Velousia stats on line
I took the liberty of posting Andy Martin's analysis of the new Velousia Co. numbers that came in after they found more votes in that County. Andy argues that the problems spotted with the Buchanan vote can also be found among other third party candidates. He suggested technical error with the ballot punching system or fraud. You can download it as at .doc at http://home1.get.net/kwalker2/Vote2000/stats.html oh and, for fun, this cracked me up. but then, i'm a little punchy right now! :) http://www.tvdance.com/bush-gore/ kelley Kelley Walker Researcher/Writer Interpact Inc. www.interpactinc.com
The Gore, Berry, Pacifica connection
(posted to the misc.activism.progressive newsgroup by Chris Bille) The following is an excerpt from Alexander Cockburn's irregular column in The Nation (Nov. 13 issue). Like most of his writing it is not posted on the magazine's website in order to ensure enough space for the apoplectic ravings of the likes of Eric Alterman. Consequently, I had to type out the thing by hand. Don't say I never do anything for you people!! "What the fall campaign did most of all was to show up the bankruptcy of people like [Patricia] Ireland [of NOW] and [Carl] Pope [of the national Sierra Club] -- the people who soft-shoed for Clinton and Gore for eight years. The sort of people, come right down to it, who are now trying to fire Pacifica's Amy Goodman. Yes, Mary Frances Berry, consultant to the Pacifica board, was a prominent presence at an October 24 gig organized by People for the American Way, presided over by Bill Clinton, and designed to scare progressives back to Gore. "Of course they want to fire Amy Goodman! She puts on the best show on public radio, doesn't she? The liberals [sic] who run Pacifica would much rather have manageable mediocrity than Democracy Now! There's nothing so irksome as success not achieved on their terms, under their rules and their rubrics. Amy has edge. She doesn't take "guidance." She's a loose cannon. She brought Ralph Nader onto the floor of the Republican convention in Philadelphia. She's not Tweety Bird or Terry Gross. So she has to go! "How is the Pacifica directorate trying to dump the most popular voice on the network? Easy. Choke the woman with bureaucracy. Demand that she file broadcasting flight plans a week ahead. Insist that she get prior approval for all her speaking gigs. Put it about that Pacifica needs "new voices," a bigger share of the yuppo audience. Murmur not so softly that Amy is old hat, is not really and truly part of the big Pacifica Picture. "It's a control thing. There's nothing on this earth liberals hate more than radicals straying outside the reservation. Let's stray. Onward!" Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
[Fwd: [BRC-ANN] Quote of the Day: Howie Hawkins]
Original Message Subject: [BRC-ANN] Quote of the Day: Howie Hawkins Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 03:57:56 -0500 From: Art McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some people in the Greens have been arguing recently that GPUSA puts too much emphasis on "identity politics," meaning feminism, anti-racism, and gay liberation. These people want an anti-corporate populism that avoids the social issues like Perot's Reform Party. Nader's approach in the campaign is held up as the model: attack the common enemy, the corporations, but avoid the "divisive" questions of abortion, immigration, affirmative action, and gay rights. This view advocates a "middle-of-road populism:" attack the corporations but avoid both the reactionary social positions of a conservative populist like Pat Buchanan and the progressive social positions of a liberal populist like Jesse Jackson. "Middle-of-the-road populism" is strategic suicide, not to mention moral bankruptcy. I think Nader lost a lot of votes by his reticence to address these so-called "wedge issues." If you stand in the middle of the road, you get hit from both sides. You don't get support from either side. Robert and Pamela Allen's Reluctant Reformers: Racism and Social Reform Movements in the United States (Washington: Howard University Press, 1976) should be required reading for every activist. It documents the sorry story of how progressive movements in America -- abolitionists, suffragists, populists, socialists, labor -- have repeatedly undermined themselves by compromising with racism in order to build a broader white base. Racism divides whether it is fought openly or subordinated to "higher" priorities -- and will always divide and weaken our movements until we uproot and eradicate it. Linking issues and constituencies builds bridges, not walls. We need a "rainbow populism" that advances the anti-corporate material interests of the popular classes, the anti-oppression interests of women, people of color, and gays, and the general human survival interests in peace and a sustainable environment -- without privileging or subordinating any of these interests. --Howie Hawkins "The Greens After the Nader Campaign" Synthesis/Regeneration 12 Winter 1997 http://www.greens.org/s-r/12/12-07.html -30- [IMPORTANT NOTE: The views and opinions expressed on this list are solely those of the authors and/or organizations, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official political positions of the Black Radical Congress (BRC). Official BRC statements, position papers, press releases, action alerts, and announcements are distributed exclusively via the BRC-PRESS list. As a subscriber to this list, you have been added to the BRC-PRESS list automatically.] -- BRC-ANNOUNCE: Black Radical Congress - General Announcements/Alerts -- Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe%20brc-announce -- Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20brc-announce -- Digest: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20brc-announce-digest -- Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=brc-announce -- Archive1: http://www.mail-archive.com/brc-announce@lists.tao.ca -- Archive2: http://www.egroups.com/messages/brc-announce -- Archive3: http://archive.tao.ca -- Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- www.blackradicalcongress.org | BRC | [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Nathan: The continual evasion by Nader and other Green supporters for the results of their leadership and actions is incredibly distressing on that point. Nathan, do all voters to the left of Calvin Coolidge belong to you Democrats by devine right or something/ How dare you assume that anyone for any reason *owes* you a vote. Geez! It is absolutely bizarre that a loser should whine about those who hate him not voting for him. How dare you say that I should vote for a war criminal just to please your dainty political palate. The incredible arrogance of it all. Incredible stress does not begin to pay the proper penalty for such arrogance. I'm going to spend my leisure moments for the next four years chortling about how the Democrats think that we *owe* them a vote withour their lifting a finger to earn it. It's going to be a lovely four years. Where in the Constitution does it say that any American *owes* a vote to anyone? Gee Whiz! Carrol I far prefer Carroll forthright joy in undercutting Gore -- at least that is taking responsibility that others can evaluate and decide is either worthwhile or worth rejecting. I'd rather see Gore supporters taking responsibility for scaring a good number of potential Third Party supporters into wasting their votes on the loser. Yoshie
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. We don't register our suceess by our influence on the DLC. What matters is a popular movement. Whether that happens only after the election will show. Btw, if we are so deluded, why do you hang out with us, rather than with your sane liberal friends? And stop blaming Nader for your guy's inadequacies. If he loses, _he_ blew a near-sure thing. Don't look to us, we do not share his values and priorities, to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. --jks From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4158] Re: Stop the name calling Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:45:46 -0800 Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied? As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. And in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing candidate, with important differences over the next four years for the Supreme Court... the EPA... the EITC... the size of government... the likelihood of Medicare expansion... Medicaid funding... and a host of others. This the left has sacrificed significantly as far as what policies are going to be over the next four years by throwing the election to Bush. And for what? To convince everyone in America that the left is weak. The DLC today is stronger than it was a week ago. What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Origin of 5%
when was the 5% eligibility rule enacted? i looked around for a while but quickly got weary of all the sites about third parties, etc. none of them seemed to have a discussion of the date/origin of the rule. curiously and too lazy to look it up myself, kell
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
. . . What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? Brad DeLong Since politics is about what people think, to a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s) coalescing behind Nader have improved definition -- as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it does not detract from the general forward movement. The definition includes a helpful sorting out. For instance, I used to think well of Todd Gitlin. Now I think he's a dork. That's progress. The Nader petition I signed is not a bad start for a new political formation, even if it doesn't include the greens. In the beginning was the Word. mbs
Re: Re: economists
We, at Buffalo State College would be delighted to hire two (2) "seriously left of center economists" so PLEASE SEND CANDIDATES OUR WAY ASAP The following add will be in the Dec. JOE Job Openings for Economists BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE (State University of New York) Buffalo, New York C0 Econometrics E0 Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics F3 International Finance G0 Financial Economics AF Fields Open The Department of Economics Finance seeks to fill two tenure-track positions at the assistant professor level beginning Fall, 2001. Both positions carry a teaching load of three courses per semester at the undergraduate and/or Masters level. We are a dynamic, congenial and diverse department at a primarily undergraduate college of 12,000 students located on an attractive campus in Buffalo, NY. The Department offers a BS program with financial and policy tracks, a BA program, and a new MA program. The "financial economics" position will have primary teaching responsibilities that include undergraduate and graduate courses in areas like investment management, international finance and corporate finance with secondary teaching responsibilities in monetary theory and institutions. Applicants for this position must have a Ph.D. in Economics or Finance completed by the time of appointment, with at least one field of concentration in financial economics or a closely related sub-field of economics.. The "macroeconomics," position will have primary teaching responsibilities that include undergraduate and graduate courses in areas of macroeconomics and econometrics with secondary teaching fields open. Applicants for this position must have a Ph.D. in Economics at the time of appointment, with a strong background in macroeconomics and econometrics. The Department encourages applications from women, racial/ethnic, persons with disabilities and Vietnam Era veterans. Please send a letter of application, including a description of teaching and research interests, a curriculum vita and graduate transcripts by December 15, 2000. The Department plans to interview at the January 2001 ASSA meetings. Please address applications either to the "Finance Search Committee" or the "Macroeconomics Search Committee," CONTACT: Douglas Koritz, Chair, Department of Economics Finance, Buffalo State College, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14222. www.buffalostate.edu/~eco "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Doug, You would probably have to go back to the 1970s. I am thinking of Yale's hiring of David Levine. But then he did not get tenure. Don't know of any since him at a "major department," although that may depend on how you define "major." There are a handful of Ph.D. granting econ depts. that are heterodox left radical, a list of usual suspects that has been cited here before: New School, U-Mass Amherst, U. of Utah, American U., U-Cal Riverside, although several of these are not hiring left rads anymore either. So, in general the job market for lefties is generally various kinds of places that emphasize undergrad teaching, definitely not "major" departments. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 12:59 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4102] economists When's the last time a major U.S. economics department hired a seriously left-of-center economist? Where in general do younger left economists find employment (if at all)? Doug begin:vcard n:Koritz;Douglas x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Buffalo State College adr:;;1300 Elmwood Avenue;Buffalo;New York;14222-1095;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Chair, Department of Economics Finance tel;fax:(716) 878-4009 tel;work:(716) 878-6640 note:Resurgent City Center for Cooperative Community Development x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Douglas Koritz end:vcard
Re: The unique English peasantry.
The important question we need to ask, then, is whether England had a "unique" group of peasant holders. A full answer to this question would require a comparative study of the world peasantries. But we have enough research on the peasantries of England and France to say that: 1) through the medieval period there were regions in England - counties in the east and southeast - where a "freeholding" peasantry prevailed, a peasantry whose fields were "enclosed", held under private property rights, including exclusive rights of use, that is, fields which enjoyed weaker manorial rule and less customary regulations; 2) these fields were already consolidating farms after 1350, by leasing land from the lord's demesne and through a process known as "engrossing"; 3) these farmers obtained higher yields per seed through extensive use of leguminous plants and complex crop rotations; and 4) later became the tenants (leaseholders) of the large enclosed estates. 5) some copyholders also managed to engross additional parcels of land, and had a lot more security of tenure against enclosing landlords than previously argued, with Parliament many times intervening in their favor against landowners. Meanwhile, in France, to quote Croot and Parker "the real crime of the French Monarchy was *not* that it bolstered peasant ownership but that (together with the church, seigneurs and landowners) it depressed it so brutally. The consequence was that the countryside lost its most dynamic force - a class of truly independent peasants" - despite all their talk about the "independent" farmers of France, Brenner and Wood have yet to respond to this argument. These conclusions are in line with the arguments of the international socialist R. H. Hilton - so I am a real Marxist afterall!
Re: PEN-L digest 813
To whomever sent the attachments (Max?): They always come out as a huge block of gibberish. Please just say that you have the files, and will sned them by e-mail off-list. Frankly, there's far too much over-quoting and posting of full articles and over-quoting the previous message's over-quotation as it is. Barry
Re: Re: Perfecting the one-party system, and antidotes
Burford: So why did Bush win Florida by a whisker only after pledging support for 25% of the medicines bill of seniors. Although the major media has focused on Nader's "spoiler" role and confusing ballots in West Palm Beach, the real story seems to be black disenfranchisement. The racists in both parties have worked to produce a prison industrial system that truly reflects capitalism in the USA today rather than slippery, disingenuous bullshit about a "Third Way". === Harsh lessons How the drug war cost Al Gore African-American votes in Florida. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Bruce Shapiro Nov. 9, 2000 | As I write, it is less than 24 hours after Vice President Al Gore did something new in two centuries of presidential elections: He un-conceded. Twelve hours have brought no clarity to the outcome. Gore remains marginally ahead in the national popular vote. Gov. George W. Bush maintains a lead of fewer than 1,750 votes in Florida, upon which rest the outcome of the Electoral College. Hours ago, the Florida secretary of state released the results of recounts in 19 of the state's 67 counties. The result: Gore gains 238 votes; Bush 205. It is too soon -- perhaps days too soon -- to predict where this is going, the final tally of votes reallocated from error or struck for fraud, the overseas absentees. But it is not too soon to say that the electoral gridlock of the last 24 hours is a clear prophecy of more tumult to come. A country that is supposed to be fat and prosperous and complacent suddenly appears to be hunkering down for months of rancorous contention, regardless of who wins the Florida recount. The Senate is now evenly divided, and Republicans retained (but saw narrowed) their control of the House. Gore and Bush electoral victories are so sharply apportioned between Democratic coastal and industrial states and a Republican heartland that the charts broadcast Tuesday night by every television screen resembled a Civil War territorial map. Under such pressures, what are normally marginal notes to the political process -- the Ralph Nader vote, the routine precinct-level voter fraud surfacing in Florida -- suddenly take on outsized resonance. And the fate of a single senator -- whether dying Strom Thurmond or already dead Sen.-elect Mel Carnahan -- will fundamentally change the dynamic of Washington. (Which is why there is undoubtedly a special place in Democratic hell awaiting Joe Lieberman, who insisted on running for reelection to his Connecticut Senate seat. On the campaign trail Lieberman sang "I did it my way," but his real motto was "Looking out for No. 1." Should Gore win, Lieberman's replacement gets named by a Republican governor -- and that Republican replacement will bestow a Republican majority, shifting the political calculus on everything from budgets to Supreme Court nominations.) How did Florida end up the epicenter of such an extraordinary political earthquake? It's easy enough to point to "the Nader factor," which already has liberals devouring each other alive in a feast of rage. But for the sake of their long-term prospects, Democrats might choose to look in a more productive direction: Florida's extraordinarily high rate of so-called "felony disenfranchisement" -- the lifelong barring of ex-offenders from voting. More than one-third of Florida's adult African-American males were legally prevented from participating in this week's election because of past contact with the state's criminal justice system. And one-third of the male members of an African-American community is a total utterly central to Gore's success. The irony, of course, is that Gore has been a prime mover of harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent drug offenders. So is his chief Florida patron and vote-tally advisor, Attorney General Bob Butterworth, who was elected to office in 1988 by promising that the Sunshine State could "build the way" out of crime with harsher sentences and more prisons. Now Gore and Butterworth are fighting to maintain the narrowest of margins, in which the votes of those ex-offenders and recovered drug abusers could have been part of a plurality which would have made Nader's low-single-digits returns dwindle into historic insignificance. Full story at: http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/09/nation/index.html Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Stop the name calling
It is interesting how narcissistic this list has become -- totally focussed on the US and the selection of its imperial majesty. Now I realize how important American domestic politics is for the rest of the world -- since domestic politics in the US can result in thousands of deaths of innocents around the world. But does this mean we should lament the loss of Gore (adequately named?) since the Democrats have been the leading force of American Imperialism in this century? Perhaps those of us outside the US would rather see American capital beat up American workers rather than combine to beat up workers in the rest of the world. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Alex Cockburn on the elections
November 9, 2000 Nader and the Virtues of Gridlock Election 2000: The Best of All Possible Worlds by Alexander Cockburn So it all came out right in the end: gridlock on the Hill and Nader blamed for sabotaging Al Gore. First a word about gridlock. We like it. No bold initiatives, like privatizing Social Security or shoving through vouchers. No ultra-right-wingers making it onto the Supreme Court. Ah, you protest, but what about the bold plans that a Democratic-controlled Congress and Gore would have pushed through? Relax. There were no such plans. These days gridlock is the best we can hope for. Now for blaming Nader. Fine by us if all that people look at are those 97,000 Green votes for Ralph in Florida. That's good news in itself. Who would have thought the Sunshine State had that many progressives in it, with steel in their spine and the spunk to throw Eric Alterman's columns for The Nation into the trashcan? And they had plenty of reason to dump Gore. What were the big issues for Greens in Florida? The Everglades. Back in 1993 the hope was that Clinton/Gore would push through a cleanup bill to prevent toxic runoff from the sugar plantations south of Lake Okeechobee from destroying the swamp that covers much of south-central Florida. Such hopes foundered on a "win-win" solution brokered by sugar barons and the real estate industry. Clinton signed off on it , in a conversation with Alfonso Fanjul overheard by Monica Lewinsky as her the commander in chief deferentially accepted his marching orders. Another issue prompted some of those 97,000 to defiantly vote for Nader: the Homestead Air Force Base, which sits between Biscayne National Park and the Everglades. The old Air Force base had been scheduled for shutdown, but then Cuban-American real estate interests concocted a scheme to turn the base into a commercial airport. Despite repeated pleas from biologists inside the Interior Department as well as from Florida's Greens, Gore refused to intervene, cowed by the Canosa family, which represented the big money behind the airport's boosters. Just to make sure there would be no significant Green defections back to the Democratic standard, Joe Lieberman made a last-minute pilgrimage to the grave of Jorge Mas Canosa, once the godfather of the sinister Cuban-American National Foundation.. You want one final reason for the Nader voter in Florida? Try the death penalty, for which Gore issued strident support in that final debate. Florida runs third, after Texas and Virginia as a killing machine, and for many progressives in the state it's an issue of principle. Incidentally, about half a million ex-felons, sentences and probation fully served, are disenfranchised permanently in Florida. A crucial number of these would have voted for Gore the crime fighter and supporter of the War on Drugs. Other reasons many Greens nationally refused to knuckle under and sneak back to the Gore column? You want an explanation of why he lost Ohio by four points and New Hampshire by one? Try the WTI hazardous-waste incinerator (world's largest) in East Liverpool, Ohio. Gore promised voters in 1992 that a Democratic administration would kill it. It was a double lie. First, Carol Browner's EPA almost immediately gave the incinerator a permit. When confronted on his broken pledge, Gore said the decision had been pre-empted by the outgoing Bush crowd. This too was a lie, as voters in Ohio discovered a week before Election 2000. William Reilly, Bush's EPA chief, finally testified this fall that Gore's environmental aide Katie McGinty told him in the 1992 transition period that "it was the wishes of the new incoming administration to get the trial-burn permit granted. The Vice President?elect would be grateful if I simply made that decision before leaving office." Don't think this was a picayune issue with no larger consequences. Citizens of East Liverpool, notably Terry Swearingen, have been campaigning across the country on this scandal for years, haunting Gore. So too, to its credit, has Greenpeace. They were particularly active in the Northeast, during Gore's primary battles with Bill Bradley. You can certainly argue that the last-minute disclosure of Gore's WTI lies prompted enough Greens to stay firm and cost him New Hampshire, a state which, with Oregon, would have given Gore the necessary 270 votes. And why didn't Gore easily sweep Oregon? A good chunk of the people on the streets of Seattle last November come from Oregon. They care about NAFTA, the WTO and the ancient forests that Gore has been pledging to save since 1992. The spotted owl is now scheduled to go extinct on the Olympic Peninsula within the next decade. Another huge environmental issue in Oregon has been the fate of the salmon runs, wrecked by the Snake River dams. Gore thought he'd finessed that one by pretending that unlike Bush, he would leave the decision to the scientists. Then, a week before the election, Gore's team of scientists released a
Globalization - What Is This Monster ...
Globalization-What Is This Monster ... I have tried to write an introduction to globalization that makes the most crucial basic points. I hope PEN-Lers will read it at http://www.LaborRepublic.org/Essay44.htm and post their criticisms. It's something to get away from the election results, although eventually the two topics cross paths again. Regards, Charles Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: The U.S. Import Price Index fell 0.5 percent in October. The decrease was attributable to a decline in petroleum import prices. The Export Price Index declined 0.1 percent in October. ... The number of working women between the ages of 18 and 62 enrolled in a pension or retirement plan with their current employer increased from 43 percent to 45 percent between 1989 and 1998, while the number of men in the same age group enrolled in retirement plans dropped from 53 percent to 52 percent, evidencing a narrowing of the "pension gender gap," according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute. Its study, "Women and Pensions: A Decade of Progress?," is based on the Federal Reserve's 1989 and 1998 survey of consumer finances. Authors Vickie L. Bajtelsmit and Nancy A. Jianakoplos, both EBRI fellows, found that 41 percent of families were covered by a pension plan in 1998 -- a rate that has been "gradually improving over time." ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-4). Uneven state standards cause serious gaps in child care in the U.S., says Sue Shellenbarger in The Wall Street Journal's "Work Family" feature (page B1). ... Gaping differences state-by-state in price, quality, and availability of child care often exceed the regional contrasts found in schools, universities, and medical care. ... Families in the U.S. have never been more susceptible to child-care risk. ... For the first time, both parents are working in a majority of married couple families. Also, the number of children in non-relative care, mainly outside their own homes, rose to 54 percent in 1995 from 51 percent in 1985. The trend is driven not only by mothers working, but also by families seeking social and educational experiences for preschoolers. ... For the first time in more than a decade, single mothers are more likely than married mothers to be employed, new government statistics show. ... Even more remarkable, economists say, is the increase in work among single mothers who have never been married. In 1993, 44 percent of them were employed. The figure shot up to 65 percent last year. ... The new numbers are from the Labor Department and the Census Bureau. ... Economists give several reasons for the increase in work among single mothers. The strong economy has created millions of jobs and improved the quality of low-wage jobs. Welfare recipients are now required to work under federal and state welfare laws, and states have sharply increased spending on child care. The federal government and the states have adopted policies of "make work pay," in a phrase used by proponents of such policies. As a result, many single mothers find they are financially better off if they take a job outside the home. Work has also become more attractive because of increases in the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit. ... Last year, the proportion of single mothers with jobs reached 71.5 percent, exceeding the 68 percent for married mothers. The figure for single mothers also exceeded that for married mothers in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but, in those years, married women were less likely to work outside the home. ... (New York Times, Nov. 5, page A22). The average starting salary for recent college graduates climbed in October to $37,268, up 2.3 percent from the same period last year, Internet job-listing service Jobtrak.com reports. The Los Angeles-based service, which is marketed to college career centers, says the total number of job openings for recent college graduates is up 3.9 percent since October 1999. ... The largest increase in the number of job openings for entry-level workers' jobs was in the education sector, which saw demand for teachers rise 39.4 percent above last year's levels. Salaries in the education sector were flat, however. Demand for college graduates in engineering jobs also was strong with the number of posted job openings growing 31.4 percent from last year. The average starting salary for engineers rose 3.9 percent. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-3). With unemployment at a 40-year low, why are blue-collar workers feeling so insecure? The answer, a recent Cornell University study asserts, has to do with globalization. The report, published in September, concluded that, even in good times, a significant number of employers use the threat of shutting down and moving offshore to prevent workers from organizing, says Kate L. Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell. ... Using survey information and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the researcher said that employers facing a unionization movement typically rely on a combination of intimidation, bribes, and surveillance to aggressively oppose the efforts. ... (Business Week, Nov. 13, page 42D). The Association for Manufacturing Technology contends that much of the value of productivity gains come from improved quality and
RE: Stop the name calling
From: Michael Perelman:
How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going
relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept
rival?
---
i guess this is a rhetorical question, but i'll bite anyway.
Big Al showed the masses watching TV that he is conceited ("look ma, captain
of the debate team") and devious (stretching the truth, etc.).
the masses might not have a sophisticated education, but their intuition is
good enough to smell a skunk.
norm
Re: Alex Cockburn on the elections
Only one problem with this one is the claim that Gore lost Ohio because of being insufficiently environmentalist. Yes, the toxic waste dump is a big deal in that neighborhood. But, nobody should forget that Reagan won votes in 1980 by standing in front of a steel mill in Youngstown and blaming it on the EPA. A lot of Ohio industry is tied to the auto industry. This is like how Gore's environmental views are viewed in West Virginia. Not favorably. Also, I don't remember Gore "stridently" defending the death penalty. I remember him doing so very perfunctorily, "I support it," and nothing more. I think he knows better, but is constrained by the memory of Dukakis going down partly because of his opposition to the death penalty. Of course, Bush is the biggest executor in the country, and has reportedly mocked some who were making appeals to him. Gag. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:26 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4177] Alex Cockburn on the elections November 9, 2000 Nader and the Virtues of Gridlock Election 2000: The Best of All Possible Worlds by Alexander Cockburn So it all came out right in the end: gridlock on the Hill and Nader blamed for sabotaging Al Gore. First a word about gridlock. We like it. No bold initiatives, like privatizing Social Security or shoving through vouchers. No ultra-right-wingers making it onto the Supreme Court. Ah, you protest, but what about the bold plans that a Democratic-controlled Congress and Gore would have pushed through? Relax. There were no such plans. These days gridlock is the best we can hope for. Now for blaming Nader. Fine by us if all that people look at are those 97,000 Green votes for Ralph in Florida. That's good news in itself. Who would have thought the Sunshine State had that many progressives in it, with steel in their spine and the spunk to throw Eric Alterman's columns for The Nation into the trashcan? And they had plenty of reason to dump Gore. What were the big issues for Greens in Florida? The Everglades. Back in 1993 the hope was that Clinton/Gore would push through a cleanup bill to prevent toxic runoff from the sugar plantations south of Lake Okeechobee from destroying the swamp that covers much of south-central Florida. Such hopes foundered on a "win-win" solution brokered by sugar barons and the real estate industry. Clinton signed off on it , in a conversation with Alfonso Fanjul overheard by Monica Lewinsky as her the commander in chief deferentially accepted his marching orders. Another issue prompted some of those 97,000 to defiantly vote for Nader: the Homestead Air Force Base, which sits between Biscayne National Park and the Everglades. The old Air Force base had been scheduled for shutdown, but then Cuban-American real estate interests concocted a scheme to turn the base into a commercial airport. Despite repeated pleas from biologists inside the Interior Department as well as from Florida's Greens, Gore refused to intervene, cowed by the Canosa family, which represented the big money behind the airport's boosters. Just to make sure there would be no significant Green defections back to the Democratic standard, Joe Lieberman made a last-minute pilgrimage to the grave of Jorge Mas Canosa, once the godfather of the sinister Cuban-American National Foundation.. You want one final reason for the Nader voter in Florida? Try the death penalty, for which Gore issued strident support in that final debate. Florida runs third, after Texas and Virginia as a killing machine, and for many progressives in the state it's an issue of principle. Incidentally, about half a million ex-felons, sentences and probation fully served, are disenfranchised permanently in Florida. A crucial number of these would have voted for Gore the crime fighter and supporter of the War on Drugs. Other reasons many Greens nationally refused to knuckle under and sneak back to the Gore column? You want an explanation of why he lost Ohio by four points and New Hampshire by one? Try the WTI hazardous-waste incinerator (world's largest) in East Liverpool, Ohio. Gore promised voters in 1992 that a Democratic administration would kill it. It was a double lie. First, Carol Browner's EPA almost immediately gave the incinerator a permit. When confronted on his broken pledge, Gore said the decision had been pre-empted by the outgoing Bush crowd. This too was a lie, as voters in Ohio discovered a week before Election 2000. William Reilly, Bush's EPA chief, finally testified this fall that Gore's environmental aide Katie McGinty told him in the 1992 transition period that "it was the wishes of the new incoming administration to get the trial-burn permit granted. The Vice President?elect would be grateful if I simply made that decision before leaving office." Don't think this was a picayune issue with no larger consequences. Citizens of East
Re: CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING INEQUALITY AT MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO
What sort of inequality at the Marxist School of Sacramento is he talking about? Gender or race imbalance among faculty? Isn't it time for action and not talk. Marxist schools should set a good example :) Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Seth Sandronsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 7:43 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4146] CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING INEQUALITY AT MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO November 8, 2000 For more information: News Release Call John Rowntree (916)446-1758 CHARLES ANDREWS TO TALK ABOUT ENDING 30 YEARS OF INEQUALITY AT THE MARXIST SCHOOL OF SACRAMENTO Charles Andrews, a Bay Area activist and the author of two books, will deliver a talk titled "Thirty Years of Inequality: How Can We End It?" on Thursday, November 16, at 7 p.m. in the Green Room, Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th Street, Sacramento. Andrews' talk continues the Point of View, Challenging Perspectives on Current Issues, a speaker series sponsored by The Marxist School of Sacramento. Andrews will focus on the growing economic inequality during these so-called "boom" times in America. "Compared to 1973, most families today work more hours for lower real wages while the rich keep getting richer," says Andrews. "Our struggle for progress and justice must face this situation." Andrews will also consider what people need to understand and do in this context. His insights draw on Marxist economic theory to suggest new directions for challenging capitalism today. There will be a question-and-answer period after Andrews' talk. This event is free and open to the public. Donations are welcome. For more information call John Rowntree at (916) 446-1758. ### _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Alex Cockburn on the elections
A. Cockburn wrote: As for Nader holding the country to ransom, what's wrong with a hostage taker with a national backing of 2.7 million people? The election came alive because of Nader. Let's hope he and the Greens keep it up through the next four years. Not one vote for Nader, Mr. Alterman? He got them where it counted, and now the Democrats are going to have to deal with it. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org The fact is, the Dems keep holding us to ransom, reminding us of the supreme court judges etc. I'm glad some of us (too bad it wasn't 5% of us) were able to see it for the flimsy bluff it is. Joanna
Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?
If the aim is to replace the two great evils, how can voting for the lesser be regarded as positive even if in some ways it does make things better? Voting for one of the two great evils is what gives them power and credibility.The lesser evil is to forego minimal reforms to build up a third party or forces that reject the two party system. There is no shame in being responsible for this. To do this will often mean electing the greater ot the two great evils. How could it be otherwise if you reject the two-party farce that many leftist US intellectuals support in the name of pragmatism realism? Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. Of course getting beyond the two parties is just a necessary not a sufficient condition of progress. In Canada we have several parties with little significant differences now, including the NDP (social democrats). - Original Message - From: Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:55 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4150] Re: Nader 3? Blaming who? - Original Message - From: "Jim Devine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not enough that the two-party machine has all the money at its disposal and all the press and media, too. It still needs courageous volunteers to ram its message home. These unctuous surrogates seek to persuade us that, though we have no power, we can and should be held responsible." [the NATION, November 6, 2000, p. 9] The idea that "we have no power" and thus no responsibility is what is wrong with much of the rhetoric around the whole third party movement. Of course we have power, even if we are divided and often fail to use the power we have effectively. "We" are potentially the vast majority of the population who would benefit from a more just and equal society and that gives us all the potential power we need. But the failure to wield the power the existing left has effectively does nothing to encourage the much greater majority we seek to see that left as effective leadership for uniting for that social change. Part of assuming leadership is assuming responsibility, for people will only follow leadership over the long term when they believe that power entrusted will be used responsibly. The continual evasion by Nader and other Green supporters for the results of their leadership and actions is incredibly distressing on that point. I far prefer Carroll forthright joy in undercutting Gore-- at least that is taking responsibility that others can evaluate and decide is either worthwhile or worth rejecting. The idea that a result, throwing the election to Bush, which was continually predicted by Nader opponents, is some kind of random event for which Naderites have no responsibility is ridiculous. Similarly, when Dem supporters promote Gore, they have to take responsibility for the sell-outs and betrayals that inevitably flow from that strategy. But we have power collectively and to argue otherwise is to argue that there is no hope of defeating capital's power. So why bother arguing about strategy at all? Nader and his supporters had the power to throw the election to Bush. That is very real power. I have frankly urged that since the Greens have exercised that power, they should now take advantage of it to promote a radical change in the electoral college in favor of ranked voting or instant runoffs. Failure to followup on that exercise of power is completely irresponsible and will show the bankruptcy of Green and Nader leadership. And protestations of lack of power is hardly an attractive rallying cry for attracting more support. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
The US has had no effective change of goverment in 41 years. Capital has ruled throughout. There may have been some reforms favorable to the working class but the result is a health care system that is far less equitable than Cuba's and a record of mostly reactionary wars and covert action: Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, Grenada, Yugoslavia, etc.etc. that make Cuban foreign intervention (eg.Angola) look saintly. After 41 years and all those changes of government income inequality is greater, the country has one of the worst social safety nets of any advanced capitalist country, and greater income inequality than ever. Whatever the privileges of Castro and his buddies it is as nothing compared to the inequality in the US. But then the GDP is doing well and this rising tide lifts all boats right! I thought the cake and the crumbs going to the poor was a more accurate analogy. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4155] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. "The United States, such a vocal advocate of multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most perfect one-party system in the world. Over 50% of the people in that 'democratic country' do not even cast a vote, and the team that manages to raise the most funds often wins with the votes of only 25% of the electorate. The political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal ambition or by interests groups operating within the established economic and social model and there is no alternative for a change in the system." - From Fidel Castro's interview with Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former Director General of UNESCO, published in Granma International, June 23, 2000. So clearly it is far better to have *no* change of government for 41 years? What silliness... Brad DeLong
Re: Stop the name calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is interesting how narcissistic this list has become -- totally focussed on the US and the selection of its imperial majesty. Now I realize how important American domestic politics is for the rest of the world -- since domestic politics in the US can result in thousands of deaths of innocents around the world. But does this mean we should lament the loss of Gore (adequately named?) since the Democrats have been the leading force of American Imperialism in this century? Perhaps those of us outside the US would rather see American capital beat up American workers rather than combine to beat up workers in the rest of the world. Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug
RE: Re: Re: Re: Castro on US elections.
i can't buy the arguments below. OK, health care is worse than in W.Europe and some don't have it at all in the US, but it's far better for most US citizens than just about anywhere else. US has no EFFECTIVE change in govt in 41 years, but Cuba has NONE whatsoever in that time span. so it's Leftist interventions vs. Rightist interventions. not much to brag about on either side, right? right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. ok, 50% of US voters don't care to vote. in Cuba, no one's vote matters since the result is the same govt. anyway. The political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal ambition or by interests groups operating within the established economic and social model and there is no alternative for a change in the system." of course, these bourgeois human frailties would never occur in the worker's paradise. are things so bad on the Left that it has only Milo and Fidel to idolize? norm -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4185] Re: Re: Re: Castro on US elections. The US has had no effective change of goverment in 41 years. Capital has ruled throughout. There may have been some reforms favorable to the working class but the result is a health care system that is far less equitable than Cuba's and a record of mostly reactionary wars and covert action: Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Nicaragua, Grenada, Yugoslavia, etc.etc. that make Cuban foreign intervention (eg.Angola) look saintly. After 41 years and all those changes of government income inequality is greater, the country has one of the worst social safety nets of any advanced capitalist country, and greater income inequality than ever. Whatever the privileges of Castro and his buddies it is as nothing compared to the inequality in the US. But then the GDP is doing well and this rising tide lifts all boats right! I thought the cake and the crumbs going to the poor was a more accurate analogy. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4155] Re: Re: Castro on US elections. "The United States, such a vocal advocate of multi-party systems, has two parties that are so perfectly similar in their methods, objectives and goals that they have practically created the most perfect one-party system in the world. Over 50% of the people in that 'democratic country' do not even cast a vote, and the team that manages to raise the most funds often wins with the votes of only 25% of the electorate. The political system is undermined by disputes, vanity and personal ambition or by interests groups operating within the established economic and social model and there is no alternative for a change in the system." - From Fidel Castro's interview with Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former Director General of UNESCO, published in Granma International, June 23, 2000. So clearly it is far better to have *no* change of government for 41 years? What silliness... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied? As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. actually, i've been meaning to ask about this 3%. when was the 5% rule enacted? I haven't look terribly hard, but how much bigger than normal was turnout? if it was substantially bigger, then the 3% isn't bad and may actually have been pretty respectable were this a "normal" 50% turnout of the eligible to vote population. Good point...
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression, rather than an attempt to make the world a better place? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLThe political naivete of people who think that the White House is some kind of dictatorial center of power continues to astonish me. BDLAnd in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing candidate, with important differences over the next four years for the Supreme Court... the EPA... the EITC... the size of government... the likelihood of Medicare expansion... Medicaid funding... and a host of others. BDLThe DLC today is stronger than it was a week ago. ** Substitute more arrogant for stronger in the sentence directly above and I think that about sums it up. Learning aversion; the ultimate white male disease. Ian You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Since politics is about what people think, to a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s) coalescing behind Nader have improved definition -- as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it does not detract from the general forward movement. The definition includes a helpful sorting out. For instance, I used to think well of Todd Gitlin. Now I think he's a dork. I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Doug asks: Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to win a plurality (majority of seats, perhaps 45 + or - % of the vote), with the "Alliance" -- a right-wing coalition of former Conservatives and the right-populist-neo-liberal-racist Reform (sic) Party -- forming the opposition (25 + or - % of the vote). The remaining vote will be split between the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the social democratic NDP and the traditional Tory Conservatives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. It may rally to get perhaps 10 % of the popular vote, and enough seats to maintain official party status (somewhat equivalent to the 5% barrier in the US). In Manitoba, the NDP should probably retain its present seats, for example. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil etc. Their appeal is primarily a reaction to the corruption and arrogence of the Liberals who though elected from a moderate liberal/social democratic platform, have consistently governed from a neo-liberal right position. The difference in the party platforms between the Liberals and the Alliance is quite minimal. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Stop the name calling
MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:31 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4131] Stop the name calling Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. And I'm not looking forward to four years of Bush. Everybody accepts that practically anybody -- or maybe not Charles Manson, bue he was ineligible -- could have done a better job than Gore did. Here in Chico for Nader visit helped found three of four liberals to win on City Council. How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Perfecting the one-party system, and antidotes
Oh, and don't forget Gore's pathetic pander to the Cuban-Americans on Elian Gonzales. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:48 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4175] Re: Re: Perfecting the one-party system, and antidotes Burford: So why did Bush win Florida by a whisker only after pledging support for 25% of the medicines bill of seniors. Although the major media has focused on Nader's "spoiler" role and confusing ballots in West Palm Beach, the real story seems to be black disenfranchisement. The racists in both parties have worked to produce a prison industrial system that truly reflects capitalism in the USA today rather than slippery, disingenuous bullshit about a "Third Way". === Harsh lessons How the drug war cost Al Gore African-American votes in Florida. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Bruce Shapiro Nov. 9, 2000 | As I write, it is less than 24 hours after Vice President Al Gore did something new in two centuries of presidential elections: He un-conceded. Twelve hours have brought no clarity to the outcome. Gore remains marginally ahead in the national popular vote. Gov. George W. Bush maintains a lead of fewer than 1,750 votes in Florida, upon which rest the outcome of the Electoral College. Hours ago, the Florida secretary of state released the results of recounts in 19 of the state's 67 counties. The result: Gore gains 238 votes; Bush 205. It is too soon -- perhaps days too soon -- to predict where this is going, the final tally of votes reallocated from error or struck for fraud, the overseas absentees. But it is not too soon to say that the electoral gridlock of the last 24 hours is a clear prophecy of more tumult to come. A country that is supposed to be fat and prosperous and complacent suddenly appears to be hunkering down for months of rancorous contention, regardless of who wins the Florida recount. The Senate is now evenly divided, and Republicans retained (but saw narrowed) their control of the House. Gore and Bush electoral victories are so sharply apportioned between Democratic coastal and industrial states and a Republican heartland that the charts broadcast Tuesday night by every television screen resembled a Civil War territorial map. Under such pressures, what are normally marginal notes to the political process -- the Ralph Nader vote, the routine precinct-level voter fraud surfacing in Florida -- suddenly take on outsized resonance. And the fate of a single senator -- whether dying Strom Thurmond or already dead Sen.-elect Mel Carnahan -- will fundamentally change the dynamic of Washington. (Which is why there is undoubtedly a special place in Democratic hell awaiting Joe Lieberman, who insisted on running for reelection to his Connecticut Senate seat. On the campaign trail Lieberman sang "I did it my way," but his real motto was "Looking out for No. 1." Should Gore win, Lieberman's replacement gets named by a Republican governor -- and that Republican replacement will bestow a Republican majority, shifting the political calculus on everything from budgets to Supreme Court nominations.) How did Florida end up the epicenter of such an extraordinary political earthquake? It's easy enough to point to "the Nader factor," which already has liberals devouring each other alive in a feast of rage. But for the sake of their long-term prospects, Democrats might choose to look in a more productive direction: Florida's extraordinarily high rate of so-called "felony disenfranchisement" -- the lifelong barring of ex-offenders from voting. More than one-third of Florida's adult African-American males were legally prevented from participating in this week's election because of past contact with the state's criminal justice system. And one-third of the male members of an African-American community is a total utterly central to Gore's success. The irony, of course, is that Gore has been a prime mover of harsh criminal penalties for nonviolent drug offenders. So is his chief Florida patron and vote-tally advisor, Attorney General Bob Butterworth, who was elected to office in 1988 by promising that the Sunshine State could "build the way" out of crime with harsher sentences and more prisons. Now Gore and Butterworth are fighting to maintain the narrowest of margins, in which the votes of those ex-offenders and recovered drug abusers could have been part of a plurality which would have made Nader's low-single-digits returns dwindle into historic insignificance. Full story at: http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/09/nation/index.html Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership capacity. mbs I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible. His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him even if he had attacked Clinton. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:15:40PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug
Voting irregularities
consortiumnews.com - http://www.consortiumnews.com Please forward far and wide: According to news reports this night, there are apparently as many as 24,000 votes in question now in Florida. In addition to the 3,407 votes cast for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, it has now been reported by the Associated Press that about 19,000 votes in PB County were voided because they were punched with two holes for the presidential selection. Obviously, some of these COULD be attributed to accidents. But 19,000 votes is a lot of votes. Only speculation can answer the obvious questions at this time, but these irregularities are mounting. There is also a batch of 1,600 votes for Gore that were voided because of an apparent computer glitch. Add to this reports from the NAACP that black men were harassed at at least one polling place where the sheriff's's office had officers on the ground asking black men to see their identification and telling some that they were not eligible to vote because of convictions. Julian Bond from the NAACP made this charge on MSNBC tonight. To say that there were voting irregularities in Florida is now a serious understatement. All the networks called Florida for Gore only moments after the polls closed there. They apparently based this call on exit polls. But the Bush campaign questioned this call based on their own exit polls, supposedly. Question: How were Bush's exit polls so drastically different from the networks'? And then we find 24,000 votes in question as well as reports of intimidation against black voters at at least one polling place. And Jeb Bush is governor there. Something is rotten in the state of Florida. Dare I say coup d'etat? What to do? I say we get calls going into Florida news outlets as well as national outlets expressing our concern and outrage at these reports. I say we call our Congressional offices to let them know we are paying close attention. Any ideas on how to get something like this organized? __ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Au contraire. I think you have given up on making the world a better place. I have not. Speaking for myself, only, I don't think that you can do that to a great degree within the parameters you accept. If you had lived in slavery times, you would have written off the abolitionists as mad dreamers and extremists who would never affect anything because their radical politics excluded them from serious politics. You would have been wrong, too. My reading of our society is that there are social divisions that allow for, demand even, going beyond the limits that you think bind us, that the iron cage is a lot more fragile than you think. Self expression is the least of it: if I thought I could improve the world by sinking into the democrats, embracing the butchers, I would. I am not too good for that. There is vileness I would not commit, but getting out the vote for Democrat isn't where I would draw the line in principle. The thing is, Brad, I tried it, I really did--I spent most of the 80s doing grassroots DP work in the Rainbow Coalition and in the Ann Arbor DP, and what it taught me is that if you have a mass movement or a community orgainizatiuon with you, you don't need the DP, because if you a re strong enough it will try to claim credit for things it refusedto support, and if you don;t, you might as well not bother, because all the DP will do for you is offer you chances to prostitutes your political ideals for the reward of being in the aprty. Besides, Brad, you never addressed the point I made earlier, that people like me will never be admitted to the DP power circles anyway because of our past,unless we make a Great Renunciation and become real right wingers to show that we really have renounced the reasons that brought us into politics in the first place. From a purely selfish point of view, as well as from the point of view of effectiveness, there's nothing there for us, isn't that right? --jks From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4190] Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:53:57 -0800 Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression, rather than an attempt to make the world a better place? Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Canadian Elections
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. I agree with Paul's comments but would like to add a few things. The Liberals have presented themselves as "moving to the left", presumably for fear that they might lose support or seats in the Atlantic/Maritimes where the NDP has made strong gains in provincial elections. This 'move to left' has consisted in easing the rules for qualifying for Unemployment Insurance benefits so that seasonal (read workers in Atlantic Canada) and other types of temps like substitute teachers can collect benefits. The federal government has a UI surplus that now runs in the tens of billions. The government has been using this money to balance the budget and pay down the debt at the expense of rising poverty(which Canada has been heavily criticised internationally by the UN and UNESCO), increasing inequality, colossal amounts of consumer debt, and increasing personal bankruptcy rate amongst other things, all while lowering the tax burdens on the richest quintiles of the population and the corporations. Once again, the working and unemployed poor pay for tax cuts for the rich, increased corporate profitability and a "better investment climate." Other issues,besides health care, will be the low and sinking dollar which is now predicted to fall to 60 cents to the US dollar. It is currently in the 66-67 range. The Liberal government and the Bank of Canada have deliberately followed the tight money/low inflation ideology as a means of lowering labor costs to attract foreign investment. I would note that the Bank of Canada and its chair Gordon Thiessen are even more fundamentalist than the Fed keeping inflation at 1% or lower though there have been increases in recent months due to falling unemployment. Here in the West and in the Atlantic (don't know about the praires) issues around the native or first nations peoples will and should be of paramount importance with the violent government attack on Micmac lobster fisherman and,here in B.C., various native bands have now laid claim to 100% of the province's land mass. With the precedent of the Nis'ga treaty, natives may be awarded nearly all BC's land through the provincial courts. THIS is what scares the right wing and local ruling class, they have been and will continue to pressure the federal government into overriding the provincial treaty process. I would rather pay taxes to the natives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. I think the NDP needs to move to the left to garner more votes and gain a greater voice. The working class sees it as no different from the Liberals and either will not vote at all or vote for the right wing populists (to whom most of the NDP's former support has gone.) Even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool Marxian socialist , I often consider voting for the Conservative 'red-tory' Joe Clark (and his daughter :) since I think he is probably further to the left of the Liberals and the Alliance and has a chance at winning. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. At least in BC, the two Communist parties are running candidates in about 3/4 of the ridings though their platforms are not much different from the NDP. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). Yeah, and as I noted above, the Liberals are now presenting themselves as 'on the left' because they are restoring funding to the social programs and health care. Funding that they took away in the first place to placate the IMF, OECD etc. I would just mention the near decimation of Canada's once proud health care system by the federal government. There are daily reports of funding crisis, serious shortages of nurses(there have been militant nurses strikes in Saskatchewan and Ontario over,primarily, nurses shortages.) and support staff and constant threats of overpaid striking doctors who do not want to work in rural areas. The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. Stockwell Day, leader of the Alliance, is a creep; a cross between Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho with the character in the film "Bob Robbins." He is highly adept at doublespeak e.g. "we are going to give Canadians the opportunity to work" i.e. we are going to cut social programs and income subsidies. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership capacity. mbs I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad Ah. A clarifying comment on the meaning of "dork"... :-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4195] Re: Re: Stop the name calling The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible. His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him even if he had attacked Clinton. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:15:40PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked tirelessly to keep him out of the debates. "Any attempt to develop a critique of the basic structures and principles of a society involves of necessity transgressing and trespassing against the Happy Consciousness. There are not only glass ceilings but glass walls that define the accepted corridors of thought. Young aggressive professors in economics and other social sciences are usually equipped with uncanny radar so they can roar down the corridor of orthodox thought without ever getting close to breaking through the walls--all the while seeing themselves as brash free thinkers exploring the vast unknown." [David Ellerman] Feudalism will never end, Ian
Fwd: U.S. 2008 elections
(Posted by Carmen Continuduro to another list: a retrospective preview of the advance election situation in 2008 - the next President's final year in office.) History was making fast. The fall elections were soon to occur, and Paul Continuduro was nominated by the socialist party to run for Congress. His chance for election was most favorable. The street-car strike in San Francisco had been broken. And following upon it the teamsters' strike had been broken. These two defeats had been very disastrous to organized labor. The whole Water Front Federation, along with its allies in the structural trades, had backed up the teamsters, and all had smashed down ingloriously. It had been a bloody strike. The police had broken countless heads with their riot clubs; and the death list had been augmented by the turning loose of a machine-gun on the strikers from the barns of the Marsden Special Delivery Company. In consequence, the men were sullen and vindictive. They wanted blood, and revenge. Beaten on their chosen field, they were ripe to seek revenge by means of political action. They still maintained their labor organization, and this gave them strength in the political struggle that was on. Paul's chance for election grew stronger and stronger. Day by day unions and more unions voted their support to the socialists, until even Paul laughed when the Undertakers' Assistants and the Chicken Pickers fell into line. Labor became mulish. While it packed the socialist meetings with mad enthusiasm, it was impervious to the wiles of the old-party politicians. The old-party orators were usually greeted with empty halls, though occasionally they encountered full halls where they were so roughly handled that more than once it was necessary to call out the police reserves. History was making fast. The air was vibrant with things happening and impending. The country was on the verge of hard times, caused by a series of prosperous years wherein the difficulty of disposing abroad of the unconsumed surplus had become increasingly difficult. Industries were working short time; many great factories were standing idle against the time when the surplus should be gone; and wages were being cut right and left. Also, the great machinist strike had been broken. Two hundred thousand machinists, along with their five hundred thousand allies in the metalworking trades, had been defeated in as bloody a strike as had ever marred the United States. Pitched battles had been fought with the small armies of armed strike-breakers put in the field by the employers' associations; the Black Hundreds, appearing in scores of wide-scattered places, had destroyed property; and, in consequence, a hundred thousand regular soldiers of the United States has been called out to put a frightful end to the whole affair. A number of the labor leaders had been executed; many others had been sentenced to prison, while thousands of the rank and file of the strikers had been herded into bull-pens and abominably treated by the soldiers. The years of prosperity were now to be paid for. All markets were glutted; all markets were falling; and amidst the general crumble of prices the price of labor crumbled fastest of all. The land was convulsed with industrial dissensions. Labor was striking here, there, and everywhere; and where it was not striking, it was being turned out by the capitalists. The media were filled with tales of violence and blood. And through it all the Black Hundreds played their part. Riot, arson, and wanton destruction of property was their function, and well they performed it. The whole regular army was in the field, called there by the actions of the Black Hundreds. All cities and towns were like armed camps, and laborers were shot down like dogs. Out of the vast army of the unemployed the strike-breakers were recruited; and when the strike-breakers were worsted by the labor unions, the troops always appeared and crushed the unions. Then there was the militia. As yet, it was not necessary to have recourse to the secret militia law. Only the regularly organized militia was out, and it was out everywhere. And in this time of terror, the regular army was increased an additional hundred thousand by the government. Never had labor received such an all-around beating. The great captains of industry, the oligarchs, had for the first time thrown their full weight into the breach the struggling employers' associations had made. These associations were practically middle-class affairs, and now, compelled by hard times and crashing markets, and aided by the great captains of industry, they gave organized labor an awful and decisive defeat. It was an all-powerful alliance, but it was an alliance of the lion and the lamb, as the middle class was soon to learn. Labor was bloody and sullen, but crushed. Yet its defeat did not put an end to the hard times. The banks, themselves constituting one of the most important forces of the Oligarchy, continued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong The New York Times, August 1, 1996, Thursday, Late Edition - Final THE WELFARE BILL: THE WHITE HOUSE; Clinton Recalls His Promise, Weighs History, and Decides By TODD S. PURDUM WASHINGTON, July 31 When President Clinton and a dozen of his top advisers sat down in the Cabinet Room to discuss the welfare bill this morning, everyone knew he faced the biggest domestic decision of his Presidency. Though they were prepared to close ranks behind him, the President's advisers knew this was their last chance to be heard on an issue on which there was no middle ground left. By turns they spoke and their leader listened. But as he often does, Mr. Clinton ended the two-and-a-half-hour meeting without tipping his hand. Instead, he repaired to the Oval Office with Vice President AL GORE, who aides said ENCOURAGED THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN THE BILL, and his chief of staff, Leon E. Panetta, who URGED A VETO. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former board chairman of the Children's Defense Fund, which has bitterly opposed the bill, was at the Olympics in Atlanta, and her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, who usually represents her at such gatherings, did not even attend the final meeting. The debate arrayed advisers like Mr. Panetta, George Stephanopoulos and Harold M. Ickes, who favored branding the bill extreme, against Dick Morris, the President's political adviser, Mr. Reed and Rahm Emmanuel, a political aide who led the charge to sign it as a way of delivering on Mr. Clinton's 1992 promise to "end welfare as we know it." In the meeting, MR. GORE AND MR. PANETTA, AS DE FACTO LEADERS OF THE OPPOSING GROUPS, each refrained from comment, while others sitting around the big oblong table in the Cabinet Room spoke in turn. The group included Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich and the head of the National Economic Council, Laura D'Andrea Tyson. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad DeLong wrote: I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? The person I first heard it from got it from Dick Morris' book, I think, but someone told me last night that Peter Edelman has been saying the same thing. Doug
Re: Fwd: U.S. 2008 elections
Hinrich Kuhls wrote: (Posted by Carmen Continuduro to another list: a retrospective preview of the advance election situation in 2008 - the next President's final year in office.) History was making fast. Interesting -- except that the invocation of "the middle class" eliminates any relationship it might have to reality. As far as I can tell by reading this piece, in it "middle class" means workers or working-class leaders that the author dislikes. It certainly does not point to any idenifiable sector of the population. I think the elimination of "middle class" (or such subterfuges as PMC) from leftist thought is one of the two or three chief theoretical victories that have to be won prior to the creation of a workers' party in the U.S. All one has to do is say "middle class" and minds go to sleep. Carrol
Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
who is he. Where did this appear? Lisa Ian Murray wrote: BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked tirelessly to keep him out of the debates. "Any attempt to develop a critique of the basic structures and principles of a society involves of necessity transgressing and trespassing against the Happy Consciousness. There are not only glass ceilings but glass walls that define the accepted corridors of thought. Young aggressive professors in economics and other social sciences are usually equipped with uncanny radar so they can roar down the corridor of orthodox thought without ever getting close to breaking through the walls--all the while seeing themselves as brash free thinkers exploring the vast unknown." [David Ellerman] Feudalism will never end, Ian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Slaves and the electoral college
I understand that the electoral college was created in part to justify the representation of slaves in the southern states. In other words, it was a necessary part of the 3/5 representation. Michael Hoover always knows about this sort of material." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Wellstone? "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rhonda M. Williams
It's a huge loss. I had the great fortune of being a student of Rhonda at the New School. I was among the last group of students to pass through her two course sequence in Race and Class, which was really Race, Class, and Gender. My fellow students can attest to the fact that at the time I claimed Rhonda was the best teacher in the Economics Department, a department that included such fantastic teachers as David Gordon, Anwar Shaikh, Ross Thompson, and John Eatwell. I hold to that judgement. I was the last student to do a field in Race and Class with Rhonda in the department (maybe the last to do a field in Race and Class with anyone in Economics at the New School, as she was never replaced). When Rhonda decided to leave the Graduate Faculty and move to the University of Maryland at College Park, with a dual appointment in Economics and Afro-American Studies, I was aghast that the Department and the University seemed to do nothing to try to keep her (and in fact students led to her being interviewed to return to the New School a couple years later). She wanted more diverse students and colleagues. At the time, she was the only African American in the entire Graduate Faculty. She once shared with me that when she first got to the Graduate Faculty and went to some kind of reception attended by most of the faculty, she thought that there must have been a meeting of the Black faculty scheduled at the same time that she was not informed of. She went around asking people if they knew anything and they were all just raising their eyebrows and looking around and saying "uh-h-h-h-m...I'm not sure..." She was shocked to find out that she *was* the Black faculty. She felt extremely marginalized in the New School's Economics department, made all the more frustrating by the department's 'radical' reputation. For example, she was assigned an office that was separate from all the other faculty offices in the Department (which were all in the same location). She was amazed that no one seemed to think anything of this. Of course, not only was she African American, she was one of two women in the Economics Department at that time (the other, Gunseli Berik, was also untenured), and she was openly gay. The challenges facing a Black Lesbian Marxist Feminist in a white supremacist capitalist heterosexist patriarchy, from the daily personal bullshit to the institutional exclusion, are severe. And this was all the more frustrating due to the fact that her personal and professional adversaries were not just (or perhaps even primarily) white heterosexual capitalist patriarchs; it was also the racism and classism and heterosexism among 'feminists', the racism and sexism and heterosexism among the working class and socialists and 'radical political economists', the racism and classism in the gay community, and the sexism and heterosexism and classism in the African American community and in Civil Rights and Nationalist groups. But she never turned cynical or had a defeated attitude, had a fantastic sense of humor, was a living example and role model to everyone who knew her. And wherever she went she set the very highest standard, never tolerating one injustice in the name of another. Her standards concerning how to grapple with the theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues were also the highest, equally critical of radical political economy that accepts standard method and epistemology or is sloppy empirically and avante-garde methodological explorations that fetishize laissez-faire or make logical errors. She also took on pop journalism and was an astute analyst of cultural trends. She told me before she the New School that if she couldn't get tenure at Maryland she would leave academia. She had already served for many years as an Assistant Professor at U. Texas at Austin, Yale, and the New School. In fact, she was not happy with the Economics Dept at Maryland (surprise!), and was ultimately tenured in Afro-American Studies only, where she became the Chair. Speaking with her after her move, she was so excited about her students, to whom she was selflessly devoted and who respected and adored her. Rhonda earned her Ph.D. in Economics from MIT, and was long associated with a group of economists who, first, exposed the mainstream approach to the 'economics of discrimination' and to otherwise analyzing wage and employment differentials to devastating deconstruction and critique, and secondly proposed a return to 'Classical' Marxism for analyzing wage and employment differentials by race and gender, and the articulation of capitalism, racism, and patriarchy more generally. In fact, Rhonda and Sandy Darity may be said to have been the originators of this approach. Here, 'Classical' Marxism means a Marxist economics that (to crudely oversimplify) accepts the labor theory of value, rejects the Monopoly Capital school view of competition, has an important focus on the reserve army (or armies), and
Re: Slaves and the electoral college
Sounds confused. the 3/5 representation thing was for the House of Reps, the only directly elected body in them thar days. The function of the EC, if I recall my Federalist Papers and the Debates on the Constitution, is to make sure that the hoi poloi didn't elect a populist/radical/democratic prez who would do something like pressfor the abolition of debt. In other words, it served a similar function to the indirect election of Senators by the state (I almost misstyped satanic) legislatures. --jks I understand that the electoral college was created in part to justify the representation of slaves in the southern states. In other words, it was a necessary part of the 3/5 representation. Michael Hoover always knows about this sort of material." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?
I quoted Hitchens: It's not enough that the two-party machine has all the money at its disposal and all the press and media, too. It still needs courageous volunteers to ram its message home. These unctuous surrogates seek to persuade us that, though we have no power, we can and should be held responsible." [the NATION, November 6, 2000, p. 9] Nathan says: The idea that "we have no power" and thus no responsibility is what is wrong with much of the rhetoric around the whole third party movement. Of course we have power, even if we are divided and often fail to use the power we have effectively. "We" are potentially the vast majority of the population who would benefit from a more just and equal society and that gives us all the potential power we need. The quote from Hitchens is not saying that the "we" (which refers specifically to the Nader voters, not to any potentially vast majority, in his column -- as should have been obvious from the preface I added to the quote) have no power and therefore have no responsibility. (BTW, I believe that much antagonism and some flame wars can be avoided via careful reading. I have several times written replies to e-messages, but when I went back and read what the person wrote, found that I had misinterpreted what he or she said, so I had to start from scratch or simply throw the damn thing out.) Instead, it's referring to the fact that those of us who are disgusted with the two-party line (and would typically not vote at all rather than voting for Gore) get trashed for something that the "unctuous surrogates" should take responsibility for. By following the lesser-of-two-evil position in every election since godnosewhen, they reward the Democratic Leadership Committee and their ilk for their efforts to turn the Democratic Party from a "New Deal" alliance into an electoral machine that caters to white suburbanites (the "soccer moms"). As any behaviorist psychologist knows, if you reward a rat with cheese for doing something, it will reinforce the behavior, so the behavior will be repeated. The DLC seems to do absolutely everything in its substantial powers to undermine the traditional New Deal base, including incarcerating large numbers of minority folks under the misbegotten "war on drugs," who won't be able to vote because they were convicted of felonies. (Of course, DLC worthies like Clinton weren't even prosecuted for stunts like bombing the Sudan in order to distract people from Monica.) The DLC drives people to vote for Bush, Buchanan, Nader, etc., or not to vote at all, and then blame them for doing so. The vast majority of people who were disgusted with the Democrats didn't vote for Nader. Instead, they looked at the "viable choices" (as the two-party line says they should) and decided they preferred the Fool over the Knave, often because the former was more pleasant on TV. (I'm sorry, but can you imagine Al Gore giving Presidential speeches over the next 4 years? Maybe it's slightly better than Bush, but...) When you have a choice between two Republicans, you go for the one who does it better. You go for the real thing rather than the amazing simulation. BTW, Gore seems to have done very poorly among white suburbanites. This should suggest to the DLC types that they've failed and should turn back to the "New Deal" base (as Gore did a little when he started getting desperate), but I doubt they'll do it, since they are campaign-contribution driven. (The key is finding a fund-raising alternative to the now-banned renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom.) Instead, they'll probably struggle to make future "third party" efforts even more difficult (as they have in California), probably justified in the name of democracy. The whole silliness of the popular vote vs. electoral college conflict (which may give the Presidency to Bush even though Gore won in terms of votes) could be solved with the "instant run-off" system. However, the Dems and the GOPs will fight this system because it would encourage third-party efforts. The Greens and other third-party types will be shoved aside in this decision, since the New York TIMES and other establishmentarian political forces (backed by Nathan) will blame too much democracy (deviant parties) for the problem. I'm all in favor of the "instant run-off" system, and I bet that the Greens are too. However, the duopoly parties don't want it. In fact, if it comes up in respectable circles, I'd bet that people like Arlen Spector (boo!) will push it... But the failure to wield the power the existing left has effectively does nothing to encourage the much greater majority we seek to see that left as effective leadership for uniting for that social change. Part of assuming leadership is assuming responsibility, for people will only follow leadership over the long term when they believe that power entrusted will be used responsibly. I won't take responsibility for
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
At 07:53 AM 11/9/00 -0800, you wrote: You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? Maybe it was impressive once you think of the fact that Nader voters were showered by a sh*t-storm of abuse and fear-mongering. The more that Nader seemed to be getting, the more the fear level was ratcheted upward. The closeness of the election -- and the domination of the winner-take-all system -- also encouraged fear-mongering. If it had been an LBJ vs. Goldwater type election, 3% would have definitely been unimpressive (since the former had such a big margin). But it wasn't. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfecting the one-party system, and antidotes
At 01:48 PM 11/9/00 -0500, you wrote: Oh, and don't forget Gore's pathetic pander to the Cuban-Americans on Elian Gonzales. of course, the fact that I don't forget such things is one reason I voted for Nader. BTW, the media pundits trash the US public for not having memories, but if you do have a memory, you're lambasted as a "spoiler." (Of course, the US media aren't good at promoting memory.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Slaves and the electoral college
I understand that the electoral college was created in part to justify the representation of slaves in the southern states. In other words, it was a necessary part of the 3/5 representation. Michael Hoover always knows about this sort of material." At 09:26 PM 11/9/00 +, you wrote: Sounds confused. the 3/5 representation thing was for the House of Reps, the only directly elected body in them thar days. The function of the EC, if I recall my Federalist Papers and the Debates on the Constitution, is to make sure that the hoi poloi didn't elect a populist/radical/democratic prez who would do something like pressfor the abolition of debt. In other words, it served a similar function to the indirect election of Senators by the state (I almost misstyped satanic) legislatures. --jks Pat Mason once told me that the 3/5 rule was an effort to assign weights according to relative wealth holdings, since it was hard to actually measure wealth. It sounds to me like one of those many compromises that show up in the law, here between States Rights and Federalism. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Fwd: Electoral Dance.
Thought this website might be good for a quick relief from the election http://www.tvdance.com/bush-gore/ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I agree with most of what Paul says. I think that the Alliance leader, Stockwell Day, will jettison some of his goofier fundamentalist ideas for pragmatic reasons. Apparently in his more rambunctious days when he was assistant pastor of a fundamentalist church he led his flock to the local pub where they prayed that the walls should come tumbling down. God apparently suffered the sinners within to remain safe if not sober. Day does favor a national referendum on abortion. I am not sure why the Liberals and others seem so concerned about this. They truly do want to sweep the issue under the table and avoid even talking about it. In good populist fashion Day has been making much of Liberal spending in Liberal constituencies and money spent with no good accounting. The Communist Party is to the left of the NDP. However, it is not about to elect anyone. I notice a similarity between the Liberals and the Democrats. The Liberals woo leftists by pointing out how right wing and reactionary Day is. Yet, Liberals have been faithfully following the neo-liberal agenda and are arguably just as right-wing as the Conservative government they replaced a government decisively rejected by voters.The Liberals have done more to sabotage medicare than any other party and yet they try to frighten voters away from the Alliance by claiming, rightly, that the Alliance favors a two-tier system. But by eroding the existing system the Liberals are gradually making the system two-tier anyway. As Paul says there is not a huge difference between the Liberal platform and the Alliance platform, just as there is not a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The NDP is closer now to the two main parties than it has ever been. It is at 7 per cent in the popular vote along with the Conservative party that not long ago formed the Federal government. I have not been following events closely enough to add anything to Paul's predictions. However, I think that the NDP is probably almost finish federally in BC, but may hold some seats in Manitoba and the Maritimes. The unpopularity of the provincial NDP governments in BC and Saskatchewan may very well doom there federal members. Although Stockwell Day speaks a functional French I doubt that the Alliance Party will take any seats in Quebec. The separatist Bloc Quebecois will probably take most of the seats and Liberals the rest. Our choices are if anything even more depressing on the whole than in the US. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:29 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4192] Re: Re: Stop the name calling Doug asks: Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to win a plurality (majority of seats, perhaps 45 + or - % of the vote), with the "Alliance" -- a right-wing coalition of former Conservatives and the right-populist-neo-liberal-racist Reform (sic) Party -- forming the opposition (25 + or - % of the vote). The remaining vote will be split between the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the social democratic NDP and the traditional Tory Conservatives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. It may rally to get perhaps 10 % of the popular vote, and enough seats to maintain official party status (somewhat equivalent to the 5% barrier in the US). In Manitoba, the NDP should probably retain its present seats, for example. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil etc. Their appeal is primarily a reaction to the corruption and arrogence of the Liberals who though elected from a moderate liberal/social democratic platform, have consistently governed from a neo-liberal right position. The difference in the party platforms between the Liberals and the Alliance is quite minimal. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
electoral college again
Yes, I know that 3/5 was in the House, but it would be hard to carry over into a popular election. So the E.C. was a means of applying the 3/5 in the presidential elections. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Castro on US elections.
Norm wrote: US has no EFFECTIVE change in govt in 41 years, but Cuba has NONE whatsoever in that time span. The presence or absence of changes in political representatives a la liberal democracy does not tell us much about a given nation's political direction. Cuba has undergone much social change without changing its head of state; read, for instance, Lois M. Smith and Alfred Padula, _Sex and Revolution: Women in Socialist Cuba_, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. The most momentous social changes in the USA, too, have been made _by non-electoral means_ (e.g., the Civil War, urbanization industrialization, labor movements, civil rights movements, women's movements, gay lesbian movements, etc.). Change of regimes is of world-historical importance, however, when it effects the transition from one mode of production to another. In this sense, Cuba has undergone more world-historical change than the USA. right, US has more income inequality, but the poorest are far better off than the "middle class" in Cuba. By "middle class" in Cuba, you mean doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, and the like? Socialism in any nation, _while the rest of the world economy remains capitalist_, probably makes its intellectuals worse off than its counterparts, and perhaps even makes them worse off than some of the poor, in imperial nations, as you argue. However, Cuba would _never_ have produced so many doctors, artists, engineers, university professors, etc. from peasant or working-class family backgrounds to begin with, _but for the socialist revolution_. So your comparison appears to me to be moot. Yoshie
Fw: very minor candidates?
-Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:27 PM Subject: very minor candidates? Anybody out there have the national totals for the very minor candidates, please? By those I mean, Harry Browne, Hagelin, Phillips, David McReynolds, and the respective candidates for the SWP and the Workers' World party (sorry, I don't know their names; nobody to the left of Nader was on the ballot here in good ole' Virginny). Barkley Rosser
Buchanan cost Gore the Election!
Original Message Subject: It wasn't Nader, it was Buchanan, who cost Gore the election Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:19:01 -0800 From: Jim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] It wasn't Nader, it was Buchanan, who cost Gore the election by Jim Smith L.A. Labor News www.lalabor.org One hundred million Americans took the Coke-Pepsi taste test and, as a whole, couldn't tell the difference, in spite of a $300 million advertising budget. The two parties knew it was coming to that, so they did what almost any American might have done in such a high-stakes game - they cheated. In Palm Beach County, Florida, the ballots was constructed in such a way that the hole to punch to vote for Pat Buchanan overlapped Al Gore's line. As a result, Buchanan got a surprising 3,407 votes. In the nearby, and larger, counties of Boward and Dade, Buchanan received 1,212 and 561 votes, respectively. According to Prof. Norbert Schwarz of the University of Michigan, this ballot trick cost Gore 2,200 votes. His regression analysis graph shows an unbelievable result http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/palm-beach.pdf. The election was severely flawed from the git-go (as they say in Texas). The events of Nov. 7 merely compounded the problem. The two corporate candidates and political aristocrats - one the son of a president and the grandson of a Connecticut senator, the other the son of a Tennessee senator and the great-grandson of an Oklahoma senator, tried and failed to convince us they were "just folks." One candidate was repudiated by the voters of his home state, the other came in second in the popular vote but, likely, first in the electoral college. How can 21st century voters legitimize a candidate placed in office only by the Electoral College, an undemocratic institution designed by the "founding fathers" to ensure that large property owners (including slave owners) controlled the presidency. On Nov. 7, a year's worth of expensive propaganda went down the drain for both candidates. Their parties now have to scramble for real or imagined Florida ballots. Can Chicago's Mayor Dailey's son, William Dailey, who is Gore's campaign manager help the Democrats out? Can the anti-democratic Cubans in Miami help the Republicans out? According to one Democratic Party spokesperson, there have been "thousands of elections violations in Florida." These include reports that police harassed African-Americans trying to vote in Northern Florida (Surely this couldn't happen in Jeb and George Bush's South?). On Nov. 8, a "misplaced" ballot box in Miami was found. They say this one didn't contain ballots but can others be far behind? As in any other country, when votes take hours or days to be counted, a suspicion of ballot fraud grows. Why isn't Madeleine Albright screaming for a new election under NATO or UN supervision? Will Bush take office even if he comes in second in the popular vote? Perhaps he should do the honorable thing, like Slobodan Milosevic, and step aside. Talking about Milosevic, Bush said on Oct. 5: "The people have spoken. It is time for Mr. Milosevic to go." In fairness to Bush, Milosevic didn't step down until after protesters had burned the parliament building. If Bush doesn't practice what he preaches, then how's this for a new "Watergate" scenario? Bush takes office but evidence mounts that Republicans had engaged in illegal activities to steal the election in Florida. What did George know and when did he know it? Will a special prosecutor be appointed before or after inauguration day? Who are the winners and losers in this election? Certainly whoever is certified as the new president is a loser from day one because of his lack of electoral credibility. All 100 million voters will be losers, as will our fragile democracy, if the guy who came in second is named the winner. Al Gore will be a big loser if the dumb guy from Texas beats him. And how about Pat Buchanan¹s credibility? How was the man who stood shoulder to shoulder with labor leaders James Hoffa and John Sweeney, last April, able to take $13 million in federal funding and do a political disappearing act? Is he really that inept (except for his stellar performance in Palm Beach County) or was he persuaded to take a dive? Even Bill Clinton had a rough election day as he endured probably the toughest interview of his presidency at the hands of Amy Goodman http://www.democracynow.org. A big winner has to be Ralph Nader who refused to be bowed by the unceasing attacks on his candidacy by the Democrats. Nader gave as good as he got and, for many, achieved heroic stature in this election. Had there been a level playing field - equal funding, real debates, media coverage - Nader would have won, going away. Ralph didn¹t win the presidency but he did build a movement and carve out a new, if informal, office for himself - tribune of the people. The ancient Roman office by that name held veto power over any laws enacted by the patrician Senate. With Nader¹s help, we can
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael, Would be better than a lot. So might Russ Feingold. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:23 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4211] Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling Wellstone? "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Slaves and the electoral college
Michael, There was a column in the WSJ today claiming that the original proposal for the electoral college came from a guy (somebody Butler) who was worried about foreigners buying off members of Congress. The original proposal from Hamilton and Madison was to have the House of Reps elect the prez. But, the example of Polish nobles being bought off by outsiders in the king elections scared people. The idea was it would be harder to buy off electors who were dispersed out in the states. Had nothing/little to do with slavery, given the alternative where the slave states would get their reps in Congress anyway. BTW, apparently a lot of the original proponents of the Congress proposal went along with the electoral college because they figured that there would usually be many candidates (no two party system then) and that therefore the elections would regularly be thrown to the House of Reps anyway. Of course, this has happened only twice, 1800 when the EC tied, and 1824 when there were four viable candidates getting EC votes. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4210] Slaves and the electoral college I understand that the electoral college was created in part to justify the representation of slaves in the southern states. In other words, it was a necessary part of the 3/5 representation. Michael Hoover always knows about this sort of material." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: U.S. 2008 elections
Hi Gene, sorry for the delay. You asked: Isn't this from Jack London's Iron Heel? I forwarded your question to Anthony Meredith, a historian who owns the list where I noticed Carmen Continuduro's piece. Fortunately, he could be of assistence. His reply: "Continuduro's contribution caused great controversy on my list. Carmen Avis Continuduro is the daughter of a professor Cunningham, a physics professor at the State Univsersity of California at Berkeley. Her husband and comrade Paul Continuduro is also known as Pablo Ernest Everhard. Indeed, both Avis and Ernest owe a lot of their campaign and their existence to a certain Jack London, not to be confused with Chris B. London. The website of this Jack London is just 'around the corner' of Professor Cunningham's website, at http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/ ." Hope this helps. Hinrich
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
MP who is he. Where did this appear? Lisa Ian Murray wrote: David Ellerman is tucked away working on firm governance issues in Eastern Europe for the WB. He also worked closely with Stiglitz when he was there. The quote comes from "Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life" [p. 27--still in print and a great read BTW]. He's also the author of a few other books, the most interesting of which is "Property and Contract in Economics" Ian
The economics behind the Electoral College
I am glad to see a variety of correspondents moving in on the legitimacy of US Democracy. From the point of view of narrow bourgeois right, the issues for litigation multiply. From a wider, materialist, perspective it is most important to expose the relative conditional nature of the sacred ideal of Democracy and bring to the fore the concrete question of which class and which interest groups in fact hold power in a political system. The sudden developing tropical storm over Florida has implications not only for the processes that control power in the US. Because of the great importance US led-finance capital has placed on imposing the bourgeois rule of law throughout the world every embarrassment for the US democratic system is an embarrassment for global finance capital. The Secretary of State for Florida, and her panel supervising the election looked very uncertain at the news conference she has just held. Not only did the conference end to a number of shouts. Well aimed questions stopped the panel in their tracks, aware of the dangers of litigation. One of the most effective appeared to be whether the order of the ballot in Palm Beach County was in conformity with the established protocol, to which there was no easy answer. Shaking the sanctity of the Electoral College, might, as has been argued on LBO talk, start a process where other aspects of the bourgeois democratic system in the US, are questioned. The Emperor does indeed need to be stripped of idealist clothing. But so far the debate appears to have been about the politics behind the electoral college - pointing to the argument that the the august Founding Fathers did not trust the people to allow them to vote directly for the president. But what is the economic significance of the Electoral College? It was presumably that rising capitalism was prepared to support a federal arrangement only to the extent that the political system retained substantial power in the local states. The federal system ensures that resources in the USA overall have to be sufficiently distributed to keep the different states engaged in the political system. (Europe has not dared face the question of directly electing the executive of the European Union. It is inherently a very difficult problem for large capitalist federations or confederations.) The effect of abandoning the Electoral College would presumably mean that neither of the two big political parties had to win economic and political support in all the states of the Union for the purposes of the presidential election. Would however the requirements of winning representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives, still be sufficient to require geographically redistributive economics? If so, the ending of the Electoral College might reduce the overall influence of capital over the presidential election but eliminate the need for the system of primaries, allow a cheaper presidential campaigning period which could be financed through state funds. It would also permit the emergence of proportional representation and preference votes so that minority candidates would be able to build up more momentum without gambling on their ability to wage a spoiling campaign against one of the bigger parties. Large Finance Capital might have no deeply rooted objection to the ending of the Electoral College because if it weakened the federal processes of redistributing capital it would facilitate a smoother internal market for the uneven accumulation of capital wherever capital was centralising most efficiently. I suggest therefore that there are a number of possibilties opening the door to constituional change in the USA which within as short a period as ten years, which could just conceivably produce a much more rational bourgeois system but one open to effective pressure from working people. I suggest that the economic effects of removing one buttress of redistributive economics would not on balance be overwhelmingly reactionary. It might actually accelerate the relative movement of population to the large conurbations, and weaken the economic and political power of the older socio-economic patterns. Capital will be divided and in some confusion about whether to continue to support the Electoral College. Working people have a greater interest in its destruction, economically and politically. It should be attacked. A hypothesis. Chris Burford London
Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; So in other words, you don't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong Thanks... Brad DeLong
Opinion poll on October Revolution
This is from Johnson's Russia List. The correspondent obviously wished for a more negative view of the revolution. Cheers, Ken Hanly November 9, 2000 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] HOW RUSSIANS SEE THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION By Vitaly GOLOVACHEV The Russian Center for Studying Public Opinion (VTsIOM) has conducted a sociological poll to find out Russians' opinion about the 1917 October revolution. It is sometimes called a coup. The responses are cited as a percentage from the total number of those polled. Question: What impact did the 1917 October Revolution have on the life of the Russian people and the country's history? A very positive impact 17% Rather positive32% Rather negative22% Extremely negative 13% I am in doubt 17% Half of the respondents are sure that the Revolution made a positive (sooner positive than other) impact on the Russian history. They disagree with the opinion that it brought Russia to the dead end of history. The fact that "Marxist-socialist experiments" have not succeeded in any Eastern European countries and the living standard in Cuba and North Korea is extremely low does not change their opinion. Issues of personal and public freedom, repressive nature of the old regime and socialist wage-levelling are considered of secondary importance. The important thing for many of those polled is that they lived better under the Soviet regime and they were "confident of their future." Drawbacks of the reform period, neglect of social issues during the Yeltsin era, chronic poverty on a large scale, deterioration of many enterprises, permeating crime and corruption make a lot of people, the elderly people in particular, yearn for the past. These sentiments can be changed if the positive economic and social tendencies gain ground. If the living standard of the people suffering from poverty improves, their attitude to the 1917 Revolution would change. Over a third of Russians who have adjusted to the new conditions negatively assess the 1917 coup while 17% of the respondents who were in doubt at least do not consider its impact positive. **
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; So in other words, you don't. ** Thank you God for collapsing the unpredictability of the future with your unsurpassable foreknowledge of 21st century political-economic history. I realize your programming me for undecidability/ignorance/free will was needed to alleviate your insecurity that anyone may have notions that they could experience the world in any way incommensurable with your divine epistemology. Ian
Canadian debates
I'm watching the debates with Chretien on CBC.CA TV [cable]. Would any of the Canadians on the list be kind enough to let me [us] know who the others are, especially the woman making him piss in his Depends. Ian
US goes after Mexican Telecoms
[anybody know why they chose to do this under WTO rather than NAFTA? Does WTO have better ajudication procedures?] Paris, Friday, November 10, 2000 U.S. Turns to WTO in Dispute With Mexico By Peter S. Goodman Washington Post Service WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration has asked the World Trade Organization to hold a formal hearing on its complaints that Mexico has not adequately opened its telecommunications markets to competition, escalating a simmering battle between the United States and one of its most important trading partners. ''We have repeatedly urged the government of Mexico to comply with its WTO commitments,'' the U.S. trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, said in a written statement Wednesday. ''While some progress has been made, Mexico's failure to take additional actions has left us no choice but to request a WTO panel.'' Mexico has maintained that its telecommunications market is open, and officials have accused the Clinton administration of using the disagreement to give U.S. companies a competitive advantage. The dispute now goes to a formal settlement panel in Geneva, which is expected to hear testimony and consider briefs over the next several months. If the panel rules against Mexico, it could order the government to take steps to comply with its WTO obligations. Mexico could appeal such a ruling, but if it refused to heed a WTO judgment, the United States would claim the right to take retaliatory action. The stakes are substantial: Mexico's telecommunications market remains relatively small - worth about $12 billion a year - but analysts expect dramatic growth. The U.S. request for a hearing before the global trade organization follows the failure of a series of bilateral negotiations aimed at resolving differences, including a meeting last month in Guadalajara.
Bush and Gore as derivatives
[James Buchanan meets Myron Scholes] Paris, Friday, November 10, 2000 Two New Options On Bush and Gore Agence France-Presse ZURICH - A Swiss bank is offering financial derivatives called the ''George Bush'' and the ''Al Gore'' options, made up of baskets of U.S. company shares that could profit if their namesake wins the presidential elections. Vontobel, Switzerland's fifth-largest bank, advertised the offers in Swiss newspapers Thursday. The Gore product is made up of shares in the pharmaceuticals maker Merck Co., mortgage loan specialists Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the tech-school operator Devry Inc., and United Technologies Corp. The Bush product includes the tobacco giant Philip Morris Cos., the pharmaceuticals company Pfizer Inc., Microsoft Corp., General Dynamics Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp. and International Paper Co. The options are to be quoted on the Swiss stock exchange at $122.
Cdn elections
Just watched the first 45 minutes of the 2 hour leaders debate in the Canadian elections. 5 leaders (Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, Alliance and NDP) Yea, all national (Bloc?) parties represented, unlike the US. Kind of boring actually. Some impressions (Ken, Sam, your reactions?) 1. Chretien (Liberal PM) was obviously the target as the frontrunner, but I had the impression that he was unusually nervous. Did as expected defending his record and government. Doubt if anyone would change their vote on account of his performance. 2. Gilles Doucette (Bloc) was perhaps the most intellectual and best informed of the leaders. The problem is, this was the English Language debate and nobody outside of Quebec can vote Bloc even if they wanted to. Nevertheless, made some telling anti- Liberal points. Ignored the others as far as I watched. 3. Joe Clark (Conservative) was the most animated and trenchent critic, showed his experience spending his time almost equally in criticising the Liberals and denigrating the Alliance. If I were to pick a winner as far as I watched, Clark would get my vote. But I doubt that it would translate into more than maybe 1 % of the vote. 4. Stockwell Day (Alliance/Bigotry Party) I thought came off the worst (though this may be wishful thinking). He never gave a straight answer to a single question and refused to answer any questions about his own postion in favour of turning every question into an attack on the Liberals. But the attack lacked both substance and conviction. He appeared bland and ineffective. I had the feeling that he was the odd kid on the block that was there to provide local colour but to be ignored on substance. 5. Alexa McDonald (NDP) was the only woman and the only one in a colourful (orange, NDP colours) outfit. As a result, she stuck out. But she stuck out also in a different way. She was there to deliver a message and she did that, whatever the question. If asked about gun laws, she replied that if we had less child poverty we wouldn't need gun laws. When asked about taxes she replied that what we really needed was more expenditure on healthcare. In short, she was the only one I saw that delivered an election speech to every question, whatever the question. Was it effective? I don't know. Will it shift votes? I don't know -- perhaps 1 or 2 %? Sam, Ken, any thoughts So my winners are: Chretien -- held his own. +/- 1 or 2 Clark -- did well +1or 2 Doucette -- did well, clearly intelligent -- but totally irrelevant to the English Langage Debate except to the extent he embarrased Chretien McDonald -- clearly distanced herself from the others though whether that will translate into anything material, I don't know. + 1 or 2. Day -- Came out looking 5 out of 5, defensive and ineffectual in debate. minus 1 or 2? What I saw of the debate -- no knockout punches, no crashes. Marginal impact except to bore the Canadian electorate to death. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
the election
so this is the way it's going to come down. Gore wins by a hair, after all of the contested ballots are counted. But then Leiberman will resign as Vice President to take his Senate seat, to ensure that the Dems keep 50 seats there. But then Gore appoints Bush as Vice President -- as a "National Unity" government needed because of all the bad feelings that arose from the contested election. But then Bush will be President of the Senate, breaking all the ties that arise because of the 50-50 partisan split there. I'm beginning to feel as if this country is a banana republic... who is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff these days and when will he take power? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
Re: RE: Re: Canadian debates
Whoops, I said Alexa McDonald rather than Alexa Macdonough -- despite me being a fellow Celt, though of the Welsh persuasion. My apologies to the Scots/Irish on the list. (She comes from Nova Scotia, which has not only produced the best fiddlers in Canada, but some of the most radical socialists.) Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba from: "Lisa Ian Murray" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:4243] RE: Re: Canadian debates Date sent: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:43:38 -0800 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lisa Ian Murray wrote: I'm watching the debates with Chretien on CBC.CA TV [cable]. Would any of the Canadians on the list be kind enough to let me [us] know who the others are, especially the woman making him piss in his Depends. The woman is Alexa Macdonough, head of the NDP (CAnada's socdem/labor party.) The others are Stockwell Day leader of the CAnadian Alliance (a new far-right party formed from the Reform and a split in the Conservative), Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois-- the Quebec nationalist/seperatist party which formed the official opposition in the last election and finally Joe Clark of teh Conservatives who formed the opposition during The Trudeau Years. Clark is the last of the 'red-tory's. Not much of a debate. More like a shouting match. Sam *** Thanx Ian
Worth quoting
"The Democrats ... are politicizing and distorting these events ... at the expense of our democracy," -- Bush campaign chairman Don Evans. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island
Re: Canadian debates
I did not watch the debates but I did watch a subsequent CBC News Special analysis of them. The general consensus of three groups in different parts of the country was that Joe Clark (leader of the Conservatives) and Alexa McDonogh ( the leader of the NDP) did the best. Political analysts agreed. Many in the three groups were put off by the continual mud-slinging with not and attacks upon Chretien without much discussion of issues. Stockwell Day the Alliance Leader was not trusted by some viewers. It is interesting that in repsonse to criticism on health care, he held up a huge sign saying NO TWO-TIER HEALTH CARE. It is reassuring that even the most right=wing candidate cannot openly attack the principle of universal health care. Of course if you pressed him Day might admit that he is in favor of a parallel health care system. The other male was Gilles Duceppes(sp?) leader of the BQ Bloc Quebecois. I believe that at one time he was a Maoist but he is a mainstream separatist now. One commentator said that he was better in the English debate than the French debate. It is ironic that the debaters who seem to have been most impressive to people and pundits alike both lead parties that are at about 7 per cent in the polls. Cheers, Ken Hanly \ - Original Message - From: Lisa Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 7:52 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4236] Canadian debates I'm watching the debates with Chretien on CBC.CA TV [cable]. Would any of the Canadians on the list be kind enough to let me [us] know who the others are, especially the woman making him piss in his Depends. Ian
Re: Voter turnout 52%
The entire message is in the subject line.
Re: Fwd: Electoral Dance.
Jim Devine wrote, Thought this website might be good for a quick relief from the election http://www.tvdance.com/bush-gore/ Totally awesome surfing, o devine one! Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
Re: RE: Castro on US elections.
At 12:36 PM 09/11/00 -0500, Norm wrote: OK, health care is worse than in W.Europe and some don't have it at all in the US, but it's far better for most US citizens than just about anywhere else. Far better for most US citizens? I doubt this. But more to the point - why is _health_ in the US so bad relative to other countries? Infant mortality is terrible - one figure I've seen is that black infant mortality in Washington is higher than in Havana. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that all cause and age-adjusted mortality rates in almost every major US city are significantly higher than in Canadian cities. They suggest that part of the reason is greater income inequality in the US (average income is higher in the US, but income inequality is higher, and signficantly correllated with mortality). US capitalism is a very unhealthy system. Bill
In Praise of the W. Palm Beach ballot
I like the West Palm Beach ballot layout. The candidates to try to camouflage themselves and morph into one another. Why should they be able to hide their identities on the ballot? Looking forward to four years of gridlock. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Class implications of recount votes
Interesting to see the strong trend during the recount in Florida, for many more Gore votes than Bush votes to be validated out of those that had presumably previously been excluded. This is presumably an automated recount, as the Democrats are now calling for manual recounts, but perhaps with discussion about which papers rejected by the counting machines, should go in a second time. The details of the methodology may be important. Are these machines optical readers? It suggests that modern automated vote counting is biased against the demographic groups that tended to vote for Gore. What can this be? Does it imply that Gore's vote on a national basis was probably higher than it was? Presumably he has gained from ballot papers being included in the recount, that had some blemish on them from the point of view of the impartial rules of the computer, a tick instead of a cross, or whatever. Gore's supporters presumably had a tendency to lack assertive "middle class" social skills, may not have negotiated the ballot paper so effectively, may not have had the confidence to have asked for a replacement, if they had made a mistake on the first one, may have got flustered etc. May not have insisted that the polls were still open 3 minutes before the closing time, when the officials were clearing up and did not want to be bothered with a couple of old black people, who were late because one of them had just come from their unsocial cleaning job, or because they had arthritis and could not afford pain killers that do not cause gastric erosion. The 19,000 disfranchised votes in Palm Beach are also part of the same social problem. So this is an example of the principle that a bourgeois right, a narrow, mechanical right, exercised in disregard of the fact that everyone is different, is in fact a right that is inferior by comparison with the rights of people as organic members of a social network. The closer the microscope is applied to what actually happened in Florida, even if fraud is not proved, the more detail there is likely to be, showing the inherent class bias of a system based on bourgeois right. Liberals contesting the electoral result may not draw attention to the class implications. Marxist-leaning politically-concerned individuals should use opportunities to expand this debate, and shift the focus of this whole ridiculous embarrassment for the competence of the USA (I am writing from outside, you appreciate) on to the social implications of how the democratic system works as a whole, how efficient it is in really representing peoples views, who benefits. Even "For whom?" as Lenin suggested always asking. But not so stridently that other people are repelled. The art is to find ways of connecting the general to the particular, not only philosophically but in terms of effective political contributions. Dogmatic marxism is useless in a modern bourgeois democracy. Certainly a system based on narrow fragmented bourgeois right, lubricated by billions of dollars of corporate donations, is not self-evidently democratic from all points of view, despite the assertion of one of the members of the Florida recount invigilatory panel, that 90 miles south of them, in Cuba, people do not have elections at all (!) Perhaps he could be invited to go on a free fact-finding holiday to help build friendship between the US and Cuban peoples. Presumably a hand count, with a discussion over contested votes, might well favour working people still further. The electoral system is an economic question, a class question, but it can only be exposed by applying the marxist distinction between bourgeois democratic rights and social rights in a way that brings it out in understandable terms. Chris Burford London
