 doctors on the ground and is sending in more; Cubans, Argentinians, Icelanders, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, and many others are already on the ground working--saving lives and treating the injured. Senegal has offered land to Haitians willing to relocate to Africa. The United States, on the day after the tragedy struck, confirmed that an entire Marine Expeditionary Force was being considered "to help restore order," when the "disorder" had been caused by an earthquake striking Haiti; not since 1751, 1770, 1842, 1860, and 1887 had Haiti experienced an earthquake. But, I remember the bogus reports of chaos and violence the led to the deployment of military assets, including Blackwater, in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. One Katrina survivor noted that the people needed food and shelter and the U.S. government sent men with guns. Much to my disquiet, it seems, here we go again. From the very beginning, U.S. assistance to Haiti has looked to me more like an invasion than a humanitarian relief operation. On Day Two of the tragedy, a C-130 plane with a military assessment team landed in Haiti, with the rest of the team expected to land soon thereafter. The stated purpose of this team was to determine what military resources were needed. An Air Force special operations team was also expected to land to provide air traffic control. Now, the reports are that the U.S. is not allowing assistance in, shades of Hurricane Katrina, all over again. On President Obama's orders military aircraft "flew over the island, mapping the destruction." So, the first U.S. contribution to the humanitarian relief needed in Haiti were reconnaissance drones whose staffing are more accustomed to looking for hidden weapon sites and surface-to-air missile batteries than wrecked infrastructure. The scope of the U.S. response soon became clear: aircraft carrer, Marine transport ship, four C-140 airlifts, and evacuations to Guantanamo. By the end of Day Two, according to the Washington Post report, the United States had evacuated to Guantanamo Bay about eight [8] severely injured patients, in addition to U.S. Embassy staffers, who had been "designated as priorities by the U.S. Ambassador and his staff." On Day Three we learned that other U.S. ships, including destroyers, were moving toward Haiti. Interestingly, the Washington Post reported that the standing task force that coordinates the U.S. response to mass migration events from Cuba or Haiti was monitoring events, but had not yet ramped up its operations. That tidbit was interesting in and of itself, that those two countries are attended to by a standing task force, but the treatment of their nationals is vastly different, with Cubans being awarded immediate acceptance from the U.S. government, and by contrast, internment for Haitian nationals. U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson IV reassured Americans, "Our focus right now is to prevent that, and we are going to work with the Defense Department, the State Department, FEMA and all the agencies of the federal government to minimize the risk of Haitians who want to flee their country," Watson said. "We want to provide them those releif supplies so they can live in Haiti." By the end of Day Four, the U.S. reportedly had evacuated over 800 U.S. nationals. For those of us who have been following events in Haiti before the tragic earthquake, it is worth noting that several items have caused deep concern: 1. the continued exile of Haiti's democratically-elected and well- loved, yet twice-removed former priest, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide; 2. the unexplained continued occupation of the country by United Nations troops who have killed innocent Haitians and are hardly there for "security" (I've personally seen them on the roads that only lead to Haiti's sparsely-populated areas teeming with beautiful beaches); 3. U.S. construction of its fifth-largest embassy in the world in Port-au-Prince, Haiti; 4. mining and port licenses and contracts, including the privatization of Haiti's deep water ports, because certain off-shore oil and transshipment arrangements would not be possible inside the U.S. for environmental and other considerations; and 5. Extensive foreign NGO presence in Haiti that could be rendered unnecessary if, instead, appropriate U.S. and other government policy allowed the Haitian people some modicum of political and economic self-determination. Therefore, we note here the writings of Ms. Marguerite Laurent, whom I met in her capacity as attorney for ousted President of Haiti Jean- Bertrand Aristide. Ms. Laurent reminds us of Haiti's offshore oil and other mineral riches and recent revivial of an old idea to use Haiti and an oil refinery to be built there as a transshipment terminal for U.S. supertankers. Ms. Laurent, also known as Ezili Danto of the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network (HLLN), writes: "There is evidence that the United States found oil in Haiti decades ago and due to the geopolitical circumstances and big business interests of that era made the decision to keep Haitian oil in reserve for when Middle Eastern oil had dried up. This is detailed by Dr. Georges Michel in an article dated March 27, 2004 outlining the history of oil explorations and oil reserves in Haiti and in the research of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin. "There is also good evidence that these very same big US oil companies and their inter-related monopolies of engineering and defense contractors made plans, decades ago, to use Haiti's deep water ports either for oil refineries or to develop oil tank farm sites or depots where crude oil could be stored and later transferred to small tankers to serve U.S. and Caribbean ports. This is detailed in a paper about the Dunn Plantation at Fort Liberte in Haiti. "Ezili's HLLN underlines these two papers on Haiti's oil resources and the works of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin in order to provide a view one will not find in the mainstream media nor anywhere else as to the economic and strategic reasons the US has constructed its fifth largest embassy in the world - fifth only besides the US embassy in China, Iraq, Iran and Germany - in tiny Haiti, post the 2004 Haiti Bush regime change." Unfortunately, before the tragedy struck, and despite pleading to the Administration by Haiti activists inside the United States, President Obama failed to stop the deportation of Haitians inside the United States and failed to grant TPS, temporary protected status, to Haitians inside the U.S. in peril of being deported due to visa expirations. That was corrected on Day Three of Haiti's earthquake tragedy with the January 15, 2010 announcement that Haiti would join Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, El Salvador, and Sudan as a country granted TPS by the Secretary of Homeland Security. President Obama's appointment of President Bush to the Haiti relief effort is a swift left jab to the face, in my opinion. After President Bush's performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the fact that still today, Hurricane Katrina survivors who want to return still have not been provided a way back home, the appointment might augur well for fundraising activities, but I doubt that it bodes well for the Haitian people. Afterall, the coup against and the kidnapping of President Aristide occurred under the watch of a Bush Presidency. Finally, those with an appreciation of French literature know that among France's most beloved authors are Alexandre Dumas, son of a Haitian slave, and Victor Hugo who wrote: "Haiti est une lumiere." [Haiti is a light.] Indeed, Haiti for millions is a light: light into the methodology and evil of slavery; light into a successful slave rebellion, light into nationhood and notions of liberty, the rights of man, and of human dignity. Haiti is a light. And an example that makes the enemies of black liberation tremble. It is precisely because of Haiti's light into the evil genius of some individuals who wield power over others and man's ability, through unity and purpose, to overcome that evil, that some segments of the world have been at war with Haiti ever since 1804, the year of Haiti's creation as a Republic. I'm not surprised at "Reverend" Pat Robertson's racist vitriol. Robertson's comments mirror, exactly, statements made by Napoleon's Cabinet when the Haitians defeated them. But in 2010, Robertson's statements reveal much more: Haitians are not the only ones who know their importance to the struggle against hatred, imperialism, and European domination. This pesky, persistent, stubbornly non-Western, proudly African people of this piece of land that we call Haiti know their history and they know that they militarily defeated the ruling world empire of the day, Napoleon's France, and the global elite at that time who supported him. They know that they defeated the armies of England and Spain. Haitians know that they used their status as a free state to help liberate Latin Americans from Spain, by funding and fighting alongside Simon Bolivar; their example inspired their still-enslaved African brothers and sisters on the American mainland; and before Haitians were even free, they fought against the British inside the U.S. during its war of independence and won a decisive battle in Savannah, Georgia, where I have visited the statue commemorating that victory. Haitians know that France imposed reparations on them for being free, and Haiti paid them in full, but that President Aristide called for France to give that money back ($21 billion in 2003 dollars). Haitians know that their "brother," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to the world upon the kidnapping and second ouster of their President. (Sadly, it wouldn't be the last time that Secretary of State Colin Powell would lie to the world.) Haitians know, all-too- well, that high-ranking blacks in the United States are capable of helping them and of betraying them. Haitians know, too, that the United States has installed its political proxies and even its own soldiers onto Haitian soil when the U.S. felt it was necessary. All in an effort to control the indomitable Haitian spirit that directs much-needed light to the rest of the oppressed world. While the tears of the people of Haiti swell in my own eyes, and I remember their tremendous capacity for love, my broken heart and wet eyes don't dampen my ability to understand the grave danger that now faces my friends in Haiti. I shudder to think that the "rollback" policies believed in by some foreign policy advisors to President Obama could use a prolonged U.S. military presence in Haiti as a springboard for rollback of areas in Latin America that have liberated themselves from U.S. neo-colonial domination. I would hate to think that this would even be attempted under the Presidency of Barack Obama. All of us must have our eyes wide open on Haiti and other parts of the world now dripping in blood as a result of the relentless onward march of the U.S. military machine. So, on this remembrance of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I note that it was the U.S. government's own illegal Operation Lantern Spike that snuffed out the promise and light of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Every plane of humanitarian assistance that is turned away by the U.S. military (so far from CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, M?decins Sans Frontieres, Brazil, France, Italy, and even the U.S. Red Cross)--as was done in the wake of Hurricane Katrina-- and the expected arrival on this very day of up to 10,000 U.S. troops, are lasting reminders of the existential threat that now looms over the valiant, proud people and the Republic of Haiti. -- http://www.enduswars.org http://www.livestream.com/dignity http://www.twitter.com/dignityaction http://www.myspace.com/dignityaction http://www.myspace.com/runcynthiarun http://www.twitter.com/cynthiamckinney http://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinney -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$319F.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 15621 bytes Desc: Mail message body URL: From papadop at peak.org Mon Jan 18 23:10:00 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:10:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] US accused of 'occupying' Haiti as troops flood in Message-ID: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7020908/US-accused-of-occupying-Haiti-as-troops-flood-in.html TELEGRAPH (LONDON) Tuesday 19 January 2010 France accused the US of "occupying" Haiti on Monday as thousands of American troops flooded into the country to take charge of aid efforts and security. By Aislinn Laing, and Tom Leonard in Port-au-Prince. The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to "clarify" the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts. Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport's control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation fligHT "This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti," Mr Joyandet said. Geneva-based charity Medecins Sans Frontieres backed his calls saying hundreds of lives were being put at risk as planes carrying vital medical supplies were being turned away by American air traffic controllers. But US commanders insisted their forces' focus was on humanitarian work and last night agreed to prioritise aid arrivals to the airport over military flights, after the intervention of the UN. The diplomatic row came amid heightened frustrations that hundreds of tons of aid was still not getting through. Charities reported violence was also worsening as desperate Haitians took matters into their own hands. The death toll is now estimated at up to 200,000 lives. Around three million Haitians ? a third of the country's population ? have been affected by Tuesday's earthquake and two million require food assistance. While food and water was gradually arriving at the makeshift camps which have sprung up around the city, riots have broken out in other areas where supplies have still not materialised. Haiti was occupied by the US between 1915 and 1935, and historical sensitivities together with friction with other countries over the relief effort has made the Americans cautious about their role in the operation. American military commanders have repeatedly stressed that they are not entering the country as an occupying force. US soldiers in Port-au-Prince said they had been told to be discreet about how they carry their M4 assault rifles. A paratrooper sergeant said they were authorised to use "deadly force" if they see anyone's life in danger but only as a "last resort". Capt John Kirby, a spokesman for the joint task force at the airport, said the US recognised it was only one of a number of countries contributing to a UN-led mission. He also emphasised the US troops, which he said would rise to 10,000 by Wednesday would principally be assisting in humanitarian relief and the evacuation of people needing medical attention. The main responsibility for security rests with the UN, which is to add a further 3,000 troops to its force of 9,000. However, it was agreed on Sunday night that the Americans would take over security at the four main food and water distribution points being set up in the city, Capt Kirby said. "Security here is in a fluid situation," he said. "If the Haitian government asked us to provide security downtown, we would do that." He played down the threat of violence, saying: "What we're seeing is that there are isolated incidents of violence and some pockets where it's been more restive, but overall it's calm." * * From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Jan 19 02:41:12 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:41:12 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Cynthia McKinney: Haiti 2010: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux [note refs to oil and rollback of foreign policy re SA democracies] In-Reply-To: <4B55002B.4137.27919343@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B55002B.4137.27919343@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100119104113.3138CF2AB@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> What prompted Obama to allow George W. Bush to represent America? Millions upon millions of human beings live in America. Couldn't Obama have chosen one of them instead? Dion Giles From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Tue Jan 19 03:03:14 2010 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:03:14 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] =?iso-8859-1?q?What=27s_new_at_Links=3A_Haiti_tragedy?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2C_visit_Venezuela=2C_Martin_Luther_King=2C_350_ppm=2C_S?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2E_Africa=2C_Rafael_Correa=2C_Daniel_Bensa=EFd=2C_Hugo_Bl?= =?iso-8859-1?q?anco=2C_Gramsci=2C_British_left?= Message-ID: <4B559172.9060106@greenleft.org.au> What's new at Links: Haiti tragedy, visit Venezuela, Martin Luther King, 350 ppm, S. Africa, Rafael Correa, Daniel Bensa?d, Hugo Blanco, Gramsci, British left * * * Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in Links. * * * Fidel Castro: The lesson of Haiti By Fidel Castro Ruz January 15, 2009 -- Two days ago, at almost six o'clock in the evening Cuban time and when, given its geographical location, night had already fallen in Haiti, television stations began to broadcast the news that a violent earthquake -- measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale -- had severely struck Port-au-Prince. The seismic phenomenon originated from a tectonic fault located in the sea just 15 kilometres from the Haitian capital, a city where 80% of the population inhabit fragile homes built of adobe and mud. * Read more The West's role in Haiti's plight By Peter Hallward January 14, 2009 -- If we are serious about assisting this devastated land we must stop trying to control and exploit it. * Read more Join the 2010 `May Day' solidarity brigade to Venezuela! April 24 - May 2, 2010 Registrations close February 1, 2010 The Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network 's brigades to Venezuela are a once-in-a-lifetime experience - the opportunity to see first-hand an unfolding revolution that is not only radically transforming the lives of Venezuelans, but is challenging the greed, exploitation and destructiveness of global capitalism by showing that a better world is possible. Join the AVSN's "May Day" solidarity brigade, to run from April 24 to May 2, 2010. * Read more Martin Luther King Jr in the age of Obama: Why we can't wait By Billy Wharton January 17, 2009 -- Albert Boutwell's election as Birmingham, Alabama, mayor in 1963 might have signaled the end of the modern civil rights movement. As a moderate Democrat, Boutwell promised to temper the harsh repression unleashed by the city's notorious chief of police and his mayoral opponent Eugene "Bull" Connor. Mainstream leaders of the black community were told to wait it out -- let the storm pass and incremental changes could begin. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. refused to wait. Instead, he launched Plan "C" (confrontation), a large-scale protest campaign that broke the back of Southern segregation. * Read more Haitians plead: `Where is the help?' By Roger Annis January 15, 2010 -- Evidence of monstrous neglect of the Haitian people is mounting following the catastrophic earthquake three days ago. As life-saving medical supplies, food, water purification chemicals and vehicles pile up at the airport in Port-au-Prince, and as news networks report a massive international effort to deliver emergency aid, the people in the shattered city are wondering when they will see help. * Read more United States: Blacks still taking the hit By Malik Miah January 2010 -- It took 10 months before the US Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) stood up and challenged President Barack Obama. In a surprise move, 10 CBC leaders refused to participate in a key House of Representatives financial committee vote in December 2010 until some more relief is provided to Black businesses. * Read more The 350 ppm carbon dioxide challenge and how to achieve it By Renfrey Clarke January 14, 2010 -- The target posed by leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen of stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at 350 parts per million (ppm) is increasingly understood in conjunction with the need to keep cumulative emissions within a tight global "budget". While the point at which budgeted emissions occur is not in theory crucial, in practice there is a need to ensure that emissions peak early and decline swiftly thereafter. * Read more 2010: Welcome to the upside-down world of South Africa By Dale T. McKinley January 11, 2010 -- Even if the meanings we give to measurements of time are most often overblown, there is something about the mark of a new decade. In the case of South Africa, 1990 marked the beginning of the end of the apartheid system, ushering in a period pregnant with new hopes, possibilities and dreams. When 2000 rolled around it heralded not only a once in a lifetime turn of a century but carried with it the delayed weight of the majority expectation of an age of progress and plenty. So what are our "inheritances" as we begin the new decade? Where do things stand? What is the mark of 2010? * Read more Ecuador: Interview -- President Rafael Correa discusses `Citizens' Revolution', socialism for the 21st century In April 2009, Rafael Correa was elected to his second term as president of Ecuador with 51% of the vote. This gave him a mandate to continue and deepen the program of reforms and structural changes initiated since he first became president in November 2006. In three years Correa's government has introduced unprecedented social and economic reforms - known as the Citizens' Revolution - to reverse the poverty and exploitation suffered by the majority of the population in a country which has been ravaged by neoliberalism. * Read more Daniel Bensa?d: militant, intellectual, friend By Fran?ois Sabado Daniel Bensa?d left us today, Tuesday, January 12, 2010. Born in 1946 he gave his life to the cause of defending revolutionary Marxist ideas right to the end. He was one of the founders of the Jeunesse Communiste R?volutionnaire (JCR -- Revolutionary Communist Youth) and the Ligue Communiste R?volutionnaire (LCR -- Revolutionary Communist League, French section of the Fourth International). * Read more Hugo Blanco: `Only extinction of capitalism will ensure the survival of our species'; Reuni?n sobre cambio clim?tico Copenhague By Hugo Blanco, translated by Richard Fidler The concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere is already so high that the climate system has been brought out of balance. The CO2 concentration and global temperatures have increased more rapidly in the last 50 years than ever before on Earth, and will rise even faster in the coming decades. This adds to a multitude of other serious ecological imbalances, the impacts of which threaten the lives and livelihoods of the people of the world, most acutely, impoverished people and other vulnerable groups. * Read more The relevance of Gramsci's theory for today By Peter Latham January 3, 2010 -- I first read Gramsci in English over 40 years ago. Moreover, my thesis on Theories of the Labour Movement--a Marxist critique of non-Marxist theories of industrial relations--used Gramsci's concept of the "organic" working class intellectual to explain twentieth century rank and file movements in the British building industry.This paper is based on the Gramsci section in my forthcoming book on The State and Local Government. * Read more Britain: Building left unity out of the wreckage The Socialist Resistance national committee adopted this document, by Liam Mac Uaid, on January 9, 2010, to outline its balance sheet of the last decade's attempts at the resolving the crisis of working-class representation in Britain. * Read more * * * Links seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcpogo at aol.com Tue Jan 19 09:26:13 2010 From: mcpogo at aol.com (mcpogo at aol.com) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:26:13 EST Subject: [Mai-not] Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces Message-ID: <8ffc.2df316c1.38874535@aol.com> I am a Canadian observer, very interested in World and especially US Politics. I believe we were taught in our world history & politics courses that one of the major tenets of the US Constitution was no one could legally justify trying/codifying into law or otherwise attempt to permit the use of US Federal Military Forces against their own American citizens within the United States. I was just wondering then how President Barrack Obama's Executive Order #13528 "Integration of State and Federal Military Forces" that he signed on January 11, 2010 could be allowed Constitutionally? Would this not be a Federal Crime or Treasonous Act under the US Constitution, specifically with regard to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? Just wondering after reading the following political analysis from a Canadian Think Tank. Any thoughts from my fellow Mai-not members? Paul McLean RR 5 Owen Sound, Ont Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Big Brother: Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces Executive Order Seeks to "Synchronize and Integrate" January 18, 2010 by Tom Burghardt URL of this article: _www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17006_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17006) _Global Research_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) , January 17, 2010 _Antifascist Calling..._ (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/) - 2010-01-16 In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barrack Obama signed _Executive Order 13528_ (http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-00705_PI.pdf) on January 11. Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency." According to the White House _press release_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the -press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-gov ernors) , the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards." "When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defence; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defence, and civil support activities." Clearly designed to weaken the _Posse Comitatus Act of 1878_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html) which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of manoeuvres by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability. One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (_USNORTHCOM_ (http://www.northcom.mil/) ), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism's endless "War on Terror." At the time, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946." The real-world consequences of those changes weren't long in coming. Following their criminal inaction during 2005's Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance. At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the _Insurrection Act_ (http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/InsurrectionAct/index.html) , a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to "suppress rebellion." How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina's flood waters could be twisted into an act of "rebellion" was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: "Drowning while Black." Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media's deafening silence on Obama's Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in "new normal" America. Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans such as _Cable Splicer_ (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Operation_Cable_Splicer) and _Garden Plot_ (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/garden_plot.htm) , both of which are continuously updated, our "change" President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power. Under color of the _2008 National Defense Authorization Act_ (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1585eh. txt.pdf) , an unsavoury piece of Bushist legislative detritus, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions." The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defence no less, "shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defence or the Co-Chairs of the Council." Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated "to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defence; the Secretary of Homeland Security" and "the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism." Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will "exchange views" include, "the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Homeland Defence and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defence, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defence or the Secretary of Homeland Security." In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, "Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defence; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defence, and civil support activities." When news first broke last summer of Obama's proposal to expand the military's authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA). _Congressional Quarterly_ (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000003189757) reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it "would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote. According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defence for Homeland Defence and Americas' Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that "without assigning a governor tactical control" of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the "strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander." With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defence spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power. These manoeuvres as I have previously _written_ (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2008/10/militarizing-homeland-northcoms-joint.html) , have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State's writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people. Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for "conspiracy theorists" railing against "FEMA concentration camps," Continuity of Government, and the nexus of "civil support" programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter. Indeed, even members of Congress are considered "unauthorized parties" denied access "to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities," according to a Pentagon _document_ (http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdf) published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House _web site_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/NSPD%2051/HSPD%2020) . As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "_Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?_ (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2008/11/vigilant-shield-09-cover-for-illegal.html) "), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page _report_ (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34737.pdf) in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a "civil support" operation that war games various disaster scenarios. Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (_EO 12656_ (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/EO12656.htm) ) that "directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises." EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as "as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States." Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (_HSPD-8_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/homeland%20security%20presidential%20directive%208) ), also removed from the White House web site, established "a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises." CRS avers, "The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities." The Defense Department's role during such emergencies were intended to focus "principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events." DoD would play a "significant role" in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners. The primary DoD entity responsible for "civil support," a focus of Obama's EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to "synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities," USNORTHCOM's role is shrouded in secrecy. As researcher Peter Dale Scott _revealed_ (http://www.counterpunch.org/scott03312008.html) in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: "DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing." One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, _Army Times_ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/) reported, that the "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home." Analyst Michel Chossudovsky _commented_ (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10341) , "What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a 'war theatre' thereby justifying the deployment of combat units." According to Chossudovsky, "The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement." "It is noteworthy, the _World Socialist Web Site_ (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/mili-s25.shtml) commented, "that the deployment of US combat troops 'as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters' ... coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s." "Justified as a response to terrorist threats," socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, "the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability." Since USNORTHCOM's deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people. After all, where the defence of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 11675 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jomut at yahoo.com Tue Jan 19 12:04:31 2010 From: jomut at yahoo.com (John Mutambirwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:04:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education Message-ID: <813896.48276.qm@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John Mutambirwa (Dreaming Awake) jomut at yahoo.com chakane at hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/jomut Hi, Good to hear such enthusiastic echoes from the critics of modern academe once again. Excellent reminder of C Wright Mills thoughts on the same theme voiced over half a century ago: ? "But are not the people now more educated? Why not emphasize the spread of education rather than the increased effects of the mass media? The answer, in brief, is that mass education, in many respects, has become-another mass medium. "The prime task of public education, as it came widely to be understood in this country, was political: to make the citizen more knowledgeable and thus better able to think and to judge of public affairs. In time, the function of education shifted from the political to the economic: to train people for better-paying jobs and thus to get ahead. This is especially true of the high-school movement, which has met the business demands for white-collar skills at the public's expense. In large part education has become merely vocational; in so far as its political task is concerned, in many schools, that has been reduced to a routine training of nationalist loyalties. "The training of skills that are of more or less direct use in the vocational life is an important task to perform, but ought not to be mistaken for liberal education: job advancement, no matter on what levels, is not the same as self-development, although the two are now systematically confused. Among 'skills,' some are more and some are less relevant to the aims of liberal-that is to say, ]liberating-education. Skills and values cannot be so easily separated as the academic search for supposedly neutral skills causes us to assume. And especially not when we speak seriously of liberal education. Of course, there is a scale, with skills at one end and values at the other, but it is the middle range of this scale, which one might call sensibilities, that are of most relevance to the classic public. "To train someone to operate a lathe or to read and write is pretty much education of skill; to evoke from people an understanding of what they really want out of their lives or to debate with them stoic, Christian and humanist ways of living, is pretty much a clear-cut education of values. But to assist in the birth among a group of people of those cultural and political and technical sensibilities which would make them genuine members of a genuinely liberal public, this is at once a training in skills and an education of values. It includes a sort of therapy in the ancient sense of clarifying one's knowledge of one's self; it includes the imparting of all those skills of controversy with one's self, which we call thinking; and with others, which we call debate. And the end product of such liberal education of sensibilities is simply the self-educating, self-cultivating man or woman." One of the reasons, that?have?been advanced for the existence of this academic malaise, is offered by William Scott and David Hart in their 1979 book on how modern bureaucratic?organizations had stifled much autonomous initiative in modern life -? Organizational America.? In one of their chapters they talk of how students, stricken with what they refer to as the "weenie syndrome", think of themselves as culinary?dainties that have to be carefully stuffed with all manner of useful goodies for the delectation of their future employers. ? John ============== ? --- On Tue, 1/19/10, john foster wrote: > From: john foster > Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education > To: mai-not at globalproblematique.net > Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 2:48 AM > > > Excerpt: > > "Higher education is a hard-won democratic achievement and > it is time that parents, faculty, students, alumni and > concerned citizens reclaim higher education as a > fundamental public good rather than merely a training ground > for > corporate interests, values, and profits.? Education > is not only about issues of work and economics-as important > as > these may be, but also about matters of justice,? > freedom, and the capacity for democratic agency, action, and > change as > well as the related issues of power, exclusion, and > citizenship. Education at its best is about enabling > students to > take seriously questions about how they ought to live their > lives, uphold the ideals of a just society, learn how to > translate personal issues into public considerations, and > act upon the promises of a strong democracy.(snip) > > Schooling offers more than the promise of a decent job, > however elusive that has become; more importantly, it offers > the > promise of a just and democratic society." > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/giroux09082009.html > > September 8, 2009 > > Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? > The Corporate Stranglehold on Education > By HENRY A. GIROUX >? (SNIP) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 19 17:10:06 2010 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:10:06 +1300 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education In-Reply-To: <20100119041919.E3F3A4686B0@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> References: <026f01ca98b1$d52d9c90$26ad57ca@jfos> <20100119041919.E3F3A4686B0@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <3CC661DA-AFE4-4717-B062-3E06167F74F0@xtra.co.nz> On 19/01/2010, at 5:19 PM, Ed Deak wrote: > > I don't know much about Canadian universities, but wish these jerks could have experienced an English university town 50-60 years ago, when universities were still the places of learning, instead of brainwash. . > > Cheers, Ed. > =================================================================================================== > Hear hear! Peter (St John's College Cambridge, 1961~64), who was horrified, on taking up a teaching position at New Zealand University in 1994, that there was a unit on campus devoted to undergraduates with "literacy difficulties". Part of my entrance examination involved doing a Latin "unseen" (i.e. translating a piece of Latin prose with no prior sight of the source text, and without the aid of a dictionary) From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Jan 19 17:54:27 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:54:27 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education In-Reply-To: <3CC661DA-AFE4-4717-B062-3E06167F74F0@xtra.co.nz> References: <026f01ca98b1$d52d9c90$26ad57ca@jfos> <20100119041919.E3F3A4686B0@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <3CC661DA-AFE4-4717-B062-3E06167F74F0@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: <20100120015428.324A1F653@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> The dumbing-down process has made giant strides since 1961-64. There will still be pockets of literacy in some institutions but Western Australia is more or less the world home of mass illiteracy. When I took Matriculation in Melbourne in 1948 the exam was run by Melbourne University and you had to be literate (and in the science area, numerate as well) to pass. This included competence in at least one foreign language plus Latin. Since then educrats in the State public service have transformed education into an exercise in sociology. I could send you a URL for what passes for a matriculation chemistry syllabus in WA but I'll desist out of respect for your stomachs. I am independent reviewer for matriculation chemistry exams in WA and Victoria and it's sad - Victoria was once the educational leader in Australia, now I have to waste time persuading the examining panels there that "they'll know what you mean" is not a substitute for unambiguous questions in standard English vocabulary and grammar. I am sure that planned growth of functional illiteracy is the reason why nearly 90% of the votes go to the Liberal and Labor parties, especially as language is the vehicle for thought and communication, and when language is debased so are critical thought and accurate communication. Interestingly I have found that the standard of English in American newspapers - even regional papers like the Austin Statesman - is a great deal better than is found in Australia or Britain. It's a pity that they don't use their higher linguistic standards to furnish the readers with real information. The Austin Statesman has a small circulation despite the large size of Austin, but I think this is because it is so boring. The best online set of guidelines for grammatical English that I have come across is that run by Professor Paul Brians from Washington State University, at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html. It's the American variant but easily adaptable to British standard English in those few instances in which there's a difference, and I have used it extensively as a reference in chemistry classes. Of all the truths expressed in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four the fact that suppression of language suppresses critical thought was to me the most compelling. Dion Giles At 09:10 20/01/2010, you wrote: >On 19/01/2010, at 5:19 PM, Ed Deak wrote: > > > > > I don't know much about Canadian universities, but wish these > jerks could have experienced an English university town 50-60 years > ago, when universities were still the places of learning, instead > of brainwash. . > > > > Cheers, Ed. > > > =================================================================================================== > > > > > >Hear hear! > >Peter (St John's College Cambridge, 1961~64), who was >horrified, on taking up a teaching position at New Zealand >University in 1994, that there was a unit on campus devoted to >undergraduates with "literacy difficulties". > >Part of my entrance examination involved doing a Latin "unseen" > (i.e. translating a piece of Latin prose with no prior sight of the >source text, and without the aid of a dictionary) > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4787 (20100119) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 19 17:54:38 2010 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:54:38 +1300 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Is Higher Education in Need of a Moral Bailout? - The Corporate Stranglehold on Education In-Reply-To: <3CC661DA-AFE4-4717-B062-3E06167F74F0@xtra.co.nz> References: <026f01ca98b1$d52d9c90$26ad57ca@jfos> <20100119041919.E3F3A4686B0@smtprelay03.hostedemail.com> <3CC661DA-AFE4-4717-B062-3E06167F74F0@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: On 20/01/2010, at 2:10 PM, Peter Tuffley wrote: > > > > Peter (St John's College Cambridge, 1961~64), who was > horrified, on taking up a teaching position at New Zealand > University in 1994, that there was a unit on campus devoted to > undergraduates with "literacy difficulties". For "at New Zealand University" please read "at a New Zealand university" From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Tue Jan 19 19:20:23 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:20:23 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] David Sirota: It's Not Mere Cynicism or Demoralization - More Likely, Humiliation and Alienation [re Mass. Senate race] Message-ID: <4B563E37.15294.2C6BF0EB@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> ------- Forwarded message follows ------- To: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Subject: It's Not Mere Cynicism or Demoralization - More Likely, It's Humiliation and Alienation Date sent: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:10:43 -0500 From: David Sirota http://www.openleft.com/diary/17005/its-not-mere-cynicism-or-just- demoralization-more-likely-its-humiliation-and-alienation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/its-not-mere-cynicism- or_b_429055.html It's Not Mere Cynicism or Demoralization - More Likely, It's Humiliation and Alienation By David Sirota OpenLeft/Huffington Post, 1/19/10 Let me interject something in the midst of all the finger-pointing about the unfortunate results of the Massachusetts senate race tonight - something that I think has been missed in all the media punditry, activist Twittering and netroots blogging. Various polls (here and here, as examples) have shown that a good chunk of the opposition to and/or frustration with the health care bill that played such a central role in the Massachusetts race comes from a progressive perspective - namely, a perspective that says the bill doesn't go far enough. How much that precise kind of opposition/frustration played a role in the Massachusetts race is anyone's guess - but among those that it did, my guess is that the feelings of demoralization are particularly intense, because those feelings are rooted in the most powerful emotion of all: humiliation. After a 2008 campaign that saw Democrats promise to genuinely take on the health care and financial industries, we've seen a 2009 that has asked Democratic voters to fight for extremely small, extremely modest scraps. We've been relegated to having to mount fierce campaigns to keep things like the public option in the debate and not to stop trillion-dollar bailouts - but just make sure they have one or two flimsy strings attached to them. We've loyally mounted these campaigns. They haven't been fun, and worse, they haven't been legislatively successful (at least not yet). But beyond the substantive failure is the embarrassment that comes with even having to mount such campaigns in the first place. There is something deeply embarrassing about Democratic voters/groups having to fight with Democratic leaders to get those leaders to even seriously try (much less pass) even the smallest, most modest shreds of their promises. Having to do that evokes feelings of genuine shame - shame in front of the other voters we told to vote for Democrats because it supposedly "mattered," and shame in front of the mirror for being so misled. I feel this sense of humiliation every day I am talking to regular folks here in Colorado on the radio. As a single-payer guy, I feel embarrassed that I've been relegated to fighting for the fulfillment of as modest a campaign promise as the public option. Likewise, as a person who opposed the bailouts from the get-go, I feel embarrassed to be relegated to simply asking for a bit of transparency and regulation from a party that promised tough New Deal-like measures against Wall Street. And my guess is that - whether consciously or not - many people who voted for Democrats in 2008 feel that same sense of shame as well. Again, I don't know if this deep sense of humiliation is what drove down Democratic performance in Massachusetts tonight, or is driving down President Obama's numbers as a whole. But my bet is it has at least something to do with it, especially because the 2008 campaign had so much to do with raising people's expectations. That wasn't a normal election - many of us who had stopped believing in the possibilities of American democracy said we'd be willing to believe one last time. And now, seeing that perhaps we shouldn't have relented in our (rightful) cynicism, we are completely mortified. Undoubtedly, Democrats and progressive media will attempt to make us ignore these feelings of humiliation by simply vilifying the extremism of Republicans (predictably, we are already seeing this on television tonight). That's their tried and true formula. But I don't know if it will work this time, unless it is coupled with - finally - a serious effort by Democratic lawmakers to legislate their promises. Even then, though, I just don't know if it will work. I don't know because maybe it's too little, too late - maybe the humiliation has already transformed cynicism into total and complete alienation. ---------------------------- DAVID SIROTA Columnist/Radio Host/Author Website: http://www.davidsirota.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rocktheboat Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/davidsirota Blog: http://www.openleft.com Radio Show: http://www.am760.net/pages/DavidSirota.html (Weekdays 7am- 10am MST) To unsubscribe from this list visit this link To update your preferences visit this link To forward this message to a friend visit this link ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 6406 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: powerphplist.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2408 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 163 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Jan 19 19:55:27 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:55:27 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] David Sirota: It's Not Mere Cynicism or Demoralization - More Likely, Humiliation and Alienation [re Mass. Senate race] In-Reply-To: <4B563E37.15294.2C6BF0EB@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B563E37.15294.2C6BF0EB@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <20100120035533.7075B1146E@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Tue Jan 19 23:58:54 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:58:54 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Haiti: Gregory Palast on what is really going on Message-ID: <20100120075855.2EC8A12AA7@fep05.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Wed Jan 20 09:25:12 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:25:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Dems deserve what happened in Mass. Message-ID: Here's a well expressed opinion - I see the election result as a warning /complaint about the spinelessness opf the upper echelons of the Dem "party". On issue after issue, torture, war, economic collapse,healthcare the decision has been made to take the "wrong" path. If this election has the effect of galvanizing the democrat spine into actively erasing the decisiopns and the effects of the Bush years we'll have one a gerat victory. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:26:16 -0800 From: Carl Reynolds Wednesday, January 20, 2010 I resigned as a Democrat and registered as an "unaffiliated voter" a couple of weeks ago. My response is not, I think, atypical of the current disillusionment that resulted in the election of a Republican to Edward Kennedy's seat in the Senate. There is no other explanation for the election result in Massachusetts, where Democrats hold a wide margin in registered voters. Disillusioned Democrats sat on their hands and stayed home. GOOD FOR THEM! The message to the Democratic Party is clear: the wave of enthusiasm that elected the first black president in US history has been betrayed in the name of bipartisanship. Obama kissed the asses of the Blue Dogs and Joe Lieberman and got farts and the finger in return. The failure of Obama to fight for change from the very start has given credibility to the right wing forces that were in utter disgrace following Bush's lying us into the Iraq War and his failure to regulate the financial sector causing the Great Recession. IMO, Obama should have let the too-big-to-fail banks FAIL! This was the change I and a hundred million voters deserved. Likewise Obama betrayed us by taking single payer health care funding off the table from the start - despite having acknowledged it as the right policy. Obama caved in to the corporate domination of his administration without a fight. He and those who continue to support him deserve what they got in Massachusetts. And they deserve what's coming in 2010: a swing to the right that will produce catastrophic suffering for working and middle class people in this country. Perhaps then we will find the courage and the leadership to throw off the shackles of corporate, big money domination of our political process. Carl Reynolds Sherwood, Oregon Ralph Nader for Single Payer Action http://www.quixote-quest.org/resources/demo_cap_soc/Nader_Single_Payer_Action.html From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 20 14:04:12 2010 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:04:12 +1300 Subject: [Mai-not] Dems deserve what happened in Mass. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2388700E-F7D2-498A-B0D3-6E87B7AE3DB4@xtra.co.nz> On 21/01/2010, at 6:25 AM, MichaelP wrote: > > Obama caved in to the corporate domination of his administration without a fight. He and those who continue to support him deserve what they got in Massachusetts. And they deserve what's coming in 2010: a swing to the right that will produce catastrophic suffering for working and middle class people in this country. Perhaps then we will find the courage and the leadership to throw off the shackles of corporate, big money domination of our political process. > Or in 2012 Palin for Pres? Peter From ptuffley at xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 20 14:10:08 2010 From: ptuffley at xtra.co.nz (Peter Tuffley) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:10:08 +1300 Subject: [Mai-not] Drew Westen: Obama Finally Gets His Victory For Bipartisanship Message-ID: From Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-finally-gets-his-vi_b_429232.html Piece begins: You can blame a bad candidate, bad organization, bad timing of a vacation -- choose your rationalization. But the reality is that voters in Massachusetts were reacting to the same foul mist coming off Boston Harbor that New Jersey Voters smelled coming off the Hudson and Virginia voters off the Chesapeake. What they all understood was that the source lay on the shores of the Potomac. It is a truly remarkable feat, in just one year's time, to turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Thu Jan 21 14:56:53 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:56:53 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: [S] International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, Gonzales Message-ID: <013b01ca9aed$0812fff0$0dad57ca@jfos> International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice, Gonzales by Prof. Francis A. Boyle Global Research, January 20, 2010 After Downing Street - 2010-01-19 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17091 INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the ??Accused??) for their criminal policy and practice of ??extraordinary rendition?? perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states. The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally ??submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation?? of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3). For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused??s criminal policy and practice of ??extraordinary rendition,?? which the Obama administration has continued to implement. The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b)(iii). In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or email as indicated below. Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law Law Building 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone: 217-333-7954 Fax: 217-244-1478 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo Office of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM, The Hague The Netherlands Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555 Email: OTP.InformationDesk at icc-cpi.int January 19, 2010 Dear Sir: Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the ??Accused??) for their criminal policy and practice of ??extraordinary rendition.?? This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of ??extraordinary rendition?? upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100 White Judeo-Christian men. The Accused??s criminal policy and practice of ??extraordinary rendition?? are both ??widespread?? and ??systematic?? within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous ??Crimes against Humanity?? in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused??s Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today. The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as follows: Article 12 Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction ?? 2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3: (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ?? So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.??s prosecution of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states. Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows: Article 13 Exercise of Jurisdiction The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: ?? (c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15. Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): ??The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.?? My detailed Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient ??information?? required by article 15(1). Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes ??a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation?? under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally ??submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation?? of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two requests set forth immediately above. Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint. As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next-of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin, loved-ones, and friends of ??disappeared?? human beings can never benefit from psychological ??closure?? unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused??s enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint. Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called ??dirty war?? in Argentina the International Criminal Court had been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation, and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the ??widespread?? and ??systematic?? policy and practice of enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused. Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C. ??case?? against the Accused is ??admissible?? under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about one hundred ??disappeared?? and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are also Victims of the Accused??s Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect. Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused??s policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute ?C unless you stop them! Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more ??extraordinary renditions?? -- enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama administration to terminate its criminal ??extraordinary rendition?? program immediately and thoroughly by means of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia. The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C. a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not come to that. Please make it so. Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i), article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind. I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law Global Research Articles by Francis A. Boyle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 21 22:45:12 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:45:12 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Sustainble Economics Journal Editorial + Index of current issue. Message-ID: <4B591138.12506.37742C75@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> A link to a very sound, thought-provoking article, on - `WHY THIS CRISIS MAY BE OUR BEST CHANCE TO BUILD A NEW ECONOMY?, is: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/why-this-crisis-may- be-our-best-chance-to-build-a-new-economy by David Korten I also recommend a reading of a copyrighted article by Walden Bello, The Virtues of Deglobalization, which was published on Friday, September 4, 2009 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF). The URL to the article is: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/04-4 fyi-janet ============================================ http://sustecweb.co.uk/current/sustec17-6/editorial.htm Sustainable Economics 17-6 index Dec 09 Editorial: The ultimate conspiracy - not just `conspiracy theory? - is at last gaining attention. For decades, mention of the interlinked Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, European Round Table of Industrialists, Project or the New American Century - and not least, the Bank of International Settlements - has been dismissed as `conspiracy theory?, as though no `conspiracy theory? could be based on `conspiracy fact?. The fact gradually becoming generally recognized, because of the blatantly damaging decisions being made by governments, is that there is a global elite working toward a corporate world government, and a world money, controlled by psychopaths prepared to start wars, allow the devastation of the `First World? economies and the spread of poverty, starvation and diseases in the poorer parts of the world, and to spread lies and misinformation through the corporate public media. The blatant inconsistencies in the official report on `9/11? gave rise to many `conspiracy theories?, some or which were indeed far- fetched; but many facts emerged contradicting the official story, which give credence to the implication of the US administration as responsible for it. It is not acceptable to dismiss all these facts as `conspiracy theory?. Obama?s election in the USA was seen as a ray of hope, but the reality is becoming apparent that however sincere he is in his pronouncements, he is in the hands of the same team of `lieutenants? as were behind Bush, and the hope of radical change is fast fading. As a latest example, in the UK: the British government?s recent decisions on nuclear power, coal-fired power stations, and new runways at airports, flying in the face of the need to combat global warming. The debts generated by the money system as well as its power over money-creation are a great source of power for this elite, and its control of the media has in the past made spread of the facts about this, and alternatives, very difficult. The main source of hope for reform - before it is too late - is the Internet. This is spreading debate and enlightenment globally, fast. (Those in power are seeking ways to control it, but so far, with little success.) I hope that at least most of the readers of the paper edition of this newsletter have access to the Internet, because the `web? is being flooded with articles which should be read by everyone concerned for the future. A link to a very sound, thought-provoking article, on - `WHY THIS CRISIS MAY BE OUR BEST CHANCE TO BUILD A NEW ECONOMY?, is: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/why-this-crisis-may- be-our-best-chance-to-build-a-new-economy by David Korten I also recommend a reading of a copyrighted article by Walden Bello, The Virtues of Deglobalization, which was published on Friday, September 4, 2009 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF). The URL to the article is: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/04-4 Also recommended: James RobertsonNewsletter No. 27 - November 2009 - which contains a range of links worth a look. The full Newsletter can be viewed at www.jamesrobertson.com/news-nov09.htm If you have a group seeking in-depth education on the case for monetary reform, you can download the latest updated version of the talk Stephen Zarlenga, director of the American Monetary Institute, gave to the American Green Party?s National Convention in 2007 at www.monetary.org/greeningthedollar.ppt It uses the history of the USA from colonial days as the main illustration of the struggle for the power to create money, and its results for society - as well as proposing reform of the current money system. It takes about 1? hours to view and listen to, but is in 3 parts, which could each be followed by group discussion. Brian Leslie Volume 17 - Number 6 - December 2009 Main Contents Main Contents 1 Editorial ? 2 The Land Ethic Alanna Hartzok 3 Shifting the Burden From Main Street to Wall Street: Why We Need a "Tobin Tax" Ellen Hodgson Brown 4 Bailed-out Banks Settling Accounts with the Nation? W.K. 5 Reforming Economics Robert Needham 6 Book Review -- A Renewable World by Herbert Girardet & Miguel Mendon?a 7 Canadian Land is Starting to Shine as an Investment When Financial Instruments are Getting Ever More Iffy W.K. 8 Book Review:The New Economics by David Boyle and Andrew Simms 9 World to America: We Want Our Gold Back Robert Morley 10 Book Review: Conservation and Biodiversity Banking Ed. Nathaniel Carroll, Jessica Fox and Ricardo Bayon 11 Language of Deceit on the Tongues of the Mighty W.K. 12 MAKING WALL STREET PAY ITS FAIR SHARE Ellen Brown 13 As Important as Trade Are Our Human Relations with China W.K. 14 THE IMF CATAPULTS FROM SHUNNED AGENCY TO GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK Ellen Brown 15 Inflation: Too much money chasing too few goods? - Hardly! Robert Poteat 16 Debt-driven Climate Change! www.MoneyMyths.org.uk 17 Landmark Decision Promises Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for Banks Ellen Brown 18 The Public Option In Banking: Ellen Brown 19 Cross-currents in Deep Offshore Oil Finds W.K. 20 Have You Wondered? W.K. ? ------- End of forwarded message ------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 23036 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 160 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Thu Jan 21 22:59:20 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:59:20 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] American NGO's rally against "Personhood" decision by Supreme Court [re Corporate Power & Election spending] +PPt Ref Message-ID: <4B591488.20382.37811DC0@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> [1] http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/ Supreme Court throws its weight behind the corporations... "Today's Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United v. FEC opens the floodgates on unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and further entrenches corporate rule in our nation. We demand mandatory public financing of state and federal elections and a constitutional amendment to deny corporations the false claim they've made to First Amendment free speech and other personhood rights. " [2] Public Citizen Take Action Sign Petition http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190 "The court has put our democracy up for sale. Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to restore people to the center of the political process." [3] The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund P.O. Box 2016, Chambersburg, PA 17201 www.celdf.org "today?s decision should be understood as just another brick in the wall, another step in a direction that will only continue unless and until a real movement for the rights of people, communities, and nature is built. That is the work we are doing. We hope you will join us. " [4] New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court?s Activist Expansion of Corporate "Rights" www.movetoamend.org. "After justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate "rights" in the Citizens United case, a new national coalition of diverse public interest, community, and business organizations responded with a bold call to overrule the decision and amend the Constitution to restore the power of people over corporations, beyond election law.? A complete list of the "Move to Amend" Steering Committee is attached. A list of other groups and people who have endorsed this new campaign is available at the coalition?s new website:? www.movetoamend.org.? More groups join daily." [5] From: "Liberty Tree" Subject: OUTRAGE: Court says corporations are people: Join the move to amend! Date sent: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:54:54 -0600 "They've gone after our tax dollars. Our services. Our jobs. Our schools. Our military. Our votes. Our future. Our freedoms. And the federal courts have helped them every step of the way. ? Today,?with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. ? Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule. ?We Move to Amend." fyi-janet p.s. A Backgrounder on the Personhood Case and Corporate Rigths & Power can be found at: http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/cac/corporatepower/ Scroll down to link for Power Point Presentation on Corporations and the Deterioration of Democracy SLIDE 53,54, 59 / 81 1886: A Turning Point One of the most important Supreme Court cases you may never have heard of... Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled that a private corporation was a natural person, entitled to the same rights and protections as human beings under the Bill of Rights. Since Santa Clara, those rights and privileges have been expanded to exceed those of the natural persons creating them. By granting "personhood" rights to corporations, courts have allowed them to grow and maximize profits in ways that harm the environment, public health and democracy. In 1886 alone, federal courts struck down 230 state laws regulating corporations. Corporations took advantage of laws written for human beings. The 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves. Of the 307 14th Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910: -19 dealt with African Americans -288 dealt with corporations In latter years many groups in the US like SC, Alliance for Demcoracy, WILPF, Public Citizen, POCLAD, have worked to educate citizens about and to lobby against the personhood case and its implications of corpoate rights and abuse of power. ======================================== [1] http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/ Supreme Court throws its weight behind the corporations... Supreme Court throws its weight behind the corporations... Citizens United: SCOTUS decision says corporations are people, money is speech, and our democracy is up for sale Today's Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United v. FEC opens the floodgates on unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and further entrenches corporate rule in our nation. This 5-4 decision overturns previous Court decisions that banned corporate "independent expenditures," thereby scrapping campaign finance regulations in 22 states and establishing "fee-for-service" politics as the law of the land. >From our founding, the Alliance for Democracy has stood for public funding for elections and against the legal fiction of corporate personhood. Now we call on the American people to stand up and take back our democracy and its laws from corporate rule. We demand mandatory public financing of state and federal elections and a constitutional amendment to deny corporations the false claim they've made to First Amendment free speech and other personhood rights. Continuing our work against corporate rule, and in anticipation of this decision, Alliance for Democracy has joined the steering committee of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy. We urge you to visit www.MovetoAmend.org for more information about this coalition effort to amend the Constitution to protect our rights as human persons, communities, and voters. Read our statement on the decision here and see our AfD Corporate Person Home Page for up-to-date: Information and links on this case and the issue of corporate personhood Analysis and observations from the media Videos on the case and implications for democracy The Alliance for Democracy PO Box 540115, Waltham, MA 02454 781-894-1179 * www.thealliancefordemocracy.org <><><><><><><><> [2] http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190 PUbilc Citizen Take Action / Sign Petition As we told you in an email this morning, the Supreme Court today allowed corporations to use their immense wealth to take over our elections. The court has put our democracy up for sale. Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to restore people to the center of the political process. Join our grassroots mobilization to take back our democracy. The more people who join, the more power we have to fight a corporate takeover. Forward this email to everyone you know who recognizes that letting unlimited corporate cash into our elections will be a catastrophe. Click here to watch a short video about the ruling and Public Citizen's response to it. And sign our petition calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent corporate money from overwhelming our democracy. The shocking decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down 60 years of legal precedent prohibiting corporations from making campaign expenditures to attack or support political candidates. The court ruled that the First Amendment - meant to protect the speech of actual human beings - gives for-profit corporations the right to influence elections. People or corporations? Corporations are not human beings. Corporations should not be able to use their vast financial power to drown out the voices of real people. Forward this email to friends, family, neighbors and coworkers to let them know about our campaign to fight unfettered corporate power. Then watch the video and sign the petition. Please help me spread the word and build a massive movement to save our democracy. Forward this email. Watch the video. Sign the petition. Thank you. Robert Weissman, President Contribute | ? 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action http://action.citizen.org/t/10315/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=2190 Don't Get Rolled: Take Action Pubilc Citizen The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections, rolling back a century of modest limits. The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations. This cannot stand. Join our campaign to protest this decision. Protect our democracy! Two things that can be done now: 1) Fair Elections Now Act: Give congressional candidates a public financing alternative to elections bankrolled by corporations. Also fix the presidential public financing system. 2) Shareholder Accountability: Give shareholders a say over corporate spending in elections. But ultimately, we must pass a constitutional amendment to ensure corporate money does not overwhelm our democracy and clarify that the First Amendment is for people -- not corporations. Add your name to the petition to Congress today! FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE AMENDMENT PETITION: WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations; WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms; WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court?s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections; WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court?s recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC; WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court?s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history; WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court?s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy; WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government; Now hereby be it resolved that we the undersigned voters of the United States call upon the United States Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. Learn More The Problem The Solutions Constitutional Amendment FAQ The Supreme Court's Decision (.pdf) What we told the Supreme Court (.pdf) Statement of Public Citizen's president Press statements Get the latest from CitizenVox blog Take Action Sign the Free Speech for People Amendment Petition Tell Congress to support the solutions Protest Spread the word Stay informed <><><><><><><><><> [3] The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund P.O. Box 2016, Chambersburg, PA 17201 www.celdf.org CONTACT: Mari Margil (503) 381-1755 mmargil at celdf.org January 21, 2010 Legal Defense Fund: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case "Inevitable" Continues Long History of Expansion of Corporate Rights over the Rights of People, Communities, and Nature FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate "rights" can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government. Those communities have recognized that corporate rights and privileges are routinely wielded to override democratic decision making and undermine efforts to protect the environment and public health, local economies and local agriculture. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure of law which does not recognize the rights and privileges of corporations. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision Today?s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - giving corporations the ability to spend money directly to influence federal elections under the Constitution?s First Amendment - was inevitable. It represents a logical expansion of corporate constitutional "rights" - which include the rights of persons which have been judicially conferred upon corporations. "Personhood" rights mean that corporations possess First Amendment rights to free speech, along with a litany of other rights that are secured to persons under the federal Bill of Rights. The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations have rights that municipal corporations - governments composed of "we the people" - did not. The expansion of these rights and privileges occurred during the 1800s, throughout the 1900s, until today. For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, we say, stop looking. It doesn?t exist, for there is no magic bullet. Rather, in order to reverse decisions like Citizens United, the whole concept of corporate "rights" must be examined, and how corporations possessing "rights" interferes with the exercise of rights by people, communities, and nature. And, it?s not simply that corporations have "personhood" rights. It goes well beyond that. Today?s structure of law gives corporations a spectrum of legal and constitutional rights which they routinely wield against people, communities, and nature. Corporations have more rights, for example, than the communities in which they seek to do business. They have rights which they use to lobby Congress, impact elections, to decide for us what we eat, whether mountaintops are blown off or not, whether there are fish in the oceans, and on and on. Coupling their wealth with constitutional and other legal rights guarantees that they write the laws which determine these things, along with defining the debate that leads to the adoption of the new laws. Thus the context for understanding today?s decision is that we have a minority set of corporate interests, empowered by government, which wield their rights against a majority. It is the history of this nation. Whether with the Abolitionists, the Suffragists, the Civil Rights Movement - all found it necessary to build movements of people to drive rights into law - rights for slaves, rights for women, rights of African Americans - which necessarily meant eliminating rights for a minority such as the slaveholder. In the end, it is our constitutional structure of law that purposefully placed the rights of property and commerce over the rights of people, communities, and nature. In some ways, the Citizens United ruling is merely part of a predetermined destiny set by a 1700?s constitutional structure which placed greater priority on the rights of property and commerce than on people and nature. Reversing Citizens United means reversing that constitutional legacy. And today - those who recognize that we do not have democracy when corporations located thousands of miles away are making decisions about our community instead of us, who recognize that we cannot have sustainability so long as corporations are able to decide how clean our air is and our water is, who recognize that we?ll never have true health care reform so long as corporations have greater access to our elected representatives than the people who voted for them - to those people -today?s decision should be understood as just another brick in the wall, another step in a direction that will only continue unless and until a real movement for the rights of people, communities, and nature is built. That is the work we are doing. We hope you will join us. - 30 - <><><><><><><><><> [4] New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court?s Activist Expansion of Corporate "Rights" www.movetoamend.org. For immediate release Contact: (202) 642-1848 or (707) 362-0333 Washington, DC-After justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate "rights" in the Citizens United case, a new national coalition of diverse public interest, community, and business organizations responded with a bold call to overrule the decision and amend the Constitution to restore the power of people over corporations, beyond election law.? A complete list of the "Move to Amend" Steering Committee is attached. A list of other groups and people who have endorsed this new campaign is available at the coalition?s new website:? www.movetoamend.org.? More groups join daily. ?"This decision is Pearl Harbor for our democracy," said Ben Manski, Executive Director of Liberty Tree and a lawyer helping to lead the coalition.? "Decades of judicial activism culminating in today?s decision have eroded the power of `We the People? to govern ourselves. Our move to amend the Constitution is not limited to the powers of the Federal Election Commission, but focuses on the broader implications of the decision." "We are inspired by historic social movements that recognized the necessity of altering fundamental power relationships," added Riki Ott, the Director of Ultimate Civics and a marine toxicologist whose activism was galvanized by the Exxon Valdez spill.? "America has always progressed through ordinary people joining together-from the Revolutionaries to Abolitionists, Suffragists, Trade Unionists, and Civil Rights activists." "In this decision, a handful of unelected judges have revealed their agenda to expand the influence of corporations at the expense of the rights of individuals, and it will not stand the test of time," said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and Deputy Assistant Attorney General.? "Corporations aren?t people and simply don?t deserve the same rights as people; we have to work together to put people before corporations."? "The movement we are launching is a long-term effort to make the U.S. Constitution more democratic," noted David Cobb, of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County.? "We are a diverse coalition with deep roots in communities nationwide.? We recognize that amending the Constitution to restore the power of the people over corporations will not be easy, but it must be done." ?### (See page two for the coalition?s Steering Committee and contact information) New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court?s Activist Expansion of Corporate "Rights" Page two FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact the Move to Amend Steering Committee: Ben Manski, Liberty Tree (www.libertytree.org), (202) 642-1848, Manski at LibertyTreeFDR.org Riki Ott, PhD, Ultimate Civics (www.ultimatecivics.org), (907) 424- 3915, otter2 at ak.net Lisa Graves, Center for Media and Democracy (www.prwatch.org), (608) 260-9713,?lisa at prwatch.org ?David Cobb, Program on Corporations Law & Democracy?(www.poclad.org), (707) 362-0333, david at duhc.org George Friday, National Director of Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org) (862) 668-8172,? ippn at igc.org Marybeth Gardam, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom Corporations vs. Democracy Committee Leadership Team (www.wilpf.org), (515) 210-7928, mbgardam at gmail.com Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County (www.duhc.org) (707) 269-0984, kaitlin at duhc.org ? Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy (www.thealliancefordemocracy.org) (781) 894-1179 or (530) 758-0726, nancytprice at juno.com ? David Swanson, After Downing Street, (202) 329-7847, david at davidswanson.org ? ?[5] From: "Liberty Tree" Subject: OUTRAGE: Court says corporations are people: Join the move to amend! Date sent: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:54:54 -0600 URGENT CALL TO ACTION FROM HOWARD ZINN, THOM HARTMANN, MEDEA BENJAMIN, FRAN & DAVID KORTEN, BILL MCKIBBEN, BILL FLETCHER, JIM HIGHTOWER, TOM HAYDEN, REV. YEARWOOD,?& MORE ? They've gone after our tax dollars. Our services. Our jobs. Our schools. Our military. Our votes. Our future. Our freedoms. And the federal courts have helped them every step of the way. ? Today,?with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. ? Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule. ?We Move to Amend. ? We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to: ? Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count. Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.? Adrienne Maree Brown, Ruckus Society Alec Loorz, Kids vs Global Warming Andrew Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment Andy Gussert, Citizens Trade Campaign Anne Feeney, musician Ben Manski, attorney, Exec. Director, Liberty Tree Benno Friedman, photographer Benson Scotch, former Staff Counsel to Sen. Leahy, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Bill Fletcher, Exec. Editor, BlackCommentator.com Bill McKibben, founder, 350.org Bill Moyer, Backbone Campaign Brad Friedman, Publisher, The BRAD BLOG Brad Thacker, Be The Change USA Brett Kimberlin, Director, Justice Through Music Brian McLaren, Christian activist & author Carl Davidson, Progressive America Rising Carolyn Oppenheim, Shays 2 Charlie Cray, Center for Corporate Policy Dal LaMagna, founder, Tweezerman, Inc. Dave Wells, formerly Board of Directors, Sierra Club David Cobb, initiator of 2004 Ohio Recount David Gespass, president, National Lawyers Guild David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World David Rovics, musician David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org David Wells, Jr., Nashville Urban Harvest Dean Myerson, Executive Director, Green Institute Diane Wittner & Margaret Flowers, Chesapeake Citizens Dr. Jill Stein, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts Ed Garvey, attorney at law, editor, FightingBob.com Emily Levy, Velvet Revolution Fran Korten, Editor, YES! Magazine Frank Arundel, activist Gary Zuckett, WV Citizen Action George Friday, National Coordinator, IPPN George Martin, United for Peace & Justice Georgia Kelly, Praxis Peace Institute Glen Ford, Executive Editor, BlackAgendaReport.com Greg Coleridge, NE OH American Friends Service Committee Howard Zinn, historian Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western State Legal Foundation James Gustave Speth, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos Jan Edwards, writer Jane Anne Morris, author, Gaveling Down The Rabble Jeff Cohen, founder, FAIR Jeff Milchen, founder, ReclaimDemocracy.org Jeffrey Short, Ph.D., Pacific Science Director, OCEANA Jerome Scott, League of Revolutionaries for a New America Jill Bussiere, Co-Chair, Green Party of the U.S. James M. Cullen, editor of The Progressive Populist Jim Hightower, author, columnist, and radio commentator Joel Bleifuss, Editor & Publisher, In These Times John E. Peck, Executive Director, Family Farm Defenders John Nichols, Washington Correspondent, The Nation John Rensenbrink, President, Green Horizon Foundation John Stauber, author, Weapons of Mass Deception Jonathan Frieman, social entrepreneur Josh Healey, Youth Speaks Josh Lerner, The New School for Social Research Josh Silver, Executive Director, Free Press Judith Pedersen-Benn, Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic Community Kai Huschke, Envision Spokane Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County Ken Reiner, inventor and founder, Kaynar Corp. Kevin Danaher, Executive Co-Producer, Green Festivals Kevin Zeese, Executive Director, TrueVote.US Leah Bolger, CDR, USN (Ret), Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law. Lewis Pitts, Lawyer, Legal Aid of NC Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy Lori Price, Managing Editor, Citizens for Legitimate Government Makani Themba-Nixon, Executive Director, The Praxis Project Margo Baldwin, Publisher, Chelsea Green Mark Crispin Miller, author, Fooled Again Mary Zepernick, Program on Corporations Law and Democracy Marybeth Gardam, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Matt Nelson, Just Cause Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink Michael Albert, Z Communications Michael Bonnano, OpEdNews Michael Marx, Corporate Ethics International Michael Shuman, attorney, economic, author of "The Small-Mart Revolution" Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace Mimi Kennedy, actress, activist Miriam Simos, Starhawk, activist and writer Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy Nick Pavloff, Jr., Gulf of Alaska Aleut from Kodiak Island Norman Solomon, author, co-chair, Healthcare Not Warfare campaign Patrick Reinsborough, SmartMeme Paul Saginaw, founder, Zingerman's, Inc. Prof. Peter Gabel, School of Law, New College of California Prof. Victor Wallis, Managing Editor, Socialism & Democracy Rabbi Arthur Waskow Rep. Michael Fisher, House of Representatives, Vermont Rev. Edward Pinkney, Black Autonomy Network Community Organization Rev. Lennox Yearwood, President, Hip Hop Caucus Richard Mazess, Prof. Medical Physics, UW-Madison, CEO of Lunar Corp & Bone Care Intl. Riki Ott, Executive Director, Ultimate Civics Robert McChesney, professor, co- author, The Death and Life of American Journalism Ronnie Cummins, founder, Grassroots Netroots Alliance Sally Castleman, Election Defense Alliance Sam Smith, Editor, Progressive Review Sarah Manski, CEO, PosiPair.com Shahid Buttar, Rule of Law Institute Ted Glick, climate change activist Ted Nace, author, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power Thom Hartmann, nation's #1 nationally syndicated progressive talk show host Tia Oros & Christopher Peters, Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development Tiffiniy Cheng, Executive Director, A New Way Forward Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America Tom Hayden, activist Ward Morehouse, chair, National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Corporations * organizations listed for identification purposes only 122 State Street Suite 405 | Madison, WI 53703 US This email was sent to jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. <><><><><><><><> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$4CFE.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 28755 bytes Desc: Mail message body URL: From mcpogo at aol.com Fri Jan 22 12:25:27 2010 From: mcpogo at aol.com (mcpogo at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:25:27 EST Subject: [Mai-not] Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces. Message-ID: <10ac8.5263ea56.388b63b7@aol.com> Big Brother: Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces. Read the article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Jan 24 06:16:10 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] NO PROROGATION TORONTO: Thousands of Canadians 'March for Democracy' in downtown Toronto [Great PHOTOS] Message-ID: <4B5C1DEA.13290.435DF005@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> See URL for 28 excellent photos of the rally and particualry of the many signs and posters !! There is also a very short video clip ! all the best, janet Please forward far and wide - not much coverage in mainstream media. ========================= http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286272 Thousands of Canadians 'March for Democracy' in downtown Toronto Special By Andrew Moran. Thousands of Canadians 'March for Democracy' in downtown Toronto January 23, 3:47 PMToronto Headlines ExaminerAndrew MoranPrevious Next Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe Subscribe Thousands of Canadians protested in various cities across the country on Saturday as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government decided to prorogue the Ottawa Parliament. Over 6,000 Canadians protested at Toronto's Yonge-Dundas Square. Prime Minister Stephen Harper?s Conservative government?s Dec. 30 decision to shut down Parliament for two months until after the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics has angered Canadian political parties across the country. The Parliament in Ottawa is set to resume on Mar. 3 when a speech will be delivered from the throne and a presentation of the federal budget will be presented the following day. Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale told CBC News that the Conservative government?s choice is "beyond arrogant," "a joke" and "almost despotic." Goodale added that three times in three years and twice in one year Harper takes these types of steps to muzzle Parliament, "This time it?s a cover-up of what the Conservatives knew, and when they knew it, about torture in Afghanistan. So their solution is not to answer the questions but, rather, to padlock Parliament and shut down democracy." The decision to prorogue government has not just seen strong disapproval from opposition parties but millions of Canadians across the nation. On Saturday, approximately 6,000 Torontonians, including Members of Parliament, protested against the Prime Minister?s move and called for the Parliament to resume on its expected date, which is Jan. 25. On Saturday, according to the Windsor Star, Canadian organizers of Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament said protests would be held in 50 communities across the country, including Calgary, Halifax and Vancouver, and outside of Canadian consulates in Dallas, San Francisco, Costa Rica and London. However, the largest rally will take place in Ottawa, reports 680 News, as Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton and Green Party leader Elizabeth May are expected to attend. Thousands of demonstrators, with dozens of police officers in sight, at the Yonge-Dundas Square in downtown Toronto, held signs either opposing the Prime Minister, against proroguing the Parliament or supporting their own political initiative such as the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party or the Communist Party. One sign read "The chicken is afraid of Parliament & Democracy," while another one read "Turning a blind eye [to] torture is the crime - Prorogation is the getaway car" and another poster told Ottawa that "Parliament belongs to the people! Not Harper!" Generally, majority of posters urged Ottawa to get back to work or to fire Prime Minister Harper and brought their message to the downtown core as they marched along Yonge Street, Queen Street and Bay Street. Roger, a Toronto demonstrator, told Digital Journal that he is not partisan and doesn?t care about the political parties in Ottawa but he does want the Parliament to go back to work and represent the Canadian taxpayers, "Constantly we hear in the news that whether it?s Liberals or Conservatives, or whatever, we?re never represented in a fair or Democratic way. I pay thousands in tax per year, for what? I don?t care if there are Socialists here or NDP supporters because we share the common goal of urging our MPs to go back to work." Members of Parliament Olivia Chow, New Democratic Party member, and Bob Rae, Liberal Party politician, were in attendance to support the grassroots movement, which has more than 210,000 Facebook members. Chow stood in front of a NDP banner at Toronto?s square. SEE 28 LARGE SCALE PHOTOS OF POSTERS AND RALLY ALSO ! http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286272 From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Jan 24 09:30:37 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Anti-prorogation rally on the Hill draws 3, 500 [Ottawa Citizen] + Ignatieff's Speech Message-ID: <4B5C4B7D.16523.440FF776@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Note the PHOTO of the puppet of Harper. Some will recognize Louise Cassleman and Ritchie Allen whose puppets were also used in Canada- Colombia FTA protests in Ottawa and later in a wolfville, Nova Scotia. Below the Ottawa Citizen article note also transcript of a short video clip on YouTube of Michael Ignatieff speaking on the Hill during yesterday's rally that I have transcried. Maude Barlow's remarks on the Hill will be posted on Monday on COC website. fyi-janet ==================================== http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Protesters+demand+Harper+reconven e+House/2478271/story.html Protesters demand Harper reconvene House Anti-prorogation rally on the Hill draws 3,500 By Vito Pilieci, The Ottawa CitizenJanuary 24, 2010Comments (28) StoryPhotos ( 1 ) PHOTO: Richie Allen, right, and Louise Casselman, rear, paraded a puppet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in front of the Peace Tower on Saturday amidst thousands who gathered to protest proroguing Parliament.Photograph by: Julie Oliver, The Ottawa CitizenCalling it a rally in support of democracy, more than 3,500 people gathered at Parliament Hill Saturday afternoon to demand Prime Minister Stephen Harper immediately re-convene Parliament. The Ottawa rally - one of more than 60 planned rallies in cities across the country - boasted a turnout almost three times more than organizers were expecting. Jesse Root, one of the organizers of the Ottawa rally, said the number of people was proof that the Internet can be a powerful tool when piecing together a political movement. "There have been a lot of questions about whether Facebook can be used to co-ordinate a political movement," said Root. "Look around." The rallies were organized after an Alberta university student created a group on the social networking website Facebook called Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, which quickly became a rally point for Canadians who were against Harper?s decision to suspend Parliament until March, rather than having it reconvene this Monday as had been scheduled. The group?s membership quickly swelled; it currently has more than 212,000 members. Despite its size, political pundits questioned the group?s ability to generate an effective grassroots campaign against the prorogation, especially after a demonstration in Toronto on Thursday saw fewer than 35 people turn out. However, Root said the results of the Toronto protest should be ignored. He said the Toronto rally was planned at the last minute when it was announced that Harper would be addressing officials at the C.D. Howe Institute. Root said the official cross-country protests against the decision to prorogue Parliament had always been scheduled for Jan. 23. "That was just a preview," said Root, pointing to a sea of homemade signs and angry faces that quickly filled the sidewalk in front of the Peace Tower. People came bearing signs with hand-painted slogans calling on politicians to resume their duties. "Get back to work," read one sign. "Less hockey, more politics," read another - referring to the timing of the prorogation, which will coincide with the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Similar scenes took place in other municipalities. More than 7,000 protesters turned up at Toronto?s Dundas Square, while another 500 demonstrated in Halifax. Organizers were boasting of rallies in 50 communities across the country. Demonstrations were also planned outside Canadian consulates in San Francisco, California, and Dallas, Texas. People were also expected to gather in Costa Rica and London, England. In Ottawa, dozens of speakers took to the podium to discuss everything from Canada?s role in Afghanistan to the country?s environmental record, and even the way Nortel workers and pensioners are being treated by the company?s ongoing bankruptcy woes. Protesters claimed the prorogation of Parliament has handicapped the country?s ability to address issues such as pension reform and green energy. "Politicians calculated that we would be apathetic about this, but clearly they were wrong," Alex Hill, another one of the Ottawa event?s co-ordinators, told the crowd before leading the protesters in a chant telling politicians to "get back to work." Despite attempts by organizers to keep the event unaffiliated with any political party, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton were also allowed to speak to the crowd. Layton was also planning to board a plane and jet to Canada?s west coast to speak at the Victoria rally later in the afternoon. "The House of Commons is supposed to be the house of the people," said Layton. "Mr. Harper, unlock the doors of the people?s house." The sentiments were echoed by Ignatieff, who praised the cross- country movement that the Facebook group had created. "This is not a party or political event. It belongs to the Canadian people," he said. "This is a demonstration that shows that Canadians care for their democracy." With files from Canwest News Servic ? Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen <><><><><><><><><><> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ux746qT1b8&feature=player_embedded LIBERAL PARTY LEADER MICHAEL IGNATIEFF SPEAKS AT CAPP [CITIZENS AGAINST THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT ] RALLY JANUARY 23, 2010 OTTAWA Transcript of Video of Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal party of Canada speaking at the Rally [from je ] "This is not a party political event. This demonstration does not belong to the politicians of any political party- it belongs to the Canadian people- You have said very clearly across the country in demonstrations everywhere that you want limits placed on the prorogation power of the Prime Minister. You are here because you are defending an absolutely fundamental principle of our democracy i.e and that is that the PM, the executive branch of our government must be accountable to parliament. This is a demonstration that shows that Canadians understand their democracy - care for their democracy and if necessary will fight for their democracy ! that understanding is in your heart, your bones and consciousness- and you're hear to say to any won who has the great good fortune to work up there - GET BACK TO Work !! " -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2306 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: - Type: application/octet-stream Size: 160 bytes Desc: "AVG certification" URL: From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Sun Jan 24 10:36:20 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:36:20 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] CETA Canada-EU trade negotiations [Media Releases NS Trading Options + National NGOs] Message-ID: <4B5C5AE4.18675.444C22A8@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Here are two recent press releases, one from a group of national NGO's and the other from a Nova Scotia Trading Options coalition both opposed to CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement [between the EU and Canada] . Excerpts: As a second round of Canada-European Union free trade talks wraps up in Brussels, Belgium today, Canadian civil society organizations are demanding full transparency from the Harper government, and a halt to negotiations while countrywide public consultations can be held. "Harper is trampling on democracy yet again with a new round of secret trade talks in Europe. People around the world are demanding tougher climate and health protections, not an expansion of discredited laissez-faire capitalism," says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "We simply cannot afford another trade agreement that gives investors legal mechanisms to challenge environmental laws and bylaws, particularly at the provincial and municipal levels where European companies are hoping to further constrain policy space," says Janet Eaton, Sierra Club Canada's environment and trade campaigner. For more information on why we oppose CETA see: [] Open For Business: Privatization, not higher standards, the main goal of Canada-EU free trade talks - Council of Canadians fact sheet http://www.canadians.org/trade/documents/CA-EU-trade-talks.pdf [] A Critical Assessment of the Proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Between the European Union and Canada - A joint position of the European Federation of Public Service Unions and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada http://www.nupge.ca/files/publications/Critical_Assess_EU_Can_Deal.pdf all the best, janet More later as opposition to this issue intensifies. =================================== INDEX [1] http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2010/22-Jan-10.html MEDIA RELEASE For Immediate Release January 22, 2010 Harper?s free trade talks with Europe another attack on democracy, say environmental, labour and social justice groups [2] http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2010/21-Jan-10.html MEDIA RELEASEJanuary 21, 2010 Nova Scotia groups caution Dexter government on Canada-European Union trade negotiations ==================================== http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2010/22-Jan-10.html MEDIA RELEASE For Immediate Release January 22, 2010 Harper?s free trade talks with Europe another attack on democracy, say environmental, labour and social justice groups As a second round of Canada-European Union free trade talks wraps up in Brussels, Belgium today, Canadian civil society organizations are demanding full transparency from the Harper government, and a halt to negotiations while countrywide public consultations can be held. The scope of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) jeopardizes public services, sustainability, social policy and local democracy, say the organizations, which include the Council of Canadians, Canadian Auto Workers union, Sierra Club Canada, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees and National Union of Public and General Employees. ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENTS "Harper is trampling on democracy yet again with a new round of secret trade talks in Europe. People around the world are demanding tougher climate and health protections, not an expansion of discredited laissez-faire capitalism," says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "We?ve seen firsthand how NAFTA has destroyed jobs, depressed working conditions and rendered governments nearly powerless to corporate interests. Canadians can?t afford to go down that path again," says CAW National President Ken Lewenza. "We simply cannot afford another trade agreement that gives investors legal mechanisms to challenge environmental laws and bylaws, particularly at the provincial and municipal levels where European companies are hoping to further constrain policy space," says Janet Eaton, Sierra Club Canada's environment and trade campaigner. "The European Union has made clear it wants access to procurement and services within provincial jurisdiction. This means our public services like water and health are at risk in these talks. We need the Canadian government to stand up and make clear it is not willing to trade away public services," says Paul Moist, national president, Canadian Union of Public Employees. "The EU, which is poised to fully deregulate all post offices between 2011 and 2013, has identified postal services as one of its priority sectors, but our government has yet to tell us what position it will be taking on postal issues. The public has a right to know what the Conservatives intend to do with our post office," says Denis Lemelin, national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. "This proposed agreement would prevent Canada from developing any new public services, would threaten existing public services, and would prevent governments from using taxpayer?s money to develop local economies. Public sector unions both here and in Europe have common concerns about these secretive talks, with their potentially major implications," says Larry Brown, secretary-treasurer with the National Union of Public and General Employees. BACKGROUNDERS Open For Business: Privatization, not higher standards, the main goal of Canada-EU free trade talks - Council of Canadians fact sheet A Critical Assessment of the Proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Between the European Union and Canada - A joint position of the European Federation of Public Service Unions and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada PRESS CONTACTS Dylan Penner, Council of Canadians: 613-795-8685, . Angelo DiCaro, Canadian Auto Workers union: 416.495.3754; Angelo.DiCaro at caw.ca Michael Bernard, Sierra Club Canada: 613.302.9933; michaelb at sierraclub.ca Canadian Union of Public Employees (Media Relations): 613-852-1494 Katherine Steinhoff, Canadian Union of Postal Workers: 613-236-7230 (ext. 7918); ksteinhoff at cupw-sttp.org Len Bush, National Union of Public and General Employees: 613-228- 9800; lbush at nupge.ca <><><><><><><> http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/2010/21-Jan-10.html MEDIA RELEASEJanuary 21, 2010 Nova Scotia groups caution Dexter government on Canada-European Union trade negotiations A coalition of Nova Scotia social justice, labour and environmental groups is cautioning the Dexter government against supporting a proposed Canada-European Union free trade agreement. Federal and provincial trade negotiators are wrapping up a second round of negotiations in Brussels, Belgium this week toward a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The groups are asking the Dexter government to be open with Nova Scotians about what is being demanded of the province. They want Premier Dexter to establish a mechanism for receiving public input to assess the broader societal impacts of free trade with Europe. "We have serious concerns about the scope and process of the proposed free trade agreement with Europe," says Angela Giles, regional organizer with the Council of Canadians and member of the Nova Scotia Trading Options coalition. "Specifically, we're worried about the impact of a one-size-fits-all free trade model on local communities, and the new powers European corporations will have to influence local policy. After hearing about it from the Council of Canadians, Inverness County Council was concerned enough to request a draft EU agreement from the Department of Foreign Affairs." One especially controversial area is local government procurement - public spending on local and provincial programs and priorities. European trade negotiators want to make it nearly impossible for Nova Scotia and its municipalities to give priority to local companies when spending public funds on goods or services, including public services. Applying EU procurement rules to municipalities could also outlaw sustainable or ethical spending policies that are considered trade-distorting. "Increasingly our municipalities are including social or even sustainable development criteria in public contracts; this must never be negotiated away in trade agreements," says Danny Cavanagh, President of CUPE-NS and a municipal water worker. "Private European water companies are among the biggest corporate sponsors of this deal because they see dollar signs in using trade rules to privatize public utilities like Halifax Water. The Dexter government must reject any agreement with Europe that makes it easier to dismantle or privatize Canada?s public services." Online consultations from the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have solicited business input on potential trade barriers in Europe, but there has been no broad and inclusive impact assessment of a possible CETA on the economy, poverty, gender, human rights and the environment. In other jurisdictions, such as Maine, Citizens Trade Commissions have been struck to seek input and put forward concerns from local communities regarding the impacts of trade agreements like CETA. Trading Options is also urging the Nova Scotia government not to support any deal that precludes the right to set environmental standards that are higher than those we currently have, or that includes an investor-state dispute mechanism such as Chapter 11 in NAFTA. "Nova Scotians know all too well the illogic of allowing foreign companies to challenge environmental decisions under NAFTA, such as the assessment that put a stop to the Bilcon quarry in Digby Neck," says Janet Eaton of Sierra Club Canada, "The Canadian government is pushing to include these same flawed investor rights in the European trade agreement. Only this time our future as Nova Scotians is really on the line. Provincial and Municipal governments must take a stand against undemocratic and seriously flawed agreements like CETA that threaten our sub-national governments." - 30 - Members of the Trading Options Coalition include: Oxfam Canada - Maritimes, The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Nova Scotia Environmental Network, The Council of Canadians, The Public Service Alliance of Canada, Sierra Club Canada - Atlantic Chapter, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Halifax Dartmouth and District Labour Council. For more information, please contact: Angela Giles | Atlantic Regional Organizer| The Council of Canadians 422.7811 | 478.5727 Janet Eaton | Sierra Club Canada (902) 542.1631 Danny Cavanagh | President | Canadian Union of Public Employees (902) 957.0822 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WPM$57B3.PM$ Type: application/octet-stream Size: 15362 bytes Desc: Mail message body URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Jan 24 15:38:37 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:38:37 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Fiat lux 249 Message-ID: <20100124233858.DB1FA2017345@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> To: record at cablerocket.com Subject: Fiat lux 249 Fiat lux # 249 Jan. 22, 2010. The tragedy of Haiti tore into the hearts of the whole world and the outpouring of help by real people can only be called wonderful, showing that human decency is still alive, after many years of propaganda for the legalized destruction of societies and the ecology under the guise of competitive globalization. Earthquakes are nothing new in that area and they and other natural disasters have destroyed Haiti several times over the years . In 1770 an earthquake killed hundreds in Port-au-Prince, then another one in 1842 thousands in the city of Cap Haitien alone. Then there are the repetitious hurricanes killing, flooding and destroying even the reamining pitiful possessions of the people. A hurricane destroyed much of the city of Gonaives, as recently as 2008, killing over a thousand. It is hard to say what, or who have done the greatest damage to Haiti, the natural disasters, or the human colonizers. The one thing our media propaganda hacks never mention is that the present disaster is only the culmination of two hundred years of exploitation by foreign, colonizing powers. Of course, the racket that used to be called colonization has now become "wealth creating competitive globalization", and who dares to question the ideas of the Priesthood of the Money God, the so called economists ?. If the Haitians had been permitted by the colonizing, excuse me. globalizing, powers to keep the proceeds of their land and labours, or even if a small fraction of the resources now pouring into the country had been spent to establish Haiti as an independent, self sufficient economy, much of the present damage could have been avoided. But the wealth creating foreign investors would never have allowed it. Democratic independence cuts into hard earned profits, as we're now experiencing it here in Canada, in the EU and all over the world, forced on by local governments totally in the pockets of the multinational corporate mafia, now controlling everything. The people of Haiti are the descendants of African slaves, brought to the island by Christian French colonizers for the sake of greater economic efficiency, otherwise known as profits, and the country is now praised as the only one that freed itself through an uprising of slaves. Yes, Haiti may have become independent on paper, but France forced the country to pay huge annual compensations, from 1825 to 1947 to the descendants of the original slave holders for their losses. Like Chapter 11 of the criminal treaty called NAFTA, is forcing countries to pay heavy compensations to foreign corporations if and when those wealth creators feel that the democratic decision making powers of the people may have cut into their future profits. It is hard to say when the tragedy of Haiti really began, but the last hundred years have definitely been the worst for those unfortunate people in the hands of the colonizers who became filthy rich by stealing their victims blind. In 1910 the so called U.S. State Department-National City Bank , now called Citibank bought Haiti's Banque National d'Haiti, taking control of the country's money supply, controlling the country's finances until 1947.. US Marines invaded Haiti "to protect American interests" in 1915 and stayed till 1934, diverting 40 percent of the country's production into the pockets of "foreign investors". Francois Papa Doc Duvalier was installed, allegedly by the CIA, as dictator in 1957. He and his son have stolen hundreds of millions, his murder squads reportedly killed 30,000 and drove the country to the bottom of the poverty barrel. When he eliminated the tariffs on US products, he ruined the country's agriculture and forced millions off their lands with "cheap", subsidizes imports. On account of this forced urbanization, the population of Port-au-Prince grew from 50,000 in the fifties, to about 3 million when the earthquake hit . This criminal, forced urbanization is happening all over the world, including right here in BC, and Canadam, on the demands of warped minded economists and political stooges in the pockets of big business. Papa Doc and his son baby Doc ruled and stole the county blind for 28 years, until it became too much even for another wealth creator by the name of Ronald Reagan, who invaded and sent him into exile in France. But then came one of the biggest criminal organizations in history, the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. Originally set up to help developing nations get on their feet and build up their economies, that gang has now become the worst thieves, destroying societies by forcing them into irrepayable debts and perennial, huge interest payments, then ordering the destruction of education,. health and all social services and public safety networks. The Haitians elected a priest, by the name of Jean-Bertrand Aristide for president by 75 percent of the votes, but he made a mistake by wanting to bring in reforms to help his people, including standing up against the daylight robbery of the IMF. The US being the biggest shareholder in the IMF Aristide's plans didn't go down well with President Bush, who organized a military putsch and invaded the country with Canadian help and cooperation in 2004, deposing and sending Aristide into exile. Surprising he wasn't killed in the interest of efficient economic development. Now, after the earthquake the first rescuers arriving on the scene were from bankrupt Iceland. The Chinese arrived with sniffing dogs within 48 hours, while the US and Canada were still making large military preparations, accused by France for occupying the country. Like good satellites, the Canadian military is now training in the USA and is under US orders, so it makes no difference whether they wear small maple leaves on their uniforms, or not. The results are the same. So what is in the future for Haiti now ? Will the powers permit that once very rich country to recover and start building for the benefit of its own peoples, or remain enslaved by foreign wealth creators stealing the food from their mouths ? Who knows how long this global destruction in the hands of the corporate mafia is permitted to go on ? But what we found the most impressive as we were watching the news, was the cleanliness and the calm beauty of the children and those unfortunate people. We can only hope and wish that one day they can throw off the chains of slavery and start rebuilding their lives and country as free people. Come to think of it, this also applies to the whole world, sinking into servitude in the hands of criminals. From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sun Jan 24 16:10:56 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:10:56 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Transitions between Economic Systems Message-ID: <026001ca9d52$de2dc0e0$29ad57ca@jfos> Transitions between Economic Systems by Richard Wolff. Published on January 1, 2010 The transition out of feudalism to capitalism in Europe, mostly from the 17th to the 19th centuries, took multiple forms. It was uneven as well, happening in different ways at different rates in different places. Marx studied that transition's various dimensions because they offered valuable lessons for the different transition he was interested in: out of capitalism to socialism and communism. One such lesson needs restatement now. Transitional impulses beyond capitalism will also take multiple forms; they already do. Sometimes feudalism collapsed when serfs fled exploitation on their lords' manors to become forest outlaws (a la Robin Hood) or town-dwelling, self-employed crafts-persons, merchants, or wage-earners (all non-feudal relationships). Sometimes, when feudal lords got into debts they could not sustain, their manors dissolved. Sometimes the costs and social effects of warfare among feudal lords destroyed them. Sometimes lords freed their serfs in return for fees: Russian Czars, themselves products of feudalism there, abolished it by government fiat in 1863. Sometimes, as in France in 1789, long-operating transitional impulses within feudalism culminated in a unified Revolution by mostly serfs and ex-serfs. In transitions achieved by revolution, diverse impulses coalesced into movements no longer focused against this or that lord, but against the entire feudal system. The individual strengths of the constituent impulses and the unified movement they had accomplished were together able to abolish feudalism. The transition from capitalism to socialism or communism will likely also take multiple forms and display multiple dimensions. Global crises of capitalism as a system -- such as the current one -- expose its weaker links, such as state-funded "recovery programs" that favor huge businesses over everyone else. Criticism can mature quickly from specific policies and institutions to the capitalist economic system. For example, in the United States, the United Steelworkers union (USW) agreed last October to collaborate with Spain's Mondragon organization to promote and develop worker cooperatives as a way to generate jobs. The crisis-driven surge of unemployment across 2009 no doubt helped to bring the USW to that collaboration. Worker cooperatives are often organized in a non-capitalist manner. That is, the workers themselves appropriate and distribute the surpluses (or profits) produced by their labor. They become, collectively, their own board of directors. No persons other than those workers perform as directors; the capitalist organization of production thereby disappears. In another impulse to transition beyond capitalism, students and school employees in California fight severe crisis-driven educational cutbacks. From attacking such policies as inappropriate responses to a capitalist crisis, their activism matures into questioning the desirability of an economic system that so regularly plunges societies into crises. The US population watches the Bush and Obama government-financed rescues of capitalists alongside their failures to help the millions losing jobs and homes; the watching evolves toward entertaining questions about a system that works in such ways. Obama's commitment of billions more on endless wars diverts resources from solving other problems, domestic and foreign. Explicitly anti-capitalist movements and political parties emerge and grow in Europe; they take power across much of Latin America. Of course, in the European transition from feudalism to capitalism, what people thought they were doing and what they actually did were not identical. French revolutionaries mostly believed they were instituting "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" against absolutist tyranny. Marx's and others' insights came later; through them we understood that 1789 marked a transition between different economic systems (alongside its other social consequences). Today we benefit from having a consciousness of transitions between economic systems. We can grasp how capitalism too, like feudalism, might provoke a transition beyond itself. We can ask whether contemporary movements for social change focused on politics (democracy, equality, freedom, etc.) may be masking or obscuring impulses to transition from capitalist to socialist or communist economic systems. We can consider whether and how the disparate developments undermining, questioning, and challenging capitalism over recent decades -- and especially in this new millennium -- might be unified into a social movement strong enough to push through a transition. This consciousness of transitions between economic systems returns us to that remarkable straw in the wind, the USW-Mondragon agreement. It represents a groping toward the coordination, combination, and thus unification of two recently rather disconnected social movements. On the one hand, the traditional labor movement struggles over the size of wages and benefits, over aspects of the labor process, over the terms of capital's exploitation of labor. Unions can challenge the quantity of surpluses available for capital to appropriate and distribute to secure its reproduction. On the other hand, Mondragon's existence and history include non-capitalist organizations of production where workers function on both sides of the wage-bargain and non-workers are excluded in principle from occupying a capitalist/employer position. That reality challenges capitalism by presenting workers and consumers with an alternative organization of production that has succeeded and grown over the last half century. Many limits and obstacles stand between this first tentative agreement to collaborate between a trade union and a non-capitalist production organization and a transition beyond capitalism. Many other social changes and movements advancing them will be needed to gather the critical mass required to push through a genuine transition. No inevitabilities here: nothing guarantees that this will happen. However, one force moving in the direction of transition is the consciousness of and hence sensitivity to its potential in all sorts of current shifts and changes. The deepening contradictions and crises of capitalism bring the issue of transition between economic systems forward in people's minds and increasingly onto agendas for social change. The USW-Mondragon agreement shows that there are significant impulses to unify movements around agendas that explicitly include non-capitalist organizations of production. It represents a politically hopeful sign for the New Year. http://www.rdwolff.com/content/transitions-between-economic-systems ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sun Jan 24 20:06:24 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:06:24 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Economic Crisis Savages Public Education Message-ID: <02ed01ca9d73$c4b003f0$29ad57ca@jfos> Economic Crisis Savages Public Education Posted December 21st, 2009 by Rick Wolff Capitalist crises, especially severe ones, are case studies in that system's social costs. Because the dutifully conservative economics profession rarely studies such cases, let's do just that here by focusing on how the current capitalist crisis is damaging public education. Deteriorating schools leave scars lasting for many years. They undercut the quality of the skills and knowledge of the next generation in their individual capacities as workers, citizens, friends, parents, and so on. Nothing less than this nation's future is at stake. At one end of the country, California's Republican governor is cutting billions of dollars from the state's public education institutions and programs to cope with the impact of a 12 per cent unemployment rate on state revenues. The California Board of Regents on November 19, 2009 voted to raise tuition at the University of California (the nation's largest public university) by 32 per cent and to impose similar increases in graduate student and professional school fees. Tens of thousands of students have been excluded from public higher education enrollment this year in California. Partly students' deteriorating economic situations forced them to drop out, and partly they are responding to major tuition and fee increases in recent years. Even at the state's community colleges, fees rose 30 percent last year. Instead of finding revenues for the state from those most able to pay and best positioned economically to weather the current crisis, public education gets savaged. Meanwhile, "over the last two decades, the annual share of California's total income garnered by the top 1% of the state's earners went from 13.8% to 25.2%" according to the Los Angeles Times. The explanation for this state of affairs exposes core problems of US politics. Politicians depend on corporations and the rich for the contributions and contacts needed for election. Campaigns for all major local, regional, and national offices now depend especially on buying expensive mass media exposure. Candidates' ads must pander to "common sense" ideas such as those that demonize all taxes and government economic interventions. Those ideas are promoted by think tanks, foundations, university institutes, etc. likewise financed by corporations and the rich. Politicians concerned about their careers dare not seek extra state revenues from the corporations and the rich. Instead they cut state services not favored by their patrons. Since children of the rich increasingly attend private schools or certain elite public schools, politicians end up cutting chiefly the public education that serves everyone else. As US corporations shift ever more skilled jobs overseas, they need fewer educated US workers. At the opposite end of the country, on New York's densely populated Long Island, a recent study of public elementary and secondary schools documented anew the profound economic inequalities embedded within that part of the public education system in the US. Such public schools' funding depends on local property taxes plus help from the state government (as in all of the states). The new study proved yet again the resulting unequal educational opportunity forced on this nation's children: schools in rich neighborhoods could afford far better education than was afforded in all other schools. The study's lead author, Columbia University Professor Amy S. Wells, wrote: "In poorer schools, their ceiling is meeting state mandates; for more affluent schools, the academic floor is even higher than the poorer schools' ceiling." She added, "We found that in some wealthy districts, there were hundreds of applicants for a single teaching job, while in poorer districts just miles away, schools had difficulty attracting a single applicant for a teaching job." In the study's key conclusion: "There is a tremendous difference in what districts spend per-pupil. Even the state funding formula which is supposed to even out the disparities between districts does not end up doing that when all the funding streams are looked at in their totality." The economic crisis sharply worsens these public school inequalities in New York. The middle and poorer school districts display higher rates of unemployment and home foreclosures, more rapidly declining real estate values, and more tightly constricted family budgets than the rich school districts. The resulting pressures to lower property taxes will be greater in the middle and poorer districts than in the rich districts. School funding will suffer accordingly. Inequality inside public education will grow alongside that between public and private education. Deepening educational inequality will reinforce the subsequent inequality of qualifications, jobs, and incomes that this generation of young people will suffer. Nor is the state of New York helping, let alone offsetting, Long Island's deteriorating public schools. On the contrary, responding to the economic crisis, Democratic governor Patterson this December cut $750 million from the current budget's provision for schools and local governments and has proposed a 2009-2010 budget that would cut school aid by another $700 million while also imposing new fees such as an 18 per cent sales tax on soft drinks ("to combat obesity"), eliminating the sales-tax exemption on clothing and footwear under $110, and imposing a sales tax on cable and satellite radio. While such aid cuts damage public education directly, the proposed additional regressive tax increases will further fuel demands for property tax relief that undermines funding for schools. Reacting to the economic crisis, both Bush's and Obama's administrations have allowed the state and local funding supports for public education to decline nationwide. Educational opportunities shrink as educational inequality rises. >From coast to coast, most students' job, income, and life prospects fall ever further behind those of children of the rich. The US government's response to economic crisis might well be ironically renamed as "leave no banker behind." Yet a collapsing public education system threatens society's future no less than a collapsing credit market. A president who campaigned on a program of hope presides over its evaporation for most children. Rick Wolff is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications. Check out Rick Wolff's documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan, at www.capitalismhitsthefan.com. Visit Wolff's Web site at www.rdwolff.com, and order a copy of his new book Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do about It. URL: mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff181209.html ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca Mon Jan 25 09:07:00 2010 From: jmeaton at ns.sympatico.ca (Janet M Eaton) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:07:00 -0400 Subject: [Mai-not] Prorogation: Legislation lost The 36 bills that died + Helen Forsey's thoughts on the issue Message-ID: <4B5D9774.15816.4920B298@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Helen Forsey, writer , activist and daughter of the late Senator and constitutional expert Eugene Forsey, offered the following thoughts that pertain to the lost legislation issue - in a January 22nd Press Release "Forsey offers "Prorogation Questions & Answers" 1. What is prorogation? "Prorogation is?the formal ending of a session of Parliament. The Prime Minister?normally asks the Governor General to prorogue Parliament once a session's business is finished. A date is also set?for it to re-open, with a new Speech from the Throne laying out the government's intentions?for the new session.?Upon prorogation, any pending legislation dies on the order paper, and all parliamentary committees stop work (to be reconstituted, often with membership changes, at the start of the new session 3. When is prorogation not acceptable? It is unacceptable for a?Prime Minister to seek?to have Parliament prorogued?before both Houses have completed the bulk of the session's business. Until December 2008,?such a request?mid-session was practically?unheard-of,?as?governments?generally respected Parliament's?right to conduct its business without the threat of being shut down. A crucial part of that business?in the House of Commons?is?the question of confidence: for a government to?stay in office it must have the continuing support of a majority of elected MPs. For a?Prime Minister?to seek prorogation (or dissolution)?in order to forestall a?vote of non-confidence is a flagrant abuse of process which attacks the very foundation of representative parliamentary democracy. fyi-janet http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prorogation/the-36-bills- that-died/article1441162/ Legislation lost The 36 bills that died An empty House of Commons: When Parliament was prorogued, 36 bills died on the order paper. Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail What legislation was lost when Stephen Harper suspended Parliament Share with friends Close Email Human impact and cost: What Parliament looks like running at half speed Published on Friday, Jan. 22, 2010 7:04PM EST Last updated on Friday, Jan. 22, 2010 8:35PM EST The following is a list of bills that have been deep-sixed because of prorogation, their status and the amount of time spent debating them to date BILL C-6 Creates a new system to regulate consumer products that pose a health danger Third reading in Senate 37 hours, 42 minutes BILL C-8 Provides rules for dealing with property on first nations reserves in the event of divorce or death of a spouse First reading in House 5 hours, 15 minutes BILL C-13 Boosts the regulatory powers for the Canadian Grain Commission First reading in House 5 hours, 39 minutes BILL C-15 Amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; allows judges to impose harsh sentences on drug traffickers Third reading in Senate 62 hours, 3 minutes BILL C-19 Adds new terrorism measures to Criminal Code, including investigative hearings to gather information in terrorism cases First reading in House 3 hours, 55 minutes BILL C-20 Raises the cap on liability in the event of a nuclear incident Committee report tabled 21 hours BILL C-23 Implements a free-trade agreement with Colombia First reading in House 30 hours, 3 minutes BILL C-26 Adds theft of a motor vehicle as a new offence to the Criminal Code Second reading in Senate 10 hours BILL C-27 Sets limits on e-mail spam sent by companies Second reading in Senate 28 hours, 19 minutes BILL C-30 Eliminates the position of the Senate ethics officer and transfers the duties to the ethics commissioner First reading in House 1 hour, 5 minutes BILL C-31 Makes changes to Criminal Code, including a new definition of prize fight and new rules on how to apply for warrants Second reading in House 3 hours, 4 minutes BILL C-34 Strengthens the National Sex Offender Registry and the National DNA Data Bank Committee report tabled 6 hours, 39 minutes BILL C-35 Creates grounds that allow victims of terrorism to sue First reading in House 2 hours, 17 minutes BILL C-36 Eliminates faint-hope clause that allows those with life sentences to apply for parole after 15 years First reading in Senate 17 hours, 54 minutes BILL C-37 Expands public input into National Capital Commission Second reading in House 8 hours, 33 minutes BILL C-40 Increases advance polling in elections First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-42 Ends conditional sentences for serious crimes Second reading in House 9 hours, 26 minutes BILL C-43 Increases role of crime victims in parole process Second reading in House 3 hours, 50 minutes BILL C-44 Ends Canada Post's monopoly on international mail First reading in House 1 hour, 55 minutes BILL C-45 Protects foreign nationals from exploitation through human trafficking First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-46 Gives police power to look for online predators Second reading in House 5 hours, 10 minutes BILL C-47 Regulates digital wiretapping in law enforcement Second reading in House 3 hours, 45 minutes BILL C-52 Provides retribution for victims of white-collar crime Second reading in House 13 hours, 42 minutes BILL C-53 Eliminates accelerated parole review First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-54 Ends sentence discounts for multiple acts of murders First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-55 Allows courts to ask for blood and urine samples First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-57 Implements a free-trade agreement with Jordan First reading in House 2 hours, 3 minutes BILL C-58 Requires Internet service providers to report tips about child pornography Second reading in House 4 hours, 39 minutes BILL C-59 Provides additional factors in deciding if an offender can be transferred back to Canada First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-60 Permits Canadian and American law enforcement to work jointly in boundary waters First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-61 Imposes binding arbitration between CN Rail and Teamsters Canada First reading in House 0 minutes BILL C-63 Allows first nations to register commercial real-estate developments on reserves First reading in House 0 minutes BILL S-5 Repeals long-gun registry First reading in Senate 0 minutes BILL S-6 Amends Canada Election Act to limit loans to political parties First reading in Senate 52 minutes BILL S-7 Limits term of senators appointed after Oct. 14, 2008 First reading in Senate 1 hour, 55 minutes BILL S-8 Implements tax-evasion treaties with Colombia, Greece and Turkey Third reading in Senate 1 hour, 49 minutes By Steven Chase, Celia Donnelly, Rick Cash, Stephanie Chambers and Egle Procuta From dnevrghm at powerup.com.au Mon Jan 25 17:09:43 2010 From: dnevrghm at powerup.com.au (Doug Everingham) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:09:43 +1000 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: US Veterans Today: CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON References: Message-ID: <82C50B9D-FD91-4813-88C2-29DF6332AF36@powerup.com.au> Relayed by Doug Everingham ==== Begin forwarded message: From: John Bursill Date: 24 January 2010 10:29:37 AM Subject: US Veterans Today: CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest- of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/ CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON January 22, 2010 by Gordon Duff ? THE FIVE THAT STAND AGAINST ALL AMERICANS, THE ?MAFIA? JUDGES By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a ?corporation? is a person, not a ?regular person? but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money. Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The ?corporation/person? that the 5 judges, the ?neocon? purists, have turned the United States over to isn?t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don?t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this ?gang of five? bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 ?justices? have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States. No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial ?influencers?? For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn?t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren?t even sure we have an America anymore. Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won?t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all. When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don?t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for ?bail outs? or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations. Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush ?conservatives? you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less ?conservative? has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing ?conservative? about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account. This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the ?Pandora?s Box? of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their ?corporate person? is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism? We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong. The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only ?democracy? we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all? Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because ?their America? no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren?t supposed to, we are Americans. Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often ?less great? than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest. Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an ?enemy of the people.? What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals. What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial ?house of cards? we call the ?world economy.? The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politican can survive now standing against them. Years ago ?they? bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. ?They? gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn?t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face? The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and ?reform? America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this. The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is ?we, the People.? This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances. If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be ?parties? and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one. Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues. -- 9/11 24/7 until justice! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Tue Jan 26 18:14:24 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:14:24 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: When the Media Is the Disaster - words can kill - HAITI Message-ID: <030a01ca9f0f$7c4c9540$5aad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: " ... we live and die by words and ideas, and it matters desperately that we get them right." Pass this article along to others please john ########################################################### There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. - IWW Preamble 1905 When the Media Is the Disaster http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175194/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_in_haiti%2C_words_can_kill/ By Rebecca Solnit January 22, 2010 Soon after almost every disaster the crimes begin: ruthless, selfish, indifferent to human suffering, and generating far more suffering. The perpetrators go unpunished and live to commit further crimes against humanity. They care less for human life than for property. They act without regard for consequences. I?m talking, of course, about those members of the mass media whose misrepresentation of what goes on in disaster often abets and justifies a second wave of disaster. I?m talking about the treatment of sufferers as criminals, both on the ground and in the news, and the endorsement of a shift of resources from rescue to property patrol. They still have blood on their hands from Hurricane Katrina, and they are staining themselves anew in Haiti. Within days of the Haitian earthquake, for example, the Los Angeles Times ran a series of photographs with captions that kept deploying the word ?looting.? One was of a man lying face down on the ground with this caption: ?A Haitian police officer ties up a suspected looter who was carrying a bag of evaporated milk.? The man?s sweaty face looks up at the camera, beseeching, anguished. Another photo was labeled: ?Looting continued in Haiti on the third day after the earthquake, although there were more police in downtown Port-au-Prince.? It showed a somber crowd wandering amid shattered piles of concrete in a landscape where, visibly, there could be little worth taking anyway. A third image was captioned: ?A looter makes off with rolls of fabric from an earthquake-wrecked store.? Yet another: ?The body of a police officer lies in a Port-au-Prince street. He was accidentally shot by fellow police who mistook him for a looter.? People were then still trapped alive in the rubble. A translator for Australian TV dug out a toddler who?d survived 68 hours without food or water, orphaned but claimed by an uncle who had lost his pregnant wife. Others were hideously wounded and awaiting medical attention that wasn?t arriving. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, needed, and still need, water, food, shelter, and first aid. The media in disaster bifurcates. Some step out of their usual ?objective? roles to respond with kindness and practical aid. Others bring out the arsenal of clich?s and pernicious myths and begin to assault the survivors all over again. The ?looter? in the first photo might well have been taking that milk to starving children and babies, but for the news media that wasn?t the most urgent problem. The ?looter? stooped under the weight of two big bolts of fabric might well have been bringing it to now homeless people trying to shelter from a fierce tropical sun under improvised tents. The pictures do convey desperation, but they don?t convey crime. Except perhaps for that shooting of a fellow police officer -- his colleagues were so focused on property that they were reckless when it came to human life, and a man died for no good reason in a landscape already saturated with death. In recent days, there have been scattered accounts of confrontations involving weapons, and these may be a different matter. But the man with the powdered milk? Is he really a criminal? There may be more to know, but with what I?ve seen I?m not convinced. What Would You Do? Imagine, reader, that your city is shattered by a disaster. Your home no longer exists, and you spent what cash was in your pockets days ago. Your credit cards are meaningless because there is no longer any power to run credit-card charges. Actually, there are no longer any storekeepers, any banks, any commerce, or much of anything to buy. The economy has ceased to exist. By day three, you?re pretty hungry and the water you grabbed on your way out of your house is gone. The thirst is far worse than the hunger. You can go for many days without food, but not water. And in the improvised encampment you settle in, there is an old man near you who seems on the edge of death. He no longer responds when you try to reassure him that this ordeal will surely end. Toddlers are now crying constantly, and their mothers infinitely stressed and distressed. So you go out to see if any relief organization has finally arrived to distribute anything, only to realize that there are a million others like you stranded with nothing, and there isn?t likely to be anywhere near enough aid anytime soon. The guy with the corner store has already given away all his goods to the neighbors. That supply?s long gone by now. No wonder, when you see the chain pharmacy with the shattered windows or the supermarket, you don?t think twice before grabbing a box of PowerBars and a few gallons of water that might keep you alive and help you save a few lives as well. The old man might not die, the babies might stop their squalling, and the mothers might lose that look on their faces. Other people are calmly wandering in and helping themselves, too. Maybe they?re people like you, and that gallon of milk the fellow near you has taken is going to spoil soon anyway. You haven?t shoplifted since you were 14, and you have plenty of money to your name. But it doesn?t mean anything now. If you grab that stuff are you a criminal? Should you end up lying in the dirt on your stomach with a cop tying your hands behind your back? Should you end up labeled a looter in the international media? Should you be shot down in the street, since the overreaction in disaster, almost any disaster, often includes the imposition of the death penalty without benefit of trial for suspected minor property crimes? Or are you a rescuer? Is the survival of disaster victims more important than the preservation of everyday property relations? Is that chain pharmacy more vulnerable, more a victim, more in need of help from the National Guard than you are, or those crying kids, or the thousands still trapped in buildings and soon to die? It?s pretty obvious what my answers to these questions are, but it isn?t obvious to the mass media. And in disaster after disaster, at least since the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, those in power, those with guns and the force of law behind them, are too often more concerned for property than human life. In an emergency, people can, and do, die from those priorities. Or they get gunned down for minor thefts or imagined thefts. The media not only endorses such outcomes, but regularly, repeatedly, helps prepare the way for, and then eggs on, such a reaction. If Words Could Kill We need to banish the word ?looting? from the English language. It incites madness and obscures realities. ?Loot,? the noun and the verb, is a word of Hindi origin meaning the spoils of war or other goods seized roughly. As historian Peter Linebaugh points out, ?At one time loot was the soldier's pay.? It entered the English language as a good deal of loot from India entered the English economy, both in soldiers? pockets and as imperial seizures. After years of interviewing survivors of disasters, and reading first-hand accounts and sociological studies from such disasters as the London Blitz and the Mexico City earthquake of 1985, I don?t believe in looting. Two things go on in disasters. The great majority of what happens you could call emergency requisitioning. Someone who could be you, someone in the kind of desperate circumstances I outlined above, takes necessary supplies to sustain human life in the absence of any alternative. Not only would I not call that looting, I wouldn?t even call that theft. Necessity is a defense for breaking the law in the United States and other countries, though it?s usually applied more to, say, confiscating the car keys of a drunk driver than feeding hungry children. Taking things you don?t need is theft under any circumstances. It is, says the disaster sociologist Enrico Quarantelli, who has been studying the subject for more than half a century, vanishingly rare in most disasters. Personal gain is the last thing most people are thinking about in the aftermath of a disaster. In that phase, the survivors are almost invariably more altruistic and less attached to their own property, less concerned with the long-term questions of acquisition, status, wealth, and security, than just about anyone not in such situations imagines possible. (The best accounts from Haiti of how people with next to nothing have patiently tried to share the little they have and support those in even worse shape than them only emphasize this disaster reality.) Crime often drops in the wake of a disaster. The media are another matter. They tend to arrive obsessed with property (and the headlines that assaults on property can make). Media outlets often call everything looting and thereby incite hostility toward the sufferers as well as a hysterical overreaction on the part of the armed authorities. Or sometimes the journalists on the ground do a good job and the editors back in their safe offices cook up the crazy photo captions and the wrongheaded interpretations and emphases. They also deploy the word panic wrongly. Panic among ordinary people in crisis is profoundly uncommon. The media will call a crowd of people running from certain death a panicking mob, even though running is the only sensible thing to do. In Haiti, they continue to report that food is being withheld from distribution for fear of ?stampedes.? Do they think Haitians are cattle? The belief that people in disaster (particularly poor and nonwhite people) are cattle or animals or just crazy and untrustworthy regularly justifies spending far too much energy and far too many resources on control -- the American military calls it ?security? -- rather than relief. A British-accented voiceover on CNN calls people sprinting to where supplies are being dumped from a helicopter a "stampede" and adds that this delivery ?risks sparking chaos.? The chaos already exists, and you can?t blame it on these people desperate for food and water. Or you can, and in doing so help convince your audience that they?re unworthy and untrustworthy. Back to looting: of course you can consider Haiti?s dire poverty and failed institutions a long-term disaster that changes the rules of the game. There might be people who are not only interested in taking the things they need to survive in the next few days, but things they?ve never been entitled to own or things they may need next month. Technically that?s theft, but I?m not particularly surprised or distressed by it; the distressing thing is that even before the terrible quake they led lives of deprivation and desperation. In ordinary times, minor theft is often considered a misdemeanor. No one is harmed. Unchecked, minor thefts could perhaps lead to an environment in which there were more thefts and so forth, and a good argument can be made that, in such a case, the tide needs to be stemmed. But it?s not particularly significant in a landscape of terrible suffering and mass death. A number of radio hosts and other media personnel are still upset that people apparently took TVs after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005. Since I started thinking about, and talking to people about, disaster aftermaths I?ve heard a lot about those damned TVs. Now, which matters more to you, televisions or human life? People were dying on rooftops and in overheated attics and freeway overpasses, they were stranded in all kinds of hideous circumstances on the Gulf Coast in 2005 when the mainstream media began to obsess about looting, and the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana made the decision to focus on protecting property, not human life. A gang of white men on the other side of the river from New Orleans got so worked up about property crimes that they decided to take the law into their own hands and began shooting. They seem to have considered all black men criminals and thieves and shot a number of them. Some apparently died; there were bodies bloating in the September sun far from the region of the floods; one good man trying to evacuate the ruined city barely survived; and the media looked away. It took me months of nagging to even get the story covered. This vigilante gang claimed to be protecting property, though its members never demonstrated that their property was threatened. They boasted of killing black men. And they shared values with the mainstream media and the Louisiana powers that be. Somehow, when the Bush administration subcontracted emergency services -- like providing evacuation buses in Hurricane Katrina -- to cronies who profited even while providing incompetent, overpriced, and much delayed service at the moment of greatest urgency, we didn?t label that looting. Or when a lot of wealthy Wall Street brokers decide to tinker with a basic human need like housing?. Well, you catch my drift. Woody Guthrie once sang that ?some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.? The guys with the six guns (or machetes or sharpened sticks) make for better photographs, and the guys with the fountain pens not only don?t end up in jail, they end up in McMansions with four-car garages and, sometimes, in elected -- or appointed -- office. Learning to See in Crises Last Christmas a priest, Father Tim Jones of York, started a ruckus in Britain when he said in a sermon that shoplifting by the desperate from chain stores might be acceptable behavior. Naturally, there was an uproar. Jones told the Associated Press: ?The point I'm making is that when we shut down every socially acceptable avenue for people in need, then the only avenue left is the socially unacceptable one.? The response focused almost entirely on why shoplifting is wrong, but the claim was also repeatedly made that it doesn?t help. In fact, food helps the hungry, a fact so bald it?s bizarre to even have to state it. The means by which it arrives is a separate matter. The focus remained on shoplifting, rather than on why there might be people so desperate in England?s green and pleasant land that shoplifting might be their only option, and whether unnecessary human suffering is itself a crime of sorts. Right now, the point is that people in Haiti need food, and for all the publicity, the international delivery system has, so far, been a visible dud. Under such circumstances, breaking into a U.N. food warehouse -- food assumedly meant for the poor of Haiti in a catastrophic moment -- might not be ?violence,? or ?looting,? or ?law-breaking.? It might be logic. It might be the most effective way of meeting a desperate need. Why were so many people in Haiti hungry before the earthquake? Why do we have a planet that produces enough food for all and a distribution system that ensures more than a billion of us don?t have a decent share of that bounty? Those are not questions whose answers should be long delayed. Even more urgently, we need compassion for the sufferers in Haiti and media that tell the truth about them. I?d like to propose alternative captions for those Los Angeles Times photographs as models for all future disasters: Let?s start with the picture of the policeman hogtying the figure whose face is so anguished: ?Ignoring thousands still trapped in rubble, a policeman accosts a sufferer who took evaporated milk. No adequate food distribution exists for Haiti?s starving millions.? And the guy with the bolt of fabric? ?As with every disaster, ordinary people show extraordinary powers of improvisation, and fabrics such as these are being used to make sun shelters around Haiti.? For the murdered policeman: ?Institutional overzealousness about protecting property leads to a gratuitous murder, as often happens in crises. Meanwhile countless people remain trapped beneath crushed buildings.? And the crowd in the rubble labeled looters? How about: ?Resourceful survivors salvage the means of sustaining life from the ruins of their world.? That one might not be totally accurate, but it?s likely to be more accurate than the existing label. And what is absolutely accurate, in Haiti right now, and on Earth always, is that human life matters more than property, that the survivors of a catastrophe deserve our compassion and our understanding of their plight, and that we live and die by words and ideas, and it matters desperately that we get them right. At the dawn of the millennium, three catastrophes were forecast for the United States: terrorists in New York, a hurricane in New Orleans, and an earthquake in San Francisco. Rebecca Solnit lives in San Francisco with her earthquake kit and is about to make her seventh trip to New Orleans since Katrina. Her latest book, A Paradise Built in Hell, 368 pages Publisher: Viking Adult (August, 2009) ISBN-10: 0670021075 is a testament to human bravery and innovation during disasters. see also The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein Filling the Skies With Assassins/DRONES http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175195/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_the_forty-year_drone_war_/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Tue Jan 26 22:00:21 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: Political Correctness! Message-ID: <006a01ca9fad$4d682570$13ad57ca@jfos> Sometimes you are encouraged about the future of the U.S. (and possibly even Canada, Australia and Ireland) when you see something like this. Specifically, there is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was "Political Correctness." The winner wrote: "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Wed Jan 27 20:01:02 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:01:02 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: Skull and Bones Ballot box was going to Christie's auction but cancelled Message-ID: <039b01ca9fce$824bb740$13ad57ca@jfos> Ah the moral values of Amerikkka's 'leaders'! john Skull linked to secret Yale society to be sold Anonymous seller places infamous 1872 human skull on auction block http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34709352/ updated 3:19 p.m. ET Jan. 5, 2010 NEW YORK - A human skull that apparently was turned into a ballot box for Yale's mysterious Skull and Bones society is going on the auction block. Christie's estimates the skull will sell for $10,000 to $20,000 when it is auctioned on Jan. 22. Fittingly, the auction house has agreed to keep the seller's name a secret. On Monday, it described the person only as a European art collector. The skull is fitted with a hinged flap and is believed to have been used during voting at the famous society's meetings. The auction house said it also may have been displayed at the society's tomblike headquarters on Yale's campus in New Haven, Conn., during the late 1800s. Skull and Bones, an elite society founded in 1832, has closely guarded its members' names and its activities since the early 1970s. Prior to that time, the group published an annual roster. Publicly known members, known as Bonesmen, include President William Howard Taft, both presidents Bush, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, businessman and diplomat Averell Harriman, publisher Henry Luce and author and commentator William F. Buckley Jr. "I think it's a macabre artifact," Margot Rosenberg, head of Christie's American decorative arts department, said Tuesday. "It's an intriguing story tied to America, tied to Yale. I think it will generate interest for people who are former Bonesmen, people who collect Americana, people who are interested in history." The skull is believed to have been owned by Edward T. Owen, who was graduated from Yale in 1872 and went to become professor of French and linguistics at the University of Wisconsin. The word THOR is etched into the skull; it may have been the nickname given to Owen or another society member. The skull is being sold with a black book, inscribed with Owen's name, the year 1872 and the numeral 322, a reference to the society's year of inception and to the death of the orator Demosthenes in 322 B.C. It contains the names and photographs of about 50 Bonesmen, including Taft, who became the 27th president of the United States; Morrison Remick Waite, who became U.S. chief justice in 1874; and William Maxwell Evarts, who served as U.S. secretary of state and U.S. attorney general. Skull and Bones invites 15 Yale seniors to join each year. Bonesmen swear an oath of secrecy about the group and its strange rituals, which include initiation rites such as confessing sexual secrets and kissing a skull. On Tuesday, the society's secrecy remained intact. Efforts to reach a society member or a representative of its business arm, the Russell Trust Association, through a Yale spokesman were unsuccessful. The Ivy League school, which is not affiliated with the society, did not return a reporter's call. But they cancelled it... Wonder what happened to that "black book." Christie's Withdraws Yale Skull-Ballot Box http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=35661 The 1872 ballot box belonging to Yale's secretive Skull and Bones society that was being offered for sale at Christie's New York City auction house. The ballot box, in the form of a skull and cross bones, was going to be sold on Jan. 22 for an estimated $10,000 to $20,000. AP Photo/Christie's. NEW YORK, NY (AP).- A New York City auction house says a human skull that had been used as a ballot box by Yale's elite Skull and Bones society has been withdrawn from sale. Christie's said Friday that the 19th century skull was being removed from the Jan. 22 sale due to a title claim. The auction house declined further comment. The skull had been expected to sell for $10,000 to $20,000. Christie's only identified the seller as a European art collector. The skull is fitted with a hinged flap and is believed to have been used during voting at the mysterious society's meetings. The club was founded in 1832 and publicly known members, called Bonesmen, include both presidents Bush and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thinker at xplornet.com Thu Jan 28 22:24:43 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:24:43 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Australia Day January 26th Message-ID: <20100129062809.DA8FE1738C63@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> > > >Happy Australa Day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >Cheers, Ed. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AustraliaDay.pps Type: application/octet-stream Size: 950272 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AustraliaDay1.pps Type: application/octet-stream Size: 950272 bytes Desc: not available URL: From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Jan 29 04:39:47 2010 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:39:47 +0100 Subject: [Mai-not] Suicide of WEF Security Chief Message-ID: Economic Efficiency?? The WEF Security Chief appeared drunk on a security briefing 2 days before the WEF began. (Couldn't take all those economists anymore?) His underlings denounced him, so he was phoned out of his Davos hotel bed in the very early morning for a meeting to explain his alcohol consumption. Knowing that he will be fired immediately, the WEF security chief shot himself a few minutes before the meeting. (Source: local newspapers) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From creuss at bluewin.ch Fri Jan 29 06:21:13 2010 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:21:13 +0100 Subject: [Mai-not] Osama becomes an Environmentalist Message-ID: ...after all, the color of Islam is green! Will Al Qaeda finally join Al Gore? Will Arabia switch from oil to solar energy? The latest hoax tape from the Hollywood studios is really funny... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901 463.html?hpid=topnews Bin Laden blasts US for climate change By SALAH NASRAWI The Associated Press Friday, January 29, 2010; 7:46 AM CAIRO -- Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday. In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt. He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change." Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants. The al-Qaida leader also targeted the U.S. economy in the recording, calling for a boycott of American products and an end to the dollar's domination as a world currency. "We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America." He argued that such steps would also hamper Washington's war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Jan 29 07:54:09 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:54:09 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Australia Day January 26th In-Reply-To: <20100129062809.DA8FE1738C63@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> References: <20100129062809.DA8FE1738C63@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20100129155410.83EBD10C8E@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Good wishes for Australia Day very much appreciated. I have some personal mixed feelings about Australia Day. Thankfulness for the nation built long after the British landing in 1788 and, as everywhere, a work in progress, but hostility to the British who "did an Israel" on this continent where they could have come in peace and offered a genuine deal to the mutual benefit of the settlers and the native inhabitants. December 3 would be a much more appropriate Australia Day to commemorate the courage of the miners who stood up to the British at Eureka on that day in 1854. Much of what is decent today was won by those people, in fact it could be seen as the first overt act of a developing Australian national consciousness against what Britain represented (and still does). The gains on that day and subsequently are outlined at http://www.criticaltimes.com.au/features/eureka-day/ though the writer wrongly (IMO) describes it as being between "us" and "us" and suggests that instead of violence being met with violence it should be met with the other cheek. (Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit six feet of earth). But the miners' military tactics might in hindsight have been different - a lot has been learned about armed resistance since then. Dion Giles At 14:24 29/01/2010, Ed wrote: >>Happy Australa Day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > >> >>Cheers, Ed. >> > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4816 (20100128) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Jan 29 07:58:17 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:58:17 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Osama becomes an Environmentalist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100129155817.92133F861@fep04.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> There must be an Al Qa'eda desk at Langley. Dion Giles At 22:21 29/01/2010, you wrote: >...after all, the color of Islam is green! >Will Al Qaeda finally join Al Gore? >Will Arabia switch from oil to solar energy? >The latest hoax tape from the Hollywood studios is really funny... > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901 >463.html?hpid=topnews > >Bin Laden blasts US for climate change > > By SALAH NASRAWI > The Associated Press > Friday, January 29, 2010; 7:46 AM > >CAIRO -- Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to >boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and >other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new >audiotape released Friday. > >In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned >of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to >bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt. > >He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and >floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global >warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate >change." > >Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, >but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which >included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror >leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants. > >The al-Qaida leader also targeted the U.S. economy in the recording, >calling for a boycott of American products and an end to the dollar's >domination as a world currency. > >"We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as >possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave >ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery >and dependence on America." > >He argued that such steps would also hamper Washington's war efforts in >Afghanistan and Iraq. > >The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, >comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a >failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day. > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4818 (20100129) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 29 08:20:03 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:03 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Australia Day January 26th In-Reply-To: <20100129155410.83EBD10C8E@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> References: <20100129062809.DA8FE1738C63@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> <20100129155410.83EBD10C8E@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> Message-ID: <20100129162012.4CBA72A3C77@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Come now Dion ! You mean that when you're going the Britain . you're not going "home " ? Isn't there a law in Australia demanding this ? Cheers, Ed. At 07:54 AM 29/01/2010, you wrote: >Good wishes for Australia Day very much appreciated. I have some >personal mixed feelings about Australia Day. Thankfulness for the >nation built long after the British landing in 1788 and, as >everywhere, a work in progress, but hostility to the British who >"did an Israel" on this continent where they could have come in >peace and offered a genuine deal to the mutual benefit of the >settlers and the native inhabitants. December 3 would be a much >more appropriate Australia Day to commemorate the courage of the >miners who stood up to the British at Eureka on that day in >1854. Much of what is decent today was won by those people, in fact >it could be seen as the first overt act of a developing Australian >national consciousness against what Britain represented (and still >does). The gains on that day and subsequently are outlined at >http://www.criticaltimes.com.au/features/eureka-day/ though the >writer wrongly (IMO) describes it as being between "us" and "us" and >suggests that instead of violence being met with violence it should >be met with the other cheek. (Blessed are the meek, for they shall >inherit six feet of earth). But the miners' military tactics might >in hindsight have been different - a lot has been learned about >armed resistance since then. > >Dion Giles > > > >At 14:24 29/01/2010, Ed wrote: > > > >>>Happy Australa Day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> >>> >>>Cheers, Ed. >> >> >> >>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>signature database 4816 (20100128) __________ >> >>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >>http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: >01/28/10 11:36:00 From thinker at xplornet.com Fri Jan 29 08:33:07 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:33:07 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Osama becomes an Environmentalist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100129163315.B9D82BA1437@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> The funny thing about this bin Laden affair is that the US "failed" to capture him, if he's such a great enemy. Failed, or have no intention, to keep the war machine going ? If the guy still exists, they must know exactly where he is, the satellites can photograph him every time he takes a walk, or a leak in the open.. So what's the holdup? Is he still on CIA payroll ? Cheers, Ed. At 06:21 AM 29/01/2010, you wrote: >...after all, the color of Islam is green! >Will Al Qaeda finally join Al Gore? >Will Arabia switch from oil to solar energy? >The latest hoax tape from the Hollywood studios is really funny... > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901 >463.html?hpid=topnews > >Bin Laden blasts US for climate change > > By SALAH NASRAWI > The Associated Press > Friday, January 29, 2010; 7:46 AM > >CAIRO -- Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to >boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and >other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new >audiotape released Friday. > >In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned >of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to >bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt. > >He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and >floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global >warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate >change." > >Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, >but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which >included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror >leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants. > >The al-Qaida leader also targeted the U.S. economy in the recording, >calling for a boycott of American products and an end to the dollar's >domination as a world currency. > >"We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as >possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave >ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery >and dependence on America." > >He argued that such steps would also hamper Washington's war efforts in >Afghanistan and Iraq. > >The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, >comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a >failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day. > > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >"igve". > > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: >01/28/10 11:36:00 From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Jan 29 08:55:09 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:55:09 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Osama becomes an Environmentalist In-Reply-To: <20100129163315.B9D82BA1437@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> References: <20100129163315.B9D82BA1437@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20100129165509.EB10310EB2@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> In George Orwell's "1984" there were doubts whether arch enemy Emmanuel Goldstein existed or had ever existed. The managed Goldstein image was a very effective stick with which to beat the population into submission. Dion Giles At 00:33 30/01/2010, you wrote: >The funny thing about this bin Laden affair is that the US "failed" >to capture him, if he's such a great enemy. Failed, or have no >intention, to keep the war machine going ? If the guy still exists, >they must know exactly where he is, the satellites can photograph >him every time he takes a walk, or a leak in the open.. So what's >the holdup? Is he still on CIA payroll ? > >Cheers, Ed. > > > > >At 06:21 AM 29/01/2010, you wrote: >>...after all, the color of Islam is green! >>Will Al Qaeda finally join Al Gore? >>Will Arabia switch from oil to solar energy? >>The latest hoax tape from the Hollywood studios is really funny... >> >> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901 >>463.html?hpid=topnews >> >>Bin Laden blasts US for climate change >> >> By SALAH NASRAWI >> The Associated Press >> Friday, January 29, 2010; 7:46 AM >> >>CAIRO -- Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to >>boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and >>other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new >>audiotape released Friday. >> >>In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned >>of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to >>bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt. >> >>He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and >>floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global >>warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate >>change." >> >>Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, >>but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which >>included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror >>leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants. >> >>The al-Qaida leader also targeted the U.S. economy in the recording, >>calling for a boycott of American products and an end to the dollar's >>domination as a world currency. >> >>"We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as >>possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave >>ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery >>and dependence on America." >> >>He argued that such steps would also hamper Washington's war efforts in >>Afghanistan and Iraq. >> >>The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be confirmed, >>comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a >>failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day. >> >> >> >> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword >>"igve". >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: >>01/28/10 11:36:00 > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4818 (20100129) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > From diongiles1 at aapt.net.au Fri Jan 29 09:15:42 2010 From: diongiles1 at aapt.net.au (Dion Giles) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:15:42 +0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Australia Day January 26th In-Reply-To: <20100129162012.4CBA72A3C77@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> References: <20100129062809.DA8FE1738C63@smtprelay02.hostedemail.com> <20100129155410.83EBD10C8E@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> <20100129162012.4CBA72A3C77@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> Message-ID: <20100129171543.5E4BD10E2A@fep02.mfe.bur.connect.com.au> At 00:20 30/01/2010, Ed wrote: >Come now Dion ! You mean that when you're going the Britain . >you're not going "home " ? Isn't there a law in Australia demanding this ? The first census I completed as newly an adult asked for nationality. British, New Zealand, Dutch etc. etc. and no box to tick for Australian. So I crossed them out and wrote Australian. So did a lot of others and in the next census the first category was Australian. There are still grovelling crawlers in the woodwork. Back in the eighties the picture of Australian pioneer Caroline Chisholm on our fivers was replaced by one of the Queen of England. (I managed to get a brief letter in The Australian that a government which was debasing the value of our currency might as well also debase its design). An obsequious element still often refer to the English Queen, or the Queen of England, as "the Queen". (Even some Americans do that). Some pretend-Australians in our Post Office still keep designing stamps with pictures of Britain's royal freeloaders (very embarrassing when they are on letters going outside the country - I affix them upside-down beside a Eureka flag). Dion Giles >Cheers, Ed. > > > > > >At 07:54 AM 29/01/2010, you wrote: >>Good wishes for Australia Day very much appreciated. I have some >>personal mixed feelings about Australia Day. Thankfulness for the >>nation built long after the British landing in 1788 and, as >>everywhere, a work in progress, but hostility to the British who >>"did an Israel" on this continent where they could have come in >>peace and offered a genuine deal to the mutual benefit of the >>settlers and the native inhabitants. December 3 would be a much >>more appropriate Australia Day to commemorate the courage of the >>miners who stood up to the British at Eureka on that day in >>1854. Much of what is decent today was won by those people, in >>fact it could be seen as the first overt act of a developing >>Australian national consciousness against what Britain represented >>(and still does). The gains on that day and subsequently are >>outlined at http://www.criticaltimes.com.au/features/eureka-day/ >>though the writer wrongly (IMO) describes it as being between "us" >>and "us" and suggests that instead of violence being met with >>violence it should be met with the other cheek. (Blessed are the >>meek, for they shall inherit six feet of earth). But the miners' >>military tactics might in hindsight have been different - a lot has >>been learned about armed resistance since then. >> >>Dion Giles >> >> >> >>At 14:24 29/01/2010, Ed wrote: >> >> >> >>>>Happy Australa Day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Cheers, Ed. >>> >>> >>> >>>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>>signature database 4816 (20100128) __________ >>> >>>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>>http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Mai-not mailing list >>>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Mai-not mailing list >>Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >>http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not >> >> >>No virus found in this incoming message. >>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release Date: >>01/28/10 11:36:00 > >_______________________________________________ >Mai-not mailing list >Mai-not at globalproblematique.net >http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >signature database 4818 (20100129) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > > From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Fri Jan 29 20:53:50 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:53:50 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fw: Drone On & On (surge to 2047) Message-ID: <011c01caa168$37efe5e0$61ad57ca@jfos> the real ghosts of avitar, chapter 1 aztatl http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175195/tomgram:_nick_turse,_the_forty-year_drone_war_/#more One moment there was the hum of a motor in the sky above. The next, on a recent morning in Afghanistan?s Helmand province, a missile blasted a home, killing 13 people. Days later, the same increasingly familiar mechanical whine preceded a two-missile salvo that slammed into a compound in Degan village in the tribal North Waziristan district of Pakistan, killing three. What were once unacknowledged, relatively infrequent targeted killings of suspected militants or terrorists in the Bush years have become commonplace under the Obama administration. And since a devastating December 30th suicide attack by a Jordanian double agent on a CIA forward operating base in Afghanistan, unmanned aerial drones have been hunting humans in the Af-Pak war zone at a record pace. In Pakistan, an ?unprecedented number? of strikes -- which have killed armed guerrillas and civilians alike -- have led to more fear, anger, and outrage in the tribal areas, as the CIA, with help from the U.S. Air Force, wages the most public ?secret? war of modern times. In neighboring Afghanistan, unmanned aircraft, for years in short supply and tasked primarily with surveillance missions, have increasingly been used to assassinate suspected militants as part of an aerial surge that has significantly outpaced the highly publicized ?surge? of ground forces now underway. And yet, unprecedented as it may be in size and scope, the present ramping up of the drone war is only the opening salvo in a planned 40-year Pentagon surge to create fleets of ultra-advanced, heavily-armed, increasingly autonomous, all-seeing, hypersonic unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Today?s Surge Drones are the hot weapons of the moment and the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review -- a soon-to-be-released four-year outline of Department of Defense strategies, capabilities, and priorities to fight current wars and counter future threats -- is already known to reflect this focus. As the Washington Post recently reported, ?The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with the goals of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expanding Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.? The MQ-1 Predator -- first used in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s -- and its newer, larger, and more deadly cousin, the MQ-9 Reaper, are now firing missiles and dropping bombs at an unprecedented pace. In 2008, there were reportedly between 27 and 36 U.S. drone attacks as part of the CIA?s covert war in Pakistan. In 2009, there were 45 to 53 such strikes. In the first 18 days of January 2010, there had already been 11 of them. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force has instituted a much publicized decrease in piloted air strikes to cut down on civilian casualties as part of Afghan War commander General Stanley McChrystal?s counterinsurgency strategy. At the same time, however, UAS attacks have increased to record levels. The Air Force has created an interconnected global command-and-control system to carry out its robot war in Afghanistan (and as Noah Shachtman of Wired?s Danger Room blog has reported, to assist the CIA in its drone strikes in Pakistan as well). Evidence of this can be found at high-tech U.S. bases around the world where drone pilots and other personnel control the planes themselves and the data streaming back from them. These sites include a converted medical warehouse at Al-Udeid Air Base, a billion-dollar facility in the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar where the Air Force secretly oversees its on-going drone wars; Kandahar and Jalalabad Air Fields in Afghanistan, where the drones are physically based; the global operations center at Nevada?s Creech Air Base, where the Air Force?s ?pilots? fly drones by remote control from thousands of miles away; and -- perhaps most importantly -- at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, a 12-square-mile facility in Dayton, Ohio, named after the two local brothers who invented powered flight in 1903. This is where the bills for the current drone surge -- as well as limited numbers of strikes in Yemen and Somalia -- come due and are, quite literally, paid. In the waning days of December 2009, in fact, the Pentagon cut two sizeable checks to ensure that unmanned operations involving the MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper will continue full-speed ahead in 2010. The 703rd Aeronautical Systems Squadron based at Wright-Patterson signed a $38 million contract with defense giant Raytheon for logistics support for the targeting systems of both drones. At the same time, the squadron inked a deal worth $266 million with mega-defense contractor General Atomics, which makes the Predator and Reaper drones, to provide management services, logistics support, repairs, software maintenance, and other functions for both drone programs. Both deals essentially ensure that, in the years ahead, the stunning increase in drone operations will continue. These contracts, however, are only initial down payments on an enduring drone surge designed to carry U.S. unmanned aerial operations forward, ultimately for decades.. Drone Surge: The Longer View Back in 2004, the Air Force could put a total of only five drone combat air patrols (CAPs) -- each consisting of four air vehicles -- in the skies over American war zones at any one time. By 2009, that number was 38, a 660% increase according to the Air Force. Similarly, between 2001 and 2008, hours of surveillance coverage for U.S. Central Command, encompassing both the Iraqi and Afghan war zones, as well as Pakistan and Yemen, showed a massive spike of 1,431%. In the meantime, flight hours have gone through the roof. In 2004, for example, Reapers, just beginning to soar, flew 71 hours in total, according to Air Force documents; in 2006, that number had risen to 3,123 hours; and last year, 25,391 hours. This year, the Air Force projects that the combined flight hours of all its drones -- Predators, Reapers, and unarmed RQ-4 Global Hawks -- will exceed 250,000 hours, about the total number of hours flown by all Air Force drones from 1995-2007. In 2011, the 300,000 hour-a-year barrier is expected to be crossed for the first time, and after that the sky?s the limit. More flight time will, undoubtedly, mean more killing. According to Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann of the Washington-based think tank the New America Foundation, in the Bush years, from 2006 into 2009, there were 41 drone strikes in Pakistan which killed 454 militants and civilians. Last year, under the Obama administration, there were 42 strikes that left 453 people dead. A recent report by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, an Islamabad-based independent research organization that tracks security issues, claimed an even larger number, 667 people -- most of them civilians -- killed by U.S. drone strikes last year. While assisting the CIA?s drone operations in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, the Air Force has been increasing its own unmanned aerial hunter-killer missions. In 2007 and 2008, for example, Air Force Predators and Reapers fired missiles during 244 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, while all the U.S. armed services have pursued unmanned aerial warfare, the Air Force has outpaced each of them. >From 2001, when armed drone operations began, until the spring of 2009, the Air Force fired 703 Hellfire missiles and dropped 132 GBU-12s (500-pound laser-guided bombs) in combat operations. The Army, by comparison, launched just two Hellfire missiles and two smaller GBU-44 Viper Strike munitions in the same time period. The disparity should only grow, since the Army?s drones remain predominantly small surveillance aircraft, while in 2009 the Air Force shifted all outstanding orders for the medium-sized Predator to the even more formidable Reaper, which is not only twice as fast but has 600% more payload capacity, meaning more space for bombs and missiles. In addition, the more heavily-armed Reapers, which can now loiter over an area for 10 to 14 hours without refueling, will be able to spot and track ever more targets via an increasingly sophisticated video monitoring system. According to Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, the first three ?Gorgon Stare pods? -- new wide-area sensors that provide surveillance capabilities over large swathes of territory -- will be installed on Reapers operating in Afghanistan this spring. A technology not available for the older Predator, Gorgon Stare will allow 10 operators to view 10 video feeds from a single drone at the same time. Back at a distant base, a ?pilot? will stare at a tiled screen with a composite picture of the streaming battlefield video, even as field commanders analyze a portion of the digital picture, panning, zooming, and tilting the image to meet their needs. A more advanced set of ?pods,? scheduled to be deployed for the first time this fall, will allow 30 operators to view 30 video images simultaneously. In other words, via video feeds from a single Reaper drone, operators could theoretically track 30 different people heading in 30 directions from a single Afghan compound. The generation of sensors expected to come online in late 2011 promises 65 such feeds, according to Air Force documents, a more than 6,000% increase in effectiveness over the Predator?s video system. The Air Force is, however, already overwhelmed just by drone video currently being sent back from the war zones and, in the years ahead, risks ?drowning in data,? according to Deptula. The 40-Year Plan When it comes to the drone surge, the years 2011-2013 are just the near horizon. While, like the Army, the Navy is working on its own future drone warfare capacity -- in the air as well as on and even under the water -- the Air Force is involved in striking levels of futuristic planning for robotic war. It envisions a future previously imagined only in sci-fi movies like the Terminator series. As a start, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA, the Pentagon?s blue skies research outfit, is already looking into radically improving on Gorgon Stare with an ?Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance-Infrared ( ARGUS-IR) System.? In the obtuse language of military research and development, it will, according to DARPA, provide a ?real-time, high-resolution, wide area video persistent surveillance capability that allows joint forces to keep critical areas of interest under constant surveillance with a high degree of target location accuracy? via as many as ?130 ?Predator-like? steerable video streams to enable real-time tracking and monitoring and enhanced situational awareness during evening hours.? In translation, that means the Air Force will quite literally be flooded with video information from future battlefields; and every ?advance? of this sort means bulking up the global network of facilities, systems, and personnel capable of receiving, monitoring, and interpreting the data streaming in from distant digital eyes. All of it, of course, is specifically geared toward ?target location,? that is, pin-pointing people on one side of the world so that Americans on the other side can watch, track, and in many cases, kill them. In addition to enhanced sensors and systems like ARGUS-IR, the Air Force has a long-term vision for drone warfare that is barely beginning to be realized. Predators and Reapers have already been joined in Afghanistan by a newer, formerly secret drone, a ?low observable unmanned aircraft system? first spotted in 2007 and dubbed the ?Beast of Kandahar? before observers were sure what it actually was. It is now known to be a Lockheed Martin-manufactured unmanned aerial vehicle, the RQ-170 -- a drone which the Air Force blandly notes was designed to ?directly support combatant commander needs for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to locate targets.? According to military sources, the sleek, stealthy surveillance craft has been designated to replace the antique Lockheed U-2 spy plane, which has been in use since the 1950s. In the coming years, the RQ-170 is slated to be joined in the skies of America?s ?next wars? by a fleet of drones with ever newer, more sophisticated capabilities and destructive powers. Looking into the post-2011 future, Deptula sees the most essential need, according to an Aviation Week report, as ?long-range [reconnaissance and] precision strike? -- that is, more eyes in far off skies and more lethality. He added, ?We cannot move into a future without a platform that allows [us] to project power long distances and to meet advanced threats in a fashion that gives us an advantage that no other nation has.? This means bigger, badder, faster drones -- armed to the teeth -- with sensor systems to monitor wide swathes of territory and the ability to loiter overhead for days on end waiting for human targets to appear and, in due course, be vaporized by high-powered munitions. It?s a future built upon advanced technologies designed to make targeted killings -- remote-controlled assassinations -- ever more effortless. Over the horizon and deep into what was, until recently, only a silver-screen fantasy, the Air Force envisions a wide array of unmanned aircraft, from tiny insect-like robots to enormous ?tanker size? pilotless planes. Each will be slated to take over specific war-making functions (or so Air Force dreamers imagine). Those nano-sized drones, for instance, are set to specialize in indoor reconnaissance -- they?re small enough to fly through windows or down ventilation shafts -- and carry out lethal attacks, undertake computer-disabling cyber-attacks, and swarm, as would a group of angry bees, of their own volition. Slightly larger micro-sized Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems (STUAS) are supposed to act as ?transformers? -- altering their form to allow for flying, crawling and non-visual sensing capabilities. They might fill sentry, counter-drone, surveillance, and lethal attack roles. Additionally, the Air Force envisions small and medium ?fighter sized? drones with lethal combat capabilities that would put the current UAS air fleet to shame.. Today?s medium-sized Reapers are set to be replaced by next generation MQ-Ma drones that will be ?networked, capable of partial autonomy, all-weather and modular with capabilities supporting electronic warfare (EW), CAS [close air support], strike and multi-INT [multiple intelligence] ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] missions? platform.? The language may not be elegant, much less comprehensible, but if these future fighter aircraft actually come online they will not only send today?s remaining Top Gun pilots to the showers, but may even sideline tomorrow?s drone human operators, who, if all goes as planned, will have ever fewer duties. Unlike today?s drones which must take off and land with human guidance, the MQ-Ma?s will be automated and drone operators will simply be there to monitor the aircraft. Next up will be the MQ-Mb, theoretically capable of taking over even more roles once assigned to traditional fighter-bombers and spy planes, including the suppression of enemy air defenses, bombing and strafing of ground targets, and surveillance missions. These will also be designed to fly more autonomously and be better linked-in to other drone ?platforms? for cooperative missions involving many aircraft under the command of a single ?pilot.? Imagine, for instance, one operator overseeing a single command drone that holds sway over a small squadron of autonomous drones carrying out a coordinated air attack on clusters of people in some far off land, incinerating them in small groups across a village, town or city. Finally, perhaps 30 to 40 years from now, the MQ-Mc drone would incorporate all of the advances of the MQ-M line, while being capable of everything from dog-fighting to missile defense. With such new technology will, of course, come new policies and new doctrines. In the years ahead, the Air Force intends to make drone-related policy decisions on everything from treaty obligations to automatic target engagement -- robotic killing without a human in the loop. The latter extremely controversial development is already envisioned as a possible post-2025 reality. 2047: What?s Old is New Again The year 2047 is the target date for the Air Force?s Holy Grail, the capstone for its long-term plan to turn the skies over to war-fighting drones. In 2047, the Air Force intends to rule the skies with MQ-Mc drones and ?special? super-fast, hypersonic drones for which neither viable technology nor any enemies with any comparable programs or capabilities yet exist. Despite this, the Air Force is intent on making these super-fast hunter-killer systems a reality by 2047. ?Propulsion technology and materials that can withstand the extreme heat will likely take 20 years to develop. This technology will be the next generation air game-changer. Therefore the prioritization of the funding for the specific technology development should not wait until the emergence of a critical COCOM [combatant command] need,? says the Air Force?s 2009-2047 UAS ?Flight Plan.? If anything close to the Air Force?s dreams comes to fruition, the ?game? will indeed be radically changed. By 2047, there?s no telling how many drones will be circling over how many heads in how many places across the planet. There?s no telling how many millions or billions of flight hours will have been flown, or how many people, in how many countries will have been killed by remote-controlled, bomb-dropping, missile-firing, judge-jury-and-executioner drone systems. There?s only one given. If the U.S. still exists in its present form, is still solvent, and still has a functioning Pentagon of the present sort, a new plan will already be well underway to create the war-making technologies of 2087. By then, in ever more places, people will be living with the sort of drone war that now worries only those in places like Degan village. Ever more people will know that unmanned aerial systems packed with missiles and bombs are loitering in their skies. By then, there undoubtedly won?t even be that lawnmower-engine sound indicating that a missile may soon plow into your neighbor?s home. For the Air Force, such a prospect is the stuff of dreams, a bright future for unmanned, hypersonic lethality; for the rest of the planet, it's a potential nightmare from which there may be no waking. Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com and the winner of a 2009 Ridenhour Prize for Reportorial Distinction as well as a James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times, and regularly at TomDispatch. Turse is currently a fellow at New York University's Center for the United States and the Cold War. He is the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books). His website is NickTurse.com. View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175195/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From papadop at peak.org Sat Jan 30 01:06:46 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:06:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Blair testifies in London inquiry Message-ID: Robert Fisk -- writes in the London Independent There was the blood that flowed over my shoes in the emergency room of a Baghdad hospital in March of 2003, the humans shrieking with phosphorous burns, the old man with the blood trickling down a handkerchief from his empty eye socket, the piles of decomposing corpses in the Baghdad mortuary, the screams -- oh yes, the shrieks and the pleadings and the animal squeals of the wounded and the dying. And then there was Lord Blair yesterday, sitting in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in his oh-so-clean business suit and his oh-so-clean red tie and his oh-so-clean white shirt and his oh-so-clean conscience. My God, that was a "binary distinction" all http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-and-his-o hsoclean-conscience-1883656.html * from The Independent & The Independent on Sunday By Robert Fisk Saturday, 30 January 2010 There was -- to use a truly vile expression of Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara yesterday -- a "binary distinction". There was the blood that flowed over my shoes in the emergency room of a Baghdad hospital in March of 2003, the humans shrieking with phosphorous burns, the old man with the blood trickling down a handkerchief from his empty eye socket, the piles of decomposing corpses in the Baghdad mortuary, the screams -- oh yes, the shrieks and the pleadings and the animal squeals of the wounded and the dying. And then there was Lord Blair yesterday, sitting in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in his oh-so-clean business suit and his oh-so-clean red tie and his oh-so-clean white shirt and his oh-so-clean conscience. My God, that was a "binary distinction" all right. The difference between the hell of pain and the hell of blissful mendacity. You needed to be in the Middle East to feel that strongly about it. Lord Blair was physically only 2,000 miles away from me. Psychologically, he was in another galaxy, still composing and recomposing the historical record. Take al-Qa'ida. We all knew about this particular institution. It had, as Lord Blair kept reminding us yesterday, "changed everything" with 9/11. It was one of the reasons why the British and Americans invaded Iraq. Because Saddam had links with al-Qa'ida, so said the Americans,and might give them weapons of mass destruction, so said Lord Blair. But when it turned out that the links were as non-existent as the weapons, Lord Blair was surprised to find al-Qa'ida turning up in post-invasion Iraq. "People did not think that al-Qa'ida and Iran would play the role that they did." Lord Blair went to war because of al-Qa'ida but thought al-Qa'ida would let him win in Iraq. So it was all al-Qa'ida's fault. WE didn't kill 100,000 Iraqis (I noticed he used the lowest available figure). It was THEM, the terrorists, al-Qa'ida, insurgents, Iranians, "sectarians", the bad guys. He played the same dishonest little trick over the Israel-Palestinian war. "It's a constant problem for Israel," he informed us. "They use great force in retaliation. Before you've gone two weeks, they're the people that started it all." But no, they're not, Lord Blair. No one disputed that Hamas rockets preceded Israel's Gaza war a year ago. What Israel was accused of was causing grotesquely disproportionate Palestinian casualties. But of course, that's not what Blair said. Because he works in Jerusalem -- where he cannot offend either side -- and as Middle East envoy, it was his job to prevent this mass slaughter. Which he failed to do as signally as he failed to stop the slaughter in Iraq. It's a cold winter in the Middle East now, but yesterday I had to loosen my shirt collar from time to time. It seemed Blair was as successful in Iraq as he was in Gaza a year ago. Everything is getting better. Life in Iraq is better -- better than it was in 2007, 2003, 2002 and for that matter, 2001. I got it. Before his invasion, it was all Saddam's fault. After his invasion it was all al-Qa'ida's and Iran's fault. And presumably we are now going to invade Iran? At one point, the wretched man boasted of Britain's historical legacy in setting up an Iraqi government in the 1920s, deleting any mention of the massive insurgency against the British in Baghdad and Fallujah and Najaf in 1922 which might -- just might -- have forewarned him of the post-2003 anarchy. >From time to time, there was a slip; or at least, something the inquiry -- i t is in fact, an inquest -- missed. Trying to tell us that no decisions were taken at the infamous meeting with George Bush at Crawford, Lord Blair suddenly blurted out (indeed, appeared to want to blurt out) that he thought there had been "conversations with Israelis". What? Israelis? At the critical Crawford meeting? Israel was the only nation -- apart from the US and Britain -- that totally supported ther war, indeed encouraged it. A Jerusalem friend looked up his archives for me and there's an Israeli foreign ministry "source" at the time saying that an Iraq invasion "will certainly take people away from the Israel-Palestine file". The inquiry never picked up this intriguing clue. But by the end, as Lawrence Freedman read through the casualty lists for each year, and I remember I saw some of them with my own eyes -- the tragedy of Iraq seeped into the room. Adam Price MP got it right. "We'll never get an apology from this man," he said. We can't, of course. Because Lord Blair was talking about judgement, about being "frank", "absolutely and completely" honest and "absolutely clear". We had "to stick in there and see it out". So that's what all the dead and the wounded and the bombs and the shredded bodies and the rape and Abu Ghraib torture was all about. Yet such a tiny room to hear it all in. No wonder they couldn't cram in all the mourning Brits. Almost 200 dead British soldiers couldn't be catered for. And how, I wondered, would they have crammed the souls of 100,000 dead Iraqis into the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre? From papadop at peak.org Sat Jan 30 17:16:45 2010 From: papadop at peak.org (MichaelP) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:16:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Mai-not] Impeach 9th circuit Judge Jay Bybee anyway Message-ID: http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531 Justice Department Clears Torture Memo Authors John Yoo, Jay Bybee of Misconduct Friday 29 January 2010 by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report A long-awaited Department of Justice watchdog report that probed whether John Yoo and his former boss Jay Bybee violated professional standards when they provided the Bush White House with legal advice on torture has cleared both men of misconduct, according to Newsweek, citing unnamed sources who have seen the document. An earlier version of the report was prepared by H, Marshall Jarrett, head of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and completed in December 2008. It concluded that Yoo, a Berkeley law professor, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge on the 9th Circuit, violated professional standards when they drafted an August 2002 legal opinion that authorized CIA officers to use brutal methods when interrogating suspected terrorist detainees and recommeded a referral to their state bar associations for possible sanctions, which could have resulted in their law licenses being revoked. But as I reported last April, Obama's Justice Department appointees began to water down those previous conclusions in early 2009 after OPR received responses on the report's conclusions from Yoo and Bybee, who both worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC): Legal sources familiar with the internal debate about the draft report say OPR is in the process of "watering"- down the criticism of legal opinions by [OLC] lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee in 2002 and 2003 and by [OLC acting head Steven Bradbury], who in 2005 reinstated some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions after they had been withdrawn by Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith when he headed the OLC in 2003 and 2004. Shortly after taking charge of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder assigned Mary Patrice Brown, a veteran DC prosecutor and the new head of OPR, the task of reviewing the final report. Brown spent months scrutinizing the lengthy document and made revisions. Her conclusions were then sent to a senior prosecutor at the DOJ for a final review. The person tasked with reviewing the final version is David Margolis, the 34-year career prosecutor at the DOJ. It was Margolis who softened OPR's earlier finding of professional misconduct and instead determined that Yoo and Bybee "showed poor judgment" when they drafted an August 1, 2002 legal opinion authorizing the CIA to employ methods such as waterboarding against detainees during interrogations, according to Newsweek. That means neither Yoo nor Bybee will be referred to state bar associations where they could have faced disciplinary action since poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct, according to OPR's post-investigation procedures. For Bybee, such a referral could have also led to an impeachment inquiry before Congress. It's unknown why Margolis downgraded the report's initial findings. Newsweek reported that he did so without any input from Holder, who has to accept the conclusions and recommendations contained in the document. Yoo and Bybee, however, are still under scrutiny. Legal advocacy groups have filed complaints against them, and others who worked on the Bush administration's so-called "enhanced interrogation" program, with state bar associations in hopes that their law licenses will be revoked. When the report is finally released and if its conclusions match Newsweek's story, particularly the key finding that Yoo and Bybee did not violate professional standards and won't face disciplinary action, the Obama administration will face a swift backlash from those who say the president and his appointees have gone above and beyond to cover-up war crimes committed by the Bush administration. Newsweek noted that the OPR report is "sharply critical" of the "legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding" and other methods of torture CIA interrogators used against detainees after 9/11, a critical conclusion that raises questions about the Obama Justice Department's reasons for not holding Yoo and Bybee accountable. Moreover, the report, which is still under a declassification review "will provide many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role that top White House officials played in the process, say two sources who have read the report but asked for anonymity to describe a sensitive document," Newsweek reported. Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002 memo?including one contending that the president, as commander in chief, can override a federal law banning torture?were not in the original draft of the memo, say the sources. But when Michael Chertoff, then-chief of Justice's criminal division, refused the CIA's request for a blanket pledge not to prosecute its officers for torture, Yoo met at the White House with David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief counsel, and then?White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. After that, Yoo inserted a section about the commander in chief's wartime powers and another saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda suspects could claim they were acting in "self-defense to prevent future terror attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal precedent. Four-Year-Long Investigation The OPR probe was launched in mid-2004 after a meeting in which Jack Goldsmith, then head of the OLC, got into a tense debate with White House lawyers, including Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel David Addington. That back-and-forth over the OLC's judgments regarding President Bush's powers rest at the heart of the Bush administration's defense of its "enhanced interrogation techniques that have been widely denounced as torture, such as waterboarding which subjects a person to the panicked gag reflex of drowning and which was used on at least three "high-value detainees. Bush officials insist that they were acting under the guidance of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises Presidents on the scope of their constitutional powers. For the OPR report to conclude that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury violated their professional duties as lawyers and, in effect, gave Bush pre-cooked legal opinions to do what he already wanted to do would have shattered that line of defense. Goldsmith ended up withdrawing some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions because he felt they were "legally flawed and "sloppily written. He resigned shortly thereafter and was subsequently replaced on an acting basis by Bradbury, who restored some of the controversial Yoo-Bybee opinions in May 2005, again granting George W. Bush broad powers to inflict painful interrogations on detainees. Bradbury was also a subject of OPR's probe. Yoo Failed to Cite Legal Precedent As Truthout reported last week, an original draft of the report determined that professional misconduct was warranted because Yoo, when writing the August 2002 torture memo, failed to cite the key precedent relating to a president's war powers, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 Supreme Court case that addressed President Harry Truman's order to seize steel mills that had been shut down in a labor dispute during the Korean War, according to DOJ officials who were knowledgeable about the contents of the draft version. Truman said the strike threatened national defense and thus justified his actions under his Article II powers in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court overturned Truman's order, saying, "the President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Since Congress hadn't delegated such authority to Truman, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman's actions were unconstitutional, with an influential concurring opinion written by Justice Robert Jackson. Yoo's memoranda concluded that the laws governing torture violated President Bush's commander-in-chief powers under the Constitution because it prevented him "from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States." Yoo's lengthy response to the OPR expanded upon a defense he first cited in his 2006 book, "War by Other Means," in explaining why he didn't cite Youngstown. Yoo wrote: "we didn't cite [Justice Robert] Jackson's individual views in Youngstown because earlier OLC opinions, reaching across several administrations, had concluded that it had no application to the president's conduct of foreign affairs and national security. "Youngstown reached the outcome it did because the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the President, the exclusive power to make law concerning labor disputes. It does not address the scope of Commander-in-Chief power involving military strategy or intelligence tactics in war ... "Far from inventing some novel interpretation of the Constitution, [Office of Legal Counsel] was really doing little more than following in the footsteps of the Clinton Justice Department and all prior Justice Departments." It now appears that Yoo made a convincing argument to OPR in defending his reasons for not citing the landmark ruling and that likely impacted Margolis's decision to water down earlier conclusions that found Yoo and Bybee in violation of professional standards. A July 10, 2009, report by the inspectors general of the CIA, National Security Agency, DOJ and Defense Department into the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which were based on legal opinions written by Yoo, previously took Yoo to task for failing to cite Youngstown. Yoo "omitted any discussion of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a leading case on the distribution of government powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches," the report said. "Justice [Robert] Jackson's analysis of President Truman's Article II Commander-in-Chief authority during wartime in the Youngstown case was an important factor in OLC's subsequent reevaluation of Yoo's opinions," the report said. Additionally, the early draft of the OPR report also concluded, legal sources said, that Yoo misinterpreted an obscure 2000 health benefits statute and wrongly applied it to August 2002 and March 2003 interrogation opinions he wrote, according to the DOJ officials. Again, expanding upon a defense that first appeared in his book, Yoo placed some of the responsibility on Congress for forcing him to rely upon the statute to narrow the definition of torture in a way that permitted techniques such as waterboarding. In passing an anti-torture law, Congress only prohibited "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," Yoo wrote. "The ban on torture does not prohibit any pain or suffering whether physical or mental, only severe acts. Congress did not define severe ... OLC interpreted 'severe' as a level of pain 'equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions. "OLC's first 2002 definition did not make up this definition out of thin air. It applied a standard technique used to interpret ambiguous phrases in law. When Congress does not define its terms, courts commonly look in the United States Code for the use of similar language. The only other place where similar words appear is in a law defining health benefits for emergency medical conditions, which are defined as severe symptoms, including 'severe pain' where an individual's health is placed 'in serious jeopardy,' 'serious impairment to bodily functions,' or 'serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.'" In his book, The Terror Presidency, Goldsmith wrote that "the health benefits statute's use of 'severe pain' had no relationship whatsoever to the torture statute. And even if it did, the health benefit statute did not define 'severe pain.' Rather it used the term 'severe pain' as a sign of an emergency medical condition that, if not treated, might cause organ failure and the like.... OLC's clumsily definitional arbitrage didn't seem even in the ballpark." Bush Aides Secured Changes Last March, the Justice Department revealed that the OPR report underwent revisions after the initial draft was rejected by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, both of who insisted that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury be given an opportunity to respond to its conclusions. "Attorney General Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Filip and OLC provided comments [after the first draft was completed in December], and OPR revised the draft report to the extent it deemed appropriate based on those comments, said acting Assistant Attorney General Faith Burton in a March 25, 2009 letter to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Burton also said at the time that the final OPR would likely undergo more revisions based on responses from the former OLC lawyers. Several months later, Durbin and Whitehouse received a letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich who disclosed the post investigation process. Several months later, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to the senators and noted that if the appeals filed by Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury resulted in a rejection of OPR's findings by the "career official" reviewin g the document then no such referral would occur. "Department policy usually requires referral of OPR's misconduct findings to the subject's state bar disciplinary authority, but if the appeal resulted in a rejection of OPR's misconduct findings, then no referral was made," said Weich's May 4, 2009 letter to Durbin and Whitehouse. "This process afforded former employees roughly the same opportunity to contest OPR's findings that current employees were afforded through the disciplinary process." Weich's letter to Durbin and Whitehouse was sent in response to queries by the senators last March about revelations that Bradbury oversaw OLC's review of the report in late 2008, despite the fact that he was a subject of OPR's investigation and was also acting head of OLC at the time. Three months before Bush exited the White House, Bradbury, in a "memorandum for the files," renounced several legal opinions drafted by Yoo and Bybee. Bradbury attempted to justify or forgive Yoo's controversial opinion by explaining that it was "the product of an extraordinary period in the history of the Nation: the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11." Bradbury wrote another memo five days before Bush left office last January, in which he once again repudiated Yoo's legal opinions. It would appear that this memo was in response to the OPR report. Bradbury said in the Jan. 15 memo that the flawed theories by Yoo in no way should be interpreted to mean that Justice Department lawyers did not "satisfy" professional standards. Rather, Bradbury wrote, "In the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the Nation." Durbin and Whitehouse said they believed Bradbury's "memorandum for the files" made it a "conflict-of-interest" for him to participate in the formal review process. But Weich said, "Because Mr. Bradbury's participation in that process was transparent, OPR advised that it can evaluate the OLC response with the knowledge of Mr. Bradbury's participation just as it would evaluate a response from anyone whose actions were within the scope of OPR's investigation. "Therefore, OPR does not believe that Mr. Bradbury's participation in the OLC response was improper," Weich said Weich added that the initial draft of the report was also shared with the CIA for a "classification review," and the agency, having reviewed the findings, "requested an opportunity to provide substantive comment on the report." Durbin and Whitehouse, in a statement last May, said they "will be interested in the scope of the 'substantive comment' the CIA is providing, and the reasons why an outside agency would have such comment on an internal disciplinary matter." REPORT LONG OVERDUE As Truthout previously reported, Holder testified before Congress last year that the OPR report was expected be released by the end of November. In interviews over the past month, two senior aides to Democratic lawmakers claimed the report was being held up in lieu of the passage of a health care bill. But Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokeswoman, disputed the allegations. "That is absolutely untrue," Schmaler said. "One thing has nothing to do with another." Schmaler said the review "process is ongoing and we hope to have [the report] complete and released soon." Two DOJ officials familiar with details of the report said a delay in releasing it in the time frame Holder had promised was due, in part, to the fact that Margolis was hospitalized in December for pneumonia. In his testimony last November, Holder said the report had not been released sooner due to "the amount of time we gave to the lawyers who represented the people who are the subject of the report an opportunity to respond. And then [OPR] had to react to those responses." In 2008, in the heat of the presidential campaign, Holder, who was a featured speaker at the American Constitution Society's annual convention, told a packed crowd that the "American people are owe[d] a reckoning as a result of the 'abusive and unlawful' policies of the Bush administration. But if the initial reports about the OPR report's conclusions are accurate, that day will likely never come. From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sat Jan 30 18:33:34 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:33:34 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: The Kidnapping of Haiti - John Pilger Message-ID: <004401caa21d$ca1dc3a0$10ad57ca@jfos> Excerpt: "For the people of Haiti the implications are clear, if grotesque. With US troops in control of their country, Obama has appointed George W. Bush to the "relief effort": a parody surely lifted from Graham Greene's The Comedians, set in Papa Doc's Haiti. As president, Bush's relief effort following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 amounted to an ethnic cleansing of many of New Orleans' black population. In 2004, he ordered the kidnapping of the democratically-elected prime minister of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and exiled him in Africa. The popular Aristide had had the temerity to legislate modest reforms, such as a minimum wage for those who toil in Haiti's sweatshops. When I was last in Haiti, I watched very young girls stooped in front of whirring, hissing, binding machines at the Port-au-Prince Superior Baseball Plant. Many had swollen eyes and lacerated arms. I produced a camera and was thrown out. Haiti is where America makes the equipment for its hallowed national game, for next to nothing. Haiti is where Walt Disney contractors make Mickey Mouse pjamas, for next to nothing. The US controls Haiti's sugar, bauxite and sisal. Rice-growing was replaced by imported American rice, driving people into the cities and towns and jerry-built housing. Years after year, Haiti was invaded by US marines, infamous for atrocities that have been their specialty from the Philippines to Afghanistan.(snip) Not for tourists is the US building its fifth biggest embassy in Port-au-Prince. Oil was found in Haiti's waters decades ago and the US has kept it in reserve until the Middle East begins to run dry. More urgently, an occupied Haiti has a strategic importance in Washington's "rollback" plans for Latin America. The goal is the overthrow of the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, control of Venezuela's abundant oil reserves and sabotage of the growing regional cooperation that has given millions their first taste of an economic and social justice long denied by US-sponsored regimes." ################################################# http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24519.htm The Kidnapping of Haiti By John Pilger January 27, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- The theft of Haiti has been swift and crude. On 22 January, the United States secured "formal approval" from the United Nations to take over all air and sea ports in Haiti, and to "secure" roads. No Haitian signed the agreement, which has no basis in law. Power rules in an American naval blockade and the arrival of 13,000 marines, special forces, spooks and mercenaries, none with humanitarian relief training. The airport in the capital, Port-au-Prince, is now an American military base and relief flights have been re-routed to the Dominican Republic. All flights stopped for three hours for the arrival of Hillary Clinton. Critically injured Haitians waited unaided as 800 American residents in Haiti were fed, watered and evacuated. Six days passed before the US Air Force dropped bottled water to people suffering thirst and dehydration. The first TV reports played a critical role, giving the impression of widespread criminal mayhem. Matt Frei, the BBC reporter dispatched from Washington, seemed on the point of hyperventilation as he brayed about the "violence" and need for "security". In spite of the demonstrable dignity of the earthquake victims, and evidence of citizens' groups toiling unaided to rescue people, and even an American general's assessment that the violence in Haiti was considerably less than before the earthquake, Frei claimed that "looting is the only industry" and "the dignity of Haiti's past is long forgotten." Thus, a history of unerring US violence and exploitation in Haiti was consigned to the victims. "There's no doubt," reported Frei in the aftermath of America's bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003, "that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now to the Middle East . is now increasingly tied up with military power." In a sense, he was right. Never before in so-called peacetime have human relations been as militarised by rapacious power. Never before has an American president subordinated his government to the military establishment of his discredited predecessor, as Barack Obama has done. In pursuing George W. Bush's policy of war and domination, Obama has sought from Congress an unprecedented military budget in excess of $700 billion. He has become, in effect, the spokesman for a military coup For the people of Haiti the implications are clear, if grotesque. With US troops in control of their country, Obama has appointed George W. Bush to the "relief effort": a parody surely lifted from Graham Greene's The Comedians, set in Papa Doc's Haiti. As president, Bush's relief effort following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 amounted to an ethnic cleansing of many of New Orleans' black population. In 2004, he ordered the kidnapping of the democratically-elected prime minister of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and exiled him in Africa. The popular Aristide had had the temerity to legislate modest reforms, such as a minimum wage for those who toil in Haiti's sweatshops. When I was last in Haiti, I watched very young girls stooped in front of whirring, hissing, binding machines at the Port-au-Prince Superior Baseball Plant. Many had swollen eyes and lacerated arms. I produced a camera and was thrown out. Haiti is where America makes the equipment for its hallowed national game, for next to nothing. Haiti is where Walt Disney contractors make Mickey Mouse pjamas, for next to nothing. The US controls Haiti's sugar, bauxite and sisal. Rice-growing was replaced by imported American rice, driving people into the cities and towns and jerry-built housing. Years after year, Haiti was invaded by US marines, infamous for atrocities that have been their specialty from the Philippines to Afghanistan. Bill Clinton is another comedian, having got himself appointed the UN's man in Haiti. Once fawned upon by the BBC as "Mr. Nice Guy . bringing democracy back to a sad and troubled land", Clinton is Haiti's most notorious privateer, demanding de-regulation of the economy for the benefit of the sweatshop barons. Lately, he has been promoting a $55m deal to turn the north of Haiti into an American-annexed "tourist playground". Not for tourists is the US building its fifth biggest embassy in Port-au-Prince. Oil was found in Haiti's waters decades ago and the US has kept it in reserve until the Middle East begins to run dry. More urgently, an occupied Haiti has a strategic importance in Washington's "rollback" plans for Latin America. The goal is the overthrow of the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, control of Venezuela's abundant oil reserves and sabotage of the growing regional cooperation that has given millions their first taste of an economic and social justice long denied by US-sponsored regimes. The first rollback success came last year with the coup against President Jose Manuel Zelaya in Honduras who also dared advocate a minimum wage and that the rich pay tax. Obama's secret support for the illegal regime carries a clear warning to vulnerable governments in central America. Last October, the regime in Colombia, long bankrolled by Washington and supported by death squads, handed the US seven military bases to, according to US air force documents, "combat anti-US governments in the region". Media propaganda has laid the ground for what may well be Obama's next war. On 14 December, researchers at the University of West England published first findings of a ten-year study of the BBC's reporting of Venezuela. Of 304 BBC reports, only three mentioned any of the historic reforms of the Chavez government, while the majority denigrated Chavez's extraordinary democratic record, at one point comparing him to Hitler. Such distortion and its attendant servitude to western power are rife across the Anglo-American corporate media. People who struggle for a better life, or for life itself, from Venezuela to Honduras to Haiti, deserve our support. www.johnpilger.com Click on "comments" below to read or post comments Comments (31) ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From thinker at xplornet.com Sun Jan 31 06:32:56 2010 From: thinker at xplornet.com (Ed Deak) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 06:32:56 -0800 Subject: [Mai-not] Egypt's breadbasket into wasteland Message-ID: <20100131143308.A9852DF9B0E@smtprelay01.hostedemail.com> FSubject: Egypt's fertile Nile Delta falls prey to climate change The Nile Delta, Egypt's breadbasket since antiquity, is being turned into a salty wasteland by rising seawaters, forcing some farmers off their lands and others to import sand in a desperate bid to turn back the tide. Some say that Egypt, like many other developing countries, is suffering from the mistakes of the industrialised West. "Egypt is only responsible for 0,6% of global greenhouse gas emissions," said Mohammed al-Raey of the Regional Disaster Response Centre. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-28-egypts-fertile-nile-delta-falls-prey-to-climate-change N From creuss at bluewin.ch Sun Jan 31 12:49:42 2010 From: creuss at bluewin.ch (Christoph Reuss) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:49:42 +0100 Subject: [Mai-not] WoT Hoaxers Re-Define "Sex Bomb" Message-ID: <> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247338/Terrorists-plan-attack-Britain-bombs-INSIDE-bodies-foil-new-airport-scanners.html Terrorists 'plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies' to foil new airport scanners By Christopher Leake, Mail On Sunday Home Affairs Editor Last updated at 10:01 PM on 30th January 2010 Britain is facing a new Al Qaeda terror threat from suicide 'body bombers' with explosives surgically inserted inside them. Until now, terrorists have attacked airlines, Underground trains and buses by secreting bombs in bags, shoes or underwear to avoid detection. But an operation by MI5 has uncovered evidence that Al Qaeda is planning a new stage in its terror campaign by inserting 'surgical bombs' inside people for the first time. New weapon: To avoid detection by airport body scanners (above), Al Qaeda are said to be planning to surgically insert explosives into suicide bombers' bodies Security services believe the move has been prompted by the recent introduction at airports of body scanners, which are designed to catch terrorists before they board flights. It is understood MI5 became aware of the threat after observing increasingly vocal internet 'chatter' on Arab websites this year. The warning comes in the wake of the failed attempt by London-educated Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day. One security source said: 'If the terrorists are talking about this, we need to be ready and do all we can to counter the threat.' A leading source added that male bombers would have the explosive secreted near their appendix or in their buttocks, while females would have the material placed inside their breasts in the same way as figure-enhancing implants. Experts said the explosive PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate) would be placed in a plastic sachet inside the bomber's body before the wound was stitched up like a normal operation incision and allowed to heal. A shaped charge of 8oz of PETN can penetrate five inches of armour and would easily blow a large hole in an airliner. Security sources said the explosives would be detonated by the bomber using a hypodermic syringe to inject TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide) through their skin into the explosives sachet. PETN - the main ingredient of Semtex plastic explosive - was used by Richard Reid, the British Al Qaeda shoe-bomber, when he unsuccessfully tried to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami in December 2001. In November, a Somali man who attempted to board a flight carrying a syringe, liquid and powdered chemicals was arrested before take-off. The airliner had been due to fly from Somalia's capital Mogadishu to Dubai. The Somali was carrying a nearly identical package to that of Abdulmutallab, who tried to detonate it by injecting TATP from a syringe. Abdulmutallab had stuffed explosives down his underpants as the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam made its final descent to Detroit carrying 280 passengers. But the detonator fluid set his clothes on fire rather than the device, and he was overpowered. Security sources fear the body-bombers could pretend to be diabetics injecting themselves on airliners, Tubes or buses in order to prevent anyone stopping their suicide missions. Companies such as Smiths Detection International UK, which is based in Watford, Hertfordshire, manufacture a range of luggage and body scanners designed to identify chemicals, explosives and drugs at airports and other passenger terminals around the world. These include high-specification X-ray equipment that could identify body bombs. But one source with expertise in the field said: 'They can make as many pieces of security equipment as they like but there is no one magic answer that can spot every single potential terrorist passing through.' Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons Counter-Terrorism Sub-Committee, said: 'Our enemies are constantly evolving their techniques to try to defeat our methods of detection. 'This is one of the most savage forms that extremists could use, and while we are redeveloping travel security we have got to take this new development into account.' Senior Government security sources confirmed last night that they were aware of the new threat of body bombs, but were not prepared to make any official comment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sun Jan 31 14:32:19 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:32:19 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Arresting Gandhi Message-ID: <008a01caa2c5$42d0aef0$4cad57ca@jfos> Arresting Gandhi "Violent Clashes" and the Arrest of Abdullah Abu Rahma He's a Palestinian man, and he has one of those very Muslim-sounding names with "Abu" in it (it means "father of"). Any time his name is mentioned in the media it tends to be quickly lined up with phrases like "violent clashes." If the article is more than one paragraph long then somehow or other the topic of suicide bombing will make its way into the discussion. And the Israelis have charged him with weapons possession and have arrested him (the weapons are an assortment of used bullets and tear gas canisters that have been fired at Abdullah and his family, but no matter). Many readers will by then have decided by then that it's all pretty scary and complicated and they'd best move on. The Israeli military's "tougher line" on "West Bank protests" made its way into the New York Times last Friday and mention was made of some of those arrested, injured and killed by the Israelis in the course of the weekly Friday protests that are now happening in a number of villages - villages like Bil'in, where Israel's massive new wall is being constructed just outside the town, cutting the village off from its farmland, its water and the livelihood of its residents. As part of their "tougher line" the IDF been arresting protest organizers, or in many cases killing them, always claiming the killings are accidental. Basem Abu Rahma, for example, was recently killed by a high-velocity tear gas canister shot directly at his chest, the same type of weapon that nearly killed American activist Tristan Anderson months before. And now Abdullah is in jail. The overwhelming majority of the world community doesn't know, and why should they? After all, the Palestinians have yet to find "their Gandhi" - Bono said so, among others. And the IDF spokesman quoted by the Times says of the weekly protests, "these are violent, illegal, dangerous riots." Therefore there is justification for the hundreds of Palestinian children killed by the IDF over recent years - sometimes they were throwing rocks. Let's stay with the logic here a moment. Take their land and build walls around it, arrest their parents for organizing nonviolent protests, kill their children for throwing rocks (while arresting their parents), call all that "violent, illegal, dangerous riots" and do it all again the next day. Spokespeople for Israel like to say that if people in, say, Europe had to deal with this sort of thing the Europeans would be doing the same sorts of things as the IDF, except worse, since as everybody knows (or at least as all Israelis have been told repeatedly by their leaders since birth), the IDF is the most moral army in the world. For what it's worth I'd like to try to put all this into some kind of context. I have been to Bil'in, I stayed at Abdullah Abu Rahma's house, and I witnessed the "violent clashes." I have also been in the midst of many far more "violent clashes" in Europe than what I witnessed in Bil'in, and I think the contrast is completely relevant. Bil'in The Israeli military's new tactic (if "new" is even remotely applicable here) is nothing short of breaking down doors in the middle of the night and arresting the pillars of the community for the crime of being pillars of the community. If Abdullah Abu Rahma were in a different context, say in some equally small town in Massachusetts, he's undoubtedly the sort of guy who would be an active member, and perhaps occasionally president, of the local Rotary Club. He's the sort of guy anybody from anywhere would recognize in their community - a reliable, gentle man without any grandiose ambitions in life, a family man, content with village life. But due to circumstances he finds himself on the front lines of an ever-encroaching, ever-expanding process of annexation and settlement -- the land-hungry state of Israel. So instead of presiding over Rotary Club meetings he spends his time trying to get foreign media attention on what is happening to his village. Instead of giving his second house to his children he uses it for young people from around the world who come every Friday for the weekly protests he organizes against the wall. Abdullah is very familiar with Ramallah, only a half hour drive from Bil'in (depending on the ever-present possibility of the IDF's moving checkpoints). He knows where every office of every media outlet is in this little capital city, and when I visited in 2005 he took me to every one of them, encouraging the reporters for Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabia and others to come cover this week's protest. The weekly protests often feature visiting dignitaries of some kind, and this week it was two musicians - me and an elderly classical pianist from the Netherlands who was a Jewish holocaust survivor and an outspoken critic of Israeli policies. At first the protest in Bil'in followed a familiar format. We held a small rally involving a couple speeches, a song and an instrumental piece on the piano. Then we marched towards the site where the wall is being built. More speeches and music. The military, in riot gear, began clubbing and arresting people and firing tear gas. What followed that was a departure from what might be called the normal European script. Children as young as ten began throwing stones, popping out from behind buildings to throw a stone, then ducking back again, while the soldiers fired rubber-coated steel bullets, tear gas canisters and other projectiles at them. The Friday I was there several were arrested but no one was killed or seriously injured. Other occasions have been far more lethal, and in the course of identical scenarios over the past months and years in the West Bank and Gaza many hundreds of children have been killed by the soldiers. Stones are certainly potentially harmful things to have thrown at you, no doubt, but in the context of soldiers in riot gear armed with machine guns and usually hiding behind tanks and armored bulldozers, stones are a symbolic protest, meant to evoke images from Jewish mythology, of little David taking on the invincible Goliath. The children are killed for throwing stones, and what are the consequences for the killers? Nothing other than the pangs of their own consciences. Why? Because Israel is only a democracy for Israeli citizens, and the millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza are occupied subjects, not citizens. And in the minds of so many Israeli Jews the Palestinian children are just future "terrorists" and not worth defending from the soldiers -- from their sons, brothers and fathers who are doing the killing. Europe Contrast can be illuminating. Seeing the stone-throwing youth I am reminded of many scenarios in which I have found myself in Europe. Except in Germany and Denmark the youth throwing the stones have been older, mostly in their older teens or twenties, and there are more of them, many more. The police are dressed in riot gear like the Israelis, but they don't usually have guns, and if they do they almost never use them. They fight rocks with clubs and tear gas. They charge and they retreat. As in the Israeli media, the European media derides the youth with stones as misguided and violent. The youth are arrested, sometimes jailed for months for their offenses. The differences are many. The European stone-throwing youth are charged for their offenses, unlike the Palestinian kids who are often held indefinitely without charges. Also, the European youth are rarely killed, and when they are, there are consequences. Why are there consequences? Because in Europe there is something more closely resembling democracy than in Israel. Mass movements of citizens in the streets and voters in the voting booths have made sure over the decades that the police are not allowed to use whatever weapons they want and kill citizens with impunity. When Carlo Giuliani was killed in Italy during the G8 protests nine years ago, hundreds of thousands of regular Italian people poured into the streets across the country to protest the killing of this 23-year-old anarchist youth. Several months ago in Greece a teenager was killed by police in Athens and since then the whole country has been rocked by massive protests and riots against police brutality. But Israel, some will say, is a victim of "terrorism." By extension these stone-throwing youth are somehow "terrorists" and therefore different standards apply. But it's not true. In recent years in Madrid and London scores of people have been killed in suicide bombings, but this has not led the Spanish or British militaries to start killing en masse Spanish or British youth who may be (and often are) misguided enough to throw rocks at the police in the course of a protest. Escalation In Denmark there is a group called Parents Against Police Brutality. These are people who tend to see the police as often playing a provocative role (for example in destroying the anarchist social center, Ungdomshuset not long ago) and they go to protests more or less as observers to make sure the police aren't hurting their children. They're not there to tell the kids what to do, they're just there to make sure the police don't hurt them. Whereas in the western media the question is rhetorically asked why the Palestinian parents allow their children to go throw stones at tanks, nobody asks why the parents of Denmark let their kids go throw stones at cops. The Danish parents would generally just prefer that the police would stay home in the first place and not give their kids such an obvious and deserving target for their frustration (since they weren't born yesterday and they remember that it was the police who destroyed their social center, for example). In Germany, following the fairly sizable riots during the G8 meetings in Rostock, some conservative politicians were complaining that the police, a number of whom had suffered broken bones in the melee with protesters, needed to be better armed. The politicians said the police should be given tasers, pellet guns, and whatever else. The police chief responded that they didn't want projectiles, as this would escalate things in future confrontations with angry citizens. It's been years since there's been any significant Palestinian-led violence against Israelis, and Israel is increasingly at risk of being seen universally, maybe even eventually in the US itself, as the aggressor. Shooting children looks especially bad when the kids don't have suicide vests on, if all they're ever doing is throwing stones at tanks. Knowing that if they suppress peaceful protest by arresting people like Abdullah Abu Rahma, Jamal Juma, and many others, this will help encourage other, less peaceful forms of protest, the Israeli leadership seems to be doing its best to foster a more violent opposition, hopefully one just violent enough to give Israel the justification it needs to continue to keep the Palestinian population controlled through wanton brutality. Maintaining a lack of democracy, keeping the Palestinian population in a state of fear, and maintaining at least a smokescreen of viability in the eyes of the west by having a legitimately violent menace to combat are all essential ingredients to keeping Israel Israel, or at least to keeping the West Bank for their settlers. The Palestinians most definitely have their adherents to Ghandian nonviolence, I have met many of them - and they are being systematically arrested. David Rovics http://www.davidrovics.com http://www.blogtalkradio.com/davidrovics This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ From jfos at vic.australis.com.au Sun Jan 31 15:25:39 2010 From: jfos at vic.australis.com.au (john foster) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:25:39 +1100 Subject: [Mai-not] Fwd: Howard Zinn: A Public Intellectual Who Mattered Message-ID: <00c901caa2cc$c481a7e0$4cad57ca@jfos> "Howard's death is especially poignant for me because I think the formative culture that produced intellectuals like him is gone." Howard Zinn: A Public Intellectual Who Mattered Thursday 28 January 2010 by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed (Illustration: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t) In 1977 I took my first job in higher education at Boston University. One reason I went there was because Howard Zinn was teaching there at the time. As a high school teacher, Howard's book, "Vietnam: the Logic of Withdrawal," published in 1968, had a profound effect on me. Not only was it infused with a passion and sense of commitment that I admired as a high school teacher and tried to internalize as part of my own pedagogy, but it captured something about the passion, sense of commitment and respect for solidarity that came out of Howard's working-class background. It offered me a language, history and politics that allowed me to engage critically and articulate my opposition to the war that was raging at the time. I grew up in Providence, Rhode Island, and rarely met or read any working-class intellectuals. After reading James Baldwin, hearing William Kunstler and Stanley Aronowitz give talks, I caught a glimpse of what it meant to occupy such a fragile, contradictory and often scorned location. But reading Howard gave me the theoretical tools to understand more clearly how the mix of biography, cultural capital and class location could be finely honed into a viable and laudable politics. Later, as I got to know Howard personally, I was able to fill in the details about his working-class background and his intellectual development. We had grown up in similar neighborhoods, shared a similar cultural capital and we both probably learned more from the streets than we had ever learned in formal schooling. There was something about Howard's fearlessness, his courage, his willingness to risk not just his academic position, but also his life, that marked him as special - untainted by the often corrupting privileges of class entitlement. Before I arrived in Boston to begin teaching at Boston University, Howard was a mythic figure for me and I was anxious to meet him in real life. How I first encountered him was perfectly suited to the myth. While walking to my first class, as I was nearing the university, filled with the trepidation of teaching a classroom of students, I caught my first glimpse of Howard. He was standing on a box with a bullhorn in front of the Martin Luther King memorial giving a talk calling for opposition to Silber's attempt to undermine any democratic or progressive function of the university. The image so perfectly matched my own understanding of Howard that I remember thinking to myself, this has to be the perfect introduction to such a heroic figure. Soon afterwards, I wrote him a note and rather sheepishly asked if we could meet. He got back to me in a day; we went out to lunch soon afterwards, and a friendship developed that lasted over 30 years. While teaching at Boston University, I often accompanied Howard when he went to high schools to talk about his published work or his plays. I sat in on many of his lectures and even taught one of his graduate courses. He loved talking to students and they were equally attracted to him. His pedagogy was dynamic, directive, focused, laced with humor and always open to dialog and interpretation. He was a magnificent teacher, who shredded all notions of the classroom as a place that was as uninteresting as it was often irrelevant to larger social concerns. He urged his students not just to learn from history, but to use it as a resource to sharpen their intellectual prowess and hone their civic responsibilities. Howard refused to separate what he taught in the university classroom, or any forum for that matter, from the most important problems and issues facing the larger society. But he never demanded that students follow his own actions; he simply provided a model of what a combination of knowledge, teaching and social commitment meant. Central to Howard's pedagogy was the belief that teaching students how to critically understand a text or any other form of knowledge was not enough. They also had to engage such knowledge as part of a broader engagement with matters of civic agency and social responsibility. How they did that was up to them, but, most importantly, they had to link what they learned to a self-reflective understanding of their own responsibility as engaged individuals and social actors. He offered students a range of options. He wasn't interested in molding students in the manner of Pygmalion, but in giving them the widest possible set of choices and knowledge necessary for them to view what they learned as an act of freedom and empowerment. There is a certain poetry in his pedagogical style and scholarship and it is captured in his belief that one can take a position without standing still. He captured this sentiment well in a comment he made in his autobiography, "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train." He wrote: "From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble." In fact, Howard was under constant attack by John Silber, then president of Boston University, because of his scholarship and teaching. One expression of that attack took the form of freezing Howard's salary for years. Howard loved watching independent and Hollywood films and he and I and Roz [Howard's wife] saw many films together while I was in Boston. I remember how we quarreled over "Last Tango in Paris." I loved the film, but he disagreed. But Howard disagreed in a way that was persuasive and instructive. He listened, stood his ground, and, if he was wrong, often said something like, "O.K., you got a point," always accompanied by that broad and wonderful smile. What was so moving and unmistakable about Howard was his humility, his willingness to listen, his refusal of all orthodoxies and his sense of respect for others. I remember once when he was leading a faculty strike at BU in the late 1970s and I mentioned to him that too few people had shown up. He looked at me and made it very clear that what should be acknowledged is that some people did show up and that was a beginning. He rightly put me in my place that day - a lesson I never forgot. Howard was no soppy optimist, but someone who believed that human beings, in the face of injustice and with the necessary knowledge, were willing to resist, organize and collectively struggle. Howard led the committee organized to fight my firing by Silber. We lost that battle, but Howard was a source of deep comfort and friendship for me during a time when I had given up hope. I later learned that Silber, the notorious right-wing enemy of Howard and anyone else on the left, had included me on a top-ten list of blacklisted academics at BU. Hearing that I shared that list with Howard was a proud moment for me. But Howard occupied a special place in Silber's list of enemies, and he once falsely accused Howard of arson, a charge he was later forced to retract once the charge was leaked to the press. Howard was one of the few intellectuals I have met who took education seriously. He embraced it as both necessary for creating an informed citizenry and because he rightly felt it was crucial to the very nature of politics and human dignity. He was a deeply committed scholar and intellectual for whom the line between politics and life, teaching and civic commitment collapsed into each other. Howard never allowed himself to be seduced either by threats, the seductions of fame or the need to tone down his position for the standard bearers of the new illiteracy that now populates the mainstream media. As an intellectual for the public, he was a model of dignity, engagement and civic commitment. He believed that addressing human suffering and social issues mattered, and he never flinched from that belief. His commitment to justice and the voices of those expunged from the official narratives of power are evident in such works as his monumental and best-known book, "A People's History of the United States," but it was also evident in many of his other works, talks, interviews and the wide scope of public interventions that marked his long and productive life. Howard provided a model of what it meant to be an engaged scholar, who was deeply committed to sustaining public values and a civic life in ways that linked theory, history and politics to the everyday needs and language that informed everyday life. He never hid behind a firewall of jargon, refused to substitute irony for civic courage and disdained the assumption that working-class and oppressed people were incapable of governing themselves. Unlike so many public relations intellectuals today, I never heard him interview himself while talking to others. Everything he talked about often pointed to larger social issues, and all the while, he completely rejected any vestige of political and moral purity. His lack of rigidity coupled with his warmness and humor often threw people off, especially those on the left and right who seem to pride themselves on their often zombie-like stoicism. But, then again, Howard was not a child of privilege. He had a working-class sensibility, though hardly romanticized, and sympathy for the less privileged in society along with those whose voices had been kept out of the official narratives as well as a deeply felt commitment to solidarity, justice, dialogue and hope. And it was precisely this great sense of dignity and generosity in his politics and life that often moved people who shared his company privately or publicly. A few days before his death, he sent me an email commenting on something I had written for Truthout about zombie politics. (It astonishes me that this will have been the last correspondence. Even at my age, the encouragement and support of this man, this towering figure in my life, meant such a great deal.) His response captures something so enduring and moving about his spirit. He wrote: "Henry, we are in a situation where mild rebuke, even critiques we consider 'radical' are not sufficient. (Frederick Douglass' speech on the Fourth of July in 1852, thunderously angry, comes close to what is needed). Raising the temperature of our language, our indignation, is what you are doing and what is needed. I recall that Sartre, close to death, was asked: 'What do you regret?' He answered: 'I wasn't radical enough.'" I suspect that Howard would have said the same thing about himself. And maybe no one can ever be radical enough, but Howard came close to that ideal in his work, life and politics. Howard's death is especially poignant for me because I think the formative culture that produced intellectuals like him is gone. He leaves an enormous gap in the lives of many thousands of people who knew him and were touched by the reality of the embodied and deeply felt politics he offered to all of us. I will miss him, his emails, his work, his smile and his endearing presence. Of course, he would frown on such a sentiment, and with a smile would more than likely say, "do more than mourn, organize." Of course, he would be right, but maybe we can do both. Note From the Author: The renown sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, in response to my tribute to Howard Zinn responded by sending a piece he wrote on the recent anniversary of Camus's death. Zygmunt stated that he saw a parallel and connection between the lives of these two important public intellectuals. Editor's Note: Howard Zinn and Henry A. Giroux not only shared a long personal friendship but also many professional and political connections. Henry A. Giroux recently joined the Truthout Board of Directors. Howard Zinn was a member of Truthout's Board of Advisors and his comments and suggestions about our work will be greatly missed by all of us. to/vh This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ Provided by Australis http://www.australis.com.au/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 15500 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 5145 bytes Desc: not available URL: From siamdave at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 31 21:01:41 2010 From: siamdave at yahoo.ca (Dave Patterson) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:01:41 +0700 Subject: [Mai-not] what happened? Re: Sustainble Economics Journal Editorial + Index of current issue. In-Reply-To: <4B591138.12506.37742C75@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> References: <4B591138.12506.37742C75@jmeaton.ns.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <201002011201410453.00A46DC0@smtp.totisp.net> I have written about most of this from a Canadian perspective - not sure if many people saw it, as there was only one response, as I recall, from Ed - but just in case Cdn readers might be interested, I'll mention it again now that the 'hoilday' distractions are past - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html . If anyone has any comments on why so very few people in the country seem concerned with the massive scam of this monetary system, not to mention the rather obvious fact that we no longer have anything that can be called a 'democracy', I would be greatly interested in hearing them - I am greatly puzzled by how few people seem to care about these things, and ignore all attempts to inform them. dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10-01-22 at 2:45 AM Janet M Eaton wrote: A link to a very sound, thought-provoking article, on - `WHY THIS CRISIS MAY BE OUR BEST CHANCE TO BUILD A NEW ECONOMY?, is: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/why-this-crisis-may- be-our-best-chance-to-build-a-new-economy by David Korten I also recommend a reading of a copyrighted article by Walden Bello, The Virtues of Deglobalization, which was published on Friday, September 4, 2009 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF). The URL to the article is: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/04-4 fyi-janet ============================================ http://sustecweb.co.uk/current/sustec17-6/editorial.htm Sustainable Economics 17-6 index Dec 09 Editorial: The ultimate conspiracy - not just `conspiracy theory? - is at last gaining attention. For decades, mention of the interlinked Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, European Round Table of Industrialists, Project or the New American Century - and not least, the Bank of International Settlements - has been dismissed as `conspiracy theory?, as though no `conspiracy theory? could be based on `conspiracy fact?. The fact gradually becoming generally recognized, because of the blatantly damaging decisions being made by governments, is that there is a global elite working toward a corporate world government, and a world money, controlled by psychopaths prepared to start wars, allow the devastation of the `First World? economies and the spread of poverty, starvation and diseases in the poorer parts of the world, and to spread lies and misinformation through the corporate public media. The blatant inconsistencies in the official report on `9/11? gave rise to many `conspiracy theories?, some or which were indeed far- fetched; but many facts emerged contradicting the official story, which give credence to the implication of the US administration as responsible for it. It is not acceptable to dismiss all these facts as `conspiracy theory?. Obama?s election in the USA was seen as a ray of hope, but the reality is becoming apparent that however sincere he is in his pronouncements, he is in the hands of the same team of `lieutenants? as were behind Bush, and the hope of radical change is fast fading. As a latest example, in the UK: the British government?s recent decisions on nuclear power, coal-fired power stations, and new runways at airports, flying in the face of the need to combat global warming. The debts generated by the money system as well as its power over money-creation are a great source of power for this elite, and its control of the media has in the past made spread of the facts about this, and alternatives, very difficult. The main source of hope for reform - before it is too late - is the Internet. This is spreading debate and enlightenment globally, fast. (Those in power are seeking ways to control it, but so far, with little success.) I hope that at least most of the readers of the paper edition of this newsletter have access to the Internet, because the `web? is being flooded with articles which should be read by everyone concerned for the future. A link to a very sound, thought-provoking article, on - `WHY THIS CRISIS MAY BE OUR BEST CHANCE TO BUILD A NEW ECONOMY?, is: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/why-this-crisis-may- be-our-best-chance-to-build-a-new-economy by David Korten I also recommend a reading of a copyrighted article by Walden Bello, The Virtues of Deglobalization, which was published on Friday, September 4, 2009 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF). The URL to the article is: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/04-4 Also recommended: James RobertsonNewsletter No. 27 - November 2009 - which contains a range of links worth a look. The full Newsletter can be viewed at www.jamesrobertson.com/news-nov09.htm If you have a group seeking in-depth education on the case for monetary reform, you can download the latest updated version of the talk Stephen Zarlenga, director of the American Monetary Institute, gave to the American Green Party?s National Convention in 2007 at www.monetary.org/greeningthedollar.ppt It uses the history of the USA from colonial days as the main illustration of the struggle for the power to create money, and its results for society - as well as proposing reform of the current money system. It takes about 1? hours to view and listen to, but is in 3 parts, which could each be followed by group discussion. Brian Leslie Volume 17 - Number 6 - December 2009 Main Contents Main Contents 1 Editorial ? 2 The Land Ethic Alanna Hartzok 3 Shifting the Burden From Main Street to Wall Street: Why We Need a "Tobin Tax" Ellen Hodgson Brown 4 Bailed-out Banks Settling Accounts with the Nation? W.K. 5 Reforming Economics Robert Needham 6 Book Review -- A Renewable World by Herbert Girardet & Miguel Mendon?a 7 Canadian Land is Starting to Shine as an Investment When Financial Instruments are Getting Ever More Iffy W.K. 8 Book Review:The New Economics by David Boyle and Andrew Simms 9 World to America: We Want Our Gold Back Robert Morley 10 Book Review: Conservation and Biodiversity Banking Ed. Nathaniel Carroll, Jessica Fox and Ricardo Bayon 11 Language of Deceit on the Tongues of the Mighty W.K. 12 MAKING WALL STREET PAY ITS FAIR SHARE Ellen Brown 13 As Important as Trade Are Our Human Relations with China W.K. 14 THE IMF CATAPULTS FROM SHUNNED AGENCY TO GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK Ellen Brown 15 Inflation: Too much money chasing too few goods? - Hardly! Robert Poteat 16 Debt-driven Climate Change! www.MoneyMyths.org.uk 17 Landmark Decision Promises Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for Banks Ellen Brown 18 The Public Option In Banking: Ellen Brown 19 Cross-currents in Deep Offshore Oil Finds W.K. 20 Have You Wondered? W.K. ? ------- End of forwarded message ------- _______________________________________________ Mai-not mailing list Mai-not at globalproblematique.net http://www.globalproblematique.net/mailman/listinfo/mai-not No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2637 - Release Date: 01/21/10 19:34:00