Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Yoshie,

>Hey, sin taxes hit the working class harder than the rich.  So why 
>not chuck tobacco taxers out of the window, too?

Legalise all drugs, and then tax 'em all, I reckon.  Once you get the coke,
ecstacy, and acid revenues in, you'd be distributing the tax load much more
fairly, I think.  And you'd getter much better conversations, more sex, and
probably better voting behaviour out of your day and its inhabitants.

Yours for a drug-led recovery,
Rob.

Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>  > . . . I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution 
>to crime in any
>  > case, since economic factors are far more important.  And it's a little too
>>  late to get all the guns off the streets in any case.  So if progressive
>  > Dems did want to play "Survivor" among the various Democratic 
>voting groups,
>  > I would definately vote Handgun Control Inc. off the progressive island and
>  > try to get more NRA union folks back.-- Nathan Newman
>
>christ, we actually agree on something.
>
>I would throw off the tobacco taxers too.
>But don't get me started.  I might reveal
>my reactionary side.
>
>mbs

Hey, sin taxes hit the working class harder than the rich.  So why 
not chuck tobacco taxers out of the window, too?

Yoshie

Re: oil and socialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Hola Paul:

>Yoshie,
>I might be happy to consider it.  But first a few changes to make
>living in the US possible.
>
>Introduction of Medicare,
>Gun control legislation
>End to the Death Penalty
>Establishment of a decent public school system
>An adequate unemployment insurance system
>Old age pensions
>
>That would be a start, anyhow.

Ah, you Canadian socialists are a fussy & spoiled lot.  You'd have to 
accept the invitation as a great challenge (or the Socialist Man's 
Burden perhaps)!

Anyhow, on the subject of social democracy, I recently posted the 
following on LBO-talk:

*   Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:21:49 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Challenging the Black & Feminist Talented Tenth (was 
economic stats...)

Gordon wrote:

>Yoshie Furuhashi:
>>  ...
>>  I don't know if Nader & the Greens are up for it, though, for I think
>>  that Katha is correct to say that the CP had a lot more "moxie,"
>>  partisan discipline, organizational savvy, etc. than Nader/the
>>  Greens, David McReynolds/the SP, etc. do.
>
>I don't know about the Socialist Party, but the material
>I've seen from the Greens doesn't challenge the basic
>assumptions of capitalism, liberalism and social democracy,
>so in effect the people they are going to relate to among
>Blacks and women (as political categories) are precisely the
>Talented Tenth, because that's what social democracy is all
>about -- the bourgeoisie with a human face, you might say,
>achieved by replicating bourgeois relations and ideology
>among the lower orders and thus incorporating them into the
>system.

At this point in history, we don't have to worry about the American 
Greens becoming part of social democracy, for the USA does not, and 
_will never_, have social democracy.  Only late industrializers & 
second-rate imperialists became social democratic; imperial hegemons 
(the UK, and then the USA) never became really social democratic. 
Moreover, all countries that are still social democratic now 
(Germany, Sweden, etc.) began to become so much, much earlier in 
history (during the periods of the Enlightened Despots and/or of 
alliance of radical peasant and working-class parties); the working 
class & petty producers in those countries are trying to hang onto & 
defend what's left of earlier gains, instead of making social 
democratic advance.  American radicals had several chances to lay the 
foundations for social democracy -- Black Reconstruction, Populism, & 
then the New Deal -- but they lost each time, due to American racism.

Besides, now that we have no serious Communist challenge to 
capitalism, there is no reason why the ruling class in rich nations 
should concede to social democratic compromises.

A good number of Greens are technocratic as you say, resembling the 
Fabians, but rest assured that wannabe Green technocrats will not be 
able to deliver social democracy.  Social democracy is dead, and not 
just here.  Recall what became of the German Greens: the Green 
scissors of neoliberalism & the humane face of imperialism.  The job 
of radicals in/near the Green movements in America is to stop the 
American Greens from following the footsteps of their German 
counterparts & to help them gain the guts to de-legitimate the 
Democratic Party & its supporters -- including the Black & Feminist 
Talented Tenth -- instead of promoting Nader-Traders.

>The people around today who do challenge liberalism, etc.,
>are mostly anarchists, so they're not likely to be big on
>electoral organization and conventional politicking.  The old
>CP must have had some idea of how they could turn electoral
>victories and government power into fundamental social change.

We should not hope for electoral victories: (1) because we will never 
get them, except at municipal levels; and (2) because we should not 
aspire to manage the working class for the benefit of capital (that's 
what electoral victories of the Left under capitalism amount to). 
Electoral campaigns are & should be for the sole purpose of political 
education & agitation, while forcing a few progressive reforms on the 
ruling class in the meantime, or more likely at present, preventing 
reactionary reform initiatives from coming to pass.

>The idea is too sophisticated or too naive for me; I don't
>see it.  But it could have given them the moxie we don't see
>today.  Suppose they were naive: recall what Nietzsche said
>about the necessity of ignorance.

The false ideas that gave the CPs their "moxie," I believe, are not 
hopes for electoral victories but naive beliefs that (A) history is 
on their side (teleology sometimes helps!); (B) truth is on their 
side (dogmatism sometimes helps!); and (C) the Soviet Union created a 
workers' paradise free from racism & sexism (utopianism sometimes 
helps!).  Even the false belief (D) that Stalin was a fount of 
political wisdom helped on a few occasions, for instance by making 
the white American Communists be

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Jim D. writes:

>At 10:53 AM 11/18/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>>And I might add that dire warnings of the global warming, etc. are 
>>not likely to bring about the emergence of a collective of 
>>political agents capable of abolishing capitalism; they tend to 
>>depoliticize folks.  Discussion of the environment has to be rooted 
>>in analysis of political agency & power.  No political subject, no 
>>transition to socialism.
>
>maybe we can avoid being "dire," but global warming sure seems to be 
>happening. I'm told that it's now possible to sail from the Atlantic 
>to the Pacific Oceans by going north of Canada (the famous 
>"Northwest passage"). Or is this urban myth?

It's a fact:

*   The Guardian (London)
September 11, 2000
SECTION: Guardian Foreign Pages, Pg. 17
HEADLINE: Ice retreats to open North-west Passage: Mariners have been 
seeking the fabled route to the Orient for 500 years.  But is its 
opening a sign of impending environmental catastrophe?
BYLINE: Martin Kettle in Washington

Global warming in the Arctic may have finally achieved something that 
generations of explorers from Tudor times to the present day failed 
to accomplish - the opening up one of the world's most fabled trade 
routes to international commerce.

Sixty years ago, the St Roch, a ship belonging to the Royal Canadian 
Mounted Police (RCMP) battled its way through the pack ice of two 
winters at the top of the world to complete the first west to east 
journey through the North-west Passage after 27 months at sea.

This year, another RCMP ship, named the St Roch II in honour of its 
1940 predecessor, completed the same voyage from the Pacific to the 
Atlantic in just over a month, finally emerging into Baffin Bay, west 
of Greenland, last week.

At no point in its journey across the Arctic ocean north of Canada 
did the St Roch II encounter any of the pack ice which defeated so 
many of its predecessors in the search for a westerly sea route from 
Europe to the Pacific Spice Islands.

"Concern should be registered with the fact that we didn't see any 
ice," the vessel's skipper Sgt Ken Burton reported last week.  "There 
were some bergs, but nothing to cause any anxiety.  We saw some 
ribbons of multi-year ice floes, all small and fragmented, and we 
were able to steer around them."

As so often, though, one man's environmental concern is another's 
financial opportunity.  The success of the St Roch II's summer 
crossing opens up the possibility that commercial shipping may 
eventually begin to use the route - shortening the journey between 
Europe and Asia by around 5,000 miles and sharply reducing 
competitive costs.

"It is still a risky venture, but the day of the famed North-west 
Passage, the shortcut to the Orient, may be just around the corner," 
Sgt Burton said.

That possibility has raised fears among conservationists that the 
regular use of the Arctic ocean by large commercial ships could cause 
some of the environmental damage that has already been done to 
Alaskan waters and coastlines by increased shipping, including cruise 
ships.

At least two other ships apart from the St Roch II have cruised in 
the Northwest Passage this summer, one from the United States and the 
other from New Zealand.  The growth of maritime traffic this year is 
a sign of things to come, the conservationists believe.

Environmental fears

The St Roch II's voyage is another dramatic sign that the temperature 
of the Arctic ocean could be rising to a point at which existing 
assumptions about the once Frozen North may need to be rethought - 
though the causes of the change are still fiercely debated.

Comparison of submarine sonar probes beneath the Arctic ice suggest 
that the thickness of the polar cap is now less than 60% of what it 
was less than half a century ago.  Satellite photographs show that 
the size of the Arctic ice cap in the midsummer months is now some 6% 
smaller than it was in 1980.  Last month it was reported that clear 
water had been found at the North Pole, though subsequent reports 
have called into question whether this was as unique as it was first 
claimed.

"We don't know enough about the Arctic to know if this is global 
warming, climate change, or maybe we were just plain lucky," Sgt 
Burton said.

The St Roch II left Vancouver on July 1 on its journey around the 
north of the North American land mass, aiming to reach Halifax, Nova 
Scotia, by October 10, before sailing on to New York.  Its voyage 
through the normally frozen area from Tuktoyaktuk near the Alaskan 
border to Baffin Bay could have been accomplished even more quickly 
had it not been for a number of land visits which the St Roch II made 
to isolated outposts along the route.

For more than 500 years, sailors have tried to find a western sea 
route linking Europe with China and Japan.  From John Cabot in the 
1490s, to Martin Frobisher in the 1570s, to Roald Amundsen in the 
early 1900s, some of the most famous explorers in history have 
str

Re: Re: US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated

[Bill Rosenberg]

Paul

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I thought you now had a reformed Labour government that
> eschewed this neo-liberal nonsense.

Did you? We do have a third-way Labour Party that doesn't eschew this
neo-liberal nonsense. It does to an extent domestically, but carries on
enthusastically externally. The hope is that its small coalition partner, the
Alliance, and the Greens on which they depend for a majority, will slow it down.
But little sign of that at the moment! What I wrote in Canadian Dimension in May
is still largely true...

Bill

>From Canadian Dimension -

But what most distinguishes Labour from the Alliance - and even more, the Greens
- is its attitude to the open economy, or (to use that overused term)
globalisation. Labour still carries the legacy left by Mike Moore, its
spokesperson on foreign affairs and trade before ascending to the WTO.

In contrast, the Alliance and the Greens want to reinstate some of the tariffs
removed in missionary enthusiasm by the National government. They oppose
uncontrolled foreign investment. They have strong economic development policies
which involve government support for new industry. Indeed, Jim Anderton chose to
create a new portfolio of economic development (as well as becoming Deputy Prime
Minister) rather than accept something more conventional. 

To a degree, Labour goes along with this enthusiasm. Yet at the same time it is
pushing ahead with negotiations for new free trade agreements initiated by the
National government. It has announced talks on free trade areas with Singapore,
ASEAN and Chile. It has yet to define its attitude towards the WTO. Yet it is
hard to see the Alliance's economic development policies survive if exposed to
uncontrolled international trade and investment. The past fifteen years have
featured the deaths of many industries and the takeover by transnationals of
many successful ones.

The greatest constraint on the new government's economic policies may well be
the crisis-level current account deficit and huge, growing foreign debt. An open
economy has led to these; it seems unbelievable that an open economy can reverse
them. Sadly, in spite of an inspiring beginning to its term in office, that may
well be the source of this government's downfall.



> 
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
> 
> Date sent:  Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:10:37 +1300
> From:   Bill Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:[PEN-L:4591] US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated
> To: Progressive Economics list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Copies to:  Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > I would be interested in any reactions to the following announcement of a
> > US-Singapore FTA.
> >
> > Singapore recently signed a FTA with New Zealand. Actually it was much more than
> > that - it covered tariffs, services, investment, government procurement,
> > TBT/SPS, intellectual property, disputes procedures and more. It was explicitly
> > intended to be a model and a catalyst for further agreements. I can provide
> > copies and various analyses for anyone interested.
> >
> > Singapore has announced negotiations for similar agreements with Australia and
> > Japan.
> >
> > The intention of at least some of the parties (including Singapore and New
> > Zealand) is to link them up into a wider FTA. New Zealand officials and trade
> > ministers have been pushing for a "Pacific 5" agreement - US, Chile, Singapore,
> > Australia and New Zealand.
> >
> > Bill Rosenberg
> >
> >
> > Singapore To Launch Free Trade Negotiations
> >
> > Friday, 17 November 2000, 3:44 pm
> >
> > Press Release: The White House
> >
> > Singapore To Launch Free Trade Agreement Negotiations
> >
> > (First U.S.-Asian Free Trade Agreement to be established)
> > (740)
> >
> > President Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong,
> > on the final day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
> > (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Brunei, announced the United States
> > and Singapore will launch negotiations for the first U.S. free
> > trade agreement (FTA) with an Asian country.
> >
> > "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the
> > Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step
> > closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open
> > trade' throughout the Pacific," said U.S. Trade Representative
> > (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky.
> >
> > Geared toward the information technology-driven "new economy,"
> > the agreement will address significant service sectors of the
> > economy including communications, the Internet and high
> > technology and include provisions on labor and the
> > environment.
> >
> > According to Barshefsky, the agreement represents a major
> > economic potential to reap the benefits of the new economy and
> > has strategic significance for the overall mission of APEC.
> >
> > "As we realize the commercial benefits of a

Re: Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Ken Hanly]

The Liberals here passed rather stringent gun control legislation and it is
extremely unpopular. The right-wing Alliance party garners a lot of farmer,
hunter, and working class votes by opposing the legislation. I really do not
think that gun control reduces crime or violence against women. I await any
convincing evidence otherwise. It seems to me that other cultural factors
determine the level of violence and crime. The NDP candidate in my
constituency does not support the Liberal legislation but I believe that the
NDP party position is supportive. By the way my constituency is represented
by an Alliance member with the unlikely name of Inky Mark.
I am of two minds about tobacco taxes. On the one hand it may to some
extent discourage use. But surely governments are hypocritical to condemn
its use and then profit from its sale. The huge suits for health care are in
my opinion a total farce.
Tobacco is for sale legally and there are plenty of warnings about it as a
health hazard. In Canada at least, the warnings are by law on the packages.
Healthy people live longer and are probably those who linger on for ages in
personal care homes etc. and cost us a fortune in their last days.
Researchers paid by tobacco companies claim that total costs for smokers are
actually less-since they die early. Of course no leftist believes this
because they accept the ad hominem argument that if it is research paid for
tobacco companies it is not sound. The same type of ad hominem is ubiquitous
in the debate on genetic engineering.
The most you could assert is that there is an increased probability of bias
not that you can ignore or write off the research.
 Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 8:13 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4627] Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary


> > . . . I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution to
crime
> in any
> > case, since economic factors are far more important.  And it's a little
> too
> > late to get all the guns off the streets in any case.  So if progressive
> > Dems did want to play "Survivor" among the various Democratic voting
> groups,
> > I would definately vote Handgun Control Inc. off the progressive island
> and
> > try to get more NRA union folks back.-- Nathan Newman
>
>
> christ, we actually agree on something.
>
> I would throw off the tobacco taxers too.
> But don't get me started.  I might reveal
> my reactionary side.
>
> mbs
>

Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Max Sawicky]

> . . . I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution to crime
in any
> case, since economic factors are far more important.  And it's a little
too
> late to get all the guns off the streets in any case.  So if progressive
> Dems did want to play "Survivor" among the various Democratic voting
groups,
> I would definately vote Handgun Control Inc. off the progressive island
and
> try to get more NRA union folks back.-- Nathan Newman


christ, we actually agree on something.

I would throw off the tobacco taxers too.
But don't get me started.  I might reveal
my reactionary side.

mbs

Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Gar Lipow]

If there is a crisis -- it won't be particularly good for socialism, or
even for liberalism. Depends on how far it goes of course; if it comes
in 20 years, with 12 billion people suddenly trying to survive as hunter
gatherers, then neither capitalism or socialism will be the issue. 

The question is will capitalism be flexible enough to avoid this crisis.
I guess I am now little Mary Sunshine on this list (God knows what Kelly
will do with that straight line). I still maintain that avoiding the
crisis is TECHNICALLY feasible; and capitalism could not only survive,
but thrive in a world with "soft" technology. The problem seems to be
that it isn't making the transition. Maybe for for once the institutions
captialism has created will prevent it from reacting to a crisis in time
-- if so, not to anyones benefit. 

Ken Hanly wrote:
> 
> So there will be a crisis but this will not guarantee the collapse of
> capitalism. In the great depression people could not afford cars or fuel to
> run them. The result: Bennett buggies: hooking up cars to horses so they
> were no longer horseless carriages.
> There was no revolution. Surely leftists should by now realise the ability
> of capitalism to survive contradictions of its own making at least in the
> short run. What is the suggested strategy of those who paint these gloomsday
> scenarios re energy in the near future. What is their view of what is to be
> done?
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
> - Original Message -
> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 2:39 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:4614] Re: oil and socialism
> 
> > Gar is certainly correct that many potentially energy-saving strategies
> > exist.  However, implementation of these strategies also requires
> > considerable amounts of fossil fuel.  In addition, implementation will
> > require a good deal of time.
> >
> > For example, society could save enormous energy by redesigning cities to
> > minimize transportation demands.  It could not, however, do so
> > instantaneously.  Nor could we modernize the entire automobile fleet
> > overnight.  Finally, keep in mind that some of these energy-saving
> strategies
> > have problems of their own.  Not just hydroelectric power, but even wind.
> > For example in California, the windmills are creating havoc for bird
> > populations.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >

Re: Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Michael Perelman]

Nathan has a point.  Part of the problem was that Gore try to redefine
himself too many times, and ended up being unconvincing, except to a
relatively small number of people.  If he had been half performer that
Clinton is, he could've pulled it off easily.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 07:05:47PM -0500, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Actually, Gore did drop most of his gun control rhetoric by the end of the
> campaign.  Remember, he actually attacked Bradley from the gun rights side
> of the debate during the primary because Bradley wanted to register all
> guns.   Gore could have gone farther in repudiating the gun control folks,
> but he spent a lot of the fall telling hunters that he would not touch their
> guns in any way and ran away from every gun control question in the debates.
> The unions spent a good chunk of their turnout energy telling their members,
> in a nice little slogan I saw, "Al Gore doesn't want to take away your gun,
> but George Bush wants to take away your union."
> 
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Nathan Newman]

Actually, Gore did drop most of his gun control rhetoric by the end of the
campaign.  Remember, he actually attacked Bradley from the gun rights side
of the debate during the primary because Bradley wanted to register all
guns.   Gore could have gone farther in repudiating the gun control folks,
but he spent a lot of the fall telling hunters that he would not touch their
guns in any way and ran away from every gun control question in the debates.
The unions spent a good chunk of their turnout energy telling their members,
in a nice little slogan I saw, "Al Gore doesn't want to take away your gun,
but George Bush wants to take away your union."

I tend to be pretty skeptical of gun control as a solution to crime in any
case, since economic factors are far more important.  And it's a little too
late to get all the guns off the streets in any case.  So if progressive
Dems did want to play "Survivor" among the various Democratic voting groups,
I would definately vote Handgun Control Inc. off the progressive island and
try to get more NRA union folks back.

-- Nathan Newman

- Original Message -
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4622] yet another US electile disfunction commentary


It was interesting to read Katha Pollitt's  "Don't Blame Ralph" column in
the recent issue of the US-based NATION magazine and Doug Henwood's LBO
postmortem on the (alas!) not-dead-yet election. As they point out, Gore
should be held responsible for his own (possible) loss. After all, 10% of
those willing to admit to being Democrats said "let George do it" on
election day, while Uncle Albert couldn't even carry his own state,
Tennessee.

There's a problem with this. From what I've heard, the reason why Gore lost
Tennessee is that he was "too liberal." That suggests that if he had told
the leftists and the liberals to go f*ck themselves (while scaring them
about how Bush was Attila's long-lost son, so they'd better vote for the
lesser of two evils) even more than he did, he might have carried a bigger
percentage of the vote, taking Tennessee, so that vote counts in Florida
would be irrelevant.

But there was an alternative: Gore could have decided to tell the
pro-gun-control people "it's enough to enforce current laws, so we don't
need new laws." It's true that this is Bush's line, but there's a lot of
truth to it (especially if it's Gore rather than Bush who's doing the
enforcing). This strategy does to the pro-gun-control constituency what
Gore actually did to the labor movement and the African-American community.
However, it would make Gore more successful in a lot of places like
Tennessee -- and with many rank-and-file workers. There was an article in
the L.A. TIMES before the election started about how unionized workers in
the middle west were torn between pro-union loyalties and opposition to gun
control.

I know that it's a worthless parlor game to do Monday morning
quarter-backing for a bunch of political sleazoids like those running the
Gore campaign. But here's the punch line: why is it that the
Clinton/Gore/Lieberman (DLC) tradition always uses the "love it or leave
it" (lesser-of-two-evils) mind-f*ck on the labor movement, the minority
communities, the committed liberals, the last dregs of the New Deal
coalition, rather than on the pro-gun-control folks? It's because of the
class position and stance of the whole dominant wing of the Democrat party.
But you knew that.

(I've decided that the Republican are quite right to not call their
opponents the "Democratic Party" since the latter organization is hardly in
favor of democracy. Both parties see it as at best a necessary evil.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Ken Hanly]

So there will be a crisis but this will not guarantee the collapse of
capitalism. In the great depression people could not afford cars or fuel to
run them. The result: Bennett buggies: hooking up cars to horses so they
were no longer horseless carriages.
There was no revolution. Surely leftists should by now realise the ability
of capitalism to survive contradictions of its own making at least in the
short run. What is the suggested strategy of those who paint these gloomsday
scenarios re energy in the near future. What is their view of what is to be
done?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 2:39 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4614] Re: oil and socialism


> Gar is certainly correct that many potentially energy-saving strategies
> exist.  However, implementation of these strategies also requires
> considerable amounts of fossil fuel.  In addition, implementation will
> require a good deal of time.
>
> For example, society could save enormous energy by redesigning cities to
> minimize transportation demands.  It could not, however, do so
> instantaneously.  Nor could we modernize the entire automobile fleet
> overnight.  Finally, keep in mind that some of these energy-saving
strategies
> have problems of their own.  Not just hydroelectric power, but even wind.
> For example in California, the windmills are creating havoc for bird
> populations.
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

yet another US electile disfunction commentary

[Jim Devine]

It was interesting to read Katha Pollitt's  "Don't Blame Ralph" column in 
the recent issue of the US-based NATION magazine and Doug Henwood's LBO 
postmortem on the (alas!) not-dead-yet election. As they point out, Gore 
should be held responsible for his own (possible) loss. After all, 10% of 
those willing to admit to being Democrats said "let George do it" on 
election day, while Uncle Albert couldn't even carry his own state, Tennessee.

There's a problem with this. From what I've heard, the reason why Gore lost 
Tennessee is that he was "too liberal." That suggests that if he had told 
the leftists and the liberals to go f*ck themselves (while scaring them 
about how Bush was Attila's long-lost son, so they'd better vote for the 
lesser of two evils) even more than he did, he might have carried a bigger 
percentage of the vote, taking Tennessee, so that vote counts in Florida 
would be irrelevant.

But there was an alternative: Gore could have decided to tell the 
pro-gun-control people "it's enough to enforce current laws, so we don't 
need new laws." It's true that this is Bush's line, but there's a lot of 
truth to it (especially if it's Gore rather than Bush who's doing the 
enforcing). This strategy does to the pro-gun-control constituency what 
Gore actually did to the labor movement and the African-American community. 
However, it would make Gore more successful in a lot of places like 
Tennessee -- and with many rank-and-file workers. There was an article in 
the L.A. TIMES before the election started about how unionized workers in 
the middle west were torn between pro-union loyalties and opposition to gun 
control.

I know that it's a worthless parlor game to do Monday morning 
quarter-backing for a bunch of political sleazoids like those running the 
Gore campaign. But here's the punch line: why is it that the 
Clinton/Gore/Lieberman (DLC) tradition always uses the "love it or leave 
it" (lesser-of-two-evils) mind-f*ck on the labor movement, the minority 
communities, the committed liberals, the last dregs of the New Deal 
coalition, rather than on the pro-gun-control folks? It's because of the 
class position and stance of the whole dominant wing of the Democrat party. 
But you knew that.

(I've decided that the Republican are quite right to not call their 
opponents the "Democratic Party" since the latter organization is hardly in 
favor of democracy. Both parties see it as at best a necessary evil.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Jim Devine]

At 10:53 AM 11/18/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>And I might add that dire warnings of the global warming, etc. are not 
>likely to bring about the emergence of a collective of political agents 
>capable of abolishing capitalism; they tend to depoliticize 
>folks.  Discussion of the environment has to be rooted in analysis of 
>political agency & power.  No political subject, no transition to socialism.

maybe we can avoid being "dire," but global warming sure seems to be 
happening. I'm told that it's now possible to sail from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific Oceans by going north of Canada (the famous "Northwest passage"). 
Or is this urban myth?

BTW, Paul mentioned that the US spends more on cooling places like Dallas 
and Los Angeles than the Canadians spend on warming Edmonton, etc. Much as 
I'd like to see L.A. abandoned, this perhaps suggests a politically 
feasible solution. Remember that air conditioning units, like 
refrigerators, are merely heat pumps, which shift the hot air out of the 
box and out into the environment. Well, why can't we put all that hot air 
into long _superinsulated_ pipes and ship it to Canada? It might take about 
4 months to get there, so it would be just in time. The Republican and 
Democrat politicians -- and all the NC economists could contribute a 
veritable gale of hot air all year 'round. Maybe the revenues from this 
enterprise could allow the US to balance its current account!

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.

Re: oil and socialism

[Jim Devine]

we shouldn't forget that global warming makes it easier to avoid the cold, 
even in the Great White North.
;-)

At 01:05 PM 11/18/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>Ken and Gar,
>
>Yes, you can further insulate your houses.  I have my roof double
>insulated, double windows etc. etc.  But this raises other
>problems.  Sick buildings.  Super insulated houses are death to
>asthmatics (like me) or anyone suffering from alergies.  If it is super
>insulated you can not burn woodburning stoves -- which I can't
>anyhow as wood smoke, even a breath of it, takes my breath away.
>In any case, widespread use of wood as fuel is not feasible in
>major cities because of the pollution it produces and in the lesser
>developed world, it is use of wood for cooking etc. that is
>contributing to deforestation and global warming. Besides which,
>the marginal effect of extra insulation (above current standards) on
>energy conservation is probably less than the energy consumed in
>producing the insulation materials.
>  I could go on and counter all of Gar's recommendations -- all of
>which I am in full support of -- as far as solving the basic problem.
>There are too many people on the planet to be sustainable at any
>reasonable standard of living.  As long as the left denies this, it is
>doomed to irrelevancy.  Even if we could cut energy/resource
>consumption by half in North America, we still could not bring up
>the existing population of the world to half the NA standard without
>destroying the ecosphere.
>
>By the way, I believe the US uses more energy per capita cooling
>its hot air than Canada does to warm up its cold air.  You should
>perhaps close down all your southern cities and move the
>population to rainy Seattle and the norther wet coast.
>
>Paul Phillips,
>Economics,
>University of Manitoba
>
>
>From:   "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject:[PEN-L:4608] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
>Date sent:  Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:12:43 -0600
>Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > I don't see why much of what Gar says does not apply to cold climates.
> > Insulation does cut down on fuel costs. Saskatchewan has some good 
> areas for
> > wind power generation. Alberta already has some wind power generation 
> albeit
> > small. Gar doess not mention hydro power which is important in parts of
> > Canada, especially Manitoba, Quebec, and Labrador. Even in Manitoba I know
> > of a number of houses that use solar heating as a supplemental form of 
> heat.
> > Electric cars are not as practical in colder weather but a dual unit could
> > still save gas especially during warmer months. Aboriginals survived in
> > these climates for ages without benefit of fossil fuels albeit without
> > benefit of modern comforts either.
> > I use mostly wood heat as do many around here. THere are lots of quick
> > growing aspen. I suppose it might increase greenhouse gases but I gather
> > that modern stoves are more environmentally friendly than the older units
> > and I expect that any moderately large forest fire probably contributes 
> more
> > to greenhouse gases than hundreds of wood stoves. Also, it is a renewable
> > resource. I gather that there are problems with houses that are too well
> > insulated and  "tight", especially if wood is used to heat you get back
> > drafts.
> >Cheers, Ken Hanly
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 9:47 AM
> > Subject: [PEN-L:4602] Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
> >
> >
> > > Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.
> > >
> > > If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
> > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > Paul Phillips,
> > > Economics,
> > > University of Manitoba
> > >
> > > Date sent:  Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800
> > > From:   Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject:[PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current
> > > > > population to a decent level of material living without 
> destroying the
> > > > > world ecology?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are
> > > > political, not technical.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to 
> make a
> > > > list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for 
> yourself
> > > > -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you
> > > > do not have to meet academic standards
> > > >
> > > > I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent
> > > > material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does
> > > > not mean that the US good keep the same goods th

Re: Orblando Calling

[Michael Hoover]

please excuse typos in previous post (good thing I didn't type what 
appeared in the newspaper)...  Michael Hoover

>  Judy Woodruff could hardly contain themselves.  Voting in Florida, 
>  the most important of several "battle-ground" states, were about to end. 

was about to end

>  Competitive, profit-driven "pack journalism" that reared its head again 

"pack journalism" reared its head

>  Those 25 Florida electoral votes became picenter of the post-election

became the epicenter

>  all them Eisenhower-era seniors.  They may have been born just before or

Call them

>  Roosevelt and the New Deal.  FDR-ear seniors likely pride themselves om

FDR-era

>  A switch of several thousand votes in a couple of states in 1976 would
>  have given Gerald Ford the Electoral College even though he would have
>  stil lost the direct vote.  

still lost

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Gar Lipow]

Michael -- there is not doubt that it will require time and resources to
implement such strategies. That is why enviromentalists campaigned to
start the transition to such technoligies back in 70's; if it had been
started then we would have been thirty years into the transistion. But
enough savings could be implemented quickly to at least prevent further
exacerbation of global warming. And yes all of these methods have
environmental costs. But these costs are a lot lower than the methods
they replace. For instance Windmills kill birds; does anyone doubt that
coal power plants kill a hell of a lot more birds (per KWH) than
windmills do? 

We could still might be able to make the transition in time; I am not
optimistic that we will do so for poltical and social rather than
technical reasons. We have the problem that a series of bad decisions
still being made will collectively lead to horrible problems in the
future; this is the externality problem squared; in short we have the
kind of problem capitalism is least able to deal with -- short term
goods with external costs that accumlate catastrophically, and have to
be paid all at once in the future.

Michael Perelman wrote:
> 
> Gar is certainly correct that many potentially energy-saving strategies
> exist.  However, implementation of these strategies also requires
> considerable amounts of fossil fuel.  In addition, implementation will
> require a good deal of time.
> 
> For example, society could save enormous energy by redesigning cities to
> minimize transportation demands.  It could not, however, do so
> instantaneously.  Nor could we modernize the entire automobile fleet
> overnight.  Finally, keep in mind that some of these energy-saving strategies
> have problems of their own.  Not just hydroelectric power, but even wind.
> For example in California, the windmills are creating havoc for bird
> populations.
> 
> --
> 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 17 November 2000

[Paul Kneisel]

--- Support our Sponsor 
LOWEST AIRFARE IN THE SKY - Deep discounts: cruises, hotels,
international travel, vacations, cars. Connect to thousands
of travel agents competing for your business. Hot NEW site!
http://click.topica.com/TPbz8SnrbAjwjxa/Imandi



SUBSCRIPTIONS

We picked up another 17 direct subscribers and another 102 readers from a
list owner now posting to a new progressive list, for a total of 119! We've
also picked up over 400 hits on our monitored pages at the web site.
Please tell a friend about the journal this holiday season.



__

 The Internet Anti-Fascist: Friday, 17 November 2000
  Vol. 4, Number 93 (#489)
__

More Police Action Against U.S. Far Right
Reuters, "U.S. Agents Search Ex-Klan Leader's House," 16 Nov 00
Cain Burdeau (AP), "Feds Search Home of Ex-Klansman," 16 Nov 00
AP, "Six charged in $186 million scheme to defraud IRS," 17 Nov 00
Continuing Coverage of Damages from Holocaust
FOX News, "Victims of Nazi Camps May Get Reparations," 14 Nov 00
News of Krystallnacht Actions
AntiFascistisk Aktion-Stockholm, "Crystal Night 2000 in Stockholm,"
   9 Nov 00
Tony Czuczka (AP), "Anniversary marks past, present hatred," 10 Nov 00
Richard Chaim Schneider (JTA), "Germans rally against racism, but
   comments stir some division," 14 Nov 00
The Net In the News
AP, "Jewish Web site bombarded with apparent neo-Nazi hate e-mail," 10
   Nov 00
Bill Birnbauer and Garry Barker (The Age [Australia]), "Legal test on
   Holocaust Internet site," 10 Nov 00
Web Sites of Interest:
Movie Review:
"'Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport:' Haunting
   look at children saved from the Nazis: Documentary shows rescue of
   10,000 Jewish youngsters," reviewed by G. Allen Johnson (San
   Francisco Examiner), 10 Nov 00
Real Political Correctness:
AP, "French court: Town's 'birth bonus' racist," 9 Nov 00

--

MORE POLICE ACTION AGAINST U.S. FAR RIGHT

U.S. Agents Search Ex-Klan Leader's House
Reuters
16 Nov 00

MANDEVILLE, La. -- Federal agents searched former Ku Klux Klan leader David
Duke's home north of New Orleans on Thursday, seizing boxes of documents,
authorities said. Duke, a perennial political candidate and self-professed
Republican, was not at home when the search warrant was served, FBI
spokeswoman Sheila Thorne said.

A man answering the telephone at Duke's house who identified himself as a
bodyguard said Duke, 51, had been abroad for several months publicizing his
autobiography. He said federal agents took gambling, travel and personal
financial information and a rifle.

Thorne said the search was conducted by agents from the FBI, Internal
Revenue Service and U.S. Postal Inspector's Office. She declined to provide
details of the investigation.

Last year, Duke took the Fifth Amendment to protect himself from self-
incrimination when he appeared before a federal grand jury. He was
questioned about having sold a list of his contributors to Republican Gov.
Mike Foster during the 1995 gubernatorial campaign for $150,000, a figure
political analysts said was extremely high.

Duke said later he was amending his income-tax return to reflect the
payment, which he said was omitted from his tax return due to a bookkeeping
error.

Foster, who did not report the payment to Duke on his campaign finance
reports, ultimately paid a $20,000 fine.

It was not known if that issue was relevant to the current investigation.

Duke, whose only elective office was one term as a state representative
from a mostly white New Orleans suburb in the late 1980s, had announced he
was thinking of running for governor in 1995, but decided against it.

Dismissing his earlier involvement with neo-Nazis and the Klan as "youthful
indiscretions," Duke narrowly lost a U.S. Senate race in the 1990s and
placed third in a congressional election.

- - - - -

Feds Search Home of Ex-Klansman
Cain Burdeau (AP)
16 Nov 00

MANDEVILLE, La. -- Federal agents searched the home of former Ku Klux Klan
leader David Duke and seized boxes of documents Thursday.

FBI spokeswoman Sheila Thorne refused to disclose the nature of the
investigation.

Agents from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service and the Postal Service
entered Duke's suburban New Orleans home at 8 a.m. and were still inside
the house, with the blinds drawn, at mid-afternoon.

Duke, 50, was not home. He was in Russia promoting a book, said Vincent
Edwards, a spokesman for a Duke-led political organization.

The former KKK leader and Senate candidate appeared before a federal grand
jury in New Orleans in 1999 as news broke tha

Orblando Calling

[Michael Hoover]

Below appears in November 16-22 *Orlando Weekly*.  I thought it would appear 
on website as well but it hasn't yet.  I'd planned to send web address so
apologies for lengthy post.  Published article is bit shorter than what I 
submitted and I wasn't involved re. title.  

fwiw: I found much post-11/7 e-list punditry to be as silly as that
emanating from media.  Some commentaries/speculations about Florida 
were kinda funny (likely without intention).  

Beyond that, I learned long time ago that making generalizations about 
US politics is fraught with "danger" because folks' attitudes/beliefs/
expectations about what government should do/who should particpate/what 
rules should govern political game vary greatly.  For example, Florida's
southern past created political environment discouraging participation.
Politics was domain of "appropriate" elites.  One result: very short
post-election period to wrap things up.  In contrast, so-called "good
government" states such as Wisconsin & Oregon with stronger sense of
public interest allow for longer period of time before final vote
tallies are official.  I think, for example, both W&O have until end
of month.  Meanwhile, Florida's election-day ballots were supposed to
have been certified one week after they were cast and all ballots
certified by end of today.Michael Hoover 

 Gridlock, and regrouping: Whatever the outcome in Florida, minorities and
 seniors pushed it through

 As the clock neared 7pm Eastern time on Nov. 7, anchors Bernard Shaw and 
 Judy Woodruff could hardly contain themselves.  Voting in Florida, 
 the most important of several "battle-ground" states, were about to end. 
 According to pre-election conventional wisdom, the 2000 presidential
 election would be determined by the outcome in Florida, Michigan, and
 Pennsylvania.  The Sunshine State's twenty-five Electoral College votes
 were thought to be the crown jewels in this contest.  
 
 About fifty minutes later, the television networks "called" the state for
 Al Gore.  By 9:30pm, however, they were withdrawing Florida from the
 Democratic candidate's tally.  Was the exit poll data faulty?  Or was the 
 problem those Panhandle Floridians living in the Central Time Zone still 
 voting when the networks gave the state to Gore?
  
 Competitive, profit-driven "pack journalism" that reared its head again 
 some five hours later.  Just before 2:30 a.m., the networks began 
 declaring George Bush the next president of the United States based on
 the basis of his reported lead of 50,000 votes in Florida.  An hour later,
 the vice-president received a phone call to the effect that he had
 closed the deficit to 6,000 votes, and so he phoned the Texas governor to
 retract an earlier admission of defeat.
 
 Those 25 Florida electoral votes became picenter of the post-election
 controversy leaving both candidates short of the 270 electoral votes
 needed to win the presidency.
  
 Florida's electorate has gotten sucked into the analytical swamp of
 recounts, discarded ballots, apparent miscast votes, faulty registration
 lists, and alleged voter intimidation.  A year ago, few, if any observers,
 thought the state would even be in play.  After all, the Republican
 candidate would likely be the sibling of Florida's generally popular
 Republican governor in a state that had voted GOP in nine of the twelve
 previous presidential elections.   
 
 Once Gore's brief Florida "win" was rescinded, Democrats, alternately 
 angry and whiny, accused Ralph Nader of ruining the election and called 
 Green Party voters "Nader's Traitors."  In one fell swoop, the greatly 
 admired long-time consumer advocate had become "Darth Nader."
 
 But the blame isn't so limited.  Gore revealed himself to be Tennessee's 
 not-so-favorite son.  His plight in his home state was made difficult by 
 the growth of a solid Republican South, and his failure to carry 
 Tennessee denied him 11 Electoral College votes that would have put him
 over the top with a total of 271 - without Florida.  Gore's embarrassing
 Tennessee defeat suggests that he might have campaigned a bit more in 
 this state that he and Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.
  
 Gore's team kept Clinton on the sidelines throughout the campaign, 
 allowing him only a last-minute foray into Hollywood and Arkansas.
 Clinton's negatives in Arkansas existed long before his presidential 
 troubles, yet he had won five of six statewide races as well as its six 
 Electoral College votes in each of his presidential campaigns.
   
 Which brings us back to Florida where the original statewide count left Al
 Gore trailing George Bush by fewer than 2,000 out of almost 6 million
 votes.  Given the problems in Palm Beach - 19,000 ballots tossed out, a
 few thousand votes mistakenly cast for Reform Party candidate Pat
 Buchanan in a county where Gore received 62% of the vote - the real
 spoiler for the Democrats was not Ralph Nader, but the p

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Gar Lipow]

Carrol -- on these issues I'm doing what anyone not an expert has to do
-- choosing which experts to believe. Virtually all serious
environmentalists who look at this issue seem to agree. Barry Commoner
is who I learned this from back in the 70's.  Amory Lovins is  good on
the technical end today -- though with a touchingly naive belief in the
power of markets to bring it about.  (However the latest electricity
deregulation seems to have brought some doubt to his opinions.)
Ultimately, society has to make this type of decision -- and since
experts will always conflict -- in the end  people will have take the
trouble to inform themselves and decide who is the more reliable expert.
Also there are some basis judgement. On the micro level this stuff is
pretty much available now. 

In terms of the 'net energy sink' issue on solar -- Ivan Illvich is the
guy who made this argument -- and I was able to do the math to tell you
that his numbers (at least) did not make sense.

Don't know how Nuclear energy got into this; I first learned this stuff
when I was in the no-nukes movement. I don't think I advocated Nukes at
all (though Jim Heartfield might). 

On some specific issues -- superinsulated houses do not have to be
"sick" houses. They can be well ventilatated with lots of air changes
via heat exchangers and bafflers. 


And it terms of Global warming -- again we have to make judgements on
stuff like this. The arguments that it is happening, and due in part to
human intervention seem overwhelming. The belief that laypersons cannot
rationally hold opinions on these subjects leads to the kind of "all
opinions are equal"   stuff that insists that creationism be taught
alongside the theory of evolution in biology classes -- or that both be
omitted. 

Carrol Cox wrote:
> 
> Gar Lipow wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Every bit of it? Super-insulation will not save energy in Canadian
> > houses? Waste heat from electricity generation cannot heat Canadian
> > buildings and water? Longer lasting goods would not save the energy need
> > for more frequent manufacture in Canada? More efficent autos will not
> > burn less fuel in Canada? Agriculturural (and forestry) waste could not
> > produce fuel or feedstocks in Canada? Canada has no city dwellers who
> > could benefit from more mass transit?
> 
> Gar, Most of these proposals in the short run, and some perhaps even
> in the long run, are energy sinks -- that is their implementation would consume
> more energy than they would save after being implemented. Nuclear power
> is definitely an energy sink (and will continue to be so for thousands of years
> after its utilization ceases).
> 
> Let me post one of my recurrent warnings against the invocation of fragments
> of scientific learning by non-biologists, non-chemists, non-climatologists,
> non-engineers. I myself don't have a clue as to whether in fact Gar's utopian
> suggestions are energy sinks or energy savers -- and neither does he.
> 
> Amateur 'knowledge' of climatology and energy physics is probably not quite
> so destructive as amateur 'knowledge' of evolutionary science (which can
> generate fantasies, for example, about the evolutionary justification of "trophy
> wives") but can nevertheless lead to false fears and, more importantly, naive
> conceptions of what can be done.
> 
> Carrol

Re: oil and socialism

[Michael Perelman]

Gar is certainly correct that many potentially energy-saving strategies
exist.  However, implementation of these strategies also requires
considerable amounts of fossil fuel.  In addition, implementation will
require a good deal of time.

For example, society could save enormous energy by redesigning cities to
minimize transportation demands.  It could not, however, do so
instantaneously.  Nor could we modernize the entire automobile fleet
overnight.  Finally, keep in mind that some of these energy-saving strategies
have problems of their own.  Not just hydroelectric power, but even wind.
For example in California, the windmills are creating havoc for bird
populations.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[phillp2]

Date sent:  Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:27:45 -0500
Yoshie,
I might be happy to consider it.  But first a few changes to make 
living in the US possible.

Introduction of Medicare,
Gun control legislation
End to the Death Penalty
Establishment of a decent public school system
An adequate unemployment insurance system
Old age pensions

That would be a start, anyhow.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:   Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:4611] Re: oil and socialism
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>
> That is true, though the invitation to to repopulate & rehabilitate 
> Midwestern cities in America still stands
> 
> Yoshie
> 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

[phillp2]

Ken and Gar,

Yes, you can further insulate your houses.  I have my roof double 
insulated, double windows etc. etc.  But this raises other 
problems.  Sick buildings.  Super insulated houses are death to 
asthmatics (like me) or anyone suffering from alergies.  If it is super 
insulated you can not burn woodburning stoves -- which I can't 
anyhow as wood smoke, even a breath of it, takes my breath away.
In any case, widespread use of wood as fuel is not feasible in 
major cities because of the pollution it produces and in the lesser 
developed world, it is use of wood for cooking etc. that is 
contributing to deforestation and global warming. Besides which, 
the marginal effect of extra insulation (above current standards) on 
energy conservation is probably less than the energy consumed in 
producing the insulation materials.
 I could go on and counter all of Gar's recommendations -- all of 
which I am in full support of -- as far as solving the basic problem.  
There are too many people on the planet to be sustainable at any 
reasonable standard of living.  As long as the left denies this, it is 
doomed to irrelevancy.  Even if we could cut energy/resource 
consumption by half in North America, we still could not bring up 
the existing population of the world to half the NA standard without 
destroying the ecosphere.

By the way, I believe the US uses more energy per capita cooling 
its hot air than Canada does to warm up its cold air.  You should 
perhaps close down all your southern cities and move the 
population to rainy Seattle and the norther wet coast.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
 

From:   "Ken Hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:4608] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
Date sent:  Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:12:43 -0600
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> I don't see why much of what Gar says does not apply to cold climates.
> Insulation does cut down on fuel costs. Saskatchewan has some good areas for
> wind power generation. Alberta already has some wind power generation albeit
> small. Gar doess not mention hydro power which is important in parts of
> Canada, especially Manitoba, Quebec, and Labrador. Even in Manitoba I know
> of a number of houses that use solar heating as a supplemental form of heat.
> Electric cars are not as practical in colder weather but a dual unit could
> still save gas especially during warmer months. Aboriginals survived in
> these climates for ages without benefit of fossil fuels albeit without
> benefit of modern comforts either.
> I use mostly wood heat as do many around here. THere are lots of quick
> growing aspen. I suppose it might increase greenhouse gases but I gather
> that modern stoves are more environmentally friendly than the older units
> and I expect that any moderately large forest fire probably contributes more
> to greenhouse gases than hundreds of wood stoves. Also, it is a renewable
> resource. I gather that there are problems with houses that are too well
> insulated and  "tight", especially if wood is used to heat you get back
> drafts.
>Cheers, Ken Hanly
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 9:47 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:4602] Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
> 
> 
> > Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.
> >
> > If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
> > nonsense.
> >
> > Paul Phillips,
> > Economics,
> > University of Manitoba
> >
> > Date sent:  Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800
> > From:   Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:[PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current
> > > > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the
> > > > world ecology?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are
> > > political, not technical.
> > >
> > > I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a
> > > list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself
> > > -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you
> > > do not have to meet academic standards
> > >
> > > I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent
> > > material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does
> > > not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that
> > > others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods
> > > provided in a slightly different manner for everyone:
> > >
> > > **
> > > Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of
> > > h

Re: oil and socialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Ken says:

>Well actually the development of northern regions and building large cities
>in the north was a characteristic of the USSR rather than capitalism. Much
>of the US even excluding Alaska is further north than the southern and most
>populated parts of Canada.
>THe largest part of our population  is within 100 miles of the US border.
>Toronto is further south than Portland or Seattle.
>We have no cities of any size in the far north unlike the USSR.There is no
>profit to be had in building cities in the north and none have been built.

That is true, though the invitation to to repopulate & rehabilitate 
Midwestern cities in America still stands

Yoshie

Re: oil and socialism

[Carrol Cox]

Gar Lipow wrote:

>
>
> Every bit of it? Super-insulation will not save energy in Canadian
> houses? Waste heat from electricity generation cannot heat Canadian
> buildings and water? Longer lasting goods would not save the energy need
> for more frequent manufacture in Canada? More efficent autos will not
> burn less fuel in Canada? Agriculturural (and forestry) waste could not
> produce fuel or feedstocks in Canada? Canada has no city dwellers who
> could benefit from more mass transit?

Gar, Most of these proposals in the short run, and some perhaps even
in the long run, are energy sinks -- that is their implementation would consume
more energy than they would save after being implemented. Nuclear power
is definitely an energy sink (and will continue to be so for thousands of years
after its utilization ceases).

Let me post one of my recurrent warnings against the invocation of fragments
of scientific learning by non-biologists, non-chemists, non-climatologists,
non-engineers. I myself don't have a clue as to whether in fact Gar's utopian
suggestions are energy sinks or energy savers -- and neither does he.

Amateur 'knowledge' of climatology and energy physics is probably not quite
so destructive as amateur 'knowledge' of evolutionary science (which can
generate fantasies, for example, about the evolutionary justification of "trophy
wives") but can nevertheless lead to false fears and, more importantly, naive
conceptions of what can be done.

Carrol

Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Ken Hanly]

Well actually the development of northern regions and building large cities
in the north was a characteristic of the USSR rather than capitalism. Much
of the US even excluding Alaska is further north than the southern and most
populated parts of Canada.
THe largest part of our population  is within 100 miles of the US border.
Toronto is further south than Portland or Seattle.
We have no cities of any size in the far north unlike the USSR.There is no
profit to be had in building cities in the north and none have been built.

  CHeers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:04 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:4604] Re: oil and socialism


> >Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.
> >
> >If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
> >nonsense.
> >
> >Paul Phillips
>
> Actually, one of the problems caused by capitalism may be thought of
> as the mind-boggling spread and growth of cities in inhospitable
> climates (e.g., coldest regions of Canada) & disaster-prone areas
> (e.g., large parts of Florida, California, etc.).  Perhaps, in the
> event of worldwide transition to socialism, the whole of Canada
> should be returned to descendants of its original inhabitants, and
> you all come down here & repopulate & rehabilitate American cities,
> especially in the Midwest   Detroit, Flint, Akron, Youngstown,
> anyone?
>
> Yoshie
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Ken Hanly]

I don't see why much of what Gar says does not apply to cold climates.
Insulation does cut down on fuel costs. Saskatchewan has some good areas for
wind power generation. Alberta already has some wind power generation albeit
small. Gar doess not mention hydro power which is important in parts of
Canada, especially Manitoba, Quebec, and Labrador. Even in Manitoba I know
of a number of houses that use solar heating as a supplemental form of heat.
Electric cars are not as practical in colder weather but a dual unit could
still save gas especially during warmer months. Aboriginals survived in
these climates for ages without benefit of fossil fuels albeit without
benefit of modern comforts either.
I use mostly wood heat as do many around here. THere are lots of quick
growing aspen. I suppose it might increase greenhouse gases but I gather
that modern stoves are more environmentally friendly than the older units
and I expect that any moderately large forest fire probably contributes more
to greenhouse gases than hundreds of wood stoves. Also, it is a renewable
resource. I gather that there are problems with houses that are too well
insulated and  "tight", especially if wood is used to heat you get back
drafts.
   Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:4602] Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism


> Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.
>
> If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
> nonsense.
>
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
>
> Date sent:  Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800
> From:   Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:[PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
>
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current
> > > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the
> > > world ecology?
> > >
> >
> > The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are
> > political, not technical.
> >
> > I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a
> > list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself
> > -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you
> > do not have to meet academic standards
> >
> > I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent
> > material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does
> > not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that
> > others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods
> > provided in a slightly different manner for everyone:
> >
> > **
> > Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of
> > heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while
> > using 90% less ecologically destructive goods:
> >
> > This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings --
> > reducing heat loss and gain
> >
> > Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat
> > buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use,
> >
> > short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term,
> > train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and
> > taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors.
> >
> > Use of more effiecient electrical motors,
> >
> > Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial
> > conservation measue in areas where this is practical  (many).
> >
> > Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty.
> >
> > A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to
> > reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of
> > energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate
> > from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of
> > goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.)
> >
> > ===
> > Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned
> > sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for
> > ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy
> > cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could
> > produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting
> > hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small
> > scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high
> > quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not
> > be included in any calculations..
> >
> > In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least
> > provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have
> > worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle 

Re: "There Was a Lad"

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Lou posted:

>"There Was a Lad" is a deceptively modest film. Filmed in a radiant
>black-and-white on location in the rural Russia of 1964, it tracks the
>day-to-day existence of a young truck driver Pavel Kolokolnikov (Leonid
>Kuravlev), whose only dream is to rise above his mundane existence. But it
>is not money that he hungers for, rather entry into the world of "culture",
>especially as expressed in the women of his dreams.

>Ultimately Pavel is a prisoner of his dreams. Whether behind the wheel of
>his truck or in a hospital bed recovering from injuries incurred in a
>heroic act, he fantasizes about a more perfect world where he is garbed in
>white in a petal-strewn forest receiving the affections of the town
>librarian. Or he dreams that he is a General bedecked in ribbons delivering
>inspirational speeches to all the women he has ever known, who are
>recovering in a hospital ward. Their problem? It is their "heart", which is
>just another way of saying that he is projecting his own romantic
>frustrations onto the opposite sex. Such scenes are rendered in a
>surprising Fellini-esque fashion.

_There Was a Lad_ sounds like a wonderful film, which gives a subtly 
feminist criticism of male anxiety about "cultured women" as well as 
of metaphorical representation of "culture" as "feminine" (since I 
haven't had a chance to see the movie, I'm going by Lou's 
description), in addition to an examination of alienation rooted in 
the separation of mental & manual labor which actually existing 
socialism was never able to overcome.

Yoshie

Re: Re: RE: Re: oil and socialism

[Carrol Cox]

Jim Devine wrote:

>  It's not over 'til
> it's over, when there's a sufficient social force to replace capitalism.

"If you don't hit it, it won't fall." Mao.

Carrol

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Gar Lipow]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.

I implied it pretty clealy.
> 
> If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
> nonsense.

Every bit of it? Super-insulation will not save energy in Canadian
houses? Waste heat from electricity generation cannot heat Canadian
buildings and water? Longer lasting goods would not save the energy need
for more frequent manufacture in Canada? More efficent autos will not
burn less fuel in Canada? Agriculturural (and forestry) waste could not
produce fuel or feedstocks in Canada? Canada has no city dwellers who
could benefit from more mass transit? 
> 
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
> 
> Date sent:  Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800
> From:   Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:[PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
> 
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current
> > > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the
> > > world ecology?
> > >
> >
> > The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are
> > political, not technical.
> >
> > I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a
> > list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself
> > -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you
> > do not have to meet academic standards
> >
> > I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent
> > material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does
> > not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that
> > others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods
> > provided in a slightly different manner for everyone:
> >
> > **
> > Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of
> > heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while
> > using 90% less ecologically destructive goods:
> >
> > This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings --
> > reducing heat loss and gain
> >
> > Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat
> > buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use,
> >
> > short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term,
> > train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and
> > taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors.
> >
> > Use of more effiecient electrical motors,
> >
> > Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial
> > conservation measue in areas where this is practical  (many).
> >
> > Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty.
> >
> > A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to
> > reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of
> > energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate
> > from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of
> > goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.)
> >
> > ===
> > Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned
> > sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for
> > ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy
> > cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could
> > produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting
> > hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small
> > scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high
> > quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not
> > be included in any calculations..
> >
> > In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least
> > provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have
> > worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle by which meat,
> > alchohol and methane could be produced, providing food and fuel without
> > robbing the soil.. (and unlike some current production methods --
> > providing net energy).
> >
> > Similarly, a combination of designing goods for long life, designing
> > them to be produced with minimal waste, and designing them to last a
> > long time could greatly reduce the materials used in producing goods --
> > in addition to reducing energy as already mentioned above.
> >
> > In short technology commercially available now could sustain an USA
> > Quality (though not USA Style) level of material goods while consuming
> > natural sources and sinks at a level of around 5% to 10% per capital of
> > what the USA does. (And yes, as a US citizen I agree the USA should set
> > the example for this.)
> >
> > Note that I am not including fuel cells, projection

Re: oil and socialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.
>
>If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
>nonsense.
>
>Paul Phillips

Actually, one of the problems caused by capitalism may be thought of 
as the mind-boggling spread and growth of cities in inhospitable 
climates (e.g., coldest regions of Canada) & disaster-prone areas 
(e.g., large parts of Florida, California, etc.).  Perhaps, in the 
event of worldwide transition to socialism, the whole of Canada 
should be returned to descendants of its original inhabitants, and 
you all come down here & repopulate & rehabilitate American cities, 
especially in the Midwest   Detroit, Flint, Akron, Youngstown, 
anyone?

Yoshie

Re: oil and socialism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Let's start with my initial assertion: capitalism is very adaptable, 
>able to survive hard times. This does not mean that capitalism 
>doesn't drive itself into disgusting crises every few decades. It 
>does. In fact, I see a serious realization crisis in the near future 
>of U.S. -- and likely, world -- capitalism. Environmental crises are 
>happening and will intensify. Things are going to get worse on a lot 
>of fronts, and are already getting worse for many people (e.g., 
>Africa). It's even likely that the price of fossil fuels (before-tax 
>real petrol prices, etc.) will rise dramatically in the future, even 
>though the current high only looks high because it's following a 
>20-year down-trend, since capitalism tends to go to extremes. The 
>discussion above seems to be an extrapolation based on this notion.
>
>But, as in the past, crises don't automatically lead to capitalism's 
>demise. We might see a move toward fascism, but the system's elites 
>and shock troops will fight hard to keep their system going. It's 
>not over 'til it's over, when there's a sufficient social force to 
>replace capitalism.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Right you are.  The way they fight Nader (!) should make us all 
shudder; imagine how they will fight _us_ in the event of a real 
crisis.

Were we in a better position (= with "a sufficient social force to 
replace capitalism"), discussion of a potential crisis -- what 
opportunities as well as dangers may emerge through it -- would be 
important.  Sadly, we are not in a political position to discuss it 
productively

And I might add that dire warnings of the global warming, etc. are 
not likely to bring about the emergence of a collective of political 
agents capable of abolishing capitalism; they tend to depoliticize 
folks.  Discussion of the environment has to be rooted in analysis of 
political agency & power.  No political subject, no transition to 
socialism.

Yoshie

Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

[phillp2]

Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.

If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is 
nonsense.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

Date sent:  Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800
From:   Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current
> > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the
> > world ecology?
> > 
> 
> The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are
> political, not technical.
> 
> I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a
> list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself
> -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you
> do not have to meet academic standards
> 
> I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent
> material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does
> not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that
> others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods
> provided in a slightly different manner for everyone:
> 
> **
> Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of
> heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while
> using 90% less ecologically destructive goods:
> 
> This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings --
> reducing heat loss and gain
> 
> Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat
> buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use,
> 
> short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term,
> train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and
> taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors. 
> 
> Use of more effiecient electrical motors,
> 
> Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial
> conservation measue in areas where this is practical  (many).
> 
> Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty.
> 
> A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to
> reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of
> energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate
> from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of
> goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.)
> 
> ===
> Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned
> sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for
> ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy
> cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could
> produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting 
> hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small
> scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high
> quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not
> be included in any calculations..
> 
> In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least
> provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have
> worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle by which meat,
> alchohol and methane could be produced, providing food and fuel without
> robbing the soil.. (and unlike some current production methods --
> providing net energy).
> 
> Similarly, a combination of designing goods for long life, designing
> them to be produced with minimal waste, and designing them to last a
> long time could greatly reduce the materials used in producing goods --
> in addition to reducing energy as already mentioned above.
> 
> In short technology commercially available now could sustain an USA
> Quality (though not USA Style) level of material goods while consuming
> natural sources and sinks at a level of around 5% to 10% per capital of
> what the USA does. (And yes, as a US citizen I agree the USA should set
> the example for this.)
> 
> Note that I am not including fuel cells, projectiong cheap PV or any
> technolgy not currently available.  And yes fossil fuels would still be
> needed -- but at a level that is environmentally sustainable.
> 
> In short the barriers are not techical, nor are they feasability
> questions -- the costs of the switch in terms of labor and  materials is
> by no means overwhelming.  They are strictly political; our current
> economic system could not tolerate many of the changes and could not
> make many of the changes it could tolerate.
> 
> > 
> > Paul Phillips,
> > Economics,
> > University of Manitoba
> > 
> > Date sent:  Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:40:26 -0500
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From:   

Re: US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated

[phillp2]

Bill,

I thought you now had a reformed Labour government that 
eschewed this neo-liberal nonsense.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

Date sent:  Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:10:37 +1300
From:   Bill Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:4591] US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated
To: Progressive Economics list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Copies to:  Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> I would be interested in any reactions to the following announcement of a
> US-Singapore FTA.
> 
> Singapore recently signed a FTA with New Zealand. Actually it was much more than
> that - it covered tariffs, services, investment, government procurement,
> TBT/SPS, intellectual property, disputes procedures and more. It was explicitly
> intended to be a model and a catalyst for further agreements. I can provide
> copies and various analyses for anyone interested.
> 
> Singapore has announced negotiations for similar agreements with Australia and
> Japan.
> 
> The intention of at least some of the parties (including Singapore and New
> Zealand) is to link them up into a wider FTA. New Zealand officials and trade
> ministers have been pushing for a "Pacific 5" agreement - US, Chile, Singapore,
> Australia and New Zealand.
> 
> Bill Rosenberg
> 
> 
> Singapore To Launch Free Trade Negotiations
> 
> Friday, 17 November 2000, 3:44 pm
> 
> Press Release: The White House 
> 
> Singapore To Launch Free Trade Agreement Negotiations
> 
> (First U.S.-Asian Free Trade Agreement to be established) 
> (740)
> 
> President Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, 
> on the final day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
> (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Brunei, announced the United States 
> and Singapore will launch negotiations for the first U.S. free 
> trade agreement (FTA) with an Asian country.
> 
> "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the 
> Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step 
> closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open 
> trade' throughout the Pacific," said U.S. Trade Representative 
> (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky.
> 
> Geared toward the information technology-driven "new economy," 
> the agreement will address significant service sectors of the 
> economy including communications, the Internet and high 
> technology and include provisions on labor and the 
> environment.
> 
> According to Barshefsky, the agreement represents a major 
> economic potential to reap the benefits of the new economy and 
> has strategic significance for the overall mission of APEC.
> 
> "As we realize the commercial benefits of an expanding trade 
> relationship, we are also setting an example of progress 
> toward the long-term vision of an open, prosperous and stable 
> Pacific region," Barshefsky said.
> 
> Singapore is the United States' largest trading partner in 
> Southeast Asia. Trade between the two countries totaled $34.4 
> billion in 1999.
> 
> Following is the text of the U.S. Trade Representative 
> release:
> 
> (begin text)
> 
> OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
> Executive Office of the President
> Washington, D.C. 20508
> 00 - 81
> 
> November 16, 2000
> 
> U.S. and Singapore to Launch Negotiations for a Free Trade 
> Agreement
> 
> President Clinton and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of 
> Singapore, meeting in Brunei on the final day of the annual 
> Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, today 
> announced the launch of negotiations for a U.S.-Singapore Free 
> Trade Agreement (FTA).
> 
> "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the 
> Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step 
> closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open 
> trade' throughout the Pacific," said United States Trade 
> Representative Charlene Barshefsky. "It will remove the 
> remaining barriers to trade between our countries, and help us 
> take full advantage of the new opportunities unfolding through 
> communications, the Internet and high technology. It will also 
> demonstrate again the Clinton Administration's commitment to 
> accompany open markets with labor and environmental 
> provisions."
> 
> The FTA will be only the fifth Free Trade Agreement the U.S. 
> has signed, and the first with an Asian country. Modeled after 
> the recently signed U.S.-Jordan FTA, but reflecting the 
> substantial volume of trade between the two nations, the 
> agreement will eliminate tariffs on all goods over time; cover 
> substantially all services sectors, help to develop electronic 
> commerce, protect intellectual property rights, and include 
> safeguards and dispute settlement mechanisms. Like the Jordan 
> FTA, it will include provisions on labor and the environment.
> 
> "President Clinton and Prime Minister Goh have taken a step of 
> major economic potential and strategic significance," said 
> Ambassado

Re: On the subject of Cuba...

[phillp2]

Anthony,

I believe one of the biggest shortagers is of Tylenol (or its generic 
alternative.)  We are also going to Cuba shortly, strictly for a 
holiday, but are taking soap, childrens paper, crayons, pencils and 
such as well as medications.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

 Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:37:17 -0800 (PST)
From:   "Anthony D'Costa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:4590] On the subject of Cuba...
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> One of my colleagues sent this to campus line...
> 
> xxx
> Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
> Comparative International Development
> University of Washington  Campus Box 358436
> 1900 Commerce Street  
> Tacoma, WA 98402, USA 
> 
> Phone: (253) 692-4462
> Fax :  (253) 692-5718
> xxx
> 
> I'm travelling to Cuba as a member of a People to People Medical
> Initiative, leaving the U.S. on December 2nd.  Over the counter
> medications are in short supply there, so I will be carrying some with me.
> If anyone would like to contribute sealed, over the counter meds (aspirin,
> ibuprophin, baby and children's vitamins, adult vitamins, etc.) please let
> me know, and I'll arrange to collect them. Thanks!
> 

"There Was a Lad"

[Louis Proyect]

"There Was a Lad" is a deceptively modest film. Filmed in a radiant
black-and-white on location in the rural Russia of 1964, it tracks the
day-to-day existence of a young truck driver Pavel Kolokolnikov (Leonid
Kuravlev), whose only dream is to rise above his mundane existence. But it
is not money that he hungers for, rather entry into the world of "culture",
especially as expressed in the women of his dreams.

This world is symbolized by the town librarian whom he throws himself at as
soon as he meets her. He shows up at the library and announces in a loud
voice that he wants to take out Karl Marx's Capital, because "there are a
few pages at the end that he hasn't gotten to." He speaks these words with
a broad grin on his face--as if admitting to her and anybody else within
earshot--that it is just a joke. He also tends to speak a few decibels too
loud, as do most of the bumpkins he spends his working days with.
Meanwhile, the librarian and all the other educated professionals in the
film speak at a normal tone. Despite living under "communism", all of the
characters marked by this subtle class distinction--and others not so
subtle--are acutely aware of the differences between them.

Even though she is engaged to a engineer, he keeps making advances toward
her even while sitting with the two of them in a local fashion show. It is
difficult for her or the engineer to get angry at Pavel, because he is such
a simple and affable soul.

Pavel seems more comfortable with those on his own level. In a scene that
expresses the sympathy of director Vasily Shukshin's for such characters,
Pavel shows up at the bungalow of his single middle-aged aunt with a
bachelor friend, also middle-aged. She had instructed him a while back to
find her a man and he was there to deliver the goods. While the three sit
around a dining table drinking vodka and eating fresh vegetables, Pavel
occasionally makes comments like "Auntie, how are you doing lately? Have
you been feeling too lonely?" Meanwhile, his male companion sits in his
chair with beads of sweat forming on his forehead. Although he knew he was
there to get hooked up, the palpable reality of the situation has him
beside himself. Making excuses, Pavel takes each off by themselves in to
put pressure on them to "close the deal". After he contentedly leaves the
two to go off in his truck, we see them a bit more relaxed as they make
small talk over another glass of vodka.

The happiness they share eludes Pavel, who seeks to rise above his
station--at least when it comes to love. When he looks up an old girl
friend on his truck route, who has a job as a construction worker, he finds
fault in her life style. Picking up some chintzy looking ceramic animals
from a shelf in her living room, he berates her: "This is not what refined
people have in their homes. Do you expect these figurines to bring you
luck?" Meanwhile, this accusation is one that he only heard a few hours
earlier from an educated woman who has hitched a ride with him in his
truck. She had told Pavel that refined people have art prints on their
walls and do not keep good-luck trinkets. After dropping her off in her
village, he overhears her talking with her husband about the risks of
taking a ride with a "common truck driver." The hostility he feels towards
his betters is misdirected against the poor construction worker who seeks
nothing more than his affection.

Ultimately Pavel is a prisoner of his dreams. Whether behind the wheel of
his truck or in a hospital bed recovering from injuries incurred in a
heroic act, he fantasizes about a more perfect world where he is garbed in
white in a petal-strewn forest receiving the affections of the town
librarian. Or he dreams that he is a General bedecked in ribbons delivering
inspirational speeches to all the women he has ever known, who are
recovering in a hospital ward. Their problem? It is their "heart", which is
just another way of saying that he is projecting his own romantic
frustrations onto the opposite sex. Such scenes are rendered in a
surprising Fellini-esque fashion.

Although Vasily Shukshin was a preeminent Soviet writer and film-maker of
the "rural" school (derevenschik), there is nothing romantic about his
treatment of such folk. They are prisoners of their dreams. In an
introduction to a collection of Shushkin's short stories, Yevgeny
Yevtushenko compared him to "the carpenter's son from Galilee; one of his
palms was firmly nailed to the country, the other to the town." 

Shukshin knew this world first-hand. After all, he was just like the
character Pavel Kolokolnikov. When he showed up at Moscow's film
school--known as a haven for intellectuals-- he was just out of the navy
and still in military fatigues. According to Martin Cruz Smith (LA Times,
Oct. 27, 1996), when asked about his education he shot back with a Siberian
accent that he hadn't had the time to read "War and Peace" because it was
too thick. He had another obstacle to overcome: his father was 

Re: RE: Re: oil and socialism

[Jim Devine]

Ian wrote:
>The issue of time takes on a different form of nefariousness that touches 
>on both Yoshie's and Jim's ideas.  The critical issue in innovation is 
>time to market and how long one can hold the lead [via property rights 
>etc.] before competitors catch up. As the pace of innovation -product life 
>cycle- quickens, the level of investment needed to achieve economies of 
>scale to sustain an adequate level of demand in order to garner a decent 
>rate of return on investment rises enormously. In a macroeconomic context, 
>the system becomes addicted to the speed of innovation and the 
>implications for stagnation in output per man/woman hour becomes ever 
>larger as the speed at which one must keep ahead of ones competition 
>quickens. The speed of market saturation is reached more quickly etc...To 
>increase, let alone sustain, demand that would justify investment then 
>eats into whatever energy
>efficiency gains are made. What does it matter if cars average 50 miles a 
>gallon over the next decade if the number of drivers quadruples or greater 
>over the next 50? Contra Alan Greenspan, the rate of dematerialization in 
>the North is nowhere near offsetting growth in resource use. Hence the 
>issue becomes one of seriously putting sand in the gears of the path 
>dependency of the "speed economy" which paradoxically has become one [in 
>the North] at precisely the time when the middle class professionals that 
>make it go are increasingly complaining about gridlock in their 
>transportation networks; sclerosis. Thus cell phones! Soon everyone will 
>work in their cars :-)!

Let's start with my initial assertion: capitalism is very adaptable, able 
to survive hard times. This does not mean that capitalism doesn't drive 
itself into disgusting crises every few decades. It does. In fact, I see a 
serious realization crisis in the near future of U.S. -- and likely, world 
-- capitalism. Environmental crises are happening and will intensify. 
Things are going to get worse on a lot of fronts, and are already getting 
worse for many people (e.g., Africa). It's even likely that the price of 
fossil fuels (before-tax real petrol prices, etc.) will rise dramatically 
in the future, even though the current high only looks high because it's 
following a 20-year down-trend, since capitalism tends to go to extremes. 
The discussion above seems to be an extrapolation based on this notion.

But, as in the past, crises don't automatically lead to capitalism's 
demise. We might see a move toward fascism, but the system's elites and 
shock troops will fight hard to keep their system going. It's not over 'til 
it's over, when there's a sufficient social force to replace capitalism.

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

Zero Tolerance: Metro Snack Patrol Puts Girl in Cuffs

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Time to watch Jean Vigo's _Zéro de conduite [Zero for Conduct]_ 
(1933) again   Yoshie

*   Metro Snack Patrol Puts Girl in Cuffs

Ansche Hedgepeth had practically never been in trouble, let alone 
arrested.  Then the officer clicked the metal cuffs on the 
12-year-old's wrists and pulled the laces out of her tennis shoes.

She had been eating French fries in a Metro station, and now she was 
questioned, searched and taken away.

"We really do believe in zero tolerance," said Metro Transit Police 
Chief Barry J. McDevitt, who is unapologetic for such arrests.

Commuter complaints about unlawful eating on Metro cars and in 
stations led McDevitt to mount a week-long undercover crackdown on 
violators last month, and a dozen plainclothes officers cited or 
arrested 35 people, 13 of them juveniles.   Only one adult was 
arrested.

Had Ansche and the other juveniles been adults, they simply would 
have received citations for fines up to $300.   But, McDevitt pointed 
out, juveniles charged with criminal offenses in the District must be 
taken into custody.

And, he said, it is department policy to handcuff anyone who is 
arrested, no matter the age.   "Anyone taken into custody has to be 
handcuffed for officer safety," McDevitt said.  Youngsters "can kill 
you, too."

Ansche well remembers Oct. 23, the first day of the crackdown.

The seventh-grader at Deal Junior High School said the Tenleytown-AU 
station, where she was nabbed, is "just a place where a lot of kids 
go.  There's a hot dog stand and Cafe Med, where I bought my fries.

"She said she took the elevator to the station with a friend.   As 
the pair passed the station kiosk, a man stepped in front of Ansche.

"He said: 'Put down your fries. Put down your book bag,'" Ansche 
said.  "They searched my book bag and searched me.  They asked me if 
I have any drugs or alcohol."

Ansche, who keeps her science fair trophy next to her bed, said she 
has never been asked those questions or searched like that before.

"I was embarrassed.  I told my friend to call my mom, but I didn't 
tell anybody else," she said.  She said she never talked to the 
officer, although Metro police insist that she was asked whether she 
knew eating was against the law and that she said she did.  They said 
anyone who doesn't know about the law usually is given a warning 
first.

The youths were all taken to the detention center, where they were 
checked in, fingerprinted and held for their parents to pick them up, 
McDevitt said.

Ansche now must perform community service and undergo counseling at 
the Boys and Girls Club, one of the sentences Metro has chosen for 
underage snacking scofflaws.  "I can't believe there isn't a better 
way to teach kids a lesson," said Ansche's mother, Tracey Hedgepeth. 
"The police treated her like a criminal."

She wrote a letter complaining about the incident, and McDevitt 
replied: "While I am sorry that it was necessary to take your 
daughter into custody, I hope you also understand the important 
responsibility we have to keep public transportation safe and 
clean."...

[To view the entire article, go to 
] 
*

Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism

[Jim Devine]

At 07:56 PM 11/17/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>A number of things bother me about this whole debate.  Does Jim
>really believe that  there is an infinite limit to how we oppress
>labour and that, even if there were, that that would not promote a
>realization crisis.?

no.

>... If the answer to either is yes, then I can only suggest we increase
>the cultivation of certain plants now denied us by US imperial
>decree.

it's okay for medical purposes, at least in California, as long as Uncle 
Janet Reno isn't looking.

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

White Men & Freedom Essential to Capitalism

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Chris Niles posted:

>I basically agree with you on this point. That said, i don't think 
>Doug missed the point, only that his point needs to be significantly 
>qualified. i think it is true that in a very nasty, very competitive 
>society, white men are indeed unwilling to give up gender and "race" 
>priviledges. Their are still social, economic and poltical benefits, 
>ranging from petty to significant to tremendous, accorded white men. 
>The problem is that increasingly, white male priviledge, especially 
>for poor and "middle-class" white men, is less about what you get 
>and more about what does NOT happen to you.

Actually, for the majority of white men, perhaps, being white has 
always been a matter of what is _not supposed to_ happen to you.  The 
metaphor of "wage slavery" captures this ambivalence: a white man is 
_not supposed to_ be a slave, but capitalism does _enslave him to a 
paradoxical freedom_: free from the means of production; free from 
lifetime & heritable personal subjection to the master class; and 
free to go bankrupt, become unemployed, and starve.  In contrast, it 
took _a very long time after the emergence of capitalism_ for blacks, 
women, etc. to achieve this paradoxical freedom of wage labor; and 
many women & people of color in the world have not gained even this 
minimum bourgeois freedom.

>The nature of alienation from self--which is what being "white" is 
>all about, not to mention being a white prole--is that depending on 
>the social and historical  circumstances, white men are sometimes 
>more conscious of thier priviledge and sometimes less so. The 
>"racist"/"not-racist" paradigm that the left uses to understand 
>these people is analytically impoverished and, therefore, useless in 
>any effort to build a movement against the tendendy that both 
>victimizes them and that they represent.

White men who are racist think that the root cause of alienation lies 
not in the aforementioned paradoxical freedom of capitalism but in 
the marginalized & oppressed who either have only recently & 
precariously attained the freedom essential to capitalism (women, 
blacks, etc. in rich nations) or have yet to do so (illegal aliens in 
rich nations; the impoverished masses on the periphery; etc.); racist 
white men think that we -- not capitalism -- are the source of his 
woes, without understanding that we have it even worse than them 
under capitalism.  White men who are not racist know what the real 
cause of alienation is.

Yoshie

Fwd: [BRC-NEWS] Lift the Ban Against Felons Voting

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:57:17 -0500
>From: Art McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [BRC-NEWS] Lift the Ban Against Felons Voting
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/2927/t91681.html
>
>Los Angeles Times
>
>September 27, 2000
>
>Lift the Ban Against Felons Being Able to Vote
>
>By Earl Ofari Hutchinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>A year ago the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.,
>prison reform group, issued a report that found that seven
>states permanently barred felons who have been released from
>custody from voting. With the gaping racial disparities in
>prison sentencing, the vote ban has fallen heaviest on black
>men. One out of four black males were disenfranchised by
>these laws. Civil libertarians screamed foul and called it
>a return to Jim Crow segregation days when Southern states
>routinely used poll taxes, literacy laws, political gerry-
>mandering, physical harassment, threats and intimidation
>to bar blacks from the polls.
>
>If they were appalled last year at the number of states that
>permanently ban these felons from voting, the news from the
>latest Sentencing Project is even worse: Two more states have
>approved permanent voting bans. And the racial disparity is
>even greater. Black men now account for one out of three
>released felons barred from the polls. Even worse, the
>number of blacks disenfranchised by these bans probably
>will soar higher.
>
>More than 1 million blacks are now behind bars. The draconian
>drug sentencing laws, "three strikes" laws, racial profiling
>and the disparities in prison sentencing virtually ensure
>that more blacks will be arrested, convicted and sentenced
>more harshly than whites.
>
>The Sentencing Project estimates that in the next few years
>40% of black men will permanently be barred from the polls
>in the states with this ban. This terrible, racially tinged
>policy wreaks much havoc on African Americans. It drastically
>cuts down the number of black elected officials, increases
>cynicism, if not outright loathing, by many young blacks for
>the criminal justice system and deprives black communities
>of vital funds and resources for badly needed services that
>could have come from their increased political strength.
>
>The rationale for keeping and putting more bans on the books
>in more states is that they make it rougher on lawbreakers.
>This is nonsense. Many of the men who are stripped of their
>right to vote are not convicted murderers, rapists or robbers.
>They are not denied the vote because of a court-imposed sentence,
>because no states require that a judge formally bar an offender
>from voting as part of a criminal sentence because of the
>seriousness of the crime. In fact, many offenders don't even
>serve a day in prison. They have been convicted of felonies
>such as auto theft or drug possession. They are more likely
>to receive a fine or probation.
>
>Most of these offenders were young men when they committed
>their crimes. The chances are good that they didn't become
>career criminals, but hold steady jobs, raise families and
>are responsible members of their communities. Yet the states
>that stamp them with the legal and social stigma of being a
>felon deprive them of their basic constitutional right to
>vote and relegate them to second-class citizenship in
>perpetuity.
>
>This cruelly mocks the notion of rehabilitation and gives lie
>to the fondly repeated line that when criminals pay their debt
>to society, they deserve and will get a second chance.
>
>While surveys show that a majority of Americans think that
>the felon voting ban is bad policy, only a handful of civil
>liberties groups and the NAACP in Virginia and Florida have
>challenged these restrictive laws in court. The only recourse
>that former lawbreakers have now in the states that permanently
>bar them from voting is to seek a pardon from the governor. This
>is a dead end for most. Governors read the fierce public mood on
>crime and know that many Americans see felons as pariahs who
>deserve any treatment they get. So few felons even bother to
>request a pardon.
>
>Civil liberties groups have urged state legislatures to rescind
>the laws or at least resist the temptation to place new voting
>restrictions on the books. The only state to heed their call
>and do the right thing is Delaware. In June, lawmakers there
>restored voting rights to some former criminals.
>
>The exclusion of thousands of blacks from the voting rolls
>30 years after the civil rights movement waged a titanic
>battle to abolish Jim Crow voting bans is worse than a
>travesty of justice. It's a horrid stain on American
>democracy. It's a stain that state officials should
>immediately wipe away.
>
>
>Earl Ofari Hutchinson Is the Author of "The Disappearance
>of Black Leadership" (Middle Passage Press, 2000).
>
>Copyright (c) 2000 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved.
>
>
>[IMPORTANT NOTE: T