[Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
Lincoln mentioned in this Stalinist propaganda CB ^^^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/foner The Nation February 1, 2010 edition *The Professional* By Eric Foner The first year may not be the best way to judge a president. After one year in office, Abraham Lincoln still insisted that slavery would not become a target of the Union war effort, Franklin D. Roosevelt had yet to address the need for social insurance in the wake of the Great Depression and John F. Kennedy viewed the civil rights movement as an annoying distraction. If we admire them today, it is mostly for what happened during the rest of their presidencies. Nonetheless, it is difficult to view Obama's initial year without a feeling of deep disappointment. This arises from more than unrealistic expectations, although his candidacy certainly aroused a great deal of wishful thinking among those yearning for a change after nearly thirty years of Reaganism. Nor does disappointment result from too exacting a standard of judgment. In fact, the bar has arguably been set too low. Too many of us have been willing to fall back on a comparison between Obama and his predecessor, arguably the worst president in American history, and leave it at that. Not surprisingly, given the global economic crisis, numerous observers greeted Obama's election by comparing him to FDR. This was a serious error. Obama is not a New Deal liberal. Rather, his outlook reflects how the preoccupations of liberalism have changed under the impact of the social and political transformations since the 1930s. Obama came of age politically at a time when the decline of the labor movement had eroded one social base of liberalism while new ones were emerging from the upheavals of the 1960s and the changing racial and ethnic composition of the American population. Personally, he embodies the rise to prominence in the Democratic Party of highly educated professionals, including a new black upper middle class that emerged from the struggles of the '60s and subsequent affirmative action programs. He is also closely identified with what might be called the more forward-looking wing of Wall Street, which contributed heavily to his campaign and to which he has entrusted his economic policy. Obama has no evident desire to address the questions that defined New Deal liberalism and remain all too relevant today--economic inequality; mass unemployment; unrestrained corporate power; and the struggle of workers, through unions, to enjoy industrial democracy. Where Obama has been good is on issues that were subordinate themes during the 1930s but have become central to post-World War II liberalism--women's reproductive rights, respect for civil liberties and the rule of law, environmentalism and racial and ethnic diversity, especially in government employment. Obama also embodies a strain of thought alien to the New Deal but associated with the Progressivism of the early twentieth century, the desire to take politics out of the hands of politicians. Like the old Progressives, he seems to believe that the government can move beyond partisan politics to operate in a businesslike manner to promote the public good (despite clear evidence that the other side is not cooperating). As in the Progressive Era, this outlook goes hand in hand with a strong respect for scientific expertise (quite different from George W. Bush's approach). Listing these characteristics of Obama's thinking makes it clear that the president he most resembles is not FDR or Abraham Lincoln, as was frequently suggested before his inauguration, but Jimmy Carter. Like Carter, Obama seems to view economic globalization and American deindustrialization as an inevitable process and to see the role of government as seeking to mitigate their destructive impact. Like Carter, he has gone out of his way to appoint a racially diverse administration. Like Carter, he does not have an industrial policy or a robust jobs-creation program and seems uninterested in addressing the hardships and structural imbalances caused by the decline of manufacturing. Obama's economic program reflects and, indeed, reinforces the long-term shift from manufacturing to finance in the American economy. And his bailout of the banks and insurance mega-company AIG with no strings attached has aroused resentments that should not be ignored, even if they are often couched in extreme and racist language. There is a widespread sense that the rules of the game have been fixed to the advantage of the wealthy and that the government is indifferent to the plight of ordinary Americans. Ironically, for all the blacks appointed to highly visible positions in Washington, the condition of most African-Americans has worsened during Obama's first year. Blacks have suffered disproportionately from the decline of manufacturing employment and mortgage foreclosures. It is unlikely that an avowedly postracial president will directly address their plight. On foreign
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
The Nation February 1, 2010 edition *The Professional* By Eric Foner The first year may not be the best way to judge a president. After one year in office, Abraham Lincoln still insisted that slavery would not become a target of the Union war effort, Franklin D. Roosevelt had yet to address the need for social insurance in the wake of the Great Depression and John F. Kennedy viewed the civil rights movement as an annoying distraction. If we admire them today, it is mostly for what happened during the rest of their presidencies. Well, I'm not among the we who admire them today. My admiration is reserved for the people in the radical movments that _forced_ these men to reluctantly push forward watered-down versions of what was actually needed. FDR's sponsoring Social Security is archetypal here. What led hm to do that? Well there was the agitation for the Townsend Plan, which would have been _real_ retirement program, not the weak imitation that SS is. And the growing poularity of that plan would have been qutie a spur for FDR's Social Security. And that was in a larger context, which first emerged in the Bonus Marchers and the Hoovervilles of the early '30s, and was represented as well by Long's agitation for sharing the wealth. and the growth of the CPUSA of course, though it as a factor was weakened by its popular front subordination to the DP/Dixiecrats. As long as left liberals continue to support Obama there is not a chance of his moving to the left or supporting, even in a shit-eating way, left programs. He IS a conservative; he is NOT meely courting conservative opinion. He supports the Conservative Cause in principle -- he believes in it and will fight for it. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
I admire Lincoln and and Roosevelt On 2/12/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: The Nation February 1, 2010 edition *The Professional* By Eric Foner The first year may not be the best way to judge a president. After one year in office, Abraham Lincoln still insisted that slavery would not become a target of the Union war effort, Franklin D. Roosevelt had yet to address the need for social insurance in the wake of the Great Depression and John F. Kennedy viewed the civil rights movement as an annoying distraction. If we admire them today, it is mostly for what happened during the rest of their presidencies. Well, I'm not among the we who admire them today. My admiration is reserved for the people in the radical movments that _forced_ these men to reluctantly push forward watered-down versions of what was actually needed. FDR's sponsoring Social Security is archetypal here. What led hm to do that? Well there was the agitation for the Townsend Plan, which would have been _real_ retirement program, not the weak imitation that SS is. And the growing poularity of that plan would have been qutie a spur for FDR's Social Security. And that was in a larger context, which first emerged in the Bonus Marchers and the Hoovervilles of the early '30s, and was represented as well by Long's agitation for sharing the wealth. and the growth of the CPUSA of course, though it as a factor was weakened by its popular front subordination to the DP/Dixiecrats. As long as left liberals continue to support Obama there is not a chance of his moving to the left or supporting, even in a shit-eating way, left programs. He IS a conservative; he is NOT meely courting conservative opinion. He supports the Conservative Cause in principle -- he believes in it and will fight for it. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
c b wrote: I admire Lincoln and and Roosevelt There are indeed admirable aspects to Lincoln. But do you admire him more than you admire John Brown and Frederick Douglas? Without them, Lincoln very possibly wouldn't be Lincoln. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
Another factor that is helping to push Obama and the DP to the right, is the possibility, if not the likelihood of a GOP split, with that party splitting between the more traditional conservatives and right-wing populists associated with the tea-partiers. If the GOP splits, much of the party might be absorbed into the DP, leaving what is left of the GOP to the tea party types. It remains to be seen whether the GOP fragments, but clearly the hope of it splitting is helping to propel the Democrats further to the right, not that they have needed much help in that regard. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant -- Original Message -- From: Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marxand the thinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional* Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:08:51 -0600 The Nation February 1, 2010 edition *The Professional* By Eric Foner The first year may not be the best way to judge a president. After one year in office, Abraham Lincoln still insisted that slavery would not become a target of the Union war effort, Franklin D. Roosevelt had yet to address the need for social insurance in the wake of the Great Depression and John F. Kennedy viewed the civil rights movement as an annoying distraction. If we admire them today, it is mostly for what happened during the rest of their presidencies. Well, I'm not among the we who admire them today. My admiration is reserved for the people in the radical movments that _forced_ these men to reluctantly push forward watered-down versions of what was actually needed. FDR's sponsoring Social Security is archetypal here. What led hm to do that? Well there was the agitation for the Townsend Plan, which would have been _real_ retirement program, not the weak imitation that SS is. And the growing poularity of that plan would have been qutie a spur for FDR's Social Security. And that was in a larger context, which first emerged in the Bonus Marchers and the Hoovervilles of the early '30s, and was represented as well by Long's agitation for sharing the wealth. and the growth of the CPUSA of course, though it as a factor was weakened by its popular front subordination to the DP/Dixiecrats. As long as left liberals continue to support Obama there is not a chance of his moving to the left or supporting, even in a shit-eating way, left programs. He IS a conservative; he is NOT meely courting conservative opinion. He supports the Conservative Cause in principle -- he believes in it and will fight for it. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Search Marketing Click for free info on using seach engines to expand your business. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=DbXNJG2hzRwaz0kOjLsbYgAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAARBwA= ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
No , I don't admire him more than John Brown , Frederick Douglass or Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth. Douglass supported Lincoln On 2/12/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: c b wrote: I admire Lincoln and and Roosevelt There are indeed admirable aspects to Lincoln. But do you admire him more than you admire John Brown and Frederick Douglas? Without them, Lincoln very possibly wouldn't be Lincoln. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] *The Professional*
Marx , Engels and Wedemeyer supported Lincoln , too. On 2/12/10, c b cb31...@gmail.com wrote: No , I don't admire him more than John Brown , Frederick Douglass or Harriet Tubman or Sojourner Truth. Douglass supported Lincoln On 2/12/10, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: c b wrote: I admire Lincoln and and Roosevelt There are indeed admirable aspects to Lincoln. But do you admire him more than you admire John Brown and Frederick Douglas? Without them, Lincoln very possibly wouldn't be Lincoln. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] In a Message to Democrats, Wall St. Sends Cash to G.O.P.
In a Message to Democrats, Wall St. Sends Cash to G.O.P. By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK New York Times February 8, 2010 WASHINGTON — If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase. Its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama’s from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago’s Democratic dynasty. But this year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts. The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry’s campaign to thwart Mr. Obama’s proposals for tighter financial regulations. Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash. “If the president doesn’t become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support,” said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BBT. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department. “I understand the public outcry,” he continued. “We have a 17 percent real unemployment rate, people are hurting, and they want to see punishment. But the political rhetoric just incites more animosity and gets people riled up.” A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on its political action committee’s contributions or relations with the Democrats. But many Wall Street lobbyists and executives said they, too, were rethinking their giving. “The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.” Wall Street fund-raisers for the Democrats say they are feeling under attack from all sides. The president is lashing out at their “arrogance and greed.” Republican friends are saying “I told you so.” And contributors are wishing they had their money back. “I am a big fan of the president,” said Thomas R. Nides, a prominent Democrat who is also a Morgan Stanley executive and chairman of a major Wall Street trade group, the Securities and Financial Markets Association. “But even if you are a big fan, when you are the piñata at the party, it doesn’t really feel good.” Roger C. Altman, a former Clinton administration Treasury official who founded the Wall Street boutique Evercore Partners, called the Wall Street backlash against Mr. Obama “a constant topic of conversation.” Many bankers, he said, failed to appreciate the “white hot anger” at Wall Street for the financial crisis. (Mr. Altman said he personally supported “the substance” of the president’s recent proposals, though he questioned their feasibility and declined to comment at all on what he called “the rhetoric.”) Mr. Obama’s fight with Wall Street began last year with his proposals for greater oversight of compensation and a consumer financial protection commission. It escalated with verbal attacks this year on what he called Wall Street’s “obscene bonuses.” And it reached a new level in his calls for policies Wall Street finds even more infuriating: a “financial crisis responsibility” tax aimed only at the biggest banks, and a restriction on “proprietary trading” that banks do with their own money for their own profit. “If the president wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican,” one industry lobbyist said, “he is doing everything right.” Though Wall Street has long been a major source of Democratic campaign money (alongside Hollywood and Silicon Valley), Mr. Obama built unusually direct ties to his contributors there. He is the first president since Richard M. Nixon whose campaign relied solely on private donations, not public financing. Wall Street lobbyists say the financial industry’s big Democratic donors help ensure that their arguments reach the ears of the president and Congress. White House visitors’ logs show dozens of meetings with big Wall Street
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Professional
At first I thought this was going to be a thread about that great 70s UK TV program. But that is The ProfessionalS. Then I recalling yesterday's faculty meeting in which standards, faculty development, etc. were discussed under the uniting idea of 'democratic professionalism'--would that it could heat water for me to make my tea. But digging into the thread where it first intrigued me: JF: Another factor that is helping to push Obama and the DP to the right, is the possibility, if not the likelihood of a GOP split, with that party splitting between the more traditional conservatives and right-wing populists associated with the tea-partiers. Sounds like a conspiracy! Rahmbo and Barrage Obushwa, with input from the usually barely lucid Joe Biden, are conspiring to further those splits and like Moses and Aaron and a golden calf, they will lift their mighty rods and lead the real Republicans into the Democratic promised land. I don't know how to measure that 'possibility', but it seems far more likely that if the stalled economy continues (if industrial output indicators of Germany and Japan are any indication, the double dip is upon us), the real split will come within the Democratic Party. It's already showed in the cracks for the past 10 years. At the grassroots level where it counts most for the Democrats, many of the people active for the party are well left of Barrage Obushwa on wars and military. A pro-war front isn't going to hold the Democratic Party together in terms of its ability to win offices--that is territory almost always conceded to Republicans, as the election in Mass. shows. Much depends on what Dr. Dean is planning to do--or someone who was one of his followers. Of course the only way the wars even become hotly contested issues again will be if the economy goes further down in the ways that real working people (who typically call themselves American middle class) actually experience it (a visual debacle in Helmand might help, but it looks like Gen. McCrushnuts has prepared a spectacle to show us how the Afghan surge is going to work, is working, has worked). I get the sense that the establishment is buying time and, well, drifting. Much is out of their control. For example, it looks like the pro-business oligarchy of post-Deng China have realized that the main reason so many Americans and British financial experts are now in China, is that they brought the global bubbles with them. That could be the next phase of the crisis (making Dubai and Greece look like little ripples). Barrage Obushwa's backers are hoping the economy starts to recover and that Barrage Obushwa in the WH can lead to a 'moral' victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet the real crisis for the establishment will be the sheer utter unsustainability of its 1.2 trillion dollar annual commitment to the 'national security state' within a state (i.e., pretty much what our federal government now consists of). Another crack in the post-crisis consensus recently showed when the major for-profit health insurance providers in the US, being more or less a pricing cartel, decided to increase rates--knowing full well that if any 'health care reform bill' gets passed this year, it will actually add to the federal government's subsidies already going their way. As for the 24-hour-tea-party people, this is mostly a media show. But my sense of them judging from a few people who didn't look like paid actors who actually managed to get in front of a camera, they seem more like the alienated people who didn't manage to get into the zio-fundamentalist movements that so enraptured one important wing of the Republican Party. That is, 'independents'. They want a Ross Perot combined with a Jesse Ventura. I'm not sure there is anything coherent there that wouldn't find its way back into the Republican Party quite easily. So you might see a hotly contested Republican Party for control and leadership, and the question would be could they come up with a figurehead like Reagan to pull all the elements together (Mormons, fundamentalist Christians who agree with Mormons on most things except for their hatred of Mormons, repeat process with Catholics, snakehandlers, poisondrinkers, speakers of tongues, right-wing Jews, right-wing secular Jews, alienated white working men, small business interests, Asians, Asian Indians, etc. etc). At least the overturning in two-party politics for establishemtn support does find an analog in British politics. The establishment there clearly shifted and stayed behind the Labor Party of Blair. You could sense it when you saw defense contractor supplements stapled into the New Statesman. But that establishment, having survived the over-reach of the Bush years (just barely, with Brown taking charge and then becoming the scapegoat) and having undergone considerable consolidation with larger American defense companies, could easily shift back to the Conservative Party. Market players seem to suggest this , with
[Marxism-Thaxis] In a Message to Democrats, Wall St. Sends Cash to G.O.P.
But this year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts. Wow. Like wow. Thirty-thousand dollars! That is a CLEAR message. I would bet the committee chairman spent more on catfood last year (but then again that does show just how much the Republicans are worth). If you can't read the NYT for laughs, well what the f- is it good for? Doesn't it remind you, though, of an investor who bets 60% that a commodity will go up by so much in a given time frame, but then bets 40% that it won't (on borrowed money of course)? Now getting to the real nugget (one some of us already knew but no one is going to listen to us, even though we are legion): Though Wall Street has long been a major source of Democratic campaign money (alongside Hollywood and Silicon Valley), Mr. Obama built unusually direct ties to his contributors there. He is the first president since Richard M. Nixon whose campaign relied solely on private donations, not public financing. And with Rahmbo as the bagman, that means a lot of money. Later in the campaign of course it was also a lot of individual contributions from people who earlier had done this for Dean. Dean's only mistake: he let it out too soon that he wanted a national system of health care and that the US military would have to draw down. Still he stuck around and despite all that criticism from the Emanuels, Bidens, Kerrys etc., he engineered the Democrats back into the White House. Unfortunately, Obama never embraced Dean's relatively moderate reform proposals. But because he was mixed race most of the Democratic grass roots types overlooked that in hopes that he would be pulled left. And he was great for getting out the black vote for the Democrats. On the other hand, there is something to be said for letting it out early just what issues you are standing on. Once you lock yourself in with secret promises to the vested interests in the 'status quo', you usually have no where to turn when you have to make a decision that goes against those interests. That is the case for Barrage Obushwa now. Having sat on the fence and seen both sides to both sides, he has to lead and can't. Even his best speeches are behind him. I can't wait for Gen. McCrushnuts to get back to DC and tell us how it went in Helmand though. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] In a Message to Democrats, Wall St. Sends Cash to G.O.P.
(How they play out in local politics is different. In the US, nationwide, one of the two major parties typically has a lock on county and township politics). Perhaps I should have said 'nominal control', since it is really about well-connected 'salt of the earth' types controlling demarcated areas (this township, that school district, this county) and being aligned with one of the two major brands, Democrat or Republican. They tend to be related and they are into real estate, local banks, courts, school districts, local branches of state and federal government, etc. They have a lock. I would bet that a Republican country hardly ever shifts to the Democrats controlling the country commission, and vice versa. Of course over-representation of the rural areas of the South, the West, and even states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (cow-farming Republicans) skew things for the Republican Party when the big campaigns roll around. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] In a Message to Democrats, Wall St. Sends Cash to G.O.P.
I get typos because of cats walking across my keyboards. I swear, Pongo, the black and white male, even spells / misspells words. And two of his favorite keys are Caps Lock and Num Lock, both of which he has mastered activating. I would bet that a Republican country hardly ever shifts to the Democrats controlling the country commission, and vice versa. That is COUNTY commission. From what I could tell living in Pennsylvania for the first 28 years of my life (except for military service and a couple years at grad. school), nothing ever changes politically in most townships or counties. About the only time voters even 'swing' in an election would the presidential ones. In my area, a lot of people, for example, voted for George Wallace or wrote in names like Oral Roberts and Billy Graham, during periods of 'discontent' with the two parties. But for everything else it is a solid wall of Republican locks on everything that counts. If they weren't mandated from above to create a majority-minority party commission they would put all Republicans on the county commission. It's also interesting that one of the things that makes Republicans popular is ongoing support for milk price fixing and milk production subsidies. The other thing would be defense spending. I would guess if anything the growth of suburbs and exurbs in the south central part of the state made that area even more conservative. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, when their votes are counted, move the state towards the Democrats. The compromise is often a Republican-like Democrat or a Republican-like-Democrat-like Republican. By about that time most overlook what the differences between the parties are. Usually in policy very little. It's more about the brand, the image and who votes for them. -- Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ ELT in Japan http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.blogspot.com/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
