Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx new ref # 33417
Greetings Economists, Sabri Oncu writes quoting me first, Doyle Sailor, (Sabri you misspelled my name, it is Saylor), > Let's talk about loose marbles. Two groups of e > people were churned by economic necessity, African > Americans during WWII to move to California, and from > Mexico and South America Latinos also being forced to > California. Then Sabri observes, This is unfair. How about Turks being forced to California by economic necessity. Do I sense some racist tones here? Doyle, Yeah you are right, there are racist overtones in the charge that California is where the loose marbles end up. Which may not be what JKS was implying, but is what sets me off when I read about anyone accusing California as the end point for 'loose marbles'. Saying this is where the loose marbles end up is an attack on working class people of all kinds (including Turkish people) who come here. And a key component of that phrase, 'loose marbles', is the racism that shapes U.S. society which readily denigrates people who migrate to find work. And the metaphor of 'loose marbles' also implies to many people that California is where 'nuts' go. That is a very common slur against California as a location. Sabri, Luckily, I am not an English speaking person, though I can speak some English too, so "loose marbles" sounds good to me. Indeed, I am proud to be one. Doyle I agree I am proud to be a 'loose marble'. But I don't embrace labels that prejudice uses, to politically identify with. I don't believe appropriation of words or phrases that represent pejorative attitudes really addresses prejudice. Pejoratives are structured by the feelings of prejudice. Name calling is emotion structure in society, not words, in which feelings are used to divide people against each other. Address the causes of why people feel their hurt and pain from prejudice in a material fashion and those working people will 'feel' liberated. Sabri, Thanks for defending me and my likes. I tell you, I hate every second spend in this weird country of lonely people. Did you know that the very first letter I wrote to my best friend one week after I arrived in North America diagnosed the main problem of North Americans as this: "These people suffer from serious loneliness. They are extremely lonely. No wonder most of them are not stable." Doyle The U.S. is not a weird country of lonely people. What has that got to do with a class analysis? Secondly, disability rights is about defending people who have mental disabilities against the wide spread prejudice against having depression, or obsession, or whatever. What do you mean not stable? You know Jim Devine was careful to make the point that he doesn't see a difference between loony people and genius. He understands on many levels what I am driving at, but like me will use thoughts and phrases that reflect an unexamined thought about what sounds like a disability to me. In regard to your remark about loneliness, the U.S. has a divided atomized people, does that make them weird? How do you measure loneliness? Some people are and some people aren't in the U.S. culture. Broad generalizations easily become a vehicle for prejudice. Is that what I use to organize someone a concern for their U.S. loneliness? Their degree of loneliness because they live here? Organizing someone is about their network of connections, their work, their social network inside and outside their jobs. And in that there are varying degrees of needs and wants that we want to overcome as reds. Calling somebody specific, like weird, is a personal label upon something strange seeming in your mind about them. Making them an other. Where do you find solidarity with them by understanding why they are like they are? You hate this country. I don't hate Turkey, but I make a distinction between the government or state and the people also. I hope to find solidarity with Turkish working class people. I don't see people from Turkey, or Iraq, South Africa, Ethoipia, Turkestan, Vietnam, Argentina, etc., as weird. I don't know much about them, but for example I read what you write about Turkey to learn more about what is really going on there. But finding a way to unite is no easy task either. Thanks for the thought. You know you would be welcome in my home. I hope if you hate me for being an American, that you could soften your heart toward me by personal contact. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Don't Loose Another $100G's In 2003. Act Now!
Make 100G's A Year Legally For The Rest Of Your Life! Learn how to make at least $2,500 a week legally. Discover the secrets of how to live a life full of pleasure, money, and free time! Remember, your rewards in life are determined by the kinds of problems you're willing to solve for others. Making 100Gs a year isn't as hard as you might think, once you know the secret.. It's simple and easy to learn and best of all it comes with my money back guarantee!! For complete details about this incredible offer, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "more info" in subject. This email ad is being sent in full compliance with U.S. Senate Bill 1618, Title #3, Section 301." (which states "A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word 'remove' in the subject line."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Government RejectsCorporate Personhood
Ian Murray wrote: > > > Trivially true. The larger issue is the interests and norms that went > into the *creation* of corporate personhood and their utter lack of > justificatory objectivity in mitigating the illusion of non-circularity This is trivial, in so far as it avoids the issue that under capitalism capital is truth except when countered by superior strength. You can't get around Thrasymachus. (And strength superior to capital can never be more than temporary: as in the case of the sit-down strikes. The total balance of forces was temporarily (very temporarily) against capital. Hence the Sit-Down strikes were legal. Arguing what "should" be true is avoiding the problem of building a counter-power. (Engels's preface to the first German edition of PoP is good on this. Carrol
Re: Sec. Snow
Does anybody know anything about his academic training and interests? -- Michael Perelman Biographical Profile John W. Snow Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, CSX Corporation Date of Birth - Aug. 2, 1939 Education Kenyon College, University of Toledo, B.A., 1962 University of Virginia, Ph.D. in Economics, 1965 George Washington University Law School, LL.B., 1967 Honorary Degrees Kenyon College, LL.D., 1993 Chronology of Employment Feb. 1991 to present - Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of CSX April 1989 to 1991 - President and Chief Executive Officer of CSX 1988 to April 1989 - President and Chief Operating Officer, CSX, Richmond 1987 to 1988 - President and Chief Executive Officer, CSX Transportation, Jacksonville 1986 to 1987 - President and Chief Executive Officer, CSX Rail Transport, Jacksonville 1985 to 1986 - President and Chief Executive Officer, Chessie System Railroads, Baltimore 1984 to 1985 - Executive Vice President, CSX Corporation, Richmond 1980 to 1984 - Senior Vice President-Corporate Services, CSX Corporation, Richmond May 1977 to 1980 - Vice President-Government Affairs, Chessie System Inc. Spring 1977 - Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Spring 1977 - Visiting Professor of Economics, University of Virginia 1976 to 1977 - Administrator, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1975 to 1976 - The Deputy Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Transportation 1974 to 1975 - Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation 1973 to 1974 - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Plans and International Affairs 1972 to 1975 - Adjunct Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School 1972 to 1973 - Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation 1967 to 1972 - Wheeler & Wheeler, Law Firm, Washington, D.C. 1965 to 1967 - Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Maryland Business and Professional Affiliations Director: CSX Corporation; Bassett Furniture Industries Inc.; Circuit City Stores, Inc.; NationsBank Corp.; Textron Inc.; USX Corporation; U.S.-Japan Business Council; Association of American Railroads Board of Trustees: The Johns Hopkins University; University of Virginia Darden School Foundation Member: Business Roundtable; Executive Committee, The Business Council; Virginia Business Council; National Coal Council Distinctions and Past Affiliations Distinguished Fellow, Yale University School of Management; U.S. Department of Transportation, Secretary's Outstanding Achievement Award, the department's highest award; President Ford's Domestic Policy Review Group; Governor Reagan's four-man advisory group on regulatory policy during the 1980 presidential campaign; Vice Chairman-Transportation Transition Team, appointed by President-elect Reagan; White House Conference for a Drug Free America; Services Policy Advisory Committee of U.S.Trade Representative; Co-Chair of National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement; National Commission on Intermodal Transportation; National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform; Trustee, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts; Member, Richmond City School Board Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx new ref # 33305
Doyle Sailor wrote: > Let's talk about loose marbles. Two groups of e > people were churned by economic necessity, African > Americans during WWII to move to California, and from > Mexico and South America Latinos also being forced to > California. This is unfair. How about Turks being forced to California by economic necessity. Do I sense some racist tones here? > Loose marbles is certainly a common expression for being > insane in most English speaking peoples minds. Luckily, I am not an English speaking person, though I can speak some English too, so "loose marbles" sounds good to me. Indeed, I am proud to be one. > So too those who immigrate for economic reasons are > vulnerable to the charge of being of no value because > they had to leave their homes to make a living elsewhere. Thanks for defending me and my likes. I tell you, I hate every second spend in this weird country of lonely people. Did you know that the very first letter I wrote to my best friend one week after I arrived in North America diagnosed the main problem of North Americans as this: "These people suffer from serious loneliness. They are extremely lonely. No wonder most of them are not stable." I still hold the same view after sixteen years. Best, Sabri
Sec. Snow
Does anybody know anything about his academic training and interests? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: growth
This is anecdotal at best, but the stores I visited this last couple of weeks...were almost empty. True, i didn't go to WalMart or KMart. Apparentely, they're doing well. Otherwise, the only exception I'm aware of was the butcher, the baker and Good Vibrations -- a sex toy store where my roommate works. They're doing booming business and expanding. Their best selling item this Xmas was a vibrating rubber duckie. Merry Xmas, Joanna At 06:52 PM 12/23/2002 -0800, you wrote: Royal flush to the economy Charlotte Denny, economics correspondent Tuesday December 24, 2002 The Guardian The economy shrugged off the gloom infecting world markets in the autumn to expand at its fastest pace in nearly three years. Aided by the bounceback after the jubilee shutdown, output rose by 0.9% in the three months to September, according to figures published yesterday by the office for national statistics. Statisticians had calculated growth in the third quarter at 0.8%, but an upward revision of construction activity accounted for the extra surge. The headline numbers disguised a slowing economy. "Without the effect of the jubilee, the data would not have shown an acceleration but a deceleration in growth," said a statistician. The ONS estimates that, if factories had not ratcheted up production to make up for lost output during June's extended shutdown, third quarter growth might have been as low as 0.2%. "This is consistent with a slowing global economy, affected by plummeting equity markets," said David Page, UK economist at Investec. "To our minds, this does not bode well for fourth quarter growth, despite an expected acceleration of retail sales growth over the period." Doubts about recovery were also prompted by an unexpected fall in consumer confidence as the Christmas shopping season reached its height. The consumer confidence barometer of research company Martin Hamblin GfK tumbled to -4 in December, the lowest figure since October 2001, from +2 in November. The last time there was as large a month-on-month fall was during the fuel protests in September 2000. GfK blamed increased speculation about a housing market crash and a war in Iraq for the lost confidence. "[This] seems to be largely influenced by topical media reports. It is believed that increased speculation of a crash in the housing market, coupled with the very real threat of war with Iraq, have attributed to this month's sharp fall of confidence," said GfK. While households remained upbeat about their finances, retailers were bracing themselves for a disappointing Christmas. The number of shoppers visiting malls and other retail outlets fell by 7.2% during the week commencing December 16, the last full shopping week, compared with the same week a year ago, according to market analyst Footfall. The economy needs to grow by about 0.6% in the final quarter for the chancellor to meet his forecast last month of 1.6% growth, a target most City economists believe he will meet despite slowing growth. "The UK economy is still on track to grow by around 1.7% in 2002 as a whole, not quite as good as the US but much better than the eurozone where growth will be below 1%," Mr Walker said. Had British industry not closed for the jubilee, the ONS said, the economy would have notched up stronger growth in the second quarter of between 0.8% and 1.3%, instead of the actual 0.6%. For the third quarter, they estimate growth at between 0.2% and 0.5%. The ONS added that households borrowed less than it thought in 2001 while firms spent more on investment. "Neither the chancellor nor the Bank of England could have asked for much more from Santa," said Danny Gabay, UK economist at JP Morgan. "At the stroke of the statistician's pen, the UK household sector looks considerably less indebted than we thought, UK investment spending not so weak and so the economy less prone to a sudden correction."
Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
You want a justification for corporate personhood? It furthered what you might euphemistically called economic development, and more concretely corporate capitalist expansion. There's no secret that the courts adopt rules that promote business interests all the time. Lots of them are even quite up front about it. Is it bad for them to do that? Depends, doesn't it. What the hell do you expect them to do, anyway? They'rte not making or interpreting law for a socialist society. In a socialist society, the courts will make socialist law. As for circularity, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience. I wish I'd said that, but Holmes beat me to it. This isn't bad case of circularity, anyway. Maybe the first court to cite Santa Clara as precedent was cheating to use it as precedent, I don't know if what you say is true, but constitutional courts make up new rules all the time. The constitution also doesn't say expressly that state legislatures can't squelch political speech. It was made to say that by the incorporation of the First Amendment. I assume you don't have a problem with that one. As for legislative precedent, you're talking the framer's intentions. This is constitutional interpretation. The personhood is that of the 14th Amendment. Are you waxing originalist? And if you are, do you suppose the Radical Republicans of 1866 would have had a problem with corporate personhood? If, like me, you're kind of a textualist, the word "person" is broad and ambiguous, and it's not crazy to read to include suprahuman entities. jks Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message -From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> If the corporate personhood rule wasn't adopted in the case that isusually cited as its origin, it was adopted in subsequent cases. Toavoid circularity, it has to start somewhere. IanTrivially true. The larger issue is the interests and norms that wentinto the *creation* of corporate personhood and their utter lack ofjustificatory objectivity in mitigating the illusion of non-circularitywith regards to the stipulations/axioms that stand as "truth-makers." Atemporal *starting* of a body of case law is not equivalent to nor anadequate justification for a non-circular justification for the creationof an interpretation of a law, nor in the juridical establishment of alegal norm that "brea! ks" with legislative precedents and intents, whichis what the entire case history of corporate personhood did. Defining acorporation as a person doth not of necessity make it so and thus may beendlessly contested. Holmes "infernal capriciousness of the law" standsin stark relief when one looks at the post 1886 history of corporategovernance. But, hey, that's capitalism for 'ya.IanDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
- Original Message - From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If the corporate personhood rule wasn't adopted in the case that is usually cited as its origin, it was adopted in subsequent cases. To avoid circularity, it has to start somewhere. > > > > Ian Trivially true. The larger issue is the interests and norms that went into the *creation* of corporate personhood and their utter lack of justificatory objectivity in mitigating the illusion of non-circularity with regards to the stipulations/axioms that stand as "truth-makers." A temporal *starting* of a body of case law is not equivalent to nor an adequate justification for a non-circular justification for the creation of an interpretation of a law, nor in the juridical establishment of a legal norm that "breaks" with legislative precedents and intents, which is what the entire case history of corporate personhood did. Defining a corporation as a person doth not of necessity make it so and thus may be endlessly contested. Holmes "infernal capriciousness of the law" stands in stark relief when one looks at the post 1886 history of corporate governance. But, hey, that's capitalism for 'ya. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
>> Whatever the original case may have said, there are a billion casessaying it now. jks===Therefore it must be true.The circularity of the law is a magisterial thing... "True" --you gonna get metaphysical on me? Legally, "true" means that it's a rule the courts will enforce. For example, case I'm working on, uninterpreted statute (the new Sarbarnes-Oxley law) , the text says, to be protected the whistleblower must reasonable bellieve that he conduct he blew the whistle on cosntituted a violation of, and lists several sections of Title 18, referring to mail and wire fraud, securities and bank fraud. Read literally, that means the whistleblower must know that the misconduct he reported constited mail fraud, for example. Now probably he doesn't. But I tell you there is no court in the country that will read the statute that literally. The courts will say that it really means, so long as a reasonable lawyer with a good background in the white collar crime statutes would reasonably believe that the conduct constituted a violation of the named sections. So the literal meaning of the statute is legally "false," if you think it useful to talk that way. What can I tell you. Mainly the client wants to know, what will the courts and agen! cies do? If the corporate personhood rule wasn't adopted in the case that is usually cited as its origin, it was adopted in subsequent cases. To avoid circularity, it has to start somewhere. IanDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
- Original Message - From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 10:47 AM Subject: [PEN-L:33409] Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood > > Whatever the original case may have said, there are a billion cases saying it now. jks === Therefore it must be true. The circularity of the law is a magisterial thing... Ian
Re: Frist's Skeletons
A Wall Street Journal column on politics recommended that Frist sell his HCA stock immediately. Of course, Tenet Health Care is more in the spotlight, now that 2 nearby doctors have been accused of giving unnecessary heart surgery to patients in Reading, CA. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
Whatever the original case may have said, there are a billion cases saying it now. jks Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message -From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 8:13 AMSubject: [PEN-L:33404] Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood>> Alas, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution meansthat this gesture has no legal effect. Federal law is supreme overmunicipal la, and the US Supreme Ct has jheld long ago that corporationsare persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and thus for purposes ofthe various rights in the Bill of Rights that have been subsequentlyincorporated against the states via the 14A, including due process, notakings, and the like. A local govt pronouncement cannot trump an Sctopinion. jks==Except Santa Clara never said that. Thom Hartmann went and looked u! p theoriginal case. The infamous short note that everyone is taught as thecase was the headnote written by the Court reporter, a man who happenedto have worked for the railroads. Hartmann's arguments may be found in"Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of humanrights" which was published in October.IanDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Re: Trap tripped Lott
Michael Pollak wrote: > > > In a message dated 12/23/02 12:26:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > So what has happened for the conservative right that Bush let him [Lott] > > fall? > > The main reason is that this sort of open racism alienates swing voters > and if Lott stayed, he'd be a button ready to push for the next to years. > And the Dems have no other button so you can be sure they'd push it. > I think it a mistake to assume there must be "a reason" for everything. Why did X do such & such? She thought it a good idea at the time, but can't remember why. Perhpas her feet were cold or her watch had stopped. There is a huge element of contingency in human affairs. In the present case, Dan's question implies that there is _a_ conservative right with a central committee which consults its ultimate interests (and estimates those interests correctly) before instructing the President as to what color tie he should wear on Fridays. "The Conservative Right" is nearly as amorphous as "The Left," and most general statements about both are either trivial or false. Bush and his aides just happened to think that it would be a good idea. And "The Conservative Right" probably has other things on its mind (if there such a thing as "the mind" of "the conservative right") than conducting class warfare over a jerk from mississippi. Carrol
Re: Trap tripped Lott
> In a message dated 12/23/02 12:26:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > So what has happened for the conservative right that Bush let him [Lott] > fall? The main reason is that this sort of open racism alienates swing voters and if Lott stayed, he'd be a button ready to push for the next to years. And the Dems have no other button so you can be sure they'd push it. The whole point of the Southern Strategy is to say these things covertly, and on that score Lott was clearly a huge failure after years of success. Yes it was because enemies dragged him down, but that counts too. He's now like a spy with busted cover. And attracting swing voters in swing states is strategically more important than playing to the base in the South. Real racists there have no place else to go. It's the basically the same reasoning on which Clinton abandoned Lani Guineer. (Lott was more of a fixture, yes. But unlike Guineer, he was never someone the White House chose and they were happy to see him go. They feel they've traded up. This doesn't feel like a sacrifice to them at all.) The more amusing (in a black humor sense, if you can excuse the term) reason is this: the really conservative guys in the administration, like Ashcroft and Olsen, want very much to continue to pander to their constituency by, for example, entering a strong amicus brief in the big anti-affirmative action case currently before the Supreme Court. And Lott would make it impossible for them to do that sort of thing. Most of the far right in Congress soon became convined this was right. In short, while the idealists in the party thought Lott had to go so they could attract blacks, the reason the true believers agreed was because they thought it was the only way they could safely get back to sending coded racist signals. Michael
Re: Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
- Original Message - From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 8:13 AM Subject: [PEN-L:33404] Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood > > Alas, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution means that this gesture has no legal effect. Federal law is supreme over municipal la, and the US Supreme Ct has jheld long ago that corporations are persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and thus for purposes of the various rights in the Bill of Rights that have been subsequently incorporated against the states via the 14A, including due process, no takings, and the like. A local govt pronouncement cannot trump an Sct opinion. jks == Except Santa Clara never said that. Thom Hartmann went and looked up the original case. The infamous short note that everyone is taught as the case was the headnote written by the Court reporter, a man who happened to have worked for the railroads. Hartmann's arguments may be found in "Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights" which was published in October. Ian
Re: The real Mary
In response to Chris's theological note, perhaps the INS roundup of Muslims is an attempt to celebrate the true roots of Christmas. Maybe we should be celebrating their detention in the spirit of the times. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
Alas, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution means that this gesture has no legal effect. Federal law is supreme over municipal la, and the US Supreme Ct has jheld long ago that corporations are persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and thus for purposes of the various rights in the Bill of Rights that have been subsequently incorporated against the states via the 14A, including due process, no takings, and the like. A local govt pronouncement cannot trump an Sct opinion. jks Michael Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "First Local Government in the United States Refuses to Recognize Corporate Claims to Civil Rights: Bans Corporate Involvement in Governing!!" - There is now an escalation of events in Pennsylvania regarding corporate personhood! The elected officials of Porter Township, Pennsylvania, have passed a law declaring that corporations operating in that township may not claim civil and constitutional privileges.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trap tripped Lott
In a message dated 12/25/02 5:35:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Dan and Melvin, My two cents related to your thread on Lott: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1223-06.htm Seth Sandronsky I just read the article above and it was short, sweet and to the point - an approach I need to consider. Lott looked back in history - at the carnage, and "was turned to salt," or rather removed - forced to resign, as the big cheese. The Anglo-American people as a historically evolved people, understand class factors in American history and society very clearly. What is not so clearly understood by Marxist and critical thinkers is the Negro people, currently called the African American people. The Negro People, are in the main an imperial peoples. A person like Jesse Jackson Sr. - "Big Jesse," is a leader of an imperial people, while a person like Colin Powell is not. Colin Powell is a leader for an imperial class. The evolution of the Negro people as a people is unique and does not conform to the classical descriptions of the formations of nations and national groups in the arsenal of Marxist doctrine. The Negro peoples were consolidated as a class before their emergence as a historically evolved people and everyone understands this, but articulates this singular fact differently. What formed the Negro people was not the spontaneous development of commodity production and the formation of a national market under coercion by the state, but the pressure of "Anglo-Europeans" in the form of extreme violence and terror. This of course makes all thesis about a Black Nation within the confines of the United States an absolute absurdity. The Negro people evolved - emerged, from a class of slaves and these slaves were the personal property of other human beings. When ones wealth - material well being, has been tied in history to ownership of human beings, matters involving economic standing because extremely emotional. Writing these words evoke profound emotions within me and I am generations removed from slavery, third generation proletariat and second generation industrial proletariat in my life experience. The peoples of America are very angry, hurt and extremely agitated about the economic life of our country. An extremely complex form of discourse and struggle is erupting. The issues of the day are being debated in every office and factory in America and thousands of chat lines made possible by the Internet. A mass movement has erupted in America where young college students are flocking to economic courses as a means to understand and secure a decent standard of living. An aspect of every conversation in America is inexplicably fused with the Negro Question and the economic standing of the Negro masses, who are no longer the mass they were in yesteryear. Lotts words in support of Strom is more than simply praise of past history but a clarion call to rally the most imperial of all peoples within the multinational state of the United States of North America. As a body politic, this call to rally the most imperial of all peoples as a primary basis for action is not the current political program of those who write the agenda for the world total social capital. Yet, political leaders will use all currents of thinking and politics to their benefit. My effort was to put forth a framework of understanding from the standpoint of Marx and his materialist conception - approach, to history. Ideology - in its genesis, predates the emergence of history. My watchwords for a life time has been, "from the absurd to the less absurd" because by all accounts history and American history is a study in the conditions of the absurd. The most exalted visions of freedom were put forth by a slave holding society: is this not absurd. Melvin P
Re: Re: Re: Trap tripped Lott
Dec. 25, 2002 Hi Dan and Melvin, My two cents related to your thread on Lott: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1223-06.htm Seth Sandronsky Re: Re: Trap tripped Lott by Waistline2 24 December 2002 In a message dated 12/23/02 12:26:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what has happened for the conservative right that Bush let him [Lott] fall? When you are about to incinerate dark skinned people in the Middle East by sending black American soldiers to their deaths, you don't want the citizenry to think you're racist. It's a public relations move. Dan Scanlan -- Comment Lotts lot is a lot more complex than simply a public relations act, if one means trickery. Racism is an extremely complicated mode of thinking (ideology) and actions. As such I have never - repeat: never, understood racism and under intense compulsion have had to adopt a Marxist standpoint. This does not mean the negation of racism but reformulating the question in an entirely different framework - framework that makes sense to me. To begin with the term and concept of racism was tossed out of the window. In its place the term "chauvinism" and "white chauvinism are used." Without developing an understanding of the intertwining and inexplicable fusion of chauvinism and white chauvinism, we are reduced to racial theories of history and end up belittling the overwhelming fundamentality of what is called the mode of production in material life. I do not take a position that an economic law or fact equals an ideology or ideological product. Rather, ideas and ideology are transformed within a definable general framework and tend to move from the absurd to the less absurd. In fact a more aggressive form of American chauvinism must and has emerged in an attempt to unite a vast segment of the American peoples together in defense off their remaining material standard of living. It is all right to speak of "racism" in a popular forum because this is the way people think things out. However, Marxist and non-Marxist critical thinkers can he helped by conceiving American history from the standpoint of the "color factor in American history." The "color factor" is a factor by definition. The color factor is embodied in all aspects of our lives. The "national factor" in American life is complex and much broader than "black peoples," which is why many of us are flocking to the theater to see "Gangs of New York." Critical thinkers, especially Marxist are forever condemned to explain exactly what they are talking about. Chauvinism or "national chauvinism" refers to a body of ideas - an ideology, which states that one nation is superior to others based on some peculiarity. The word chauvinism is connected with French history and the rise of markets based on the transition from agriculture to industrial relations, but the ideas of superiority are most certainly ancient and rooted in the initial division of labor in society and the various groups of people who constituted society as such. Society of course emerged on the basis of not just fire but implements of production. It is agreed that war implements can play a decisive role in history, but force itself always takes place in a context. The ideology of superiority of one group over another takes on a national character with the emergence of modern nations, nation-states and multi-national states, and this superiority that is now based on national character is called chauvinism or Great Nation Chauvinism. White Chauvinism is a historically evolved specific form of Great nation Chauvinism. Because of the specific role of white supremacy in the history of our country, amongst the various forms of national chauvinism, the most brutal and aggressive form has been white chauvinism. White Chauvinism is the ideological justification for the brutal exploitation of the colored nations and peoples of the world; it is a form that the social bribery took and takes to the Anglo-American peoples that blocks the emergence of class ideology. In our history white chauvinism is linked - fused, with anti-communism and is the principle ideology of aggressive USNA (United States of North American) fascism. White Chauvinism is not white supremacy. White supremacy emerged in a different historical context and time frame. The ideology of white supremacy consolidated as a force in history based on theoretical justification for acts of primitive accumulation of capital. In the real world this meant the emergence of the slave trade, the theft of land, murder of Indigenousness peoples, and the colonization of the colored peoples. So long as there was no real economic use for white supremacy in America, or rather the English colony, it could not assume a world historical force. It was with the need to clear the Western parts of the original colonies that the concept of white supremacy began consolidating in America. With the development of
The real Mary
One of the reasons why there is such a difference in the degree of religious faith in the USA and the UK, may be the readiness of religion in the UK to accept a dialogue with more enquiring historical and philosophical approaches. (Last year Christmas attendances at Church of England churces was 7% down on the previous year). On last Sunday BBC1, now the most popular UK television channel, carried a programme entitled "The Virgin Mary"; "An exploration of the life of the mother of Jesus reveals a story rather different to popular belief". With a dramatic reconstuction featuring a rather knowing and vulnerable child actress, 7 scholars, state of the art graphics, the hour long programme presented a rather memorable image. It noted the religious picture of the Virgin Mary dressed in celestial blue, and noted that colour would have only been available to the rich. The historical individual would have been Miriam, or possbily Mariamee (?) They described the material and social life in a palestinian family, which would presume the child being betrothed at the age of 12 or 13 soon after an inspection revealed her to be sexually ready, to an older man. In her case said to be a trader. The loss of virginity would put the bride at severe risk, even of her life. Essentially she was the property of her parents, sold to her husband. Virgin brides were worth twice non virgin brides such as widows. The story of the virgin birth and divine conception is in only the later gospels of Mark and Luke (80's and 90's AD) not in Mark, John or the letter of Paul. But a passage in John suggests there may have been a problem about the conception of Jesus, in that his opponents say "we are not born of fornication". The programme gave a lot of docuhistory about the extreme violence of the imperialist oppression by the Romans. At the end of Herod the Great's riegn revolts led to the the burning of a number of cities. A messiah was longed for. Roman occupation forces would have been detested. It discussed a 2nd century story that Jesus was the result of rape by a Roman soldier, but after memorable images, it suggested that this may have been put about by enemies of the Christians. It quoted an authority assuming the most likely father was indeed Joseph, and that he was a goodly man. But it did not discuss the possibility that the conception may have been within wedlock, and the whole drama may be a later attempt to establish the divinity of Jesus. The programme did not discuss the theory that the term "Son of God" may not have meant literally the son of God, and that Jesus is also very much referred to as the Son of Man. Nazareth, the most likely birthplace. A town/village of 400 in the remote province of Galilee, far from Jerusalem. Bethlehem: scepticism about this as the birthplace. Mathew has the family living in Bethlehem. Luke has the family travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, on the grounds that there was a census. But surprisingly there is no collateral historical evidence of such a census. The programme concluded that Bethlehem was to make the connection with the city of King David, and this connection was made to give strength to the preception of Jesus as the long awaited Messiah. The stable: this appears only in Luke, whose narrative appeals to the poor. cf the story of the shepherds. Matthew has no mention of Jesus being born in a stable. This gospel, [placed first in the Bible despite its later date] appeals more to the rich and powerful. It starts off with a long genealogy going back to David, and Abraham. Its visitors are the three wise men, [with their expensive symbolic gifts.] The slaughter: this allegedly of Herod of boys under 2, is described only in Matthew. It provides the reason for the flight to Egypt and the return from Egypt such as to permit reference by implication to Moses. Other sources the programme suggested, say that Mary had 4 more sons and two daughters. Her status would have risen as soon as she had become a mother. Joseph is last heard of in the Bible when Jesus is 12. The programme assumed that Mary became a widow, and had to grieve over him, and surivive in a lower status. It gave credence to the assumption that Mary would have protested her alarm to Jesus about the risky course of action he was taking. It debated whether she would have had strength to stay at the foot of the cross as described in John, during Jesus's torture and death. One of the authorities suggested that Mary comes over as a strong character, who might have done that. It described her for the second time being the chief mourner for the head man in her family. The overall quiet effect of this sort of programme I suggest is powerful. It stimulated one bishop to denounce the idea that Jesus was the result of rape by a Roman soldier, but it held it out as a serious possibility only to favour a more probable explanation. The analysis was essen
Frist's Skeletons
frist has apparently written an autobiography, according to orblando slantinel, he states that as a harvard medical school student he adopted stray cats from shelters, took them home and conducted medical experiments and dissections on them, a compassionate conservative... keep the x in xmas, michael hoover <<<>>> Published on Sunday, December 22, 2002 by Newsweek The Skeletons in Frist's Closet An ethics expert says his ties to America's biggest hospital company could be a problem by Suzanne Smalley Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist will almost certainly be elected majority leader when the senate votes on a successor to Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott next month. The choice is a happy one for President George W. Bush, who views Frist as an effective ally; Frist has even been discussed as a possible replacement for Vice President Dick Cheney on the ticket in 2004. THERE'S NO QUESTION about it: The heart surgeon's quick rise to power has turned plenty of heads inside the Beltway. But Frist may have a few skeletons in the closet of his own. HCA, the largest hospital chain in the country, is run by Frist's brother and was founded by his father. Frist himself owns millions in Columbia/HCA stock, kept in a blind trust. And even though Columbia/HCA had an obvious stake in the outcome of both the Congressional Medicare commission's work and the patients' bill of rights legislation, Frist didn't withdraw from either debate. In fact, the Tennessee senator took a leadership role in both instances. Meanwhile, Columbia/HCA had been the focus of the government's longest-running health care fraud inquiry. On Wednesday, HCA announced an $880 million settlement with the Justice Department. Charles Lewis, the executive director of the non-profit and non-partisan Center for Public Integrity and the author of the "Buying of the President" and other books about transparency in government spoke with NEWSWEEK about Sen. Frist's potential conflict of interest. NEWSWEEK: What do you make of the timing of the Columbia/HCA settlement with the Justice Department? The federal investigation into the Frist firm first publicly surfaced in 1997 and it settles on Wednesday after five years of wrangling over its terms? Charles Lewis: It is interesting. I try to avoid connecting dots. I don't know what it means and judges don't talk. Should Sen. Frist have declined to take a leadership role on the patients' bill of rights legislation? Should he have taken part in the Medicare commission? Every Senator handles these things a little differently. It's a little more personal when it's your profession. It's one thing to have a relative or a spouse with investments and recluse yourself. It's harder when it's been your life and you're elected as a lawmaker based on who you are and what you've done with your life. That said, when you're worth millions and millions because of controversial and criminally investigated health-care firm and you have significant familial ties to the firm itself, that's a pretty direct conflict situation. What about the fact that the company in question has just settled an $880 million fraud inquiry with the Justice Department? I think it looks like hell. It's not some obscure company he owns stock in. His family and Sen. Frist have personally become rich because of this company. It is the source of his wealth. I have not studied trial transcripts and briefs and the thousands of pages of material that have built up over the years in the case, but you've got to wonder: If there was substantial fraud committed in that company, what did the Frist family know and when did they know it? This subject will follow him throughout his career. Frist's political career is soaring and seems to have been so far unaffected by the Columbia/HCA scandal. That's interesting in and of itself. Is that because we're talking about insurance fraud and most people don't pay attention to such dry stories? Half the country doesn't vote, 96 percent don't contribute [money to the political system], 40 percent don't know the name of the vice president. We have a complacent, aloof, and frequently, yes, ignorant electorate. There certainly hasn't been the glare of national interest in Frist that there has been this week. It's possible that the scrutiny-which has been increasing in the last 72 hours-is a level of scrutiny Frist has never encountered and what is acceptable to Tennessee voters may be unacceptable to the nation. Frist's situation is not necessarily atypical. What does his ascendancy and the presence of other compromised Senators past and present say about our system? We generally tolerate an awful lot of what I call legal corruption; things that don't violate federal law but that look like hell. My answer is 'welcome to Washington.' We have a lot of things going on in Washington that offend average Americans, but that are just fine by Washington standards. It's normal for someone to promulgate public policy after taking money from th
Local Government Rejects Corporate Personhood
"First Local Government in the United States Refuses to Recognize Corporate Claims to Civil Rights: Bans Corporate Involvement in Governing!!" - There is now an escalation of events in Pennsylvania regarding corporate personhood! The elected officials of Porter Township, Pennsylvania, have passed a law declaring that corporations operating in that township may not claim civil and constitutional privileges. A unanimous vote cast on December 9, 2002, evolved out of long-time efforts by citizens and public officials to bar corporations from dumping toxic sludge on township lands. The new law declares that corporations allowed to do business within Porter Township possess none of the human rights that corporations have been wielding to overrule democratic processes and rule over communities. For details, contact the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) in PA at 717.709.0457 or [EMAIL PROTECTED], or contact the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) in MA at 508.398.1145 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] . - First Local Government in the United States Refuses to Recognize Corporate Claims to Civil Rights: Bans Corporate Involvement in Governing On the evening of December 9, 2002, the elected municipal officials of Porter Township, Clarion County - a municipality of 1,500 residents an hour north of Pittsburgh in Northwestern Pennsylvania - became the first local government in the United States to eliminate corporate claims to civil and constitutional privileges. The Township adopted a binding law declaring that corporations operating in the Township may not wield legal privileges - historically used by corporations to override democratic decisionmaking - to stop the Township from passing laws which protect residents from toxic sewage sludge. The actions by Porter Township thus repudiate the history of state and federal public officials restricting the rights of citizens while expanding the rights of corporations and their owners. Background: Along with close to a dozen other municipal governments in Pennsylvania, Porter Township officials had previously adopted a local law governing the land application of sewage sludge in the Township. The adoption of that municipal law was an outgrowth of the work done by residents and municipal officials to stop sewage sludge corporations from dumping Pittsburgh-generated sludge in the Township. To that immediate end, the municipal government adopted a "tipping fee" law that requires corporate sludge haulers to pay a per ton "tipping fee" to the Township to enable the municipality to verify the safety of each load of sludge applied to land. Sludge corporations have responded both legislatively and judicially to the adoption of those laws by Pennsylvania municipalities - which prevent corporations from turning to state and federal officials to override local self-governance. Judicial Response: In 2000, Synagro Corporation - one of the largest sludge hauling corporations in the United States - sued Township officials in Centre County, Pennsylvania in an attempt to overturn the "tipping fee" law adopted by that Township. In their Complaint, the Corporation alleged that the law violated a litany of civil and constitutional rights asserted by the corporation. A ruling by the federal court is expected by 2004. Legislative Response: Legislatively, sludge corporations drafted and vigorously pushed Bills that would strip Pennsylvania municipalities of their authority to make rules that would control the land application of sewage sludge and factory farms. A unique coalition of groups that included municipal governments, the Pennsylvania Farmers Union, the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the United Mine Workers of America, Common Cause and others, defeated that legislation at the end of the 2002 legislative session. In addition to the legislative and judicial responses to the assertion of local democracy by communities, sludge corporations have also instructed the state environmental regulatory agency and corporate farm lobbies to intervene with Clarion County Townships. In late 2002, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau met with Clarion County Townships to convince them to repeal their local laws. The four Clarion County Townships that have adopted the law refused. Instead, Porter Township forged ahead with adopting the most recent law, which eliminates corporate interference in the democratic processes of the Township. Also in late 2002, the Alcosan Corporation, a sludge hauling corporation in Pennsylvania, threatened to use Pennsylvania courts to overturn the sludge law passed by the Township. Porter Township Supervisors, upon learning of the ability of corporations to direct the courts to vindicate corporate claims to civil and legal privileges to
Cities Oppose Patriot Act Provisions
Several communities have passed measures defying the USA Patriot Act. (ABCNEWS.com) War on Terror Walkouts Oakland, Flagstaff City Councils to Vote on Opposition to Patriot Act Provisions By Dean Schabner Dec. 17 — Two more cities could join 18 other municipalities around the country that have questioned whether the USA Patriot Act combats terror at the expense of Americans' constitutional rights. The city council of Oakland, Calif., is scheduled to vote today on a resolution that would order city employees not to cooperate with federal investigations that are felt to violate civil liberties. The city of Flagstaff, Ariz., also has a vote scheduled on a less harshly worded resolution that would be a statement by the city that it is concerned about potential violations of civil rights as a result of implementation of the USA Patriot Act, but stopping short of withdrawing the city's cooperation. If both resolutions pass, the two cities would become the 19th and 20th local governments to formalize their opposition to provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Supporters of the Oakland resolution, which include nearly two dozen organizations, say they expect the measure to pass. "I think there is strong support," City Councilwoman Nancy Nadel said. "We can't trade our civil liberties for security and still be fighting for the freedoms our country symbolizes." The Oakland draft resolution says in part that "to the extent legally possible, no City employee or department shall officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the above Amendments of the United States Constitution." It also says that "the City of Oakland affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, but also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of the fundamental civil rights and liberties of the people of Oakland, the United States and the World." The resolution originally put before the Flagstaff City Council was written in terms similar to the Oakland measure, but there has since been compromise to remove references to the police department and soften the criticism of the federal government, Flagstaff Mayor Joe Donaldson said. "We wanted it to be a citizens' reminder to the government that we're concerned about terror acts and at the same time we're concerned about civil liberties," Donaldson said. Other Cities Considering Patriot Measures Similar resolutions have already passed in 18 other communities, including Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Sebastopol, Calif.; Denver and Boulder, Colo.; four cities in Massachusetts; Ann Arbor, Mich.; Santa Fe, N.M.; Eugene, Ore.; Burlington, Vt.; and Madison, Wis. There are efforts under way to rally support for such resolutions in dozens of other cities, including New York, Chicago, Miami, Seattle, Boston and Portland, Ore., according to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a Florence, Mass.-based organization that supports "repeal of parts of the USA PATRIOT Act and Executive Orders that infringe on Constitutional rights." There are votes on similar resolutions scheduled for January and February in Davis and Fairfax, Calif., and New Paltz, N.Y. The USA Patriot Act was passed by overwhelming margins in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but Nadel said she finds it hard to believe that legislators read it very carefully, because of what civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups say are the many areas where the law oversteps the bounds of proper law enforcement procedure. Opponents of such measures say that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, are proof of the need for extraordinary measures to protect the country from terrorists. What Cost Freedom? Giving up civil liberties is no way to fight that fight, Nadel said. "It is not a small price to pay," she said. "Our country was based on civil liberties. Some of these governments like the Taliban that we fought to put out of power had restrictions on what people read. If that's what we're trying to eradicate around the world, I don't think it's something we should be adopting here." The U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco — the local arm of the Justice Department, which overseas federal investigations — declined to comment on the resolution that was up for a vote in Oakland. Among the areas that Nadel said especially concern her in the Patriot Act are increasing the FBI's power to spy on Americans' e-mail and telephone conversations, allowing ethnic profiling, denying the right to attorney to some detainees — which she said is "one of the most heinous aspects" of the law — and allowing law enforcement access to records of the books people take out of the library. The city's Public Library Commission has already passed a resolution opposing the Patriot Act. Though the resolution's sponsors s
(no subject)
from single payer quote of the day... Health Affairs November/December 2002 How And Why The Health Insurance System Will Collapse By Humphrey Taylor, Chairman of the Harris Poll Abstract The advocates of defined-contribution health plans extol the virtues of consumer-driven health care, consumer choice, and empowered consumers as solutions to the problems--particularly the rapidly growing costs--of employer-sponsored health benefits. This paper argues that the widespread use of defined contribution plans, with more consumer choice and more knowledgeable consumers, will lead to the erosion of the social contract on which health insurance must be based, with healthier employees subsidizing the care of older and sicker ones, and a death spiral of adverse selection. If unchecked by government intervention, these trends will lead to the collapse of employer-sponsored health insurance. http://www.healthaffairs.org/1130_abstract_c.php?ID=http://www.healthaffairs .org/Library/v21n6/s28.pdf
Church leaders attack war plans (UK)
Rowan Williams, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, has captured the morning headlines in Britain on the BBC at least by upstaging the Queen's Christmas television broadcast, with a trailer of a mere radio broadcast to be given at 12:15 in the morning London time on Radio 4 on 26th December. He has preleased carefully nuanced barbs, enough to excite the attention of the newsreaders desperate for any news. Comfortable with his own agenda of distestablishing the Church of England, he is an apparently establishment figure, who is happy to try to create a different counter-establishment consensus. He is highly alert to the international situation, and deft at managing the manouevrings of media politics. teletext headlines. "Archbishop attacks leaders on Iraq" "The new Archbishop of Canterbury is to use his first Christmas message to criticise politicans for their readiness to go to war. In what is seen as a warning against a conflict with Iraq, Dr Rowan Williams is to mock political strategists. Despite their sophistication, they end up killing innocent people, he will say." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2604829.stm This has a link to a video trailer quoting him as observing that "communications are more effective than ever in history.." [and there is no shortage of analyses] [yet still the innocent suffer] The Biblical references are to the slaughter of the innocents by Herod. Quite strong for duel by innuendo. It will be irrelevant to anyone in the USA except that it will consolidate the caution of public opinion in the UK against a war on Iraq, and force Blair to exhibit even more nuanced counter-moves. I suspect the text of the speech will go up on Rowan Williams's website tomorrow, or soon after. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/index.html Chris Burford London
