Re: professors and power
If academics don't exercise the academic freedom that tenure provides why do they have tenure at all. Maybe they should resign. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1206-06.htm Published on Thursday, December 6, 2001 September 11 and the Politics of University Teaching by Robert Jensen At various time in my teaching career -- more than ever since Sept. 11 -- I have been advised by faculty colleagues that I should avoid being too political in the classroom. To the degree that the advice is simply pragmatic -- avoid being political to avoid being criticized -- I can understand it. But I find the suggestion hard to reconcile with my conception of what higher education should be in a pluralist democracy. Embedded in that advice are several key reasons for this culture's intellectual and political crisis, and in the particular the failure of the contemporary university. Teaching is political. I teach in a journalism department, where I have a role in training people who allegedly will provide the information citizens need to participate in a democratic system of governance that is based on the idea that those citizens are the sovereign power. Most journalists practice that trade in large corporate institutions that are themselves at the heart of the system of power in the society. Is there a way to imagine teaching journalism in a manner that isn't intensely political? I use the term political not to mean partisan -- for or against any particular politician, policy, or party -- but instead to refer to the play of power in a society. Everyone lines up in some relationship to power, either in defense of, or resistance to. Claims of taking a neutral stance -- especially when made by privileged professionals -- are illusory; neutrality is simply another way of supporting the existing distribution of power. (Just imagine how we would examine a claim by Soviet academics that they were neutral as to the system of power in their nation and were teaching so as not to take political positions. What would we say about them?) To challenge power is political. To support power is political. To avoid the question is political. Take the question of the forces that shape the news. One approach to that issue is Edward Herman's propaganda model, which highlights the role of ownership and ideology in the formation of mainstream news. I teach that model in my introductory journalism class because I believe it is the most compelling way to help explain how commercial journalism works. My decision is informed by my intellectual evaluation of the work, but no doubt my politics play a role as well. If someone consciously rejects the model and refuses to teach it, that decision is political in the same sense. And if one claims to be neutral and avoids the issue, that too is political. So, it is not the case of some professors being political and some not. We all are political, which affects both what we take to be relevant intellectual questions and how we frame the presentation of those questions. In a healthy system, there would be ongoing engagement about such intellectual and political matters among faculty members, who are bound to have differing views. One or another of these views might emerge as more compelling than others. One or another might emerge as dominant based on the interests of power. But all the positions are equally political. How does one come to hold political opinions? A deeper problem with the advice to avoid being political is the notion that intellectual work somehow separate from politics. But we should ask: How does one come to hold a political position? Is it arrived at randomly? Is it based on wholly arbitrary assertions? Or, does one have a clear argument with credible evidence to support those opinions? If so, is there not always intellectual work behind a political position? This culture too often treats political opinions as if they were merely subjective judgments. Certainly some component of our political decision-making includes statements that are subjective in some sense -- they are about principles that cannot be proved by reason and evidence, such as the answer to the question what does it mean to be a human being? But statements of such first principles are the beginning of a coherent political argument, not the end. The formation and articulation of political viewpoints requires intellectual work if those viewpoints are to be of value in public dialogue. So, if most of what we talk about in a journalism class is inextricably political, and if it is important to provide a coherent argument for one's political judgments, professors should make clear their own political positions that are relevant to the class and explain to students how they came to hold those positions. That is not the same thing as proselytizing. It need not be coercive but can be a healthy process in which professors model an intellectual method that can counter the shallow, superficial political discourse that
Venezuela's Bolivarian Circles
washingtonpost.com: Venezuela's 'Bolivarian Circles' Get a Direct Line to PresidentVenezuela's 'Bolivarian Circles' Get a Direct Line to President Populist Program Only Builds Loyalty to Chavez, Critics Say By Scott Wilson Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, December 4, 2001; Page A20 NAIGUATA, Venezuela -- They do not look like revolutionaries, the mothers and grandmothers, waitresses and street sweepers huddled around a sewing machine, making gingham slippers and cloth baskets for Christmas sweets. But in a country where decades of machine-run politics snuffed out civic participation, the act of learning to sew represents a radical and controversial awakening. This sewing circle is a Bolivarian circle, a building block and bulwark of President Hugo Chavez's social revolution that takes its name from Simon Bolivar, a native son who liberated much of South America from Spanish rule in the early 19th century. Hoping to strengthen his nascent political organization and marginalize resistant government institutions, Chavez called on supporters earlier this year to create these circles as lobbying groups that would appeal directly to him for help financing community programs. The president, whose fervent populism echoes a distinctly Latin American man-on-horseback style embodied by Bolivar, would award money for almost anything from loan programs to individual medical needs brought to him by the circles. To a Venezuelan elite that has fallen precipitously from its place of political privilege since Chavez's election three years ago, the circles smack of Cuban-style revolutionary defense committees, designed to ensure fealty to the president's populist agenda. But aside from the poster of guerrilla leader Che Guevara on the wall, ideology rarely enters this room of swinging light bulbs, plastic furniture and scraps of colored cloth strewn on the cement floor. [full story is here:] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52162-2001Dec3.html
NY Law Forum (12/12/01) War on Our Rights
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Phil Gasper [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [P_F_P] EVENT: NY LAW FORUM (12/12/01) WAR ON OUR RIGHTS PLEASE FORWARD AND DISTRIBUTE WIDELY ATTACKS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES AND IMMIGRANTSí RIGHTS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11 *Secret military courts taking the place of trials by a jury of peers *Government eavesdropping on protected attorney-client conversations *Thousands of immigrants being locked up without evidence they have done anything wrong *Laws requiring you to carry a National ID card *New laws presented as anti-terrorist are making it easier to arrest, jail, and execute immigrants, people of color, and poor and working people of all colors without cause. Come hear from labor leaders, immigrants rights organizers, and civil rights lawyers on the impact of new anti-terror policies on our communities. And join a discussion of what we can do to protect, win back, and guarantee our rights. Speakers: Nancy Chang, Center for Constitutional Rights; Abdeen Jabara, Arab-American Anti-Defamation Committee; Ray Laforest, DC 1707 /AFSCME and NYC Labor Against the War; New York Taxi Workers Alliance member (TBA) Wednesday, December 12, 6:00 PM District Council 1707, 14th Floor, Auditorium 75 Varick St. (1 Hudson Sq.) (1, 9 or A, C, E to Canal) Sponsored by New York City Labor Against the War Cosponsored by DC 1707/AFSCME/AFL-CIO, the New York Taxi Workers' Alliance, and the Center for Constitutional Rights For more information: (212) 388-3793.
Patents and drugs
Duke Law Technology Review December 7, 2001 FACILITATING ACCESS OF AIDS DRUGS WHILE MAINTAINING STRONG PATENT PROTECTION The general formula for patent protection--no incentive, no innovation--does possess some inherent logic. Why would a pharmaceutical company invest large amounts of resources in a product if a free rider could come along and reap the gains of innovation without incurring the RD costs? However, some studies have shown only a weak correlation between patent protection and the amount of innovation.5 The results of these studies imply that patent protection is not a necessary precursor for innovation. If patent protection is not really necessary for innovation, then creating intellectual property rights merely serves as an impediment to public access of information. This opposition to the commodity perspective of information views strong patent protection as restricting the free flow of information while doing little to encourage innovation. While the booming voice of big business supports the commodity perspective, the advocates of a more public policy oriented perspective are speaking up.6 full piece at: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/Articles/2001DLTR0042.html
Afghanistan class
Pen-l old-timers may be interested in knowing that pen-l alumnus Wojtek Solokowski (sp?) had a letter in the current issue of the NATION [New York], criticizing Chalmers Johnson's blow-back hypothesis. Though the critique was somewhat off-target, I think that Wojtek had a valid point: it's important not to simply think of what's happening in the world outside the US as only a result of US policies (so that ObL is simply a creation of the US war against the USSR in Afghanistan), because that world has its own class structures and struggles (so that ObL also reflects an ensemble of social relations that promotes clerical fascism). If someone knows Wojtek's e-address, please forward this to him. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Afghanistan class
Pen-l old-timers may be interested in knowing that pen-l alumnus Wojtek Solokowski (sp?) had a letter in the current issue of the NATION [New York], criticizing Chalmers Johnson's blow-back hypothesis. Though the critique was somewhat off-target, I think that Wojtek had a valid point: it's important not to simply think of what's happening in the world outside the US as only a result of US policies (so that ObL is simply a creation of the US war against the USSR in Afghanistan), because that world has its own class structures and struggles (so that ObL also reflects an ensemble of social relations that promotes clerical fascism). If someone knows Wojtek's e-address, please forward this to him. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I' cc'ing this post to Wojtek. I second Jim on the gist of his post here. According to Dr. Margaret Mills, clerics other reactionaries in the Afghan countryside were gearing up for oppositions to state reform efforts _even before_ Afghan socialists came into power. That said, Afghan clerics other reactionaries would not have had a chance against socialist modernizers without massive aids given to them by US imperialists, Pakistan, etc. On balance, imperial geopolitics had a far larger role in determining the fate of Afghanistan than whatever local oppositions to populist feminist reforms that would have existed independently of US imperialism. That said, PEN-pals can help anti-war anti-imperialist organizers immensely if they post here analyses of Afghan social relations (before, during, after the rise and fall of Afghan socialists), from points of views of historians, economists, sociologists, political scientists, etc. Feminist analyses are especially welcome. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Afghanistan class
Pen-l old-timers may be interested in knowing that pen-l alumnus Wojtek Solokowski (sp?) had a letter in the current issue of the NATION [New York], criticizing Chalmers Johnson's blow-back hypothesis. Though the critique was somewhat off-target, I think that Wojtek had a valid point: it's important not to simply think of what's happening in the world outside the US as only a result of US policies (so that ObL is simply a creation of the US war against the USSR in Afghanistan), because that world has its own class structures and struggles (so that ObL also reflects an ensemble of social relations that promotes clerical fascism). jim, you seem not to get the point. osama bin laden has not railed the House of Sa'ud for not enforcing 'clerical fascism'; that is, he has not complained about the application of the sharia or the treatment of women in general or Friday head counts, As Said Abirush has said, al Qaeda would not bring harsher theocratic rule within Saudi Arabia. In fact the House of Sa'ud *is* already the Taleban in the specific conditions of the Arabian Peninsula; the former after all is the sponsor of the latter. The differences between the two (house of sa'ud and the taleban) are a function of the greater level of eduction of Sa'udi citizens and the relatively greater complexity of the Sa'udi economy. I understand that this is difficult for the liberal left to understand: this is not a war against clerical fascism; it is simply a war to prop up a very horrific (compradorial )regime, a regime that has allowed Anglo American capital indirect control of oil rent, against a very horrific resistance which after all has exactly the same reactionary political markings of its opponent. we have all read the transcript of osama bin laden's video: he does not in fact complain that the House of Sa'ud is too soft on women or too unwilling to behead criminals. He is doubtles gracious enough to recognize that from his perspective the record of the House of Sa'ud is quite good here! He spoke against the US occupation of Sa'udi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and Israeli expansionism. We have no evidence that the terrorists engaged in horrific and nihilistic violence because the House of Sa'ud is too soft on the population, i.e., not sufficiently 'clerically fascist'; there is a lot of evidence that people oppose the US occupation of Sa'udi Arabia on religious (proximity of US troops to Medina and Mecca) and economic grounds (tens of thousands of US advisors getting the best jobs just as in Iran 25 years ago , US downstream companies getting the oil cheap through netback deals, US defense companies receiving enormous sums for unneeded and way overpriced weapons, etc.). And it seems obvious that many people on the Arabian peninsula don't believe the US is there (or needed) to repel foreign aggression. That is, many seem to believe that the US occupation is meant to protect the House of Sa'ud from any kind of accountability in regards to how it disburses oil rent. But Jim if the illusion that the US is fighting 'clerical fascism' helps you get through the day, what can I say? Just know that this view is just meant to do that--make getting through the days of war for a liberal leftist professor easier. If someone knows Wojtek's e-address, please forward this to him. Does Wojtek himself saying anything specific about Sa'udi Arabia, e.g, the politics and economics of the disbursal of Sa'udi oil rent and the considerable role of the US within Sa'udi Arabia from security relations to upstream operations (in which US companies have been allowed after a 20 year hiatus)? I doubt it, and I doubt that he knows much. By the way, I still believe that the best way for the US to defang al Qaeda is to put pressure on its Sa'udi allies to allow for democraticization, to end the occupation, to subject Sa'udi purchases of US arms and security to greater scrutiny (there is a lot of evidence that royal ministers are massively overypaying and then receiving some kind of reward from the company which is usually American or British). Until recently, discontented Arab youth had been shipped off to Afghanistan in order to spend their lives as soliders of fortune there or in chechyna or kashmir or palestine. Now they're coming home to a country that the US occupies; they'll now be unemployed and even more volatile, especially after they are imprisoned for one offense or another. Unless there is internal reform of the gulf states, we may find that the destruction of the al qaeda camps in Afghanistan had the consequence of strengthening terrorism. I do agree with our President that al Qaeda must be destroyed; I just don't think its possible as long as the US props up its agent The House of Sa'ud. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: free trade CORRECTED YET AGAIN
So I would think that in teaching Ricardo's theory of comparative costs, the following points should be made: 1. it is an exercise in comparative statics and thus says little about the social conditions the English would suffer while their economy is deflated. The point then is that capitalism can only achieve optimal specialization through protracted periods of restructuring; it's possible that with international workers' rule such decisions could be made with much less pain. 2. Ricardo's example only shows the possibility of gain in static conditions. England could enjoy some advantage in the short term only to be locked into a sector in which on going productivity improvements would be relatively difficult. 3. if supply prices are not proportional to labor costs of production, there is no reason to suppose that capitalist entrepreneurs would bring about the optimal pattern of specialization. Indeed perverse results are possible. If workers controlled production they could indeed compare the true labor costs of production and make rational decisions. In order for the international division of labor to become a labor saving device, there would have to be an international workers' revolution. Rakesh
the predatory state
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=65914 Argentina seizes pension funds BUENOS AIRES ARGENTINA'S cash-starved government seized local pension fund money on Thursday in a desperate effort to keep the country's economy afloat in the face of foreign loan cutoffs. Protesters threw eggs and stones at the Central Bank building, amid growing public anger at President Fernando de la Rua's government and there were signs that a de facto devaluation of the peso currency had already begun. Economists warned that without international help, there was little hope of the South American nation of 37 million people avoiding history's worst sovereign debt default. Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo said he would fly to Washington overnight for urgent consultations on Friday with the International Monetary Fund, which held back a $1.3 billion loan on Wednesday in frustration at the government's failure to rein in spending. The funds will go into the Treasury's account at Banco de la Nacion so the bank can make regular payments and so other banks can make all pension and salary payments, Cavallo told reporters. Private pension funds hold $3.5 billion in bank accounts, but it was not clear how much cash the government was taking. Analysts said that despite the seizure, Argentina may not have enough money left within a few weeks to continue making payments on its $132 billion public debt. Edgy bank customers lined up outside banks in the capital to withdraw cash as allowed under capital restrictions imposed last weekend. Once I get all my money, I'm going to take it to Uruguay or put it in an account in the Cayman Islands or New York. I have no trust at all in the financial system or the government, said bank customer Federico, 32. One well-dressed woman thumped a cash machine at a Citibank branch demanding dollars which never came.
RE: Re: Afghanistan class
See the references in the work by Larry P. Goodsen, Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. Univ. of Washington Press, pb. just pubshed, $22.50. Goodsen studied with L. Dupree, who I gather is a majorfigure in Afghan Studies. Builds on Oliver Roy and Ahmad Rashid, among others. A paper that Goodsen read at the conference of the Mide atStdies Association in 2000 on the Taliban Women, is cited inthe endnotes. MESA, btw, was harshly denounced in a recent TNR or National Review by John J. Miller, if memory serves. Cartoon illustrating the piece had a leftover hippie from the 60's at the chalkboard after having written, America Is Wrong! Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/7/01 9:32:53 AM Pen-l old-timers may be interested in knowing that pen-l alumnus Wojtek Solokowski (sp?) had a letter in the current issue of the NATION [New York], criticizing Chalmers Johnson's blow-back hypothesis. Though the critique was somewhat off-target, I think that Wojtek had a valid point: it's important not to simply think of what's happening in the world outside the US as only a result of US policies (so that ObL is simply a creation of the US war against the USSR in Afghanistan), because that world has its own class structures and struggles (so that ObL also reflects an ensemble of social relations that promotes clerical fascism). If someone knows Wojtek's e-address, please forward this to him. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I' cc'ing this post to Wojtek. I second Jim on the gist of his post here. According to Dr. Margaret Mills, clerics other reactionaries in the Afghan countryside were gearing up for oppositions to state reform efforts _even before_ Afghan socialists came into power. That said, Afghan clerics other reactionaries would not have had a chance against socialist modernizers without massive aids given to them by US imperialists, Pakistan, etc. On balance, imperial geopolitics had a far larger role in determining the fate of Afghanistan than whatever local oppositions to populist feminist reforms that would have existed independently of US imperialism. That said, PEN-pals can help anti-war anti-imperialist organizers immensely if they post here analyses of Afghan social relations (before, during, after the rise and fall of Afghan socialists), from points of views of historians, economists, sociologists, political scientists, etc. Feminist analyses are especially welcome. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/cjp/
RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: jim, you seem not to get the point. It's awfully presumptuous to say that I missed the point when all I was doing was using ObL as parts of _parenthetical remarks_ to explain the need to look at _both_ the internal class relations _and_ international relations when discussing Afghanistan etc. That is, my point _in this specific message_ is different from _your_ point, while there is nothing in my message that says that I disagree with your point. This reminds me of people who said that the Congressional Republicans didn't get it concerning Clarence Thomas. As Sleazy Bill would say, the meaning of it needs to be clarified. We can't just say you don't get the point. osama bin laden has not railed the House of Sa'ud for not enforcing 'clerical fascism'; I never said he did. In fact, I NEVER MENTIONED SAUDI ARABIA at all and I haven't slightest idea why you think I did. that is, he has not complained about the application of the sharia or the treatment of women in general or Friday head counts, As Said Abirush has said, al Qaeda would not bring harsher theocratic rule within Saudi Arabia. In fact the House of Sa'ud *is* already the Taleban in the specific conditions of the Arabian Peninsula; the former after all is the sponsor of the latter. The differences between the two (house of sa'ud and the taleban) are a function of the greater level of eduction of Sa'udi citizens and the relatively greater complexity of the Sa'udi economy. I was talking about one specific type of clerical fascism (ObL). I was NOT talking about the conflicts among different types of clerical fascism. It would help if you read what I said rather than _reading into_ what I said. I understand that this is difficult for the liberal left to understand: don't be patronizing. this is not a war against clerical fascism; it is simply a war to prop up a very horrific (compradorial )regime, a regime that has allowed Anglo American capital indirect control of oil rent, against a very horrific resistance which after all has exactly the same reactionary political markings of its opponent. Just because ObL is a clerical fascist doesn't mean that the US war was against clerical fascism. I NEVER said it was a war against clerical fascism. But I don't think that the war is simply a matter of propping up Saudi comprador-clerical fascism. It's also a result of [in rough order of importance] US efforts to create a world government in its image (promoting US-dominated global capitalism), to support GW Bush's main basis of political support (the oil industry), to bring back the good old days of the Cold War and World War II (when white male authority was never questioned), to assuage US citizens' wish for revenge after 911, etc. ... But Jim if the illusion that the US is fighting 'clerical fascism' helps you get through the day, what can I say? Just know that this view is just meant to do that--make getting through the days of war for a liberal leftist professor easier. Again, repeating in simple words: I was NOT saying that the US was fighting clerical fascism. Before accusing anyone of anything, it's best to examine the evidence. That is, don't act like John Ashcroft. BTW, you may label me a liberal leftist professor if you wish, if it gives you jollies. Call me anything you wish. Just don't write to me again. Can someone tell me how to set up a filter under Microsoft Outlook?
BLS Daily Report
December 7, 2001 Released Today: Employment fell sharply for the second month in a row in November, and the unemployment rate rose to 5.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment dropped by 331,000, following an even larger decline in October. As was the case in October, job losses in November were widespread. The number of unemployed persons increased by 419,000 to 8.2 million in November, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 5.7 percent; this followed an increase of half a percentage point in October. The jobless rate in November was at its highest level since August 1995. Since October 2000, when both measures were at their most recent lows, unemployment has risen by 2.6 million and the unemployment rate has increased by 1.8 percentage points, of which 1.4 percentage points have come since the beginning of the recession in March. The nation's unemployment rate took another big leap upward in November to 5.7 percent, the highest level in six years, as 331,000 more Americans lost their jobs, the government reported Friday. It marked the second consecutive month of massive job losses as the weak economy continued to stagger from the blow delivered by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The government said that since March, when the nation's first recession in a decade began, 1.2 million Americans have lost their jobs (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/341/economy/Unemployment_increases_to_5_7 _:.shtml). The unemployment rate took another big leap upward in November to 5.7 percent, the highest level in six years, as 331,000 more Americans lost their jobs, the government reported Friday. Big losses in October had pushed the rate to 5.4 percent. Half of the job losses were in factories. Unemployment is now at its highest since 1995, and some analysts expect it to rise another percentage point before falling again. The disappointing economic news follows one day after the government reported a big drop in new unemployment claims, although some major retailers reported a lackluster start to the Christmas shopping season. One small bright spot in the employment picture: 15,000 jobs were added in security services ( http://www.csmonitor.com/newsinbrief/brieflies.html#BF8:57:1). For November, the government reported that the drop of 331,000 payroll jobs reflected continued heavy losses in manufacturing, which has borne the brunt of this recession. Factory employment fell by 163,000 last month, bringing the total number of manufacturing jobs lost since July 2000 to 1.2 million. Large cutbacks were made in electrical equipment and industrial machinery, two industries that have accounted for one-third of all jobs lost in manufacturing since the slowdown began. The services industry, where most Americans work, lost 70,000 jobs in November and over the last 12 months has seen employment shrink by 221,000 jobs. In November, employment at hotels fell by 7,000, following an even bigger drop in October, and 25,000 jobs were lost in the amusement and recreation sector. The travel industry has been particularly hard-hit by the terrorist attacks. However, one sector which has seen a boom in employment in the last two months is guard services, which added 15,000 jobs in November after gaining 14,000 jobs in October (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7737-2001Dec7.html). U.S. firms have announced nearly as many job cuts since Sept. 11 as they did in all of 2000, according to a survey by a leading outplacement firm. The survey by Challenger Gray Christmas found there were 181,412 job cuts announced in November, bringing the total since the terrorist attacks to 624,411. That is only 11,000 less than the firm's survey recorded all of last year, and more than it saw in any year from 1993 through 1997. The very heavy downsizing reported in November is more confirmation that the effects of the Sept. 11 attack on the economy have been substantial, John Challenger, CEO of the firm, said. In the eight years we have tracked job cuts data, the downsizing for the last three months has been at levels never before seen. About half the cuts announced in November came from five sectors of the economy - telecommunications, electronics, consumer goods, financial services and the chemical industry. Some sectors that have seen large cuts announced since Sept. 11, such as the transportation sector, had relatively few cuts announced in November as companies worked to implement earlier announced cuts (http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/05/economy/jobcuts). Nonfarm business productivity was revised down to 1.5 percent in the third quarter due to larger declines in output and smaller declines in hours worked than initially reported, according to figures released December 6 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Productivity initially showed a 2.7 percent gain in the third
RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
A desperate Jim D. writes: Can someone tell me how to set up a filter under Microsoft Outlook? Step 1: make sure you're in a mail folder (i.e., Deleted Items) with a prospective filteree's post in the list. Step 2: click on organize on the toolbar, or if you don't use the Toolbar, click on the menu item Tools, then Organize. Your list of posts should now split in two, revealing a new top panel for setting up filtering rules. Step 3: click once in the bottom panel to highlight the aforementioned post Step 4: Next look to Create a rule (the second bullet) and try different options in the little drop-down box (from, sent to, etc.) until the name of the targeted sender of the post shows up to its right. Step 5: Next to the Create button, click on the destination of the unwanted posts (i.e., Deleted Items, Inchoate Ravings, etc.) and click on Create. It will ask you if you want it to sweep up all such posts in that folder. Say yes. You're done. If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. cheers, mbs
Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: jim, you seem not to get the point. It's awfully presumptuous to say that I missed the point when all I was doing was using ObL as parts of _parenthetical remarks_ to explain the need to look at _both_ the internal class relations _and_ international relations when discussing Afghanistan etc. Jim take your pen-l post of 24th Nov: various sundry by jdevine 24 November 2001 04:01 UTC Thread Index I'm having e-mail problems, so I send at least three pen-l messages off that were lost in cyberspace, all in response to different threads that came off the cloth of Doug tells the truth (or whatever it was called). 1. I commented on JR's bit about how not being exploited by capitalism is worse than actually being exploited. That only applies if capitalism has taken complete charge of a society. If there are other modes of production, it may not be true (it depends on the nature of the alternative). 2. I commented on the similarity of al Qaida and classical European (Hitler or Mussolini-type) fascism. The former involves obscurantist religion, while the latter involves obscurantist nationalism. More importantly, fascism involved cross-class coalitions, with white collar middle class workers being the main constituency, followed by the lumpenproletariat and financed by scared richies (just as the Saudi elite helped finance ObL). 3. I commented on how Mark Jones' attack on Doug Henwood was one (perhaps small) reason why the left stays so small, because people who are on the edge of the left are repulsed by the either you toe the party line that I declare or you're Renegade Kautsky -- or worse. Jim Devine Why didn't you then and why haven't you yet commented on the similarity of the House of Sa'ud and classical European fascism? The House of Sa'ud already doesn't allow a free press, political parties or labor unions. Of course you know this but why are you selectively mis-using the word fascism? At any rate, your point 2 above is weird. the german richies who bankrolled hitler were scared of the german working class (of course this is controversial, and it would be interesting to get into the david abraham controversy); of whom are the sa'udi richies who finance osama scared? You don't say. I just don't get the point of point 2. Rakesh
RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: jim, you seem not to get the point. I wrote: It's awfully presumptuous to say that I missed the point when all I was doing was using ObL as parts of _parenthetical remarks_ to explain the need to look at _both_ the internal class relations _and_ international relations when discussing Afghanistan etc. Rakesh responds by quoting my pen-l post of 24th Nov: ... 2. I commented on the similarity of al Qaida and classical European (Hitler or Mussolini-type) fascism. The former involves obscurantist religion, while the latter involves obscurantist nationalism. More importantly, fascism involved cross-class coalitions, with white collar middle class workers being the main constituency, followed by the lumpenproletariat and financed by scared richies (just as the Saudi elite helped finance ObL). and then says: Why didn't you then and why haven't you yet commented on the similarity of the House of Sa'ud and classical European fascism? The House of Sa'ud already doesn't allow a free press, political parties or labor unions. Of course you know this but why are you selectively mis-using the word fascism? no-one asked me for my opinion of the Sa'udi royal house or of the issue of classical European fascisms and the middle-eastern variety. Nor did I feel moved to express opinions on these on my own, except in my original message (which no-one seems to have paid attention to). It is wrong that because I don't say anything about a topic that I hold to any specific position on that topic. It would be wrong for me to conclude, for example, that because you never post anything about homosexuality (as far as I've seen) that you are either anti-gay or the opposite. At any rate, your point 2 above is weird. the german richies who bankrolled hitler were scared of the german working class... ; of whom are the sa'udi richies who finance osama scared? You don't say. I just don't get the point of point 2. you may have heard that there are a lot of immigrant workers who do the sh*t work in Saudi Arabia, while the SA elite is quite scared of the cultural modernity (improvement in women's social status, etc.) that seems to go with the rise of capitalism, which has been happening in the Middle East. This is superficial, but captures two major parts of what's going on. If anything I say is weird, tell me at the time I say it. Don't digest it in a way to attribute opinions to me that I don't have.
Re: RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Max Sawicky wrote: If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. Or you could convert to Eudora, and avoid all those MSFT security holes. Doug
Eudora vs. Outlook
[was: RE: [PEN-L:20443] Re: RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class] Max Sawicky wrote: If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. Or you could convert to Eudora, and avoid all those MSFT security holes. Now that the university is becoming more and more corporate in its operations, Eudora is out. I recently discovered that I wasn't receiving all of my e-mail via Eudora, but I _was_ receiving it all in Outlook. So I sent e-memos to two administrators' bosses, complaining about their not responding to my previous e-memos, even though these two worthies _had_ responded to me!Egg on my face! Given the ease of synchonizing my Palm Pilot with Outlook -- and the difficulty of installing Eudora under Windows XP at home -- I guess I'm stuck. JD
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
It is wrong that because I don't say anything about a topic that I hold to any specific position on that topic. It would be wrong for me to conclude, for example, that because you never post anything about homosexuality (as far as I've seen) that you are either anti-gay or the opposite. my friend jan carowan posted some quasi foucauldian remarks on categorization by sexual orientation, and earlier on doug's lbo list, i summarized and agreed with john vandermeer's criticism of sociobiological attempts to explain (and thus justify) homosexuality. in short the practices of homosexuality are too varied over time and place to admit of a single reductionist sociobiological explanation. vandermeer's reconstructing biology is a wonderful book. At any rate, your point 2 above is weird. the german richies who bankrolled hitler were scared of the german working class... ; of whom are the sa'udi richies who finance osama scared? You don't say. I just don't get the point of point 2. you may have heard that there are a lot of immigrant workers who do the sh*t work in Saudi Arabia, while the SA elite is quite scared of the cultural modernity (improvement in women's social status, etc.) that seems to go with the rise of capitalism, which has been happening in the Middle East. This is superficial, but captures two major parts of what's going on. well those arab richies are not funding osama because they think he can put a tighter lid on women than the Sa'udis already do! I just don't get this point. but those scared sa'udi richies who are funding osama are doing it because they think he can coopt the mass resistance? Well this is plausible indeed since osama was allowing discontented youth to externalize their aggression away from the repressive govt at home. OK I see your point; this is eminently reasonable. But I still think you set yourself up for misinterpretation by selectively mis-using the word fascism. The whole propaganda machine is selective in just this way: we are told that this is a war for our cherished Western freedoms against clerical fascists who resent pamela anderson. To the extent that you call only the US' opponent clerical fascists, your words fit into the structure of propaganda. I certainly think you should be more careful in the analogies that you decide to develop. Rakesh
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
no-one asked me for my opinion of the Sa'udi royal house or of the issue of classical European fascisms and the middle-eastern variety. Nor did I feel moved to express opinions on these on my own, except in my original message (which no-one seems to have paid attention to). Jim, no one had asked you for the opinion that you do express in many posts. We are lucky for that. No one asked you (as I remember) for your opinion regarding the analogy of Osama to Hitler either. But you made that analogy, not the one of the Sa'udi regime to a fascist one. And why not? You say that one should not infer that you would reject such an analogy just because you did not make it, but it was not unreasonable of me to assume that you were at least more unsure of this analogy than the one you did make. How else does understand why you made the one and not the other? Meaning is the product of both presence and absence. Rakesh
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
I didn't see anything in the Jim's original note that would give Rakesh cause to respond in a combative way. Let's just drop the thread. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General tax fair and efficient for health
The report into NHS resources by Mr Wanless, former chief executive of NatWest Bank, endorsed the existing system of funding health care from general taxation as fair and efficient, although he raised the spectre of charging patients for non- clinical services, such as computer access beside the beds. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/wanless/consult_wanless_index.cfm Chris Burford London
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
I wrote: you may have heard that there are a lot of immigrant workers who do the sh*t work in Saudi Arabia, while the SA elite is quite scared of the cultural modernity (improvement in women's social status, etc.) that seems to go with the rise of capitalism, which has been happening in the Middle East. This is superficial, but captures two major parts of what's going on. RB writes: well those arab richies are not funding osama because they think he can put a tighter lid on women than the Sa'udis already do! I just don't get this point. the US southern slave-owners didn't fight for their independence in order to tighten control over their slaves. Rather, they did so to _defend_ their control over slaves. It's quite possible for oppressors to be reactionary. but those scared sa'udi richies who are funding osama are doing it because they think he can coopt the mass resistance? Well this is plausible indeed since osama was allowing discontented youth to externalize their aggression away from the repressive govt at home. It's possible that they did it also to buy off ObL. (The German richies thought they could buy off Hitler, after all, so he'd become reasonable like Mussolini.) ... But I still think you set yourself up for misinterpretation by selectively mis-using the word fascism. The whole propaganda machine is selective in just this way: we are told that this is a war for our cherished Western freedoms against clerical fascists who resent pamela anderson. To the extent that you call only the US' opponent clerical fascists, your words fit into the structure of propaganda. I certainly think you should be more careful in the analogies that you decide to develop. Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean that I should avoid using words. I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- and (2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are fascists (or whatever). After all, the Japanese regime of 1945 was really horrible (a friend has documentary evidence that they shared racist theories with the Nazis, deeply -admiring the latter) but that doesn't and didn't justify nuking them. JD
RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh's statement is fairly accurate in both substance and interpretation. It is important to understand that this conflict is less about religion than about power and exploitation, but also that the Muslim world represents the first wave of attempts by former colonial domains to unravel the sutures of neocolonial capitalism. It is for that reason that the Bush led regime and school of aggressive American Hegemony must attack the Muslim world piece by piece to conquer it in the name of a New Economic World Order which controls by imposing the discipline of commodification and consumption and instituting global surveillence over all facets of daily life that may range outside of the alloted boundaries. I do disagree, however with Rakesh's agreement with the Bush regime about destroying the so-called al Q'eda network. While I remain a sceptic about the organization that is supposed to exist as a hierarchical structure, I do see much more than terror as the raison d'etre and leit motif for such an informal network as exists under the mislabel, hype propaganda that has been spun around it. In fact, I am even uncomfortable in using the pronoun it which may amount to a reification of a multifaceted and polyvalent process that could even be stretched to encompass our present discourse as subversive of the hegemonic project of US capitalism. In defending the widespread oppositional movements within the Muslim world that the US has currently targeted and labelled as enemies and terrorists, lets's take several concrete examples. First, while the media follows the official US propaganda format in labelling the Moro Liberation fighters and organizations as Filipino rebels, these groups actually represent a 400 year process of resistance to invasion and attempts to impose colonial rule begun by the Spanish and continued by the US and Filipino governments. At the time of Spanish arrival even present day Manila was under the suzreinity of the Sultanates of Sulu and Jolo that included parts of what are now the Malaysian state of Sabah and Indonesian state of Kelemantan. These Sultanates have both original title over most of what was established by colonial fiat as the islands of King Philip (Philippines), and a continuous track record of local soverignty and resistance to external conquest. Therefore, this situation involves both Malaysia and Indonesia in protecting the just struggle for autonomy and independence from foreign incursion into these areas of common territorial and cultural soverignty, irrespective of whether the US or UN recognize that reality. British and French imperialism created Thailand much in the same was a British and Russian empires created Afghanistan, as a neutral buffer state. The northern Malay Peninsula, Pattani, is part of the Malay realm but was given to Thailand and has ever since resisted and desired territorial repatriation to the Federation of Malay States (Malaysia). Continuous guerilla warfare by Muslim Malay groups has sought to affect this repatriation by force as teh Thai government will not entertain any discussion over this issue. The same is true with the Philippine government. Ergo, the only way open to liberate and repatriate territory that remains the homeland of indigenous Malay Muslim peoples is through armed struggle, which has continued relatively unabated ever since the European colonial powers invaded and claimed soverignty. If we look at the Chechnyan struggle against Russian imperialism, as another example, like many Caucasian expatriates, I am named after the 19th century Naqshibandi Sufi Sheikh and warrior, Shamil, who rallied Chechnyan and Daghestani peoples to fight for independence and held it for years until overwhelmed by force of arms. After Russian conquest between 8-9 million Caucasians, mainly Muslim, fled from their homelands in the face of brutal and genocidal Russian rule. That diasphora continues to support the struggle for independence from Russian colonial rule over the Caucasus. similar information can be presented about Uigurs under Chinese colonial rule, or Tatars under Russian rule, etc. Among the fighters in Afghanistan that were wrongly labelled as terrorists by the Bush regime, there are many who are not religious neo-fundamentalists, but rather warriors for national liberation, freedom fighters who had found sanctuary in their incessent struggle against illegal occupation of their homelands by foreign powers. This situation is no different that the Mau Mau, or Ghandi, or other freedom fighters against colonial rule. Remember Indonesian fought for its freedom from the Dutch until 1954, the same time that Vietnam got its independence from Frnace, it was not until 1963 that Algeria won its freedom. The American war in Vietnam was less of an attempt to contain communism than an extention of attempts to retain Eurocentric neocolonial domination over the former colonial world. I'll stop here only to cap this discussion with a
Re: Patents and drugs
Greetings penners! I´m dropping out of lurk mode after some months of lurking... From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20431] Patents and drugs Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:46:41 -0800 Duke Law Technology Review December 7, 2001 FACILITATING ACCESS OF AIDS DRUGS WHILE MAINTAINING STRONG PATENT PROTECTION The general formula for patent protection--no incentive, no innovation--does possess some inherent logic. Why would a pharmaceutical company invest large amounts of resources in a product if a free rider could come along and reap the gains of innovation without incurring the RD costs? ... snip Haven´t read the whole work yet, but it´s good to get an alternative look at this issue. This paper brings up the important point that, while we are entering an era marked by greater ease and volume of information flow, the U.S. government and elite in general insist on choking this flow with ever greater controls over intellectual property at an international level. Although one could argue that such protections are needed more during the information age _precisely_ because the commodification of information is needed to create the right incentives for the production of ideas, it nevertheless seems that there is a big contradiction in ever increasing IP protection. There are also complex problems of jurisdiction over information flow the Orwellian implication of a small number of corporations hoarding IP, etc.. Moreover, even if patents etc.. provide an incentive to innovate, it is certainly quite another thing to suggest that one has a right to accumulate endlessly off an original idea for a few years even after earning more than enough money for more RD investment plus a nice salary... full piece at: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/Articles/2001DLTR0042.html _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Goodsen's book is an excellent compression of large amounts of history and geography into an easily accessible form for the novitiate into the Afghan Gordian knot. It seems bizarre that the quasi intellectual right wing (TNR) has branded as pink MESA, which I view as relatively conservative and traditionalist in its academic approach to the Middle East (a term I reject because of its geographic illiteracy and colonial stigma... preferring instead to use the more accurate and neutral, Southwest Asia and North Africa). But the USA is if nothing else a paragon of a middle that sits so far right of centre as to make Keynsians out to be leftists. jb -Original Message- From: michael pugliese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20437] RE: Re: Afghanistan class See the references in the work by Larry P. Goodsen, Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. Univ. of Washington Press, pb. just pubshed, $22.50. Goodsen studied with L. Dupree, who I gather is a majorfigure in Afghan Studies. Builds on Oliver Roy and Ahmad Rashid, among others. A paper that Goodsen read at the conference of the Mide atStdies Association in 2000 on the Taliban Women, is cited inthe endnotes. MESA, btw, was harshly denounced in a recent TNR or National Review by John J. Miller, if memory serves. Cartoon illustrating the piece had a leftover hippie from the 60's at the chalkboard after having written, America Is Wrong! Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/7/01 9:32:53 AM Pen-l old-timers may be interested in knowing that pen-l alumnus Wojtek Solokowski (sp?) had a letter in the current issue of the NATION [New York], criticizing Chalmers Johnson's blow-back hypothesis. Though the critique was somewhat off-target, I think that Wojtek had a valid point: it's important not to simply think of what's happening in the world outside the US as only a result of US policies (so that ObL is simply a creation of the US war against the USSR in Afghanistan), because that world has its own class structures and struggles (so that ObL also reflects an ensemble of social relations that promotes clerical fascism). If someone knows Wojtek's e-address, please forward this to him. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I' cc'ing this post to Wojtek. I second Jim on the gist of his post here. According to Dr. Margaret Mills, clerics other reactionaries in the Afghan countryside were gearing up for oppositions to state reform efforts _even before_ Afghan socialists came into power. That said, Afghan clerics other reactionaries would not have had a chance against socialist modernizers without massive aids given to them by US imperialists, Pakistan, etc. On balance, imperial geopolitics had a far larger role in determining the fate of Afghanistan than whatever local oppositions to populist feminist reforms that would have existed independently of US imperialism. That said, PEN-pals can help anti-war anti-imperialist organizers immensely if they post here analyses of Afghan social relations (before, during, after the rise and fall of Afghan socialists), from points of views of historians, economists, sociologists, political scientists, etc. Feminist analyses are especially welcome. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/cjp/
The New Economy Goes Bust
Michael Meerpol said that penners might be interested in Dean Baker's The New Economy Goes Bust. I think that he is correct. http://www.cepr.net/new_economy_goes_bust.htm -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: The New Economy Goes Bust
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Meerpol said that penners might be interested in Dean Baker's The New Economy Goes Bust. I think that he is correct. http://www.cepr.net/new_economy_goes_bust.htm I notice the summary comment here, Even the most cursory review of the data shows that the 'new economy' was mostly hype. Does that answer the question posed by Doug Henwood's forthcoming _A New Economy?_, or does Doug have more data up his sleeve? Carl _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Doug Henwood wrote: Max Sawicky wrote: If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. Or you could convert to Eudora, and avoid all those MSFT security holes. Has anyone else had Jim's experience of not being able to install Eudora on Windows XP? Will that be a general feature of the system? Carrol
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Jim writes: Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean that I should avoid using words. no but you shouldn't misuse them or use opprobrious language selectively. I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- and ah so it comes back to hitchens who asserts falsely that osama bin laden would bring even harsher theocratic rule to Sa'udi Arabia. That's my point: if you want in this context to call osama a clerical fascist--which is fine by me --you should call the House of Sa'ud the same. this is not fight about soft vs. hard clerical fascism within Sa'udi Arabia, ok? Hitchens is simply a liar. Sad to see that you don't understand that. (2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. i'm not arguing about words; i am arguing about the consistent usage of words. You are inconsistent. Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are fascists (or whatever). No we should argue that killing fascists to shore up the rule of fascists in Saudi Arabia is wrong. King Fahd and the Crown prince Abdullah are just our fascists. Am I really being that unclear? Rakesh
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Jim writes: the US southern slave-owners didn't fight for their independence in order to tighten control over their slaves. Rather, they did so to _defend_ their control over slaves. It's quite possible for oppressors to be reactionary. Jim, this is a weird analogy. It's enough that 9/11 is Pearl Harbor and al Qaeda Imperial Japan. Does the royal family have to become the slavocracy? It's possible that they did it also to buy off ObL. (The German richies thought they could buy off Hitler, after all, so he'd become reasonable like Mussolini.) buy him off to do what? perhaps the private capitalist class in Sa'udi Arabia is not as worried about popular discontent as the royal family forcing their way onto the boards of private company? i am just guessing, so are you. is the hitler analogy getting us anywhere especially if there is resistance among private businessmen to the priviliges of the House of Sa'ud which is multiplying as a result of polygamy and thus has to encroach on private business in order to enjoy their luxurious lifestyles? hitchens is always talking about facing new realities, but the whole discourse is overburdened with anachronistic analogies. I have yet to read anything penetrating by Hitchens or you about the nature of the conflicts within Saudi Arabia. I responded to the rest in the other post. Rakesh
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh, ease up please. On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 04:28:11PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Jim writes: Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean that I should avoid using words. no but you shouldn't misuse them or use opprobrious language selectively. I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- and ah so it comes back to hitchens who asserts falsely that osama bin laden would bring even harsher theocratic rule to Sa'udi Arabia. That's my point: if you want in this context to call osama a clerical fascist--which is fine by me --you should call the House of Sa'ud the same. this is not fight about soft vs. hard clerical fascism within Sa'udi Arabia, ok? Hitchens is simply a liar. Sad to see that you don't understand that. (2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. i'm not arguing about words; i am arguing about the consistent usage of words. You are inconsistent. Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are fascists (or whatever). No we should argue that killing fascists to shore up the rule of fascists in Saudi Arabia is wrong. King Fahd and the Crown prince Abdullah are just our fascists. Am I really being that unclear? Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Jamil, i cannot comment on your historical analysis of the struggles of the moro people and the chechnyans, but your point against hasty aggregations is surely correct and important. It seems to me that sadat achieved a rapprochment with egyptian jehadi because they (like say the shiv sena in bombay) were effective thugs against organized labor. It is true of course that they later assassinated him, but i would argue that al qaeda with which the the Egyptian jihad seems to have merged are clearly forces of reaction. this political islam of the arabs is a dead end from the perspective of emancipated labor. even if there are anti imperialist elements to al-Qaeda, it promises only the same long night for the working class who in this battle is only being trampled on. Rakesh
Re: Ankara supports strike on Iraq
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Sabri Oncu wrote: The losses caused during the Gulf War are still on the minds of Ankara, and the rhetoric of putting in one and gaining three, which was the slogan of former President Turgut Ozal during the Gulf War, is accepted as one of the biggest mistakes in Turkish history. Sabri, what did one and three refer to in Ozal's slogan? Was one Allow use of Turkish airbases where three was supposed to be gain in military strength vs. Iraq; and same vs. the Kurds; and gain international funds and support? Michael ++ Michael, It is a Turkish saying which I don't know how exactly to translate. I would argue that that bustard called Ozal meant 200% return in his investment in monetary terms, whatever this means. Possibly he was thinking about the Northern Iraqi oil. I never understood that son of a bitch anyway! Did you know that he was trained at World Bank, or was it IMF? Best, Sabri
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
when i was off the list jim made comments that make his position much more complex than i thought. i was going on the comments that were in my in box. so jim if have misunderstood you, i apologize. i guess the use of the word fascism is inflammatory...which of course as jim says doesn't mean we should not use it when justified even in a loose sense. Rakesh
RE:Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
I wrote: the US southern slave-owners didn't fight for their independence in order to tighten control over their slaves. Rather, they did so to _defend_ their control over slaves. It's quite possible for oppressors to be reactionary. Rakesh writes: Jim, this is a weird analogy. It's enough that 9/11 is Pearl Harbor and al Qaeda Imperial Japan. [I never made that specific weird analogy, BTW, and do not see it as relevant in any way.] Does the royal family have to become the slavocracy? If you read carefully, in context, you'll note that I did NOT say the Saudi royal family was a slavocracy, though they do own slaves (or owned them recently) if I remember correctly. Rather, I was making what's called an analogy, or a simile: the Saudi royal family is in some ways _like_ any oppressive and exploitative class, even though it differs from other such classes in other ways. It doesn't necessarily do things in order to exploit, dominate, oppress _more_. (That, BTW, is typical of capitalism, which as Marx pointed out, is aggressive in its expansionism and even undermines its own _status quo_.) Rather it may do things in order defend its current status and its current degrees of exploitation, domination, and oppression. BTW, to reject analogies is to reject theory, since theory is nothing but a form of analogy, a re-creation in one's mind of empirical reality. It's possible that they did it also to buy off ObL. (The German richies thought they could buy off Hitler, after all, so he'd become reasonable like Mussolini.) RB:buy him off to do what? perhaps the private capitalist class in Sa'udi Arabia is not as worried about popular discontent as the royal family forcing their way onto the boards of private company? i am just guessing, so are you. is the hitler analogy getting us anywhere especially if there is resistance among private businessmen to the priviliges of the House of Sa'ud which is multiplying as a result of polygamy and thus has to encroach on private business in order to enjoy their luxurious lifestyles? Hitler analogies are always over-used, since that guy and his despotism were truly _sui generis_. However, a lot of evidence suggests that the German capitalists did try to buy him off, while capitalist elites often try to buy off populist, socialist, fascist, etc. leaders. They often succeed. BTW, _you_ were the one who brought up Hitler, specifically with reference to German elite's efforts to buy him off. I would guess that the Saudi elite would simply try to buy off ObL in order to deal with the discontent about US bases on Saudi land and their own hypocritical application of Islam. That's one reason, I've read, that the Saudi school system has been increasing dominated by the type of Islamic fundamentalism with which ObL is aligned. hitchens is always talking about facing new realities, but the whole discourse is overburdened with anachronistic analogies. I have yet to read anything penetrating by Hitchens or you about the nature of the conflicts within Saudi Arabia. I was NOT defending Hitchens. I also did not write _anything_ (nor did I intend to write anything) about conflicts within Saudi Arabia until what I wrote above. I am NOT the one to expect penetrating analysis of Saudi affairs from, since I am NOT an expert on that field. The fact that I don't write about Saudi affairs should NOT be used to lambaste me. I also don't write about soccer. I hope that this is the end of this thread. Please stop misrepresenting my opinions. JD _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
RE:Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
RB writes:when i was off the list jim made comments that make his position much more complex than i thought. i was going on the comments that were in my in box. so jim if have misunderstood you, i apologize. i guess the use of the word fascism is inflammatory...which of course as jim says doesn't mean we should not use it when justified even in a loose sense. apology accepted. Now, please don't do it again. JD _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
Re: New Scientist on Pound-Euro union
Chris wrote: Now there are all sorts of mathematical modelling of financial data, including analysing share prices through chaos theory. You tell me!... Once I was asked by some money managers to develop a model that would forecast whether interest rates would go up or down. Of course, I couldn't tell them to go and, ehm!, kiss yourselves, for I had to put the bread on the table. Do you think interest rates will go up or down tomorrow? Opps! Tomorrow is not a business day. Best, Sabri Oncu
Re: RE:Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
BTW, to reject analogies is to reject theory, since theory is nothing but a form of analogy, a re-creation in one's mind of empirical reality. i would first like to reject non illuminating analogies. 9/11: Pearl Harbor; al Qaeda: Imperial Japan; the royal family: slavocracy. i don't deny that there is an inherently metaphorical or analogical basis to thought (and i wish i understood lakoff and lewontin or keller or oyama); but i do think our analysis of what is transpiring is bogged down in poor attempts at understanding via historical analogies. Soon we are going to be told that the key is that osama bin laden fits the ideal type of a weberian charismatic leader along with shamans, hitler, and martin luther. I would guess that the Saudi elite would simply try to buy off ObL in order to deal with the discontent about US bases on Saudi land and their own hypocritical application of Islam. That's one reason, I've read, that the Saudi school system has been increasing dominated by the type of Islamic fundamentalism with which ObL is aligned. hitchens is always talking about facing new realities, but the whole discourse is overburdened with anachronistic analogies. I have yet to read anything penetrating by Hitchens or you about the nature of the conflicts within Saudi Arabia. I was NOT defending Hitchens. I also did not write _anything_ (nor did I intend to write anything) about conflicts within Saudi Arabia until what I wrote above. I am NOT the one to expect penetrating analysis of Saudi affairs from, since I am NOT an expert on that field. didn't this begin with your quoting wojtek on the importance of internal class structure and your asserting that osama is the representive of some fraction that promotes clerical fascism? So it's your idea; tell us what you mean. it's now clear to me that you are saying that this osama class fraction ALSO promotes clerical faction, implying (i suppose) that the ruling class fraction does the same. You weren't explicit on 11/24 and it's not what you explicitly said today. I understand that you have said it before--i missed it. If this is what you are implying, why not just say it? Be subversive. Hitchens has told us that good Americans believe that as bad as the House of Sa'ud is, al Qaeda is even worse. why leave it to the non tenure track brown sucker to say explicitly what is defended in the name of American freedom? be bold man, tell the truth , say it loud. The US is not fighting to preserve an authoritarian govt against an even worse fascist alternative. That's Hitchens' neo Jeanne Kirkpatrick line except she defended authoritarian against totalitarian (not fascist) opposition. there are those who want to argue that US policy in the 80s is not responsible for what osama has evolved into. But even if the blow back thesis can be disproven, it does not follow that present US foreign policy can be left out of a causal account of the potential strength which al Qaeda enjoys today. And that is exactly what hitchens wants to do. from your description it sounded as if wojtek may be lining up behind hitchens who has just updated Jeanne Kirkpatrick Thought for the 21 century. Rakesh
Re: RE:Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: i would first like to reject non illuminating analogies. 9/11: Pearl Harbor; al Qaeda: Imperial Japan; the royal family: slavocracy. SNIP Why don't we bring this thread to an end at this point? I don't think there is anyone on this list who would benefit form its continuation. Best, Sabri
Re: Afghanistan class
Why don't we bring this thread to an end at this point? I don't think there is anyone on this list who would benefit form its continuation. Best, Sabri My congratulations to Jim for enduring the abuse.
e-mail troubles
My usual e-mail address is down. You can contact me temporarly for any pen-l business at this address. - Michael Perelman Economics Department CSU Chico, CA 95929
Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Why don't we bring this thread to an end at this point? I don't think there is anyone on this list who would benefit form its continuation. Best, Sabri My congratulations to Jim for enduring the abuse. Hey Nick you want abuse. let's get started on another topic: why can't greider or anyone else who writes for the Nation detail the big nation hypocricy represented by the MFA? My abuse will stop the day the liberal left features a big front page article on the double standards of adjustment and transition. I would feel confident that the Northern based anti capitalist globalization movement was moving in the right direction if there was some evidence it understood in some detail what Kunibert Raffer and Hans Singer are saying in The Economic North-South Divide: Six Decades of Unequal Development (Elgar, 2001). See especially the chapter on textiles and apparel. Rakesh
UK Financial Services Authority
With acknowledgements to Mark's list and to Michael Keaney, this extract from the FT shows the extent to which the regulation of finance capital may not be totally unwelcome to finance capital itself. Chris Burford The City's reasons to be cheerful: parts one to six: The Financial Services Authority is being launched amid unremittingly negative publicity but its potential advantages should outweigh its drawbacks Financial Times, Dec 1, 2001 By MARTIN DICKSON On the stroke of midnight last night a monster was born in the City of London: a swaggering, all-powerful kangaroo court set on claiming bankers' scalps quickly. Fear stalks the Square Mile. This is the sort of alarmist, overblown imagery surrounding this morning's assumption by the Financial Services Authority of its full powers as Britain's unified financial regulator. The tone of much commentary has been unremittingly negative. It is not hard to see why. Nobody loves a policeman. The City cannot be expected to warm to a regulator shaking up the cosy framework that has governed its life for past 15 years. It is easy to snipe, particularly anonymously. For their part, the consumers who stand to benefit most from its operations are rarely satisfied. If all goes well they do not notice. If matters turn sour, as they inevitably will, our blame culture demands a scapegoat and the regulator is first in line. The City is certainly right to view the FSA with a degree of apprehension. It is a statutory body that replaces 10 largely self-regulatory organisations and enjoys wide new powers, including the ability to levy unlimited fines, even on those it does not regulate. If it acts in an overweening or excessively bureaucratic manner it could harm the flexible, innovatory culture that makes London the undisputed financial capital of Europe. But all these legitimate concerns are in danger of obscuring the bigger picture: provided its leaders do not start foaming at the mouth, the advantages of the FSA substantially outweigh its drawbacks. So here are six reasons to be cheerful this morning: First, if it does its job right, consumers should enjoy better protection, although the principle of caveat emptor obviously still applies. The succession of scandals that plagued the City over the past decade shows some of the FSA's predecessors were not tough enough. Second, it has teeth to pursue wrongdoers, ranging from money launderers (particularly pertinent since September 11) to the insider dealers who have rarely been convicted in the criminal courts. The new civil penalty of market abuse - defined vaguely, which is cause for concern - requires a lower burden of proof. Third, the FSA has forced many City firms to do what they should have done long before now: tighten up their control systems and get senior managers to accept clear responsibility for staff actions. Barings might not have collapsed if it had been more professional about this. Fourth, it should bring better regulation to industries that until now have had inadequate controls. Sir Howard Davies, the FSA chairman, made clear this week that insurance is top of his agenda. Quite right too. Pensions mis-selling, the Equitable scandal and problems in the general insurance market underline the need for big changes. Fifth, while the idea of a single regulator was initially controversial in the City, many now regard it as sensible. It should be more coherent and allow skills and resources to be better allocated. The biggest beneficiaries should be the largest, diversified groups, whose regulation is being co-ordinated by a single supervisor. Another benefit should be FSA emphasis on risk-based supervision, where firms that pose less risk have less intensive scrutiny - though there is mixed evidence on the extent to which this is reducing bureaucracy. Sixth, the FSA is good for Britain's international standing. The UK has led the world's bigger markets in the creation of a unified authority (Sweden also has one) and international bankers regard it as the most sophisticated, responsive regulator in Europe - some even say globally. Some have located operations in London precisely because of this. The way the FSA is constructed is smart, a top continental securities industry executive told me this week. The closer my country can move to this the better. Your politicians understand the economic contribution of the City. All this said, the FSA and the legislation that created it are far from perfect. Its handling of the Equitable affair has been flawed; some in the City complain about the quality of its more junior staff (though seem happy to poach them); and while its powers of enforcement have been hedged around with checks and balances, they remain broad and substantial. Early misuse of them would set a potentially disastrous tone for its relations with the City. Balancing firmness and fairness will never be easy. But Sir Howard knows the FSA model is on trial and says he is well aware of
