Re: Import-led development as a source of economic growth ?

[joanna bujes]

Jurriaan Bendien wrote:

Ultimately, theoretically, I consider prostitution as the core problem of
the whole feminist problematic, and I cannot very well get along with
feminist moralists who spout drivel about this, and vent all sorts of
confusing abstractions, rather than making a specific, critical and
self-critical investigation. In these things, one has to go to the core of
the matter, the heart of the matter, and not skirt around the issue with a
lot of claptrap and moralisms.
The heart of the matter for me is that if men stopped paying women for
sex, the entire problem of prostitution would disappear.  What would it
take for men to do that? I don't know; taking themselves and their
passions seriously? That would be a good start.
Joanna

Re: Import-led development as a source of economic growth ?

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> Nay it's a  far richer vein of problems than that as far as feminists are
> concerned:

Basically how I personally evaluate feminists is on whether they wish to
strengthen the toiling classes, the direct producers, the proletarians and
peasants, or whether they seek to weaken them. Are they a help or a
hindrance ? Hence, it is not possible to have a "general position" pro or
contra feminism in the manner of the liberals. Implicitly or explicitly this
is admitted in feminist circles anyway, since it is almost always the case
that feminism is combined with at least one other political or moral
ideology.

In general what you can say is that what I call the "social crisis" of
capitalism (resulting from the breakdown of traditional institutions and
intensified competition within and between social classes) generates
fragmentation, and that is reflected also in the feminist movement with
splits between all sorts of different feminisms, black feminism versus
white, lesbian/gay versus hetero, socialist versus green, conservative,
liberal etc. etc. in which there are continual conflicts between the need
for political unity and the need for adhering to principles.

In specific countries and specific temporal-spatial contexts feminisms are
progressive, contributing to emancipatory struggles, whereas in others they
represent reactionary confusion retarding the movement, and one gets nowhere
at all without a specific investigation of a specific situation.

Ultimately, theoretically, I consider prostitution as the core problem of
the whole feminist problematic, and I cannot very well get along with
feminist moralists who spout drivel about this, and vent all sorts of
confusing abstractions, rather than making a specific, critical and
self-critical investigation. In these things, one has to go to the core of
the matter, the heart of the matter, and not skirt around the issue with a
lot of claptrap and moralisms.

Jurriaan

Re: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

[Jurriaan Bendien]

Yep I have (though not all). He's great. Didn't he do that book
Anti-Samuelson ?

J.
- Original Message -
From: "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger


> Anybody ever read Marc Linder?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie
> nachgeborenen
> Subject: Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
>
>

World money, countertrade and exchange relations - additional comment on services

[Jurriaan Bendien]

I quoted Marx on services as follows:

"Thus, because the specific relation of labour and capital is not contained
at all in this purchase of services; because it has either been completely
extinguished or was never present, it is naturally the favourite form used
by Say, Bastiat and their associates to express the relation of capital and
labour."

As an aside, I think it is worth mentioning that Marx was thinking here
mainly about personal services, and that he modified his idea somewhat when
he prepared Capital Vol. 1 for publication.

Thus, his analysis of the paid work process provided there provides a much
more sophisticated analysis of the real subsumption of human work by
capital, and subsequently, in discussing value-augmentation through
production, Marx writes e.g. that "Capitalist production is not merely the
production of commodities, it is essentially the production of
surplus-value. The worker produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no
longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce a
surplus-value. That worker is productive only, who produces surplus-value
for the capitalist, and therefore works for the valorisation of capital. If
we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material
objects, a schoolmaster is a productive worker when, in addition to
belabouring the heads of his schholars, he works like a horse to enrich the
school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching
factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not change the relation.
Hence the concept of productive work doesn't simply imply a relationship
between work and useful effect (a service being defined as the useful effect
of a use-value - JB), between the worker and the output of work, but also a
specific, social relation of production, a relation which has sprung up
historically and stamps the worker as the direct means of creating a
surplus-value."

The specific investigation of services was never advanced very much in
Marxian scholarship beyond generalities, verities and platitudes, in
particular because most authors do not grasp that the problem is about the
specifically capitalist modification of the division of human work, the
restructuring of inputs and outputs to conform to the requirements of
capitalistic value-accretion, and to the pattern of the real subsumption of
human work by Capital.

Ernest Mandel correctly noted that many activities which are called or
statistically classified as "production of services" are really production
of tangible goods, or part of the production of goods (Le troisieme age du
capitalisme). That is really because in the foundational categorisation of
the occupational division of work, statisticians lack a theoretical basis or
scientific analysis of social relations, and hence, the categorisation made
is descriptive, it is based just on the actual occupational divisions which
there actually are, and which of course are modified over time, so that,
over time, some additional divisions are added to the classification etc.
and at some point the classification has to be drastically revised.

But Ernest Mandel also likes to use the concept of "veralgemeinte
warenproduktion" ("generalised commodity production") to describe the
capitalist mode of production. While this formula is useful to describe the
universalisation of market relations, it does not however do real justice to
Marx's contention, stated in the quote I mentioned, that "Capitalist
production is not merely the production of commodities, it is ESSENTIALLY
the production of the Mehwert." What is essential for Marx, to be precise,
is the transformation of human work into a value-accretion process, under
conditions where the increment can be privately appropriated by someone
else. So it is not really Marx who has a "labour theory of value", it is
rather capitalism itself, which transforms human work into a commercial
value, as Diane Elson pointed out once.

This qualification by Marx which I just stated is also the basis for Tony
Cliff's idea that the USSR must have been "state capitalist" (a bureaucratic
elite extracting a surplus from production) giving rise to a whole sectarian
or apologetic dispute about the social nature of the USSR which doesn't
really contribute very much to solving the problem of socialist transition
and the emancipation of the working classes, i.e. the transformation of
production and exchange relations to create more freedom and efficiency for
all, on an egalitarian basis (and not just for some). The real problem was,
that the bolsheviks came to power without having a clear understanding about
the socialist transformation of Russian society, and therefore, in many
ways, ended up running roughshod over the workers and peasants. Because of
their sentimental attachment to an ideological doctrine, many Marxists
refuse to understand this, and then you get only apologetics presenting
failures as successes, rather than the development o

Right wing populism

[Eugene Coyle]

Tom Frank has an essay in Le Monde Diplomatique addressing the right
wing populism that confuses and attracts many.

I'll paste the first paragraphs here:


A WAR AGAINST ELITES
  
The America will vote for Bush
  

The US is currently going through the peculiar process of deciding
which Democratic presidential candidate will stand against George Bush
in November. The aversion to Bush, at home and abroad, makes us forget
how many people support this spokesman for another America sure of its
superiority and its values. 
By TOM FRANK *

  
  
THERE was a commercial that aired on Iowa television in which the-then
front-runner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Howard
Dean, was blasted for being the choice of the cultural elites: a "tax
hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating,
Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving,
left- wing freak show" who had no business trying to talk to the plain
folk of Iowa. 
  
The commercial was sponsored by the Club for Growth, a Washington-based
organisation dedicated to hooking up pro-business rich people with
pro-business politicians. The organisation is made up of
anti-government economists, prominent men of means, and big thinkers of
the late New Economy, celebrated geniuses of the sort that spent the
past 10 years describing the low-tax, deregulated economy as though it
were the second coming of Christ. In other words, the people who
thought they saw Jesus in the ever-ascending Nasdaq, the pundits who
worked himself into a lather singing the praises of new billionaires,
the economists who made a living by publicly insisting that
privatisation and deregulation were the mandates of history itself, are
now running television commercials denouncing the "elite". 
  
That’s the mystery of the United States, circa 2004. Thanks to the
rightward political shift of the past 30 years, wealth is today
concentrated in fewer hands than it has been since the 1920s; workers
have less power over the conditions under which they toil than ever
before in our lifetimes; and the corporation has become the most
powerful actor in our world. Yet that rightward shift - still going
strong to this day - sells itself as a war against elites, a righteous
uprising of the little guy against an obnoxious upper class. 


http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa


  

  Subject: 
  
  


  Date: 
  
  


  From: 
  
  


  To: 
  
  

  

Re: demo fervor

[Dan Scanlan]

I have often wondered if the difference between a Republican
politician and a Democratic politician wasn't something like this:
The Republican says under his breath, "Screw you," and the Democrat
says, "Sorry fella" as they pass by the hitch-hiker in the desert.
Glee versus guilt at someone else's misfortune.
Dan Scanlan

Re: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

[Michael Perelman]

yes.  he does wonderful stuff.  I especially like Linder, Marc and
Ingrid Nygaard. 1998. .Void Where Prohibited: Rest Breaks and the Right
to Urinate on Company Time. (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press).

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 11:34:55PM -0500, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> Anybody ever read Marc Linder?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie
> nachgeborenen
> Subject: Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

[Max B. Sawicky]

Anybody ever read Marc Linder?



-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie
nachgeborenen
Subject: Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

Re: if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



This is a "Spartacus" moment.

I am a terrorist!

Jim Devine



Hand out the vines!

Ian

Re: a miracle?

[dmschanoes]

So?  So what's so significant about an intra-bourgeois sign?   History, the
same history littered with corpses, is page after page of intra-bourgeois
signs.  There were intra-bourgeois signs everyday when Clinton was
president. Lula is an intra-bourgeois sign, so is Kirchner-- and their
significance is manifested precisely in the insignifcant change proposed and
manifested in their regimes.

It's an Op-Ed piece, nothing less and nothing more, one more manifestation
of spectacle and recuperation.

dms


- Original Message -
From: "joanna bujes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle?


> No, it's significant even though it's only op-ed. This is an
> intra-bourgeois sign.
>
> Joanna
>
> dmschanoes wrote:
>
> >Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting
> >position.  This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the
> >view of the editors.
> >
> >So why make more of it than it is?  It's an op-ed piece, that's all.  NYT
> >supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine,
> >etc.
> >
> >dms
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Shane Mage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM
> >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> >An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security
barrier
> >>>goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security
> >>>barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian
> >>>lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam
> >>>Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time
> >>>the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline
> >>>in the paper.<
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable
> >>conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater
> >>danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole
> >>American Left could be even in its wildest dreams.
> >>
> >>Shane Mage
> >>
> >>(Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

It is hard to imagine the Republicans being any more clear about what they
are and who they represent.  They are for private property, big private
property, unrestrained private property.  They say it they act it they live
it.

The fact that some workers support that is a fact of historical
circumstance, i.e. a condition-- not the result of obfuscation.

Does anyone think the fact that certain African-American elements support
the Republicans is the result of Republican deception about their true
agenda regarding social equality?


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> Maybe I was not clear.  If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no
working
> class people would vote for them.  In fact, many do, including union
workers.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:37:37PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote:
> > Really?  What working class people?  African-American working class
people?
> > Hispanic working class people?  Undocumented workers?
> >
> > Retired, white, former workers?  No doubt. But the notion of a
reactionary
> > mass of workers is a convenient fallacy.
> >
> > But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from
> > corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the
> > biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the
airline
> > industry, surprise, surprise.  Followed by. more surprise,
> > pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc.
> >
> > Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the
> > Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal.
> >
> > Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are
going
> > into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one.
> >
> > Republican workers?  Sure.  But that's a historical condition based on
the
> > lack of a specific class alternative.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
> >
> >
> > > Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working
class
> > people to
> > > vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of
the
> > mainstream.
> > >
> > > Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the
Dems.
> > do a
> > > pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> > > > successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that
they
> > fight
> > > > tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie,
but
> > it
> > > > also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially
> > whites.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Perelman
> > > Economics Department
> > > California State University
> > > Chico, CA 95929
> > >
> > > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> > >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Perelman]

Maybe I was not clear.  If the Repubs. were clear about what they were, no working
class people would vote for them.  In fact, many do, including union workers.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 07:37:37PM -0500, dmschanoes wrote:
> Really?  What working class people?  African-American working class people?
> Hispanic working class people?  Undocumented workers?
>
> Retired, white, former workers?  No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary
> mass of workers is a convenient fallacy.
>
> But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from
> corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the
> biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline
> industry, surprise, surprise.  Followed by. more surprise,
> pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc.
>
> Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the
> Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal.
>
> Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going
> into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one.
>
> Republican workers?  Sure.  But that's a historical condition based on the
> lack of a specific class alternative.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor
>
>
> > Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class
> people to
> > vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the
> mainstream.
> >
> > Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems.
> do a
> > pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> > >
> > > That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> > > successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they
> fight
> > > tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but
> it
> > > also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially
> whites.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> >

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......

[joanna bujes]

Yeah, absolutely. This would be the party who cried wolf...just too many
goddamn times. McCarthy made the same mistake.
Joanna

Devine, James wrote:

This is a "Spartacus" moment.

I am a terrorist!

Jim Devine

  -Original Message-
  From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 5:26 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Cc:
  Subject: [PEN-L] if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist..


  Paige: Teachers Union Is 'Terrorist Organization'
  Education Secretary's Comments Made at Private Meeting With Governors
  By Robert Tanner
  The Associated Press
  Monday, February 23, 2004; 5:52 PM
  Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a
  "terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National
  Education Association early in the presidential election year.
  Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House
  meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent
  Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right
  to say so.
  The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing
  matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush
  administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child
  Left Behind" schools law.
  Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a
  bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not
  present at the time he made the remark.
  "As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should
  have chosen my words better," said Paige, the first black education
  secretary.
  Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, "The NEA
  is a terrorist organization."
  Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the
  Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.
  Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."

  Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to
  the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has
  made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long
  supported Democratic presidential candidates.
  Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry
  I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he
  chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of
  NEA lobbyists.
  Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate
  and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."
  Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in
  stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and
  disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's
  children to terrorists."
  Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more
  flexibility from the administration on Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law,
  which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to
  move their children from poorly performing schools.
  Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the
  states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union
  backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be
  changed.
  Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the
  governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet
  officials.
  "He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the
  president is doing," Holden said.
  Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, "Somebody asked him about
  the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it."
  Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were
  made in the context of "we can't be supportive of the status quo and
  they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate -- I
  know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists -- but to ever suggest that the
  organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for."
  Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to
  work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with
  state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation.
  But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three
  groups that are "hard nosed, highly financed and well organized." Asked to
  name the groups other than the NEA, Paige declined, saying: "I've already
  got into deep water with that one, haven't I?"
 

Re: if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......

[Devine, James]

This is a "Spartacus" moment.
 
I am a terrorist!
 
Jim Devine

-Original Message- 
From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Mon 2/23/2004 5:26 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: [PEN-L] if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist..



Paige: Teachers Union Is 'Terrorist Organization'
Education Secretary's Comments Made at Private Meeting With Governors

By Robert Tanner
The Associated Press
Monday, February 23, 2004; 5:52 PM


Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a
"terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National
Education Association early in the presidential election year.

Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House
meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent
Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right
to say so.

The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing
matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush
administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child
Left Behind" schools law.

Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a
bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not
present at the time he made the remark.

"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should
have chosen my words better," said Paige, the first black education
secretary.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, "The NEA
is a terrorist organization."

Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the
Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.

Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."

Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to
the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has
made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long
supported Democratic presidential candidates.

Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry
I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he
chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of
NEA lobbyists.

Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate
and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in
stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and
disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's
children to terrorists."

Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more
flexibility from the administration on Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law,
which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to
move their children from poorly performing schools.

Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the
states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union
backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be
changed.

Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the
governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet
officials.

"He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the
president is doing," Holden said.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, "Somebody asked him about
the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it."

Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were
made in the context of "we can't be supportive of the status quo and
they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate -- I
know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists -- but to ever suggest that the
organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for."

Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to
work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with
state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation.

But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three
  

Re: a miracle?

[joanna bujes]

No, it's significant even though it's only op-ed. This is an
intra-bourgeois sign.
Joanna

dmschanoes wrote:

Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting
position.  This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the
view of the editors.
So why make more of it than it is?  It's an op-ed piece, that's all.  NYT
supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine,
etc.
dms

- Original Message -
From: "Shane Mage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle?



>An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier
goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security
barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian
lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam
Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time
the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline
in the paper.<

The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable
conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater
danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole
American Left could be even in its wildest dreams.
Shane Mage

(Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)

Re: a miracle?

[joanna bujes]

That's eminently sane of them.

Joanna

Shane Mage wrote:

 >An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier
goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security
barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian
lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam
Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time
the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline
in the paper.<


The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable
conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater
danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole
American Left could be even in its wildest dreams.
Shane Mage

(Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)

Re: more cheap Government Surplus!

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "dmschanoes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



To be used in forthcoming generations of body armor.  You can look it up.




The potential applications are enormous and will be worth *big* bucks. Buy
goat farms...

Ian

Re: more cheap Government Surplus!

[dmschanoes]

To be used in forthcoming generations of body armor.  You can look it up.
- Original Message -
From: "Eubulides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:50 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] more cheap Government Surplus!


> [Federal Register: February 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 35)]
> [Notices]
> [Page 8183]
> From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
> [DOCID:fr23fe04-57]
>
> ---
>
> DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
>
> Department of the Army
>
>
> Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially
> Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning Method for the
> Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of Spider Silks and Other
> Structural Proteins
>
> AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.
>
> ACTION: Notice.
>
> ---
>
> SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR Part 404.6, announcement is made of
> the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. US 6,620,917 B1
> entitled ``Method for the Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of
> Spider Silks and Other Structural Proteins'' issued September 16, 2003.
> This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as
> represented by the Secretary of the Army.
>
> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rosenkrans at U.S. Army
> Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Kansas Street, Natick, MA
> 01760, Phone: (508) 233-4928 or E-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35
> U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
>
> Luz D. Ortiz,
> Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
> [FR Doc. 04-3825 Filed 2-20-04; 8:45 am]
>
> BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
>

Re: dems, etc

[dmschanoes]

Disagree. Our work is not resisting the draft, it is carrying the class
struggle into the very heart of capital's military machine.  That cannot be
done by resisting the draft.

The failure of the "new left," in particular SDS, to move from anti-Vietnam
war, anti-draft, to anti-deferment, isolated it from larger class struggle
inside the military.

Draft to enable efficient imperialist war?  Not any longer.  Vietnam proved
that.  Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War 2 have
proved it again.

We don't support the death of draftees, no more than we support the death of
workers who are compelled to work in unsafe conditions. What we don't
support is the false privilege that isolates the military from the actual
social conflicts precipitating and precipitated by their deployment.

dms
o- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc


> dmschanoes wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Peter Hollings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc
> >
> > The mandatory service bill is a poison pill.  It will make unjustified
war
> > unpopular and unsustainable.
> >
> > Peter Hollings
> > 
> > And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the
> > draft.
> >
>
> No. It is true that the draft will make our work easier. Nevertheless
> part of our work is resisting the draft. That is not particularly
> contradictory either. The purpose of the draft is to enable efficient
> imperial war. We can't support that just because it will give us good
> slogans. If you want to you can secretly hope that despite our
> resistance the draft will be implemented. Just as you can secretly  hope
> that wherever u.s. troops are sent there will be heavy u.s. casualties.
> But that really doesn't make very good agitational material. And
> objectively [that horrid word] what you are doing if you support
> reinstatement of the draft is supporting the death of draftees. The
> draft won't make our work easy unless it really hurts those who are
> drafted and their friends, relatives, neighbors, and only heavy
> casualties among draftees will do that. Mere experience of military
> service by everyone will have no effect on our work.
>
> Carrol
>
> > dms
>

if you're a teacher and in the NEA, you're a terrorist......

[Eubulides]

Paige: Teachers Union Is 'Terrorist Organization'
Education Secretary's Comments Made at Private Meeting With Governors

By Robert Tanner
The Associated Press
Monday, February 23, 2004; 5:52 PM


Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a
"terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National
Education Association early in the presidential election year.

Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House
meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent
Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right
to say so.

The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing
matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush
administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child
Left Behind" schools law.

Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a
bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not
present at the time he made the remark.

"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should
have chosen my words better," said Paige, the first black education
secretary.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, "The NEA
is a terrorist organization."

Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the
Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.

Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."

Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to
the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has
made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long
supported Democratic presidential candidates.

Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry
I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he
chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of
NEA lobbyists.

Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate
and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in
stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and
disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's
children to terrorists."

Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more
flexibility from the administration on Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law,
which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to
move their children from poorly performing schools.

Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the
states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union
backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be
changed.

Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the
governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet
officials.

"He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the
president is doing," Holden said.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, "Somebody asked him about
the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it."

Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were
made in the context of "we can't be supportive of the status quo and
they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate -- I
know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists -- but to ever suggest that the
organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for."

Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to
work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with
state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation.

But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three
groups that are "hard nosed, highly financed and well organized." Asked to
name the groups other than the NEA, Paige declined, saying: "I've already
got into deep water with that one, haven't I?"

The governors were in Washington for four days of discussions at the
annual meeting of the National Governors Association, though the usual
effort to build consensus was marked by partisan politics that Democrats
said couldn't be avoided.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association,
said that during the private meeting, Bush took only two questions,
leaving little time for a full exploration of issues.

"It would have been helpful for him to have heard the discussions about
'No Child Left Behind' because there may be a disconnect between what he
thinks and what we know," Vilsack said.

In brief public comments, Bush told the governors that rising political
tensions of an election year won't stop him from working closely with
them.

"I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and th

more cheap Government Surplus!

[Eubulides]

[Federal Register: February 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 8183]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23fe04-57]

---

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability of Non-Exclusive, Exclusive License or Partially
Exclusive Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning Method for the
Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of Spider Silks and Other
Structural Proteins

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

---

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR Part 404.6, announcement is made of
the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. US 6,620,917 B1
entitled ``Method for the Purification and Aqueous Fiber Spinning of
Spider Silks and Other Structural Proteins'' issued September 16, 2003.
This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as
represented by the Secretary of the Army.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rosenkrans at U.S. Army
Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Kansas Street, Natick, MA
01760, Phone: (508) 233-4928 or E-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any licenses granted shall comply with 35
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Luz D. Ortiz,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-3825 Filed 2-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M

Re: dems, etc

[Carrol Cox]

dmschanoes wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Peter Hollings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc
>
> The mandatory service bill is a poison pill.  It will make unjustified war
> unpopular and unsustainable.
>
> Peter Hollings
> 
> And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the
> draft.
>

No. It is true that the draft will make our work easier. Nevertheless
part of our work is resisting the draft. That is not particularly
contradictory either. The purpose of the draft is to enable efficient
imperial war. We can't support that just because it will give us good
slogans. If you want to you can secretly hope that despite our
resistance the draft will be implemented. Just as you can secretly  hope
that wherever u.s. troops are sent there will be heavy u.s. casualties.
But that really doesn't make very good agitational material. And
objectively [that horrid word] what you are doing if you support
reinstatement of the draft is supporting the death of draftees. The
draft won't make our work easy unless it really hurts those who are
drafted and their friends, relatives, neighbors, and only heavy
casualties among draftees will do that. Mere experience of military
service by everyone will have no effect on our work.

Carrol

> dms

Re: a miracle?

[dmschanoes]

Wait a minute-- this wasn't the NYT taking an editorial and reporting
position.  This was an op-ed piece by Chomsky which does not express the
view of the editors.

So why make more of it than it is?  It's an op-ed piece, that's all.  NYT
supported and supports the assault on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine,
etc.

dms


- Original Message -
From: "Shane Mage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a miracle?


> >  >An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier
> >goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security
> >barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian
> >lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam
> >Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time
> >the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline
> >in the paper.<
>
> The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable
> conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater
> danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole
> American Left could be even in its wildest dreams.
>
> Shane Mage
>
> (Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)
>

Re: demo fervor

[dmschanoes]

Really?  What working class people?  African-American working class people?
Hispanic working class people?  Undocumented workers?

Retired, white, former workers?  No doubt. But the notion of a reactionary
mass of workers is a convenient fallacy.

But the facts are that the Republicans garner contributions from
corporations at a rate and mass twice that of the Democrats-- that the
biggest corporate contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign was.the airline
industry, surprise, surprise.  Followed by. more surprise,
pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. etc.

Yes, Republicans do define themselves by class and property, and the
Democrats try to obscure those specifics. Big deal.

Here's the rule of thumb-- Republican elected when the bourgeoisie are going
into a recession; Democrat when they want to come out of one.

Republican workers?  Sure.  But that's a historical condition based on the
lack of a specific class alternative.


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor


> Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class
people to
> vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the
mainstream.
>
> Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems.
do a
> pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> >
> > That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> > successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they
fight
> > tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but
it
> > also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially
whites.
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>

Re: dems, etc

[dmschanoes]

- Original Message -
From: "Peter Hollings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc


The mandatory service bill is a poison pill.  It will make unjustified war
unpopular and unsustainable.

Peter Hollings

And that is the single best reason for supporting reinstatement of the
draft.

dms

Re: a miracle?

[Shane Mage]

 >An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier
goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security
barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian
lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam
Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time
the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline
in the paper.<
The NYTimes seems to have reached the entirely reasonable
conclusion that Ubu and his Bushits are a vastly greater
danger to essential capitalist class interests than the whole
American Left could be even in its wildest dreams.
Shane Mage

(Not in favor of the mutual ruin of the contending classes)

Re: demo fervor

[Michael Perelman]

Is that so?  The Repugs have been very successful in getting working class people to
vote for them by way of wedge issues and making the Dems. seem out of the mainstream.

Electorally, their clearly define constituency is a minority and the Dems. do a
pretty good job of serving the corporations as well.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:00:48PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
> successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight
> tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it
> also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites.

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

new radio product

[Doug Henwood]

Just added to my radio archive
:
February 19, 2004 Sara Roy, senior research scholar at the Harvard
Center for Middle Eastern Studies, on the social crisis among
Palestinians in the occupied territories and Israel's intentions
behind building the wall * George Soros, speaking at the Council on
Foreign Relations, on the Bush administration and the Bubble of
American Supremacy * Christian Parenti on his January in Iraq, spent
with the 82nd airborne and members of the resistance, which he wrote
up in The Nation
it joins

February 12, 2004 Keith Bradsher, author of High and Mighty: The
Dangerous Rise of the SUV, on the ravages of that vehicle and the
mindset of its buyers * Michael Mann, author of Incoherent Empire, on
the Bush administration's lust for domination
January 22, 2004 MARATHON SPECIAL Noam Chomsky on Bush, empire, and
the facts * Barbara Ehrenreich on Global Woman * Naomi Klein on
market fundamentalism in Iraq * Alexandra Robbins on John Kerry and
Skull & Bones
January 15, 2004 Archi Piyati of Human Rights First (formerly LCHR)
on the barbaric U.S. treatment of refugees * Satya Gabriel on the
Chinese economy
January 8, 2004 Anthony D'Costa on the Indian economy * Anatol Lieven
on Afghanistan's new constitution * Joan Roelofs, author of
Foundations and Public Policy, on foundations' influence on politics
and culture
along with
--
* Nina Revoyr on the history of Los Angeles, real and fictional
* Bill Fletcher on war and peace
* Slavoj Zizek on war, imperialism, and fantasy
* Susie Bright on sex and politics
* Anatol Lieven on Iraq
* Lisa Jervis on feminism & pop culture
* Faye Wattleton on a poll of American women
* Joseph Stiglitz on the IMF and the Wall St-Treasury axis
* Joel Schalit, author of Jerusalem Calling, on the Counterpunch
collection, The Politics of Anti-Semitism
* Naomi Klein on Argentina and the arrested political development of
the global justice movement
* Ursula Huws on the new world of work and why capitalism has avoided crisis
* Simon Head, author of The New Ruthless Economy, on working in the
era of surveillance, restructuring, and speedup* Michael Albert on
participatory economics (parecon)
* Michael Hudson, author of a report on the sleazy world of "subprime" finance
* Hamid Dabashi on Iran
* Marta Russell on the UN conference on disability
* William Pepper on the state-sponsored assassination of Martin Luther King
* Sara Roy on the Palestinian economy
* Christian Parenti on his visit to Baghdad, and on his book The Soft
Cage (about surveillance in America from slavery to the Patriot Act)
* Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, and Cynthia Enloe on the then-impending
war with Iraq
* Michael Hardt on Empire
* Judith Levine on kids & sex
* Richard Burkholder of Gallup on polling Baghdad
* Walden Bello on the World Social Forum and alternative development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
* Ghada Karmi on her search for her Palestinian roots
* Jonathan Nitzan on the Israeli economy
--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice  +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell   +1-917-865-2813
email  
web

Re: demo fervor

[Louis Proyect]

Too bad the Democrats don't go after Bush, Halliburton and Enron with
the same fervor they go after Nader -- or Matt Gonzales in San
Francisco, for that matter.
Dan Scanlan
That raises an interesting question of *class*. The Republicans are
successful because they have a clearly defined constituency that they fight
tooth and nail for. This includes first of all the big bourgeoisie, but it
also includes small proprietors and privileged workers, especially whites.
The Democrats are supposed to rest on "enlightened" ruling class figures
like in Hollywood and certain financial wheeler-dealers, but they hold
their ostensible mass base at arm's length. As Ted Glick pointed out in the
article forwarded by Michael Hoover, Jimmy Carter spoke of "ethnic purity"
in neighborhoods, an obvious bid for the average Republican Party voter.
Meanwhile, Clinton attacked Sister Souljah and threw mothers off of
welfare. Despite Kerry's rhetoric about "Benedict Arnold" corporations
sending jobs overseas, he has voted for every free trade agreement. As
Nader pointed out, this party loses elections because it refuses to fight.
And the Nation Magazine urges us to tie our fate to this bunch of losers
rather than to fight for what we believe in. Give me a fuckin' break.
Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

demo fervor

[Dan Scanlan]

Too bad the Democrats don't go after Bush, Halliburton and Enron with
the same fervor they go after Nader -- or Matt Gonzales in San
Francisco, for that matter.
Dan Scanlan

a miracle?

[Devine, James]

from "Today's Papers" (from MS SLATE):

>An op-ed in the NY [TIMES] argues that since Israel's security barrier
goes deep into the West Bank it's a less than ideal security
barrier: "What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian
lands." That's not an original argument but the author is: Noam
Chomsky. Judging by a quickie Nexis search, it's the first time
the linguist and super-critic of U.S. policy has had his byline
in the paper.<


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: dems, etc

[Michael Perelman]

Peter is correct here.  Today we have an economic draft, so the middle
class is much less to complain about.  In addition, the outsourcing of
military jobs obscures the human costs of war.


On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 11:30:43AM -0500, Peter Hollings wrote:
> The mandatory service bill is a poison pill.  It will make unjustified war
> unpopular and unsustainable.
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: dems, etc

[Peter Hollings]

The mandatory service bill is a poison pill.  It will make unjustified war
unpopular and unsustainable.

Peter Hollings

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Johansen
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc


What of the contradiction here: if the right really wants to get behind a
draft, why is it that the sponsors in the House are Conyers and Rangel, who
would be in favor because 1) selective service this time would, in the bill
drafted, not allow loopholes for the privileged, and 2) the absence of a
'patriotic' rationale for this blighted war in the minds of more and more
people could very well spell disaster for the sitting administration?

Ralph

- Original Message -
From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: dems, etc
snip

> *   For Immediate Release:
> Wednesday, January 8, 2003
> Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654
>
> Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft
> Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need
> for shared sacrifice
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the
> Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the
> military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for
> all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate
> companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of
> Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers
> (D-Mich.).
>
> Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for
> every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end,
> the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number
> of people to be selected for military service and the means of
> selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected
> specifically for military service to perform their national service
> obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the
> bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high
> school graduation. . . .
>
>    *

snip

Anti-Nader shock troops

[Louis Proyect]

Salon.com, Feb. 22, 2004
From tragedy to farce
He's running for president as an independent, not as a Green. He has no 
organization. He's starting late. Does Ralph Nader's narcissism have no bounds?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Todd Gitlin
Ralph Nader's narcissism has metastasized to such proportions that he came 
forward to announce his candidacy without being able to brandish a single 
one of the celebrities who surrounded him in 2000 -- not Michael Moore, not 
Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon, not Patti Smith. In fact, more important, he 
cannot offer the Green Party, whose nomination he disdains to seek -- so 
much for his claim that he is the principled champion of third parties and 
their indispensability in American history. To the struggle against 
"corporate-occupied territory," Nader offers only himself. La troisième 
partie, c'est moi. He has gone way over into flying saucer territory. He 
occupies an Area 51 of his own. Will he make the headquarters of his 
campaign in Roswell, N. M.?

full: 
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/02/22/nader_candidacy/index_np.html

===

Todd Gitlin, former leader of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and 
now a sociology professor at New York University, says the backlash helped 
elect Richard Nixon. Gitlin believes Hubert Humphrey, as president, would 
have been under far more pressure within his party to end American 
involvement quickly.

Gitlin: Among those who bear the blame for that turn of events, the ’68 
default, are those militants in the anti-war movement who didn’t vote for 
Humphrey. I don’t exempt myself. Most people I know, including myself, 
didn’t vote for president that year. That was a big mistake.

full: http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/vietnam/us/waragainstwar.html

===

NY Times, February 23, 2004
Nader, Gadfly to the Democrats, Will Again Run for President
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JIM RUTENBERG
Brushing aside urgent appeals from his own friends and Democratic leaders, 
Ralph Nader announced yesterday that he would run again for president this 
year, sending shudders through the camps of Democratic presidential 
candidates just as they had grown hopeful about unseating President Bush.

Mr. Nader said in an interview that he would seek to get his name as an 
independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. He rejected the 
notion that he was the spoiler who helped Mr. Bush win in 2000 and would do 
the same in 2004.

(clip)

The Rev. Al Sharpton, a Democratic presidential candidate this year, 
provided Mr. Nader a platform at his headquarters in Harlem in 2000. But 
Mr. Sharpton said in a telephone interview yesterday that he would campaign 
across the nation urging Democrats to reject Mr. Nader.

"The only reason he's running is either he's an egomaniac or as a Bush 
contract," Mr. Sharpton said. "What's the point? This is not 2000 when 
progressives were locked out. I'm going on a national crusade to stop 
Nader. This is only going to help Bush."

===

Village Voice, February 5th, 2004 8:20 AM
A Bush Covert Operative Takes Over Al Sharpton's Campaign
by Wayne Barrett with special reporting by Adam Hutton and Christine Lagorio
Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob 
that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush 
president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the 
presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.

Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a 
curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice 
investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone 
played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton's pending application 
for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family 
members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. 
He's also helped stack the campaign with a half-dozen incongruous top aides 
who've worked for him in prior campaigns. He's even boasted about 
engineering six-figure loans to Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN) 
and allowing Sharpton to use his credit card to cover thousands in NAN 
costs—neither of which he could legally do for the campaign. In a 
wide-ranging Voice interview Sunday, Stone confirmed his matching-fund and 
staffing roles, but refused to comment on the NAN subsidies.

full: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php

Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org 

Re: the curse

[Jeff Sommers]

Anders Aslund's take on this, predictably, is that resources are only a
curse when not privatized.  He put forward this thesis as the Khordokovsky
affair got underway: the linkage transparent to all!  A counter-example
would be Chile, whose state sector possesses significant portions of its
copper mining.  Moreover, in the past has covered something like 15% of
govt. budget, thus giving lie that Chile's economy is purely market
driven


Jeffrey Sommers, Assistant Professor
Department of History
North Georgia College & State University
Dahlonega, GA  30597
Ph.: 706-864-1913 or 1903
Fax: 706-864-1873
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Research Associate, World History Center
Northeastern University, Boston
Url: www.whc.neu.edu

Research Associate
Institute of Globalization Studies, Moscow
http://www.iprog.ru/en/
--



on 2/19/04 21:46, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> an interesting article on "the curse" (and I don't mean the one that
> haunts the Red Sox) --
>
> February 19, 2004/New York TIMES
>
> ECONOMIC SCENE
> Resources Form the Basis for Economic Growth
> By JEFF MADRICK
>
> POPULAR notion in economics today is that an abundance of natural
> resources is a "curse" for developing nations. Such an endowment, it is
> argued, encourages corruption, undermines institutional development,
> pushes the value of a currency uncompetitively high and cannot support
> long-term growth because the reserves eventually run out. Small wonder,
> then, that oil-rich nations like Iraq and Venezuela are poor or in
> decline.
>
> Gavin Wright will have none of this. Mr. Wright, an economic historian
> at Stanford and long a specialist in the role that natural resources
> play in economic growth, agrees that overdependence on a single resource
> can lead to poor policies, but it is by no means inevitable. To the
> contrary, many developed and developing nations have used their mineral
> resources as springboards to wealth and broader-based development - not
> least the United States itself.
>
> Mr. Wright and a colleague, Jesse Czelusta, have written a fascinating
> study (at www-econ.stanford.edu) on the subject that should be required
> reading. The lessons to be drawn are especially pertinent for countries
> like Iraq.
>
> The economists start their analysis by looking at the evidence compiled
> by advocates of the resource curse. The seminal study was done by
> Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew M. Warner in 1995 and showed a strong
> statistical relationship between resource abundance and slow growth.
>
> Many follow-up studies using the same method draw remarkably sweeping
> conclusions about the inevitable disadvantages of resource abundance.
> One recent study explicitly concludes that poor institutional
> development, including weak governance and property laws, is "intrinsic"
> to nations with oil and other minerals. Mr. Sachs and Mr. Warner have
> recently concluded that the curse is a "reasonably solid fact."
>
> But Mr. Wright and Mr. Czelusta point out that almost every one of these
> studies uses the proportion of exports of the particular natural
> resource as a proxy for a nation's mineral abundance. Among other
> obvious problems with this measure, a high proportion of resource
> exports may simply reflect a lack of other kinds of exports, which is
> almost a definition of underdevelopment in the first place.
>
> A better measure of abundance would be resources per capita or per
> worker. New studies using such measures, including one by the World Bank
> economist William F. Maloney, published in Economia, can find no telling
> relationship between abundance of reserves and slow growth. Some nations
> do well with their endowments, others do not.
>
> Why is that? Historical and contemporary case studies provide some
> guidance. America's own rise to economic supremacy in the late 1800's
> occurred just as it was becoming the leading producer of almost every
> major natural resource of the industrial age, including iron ore, lead,
> coal, copper, zinc, timber, zinc and nickel. Such leadership did not
> hold America back, nor did it hold back other nations like Australia and
> Canada. Britain, where the industrial revolution started, was notably
> rich in coal reserves, not to mention wool for its critical textile
> industry.
>
> But what is most relevant to policy, America did not become a leader
> simply because it had been endowed by nature with this bounty of
> resources, as we are typically taught in our high school textbooks. Nor
> was it because it enjoyed enlightened governance in the 1800's, like
> open and free markets and clear-cut rules about property ownership. In
> fact, millions of acres of coal mines in the 1800's were secretly bought
> as farmland. Enormous tracts of iron-rich land were bought cheaply
> through fraudulent claims under the Homestead Act.
>
> Rather, as Mr. Wright and another Stanford economic historian, Paul A.
> David, convincingly summarize in a 1997 paper, the nation inve