Re: [Marxism] What makes Arizona's killer just a loner, not a terrorist?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Jay Moore: For what it's worth to this discussion which has probably gone on too long, Loughner's ex-girlfriend testifies that he was quite anti-government political and is feigning his mental illness to avoid jail because he did not die as planned: http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13834898 On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: Doesn't anybody read anything that gets posted here? There is no more insanity defense. The laws were changed after Hinckley shot Reagan. The prisons are filled with schizophrenics. Sheesh. Just a small point: LOUGHNER may think there's an insanity defense. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What makes Arizona's killer just a loner, not a terrorist?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Jeff Goodwin jgoodwin@gmail.com wrote: Just a small point: LOUGHNER may think there's an insanity defense. Which just goes to show how crazy he is. Michael J. Smith m...@smithbowen.net Actually, lots of perfectly sane but misinformed Americans believe that the insanity defense is used frequently and successfully. For a fairly recent study of (appropriately enough) college undergraduates, see Angela L. Bloechl, Michael J. Vitacco, Craig S. Neumann, and Steven E. Erickson, “An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 30, Issue 2, March-April 2007, pp. 153-161. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Why Loughner shot Giffords
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Some interesting letters to the NY Times, contesting an article by the conservative scum bag David Brooks, who suggests that Loughner's rampage had nothing to do with politics: January 11, 2011 To the Editor: I disagree with the narrow way that David Brooks presents the Arizona shootings in “The Politicized Mind” (column, Jan. 11). The suspect, Jared L. Loughner, seems to be a disturbed individual, but all societies have mentally unstable citizens, and yet the United States has a high rate of these killing sprees; Columbine, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech come to mind. These mass killings do not happen with such frequency in any other developed country. There must be unique contributing factors beyond the mere presence of mentally ill members in American society. I can think of at least three: ¶The easy, unfettered access to guns. ¶The difficulty of obtaining health care for the mentally ill. ¶The toxic and inflammatory political rhetoric in this country. It is incredible to me that it is easier to buy a semiautomatic pistol than to operate a car in the United States. There is great irony that Representative Gabrielle Giffords’s support for the law to provide health care for more Americans like Mr. Loughner inspired vitriolic opposition. All societies have their share of Loughners, but only the United States has the unique environment and lack of support systems that cause them to act out at a higher rate and with such devastating consequences. Chris Librie Racine, Wis., Jan. 11, 2011 To the Editor: I take exception to David Brooks’s efforts to separate the climate of political hate from the shooting rampage in Tucson. If Jared L. Loughner had staged his rampage at his workplace, or in his neighborhood or in some other place devoid of political implications, Mr. Brooks would be right — another senseless mass killing by a man in need of treatment in a country in need of better gun control. But Mr. Loughner was not, as Mr. Brooks contends, “locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.” Mr. Loughner, even if mentally disturbed, chose his venue — a political gathering — and chose his victim, a Democratic congresswoman. Furthermore, he made these choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, much of it explicitly directed at Democrats. Mr. Brooks is correct that we don’t know whether the Tea Party or Sarah Palin’s targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner’s choice of victim, but his heinous act, however irrational, was inescapably political. Mary-Lou Weisman Westport, Conn., Jan. 11, 2011 To the Editor: The explanation on your opinion pages for the Tucson shooting seems to divide along liberal and conservative lines. While liberal columnists like Paul Krugman (“Climate of Hate,” Jan. 10) emphasize the current political environment that they contend encourages outrage and violence, conservatives, like David Brooks, point out that the suspect is mentally ill and answers mainly to the voices in his own head. Both offer interpretations that confirm their and their readers’ worldview. Is it not possible that they are both correct? Edward Abrahams Bala Cynwyd, Pa., Jan. 11, 2011 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Loughner's last close friend said that he ignored TV and talk radio
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It's hard to know what to make of this interview. This kid hasn't talked to Loughner in two years (for which he berates himself). Having taught American undergraduates for 20 years (mainly white and middle class), I can testify that the political views of normal 20-year-olds can be quite inchoate and malleable; these views can change dramatically in a matter of months, often in confused and contradictory ways. There's no denying that Loughner is mentally ill, but it seems possible that we will discover, when all the evidence is available, that his anger toward Giffords may have stemmed from his sense that government (represented by Giffords) and perhaps other institutions (universities?) attempt to dominate and control people, including their very thoughts. He didn't shoot Giffords randomly or without premeditation, after all. Now, the idea that government tries to dominate people is not of course an exclusively right-wing sensibility. It's a central tenet of Marxism. Recall that Loughner's favorite books include “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest,” and “The Communist Manifesto” in addition to Ayn Rand's We, the Living. (Would we be surprised to find Herman Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent on his list?) So while Loughner clearly does not possess a coherent political ideology, he was obviously not insulated from political ideas, however much his mind may have distorted these. These ideas, moreover, seem to include left- as well as right-wing notions about the evils of government. Perhaps we'll learn later on that Loughner was more caught up in right-wing ideas than is evident now. Of course, until we know more, this is all just so much speculation. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jared-loughner-shooting-at-world-12597553 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/jgoodwin.nyu%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] 85 per cent of all drugs produced in Afghanistan are shipped out by US aircraft
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 10:00 09/01/11 -0500, Greg McDonald wrote: http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=753 85 per cent of all drugs produced in Afghanistan are shipped out by US aircraft. Posted by PCLatest news, World newsWednesday, December 22nd, 2010 I'm sorry to disappoint anyone, but this article is almost certainly bullshit, from a bullshit website. It does not have an identified author, and cites no verifiable sources. Of course it contains certain elements of truth regarding the hypocrisy of the charges against the Taliban for profiting from the heroin trade, and the involvement of Ahmed Wali Karzai. But this article is from a conspiracy website, and every single article I saw on that site is extremely suspect or just plain wrong. Especially the health/medical articles! I would have expected the poster of this article to have checked to see if the website has any legitimacy at all and/or if the information in the article could be verified or had even been published by a reputable source. Just posting articles you run across based on their shock value not only wastes our time, but provides us with misinformation which we might repeat (since we thought it was from a source that had been recommended), thus making fools of ourselves (and lowering our public credibility) when the claims prove unfounded. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] 85 per cent of all drugs produced in Afghanistan are shipped out by US aircraft
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 15:54 09/01/11 -0500, Mark Lause wrote: Please elaborate, Jeff. I agree with you down the line on your rationale for making this point, Well my rationale with respect to the article itself is that it was unsourced, unsigned, and a bit far-fetched. But my judgement of the website was based on skimming the other articles posted on it. In that respect I would rather turn the question around: can you find a single article on that site with information that you know to be accurate? If not, then I don't think I'm hasty in judging this article as having no more credibility than the website's health/medical misinformation (using sunscreen gives you cancer, don't take aspirin to lower your fever, Detoxifying benzene cures AIDS) or technology claims (government suppressed invention which supplies free energy and the 200 mpg car invented in 1933) and other familiar conspiracy theory material. but I don't find this listed at snopes, urban legend and the other sites identifying such fake news... Well maybe those sites have a suggestion box you could write to. But although this IS a conspiracy theory site, one funny thing about it: it is not a right-wing site at all. It seems sort of geared to appeal to leftists only, which IMO makes it yet more dangerous since it will just get people on OUR side making fools of ourselves Also: At 16:04 09/01/11 -0500, Greg McDonald wrote: Perhaps Jeff will like this one better: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175225/alfred_mccoy_afghanistan_as_a_drug_war Well yes, much better inasmuch as it's basically believable (though I'm not well enough informed on the subject to really judge its accuracy). For instance, it makes the point that: In each of these conflicts, Washington has tolerated drug trafficking by its Afghan allies as the price of military success -- a policy of benign neglect that has helped make Afghanistan today the world's number one narco-state. That's seems a lot more believable than 85% of Afghan heroin shipped out by US aircraft, don't you think? Not as shocking, but I'd rather run with the truth than a much more shocking statistic that someone made up and wrote down for our misinformation. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] 85 per cent of all drugs produced in Afghanistan are shipped out by US aircraft
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 19:04 09/01/11 -0500, Greg McDonald wrote: I note you picked a paragraph from the second article, the one by McCoy, and quoted it out of context, to make it appear that McCoy is somehow agnostic on CIA involvement in Afghan heroin trafficking No not at all, that's a misinterpretation. I just grabbed that paragraph as a summary/conclusion of the article and contrasted it with the one from the conspiracy site. I'm sure McCoys article about this is accurate as it was in Vietnam. But the 85% claim was bullshit and you should have noted that when you first read it: how would someone come to such a numerical estimate anyway even if it were approximately true? But thanks for the McCoy article! - Jeff from the same article, is much more damning: To defeat the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, the CIA successfully mobilized former warlords long active in the heroin trade to seize towns and cities across eastern Afghanistan. In other words, the Agency and its local allies created ideal conditions for reversing the Taliban's opium ban and reviving the drug traffic. Only weeks after the collapse of the Taliban, officials were reporting an outburst of poppy planting in the heroin-heartlands of Helmand and Nangarhar. At a Tokyo international donors' conference in January 2002, Hamid Karzai, the new Prime Minister put in place by the Bush administration, issued a pro forma ban on opium growing -- without any means of enforcing it against the power of these resurgent local warlords. And of course it is not far-fetched to assume the CIA is involved in transport, as McCoy states they were in Vietnam. So if you have read his book on Vietnam, the CIA, heroin, and Air America, you would of course find the article itself credible, which I did, and still do. Greg On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Jeff meis...@xs4all.nl wrote: At 15:54 09/01/11 -0500, Mark Lause wrote: Please elaborate, Jeff. I agree with you down the line on your rationale for making this point, Well my rationale with respect to the article itself is that it was unsourced, unsigned, and a bit far-fetched. But my judgement of the website was based on skimming the other articles posted on it. In that respect I would rather turn the question around: can you find a single article on that site with information that you know to be accurate? If not, then I don't think I'm hasty in judging this article as having no more credibility than the website's health/medical misinformation (using sunscreen gives you cancer, don't take aspirin to lower your fever, Detoxifying benzene cures AIDS) or technology claims (government suppressed invention which supplies free energy and the 200 mpg car invented in 1933) and other familiar conspiracy theory material. but I don't find this listed at snopes, urban legend and the other sites identifying such fake news... Well maybe those sites have a suggestion box you could write to. But although this IS a conspiracy theory site, one funny thing about it: it is not a right-wing site at all. It seems sort of geared to appeal to leftists only, which IMO makes it yet more dangerous since it will just get people on OUR side making fools of ourselves Also: At 16:04 09/01/11 -0500, Greg McDonald wrote: Perhaps Jeff will like this one better: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175225/alfred_mccoy_afghanistan_as_a_drug _war Well yes, much better inasmuch as it's basically believable (though I'm not well enough informed on the subject to really judge its accuracy). For instance, it makes the point that: In each of these conflicts, Washington has tolerated drug trafficking by its Afghan allies as the price of military success -- a policy of benign neglect that has helped make Afghanistan today the world's number one narco-state. That's seems a lot more believable than 85% of Afghan heroin shipped out by US aircraft, don't you think? Not as shocking, but I'd rather run with the truth than a much more shocking statistic that someone made up and wrote down for our misinformation. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/meisner%40xs4all.nl Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Careful with Mearsheimer and Co
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 11:56 05/01/11 -0500, James Holstun wrote: ..We need to be looking for and exploiting fissures in the ruling class. Absolutely, no one disagrees. But that's a lot different from accepting their ideological perspective, even when it matches conclusions which we agree with. [And BTW, I don't know that I would exactly call Mearsheimer a member of the ruling class. But his outlook is certainly in support of the continuation of capitalism and thus the American empire: perhaps that's what you meant.] Mearsheimer and Walt are weakest when they prematurely unify America and say things like Continued support of the Israeli occupation is not in America's self-interest. Well I don't call that weak (except to the extent that it might be inaccurate, reading America's self-interest to mean the interest of the American ruling class). Rather I would simply call it an honest attempt to state what he actually believes: stop supporting Israel for reasons he cites which are OPPOSITE to our interests. But that's not an adequate reason to reject MW wholesale. Again, no one here rejects their analysis wholesale, but rather their intentions. Nor is anyone against reading tracts written by the enemy or various other views, as they may well contain some useful information and/or food for thought, or read simply to see what the enemy is thinking. The problem is that when someone simply forwards an article whose conclusions seem reasonable, it is often assumed that the person posting that article agrees with the author's point of view. When this was pointed out, Louis properly distanced himself from MW, but he should have just added such a disclaimer when posting it originally. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 12:45 17/12/10 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: The thread on NPA, Islamophobia, hijab is finished. Now. Let's see. you think the discussion has descended into name-calling, generating much more heat than light. Well perhaps I'd agree with you. Then you should have asked for a more civil discussion, rather than targeting the original TOPIC of the discussion. This isn't particularly about the NPA after all (though I am very disappointed that they have been affected in this manner). But the above ban on discussion as you have stated it, would make Islamophobia the one form of racism that can't be discussed on this list! Moreover it's arguably the most severe racism affecting Europe right now, certainly including France but also here in the Netherlands where the government that recently formed was dependent on an agreement with an openly and vociferously anti-Muslim party (the PVV), and it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that Islamophobia is the largest issue driving Dutch politics during this period. Can't we discuss that? And it's not my fault that the PVV (among others) chooses to use the hijab as the target of their hate. The government coalition has already agreed to banning the wearing of the hijab by certain government employees (such as police) as a first inroad. Two weeks ago a school in the Hague which receives government funding turned away a teacher who wore the hijab (whereas Christian symbols are expressly allowed at that school). I hope you're not saying that this simply isn't a topic for discussion and that in order to post on a Marxist list I need to look for an economic or workplace issue. You are called the moderator so that you can MODERATE the discussion, not outlaw it! - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 17:24 17/12/10 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: On 12/17/10 4:41 PM, Jeff wrote: You are called the moderator so that you can MODERATE the discussion, not outlaw it! Because the people participating have a history of going ballistic when such a topic comes up. Well all cynicism aside, where does that leave us? I think that these issues are of critical importance and shouldn't be beyond discussion. And I can understand going ballistic. I could go ballistic when I see Marxists going along with racism, for instance. Or Marxists supporting religion instead of promoting science. Or participating in the oppression of women. Those are all good reasons for going ballistic in my book. What you need is to ask for a civil discussion in which, for instance, Dan and David Thorstad can argue why their position isn't co-opting racism. And where the rest of us can argue why we aren't supporting religion or the oppression of women. And get to the issues. After all, this is a major -- if not defining -- issue facing countless organizations including the NPA. Given that I had been hopeful about the NPA but fear that they might blow it, I consider it plausible that their orientation toward these questions could have major historical ramifications, at least if you believe that France is an important country (yes, I realize that Holland isn't). Brecht said something about dissolving the people and electing another. Now without hiding behind humor and cynicism, I wonder if Lou can come forth with some clear idea of how important issues (i.e. ones that cause people INCLUDING ME to go ballistic) can be discussed. Or do we just stick with safe issues? :-( - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Palestinian antisemitism? -- I don't think so!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Now this has to be the most pathetic, and UNFAIR, comparison when someone dared to post an article concerned with sexist (and racist and homophobic) behaviour in the movement... At 21:09 19/07/10 +0100, Ian Pace wrote: . How would those of you playing the moral high ground here deal with genuine anti-semitism (and it's certainly there) in amongst pro-Palestinian activists? You don't deserve it but I'll give you an answer! I can only speak definitively regarding the Netherlands, but here Palestine solidarity actions and organizing PROHIBIT antisemitism, period. Anyone bringing an antisemitic sign to a demo is ejected. Period. Antisemitic chants are prohibited, antisemites are not welcome at our events, and we make no common cause with anyone whose opposition to Israel stems from antisemitism (and they don't like us anyway!). Of course I would also point out that I have never encountered a Palestinian who expressed antisemitic sentiments EVEN THOUGH in many cases their main contact with Jews has been looking down the gun barrel of an IDF pig! And the last thing I need to hear right now, is a repeat of the Zionist line about Palestinians being antisemitic (along with anyone who supports them). ESPECIALLY in the context of this incredible reaction we're witnessing in response to a thoughtful article about sexism in the movement which didn't target any individual or group besides the cops and sexists themselves. I am amazed at how defensive various people including the moderator became when the discussion was even broached -- but I guess it all figures. But whatever nasty things you want to say about feminism, LEAVE THE PALESTINIANS OUT OF IT!!! - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Palestinian antisemitism? -- I don't think so!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 01:18 20/07/10 +0100, Ian Pace wrote: Calm down Jeff, your response is disproportionate. I would have been perfectly calm if you had just wanted to discuss the occurrence of antisemitism in progressive movements, for instance. But this was brought up specifically in response to a protest against sexism in the movement, and whatever YOU were thinking when you wrote that, the POINT of it was that we shouldn't get so upset about a little sexism because we don't get upset about a little antisemitism. Well you're wrong on both counts! There is certainly anti-semitism to be encountered amongst some supporting the Palestinian cause, that doesn't mean it's widespread, let alone a majority thing, just as there was real misogyny and homophobia in the Respect coalition. And plenty of sexism to be encountered in the trade unions. And racism and Islamophobia in some feminist groups. And exactly what proportion of those are you willing to just accept? Any? If so, I'd like to hear it. If your answer is none, as I would say, then that is exactly what all the fuss was about in the first place! NO amount of sexism is alright just because it's below some threshold, so I view with absolute contempt any desire to set such a threshold or, as you did (perhaps subconsciously), imply the existence of a threshold by making a comparison to a different evil (whether real or imagined). That's the deal. Now one can take a holier-than-thou approach and just denounce any such people in such movements (and likely break them up almost instantly), No, this isn't about breaking anything up, it's about forcing people to take sides. Since no one admits to being a sexist, it shouldn't be asking too much that they don't behave as sexists. Or if they do, then, as the article suggested, it could be said that they are doing the work of the cops and THAT is what breaks up movements. When an organization or movement becomes a hostile place for women, for instance, THAT breaks them away from what should be a united movement. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Palestinian antisemitism? -- I don't think so!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 01:52 20/07/10 +0100, Ian Pace wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Well, Jeff, do you really think there's any chance of bringing about some dialogue between Islamic groups - in particular between those rather extreme Islamic groups that can attract the more disaffected of young Muslims in the West (including quite a number of women) - and other sectors of the left if you go barging in with that opinion? Oh come on, you're really changing the subject. No I don't barge into meetings in the first place. But if I did barge into or walk into or crawl into a meeting, then yes of course I still have my opinions. Whether or not it needs to be on the agenda is obviously a different question. But in this supposedly Marxist list, I believe the struggle against oppression is ALWAYS on the agenda (or practically what anyone wants to post on) so yes of course I can barge into this email discussion. All the Marxists on this list claim to be anti-sexist (for instance) so why do they become so defensive when the subject is even broached? But to deny the existence of sexism, sometimes quite hard-line, amongst some Muslims would be disingenuous I never never said anything to that effect!! In fact any Muslim who believes in that religion is by definition a sexist (as with any other major religion) or they would have to take exception with a large part of the religion's teachings. Of course I work with Muslims just as I work with other leftists who might be sexist or have any number of objectionable views or attitudes. What I avoid doing is JUSTIFYING or REINFORCING what I judge to be so. And when it isn't a religious group but a group (or email list) that calls itself Marxist, then I really expect more when they already claim to support these positions, but sometimes only in theory it seems. but attacking it like a bull in a china shop and foreclosing the possibility of some sort of constructive dialogue, Yes, who ever you are talking about has a problem. But it's not me, and you can't point to anything I've said or Pat (or the others) said that has anything to do with breaking up movements. It has to do with breaking down behaviours by well-meaning people (and in a few cases getting rid of those not-so-well-meaning informers, but that wasn't the main point), by demanding that they show their anti-sexism in practice, not just as a point in their party's program. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Palestinian antisemitism? -- I don't think so!
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 17:58 19/07/10 -0700, Jeffrey Thomas Piercy wrote: So I take it you're saying that you're completely free of sexism yourself? No, quite the opposite. If it hadn't been for the women's movement and women raising their voices against sexism, I may well have developed into a complete sexist. And because there isn't more of that, especially with the decline of the feminist movement since the '70's, ALL of us are more afflicted. That's why the lack of such discussion, and particularly the alarmist response to the initiation of this discussion, is so troubling. This is the kind of list where men should be UNlearning sexism (among other such afflictions), not trying to justify it. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Mayday in Rotterdam: police forbid and attack
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Here's some video I shot of the police attacking the Mayday demo in Rotterdam. I realize that police attack demos somewhere in the world every day, but this was rather significant because this demo has been held traditionally (for 30 years I understand) on mayday starting at the city hall in Rotterdam, but this time the police announced that we wouldn't be allowed to march (supposedly because the sticks our flags were on could be weapons) and then told us we had to clear out of the area completely. After moving in and causing people to retreat and forcing us into smaller groups, they attacked the group still in front of the building with clubs, horses, and a dog, arresting 14. I only realized how close I got to being trampled by a horse after watching my own video! http://www.xs4all.nl/~meisner/1meiRotterdam2010/CLIP0165.AVI http://www.xs4all.nl/~meisner/1meiRotterdam2010/CLIP0175.AVI Why the police attacked this time (again, for a traditional demo with a permit) isn't clear, but might reflect a strategic shift against protest in context of the economic crisis. Or it might just be that they thought they could get away with it, partly since the demo was a lot smaller (about 500) than the usual 1-2000 (due to poorer organizing this year, I think). But this is held every year more or less without incident, so no one expected it. And I understand that the police also arrested people at the Mayday demo in Nijmegen, so this might signal a crackdown on the left and protesting in NL. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Katyn' (not Stalin, not Trotsky)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 16:08 11/04/10 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: However, I would ask if debating the current propaganda wave against the fSU is a dead dog or a living Leviathan. What propaganda wave are you talking about? I absolutely agree. This is more like wishful thinking by the (if you'll excuse me) ex-stalinists who are hoping that they'll be demonized, or claim credit in cases of demonization of other nationalities, and then try to rebuild their movements on the back of the resulting nationalist struggle (surely dominated by the right wing). They sadly can't come to grip with the fact that history has just passed them by and largely forgotten them sob Anyway, I can't see why the Poles are so upset about losing their president. After all, they have another one just like him! Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] militias
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 20:52 29/03/10 +0200, Dan wrote: I'm trying to decipher, from the accounts in the French press, what the significance is of these US militia groups, . Michigan, I am unhappy with the European left's characterization of such groups as merely far-right. Dan, that's a reasonable question but shows that you haven't lived in the US. If you had (as I have) and learned the political cliches and code words then you would probably see that these groups are indeed extreme right-wing, whether you want to use the fascist designation or not (which I won't argue). This is why I feel there might be a mis-characterization of the current US militia groupings as ultra right-wing. They do seem to lack the ideological preference for a strong Nation-State which would regulate society and the economy. Yes, their ideology is nominally against Big Government and the centralization of military power by the federal government. But in practice, opposition to big government really has to do with high taxes and big government spending which refers to spending on social programs, public education, helping the poor, creating jobs, etc. I think that terminology began big time with Reagan (or before?) as he slashed budget items that help the poor and cut taxes for the rich, and that was fine with such anti-government activists. What they are against is any aspect of government which they might perceive to be socialist. If a Hitler came to power, you'd never actually see them protesting big government. Don't take them so literally! Yes, they often express hostility to the federal government's authority and military centralization, but again these have to be understood in context. Such hostility goes all the way back to the civil war (these people mostly identify with the confederate slaveholding states) and talk of state's rights so that they could preserve slavery, or in more recent years so that they could practice racial discrimination. What they hate the most is when federal troops were used to forcibly desegregate public schools in Alabama (or much later in Boston, I believe) whereas they want local autonomy so that they can have a racist society. They aren't really for communities arming themselves, but only the whites or land owners arming themselves against minorities, immigrants and the poor. In Europe, far-right clearly refers to the practices of fascist groups in the 20s and 30s. These were defined by : 1) rabid anti-communism Well of course these US groups are very much so, but with the demise of the USSR and a credible international movement in the name of communism, the fascists have different names for us. So they oppose unionists, feminists, environmentalists, queers, supposed socialists (in the health-care debate), political correctness, or just anything associated with the left or left communities. So what is to be made of this uniquely American phenomenon of anti-Federal Government militias ? Is the present economic crisis No, these groups aren't new at all. But I think their rise at the present is part of the backlash to Obama and so they're joining the racist movement that got energized also around the health-care debate, so they might see this as their chance to hook up with broader right wing and racist sympathies that have likewise been energized. determining factor in the spread of such groups ? Or are they really just good ol' Fascists that corporate interests are using, No, they are good ol' Fascists that the corporate interests are NOT using, but they are HOPING that they will be used soon! That's why they arm themselves: for the coming race war that many of the more open fascists have been talking about for years. And now with Obama they see it coming closer. I hope that Mark is right and that they will stay a small minority and not gain greatly from the current racist backlash or consolidate anything. But don't mistake them for being anything other than far-right or fascist. Jay Moore post was very thoughtful regarding their different issues relative to the state, but again I see that more as superficial talking points rather than as anti-fascist in any actual sense. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] doubling of maternal deaths
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 10:43 14/03/10 -0400, S. Artesian wrote: The legacy of Milton Friedman, . Ronald Reagan, that gift that keeps on giving. Gift is a German word. I would have totally missed that, except that the same word is used in Dutch: Gift means poison. The full report from AI is worth browsing and can be downloaded at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/dignity/pdf/DeadlyDelivery.pdf - Jeff - Original Message - From: Paula paula_ce...@msn.com According to Amnesty International, US deaths from pregnancy and childbirth have doubled over the past 20 years, so that 'the lifetime risk of maternal deaths is greater in the United States than in 40 other countries, including virtually all industrialized nations'. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/12/maternal.mortality/index.html?hpt=Sbin Paula Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Query on Joseph Wilson (of Niger uranium fame)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 10:27 08/02/10 +0200, Patrick Bond wrote: Joseph C Wilson http://www.spintelligent-events.com/power-indaba-2010/en/Featuredspeakers. php, CEO, JC Wilson Investment Ventures, United States and former United States Ambassador He's coming to Durban later this month, Well I don't have any deep information to help you, but I'll take this as an opportunity to offer my rant about the guy. I was sort of disgusted because a lot of the soft-left antiwar movement sort of described him as a hero of some sort for having contradicted Bush's lie about Iraq obtaining uranium from Africa. Yes, he did in fact go to Niger and report back to the effect that Bush's claims were false. So yes, he told the truth, which is better than lying. But that only came to people's attention much later, in the summer of 2003, when he finally went public with it, whereas he said NOTHING PUBLICALLY before the beginning of the war, when it could well have made a difference! So it's sort of a case of doing the right thing at the wrong time! The information he had was explosive, and he deliberately chose to avoid revealing it while the bombs were raining down on Baghdad, clearly putting his allegiance to the system ahead of any humanity. I consider that completely criminal. Now when he went to Niger in 2002 he did it at the request of the CIA. I'll say that again. He was working for the CIA. Unless I don't understand the English language, that means he is or was A CIA AGENT. I'm saying that here out loud, aware that all of you in the US could actually go to jail for making a statement of that sort! So once again: Joseph Wilson was or IS A CIA AGENT, and I can hardly think of a worse thing to say about someone! And yes, he was (as we know now) married to a CIA agent, and that she was (until her career was ruined by being exposed by the white house in the vindictive move against her husband) a lifer in the CIA. And I have never heard this mentioned, but that means that when he was the deputy US ambassador to Iraq in 1998 - 1991 prior to the first US war (which he helped engineer on the diplomatic front), that he brought his wife, A CIA AGENT also into Iraq under the cover of diplomatic immunity! When diplomats are accused of spying, the US always denies that such a thing is possible, that these are separated functions. Ha! That means that the CIA had a direct plant right in Baghdad who couldn't be touched and could smuggle whatever she wanted out of Iraq in the ambassador's pouch. Not just Iraq, but he had several other diplomatic assignments, presumably also bringing along and giving cover to his wife, the career CIA agent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson#Diplomatic_career I'm sorry I don't have any inside info about his JC Wilson International Ventures Corp. but I don't think I'll be doing business with them! I imagine he's making lots of money using his expertise gained through his wife's CIA activities in every African country where he had a diplomatic post. I hope you can dig up some more dirt on him before he appears at this conference. But the bottom line is that he was or is a CIA agent, and withheld from the public crucial information that would have countered the Bush war drive against Iraq. - Jeff as part of the Africa Utilities 'Power Indaba' Conference (http://www.spintelligent-events.com/power-indaba-2010/en/index.php) that has raised some concerns. Does anyone have anything interesting to tell us about Wilson so we understand context? Cheers, Patrick Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Moderator's note
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 10:50 27/12/09 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Let's drop this thread, Well actually I'm rather enjoying reading this thread (though at the expense of lonely Dogan) and I don't think the issues have been completely explored since they touch on larger strategic issues. For instance, one argument was over whether the proposed health care bill is worse than the status quo and should therefore be opposed. But I'm still waiting to hear a good discussion of the underlying principle: that any change for the better should be supported in some sense. That is a more general issue that obviously has widespread implications. Also there might be some miscommunication due to the meaning of words. S. Artesian told Dogan exactly what Liberalism means. But Dogan is in Europe and here the word Liberal does not refer to the left wing of the ruling class but rather to the moderate right (the part that most strongly believes in free-market capitalism and privatization) of the ruling class. The Liberal party (VVD) in the Netherlands is the furthest to the right among parties which have been in a government coalition in recent times. Hence this use of name-calling may be raising the heat of the discussion while fogging the issues. (Of course I have some names myself for people like Dogan, but liberal isn't one of them!). - Jeff including the reference to Dogan's name in the subject heading. Sayan, like Michael Pugliese, is one of those bizarre personalities who has no existence outside of cyberspace. As such, paying attention to his ravings gives him an importance he does not deserve. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fw: Dr. Kevorkian
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == ACCEPTANCE OF VICTORY I always know I have won an argument when my worthy opponent: 1) is reduced to a final reply consisting only of sarcasm and name calling. 2) responds with a desperate request for figures and details, none of which would have any bearing on the arguments I have advanced. 3) includes equally irrelevant snipes tapping into an undercurrent of American vs. European rivalry (or any similar appeal to subconscious nationalism). I wish to dedicate my achievement to the many thousands of transplant candidates who perish every year due to lack of donor organs and the many more denied proper medical care due to inequality. - Jeff P.S. Les and Lou, please allow me to break Rule #1 this one time. I just wanted one final display of my victory trophy before it is consigned to the archives of Marxmail :-) MY TROPHY: At 20:45 15/12/09 -0500, S. Artesian wrote: Well that's helpful-- you say it's so, so it must be so. Got it. The infinitely more liberal idea you have is a mandatory system without identifying the need for a mandatory system. That truly is liberal. Of those 100s of thousands waiting for transplant organs-- how many are in the eurozone, how many in the EU 16 vs. the EU 27? What is the basis for organ allocation? What is the trend of the past decade? Look, if the US is putting out studies that give some idea of the real gaps out there, real wait times, and real costs, by the way, I'm sure the EU must be doing something along the same lines, or if not the EU, the infinitely more liberal govt. of the Netherlands-- so why don't you quite blowing smoke and produce some of that data. Oh wait, I'm sorry is that being illiberal? Tough. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Nazism and the Arabs: a debate
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 09:14 25/11/09 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5 Although rather interesting, I didn't see the point of posting this link. When I went ahead and read the article (by Jeffrey Herf) I was annoyed and about to write a rebuttal. Then I saw that there already was a thorough rebuttal (by Richard Wolin, a qualified scholar) in the link underneath it, so I won't spend my own energy. Most reprehensible in the article by Herf (and apparently a primary theme of his book, judging by Wolin's rebuttal) is his attempt to provide the supposed link that justifies the idiotic term Islamo-fascism: But the formulation of Nazi propaganda during World War II and its dissemination stand as a decisive episode in the development of radical Islamism. Apparently he thinks that ideas planted by the Nazis needed some 40 or 50 years to smoulder before sprouting the present Islamic fundamentalists. And he further insinuates that anti-semitism is a primary component of Islamic fundamentalism, as the Zionists would like us to believe. He further reveals his bias in this regard: In the first months after the war, as the scope of the Jewish catastrophe in Europe was being revealed, Arab and Islamic radicals showed no sign of reconsidering their hostility to Zionism. Right. The Palestinians whose land was being gobbled up by Europeans with the purpose of recolonizing that land after the British would leave, were supposed to give up that opposition because of the news that in a different continent there had been a genocide against members of the same religion. Finally he goes on to quote (as the Israelis love to) from the Hamas charter which indeed includes some very anti-semitic language. Again he conveniently ignores that Hamas has, in practice, renounced such positions, written about 20 years ago I believe, under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Hamas (along with covert aid from Israel). And anyway it doesn't have anything to do with the struggle of Hamas and the Palestinian nation against Israel, again unless you accept Israel's claim that anti-zionism is anti-semitism. For a more current position of Hamas regarding the Holocaust, see this article written by Bassem Naeem, the minister of health and information in Gaza: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bassem_naeem/2008/05/hamas_condemns_the_holocaust.html Hopefully the points I made are not controversial among the members of this list, and I question what's new about the Herf article (and book). Seems like just more of the same Islam-bashing that is used to deflect attention from the crimes of Israel in the present. - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Comp Help Needed - Reverb In Online Spoken Videos - Cure?
At 16:45 10/11/09 -0500, Bill Quimby wrote: I find that many of the online videos I want to see - on YouTube for example, are recorded in class lecture halls with no sound absorption. The result is that the video sound has a high degree of reverb Actually the reason is because they placed the recording microphone somewhere in the room, rather than on the podium in front of the speaker's mouth (or equivalently, using a feed from the sound board). The sound quality was ruined before it even got digitized. Admittedly my computer has a very old - 10 years at least - sound card, and trashy speakers. This has nothing to do with your computer per se; it is an audio problem period. Is there anything I should do or can do to improve the sound quality on my end Not much, but I can make one suggestion. More of the reverberation you hear is at lower frequencies whereas most of the useful speech information is at higher frequencies. Frequencies below 300 Hz are unneeded for comprehension (as are frequencies above 3000 Hz, but that's not the issue). You can adjust the bass and treble controls, or even better use a graphic equalizer to eliminate frequencies that are not needed for comprehension. However that may be aesthetically unpleasing since the actual tone of the speaker's voice will be altered and sound tinny. Some computer sound driver software includes tone controls, but usually not. Some computer speakers have bass and treble controls. But the best solution is to run your computer's sound output into your stereo (or buy a cheap stereo amplifier for the purpose: you can just as well hook it up to cheap bookshelf speakers if you are not interested in music quality). If the stereo has a graphic equalizer that is even better. Otherwise turn down the bass all the way, and turn up the treble until you can't stand it anymore: that will give you the best clarity for speech purposes (but again, it will not sound natural). With an equalizer turn the lower frequencies (below about 300 or 500 Hz) all the way down. In the computer I'm using right now, I've plugged an 1/8 splitter into the audio output jack (a cheap adapter that sends the signal to two 1/8 jacks) and plug computer speakers into one, and the other goes to a cable to the aux. input of my stereo for when I'm listening to music. (Listening to music through average computer speakers means you miss all the deep bass!). - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Black antiwar demo?!
At 14:14 08/11/09 -0500, Thomas Bias wrote: I was in Washington yesterday at a very small but important antiwar demonstration that was about 75% African-American, organized by the Black is Back Coalition. Could you possibly write a few more words about that demo and the forces behind it? I was very surprised last night to have heard a brief report on Dutch (mainstream!) radio news about an anti-imperialist demonstration of American blacks dissatisfied with Obama, but could hardly believe it! Now that you confirmed it, I searched on the web to find the following story by AFP, but perhaps you could expand on it. Once again I was disappointed that its planning hadn't been mentioned on this list (or did I miss it?) while there is no lack of commentary on what the BPP did wrong 40 years ago. Which I find important and interesting, but I would hope that current developments are followed with equal seriousness, rather than waiting 40 years to complain about everything that should have been done differently. - Jeff -- African-Americans slam Obama in White House protest (AFP) 20 hours ago WASHINGTON Decrying Barack Obama as white power in black face, hundreds of African-Americans marched on the White House Saturday to protest policies of the first black US president, and demand that he bring US troops home. More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African Americans against the Obama administration since his historic inauguration in January, and slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington's imperialist agenda around the world. We recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is white power in black face, civil rights activist Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black is Back coalition which arranged the protest, called into a megaphone as the group marched outside the mansion's gates. He is a tool of our imperialist enemies and we demand our freedom. And we demand that Obama withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan right now. Protesters also called for Obama to order troops out of Iraq and to scrap Africom, the controversial year-old United States Africa Command, and demanded hands off Venezuela and ends to the Cuba embargo and the Zimbabwe blockade. Several demonstrators held up placards bearing messages such as US out of Afghanistan and Stop US war against Iraq. Charles Baron, a New York city councilman and former member of the Black Panthers, a Black Power movement in the mid-1960s and 1970s, attacked the president for turning a cold shoulder to the plight of African-Americans. We're not satisfied with him, and... this hope and change rap has not been a reality for black people, Baron told AFP during the demonstration. We are glad that Barack Obama broke up the white male monopoly on the White House, but we were not looking for a change in the occupant of the White House from white to black, we were looking for change in foreign policies and domestic policies, he added. To have a black person exploiting me just like a white person, that's no easier pain. The group also was calling for the release of former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in 1982 of killing a white police officer and sentenced to death. The US Supreme Court upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction in April and rejected his bid for a new trial. Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Obama in last year's election, when he defeated Republican Senator John McCain. About 13 percent of US citizens are African-Americans. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Socialism and animal rights
At 10:32 26/10/09 -0700, nada wrote: Unfortunately Max, you failed, utterly, to contradict or really challenge D'Amato on any of his assertions. His point of the demeaning of the concepts of racism and genocide by those that equate the use of animals by humans as like the Holocaust is quite true Absolutely. I think this article is right on the mark. This debate doesn't have anything to do with which side acts in the best INTERESTS of animals. Rather it is the unthinking reference to rights and even self-determination, neither of which would apply universally to humans. In Marxist literature self-determination generally refers to a nationality or geographically defined population establishing its own national state, which obviously wouldn't apply to any species incapable of such a level of organization only reached by humans in the last few thousand years. But rights? Of course we all believe in human and civil rights, but who here believes that a 4 year old child has a right to run into a busy street? Or an (adult) Alzheimers patient? When the ALF releases laboratory animals into the wild (in a climate where they can't even survive) is that a valid liberating experience for these creatures, any more than the 4 year old is liberated by being allowed to roam the streets of New York? It doesn't make sense to talk about rights separate from the LACK of a right which is being addressed. In other words, outside of a political context, in which one human entity is RESTRICTING the behaviour of other humans. There are very specific rights that some humans need to strive for in specific situations, but just talking about rights in the abstract is meaningless. So is it for animals. Most people are against cruelty to animals, so you might say that animals have a right to avoid cruelty. Fine, you can use the word. But what you are really saying is that there should be laws against people being cruel to animals. That is a MUCH better way of looking at the issue and MUCH more in the INTERESTS of animals. There is not necessarily a competition between humans and animals or need for humans to dominate or exploit animals. But is it surprising that a system that treats workers like animals also treats animals like workers? Yes, farm animals are certainly exploited and often treated with great cruelty by the system, and we surely wish to eliminate such abuse. But that doesn't imply rights per se. As human society has advanced over the centuries, we have become, and will continue to become, more caring for the welfare of animals and protective of the environment. If that general trend has been marred by the barbarity of the capitalist system which cages pigs into small pens (as they also do with political prisoners), then it is the system, not the human species, that is to be blamed. But on the purely political level, I would have to say that mindlessly calling for animal rights has the most profound miseducational effect in trivializing the actual struggles for SPECIFIC rights by SPECIFIC populations suffering SPECIFIC oppression. D'Amato does a good job of deconstructing this pseudo-leftist fad. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Large Hadron Collider: Swindle of the Century?
Hey, thanks for the physics lesson Les! (But I hope we're not tested on it tomorrow ;-) johnaimani wrote: Indeed the forming of interference patterns even when electrons are fired one at a time through one of two open slits, an action that ought to produce no such interfence(diffraction) No one said that it shouldn't. There is no difference in this respect between photons and electrons: the same interference pattern will apply regardless of the intensity of the beam. In each case it is an indication (you could almost say proof) of the particles being connected to a wavefunction which determines the likelihood of one being present as a function of position and time. The fact that this is unchanged when there is only a single particle travelling at a time, is only an illustration that there is no interaction between the individual particles involved in interference. It is not surprising or paradoxical according to accepted theories. At 16:09 19/10/09 -0400, Les Schaffer wrote: the thing is, HOW these LHC papers are being thrown around now DOES say something about the politics/metaphysics of leading-edge physics. You mean how they are being thrown around by the popular press? Yes, I guess I'm not surprised that they would be attracted to some supposed evidence of god, as well as sensationalizing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. (Or do you mean how they are described by the physicists themselves? I would say to just completely disregard any comments/observations which are not connected to scientifically testable/meaningful propositions.) some messing around is required in physics to make advances. how this messing around is sold to the public is worthy of criticism. What the popular press will present is almost always distorted. When I watch/read about advances in some field of science where I have little knowledge, I am awed by the conclusions. But then when the same source talks about a field in which I DO have expertise, I notice so many mistakes and misinterpretations I almost want to cry. And that's in the case of GOOD science reporters who can hardly be blamed for not spending months/years studying the specific field they're reporting on (especially in an esoteric field like this). And when it is a source with an ideological agenda, forget it! - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Large Hadron Collider: Swindle of the Century?
At 20:25 17/10/09 -0400, jayroth6 wrote: A fellow activist in Cleveland (http://twitter.com/tovX) forwarded this to me under the title For Just This BS $6 bln is Stolen from Workers The article pointed to in TGdaily is absolute bullshit. Trash. There's certainly no talk about god by actual physicists or in the paper pointed to (which is indeed a rather far-fetched paper). There are surely hundreds/thousands of papers proposing experiments for the LHC which will investigate some very fundamental physics. So these are the great questions that funding the LHC with dollars sweated and bled from workers I could hardly justify diverting this kind of money if it would otherwise have gone to feeding the hungry. But suffice it to say that the amount of actual scientific knowledge expected to be gained from this apparatus is tremendously greater than would be gained from spending $1 trillion on a human mission to Mars (as Bush pushed for). Even sending people to the moon again would cost more than $6 billion (at today's prices), also having almost no scientific value. I hope that help's put the issue more in perspective. - Jeff worldwide was supposed to answer? There are people dying for want of food out here. God sabotaged the LHC, say scientists http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44291/181/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1919v3.pdf YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] undocumented
At 18:23 04/10/09 -0400, Mark Lause wrote: I have no idea of what people expect of an open email list. Anybody of any background or here for any motive can claim to be anything they want and say absolutely anything and be outraged about anything...rightly or wrongly. I have no idea who you are addressing, but your various observations about email lists have NOT A THING to do with the discussion at hand! The substantive replies have been in response to the IDEAS which have been expressed, regardless of whether they had been sent by email or written on a wall, even regardless of whether the person who wrote them was expressing their actual opinions or just pretending to believe them, regardless of whether the person is who they say they are or someone else completely. When certain things are WRITTEN, then one can respond to the CONTENTS of that writing with more writing. It wouldn't even matter if I DIDN'T REALLY EXIST: you still are reading this and can't help but listening to what you read. There is one aspect, though, that DOES have to do with the medium of an email list and an actual person: the moderator who has the power to control discussion on the list. In response to my very serious and carefully written post he responded: This is unmitigated bullshit. When you accuse one side of being misogynist, it cuts off discussion. Period. We need to keep these kinds of charges to an absolute minimum if we are generally interested in a free exchange of ideas. The sad thing is that I actually agree with him that thoughtless name-calling and making personal charges (such as misogyny) are harmful to a discussion and should be avoided in the interests of a free exchange of ideas. The PROBLEM is that my making such charges was totally imagined! Instead, I could only see that this hallow call for me to cease and desist, supposedly to allow for a free exchange of ideas, was ITSELF a way of stopping the very discussion I had begun! And that pattern continues. Louis had to make a quip in a totally unrelated reply about others (me?) being hell-bent on convicting [the list] of racism, sexism, homophobia. again all without substance. And when I called him on that, we get another flurry of emails that again dance around the substantive issues in order to concentrate on the problems of email lists! Well I challenge any of you to write about the SUBSTANCE of the original discussion. Oh, you already forgot? Well Pat is gently trying to remind you here: Could i ever jeer at someone who wants to help me understand what it feels like to be African American or Latino or Native American in this culture? If your answer is a clear no, then you must explain why it IS alright to take such an attitude in the case of women (another oppressed group) and victims of sexual assault. That is where the discussion started, about insensitivity to rape and the effects of that insensitivity, and that is where it should continue. That is, if you actually had something to say about it. And if you don't, then quit trying to shoot the messenger. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] The Power of the State (was: Hate crimes, again)
have. Again, this is a law that could send someone to jail (like the hate-crimes laws) and COULD be misused (for instance, they might find some Formula 79X in the garage of some activist). But wouldn't opposing that law that be silly? (to put it mildly!) Also, you are slightly wrong about the context of this discussion: Actually racist crime was not the original focus, it was homophobic crime. Well no I believe you're wrong. In the US these laws began with respect to hate motivated by race/ethnicity/religion. According to Wikipedia, hate crimes laws in 32 (out of 45) states include wording regarding sexual orientation. This discussion on the list began because someone (whose name I won't mention) is opposing the extension of the laws to include sexual orientation (his issue), as well as opposing the laws in general. He is wrong, and his position puts him in tactical alliance with the right wing, on the basis of the same argument about giving increased powers to the state that you (and others) have unfortunately repeated. No, the state doesn't get its powers through laws. When we take a position on laws (which we don't always have to), our position can only refer to what the law is actually intended to do, not what we can imagine that it could possibly be used to justify. Our struggle must be against the actual state, not the legal framework it uses to explain its actions. - Jeff At 14:52 12/09/09 +1200, John wrote: On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 16:27 +0200, Jeff wrote: At 17:48 11/09/09 +1200, John wrote: The article David posted is odious . But the issue of hate crimes is a separate one. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
At 19:54 05/09/09 -0700, michael perelman wrote: One of the keys to Green Technology may be buried in China. Just responding to the alarmist title of this post Peak Rare Minerals, I don't see that there is a peak anything. When you point out that China produces ... 95 percent of neodymium that does NOT mean that there would ever be a shortage of it if it weren't exported by China. According to Wikipedia, the earth's crust contains 38 ppm of neodymium, a huge amount considering its limited use. If they aren't mining much of it elsewhere, I'm sure that is just because it is cheaper to obtain from China. Another claim I hear a lot is that the war in the Congo is driven by minerals, which I don't deny, but then the narrative goes on to say that Mobile phones are dependent on Coltan (tantalum) mined in the Congo as if this were a critical source for the mineral. Actually only a small amount of the world's tantalum is mined from that region. What's more, tantalum isn't necessarily required to manufacture modern electronics, it is only used to replace old fashioned electrolytic capacitors with the smaller variety made from tantalum. Those capacitors are just a tiny portion of the volume of a telephone and you'd never know the difference if tantalum weren't used. I don't think that there will be a peak of any mineral, because when the price goes up, they just find ways of obtaining it from methods which cost more. For instance, the production of oil from the tar sands in Canada becomes profitable with the rise in the price of oil, but then will become a large extra source of oil whenever the price exceeds that point. Same goes, I believe, for every mineral: it will be mined wherever and whenever it is profitable. And although I always hear about Peak Oil being some sort of disaster, I don't understand that because it would be a VERY GOOD thing if it were real! It would force a shift to greener energy BEFORE the CO2 level rises too high. Unfortunately there is little evidence of peak oil and it appears that the CO2 level WILL rise greatly because of the availability of oil and coal. Unless there is a different force for shifting energy production, but that clearly won't be the free market as long as there is an economic advantage in relying on fossil fuels. I'm not aware of any mineral that is reaching a peak in production as long as there is increasing demand, and I think that such headlines are alarmist and inaccurate. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] A Different Environmental Threat: Peak Rare Minerals, China, and Green Technology
At 09:04 06/09/09 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: Jeff, I agree with everything you said except your point about the word, peak. Mathematically, as long as a fixed supply exists, there will necessarily be a peak point in extraction. Well you've obviously studied the economics of this, but what I have seen about peak oil seems oversimplified in several ways. For instance, it is often said that the peak occurs when half of the fixed supply has been depleted, but there is no reason to assume that that should even be approximately true. The production might well just increase to meet demand right up to the exact end of the supply, if it were simply like emptying a big can of oil that suppliers had. I would imagine that a peak in production will occur at the point where the cost of producing energy using oil exceeds the costs of energy from other sources (which are coming down) so it would have as much to do with other forms of production (and energy demand), not just how much oil is left in the ground. But my main point was that there might NOT be a fixed supply to speak of, but rather a supply which just becomes more and more expensive to tap, so that the ultimate amount available doesn't really enter into it. That is even more true for minerals, since I believe the supply is virtually endless if you're willing to dig deeper and bigger mines (not that I want them to!). Here are another problem arises because the extraction, as I understand it, requires removing an immense quantity of earth, then using solvents of some kind Yes, that's not nice, but I thought you were originally addressing the economics of the matter. And in particular the implication that the Chinese might obtain a stranglehold on minerals needed for technological progress (in this case neodymium used for making the strongest permanent magnets for the most efficient and lightest motors and generators). If that were really a threat, then they would just gear up for mining it elsewhere. If they aren't doing that, it's because they trust the Chinese to continue supplying it at a better price. I think the discussion of such shortages has to do with the short-term price fluctuations that may concern industry and speculators, but the specter of any one country (or even a few countries) having long-term control of one essential resource doesn't seem like a real problem. They would find alternatives if and when they had to. to separate out the minerals. In the case of gold, 1 ounce requires 30 tons of rock to be moved and then treated with cyanide. Yes that's disgusting, especially when you consider how much of that gold will be used only for its symbolic value (rather than the utilitarian value gold has in plating contacts for electrical connectors etc.). Note that the proportion you just gave of 1 ppm of gold in the ore they mine, is much lower than the 38 ppm of neodymium over the entire earth (not to mention its abundance where they actually mine it), and the yearly production (again according to Wikipedia) is only 7000 tons (but surely rising rapidly). Also, there may be a semantic confusion involved. Neodymium is classified as a rare earth according to its position on the periodic chart, but that is just the name for elements of atomic number 57 to 71. It isn't nearly as rare as gold or platinum. Its production being dominated by China doesn't seem to be of long-term significance, as far as I can tell, and it certainly isn't facing any peak in production due to depletion. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Long posts not allowed??
At 16:38 31/08/09 -0400, Les Schaffer wrote: anyway, please discuss the issues of bandwidth, ease of reading long online articles, difficulty parsing long posts, etc. And I just wanted to correct the numbers I threw out before, when I said that the webpage (107KB) was 7 times more data than the same article sent as an email (16KB). It's much worse! I hadn't noticed, but that particular webpage (but again, this is typical) was only the FIRST of 3 containing that article; the other two parts were probably of similar length. Also, the 16KB of the email containing ALL the article's text is only 12KB longer than a one-line email (4KB). So I could safely estimate that someone will use more bandwidth viewing ONE such article on the web than receiving 20 such emails each containing the full text of such an article. (And that is just for someone whose web browser is set not to download images). Having put the bandwidth issue to rest, I will also thank Fred for copying all 3 parts of that article into one email, for MY/OUR convenience! - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Petras strikes again
At 20:10 27/08/09 +0200, Nasir Khan wrote: I welcome Jeffs comments in response to Petras article I had posted. And I welcome your taking the time to respond to my concerns. I will make this rather short, because actually most of what you have written I have no disagreement with. But that is also because you didn't concentrate on (or perhaps you didn't appreciate) the point of my criticism of Petras, and my implicit criticism of those who propagate his analysis (and the writings of the clearly right-wing antiwar commentators who have also been mentioned in this context) while there is already a large quantity of literature describing the criminal destruction of Iraq and the imperialist motivations which led to their aggression. Those who have cared to read the full article must have seen that Petras main focus was on the destruction of Iraq wrought by American invaders and their allies. Yes, the larger part of his article described that destruction, and if that had been his whole article I would have expressed no objection whatsoever. Except that it's coming rather late, in 2009, but with the occupation and carnage continuing, no one can say that we have heard too much about the criminal invasion of Iraq. But again, my problem is that he has used this legitimate concern only to buttress his theses concerning the supposed control of the American government by Israel, what he calls the Zionist Power Configuration (requiring its own abbreviation: ZPG) in which Jews in the American ruling class and government are acting as agents of a foreign power rather than acting in the interests of American capitalism. That is the issue, and that is where his analysis is both wrong and provides ideological support to the right wing. There are (at least) two right wing ideological pillars that his analysis plays into. And of course these don't apply to the majority of the right wing in the US (which supported that war, after all) but more specifically play to the ULTRA-RIGHT. And the ultra-right, in return, has seen popular opposition to the war in Iraq as an opportunity to recruit though propaganda which is eerily similar to the writings of Petras. The two ideological issues I can immediately identify are: 1) Antisemitism and associated conspiracy theories. Now Petras is NOT an antisemite himself; I never meant to imply that. However the suggestion that the actions of the US government are secretly controlled by an ethnic (or religious) minority which is acting primarily in the interests of a foreign state, clearly qualifies as a classical conspiracy theory. In this case it is not an Israeli conspiracy theory, since those individuals are American, not Israeli citizens. No, it is, I'm sorry to say, a Jewish conspiracy theory, in which Petras identifies 6 Jewish names as belonging to the most important political force responsible for the invasion of Iraq. I don't know what else to call it. 2) By pinning the primary responsibility for American foreign policy on an external power, Israel, he relieves the US ruling class of guilt for its own actions. I realize you are not American, but in the US this is a common theme of the far right: to ascribe government policies they don't like to the (supposed) power of external interests which have corrupted the US government. This is generally used to attack liberals in the government who they see as caving in to the interests of foreigners or ethnic groups which they SEE as foreign such as Blacks or Mexican immigrants. In this case the target isn't particularly liberals (even though they mostly supported the war) but the bulk of the government, which again, includes a fair number of Jews. So according to this worn out narrative, the true interests of America, American resources, the lives of American soldiers, and the reputation of the US have been hijacked by special interests (code word for minorities). I'm afraid Petras himself makes reference to the damage to American interests incurred by the supposed domination of the ZPG. This is right in line with the right wing argument that by allying itself with Israel, American interests have been compromised. And just to be clear, I consider the alliance between Israel and the US to be of tremendous significance and I don't reject holding a nuanced discussion on the character of that alliance and its history, including the role of AIPAC and the Israel lobby in the US. Personally I believe that Israel is mainly a tool of the US ruling class, not the other way around. But this can all be discussed, debated, and reanalyzed. However when someone's argument takes the form of defending American interests against foreign interests (not to mention Jewish interests), then I have to wonder who I am discussing this with and what their true agenda is. However, the danger of miseducational effect that Jeff refers to in Petras' analysis is the ethnic identification of the American high officials in the Bush administration. I think
[Marxism] James Petras strikes again :-(
At 21:00 24/08/09 +0200, Nasir Khan wrote: [see [Marxism] The US War against Iraq: The Destruction of a Civilization] [full text: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/the-us-war-against-iraq/] by James Petras, Dissident Voice, August 21, 2009 The US seven-year war and occupation of Iraq is driven by several major political forces [including] the following (in order of importance). Unfortunately the quote ends there so you do not get Petras' list of political forces behind the Iraq war unless you go to the full article as I did. What you will find is exactly TWO items on his list (of why the US went to war in Iraq), which are, in order of importance: 1) What he calls The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), essentially referring to JEWS in the US government whose top priority was to advance Israels agenda. and (of less importance): 2) Civilian militarists (like Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney) who are NOT JEWISH. I'm sorry to boil it down to this, but that is just about what he says; I don't think that I misread it! My revulsion isn't just that his analysis is wrong, as most people reading this will recognize (but I'm not putting it beyond debate). I'm worried about the EFFECT of framing the issue in such terms which go beyond analysis and into ethnic identification of the enemy. That has a miseducational effect on the left (the majority of those who would be reading this) and misrepresents the legitimate positions of the left which oppose western imperialism without requiring (in the first instance) a distinction between the interests of the US and the Israeli ruling classes, let alone identifying the ethnicity of US government leaders. I don't want to be dogmatic and certainly an in-depth analysis of individuals/ideologues involved in government decisions can discuss all aspects of their background. But it is clearly troubling when one's analysis of a imperialist nation going to war requires an ethnic identification of the leaders who are considered responsible, especially when it is further stated that they are acting in the interests of a foreign power. Petras essentially says that, but being a leftist doesn't go so far as to call them disloyal or acting against the interests of the US as is openly charged by right-wing antiwar forces such as Paul Craig Roberts and Jeff Gates, whose columns have also been forwarded to this list by Nasir Khan, with equal disregard. BTW my objections here are not directed to Nasir Khan, the poster, who apparently doesn't read what's posted to the list (or if he does, he has essentially never reacted to what someone else has written). I assume he isn't reading this (but if you are, please prove me wrong!). I am worried about this form of discourse infecting the left, or even being seen as acceptable. There does exist, especially in the US, a right-wing antiwar movement (antiwar.com, Pat Buchanan, etc.) and they never fail to direct their anger against Israel. Indeed most of what they say about either the US government or Israel and their filthy wars is not unlike our own propaganda. But you can look a little deeper and they generally betray their identification of Zionism with Jews and an international link which is tantamount to the International Jewish Conspiracy theories of yesteryear. Unfortunately Petras seems to be walking the same ground. I say unfortunately because unlike the above listed individuals, I can see that Petras IS an actual leftist, so I consider this also a matter of embarrassment rather than just denouncing someone as an antisemite (as I will happily do with those right-wingers I mentioned). And there is a possibly legitimate debate about whether Israel led the US into the Iraq war as these right-wingers like to claim, but is also erroneously believed by some leftists. There was a debate over the role of the importance of the Israel lobby in determining US policy between Petras and Norman Finkelstein which is transcribed at: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11ar=978 The spectrum on this issue is described by the moderator as spanning views from Walt/Merscheimer to those of Noam Chomsky. While Petras is in the former camp, Finkelstein places himself in the middle of this spectrum (but I doubt Petras would give him any credit relative to Chomsky!). I think Finkelstein wins the debate (my own prejudice, perhaps) but in the course of the discussion, Petras even laments Finkelstein's blind spot, which is understandable given his ethnicity! I suppose that would also disqualify reasonable discussion of these issues by many members of this list. :-( Petras makes the extent of his views rather clear in this excerpt: I think it is impossible to deny this and say 'Well, you can't deduce policy from ethnic affiliations. Yes, you can! When that ethnic group puts forward a position that puts the primacy of a foreign government at the center of their foreign policy and prejudices the lives of thousands of Americans
[Marxism] Paranoia over state surveillance
can only be to our detriment. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape
At 14:13 05/08/09 EDT, WL2 wrote: The Soviet armed forces should have not looted Germany? Why not? Well lots of reasons why not. But more importantly, this was a discussion about mass RAPE, which you address in terms of LOOTING = stealing PROPERTY. Did I get that right?? Your old Indian story makes the same equivalence: Why should another teepee for the violator be provided? Are we to also to hunt the buffalo to feed him; bring him fresh water and another women Does anyone see a difference between bringing a needy person (rightly or wrongly) a teepee, buffalo meat, fresh water, and a WOMAN?? The Soviets did not loot Germany. Expropriation of the fascist classes and supporters was not an act of looting. The capitalist and fascists loot. The proletariat expropriate. Alright, expropriate what? This was a discussion about rape of women. Exactly what does the proletariat have a right to expropriate? Is this all in my head, or do we have a different idea of what constitutes property? - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Totalitarianism and Mass Rape
Me: Alright, expropriate what? This was a discussion about rape of women. Exactly what does the proletariat have a right to expropriate? Is this all in my head, or do we have a different idea of what constitutes property? - Jeff Your direct response (below) totally misses my point, and thus PROVES my point in a way I could hardly have done myself! - Jeff WL2:(Intentionally NOT clipped) This is what was stated: Germany should have been liberated of an equivalent value equal to that in which she took from the Soviet workers as war aggressors. The German army was not filled with capitalist but workers. EQUIVALENT VALUE EQUAL TO . . . . is what was acceptable payment for crimes against the Soviet people. One does not have to demand reparations but to demand such is not wrong morally or politically. From time to time the issue of reparations to blacks in America - because of slavery, is raised and discussed. Generally, I do not weigh in on this issues because I do not advocate reparations in this instance. If anything reparations would be North to the South under proletarian rule. In the North a different solution would be formulated. However, those Marxists that support reparations for blacks are not politically wrong. Or morally wrong. I do believe such advocacy by Marxists is a view of American history with a Northern bias. On the issue of reparations and the unequal treaty of the US government with the Indian nations, I tend toward strong support for reparations and ending the unequal treaties as immediate and long term payment for historical crimes. The Soviets did not loot Germany. It was the German fascist that did the looting. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Rape instinct??
At 16:40 05/08/09 EDT, jscotl...@aol.com wrote: The notion that the Soviet troops would be shorn of the same human base instincts when involved in such a brutal war as any other troops is idealistic in the extreme. I won't even start on this one - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Rape instinct??
At 17:18 05/08/09 EDT, you wrote: Well, let's see. If, as I do, you consider rape a form of violence yes... , and the purpose of war to inflict more violence on your enemy than they inflict on you That sounds like a prescription for war crimes of every sort! War is normally defended as having strategic goals and what you just described goes beyond what most armies consider acceptable even by their OWN standards! Notwithstanding that it is commonplace in practice. and given that the war in question was one of the most brutal and cruel in human history, why would you think that rape would not be part and parcel of the violence involved? That was already answered by Einde O'Callaghan: If I recall correctly, during the Russian Civil War, i.e. when the Red Army was under the political leadership of Trotsky, rape was strictly forbidden and harshly punished - up to and including the death penalty. Enforcing this was one of teh roles of the political commissars. When political commissars neglected their duties they were also subject to the harshest penalties - also including the death penalty. This isn't a discussion about Soviet soldiers, it's about the Soviet ARMY which included a command structure. That command structure went right up to the top. That is why we hold Bush and Cheney responsible for what happened at Abu Graib, for instance, even though they cannot (easily) be directly connected to any particular act of torture. So Stalin and the CPSU are responsible both for the successes and failures but also for any systematic abuses by the military they led. Talking about indiscipline among the troops doesn't work either. Low ranking soldiers faced with war have an instinct, if you will, to retreat and save their skins. Armies advance into battle because of discipline handed down from above. If that discipline had included the death sentence for rape, as it did under Trotsky's leadership (according to the above quote), would the outcome not have been quite different? Revenge, whether we wish to admit it or not, is a very basic human instinct. Look, for example, at the US reaction to 9/11 Great example. Ideology and propaganda has nothing to do with it. Racism and nationalism has nothing to do with it. Just the revenge instinct. Boy, did YOU ever get the ruling class of the hook! In fact, to separate out the rape from the rest of the violence inflicted in the course of this war, and, further, to focus on the rape committed by one side I wasn't focusing on the rape from either side: that's a matter of history. I was focusing on the CURRENT insensitivity toward rape among Marxists here and now. That's a tragedy that continues to the present :-( And also: Further, to assert that . somehow the Red Army was made up of barbarians as opposed to the nice, clean British or American troops, surely constitutes a case of unconscious chauvinism. Yes it would. Everyone on this list who has stated that position should be kicked off immediately. - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Call to protest Israeli raids in Bil'in
(See www.bilin-ffj.org) Take action against suppression of Palestinian non-violent resistance in Bil'in At around 3am on Monday morning, a large military force wearing combat paint and masks invaded the West Bank village of Bil'in. Israeli soldiers raided several homes, arresting 2 Palestinian children, 5 Palestinian adults including Mohammad Khatib of the Bil'in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. The home of another member of the Popular Committee was raided, but soldiers could not arrest him because he was not present at home. Also arrested were the three brothers Khaled Shawkat Abd-Alrazic al- Khateeb (age 23), Mustafa Shawkat Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age18), and Mohammed Show gut Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age 16); Abdullah Ahmad Yassen (age 18); Abdullah Mohammed Ali Yassen (age 16); Issa Mahmoud Issa Abu Rahma (age 40); This brings to 19 the number of Bil'iners currently in custody. Monday's raid is another in a series of many that Israeli forces have carried out in Bil'in since 29 June 2009, Israeli forces have arrested 25 people (most are under 18). Israeli forces have been using interrogation techniques to pressure the arrested youth to give statements against Bil'in community leaders. Abdullah Abu Rahme, coordinator of the popular committee stated, Mohmmad Khatib and Adib Abu Rahme along with other leaders of the Palestinian popular struggle are being targeted because the mobilize Palestinians to resist non- violently. The fact is that the Apartheid Wall and the settlements built on Palestinian land are illegal under international law, in the case of our village even the biased Israeli court declared the route illegal. Yet Israel is prosecuting us as criminals because we struggle nonviolently for our freedom. What you can do? Attempts to criminalize the leadership of non-violent protests were curbed in the past with the help of an outpouring of support from people committed to justice from all over the world. 1. Many of you have met Mohammad Khatib and perhaps one of the others mentioned above. We need you now to personally testify about your knowledge of them and their commitment to non-violence. Write a letter to the Israeli military judge and please send to bilinle...@gmail.com. 2. Please Protest by contacting your political representatives, as well as you consuls and ambassadors to Israel to demand the release of Mohammad Khatib, Adib Abu Rahme and all Bil'in prisoners. 3. The Popular committee of Bil'in is in desperate need for legal funds in order to pay legal fees and Bail. Please donate to the Bil'in legal fund by paypal click http://tinyurl.com/lcr6rg . If you would like to make a tax deductible donation in the US or Canada contact: bilinle...@gmail.com. The Bil'in Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements Background: The Palestinian village of Bil'in has become an international symbol of the Palestinian popular struggle. For almost 5 years, its residents have been continuously struggling against the de facto annexation of more then 50% of their farmlands the construction of the apartheid wall on it. In a celebrated decision, the Israeli Supreme court ruled on the 4 September 2007 that the current route of the wall in Bil'in was illegal and needs to be dismantled; the ruling however has not been implemented. The struggle of the village to liberate its lands and stop the illegal settlements has been internationally recognized and has earned the popular committee in Bil'in the Carl von Ossietzky Meda. http://tinyurl.com/nfmsvm On 21 July 2009, a military judge decided to hold Adeeb Abu Rahma, a leading non-violent activist that was arrested from a demonstration against the barrier that took place in Bil'in village on 10 of July (see video at: http://palsolidarity.org/2009/07/7652), until the end of proceedings against him. This could mean months or a year in military prison for Adeeb, who is being charged with incitement to violence and rioting. He is the sole provider for his family of 9 children, wife and mother. One demonstrator, Basem Abu Rahma, was killed at a demonstration as he was attempting to speak with the soldiers. (Video can be seen on http://palsolidarity.org/2009/04/6185) --~--~-~--~~-- --~---~--~~ PLEASE FORWARD THIS UPDATE WIDELY DONATE @ http://palsolidarity.org/donate WEBSITE: http://palsolidarity.org YOUTUBE: http://youtube.com/user/ISMPalestine TWITTER: http://twitter.com/ismpalestine FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Solidarity-Movement/56674479144 Major night invasion in Bil'in 03.08.2009 At 3am, the occupation forces invaded the village of Bil'in. A total of some 200 soldiers with combat paint in their faces and masks entered the village on foot at several points of entry. 5 homes were raided and a total of 8 people were arrested, 7 Palestinians and one international activist from the United States. The arrested Palestinians are: the three brothers Khaled Show gut Abd-Alrazic
Re: [Marxism] Play the End of America game
At 16:45 03/08/09 -0700, you wrote: http://sdn.slate.com/features/endofamerica/default.htm Thanks for posting this! It's almost as much fun as throwing shoes at Bush. But unlike that game where 70% of my shoes were wasted :-( in THIS game I achieved the end of America 100% of the times I played! I must be a really good player!! But the game is still a bit unfair because it only lets you choose 5 disaster scenarios; I'm going to reprogram it so you can select 30 or 40 (y'know, just to make sure the job gets done). Oh don't worry, I'll remove the ones that could also have a negative effect on nearby Cuba (aka collateral damage ;-) - Jeff YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
