Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 535 members of Congress and ...
At the beginning of boht the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was a draft, and members of Congress may have had draft-age sons. At the beginning of WWII and the two Gulf wars, there was no draft and members of Congress therefore did not need to worry about their own sons. It seems to have made little difference. At 12:08 20/03/03 -0800, you wrote: I don't know what the situation was during the Korean police action. It was close in time to WWII when romantic patriotism still ran high. And it was a time when the draft was scooping up in ways less preferential (though still preferential) than during Vietnam. And this is just a feeling, but it seems Congress itself was more like the US, i. e. some real people and fewer blow-dried creatures of polls and corporate money. Gene Coyle Robert Scott Gassler wrote: Point taken. What about Korea? At 10:20 19/03/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote: Isn't it the point that BOTH in Vietnam and now, the Congress didn't have family and friends in the enlisted ranks? Gene Coyle Robert Scott Gassler wrote: I'm sorry but I cannot make too much of that. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. How many had sons or daughters in the armed forces then? I know Senator Al Gore would have, eventually, but then so would Rep. George H.W. Bush. Scott Gassler At 19:40 18/03/03 -0500, Paul Zarembka wrote: 5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces!... [Michael Moore at www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15406 ] Paul Z. *** Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists, Vol. 20 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Re: Pre-emptive attack against General Assembly meeting
Dear Ambassador, Please consider invoking UN Res. 377 "Uniting For Peace" to stop this unnecessary, unjust disastrous war that U.S. President Bush is trying to foist upon innocent Iraqis and the world. The war will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents, trillions better spent on current human needs, instability, increased terrorism, and possibly the seeds of WWIII. President Bush appears determined to wage war on Iraq despite the world's opposition, despite the likelihood that an unprovoked war will foment, rather than eliminate, terrorism. The Bush Administration has threatened to attack Iraq.This constitutes both a threat to world peace and to the very integrity of the UN as an institution dedicated to "the maintenance of international peace and security." Time is running short. This disastrous war must be prevented. Therefore, I urge you to band together with other nations in support of a "Uniting for Peace" resolution against an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. As you know, Resolution 377, adopted by the UN in 1950, was made for situations precisely like this one. Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia, Britain, United States), the Council cannot maintain international peace where there is a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," the General Assembly "shall consider the matter immediately.." The General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to "maintain or restore international peace and secu! rity." Such a "Uniting for Peace" resolution could require that no military action be taken against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council. It could mandate that the inspectors be permitted to complete their task. It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore such a measure. A vote by the majority of countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush to war more d! ifficult. Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly. Clearly, it our last best hope for fulfilling the mission stated in the UN Charter: to "save succeeding generations form the scourge of war." Please act now. It's not too late. Sincerely, Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Illegality of war
Published on Monday, March 10, 2003 by the Guardian/UK A Supreme International Crime Any Member of a Government Backing an Aggressive War Will Be Open to Prosecution by Mark Littman The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the security council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the security council. Self-defense has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack by Iraq. Nor is there any authority from the security council. Resolution 1441 does not constitute any such authority as the reference to serious consequences is not sufficiently precise to justify war. Whatever the US may have wanted, the resolution was deliberately vague because the council had not agreed on the use of force. A new resolution would therefore be required. It would have to be in unambiguous terms authorizing the use of force. In the absence of such a resolution, the attack would, be unlawful. On this point I agree completely with the terms of the letter from 16 eminent international lawyers to 10 Downing Street published in last Friday's Guardian. What would be the consequences of such illegality? Most obvious would be the human, economic and environmental costs, including any further violence that a war against Iraq might trigger. An illustration of how unpredictable and incalculable such costs might be is furnished by a recollection of the events of 1914. When the Hapsburg empire attacked the Serbs, the campaign was expected to be short because of the immense military superiority of Austria/Hungary over the Kingdom of Serbia. Four years later, the Hapsburg empire, together with those of Germany and Russia, lay in ruins. A residue of bitterness and hatred was left that bred an even worse war 20 years later in which there were more than 50 million fatalities. Who can say with certainty where today's threatened war might lead? A second consequence would be of immense world significance, for it would mean the end of the United Nations and with it the final collapse of the efforts of the past century to create effective international institutions that would replace perpetual war with perpetual peace. If attempts to create such international institutions were abandoned, the clock would be turned back to a time when nations had to depend for their security on the uncertain and shifting patterns of alliances and their own military defenses. This would inevitably lead to more being spent on swords and less on ploughshares. A third consequence might be grave for members of the governments that brought about this unlawful war. The United Nations Charter is a treaty, one to which 192 out of a total of 196 sovereign states in the world are parties. It takes precedence over all other treaties. At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was a crime against peace. The tribunal further stated that to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime. It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged. This case and the subsequent case of former Chilean president Pinochet show that it is not only governments but also individuals who can be held responsible for such a crime. Jurisdiction to try such a crime is not, for the foreseeable future, within the scope of the new International Criminal Court. It is, however, open to any country in the world to accept such jurisdiction. Some are already moving in that direction. Instances are the proceedings in the Belgian courts against Ariel Sharon in relation to alleged crimes in the Lebanon, and the active involvement of the courts of Spain in relation to alleged crimes against humanity said to have been committed by Pinochet. Members of any governments actively involved in bringing about an unlawful war against Iraq would be well advised to be cautious as to the countries they visit during the remainder of their lives. In a remarkable statement to the US Senate on February 12, Senator Robert Byrd (West Virginia) described the US position. He referred to it as the extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing and said: Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. A refusal by the security council to authorize hostilities should provide a graceful way out of the box. Our government could lead the way. Mark Littman QC is author of Kosovo: War and Diplomacy (Center for Policy Studies). He has
Wallerstein on Iraq
Bush Bets All He Has Mar. 15, 2003 The United States is in deep trouble. The President of the United States has taken an enormous gamble, and done it from a fundamentally weak position. He decided a year ago or so that the U.S. would make war on Iraq. He did this in order to demonstrate the overwhelming military superiority of the United States and to accomplish two primary objectives: 1) intimidate all potential nuclear proliferators into abandoning their projects; 2) squash all European ideas of an autonomous political role in the world-system. Thus far, Bush has been magnificently unsuccessful. North Korea and Iran (and perhaps others as yet unobserved) have actually speeded up their proliferation projects. France and Germany have shown what it means to be autonomous. And the United States is not able to get any of the six Third World countries on the Security Council to vote a second resolution on Iraq. So, like a reckless gambler, Bush is about to go for broke. He will launch a war in a very short time, and bet that he can achieve an overwhelming and rapid victory. The bet is very simple. Bush believes that if the U.S. does achieve this kind of military result, both the proliferators and the Europeans will repent of their ways and accept U.S. decisions in the future. There are two possible military outcomes: the one Bush wants (and expects), and a different one. How likely is it that Bush achieves the rapid capitulation of the Iraqis? The Pentagon says they have the weaponry and will do it rapidly. A long list of retired generals, both American and British, have voiced their skepticism. My guess (and for me that is all it is) is that the outcome of rapid, total victory is not very likely. I think that a combination of the desperate determination of the Iraqi leadership plus an upsurge of Iraqi nationalism plus the announced unwillingness of the Kurds to fight Saddam (not because they don't hate him but because they distrust profoundly U.S. intentions with regard to them) will make it extremely difficult for the U.S. to end the war in a matter of weeks. It will probably take many months, and once it takes many months, who can predict where the winds will blow, first of all in British and then U.S. public opinion? Nevertheless, suppose the U.S. wins quickly. I would say that, at that point, Bush comes out merely even - not a winner, but not a loser. Why do I say that? Because a victory will leave the geopolitical situation more or less where it is today. First of all, there is the question of what happens in Iraq the day after victory? The least one can say is that no one knows, and it is not at all clear that the U.S. itself has a clear vision of what it wants to do. What we do know is that the interests at play are multiple, diverse, and totally uncoordinated. That is a scenario for anarchic confusion. For the U.S. to play a significant role in the postwar decision-making will require a long-term commitment of troops and a lot of money (really a lot of money). Anyone who looks at the U.S. economic situation and the internal politics of the U.S. knows that the Bush administration would have a very hard job leaving troops there very long and an even harder job obtaining the money it would need to play the political game. In addition, all the other problems facing the world would remain intact. First of all, there would be even less likelihood than now that there could be any progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israeli government would take a U.S. victory as vindication for its tough line, and simply make it tougher. The Arab world would get even angrier, if that's possible. Iran certainly will not stop its drive for nuclear proliferation. Iran will probably, on the contrary, be feeling its oats in the region with Saddam Hussein out of the way. North Korea would step up its provocations, and South Korea would get even more uncomfortable with its U.S. ally and the latter's penchant for military action. And France is likely to dig in for the long haul. So, as I say, a rapid U.S. military victory in Iraq would leave us with the geopolitical status quo - which is certainly not what the U.S. hawks intend. But suppose the military victory is not rapid. What then? In that case, the whole operation is a geopolitical disaster for the U.S. Pandemonium will break out, and the U.S. will have as little influence on its future outcome as say Italy, which is to say not very much at all. Why do I say that? Think of what will happen, first of all in Iraq itself. Iraqi resistance will turn Saddam Hussein into a hero, and he will certainly know how to exploit that sentiment. The Iranians and the Turks will both send their troops into the Kurdish north, and probably end up fighting each other. The Kurds may side for the moment with the Iranians. If that happens, the Shiite groups in the south of Iraq will keep their distance from the U.S. military efforts. The Saudis may offer themselves as
Re: Re: Article on Illegality of Iraq war
I havent heard that it was explicity written. However Negroponte gave assurances in the media that there was no automaticity and said there was no hidden trigger of force. It was on these assurances that everyone signed on. Technically I expect you are correct and the CESR is wrong. I am not sure I have posted this before but here is an article that specifically alludes to Negrpontes remarks. I am sure his exact words could be found but I got too much stuff to sift from a Google search. Cheers, Ken Hanly A talented lawyer arguing a weak case The attorney-general's assertion that the use of force against Iraq is legal without a second UN resolution does not stand scrutiny, says Matthew Happold Monday March 17, 2003 The attorney-general set out his views today on the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. His conclusion was that the use of force against Iraq would be legal even without a second security council resolution. According to Lord Goldsmith, authority to use force exists by virtue of the combined effect of security council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Resolution 678 (1990) was adopted by the security council in response to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. It authorised the US-led coalition to use all necessary means to liberate Kuwait and restore peace and security to the region. Hostilities in the Gulf war were then terminated by resolution 687 (1991), which imposed a long list of obligations on Iraq, including several regarding disarmament. Iraq is in breach of these obligations. Resolution 1441 (2002) found it to be in material breach. In consequence, according to Lord Goldsmith's argument, the authorisation to use force granted to the US and the UK by resolution 678 has been reactivated. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations and warned of serious consequences if it did not. It did not expressly require a new resolution before force can be used. All that is needed is an Iraqi failure to comply with 1441 and the reporting to and discussion of that failure by the security council. Had a further security council decision been required to sanction the use of force, said Lord Goldsmith, resolution 1441 would have said so specifically. There are, however, a number of problems with Lord Goldsmith's analysis. In the first place, the general view is that security council authorisations of force are only for limited and specific purposes. In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687. It cannot be revived in completely different circumstances some 12 years later. Indeed, on the adoption of resolution 687, the USSR and China specifically stated that it was the task of the security council to ensure its implementation. This was reflected in the resolution, in which the security council decided to remain seized of the matter and take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to ensure peace and security in the area. It is for the security council to determine how to deal with Iraq, not UN member states acting unilaterally. In the second place, Lord Goldsmith's arguments have been used before and have been rejected. Throughout the 1990s, the US and the UK sought to justify the bombing of Iraqi military facilities by arguing that they were responding to breaches of Iraq's obligations under resolution 678. In early 1998, after Iraq's withdrawal of cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, the US and the UK threatened to use force to enforce the Security Council's will. The threat was lifted when the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, visited Baghdad and secured an agreement permitting the return of the weapons inspectors. The security council endorsed the agreement in resolution 1154 (1998). However, the council rejected British and US proposals that breach by Iraq of its obligations under the Annan agreement should automatically authorise the use of force (what is known as automaticity). The view that unilateral forcible responses to Iraqi violations were permitted was specifically rejected by the delegations of Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Gambia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Slovenia and Sweden. When Iraq again withdrew cooperation in the autumn of 1998, in resolution 1205 the security council condemned Iraqi actions as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 and decided, in accordance with its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, to remain actively seized of the matter. Again, it was indicated that there should be no automaticity of response, although in conducting Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 the US and the UK chose to ignore these views. In the third place, resolution 1441 does not do what Lord Goldsmith says it does. It does not authorise the use of force. The term serious
To Ian Murray
Ian, you cite this as an example of my attacking people rather than ideas? To the contrary, a pacifist (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. Perhaps you should write letters to Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Tariq Ali and Greg Palast as well, who have been making the same point all over the place. In any case, I have two standards. One that I use for people on PEN-L, which is fairly restrained. The other is for celebrities not on the list (other than those that Doug Henwood favors) like Michael Berube, Russell Jacoby, Bill Domhoff and other pro-war, pro-big business, pro-two party system scumbags. I have no plans to refrain from heavy doses of sarcasm and even--gasp!--ad hominem attacks when addressing such people. If this offends you, I invite you to put me into a killfile as some other people have crowed that they will do, but somehow never follow up on. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 535 members of Congress and ...
Robert Scott Gassler wrote: At the beginning of boht the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was a draft, and members of Congress may have had draft-age sons. At the beginning of WWII This is wrong. The draft began in 1940. Then the upper age limit was reduced, and some who had been drafted were discharged, then the war broke out, and those in their '30s who had been discharged were redrafted. Hank Greenberg, the Detroit baseball player, was among those in-out-ins. Carrol
RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:35855] G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing? Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. His theory's not very deep (in my humble opinion), but most of the people on pen-l are simply shouting into the wind, to be almost completely ignored by others, unless they're part of a mass movement. Elite-focused analysis and empirical research (C. Wright Mills, Domhoff) contributed mightily to the theoretical vision of U.S. New Left of the 1960s, which _was_ a mass movement. Unfortunately, a lot of that was replaced by the crudest kinds of ideology masquerading as Marxism -- rather than seeking a Marx/New Left synthesis. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: e. ahmet tonak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: G. William Domhoff; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:35855] G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing? Lou, If it is not too personal, it would be a good idea to forward Domhoff's entire response. Did you do it already? Louis Proyect wrote: Bill Domhoff wrote: for a Marxist, you don't seem to have much appreciation for structure, except of course in the economyat least so I gather from reading your last paragraphthe recent I didn't waste my time on...but your arrogance is breath taking, of course, and what else is new, and why not bother to read the book, and maybe learn why we have failed so miserably, and if you think anyone who did what I suggest would do less well than Marxism, that is pathetic... Sorry, Bill, I don't have much time for dreams. Nor Yoga, nor transcendental meditation, nor mystical peyote insights. (Now, if you know where I can get a hold of some good hashish, that's another story.) civil rights movement, feminist movement, and many others have done well with help of left, including some marxists, but everything marxist has failed totally What do they call that now? The god that failed? Oh well. I worry more about my arches falling. read the book, but I won't be opening any more of your arrogant emails... Yes, you will since I have cast a magical spell on you. Ooooga-boooga! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
PK on deficit fears
Title: PK on deficit fears March 21, 2003/New York TIMES Who Lost the U.S. Budget? By PAUL KRUGMAN The Onion describes itself as America's finest news source, and it's not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the headline Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over, followed by this mock quotation: We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it. Whatever our qualms about how we got here, all Americans now hope that the foreign front proceeds according to plan. Meanwhile, let's talk about the fiscal front. The latest official projections acknowledge (if you read them carefully) that the long-term finances of the U.S. government are in much worse shape than the administration admitted a year ago. But many commentators are reluctant to blame George W. Bush for that grim outlook, preferring instead to say something like this: Sure, you can criticize those tax cuts, but the real problem is the long-run deficits of Social Security and Medicare, and the unwillingness of either party to reform those programs. Why is this line appealing? It seems more reasonable to blame longstanding problems for our fiscal troubles than to attribute them to just two years of bad policy decisions. Also, many pundits like to sound balanced, pronouncing a plague on both parties' houses. To accuse the current administration of wrecking the federal budget sounds, well, shrill - and we don't want to sound shrill, do we? There's only one problem with this reasonable, balanced, non-shrill position: it's completely wrong. The Bush tax cuts, not the retirement programs, are the main reason why our fiscal future suddenly looks so bleak. I base that statement on a new study that compares the size of the Bush tax cuts with that of the prospective deficits of Social Security and Medicare. The results are startling. Accountants estimate the actuarial balance of Social Security and Medicare the same way a private insurance company would: they calculate the present value of projected revenues and outlays, and find the difference. (The present value of a future expense is the amount you would have to invest today to have the money when the bill comes due. For example, if $1 invested in U.S. government bonds would be worth $2 by the year 2020, then the present value of $2 in 2020 is $1 today.) And both programs face shortfalls: the estimated actuarial deficit of Social Security over the next 75 years is $3.5 trillion, and that of Medicare is $6.2 trillion. But how do these shortfalls compare with the fiscal effects of recent and probable future tax cuts? The new study, carried out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates the present value of the revenue that will be lost because of the Bush tax cuts - those that have already taken place, together with those that have been proposed - using the same economic assumptions that underlie those Medicare and Social Security projections. The total comes to $12 trillion to $14 trillion - more than the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls combined. What this means is that the revenue that will be sacrificed because of those tax cuts is not a minor concern. On the contrary, that revenue would have been more than enough to top up Social Security and Medicare, allowing them to operate without benefit cuts for the next 75 years. The administration has tried to deny this conclusion, inventing strange new principles of accounting in the process. But the simple truth is that the Bush tax cuts have utterly transformed our fiscal outlook, for the worse. Without those tax cuts, the problems of an aging population might well have been manageable; with them, nothing short of an economic miracle can save us from a fiscal crisis. And there's a lesson here that goes beyond fiscal policies. On almost every front the outlook for the United States now seems far bleaker than it did two years ago. Has everything gone wrong because of evildoers and external forces? In the case of the budget - and the economy and, yes, foreign policy - the answer is no. The world has turned out to be a tougher place than we thought a few years ago, but things didn't have to be nearly this bad. The fault lies not in our stars, but in our leadership. -- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now!
Re: To Ian Murray
- Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:02 AM Subject: [PEN-L:35853] To Ian Murray Ian, you cite this as an example of my attacking people rather than ideas? To the contrary, a pacifist (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. === Only that the notion of pacifism includes, is consistent with, an obligation to engage in communication that refrains from attempts at character assassination. Perhaps you should write letters to Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Tariq Ali and Greg Palast as well, who have been making the same point all over the place. = I have no intention of 'using up' the time those people have. They're busy enough trying to craft messages that will reach large audiences without engaging in pre-emptive contempt for them. In any case, I have two standards. One that I use for people on PEN-L, which is fairly restrained. The other is for celebrities not on the list (other than those that Doug Henwood favors) like Michael Berube, Russell Jacoby, Bill Domhoff and other pro-war, pro-big business, pro-two party system scumbags. I have no plans to refrain from heavy doses of sarcasm and even--gasp!--ad hominem attacks when addressing such people. If this offends you, I invite you to put me into a killfile as some other people have crowed that they will do, but somehow never follow up on. == There are no celebrities here. Your sarcasm looks a lot like adolescent name calling and facile attempts at character assassination to me and a lot of other people, especially those on the receiving end of your communication. What is it, objectively? Ian
Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine, we don't need to center on personalities. On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 07:56:11AM -0800, Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. His theory's not very deep (in my humble opinion), but most of the people on pen-l are simply shouting into the wind, to be almost completely ignored by others, unless they're part of a mass movement. Elite-focused analysis and empirical research (C. Wright Mills, Domhoff) contributed mightily to the theoretical vision of U.S. New Left of the 1960s, which _was_ a mass movement. Unfortunately, a lot of that was replaced by the crudest kinds of ideology masquerading as Marxism -- rather than seeking a Marx/New Left synthesis. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: e. ahmet tonak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: G. William Domhoff; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:35855] G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing? Lou, If it is not too personal, it would be a good idea to forward Domhoff's entire response. Did you do it already? Louis Proyect wrote: Bill Domhoff wrote: for a Marxist, you don't seem to have much appreciation for structure, except of course in the economyat least so I gather from reading your last paragraphthe recent I didn't waste my time on...but your arrogance is breath taking, of course, and what else is new, and why not bother to read the book, and maybe learn why we have failed so miserably, and if you think anyone who did what I suggest would do less well than Marxism, that is pathetic... Sorry, Bill, I don't have much time for dreams. Nor Yoga, nor transcendental meditation, nor mystical peyote insights. (Now, if you know where I can get a hold of some good hashish, that's another story.) civil rights movement, feminist movement, and many others have done well with help of left, including some marxists, but everything marxist has failed totally What do they call that now? The god that failed? Oh well. I worry more about my arches falling. read the book, but I won't be opening any more of your arrogant emails... Yes, you will since I have cast a magical spell on you. Ooooga-boooga! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:35859] Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing? I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine, we don't need to center on personalities. That's what I was saying: petty attacks on Domhoff and the like are distractions (at best). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now!
Re: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
I did forward the whole thing. It was just interspersed by my own comments. I did get another message from him that is not worth commenting on. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. Last night I told my wife that 90 percent of the people on lists like PEN-L and PSN have absolutely nothing to show for their radicalism except the books and articles they write, which is a little bit like me being saluted for writing Java code. a revolutionary career does not lead to banquets and honorary titles, interesting research and professorial wages. It leads to misery, disgrace, ingratitude, prison and a voyage into the unknown, illuminated by only an almost superhuman belief. Max Horkheimer -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: To Ian Murray
Ian Murray wrote: There are no celebrities here. Your sarcasm looks a lot like adolescent name calling and facile attempts at character assassination to me and a lot of other people, especially those on the receiving end of your communication. What is it, objectively? Well, other people like it just fine. That's what makes the Internet such a lively place. It is called free speech. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The wholething?
Michael Perelman wrote: I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine, we don't need to center on personalities. And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael. Doug
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The wholething?
Doug Henwood wrote: And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael. The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal that can be read at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm. What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history. Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of flaming David Harvey or not honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the free and open exchange of ideas. In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints about ad hominem, etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not about Domhoff, it is about me. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
flaming
I am going to have to be off line for the rest of the day. Please, everybody involved, cool it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Please, let's cool it. There are more important things going on now. Do we really need circular firing squads? On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:09:10PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael. The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal that can be read at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm. What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history. Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of flaming David Harvey or not honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the free and open exchange of ideas. In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints about ad hominem, etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not about Domhoff, it is about me. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Let's everybody chill out. Louis' participation in this latest round has been constructive. We needn't have matters degenerate as they have at times. right now there's a war on. Can everyone here be nice to each other over things that don't matter? Louis has actually beeing trying to do that. As for all of you, Poof! I put a spell on you . . . of Comradeship! jks Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael.The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal that can be read at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm.What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history.Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of "flaming" David H! arvey or not honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the free and open exchange of ideas.In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints about "ad hominem", etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not about Domhoff, it is about me.-- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.orgDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
two people killed in anti-war protest
The BBC reported this two deaths. I am interested in knowing anything else like this, i.e. any other deaths, large scale assault, etc.? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2872873.stm E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: The politics underlying the war
chris == Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chris obviously futile. But as the stories mount of unnecessary chris civilian deaths and maimings, and of deaths through friendly chris fire and accidents, this propels the relevance of continued chris protests, against an unjust and inappropriate use of force. Yes chris even if they find some prisoners in Saddam's jails who have had chris their tongues cut out, as they promise us, it will still be chris relevant to campaign against the excessive and inappropriate use chris of force! Chris, But where does that leave us (uh, the left) when or if such stories don't emerge, either because the Pentagon's (rather brillant, IMO) 'embedding' strategy simply strangles the news before it leaks out or, as seems more likely, there *aren't* any such stories to tell? It seems possible, at this very early point, that Bush Co. will get a relatively bloodless win against Hussein, who will be spun as a paper tiger. In other words, what if Baghdad falls, not with an 'unnecessary' number of civilian deaths, but with none at all? That seems at least possible right now, and if it happens that way, it would seem to seriously undercut what I understand you to be arguing as the basis of an antiwar position. But perhaps I've misunderstood you? (Reading further, I think I agree with your broader point about national sovereignty, but I oppose this war not on those grounds, but because it's neither necessary nor a matter of last resort. Well, and acquiescing to it seems to me to be acquiescing to the enactment of imperial power -- and that just *feels* wrong.) Kendall Clark -- Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/03/20/042.html Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003. Page 7 Report: U.S. Plans to Tap $40Bln Iraq Account In itself, the current proposal of Kofi Anon is technical and almost required: the residual unspent amounts left over from the sale of Iraqi oil under the sanctions (in the billions) will be needed by desperate and suffering people. So the U.N. Secretariat should be authorized to use the residual funds quickly on its own since there will be no Iraqi government in the picture (the current Resolution requires the UN Secretariat to use lengthy procedures involving the Iraqi government and the Security Council). The catch - who will control the NEXT batch of Iraqi oil to be sold (and, of course, for the long term)? The Military Government? Under what rules? For example: - Will 'humanitarian needs' include 'public safety' and thus reimburse the U.S./UK for the costs of the occupation? - The current 'Oil for Food' took billions (25% or maybe some $10 billion?) from Iraq and gave it to other countries as war reparations (surpassing Versailles). Now will the US/UK receive reparations for the cost of the war using this precedent? - Until there is a legally recognized national Government, who will control the oil fields and sell the oil? U.S./UK oil companies under a leasing arrangement with the Military Government? (Of course this leads to the issue of the ultimate privatization of the oil fields themselves.) There is one big point of leverage over the US/UK. To export Iraqi oil legally (other than through 'Oil for Food') there will have to be a Security Council Resolution. Could the US/UK try to attach the first steps in this direction to a more innocuous Resolution? The press reports that the US/UK have floated a private draft of a new 'Oil for Food' resolution. Alternatively they may have to wait for some weeks or months, when there is an impending crisis as the residual funds run out and when they have some sort of local Iraqi partners.
spat upon veterans
For those intested in the history of the spat upon veteran and attempts to create a new myth about the contemporary military, read the newspaper story at: http://www.mountainx.com/news/2003/0319troops.php Marty Hart-Landsberg
butcher
Title: butcher -- -- Drop Bush, Not Bombs! -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell - END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT) http://www.kvmr.org I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan attachment: bush.jpg
RE: Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch
Title: RE: [PEN-L:35871] Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch also, despite all the possible aid to the Iraqi people, the overhead and clean-up will be likely supplied by Bush cronies, who will profit mightily. JD (hi, Paul!) -Original Message- From: Paul_A To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/21/2003 10:00 AM Subject: [PEN-L:35871] Politics of 'Oil for Food': The big catch http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/03/20/042.html Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003. Page 7 Report: U.S. Plans to Tap $40Bln Iraq Account In itself, the current proposal of Kofi Anon is technical and almost required: the residual unspent amounts left over from the sale of Iraqi oil under the sanctions (in the billions) will be needed by desperate and suffering people. So the U.N. Secretariat should be authorized to use the residual funds quickly on its own since there will be no Iraqi government in the picture (the current Resolution requires the UN Secretariat to use lengthy procedures involving the Iraqi government and the Security Council). The catch - who will control the NEXT batch of Iraqi oil to be sold (and, of course, for the long term)? The Military Government? Under what rules? For example: - Will 'humanitarian needs' include 'public safety' and thus reimburse the U.S./UK for the costs of the occupation? - The current 'Oil for Food' took billions (25% or maybe some $10 billion?) from Iraq and gave it to other countries as war reparations (surpassing Versailles). Now will the US/UK receive reparations for the cost of the war using this precedent? - Until there is a legally recognized national Government, who will control the oil fields and sell the oil? U.S./UK oil companies under a leasing arrangement with the Military Government? (Of course this leads to the issue of the ultimate privatization of the oil fields themselves.) There is one big point of leverage over the US/UK. To export Iraqi oil legally (other than through 'Oil for Food') there will have to be a Security Council Resolution. Could the US/UK try to attach the first steps in this direction to a more innocuous Resolution? The press reports that the US/UK have floated a private draft of a new 'Oil for Food' resolution. Alternatively they may have to wait for some weeks or months, when there is an impending crisis as the residual funds run out and when they have some sort of local Iraqi partners.
NO TO WAR in Cochabamba, Bolivia
Title: PK on deficit fears Just got back from our rally and march. A great group of about 400 people, highschoolers, retired workers, nuns and anarchists gathered at noon in the central plaza, did a couple of rounds, and then marched to the US Consulates office in a fancy office building some 10 blocks away. (Also in that building is Duke Energy, who generates the power I am at this moment consuming, and TransRedes, the Shell/Enron affiliate, that pipes Bolivian carries gas and oil to buyers.) All along the way we received supportive waves, honks, cheers. Arriving at the US Consulates office, we did all kinds of chanting, singing, and general carrying-on. The nuns led a rousing rendition of Leon Giecos Solo le pido a dios, now a standard anti-war number, made famous up there by Mercedes Sosa. Not to be outdone, the radical students stared chanting for parts of Bushs genitalia. I was next to the nun contingent, and was delighted to see some of them chanting along, and when the chant died down, cracking up over their public transgressions. What an awful day; what a great day. -- Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 Cochabamba BOLIVIA Tel/Fax: (591-4) 424-8242 eFax: (413) 280-5234 [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
homeland security signs
http://titaniumcounter.com/temp/emergency/
Report on Anti-War Actions from Columbus, OH
Protests in Columbus, OH have never been able to match those of Chicago, San Francisco, and other big cities, but we're making progress in number, breadth, and militancy. Tuesday, March 18: * Die-ins at 15th Ave. and High St., Noon-1 PM (about 30 people) and 5-6 PM (124 people). Thursday, March 20: * a walkout of high school students, led by Rachel Levine. Columbus has strong secular Jewish voices for peace. * an interfaith prayer service for peace at First Congregational Church, 7 PM. Through the planning of this prayer service, a new group Faith Communities United for Peace was formed, led by a wonderful Methodist man John Wagner, who had already organized Methodists for Peace here. * a protest at the Federal Building, from 9 PM. About 1,000 showed up, chanting, drumming, speechifying, primal-screaming. Most drivers honked for peace enthusiastically, with only a few giving us thumbs down. We were wildly popular. Small groups decided to provide round-the-clock presence of dissenters at the Federal Building. We'll come out in force tonight at 9 PM again. Our regular anti-war activities will also continue: * Weekly Vigils (Women in Black), every Friday, 5:30-6:30 PM, 15th Ave. and High St., Columbus, OH * Weekly Demonstrations, every Saturday, Noon to 1 PM, N. Broadway and High St., Columbus, OH * Weekly Demonstrations, every Saturday, Noon to 1 PM, Rt.161 (Dublin Granville Rd.) and High St. in Worthington * Weekly Demonstrations, every Saturday, Noon to 1 PM, Broad and Drexel in Bexley * Weekly Demonstrations, every Sunday, 5-6 PM, 15th Ave. and High St., Columbus, OH As you may see from the above locations, we now have neighborhood protest groups taking actions in places other than downtown and the OSU campus area. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re: Re: The politics underlying the war
In a message dated 3/20/03 11:21:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 2003-03-20 08:10 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Chris Burford wrote: We will see how the peace movement responds and evolves, and we can each make our personally minuscule contribution to the debate. Peace now, or Cease fire now, may remain the main slogans, but a purely pacifist position will isolate the movement from its wide hinterland, and so I suggest would a campaign based mainly on a rearguard defence of national sovereignty. To the contrary, a "pacifist" (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position By pacifist, I mean someone absolutely opposed to war under all circumstances. I see the peace movement as composed of pacifists, anarchists, and liberals who think the present war is disproportionate and a manifestation of hegemonism. is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. I do not see the main objection to imperialism being that it claims a right to go to war, and I am genuinely puzzled by this emphasis on "right" as if our struggles are mainly about whether we uphold or oppose a moral right. Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is now a global system of oppression and exploitation. Of course it uses war. But its prefered policy is increasingly one of peaceful domination and manipulation, G W Bush not withstanding. I think there is a serious criticism of imperialism that it trashed Africa and did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I might be right or wrong, but a lot of other people think that. Why absolutise a concept of the "right" of imperialism to go to war, or absolutise opposition to it? I absolutely uphold not the right but the duty of imperialism to go to war against Nazi Germany in alliance with Soviet Russia. Louis Proyect and I have well-known and quite unsurprising differences on that. Louis Proyect supports Lenin's position at Zimmerwald. I support the turn in the international communist movement at its seventh congress in 1935. Comment Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is the domination of financial-industrial, which has been driven to a new phase wherein the speculative sector of finance capital writes the global agenda for the world total social capital. In our current era of history what has emerged within the world total social capital is a financial sector with no interest in geographical boundaries that have in the past defined the economic and political authority of various sectors within the world total social capital. The social force called imperialism drives economic development. Imperial means the export of primarily a superior mode of production and its corresponding social organization to a less developed area - as abstraction. The human toil of this export is always written in blood on a parchment of genocide. Thousands of generations of humanity have opposed war on any grounds and each generation produces anti-war warriors. It is incorrect factually to speak of national states in today's world, when in fact most states in the world today are composed of various peoples, at various stages of national development. Even Iraq, which is being subjected to an intense military assault at the hands of my imperialist bourgeoisie, is a multi-national state, with a historically evolved and defined territorial authority. Imperial finance capital is of course a system of "global system of oppression and exploitation" but more than that it is a system of specific property relations, which a corresponding mode of accumulation of the social wealth of society. War as a social institution in human history arises on the basis of the division of labor in human society and the seeking of privileges based on the subjugation, containment or amalgamation of peoples unable to resist a stronger peoples. In today's world no country on earth - or rather, no geographic area on earth can exist and maintain sustenance for its population that does not export and import. The export of industrial relations of production to every corner of the earth has qualitatively reconfigured the world market during the past 150 years. Industrial production relations can be isolated as a specific quality or a specific method of production, distinct from other methods of social production. This "quality" called industrial production has gone through various stages and phases of quantitative expansion. In as much as a more efficient method of production always - always, replaces a less efficient method of production, because it saves time for human individuals to pursue activity outside of reproduction. Imperial expansion on the basis of war and the destruction of productive forces has always been undesirable and unacceptable to immense sections of humanity. This includes a vast section of the dominating peoples. What is called imperial expansion or the
Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...Thewhole thing?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/03 11:52 AM Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea? re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking directorate of such types... still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it was attractive and popular enough to be appropriated by political right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that masses are asses such that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'... michael hoover
Re: Re: Jazz corruption.
Gil Skillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, I think the original connection went corruption--brothels and speakeasies and underground clubs--jazz and sometimes blues. Right, like I said, New Orleans jazz was whorehouse music to entertain the girls or the customers while waiting. A prominent source of "corruption" was Prohibition, during which jazz was the hot dance music of the day. Well, yes, but the hothouse licensed corruption of the Storyville Red Light District antedates Prohibition, and the corruption of the swing era and swing-to-bop period postdates it. But there is no doubt that the gangsters who thrived off Prohibition muscled their way into music and clubs big time afterwards as well as during. Btw, "hot" jazz was the hot jazz of its day, but there was also sweet jazz of the Paul Whiteman Band variety, mainly done by white performances, that was not hot. Some of it was marvelous. You can't beat Bix Beiderbecke on the horn, unless you're Louis Armstrong. Nowadays corruption has no particular musical connection Oh, yeah? See Hit Men: Power Brokers Fast Money Inside the Music Business.by Fredric Dannen A great read, and really horrifying stories behind the music we love. Makes you long for the days of Al Capone, who after all just wanted his cut. --cf.Providence RI or swingin' Bridgeport, CT. As for rock n roll, well, different clientele. Were he alive today, I suspect Boss Tweed wouldn't be into heavy metal. Hmm. What would BossTweed listen to were he alive today? Sousa or the Sex Pistols? This is an old condundrum about subjunctive conditionals. If Caeser were alive today, he would uise (a) catapults, (b) the MOAB. You pick. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
protection rents redux
U.S. Set to Award 7 Contracts for Rebuilding of Iraq Initial Work Will Go to American Firms By Paul Blustein and Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A30 The U.S. Agency for International Development said yesterday that it will shortly award seven contracts to American companies for the initial stages of reconstruction in postwar Iraq -- two of them as early as today. Justifying the decision to restrict the contracts to U.S. firms, Andrew S. Natsios, the USAID administrator, said one reason is the need for the firms' personnel to have security clearances, because there are classified documents they have to see. Natsios and other officials emphasized, however, that they expect the long-term reconstruction effort to go well beyond the USAID contracts and include international organizations and aid agencies from other countries, which would presumably award contracts to non-U.S. firms. We expect U.N. agencies will be involved in a major way, Natsios said, adding that he has also been talking below the radar screen . . . for three or four months now to his counterparts at the aid agencies of other wealthy countries in the expectation that they, too, would play significant roles in rebuilding Iraq after U.S.-led forces unseat President Saddam Hussein. Other U.S. officials said they envision important contributions from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as well. The IMF has established a task force to study the Iraqi economy, although any financial support from either it or the World Bank probably would take considerable time because the two institutions last worked in Iraq in the 1970s and early 1980s. The U.S. officials' comments may go at least part way toward defusing a controversy that has arisen over USAID plans to limit its contracts to U.S. firms. The agency almost always awards American companies a large portion of its contracts, but international criticism erupted after recent news reports that the USAID had limited the selection process for the biggest contracts to a handful of huge U.S. multinational firms, some of which are well connected to the Bush administration. Those firms include a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the company once headed by Vice President Cheney. The agency's handling of the matter, and the implication that international organizations and other aid agencies would be left out, was denounced as exceptionally maladroit by Chris Patten, the European commissioner for external relations. The amount of aid that is needed for reconstruction, although still far from determined, is certain to dwarf the sum that the USAID is planning to spend on the contracts in question, and that is one major reason that U.S. officials say they would welcome involvement by international agencies and other countries. Many experts have cited estimates ranging from $25 billion to $100 billion for the full reconstruction, while the largest contract the USAID is planning to award at this stage is for about $600 million. That contract, to repair the country's infrastructure, including roads and bridges, is to be awarded early next week. The field of competitors was narrowed from seven to two or three, and the companies have been asked to submit their best and final offers, agency officials said. Two contracts to administer Iraq's seaport and airports may be awarded as soon as today. The total cost of the USAID's plan is still unknown, Natsios said, and will be allocated in a supplementary appropriation bill that President Bush plans to submit to Congress soon. According to people who have seen contract documents that have been distributed to some of the firms, the USAID effort is intended to provide tangible evidence to the people of Iraq that the U.S. will support efforts to bring the country political security and economic prosperity. Even if Washington does not intend to have U.S. firms dominate Iraq's reconstruction, officials of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have been actively involved in aid are upset about the USAID plan because it apparently envisions a minor role for them. NGO officials contend that they have far more expertise than giant companies in the on-the-ground work in local communities that is required to build successful health and education systems. We've received verbal assurances from the U.S. government that NGOs will be involved in reconstruction activities, but we'll believe it when we see it, said Sid Balman Jr., a spokesman for InterAction, an umbrella group of NGOs. There's been a worrisome trend we've been seeing, based on what we saw in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration seems to be turning to a small pool of mainly large U.S. contractors for most reconstruction activities.
RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Now that I have been away from this list for the past two days, spending some time with the Peace Initiave friends over at Turkey, look what happened. Justin, Apparently your spell did not work. Could you please give it a second try? Sabri PS: By the way, there are many fights going on on Turkish lists too. Sorry, but to engage in another fight, I need to go there. Keep up the good work.
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Michael Hoover: What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea? I have no idea. It just popped into my head like any other outrageous thought. In any case, here's what a friend of mine, who teaches at a funky NYC community college and who attended Domhoff's panel, had to say: --- Good letter. I happen to have attended the panel at which he spoke, and no one in the audience or on the stage agreed with him. He's obviously become another complacent ex-Marxist academic sucking on the public tit (be it teaching at a state school or getting federal grants), teaching one or two courses a year for a six figure salary, attracting good graduate students though his previously good name. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Domhoff names names in the structure without conceptualizing it adequately. It's a much more "American" way of going at the issue. At the other extreme, people conceptualize the structure elaborately but do not name any names. Though each has its advantages and disadvantages, a blend of both is best. Joel Blau Michael Hoover wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/03 11:52 AM Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea?re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking directorate of such types...still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it wasattractive and popular enough to be appropriated bypolitical right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that "masses are asses" such that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'... michael hoover
Re: protection rents redux
Are there any articles or data on the distribution of contracts for reconstruction in Afghanistan that Penners would commend? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pen-l [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:30 PM Subject: [PEN-L:35881] protection rents redux U.S. Set to Award 7 Contracts for Rebuilding of Iraq Initial Work Will Go to American Firms By Paul Blustein and Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A30 The U.S. Agency for International Development said yesterday that it will shortly award seven contracts to American companies for the initial stages of reconstruction in postwar Iraq -- two of them as early as today. Justifying the decision to restrict the contracts to U.S. firms, Andrew S. Natsios, the USAID administrator, said one reason is the need for the firms' personnel to have security clearances, because there are classified documents they have to see. Natsios and other officials emphasized, however, that they expect the long-term reconstruction effort to go well beyond the USAID contracts and include international organizations and aid agencies from other countries, which would presumably award contracts to non-U.S. firms. We expect U.N. agencies will be involved in a major way, Natsios said, adding that he has also been talking below the radar screen . . . for three or four months now to his counterparts at the aid agencies of other wealthy countries in the expectation that they, too, would play significant roles in rebuilding Iraq after U.S.-led forces unseat President Saddam Hussein. Other U.S. officials said they envision important contributions from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as well. The IMF has established a task force to study the Iraqi economy, although any financial support from either it or the World Bank probably would take considerable time because the two institutions last worked in Iraq in the 1970s and early 1980s. The U.S. officials' comments may go at least part way toward defusing a controversy that has arisen over USAID plans to limit its contracts to U.S. firms. The agency almost always awards American companies a large portion of its contracts, but international criticism erupted after recent news reports that the USAID had limited the selection process for the biggest contracts to a handful of huge U.S. multinational firms, some of which are well connected to the Bush administration. Those firms include a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the company once headed by Vice President Cheney. The agency's handling of the matter, and the implication that international organizations and other aid agencies would be left out, was denounced as exceptionally maladroit by Chris Patten, the European commissioner for external relations. The amount of aid that is needed for reconstruction, although still far from determined, is certain to dwarf the sum that the USAID is planning to spend on the contracts in question, and that is one major reason that U.S. officials say they would welcome involvement by international agencies and other countries. Many experts have cited estimates ranging from $25 billion to $100 billion for the full reconstruction, while the largest contract the USAID is planning to award at this stage is for about $600 million. That contract, to repair the country's infrastructure, including roads and bridges, is to be awarded early next week. The field of competitors was narrowed from seven to two or three, and the companies have been asked to submit their best and final offers, agency officials said. Two contracts to administer Iraq's seaport and airports may be awarded as soon as today. The total cost of the USAID's plan is still unknown, Natsios said, and will be allocated in a supplementary appropriation bill that President Bush plans to submit to Congress soon. According to people who have seen contract documents that have been distributed to some of the firms, the USAID effort is intended to provide tangible evidence to the people of Iraq that the U.S. will support efforts to bring the country political security and economic prosperity. Even if Washington does not intend to have U.S. firms dominate Iraq's reconstruction, officials of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that have been actively involved in aid are upset about the USAID plan because it apparently envisions a minor role for them. NGO officials contend that they have far more expertise than giant companies in the on-the-ground work in local communities that is required to build successful health and education systems. We've received verbal assurances from the U.S. government that NGOs will be involved in reconstruction activities, but we'll believe it when we see it, said Sid Balman Jr., a spokesman for InterAction, an umbrella group of NGOs. There's been a worrisome trend we've been seeing, based
Pearls from Perle
This is a prime example of the sort of absolute nuttiness and radical imperialism that drives the Bush policy. Won't even international capital recoil at this stuff. It promises instability and constant intervention and a world race to develop WMD's. What other option is there to stop a power hungry arrogant imperialist who seems to believe in his own rhetorical madness. And at some stage the opponent will not be an Iraq which probably has few if any WMDs. In fact the US may be forced to plant them after the war. I assume they would not allow unreliable people such as Blix back in or at least not until they had planted stuff and then given inspectors intelligence about where they were. Cheers, Ken Hanly PS. Notice that at every opportunity now the Iraq war is tied in with the war against terrorism. US media dont seem to even remark on this. At least CBC has pointed this out several times. Thank God for the death of the UN Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order Richard Perle Friday March 21, 2003 The Guardian Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The good works part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions. As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against regime change. In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours. A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, anarchy, rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order. This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of order versus anarchy. But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany. In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again. Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands. This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the
Michael Albert: Support our Troops
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3255sectionID=15 Support Our Troops by Michael Albert; March 17, 2003 If war comes even despite the historic, tenacious, and comprehensive opposition now raging across the planet, the U.S. government will proclaim triumphantly that everyone who isn't a traitor needs to rally around Washington to support our troops. Opponents of the war could opt for many possible replies. We could point out that our troops in Iraq are barely in danger at all because they are assaulting a tenth-rate opponent that has no serious means to defend Iraq much less to attack the world's sole superpower. We could point out that while perhaps a few hundred U.S. troops will die in this war, way over 50,000 U.S. citizens will die in the next 12 months due to workplace accidents and death by industry-caused diseases and automobile accidents (not to mention the impact of pollution and unsafe products). We could then query why this massive yearly blight on our population, roughly 15 times as devastating as 9/11, doesn't provoke a war on corporations' profit-seeking violations of their employees' and consumers' health and safety. Or we could point out that the lives of American troops are no more worthy of compassionate support than the lives of Iraqis, and that we didn't kill Hussein a million times over with our decade- long sanctions but we instead killed a million Iraqis once each -- with Hussein getting stronger as each new corpse was added to the carnage. And of course we could explain how unleashing a campaign to shock and awe a country is unjust and immoral, how it is an archetype example of the terrorism we say we are against. But for myself, I think that perhaps a different approach might work better, and so if war does come, I intend to reply to the demand to support our troops by saying that yes, I too support our troops. I will reply that I support our troops not having to kill people in Iraq. I support our troops not being ordered to assault defenseless populations, towns, farms, and the infrastructural sinews of life that sustain a whole country's citizenry. I support our troops not having to carry out orders from Commander in Chief George Bush and then having to live the rest of their lives wondering why they obeyed such a barbaric buffoon rather than resisting his illegitimate, immoral authority. And for the same reason, I support the Pope and the Dalai Lama going to Iraq in the place of our troops, as human shields and also to aid those Iraqis who have already suffered under our sanctions and bombs as well as under the violence of Hussein who was, of course, previously the recipient of U.S. military aid and even U.S. guidance in his horrible undertakings. In fact, I support all rabbis and priests and other moral leaders going to Iraq as human shields - and all past Noble Peace Prize winners -- and all past winners of any big peace or humanitarian prize at all, anywhere -- and heads of state, for that matter. I support our troops not dying in Iraq figuratively or literally, physically or psychologically. I support our troops coming home with their hearts not broken, retaining humanity and compassion essential to feeling true solidarity with those who confront tyrannical behavior abroad, or right here in the U.S. with its 30 million tyrannized poor. I support our troops coming home with their minds ravenous to comprehend what is wrong with war for empire, what is wrong with war to obliterate international law, what is wrong with war to control oil and use it as a bludgeon against allies and enemies alike, what is wrong with war for profit, what is wrong with war to intimidate whole nations and continents, what is wrong with war to subordinate a planet and even to test and trumpet the tools of war. What must it do to one's mind and soul to engage as a soldier in a war in which the enemy is defenseless, in which the motives of one's leaders are vile, and in which one's own say over the events is nil? I support our troops refusing to kill on behalf of politicians and profiteers. I support our troops rebelling against orders, not obeying them. I support our troops rejecting reasons of state. And I support our troops coming home to where their real battle is. We must battle to reinvest our society with aspirations for justice and equality and with respect for diversity, solidarity, and self-management. We must battle to eliminate the scourge of private ownership that makes a few people as rich as whole populations and that leaves many people less rich than the pets of profiteers. We must battle to totally eradicate the racism and sexism that denigrate whole sectors of the population, to free sexuality and culture, to free creativity, and to sustain the environment. Bush tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may have bombs. He tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq curtails freedoms. He tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may be abetting
Napalm used
From Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for the attacking forces because it had sophisticated surveillance equipment near the main highway that runs from Kuwait up to Basra and then Baghdad. The attacking US and British forces could not attempt to cross the border unless it was destroyed. Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald. A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal per se because the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits and restricts certain weapons. But the US has to apply the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons, said Dominique Loye, the committee's adviser on weapons and
Sacramento peace protest, 3/21
37 arrested Friday at Sacramento peace protest By Dorothy Korber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:33 p.m. PST Friday, March 21, 2003 At downtown Sacramento's federal building Friday morning, 37 anti-war demonstrators were arrested for staging a die in and blocking the courthouse doors. The event was peaceful, with federal security officers gently helping older protesters to their feet before placing plastic handcuffs on their wrists. About 100 people showed up for the 9 a.m. protest, many of them dressed in black and carrying photos of Iraqi people. When a siren blared, dozens dropped to the cold marble tile and sprawled motionlessly until they were arrested. We are here to ask our government to stop this illegal invasion, to listen to people around the world who want peace, said Maggie Coulter, speaking through a bullhorn. Using their own public address system, Federal Protective Services officers announced that the assembly was unlawful and asked them to disperse. No one left. Full: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6314611p-7268029c.html Seth Sandronsky _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
will it pay?
Does Conquest Pay? : The Exploitation of Occupied Industrial Societies Peter Liberman, Richard H. Ullman (Editor), Jack L. Snyder (Editor) Princeton University Press ISBN: 0691002428 September 1998 From the Publisher: Does Conquest Pay? demonstrates that expansion can, in fact, provide rewards to aggressor nations. Peter Liberman argues that invaders can exploit industrial societies for short periods of time and can maintain control and economic performance over the long term. This is because modern societies are uniquely vulnerable to coercion and repression. Hence, by wielding a gun in one hand and offering food with the other, determined conquerors can compel collaboration and suppress resistance. Liberman's argument is supported by several historical case studies: Germany's capture of Belgium and Luxembourg during World War I and of nearly all of Europe during World War II; France's seizure of the Ruhr in 1923-24; the Japanese Empire during 1910-45; and Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe in 1945-89. Does Conquest Pay? suggests that the international system is more war-prone than many optimists claim. Liberman's findings also contribute to debates about the stability of empires and other authoritarian regimes, the effectiveness of national resistance strategies, and the sources of rebellious collective action.
Japan
The Japan Times: March 22, 2003 Tokyo peace protest draws thousands The Associated Press Thousands of demonstrators marched Friday through downtown Tokyo to protest the war in Iraq and Japan's plans to support the U.S.-led campaign with nonmilitary aid. The protests came hours after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi conferred by telephone with U.S. President George W. Bush for the first time since hostilities were launched Thursday. Bush told Koizumi military operations were going well, officials said. Koizumi supports efforts by the United States, Japan's main ally, to disarm Saddam Hussein and has promised to provide aid for refugees and help rebuild Iraq after the fighting is over. But the conflict is extremely unpopular in a country with bitter memories of the crushing defeat it suffered in World War II. Chanting World peace, no war, thousands took advantage of warm spring weather and a national holiday to march for peace in Tokyo on Friday afternoon. Police estimated about 8,000 marchers set out from downtown Shiba Park. Organizers said they had hoped for up to 50,000 people to take part. Students and families carrying placards in Japanese and English were joined by representatives of opposition parties and the country's labor unions. When I thought of children in Iraq, I felt like I had to come, said housewife Fumiko Nakajima, 38, who was marching with her husband and their two children. If our government can't stand up to the United States, then we citizens have to. They wore signs around their necks reading, We love peace. Some said they were marching despite a sense of futility. What I do may not make much of a difference, but I had to do something, college student Hajime Nakatsuji said. Innocent people are going to suffer.
The spoils of war to the victors aka Iraq Freedom project
US delays announcement of contracts to run Iraqi air, sea ports This all copyright by Agency Freedom Press...aka Agence France Press. Cheers, Ken Hanly WASHINGTON (AFP) Mar 22, 2003 US President George W Bush's administration delayed the award Friday of a contract to a US firm to run Iraqi seaports after the war, an official said. US Agency for International Development (USAID) spokesman Luke Zahner said the announcement of the winner of the seaports management contract, originally scheduled for Friday, would now be made Monday. A separate contract to run airports in postwar Iraq would be announced early next week, and another contract for the reconstruction of infrastructure such as bridges and roads was also expected to be awarded Tuesday or Wednesday. Delays in contacting the firms involved were blamed for the postponement. The deals are among eight civilian contracts for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, tendered by USAID since January 31 to a select group of US companies. The process has been criticised by some analysts because of its secrecy and the small number of firms involved. No foreign companies were invited to tender. The four remaining contracts cover logistical support to manage the reconstruction efforts in the fields of health, schooling and local governance. One deal has already been struck. A 7.1 million dollar personnel contract was awarded to Washington-based International Resources Group on February 21. The value of all eight contracts is being kept secret until Bush tells Congress how much he wants to finance the war, according to Alfonso Aguilar, a second USAID spokesman. US press reports said the value could exceed 900 million dollars. The urgent need to award the contracts prompted a special provisions for an fast-track procurement process, in which only firms that met certain criteria were invited to apply, USAID said. Those criteria included technical capabilites, proven accounting mechanisms, and the ability to field qualified technical teams at short notice. Importantly, firms also were required to have personnel cleared to view classified information. This is one of the reasons why US firms only are being included in this first phase, because their personnel need to have security clearance. They will need to view classified documents, Aguilar said. Given the size of the contracts, USAID expected the work to require subcontractors, he said. In that process of subcontracting, we are making sure it is open to any firm from anywhere, including foreign firms, he added
Perle has Global connections.
March 21, 2003 Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing By STEPHEN LABATON ASHINGTON, March 20 - Even as he advises the Pentagon on war matters, Richard N. Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board, has been retained by the telecommunications company Global Crossing to help overcome Defense Department resistance to its proposed sale to a foreign firm, Mr. Perle and lawyers involved in the case said today. Mr. Perle, an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is close to many senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who appointed him to lead the policy board in 2001. Though the board does not pay its members and is technically not a government agency, it wields tremendous influence in policy circles. And its chairman is considered a special government employee, subject to federal ethics rules, including one that bars anyone from using public office for private gain. Mr. Perle and his lawyer said yesterday that his involvement with Global Crossing did not violate the ethics rules. According to lawyers involved in the review and a legal notice that Global Crossing is preparing to file soon in bankruptcy court, Mr. Perle is to be paid $725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government approves the sale of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the government of Singapore. Lawyers said today that Mr. Perle had been helping Global Crossing for several weeks. They said he was brought in as a prominent Republican with close ties to the current officials. He has taken on a particularly important role, they said, since the company recently pulled back its request for the government to clear the sale in the face of opposition from the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agenci es have said that the proposed deal presents national security and law enforcement problems, because it would put Global Crossing's worldwide fiber optics network - one used by the United States government - under Chinese ownership. Mr. Perle and his lawyers were preparing to file an affidavit dated March 7 and a legal notice dated today, March 20, that said he was uniquely qualified to advise the company on the matter because of his job as head of the Defense Policy Board. But after a reporter raised questions today about whether Mr. Perle was using his job at the Defense Policy Board for the benefit of a client, they said the references to his job should not have been in the legal papers and would be deleted before they were filed in the bankruptcy proceeding. In the March 7 affidavit, Mr. Perle said, As the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, I have a unique perspective on and intimate knowledge of the national defense and security issues that will be raised by the CFIUS review process that is not and could not be available to the other CFIUS professionals. The company used similar language in its legal notice. CFIUS refers to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a government group that includes representatives from the Defense Department and other agencies. It has been considering the deal and has the power to block it. CFIUS professionals refers to the other lawyers and lobbyists who have been trying to get the committee to approve the deal. Mr. Perle, in an interview late this afternoon, said that he had not noticed the language in the affidavit and that it was an erroneous reference because the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with reviewing the sale of American companies to foreign investors. It was drafted by the lawyers, and I frankly didn't notice it, he said. Shortly after that interview, Mr. Perle called back and said that he remembered that the language concerning the Defense Review Board had appeared in an earlier draft of the affidavit and that he had struck it out because it was incorrect. You have a draft that I never signed, he said. After consulting with a company lawyer, Mr. Perle called back and in a third conversation said that he had taken the phrase out of the affidavit because it seemed inappropriate and irrelevant but that someone put it back in the document and he signed it without noticing it. This was a clerical error, and not my clerical error, he said. An adviser involved with one of the parties in the case said tonight that Mr. Perle had not read the affidavit closely and that he had, in fact, signed it but that it would be changed before it was filed. Mr. Perle said he did not seek an ethics opinion as to whether he could work on the Global Crossing matter, because he said it posed no legal problems. I've abided by the rules, he said. The question, I should think, is have I recommended anything to the secretary or discussed this with the
law and economics of war rents
Conflict Jostles Contracting Sector D.C. Law Firms, Clients Hurry To Alter Services, Insurance By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page E01 William A. Roberts III, a longtime government contracts lawyer in Washington, said his phone started ringing Wednesday night. Clients that help the Defense Department and other federal agencies support troops overseas have called with questions about everything from insuring expensive machinery in the Middle East to computing hazard pay for contract workers near the line of fire. We've gotten a rash of questions tied to what's going on in Iraq, said Roberts, a partner at Wiley, Rein Fielding LLP and a former assistant to the Navy's general counsel. Just as New York's legal community can be roiled by upheavals on Wall Street, Washington's law firms often feel the shift of major government initiatives. Helping clients secure government work, protecting clients' interests when policies shift and protesting when things don't go their clients' way -- for instance, when a rival wins a lucrative contract -- has long been a mainstay of Washington's legal community. The Iraqi war has already changed the government contracting environment. For example, the Defense Department, citing the need to move supplies quickly, has waived many strict procurement rules. The waiver, which is permitted during national emergencies, enabled the government to bypass some competitive bidding requirements and other contracting rules. W. Stanfield Johnson, a senior partner at Crowell Moring LLP, said this will make it difficult for clients to protest contract awards and will reduce the amount of bid protest work handled by Washington firms. In addition, the government has been asking contractors to quickly alter their contracts so they can provide war-related goods and services. Lawyers say they have been reviewing a flurry of these revisions, because clients want to make sure there will not be disputes when they try to get reimbursed. Contract workers who find themselves near harm's way can be entitled to hazard pay, which essentially means bigger paychecks from employers because of staffers' proximity to the war. The government reimburses contractors for the higher pay rate in some circumstances, depending on the contract, legal experts said. Some lawyers say they are fielding inquiries from clients about how to calculate the payments using complicated Defense and State department formulas. Contracts with the government generally spell out the kind of insurance that companies need to provide for employees who work near combat areas. But sometimes getting insurance coverage for machines used to repair and test costly equipment, such as tanks or electronic weapons systems, can't be done until a contractor knows just where the equipment will be stationed, said Roberts. That can lead to last-minute scrambling by contractors and lawyers as the assets move into position. Others say their clients are more focused on the next phase of the war. James J. McCullough, a partner at Fried Frank Harris Shriver Jacobson in Washington, said his clients are calling with questions about how to get on the short list of contractors that will be considered to handle rebuilding efforts in Iraq. His short answer? Make sure they communicate what they can do with military decision makers early and often. For the handful of U.S. law firms with offices in the Middle East, simple things such as conducting a client meeting became a challenge this week. David Pfeiffer, a partner at Bryan Cave LLP who is working out of Kuwait City, said a session with the National Bank of Kuwait was interrupted several times Thursday by the sounds of incoming missiles from Iraq. The citywide sirens were blaring, Pfeiffer, a graduate of Georgetown University, said in a telephone interview yesterday. It's a very shocking sound that completely dominates every room. Bryan Cave has offices in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as in Washington. Pfeiffer said some clients want to know how they can alter their operations in the region now that access to seaports, among other things, are hard to come by. But for the most part, he said, the issues he's dealing with this week are the same that occur with any business disruption, albeit a more dramatic one. Researcher Richard S. Drezen contributed to this report.
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...Thewhole thing?
- Original Message - From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking directorate of such types... still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it was attractive and popular enough to be appropriated by political right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that masses are asses such that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'... michael hoover Or worse, such theory leads to weak politics on the Left. I agree that we've got to look at this relationship of political theory to personal practices based on the theorists' implicit assumptions about social change and how states work. We regularly use Domhoff's work here in Jo'burg at University of the Witwatersrand -- even last week, when I taught a good group of comrades from Southern African social movements -- as an exemplar of power-elite theories, that verge on conspiratorialism. It is terrific material, because it gets into the black boxes of decision-making and policy formulation. But without the correctives in the form of structural theories, this sort of approach takes you directly to a politics of influence-peddling squarely within the confines of the two capitalist political parties, as from Lou's post it sounded like Domhoff was endorsing. Here we're very sensitive to these relations, because our trade minister Alec Erwin -- once an outspoken marxist, then caught up in the late 1980s' move by the white left intelligentsia towards French Regulation Theory -- exemplifies how you can promote rampant neoliberalism on behalf on int'l capital using left-sounding phraseology associated with a post-fordist fantasy. I think the roots of this problem go quite deep, into the failure of our 1970s-80s structuralists -- largely at my university -- to put forward durable material to explain not only state processes, but even the class-race relationship. Like Domhoff, I just don't think they did a sufficiently robust job of coming to grips with the accumulation process (in our seminars, we use as correctives the soc-dem theorist Gosta Esping-Andersen and papers by Vicente Navarro and Ben Fine -- what do others rely upon?).
Re: Pearls from Perle and Hammurabi
"History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that theLeague of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confrontingItaly in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking onNazi Germany." If history is repeating itself, then is this the tragedy or the farce? if it is a farce, it is too tragic to contemplate. How is one to distinguish between tragedies and farces, the problem with this is people may laughin the wrong place or at inopportune moment and offend other people, say at a funeral. So I searched someone who knows Iraq and its culture for a proverb that may throw some wisdom on the matter, and he says, one ancient Babylonian proverb said and this is well documented :"the greatest of calamities or tragedies is that which makes you laugh", meaning that one is so hurt suchthat one is driven to insanity. here of course, farce and tragedy coincide in actuality, making the matter somewhat dialectical. speaking of the dialectic, this leads to Hegel on war, or his patronizing stance with the Prussian court, and for that you may look up his philosophy of right, but in short one may quote this: [Conflict with another sovereign state] is the moment wherein the substance of the state--i.e. its absolute power against everything individual and particular, against life, property, and their rights, even against societies and associations--makes the nullity of these finite things an accomplished fact and brings it home to consciousness. (PR:323) "War is the state of affairs which deals in earnest with the vanity of temporal goods and concernsWar has the higher significance that by its agency, as I have remarked elsewhere, "the ethical health of peoples is preserved in their indifference to the stabilization of finite institutions; just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from the foulness which would be the result of a prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged, let alone `perpetual,' peace." (PR:324R) Then the words of an idealist sycophant (Hegel), devoid of any concrete substance, in which he extols the Prussian drive for war, are taken by one Lee Harris, in 'Our world historical gamble'. to imply that war is necessary for the betterment of the human spirit: "The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world. It is, to use the language of Hegel, an event that is world-historical in its significance and scope. And it will be world-historical, no matter what the outcome may be. Such world-historical events, according to Hegel, are inherently sui generis - they break the mold and shatter tradition. " Indeed momentous, the war is notwith Iraq it is on Iraq, and it is literally the molestation of the weak by the powerful; one x us pilot described the bombing of the escaping convoys from Kuwait in 1991 as "shooting fish in a barrel", later known as the highway of death. This weak and powerful business reminds me of something I read long ago which is to the first political manifesto known to man, Hammurabi's code in which he says: "The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness." The man may have a visionary too:for he says: "In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects." Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Lou, If it is not too personal, it would be a good idea to forward Domhoff's entire response. Did you do it already? Louis Proyect wrote: Bill Domhoff wrote: for a Marxist, you don't seem to have much appreciation for structure, except of course in the economyat least so I gather from reading your last paragraphthe recent I didn't waste my time on...but your arrogance is breath taking, of course, and what else is new, and why not bother to read the book, and maybe learn why we have failed so miserably, and if you think anyone who did what I suggest would do less well than Marxism, that is pathetic... Sorry, Bill, I don't have much time for dreams. Nor Yoga, nor transcendental meditation, nor mystical peyote insights. (Now, if you know where I can get a hold of some good hashish, that's another story.) civil rights movement, feminist movement, and many others have done well with help of left, including some marxists, but everything marxist has failed totally What do they call that now? The god that failed? Oh well. I worry more about my arches falling. read the book, but I won't be opening any more of your arrogant emails... Yes, you will since I have cast a magical spell on you. Ooooga-boooga! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak