date:20031121

From: Sebnem Oguz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Middle East Socialists Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,"Discussions on
the Socialist Register and its articles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [MESN] Fw: Terror blasts in Istanbul :atrocities aid Bush's war on
terror
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:40:04 -0500
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/turk-n21.shtml
By Justus Leicht and Peter Schwarz
21 November 2003
On Thursday, the Turkish capital of Istanbul with its 12 million
inhabitants was rocked by violent explosions for the second time within the
space of a few days.
Bombs exploded in front of the British consulate in the Istanbul district
of Beyoglu and before a branch of the major Anglo-Asian bank HSBC, situated
in the Levent district of the city. Initial reports speak of 27 dead and
over 450 injured. The casualty figures will very likely increase. Amongst
the dead is the British Consul General in Istanbul, Roger Short.
Witnesses spoke of a bloodbath. An employee of the German Goethe Institute,
which has its offices just 100 metres from the British consulate, spoke to
Spiegel-Online of "people covered in blood" on the streets. A delivery van
drove into the British consulate, and there followed a "violent explosion."
The bomb set off in front of the HSBC bank shook a nearby shopping centre
that was packed with thousands of ordinary citizens, both Turks and
tourists.
Two similar attacks were carried out last Saturday morning against the
synagogues of Beth Israel and Neve Schalom. The latter is the largest
synagogue in Istanbul. It is situated on a busy street that was filled with
observers on the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest.
The two bomb blasts took 24 lives. Most of those killed were Muslims, who
were employed as security personnel in nearby mosques or worked in nearby
shops. Over 300 were wounded in the explosions.
Turkish authorities and representatives of the Israeli, British and
American governments immediately assigned responsibility for both series of
bombings to Al Qaeda. On Thursday, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw made
a press statement blaming Al Qaeda for that day's blasts before the dust
had even settled on the sites of the explosions.
Later, an anonymous person called the Turkish news agency Anadolu to claim
that Al Qaeda and the Turkish Islamist group IBDA-C (Warriors Front for an
Islamic Great Middle East) were responsible for the bombings. The caller
said the attacks on Thursday were the result of a "joint action" by the two
groups. The group IBDA-C also claimed responsibility for the earlier
synagogue attacks.
Some time later on Thursday, an Arabic newspaper received an email in which
a group affiliated with Al Qaeda named "The Martyrs Brigade of Abu Hafs el
Masri" also claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Turkish authorities assert that on the basis of genetic tests they have
been able to definitively establish the identity of the two suicide bombers
from last Saturday. They are alleged to be two Turkish men from the eastern
city of Bingöl who have links to radical Islamist groups. The television
channel NTV claims that one of the men had travelled to Iran on six
occasions to receive training as an explosives expert.
However, the reports that have been issued up to now are full of
contradictions. The Turkish interior minister, Abdulkadir Aksu, said that
claims of responsibility by IBDA-C were not credible. He said no Turkish
organisation was in a position to carry out attacks of such a magnitude.
This raises the question, however, how it was possible for foreigners to
smuggle such large amounts of explosive into Turkey, and then situate and
explode the bombs almost simultaneously at two different locations.
Some security experts have expressed doubts regarding the participation of
Al Qaeda. The Turkish Daily News quoted the Israeli anti-terror expert Boaz
Ganor, who said, "At this time (there is) no indication of Al Qaeda
involvement."
Mustafa Alani from London's Royal United Services Institute told Reuters:
"There is no history of Al Qaeda operating in Turkey. It's very hard to say
Al Qaeda is involved in this attack. I think the activities of Al Qaeda now
are concentrated on two states-Saudi Arabia and Iraq."
It remains unclear who is really responsible for the terror attacks in
Istanbul. On the other hand, it is very clear that the attacks come at a
highly opportune moment for both the American and British governments, as
well as sections of the Turkish military.
Against a background of growing resistance to the occupation of Iraq,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush used the
bloodbath in Istanbul to justify the terror they are carrying out against
the Iraqi people. At a joint press conference on Thursday held only a few
hours after the attack on the British consulate, President Bush vowed to
"finish the job we have begun," and Blair stated: "I can assure you of one
thing: that when something like this happens today, our response is not to
flinch or give way

Re: Fiction: "Rich and poor"

2003-11-21 Thread Devine, James

>Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_ has the only son (Freder) of the biggest
industrialist (Jon Frederson), smitten with an angelic and virginal
working-class woman reformer (Maria), descend from the heavenly
paradise of the rich and idle to take the place of a laborer in the
subterranean hell of working-class toil.  Freder emerges from the
hell as the "mediator" between capital and labor, having "rescued"
his beloved from the evil scientist (Rotwang) and "saved" the working
class from the seductive android created by Rotwang in the likeness
of Maria, the mechanical agitator who escaped the control of her
creator and incited toilers to revolution.<

a classic film. In the end, Freder is the "heart," which according to Maria, is needed 
between the "brain" [the capitalists, Frederson] and the "hands" [the workers]. It's a 
clear statement of Christian Democracy, complete with Christian symbolism. (Of course, 
the fake Maria is the agent provacateur.)

Jim

Re: Fiction: "Rich and poor"

2003-11-21 Thread bgramlich

In the broadway musical "Urinetown" the protagonist is a working class man fighting to 
overthrow the evil company that regulates the only toilets in the area. Then again he 
does get thrown off of a building before the story is over. But not without first 
inspiring the CEO's daughter to do what's right and revolt against her own father, 
letting all members of the city use the toilets whenever they want.

Re: Fiction: "Rich and poor"

2003-11-21 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

At 7:46 PM -0500 11/21/03, Kenneth Campbell wrote:
 >It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all
fictional plots involving the rich and the poor
changing places, always have a capitalist trade
places with a beggar...not a worker.
Today, yes, often so. Not always so...

One of my fave old movies is the "Devil and Miss Jones"... With a
very sexy Jean Arthur as a retail clerk with a unionizing boyfriend.
Evil boss goes to work in the shoe department to weed out
"unionists" and meets her. Very funny ("What's a doomsday book?").
But that was a rare moment in U.S. film history.
Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_ has the only son (Freder) of the biggest
industrialist (Jon Frederson), smitten with an angelic and virginal
working-class woman reformer (Maria), descend from the heavenly
paradise of the rich and idle to take the place of a laborer in the
subterranean hell of working-class toil.  Freder emerges from the
hell as the "mediator" between capital and labor, having "rescued"
his beloved from the evil scientist (Rotwang) and "saved" the working
class from the seductive android created by Rotwang in the likeness
of Maria, the mechanical agitator who escaped the control of her
creator and incited toilers to revolution.
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Norman Solomon responds

Dear Louis,

Thanks for your letter. I think you make some good points. When I talk
about this, I like to say that the U.S. and U.K. should recuse themselves
(as aggressor nations) from U.N. decision-making on Iraq. I agree the rest
of the Security Council is hardly pure as to motives, yet the situation
would I think be much better if the U.S. and Britain got totally out of
Iraq -- militarily and "diplomatically"...
Best wishes,
Norman
Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: the next wedge issue

2003-11-21 Thread Yoshie Furuhashi

At 11:48 AM -0500 11/21/03, Louis Proyect wrote:
What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like
he made here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that
lots of older SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened
by woman's and gay liberation but they had the common sense to keep
their prejudiced remarks to themselves. Sadly, it was only in the
late 1970s after the SWP made its infamous "turn" that members'
private thinking began to become an issue. This is what helped to
destroy the CP in fact. In the late 1940s, as the witch-hunt took
shape, they made a big point of hounding out members who might have
had "weak" understandings of the woman or Negro question despite
remaining silent on those questions in party meetings, etc.
It seems easier to attack sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. when a
movement is "on a forward march," so to speak -- a political movement
that has already begun to lose and become defensive (as in the late
1940s and late 1970s) is probably unable to confront what it must and
will confront without splitting itself.
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity:

Re: Fiction: "Rich and poor"

2003-11-21 Thread Kenneth Campbell

>Maybe you mean "domesday book"

No, no...

I know that Norman accounting tax grab census you mention...

I mean the "Doomsday Book"... you have to see his evil plot to get her
comment.

And I think, really, the idea of the Corporate Boss hiding in the shoe
department, scribbling about unionists in his Doomsday Book is probably
a good shot at property-holders (which is what the domesday book was
about).

Ken.

--
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
  -- Samuel Johnson

Re: Fiction: "Rich and poor"

Maybe you mean "domesday book"

[TR Introduction] The first approach to a modern assessment roll or
cataster is the well known Domesday Book. The existing literature on
this remarkable memorial is so extensive, that it has not appeared
advisable to quote largely from it. Our first quotation contains the
instructions issued to the Commissioners who made the record. The second
is a specimen return. There is a wide variety in the returns, though
certain factors recur constantly in each statement. The survey is the
most extensive document, embracing as it does the entire area of England
held by the Conqueror, which we possess in regard to medieval times. It
is important to note how the feudal power as founded by William is no
longer dependent like the Empire of Charles upon the personal estates of
the crown, but brings the entire land under its influence through the
feudal dues, and thus paves the way for the modern state founded upon
the obligations of all its citizens.
Joanna

Kenneth Campbell wrote:

Joanna wrote:



It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all
fictional plots involving the rich and the poor
changing places, always have a capitalist trade
places with a beggar...not a worker.

Today, yes, often so. Not always so...

One of my fave old movies is the "Devil and Miss Jones"... With a very
sexy Jean Arthur as a retail clerk with a unionizing boyfriend.
Evil boss goes to work in the shoe department to weed out "unionists"
and meets her. Very funny ("What's a doomsday book?").
But that was a rare moment in U.S. film history.

Ken.

--
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest
of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work
for the benefit of us all.
 -- John Maynard Keynes

Re: the next wedge issue

joanna bujes wrote:
I also take deep umbrage (I've always wanted to use that phrase) at your
characterizing the tonga driver as a wife beater. The notion that the
poorer part of the working class is more violent is very untrue in my
experience. There's plenty of domestic violence among the privileged;
the only diff is that it seldom, if ever, lands them in jail. They're
more likely to get away with it. They're also more likely to get away
with theft, tax evasion, sexual abuse, drug abuse, rape and the like.
you are right. i mentioned the wife-beating not to reinforce the
stereotype but to show how i see these different classes of problems
(i.e., homophobia, worker exploitation, alienation, domestic violence,
etc) as similar but not necessary on the basis of class or working
class, but i did not express that too well.
in response to melvin's response to my post: the biological basis of
heterosexuality and tying it to darwinistic urge to reproduce is
incomplete and incorrect. survival is ensured through various means and
not achieved merely through the act of putting your penis into your
wife. homosexual behaviour has been observed and documented in various
social animals, and there are multiple scenarios where multisexuality (i
am sure there is a better word) can be passed down and even have an
advantage. what is learnt and what is genetic is and how they relate
with each is less simplistic than implied.
i would like to get into more detail on both counts, but for MP's
shutdown of the thread -- i will respond to any messages sent to me
off-list.
   --ravi

Fiction: "Rich and poor"

2003-11-21 Thread Kenneth Campbell

Joanna wrote:

>It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all
>fictional plots involving the rich and the poor
>changing places, always have a capitalist trade
>places with a beggar...not a worker.

Today, yes, often so. Not always so...

One of my fave old movies is the "Devil and Miss Jones"... With a very
sexy Jean Arthur as a retail clerk with a unionizing boyfriend.

Evil boss goes to work in the shoe department to weed out "unionists"
and meets her. Very funny ("What's a doomsday book?").

But that was a rare moment in U.S. film history.

Ken.

--
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest
of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work
for the benefit of us all.
  -- John Maynard Keynes

Re: the next wedge issue

ravi wrote:

what is the working class, in terms of unique characteristics or use
characteristics that help lend it definition? i am truly puzzled: i go
to work each day. i am part of the yuppie privileged class. there's a
guy wearing a union t-shirt who installs furniture in my building. am i
in the working class? is he? are we both in the same class? what about
my boss's boss's boss, who has a few million dollars in his bank? what
about the guy pulling ice in the sweltering heat in madras (pedalling a
three-wheel cycle), starting at maybe 5am and finishing up some time in
the night. what about the wife he goes home and beats up when she
returns from working at three houses as a maid?
My own, perhaps simplistic view, has it that if you have to work to
live, you belong to the working class. Folks who don't have to work for
a living, like capitalists and beggars, do not belong to the working
class (...though I admit, the question is much more complicated in the
case of beggars). It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all
fictional plots involving the rich and the poor changing places, always
have a capitalist trade places with a beggar...not a worker.
Now, of course, it's very important to keep the working class as divided
as possible (cause there's so many of them, they could get dangerous),
so you stress divisions based on race, gender, nations, and relative
income. When you look at the number of hours your average privileged
yuppie works, the stress, the ulcers...the fact that when he/she returns
to their expensive homes at night, they don't actually have the energy
to enjoy their relative material advantage, it makes you wonder whether
that privilege extends any farther than the yuppie's psychological
satisfaction at being above other workers. I was watching Michael
Apted's series of movies ( 7 and up, 14 and up, 21 and up, 28 and up...)
in which he examines the life of a dozen or so people from various
backgrounds (blue collar/professional), and it's really striking, on the
whole, how much saner and happier, the blue collars are compared to the
professionals. In fact, the only privileged type that wound up happy at
all, was a guy (from a rich family) who crossed privilege boundaries, by
becoming a a teacher.
I also take deep umbrage (I've always wanted to use that phrase) at your
characterizing the tonga driver as a wife beater. The notion that the
poorer part of the working class is more violent is very untrue in my
experience. There's plenty of domestic violence among the privileged;
the only diff is that it seldom, if ever, lands them in jail. They're
more likely to get away with it. They're also more likely to get away
with theft, tax evasion, sexual abuse, drug abuse, rape and the like.
So, h, I'm wondering what the real issue is here? Is it that there's
no such thing as the "working class"? Is it that powerlessness is so
shameful that no one wants to own up to being a memeber of the working
class? Is it about how images have been created and manipulated to make
sure that the working class is eternally warring against itself rather
than its masters?
You decideI'll follow.

Joanna

Re: Unsubscribe please



I did not oppose Gay marriage and I do not have to agree with anyone on the politics of maneuver. I oppose the state and my statements are very clear. Although I abhor homosexuality I have never raised it as an issue but responded to the politics of entrapment by the bourgeoisie. 
 
The list is a little to smart and enlightened for me and I thought questions had a social. Political, economic and historical context. 
 
Allow me the dignity of expelling myself. 
 
I abhor homosecxuality and this is the same as being called a nigger. 
 

Thanks for the laughs. 
 
Melvin P.

Re: Nitzan on oil

Haven't read Nizan yet, but maybe the Iraq campaign was more of a
Goldfinger move. Remember Goldfinger? He wanted to render all the gold
in Fort Knox radioactive so that _his_ gold would be worth more.
One view of the war holds that it was over control of oil. This
translates in a lot of people's minds into a simple "we'll grab the oil
and sell it" scenario. But add this little twist, that with the military
situation deteriorating, the domestic oil that is still under the
control of the Texan oilers...will be worth more. Add to this the
"squeeze the American working class" (through direct and indirect
taxation) ploy to fund the "reconstruction" -- which is nothing more
than handing out money to various domestic cronies to pay themselves to
do what the Iraqis could have done for 1/10th the cost...and you have a
script that plays out pretty well for the Bush cronies...no matter how
the war turns out.
In other words, the neo-cons are serving the interests of a fairly small
slice of capitalists, which is probably more the reason they will be
defeated than due to the efforts of any large-scale, organized,
leftist/democratic opposition.
Joanna

Michael Perelman wrote:

On November 20, two explosions rattled Istanbul, pushing the price of
oil up to $32/bbl. Eventually, the
rally receded:
   "It's hard to sustain prices at this level,'' said Marshall Steeves,
an analyst with Refco
   Group Ltd. in New York. "There has to be a constant stream of
unsettling news items
   to justify crude oil above $30.'' (see the full Bloomberg article)
According to both the neocon plans and their left-wing critiques, this
is not what was supposed to happen.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed, at least in part, as the
first step  toward regaining
"control" over Middle East oil. The aim was to finally relieve
capitalism from the "saboteurs" in OPEC
and to make energy cheap, so that capitalism could continue its
"expanded reproduction." Obviously, this
"plan" is not working very well. The Middle East remains unstable as
always (if not more). And the price
of oil keeps rising (see the two charts below).
Most analysts view the current chaos as entirely unintended. The more
optimistic hope the crisis will soon
be resolved. The pessimists talk about "entanglement." Had the American
known what was in store for
them, perhaps they would have thought twice before stepping into the
Iraqi trap. And maybe many in the
American Administration were dumb enough to be so misguided and
careless. But certainly many more
were not. George Bush Sr., for one, knew full well what the consequences
would be (read about it).
Many of his friends in the CIA and the military knew it too. Even we
knew it. Indeed, anyone who knew
anything about the current Middle East would have realized that a
"liberating" army would make for
sitting ducks. With no regular army to fight against, and being unable
to retaliate against a supposedly
"supportive" population, the soldiers can do nothing more than sit and
wait to be fired upon. And as the
attacks mount, perceptions of instability substitute for stability, and
the price of oil keeps creeping up. It
seems that America had shot itself in the foot. Or had it?
Perhaps there is an upside to regional instability and higher oil
prices? To read more, click on the
following links:
   It's All About Oil
   Dominant Capital and the New Wars
   Ch. 6 in The Global Political Economy of Israel
--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Berrigan bros.

Although the thread degenerated, one point I appreciated was Melvin's
ability to transcend his "abhorrance" of gay sex to show solidarity with a
gay worker.

Almost everybody had useful contributions to the thread, amidst the heat
and excessive verbiage.
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Berrigan bros.

2003-11-21 Thread Kenneth Campbell

Michael brought the Berrigans up in the Thread-That-Will-Not-Be-Named.

I'd like to underline that point, even though it was only originally
mentioned in the context of Catholics and that dogma (and all its
facets, liberation theology, etc.). Raised a Catholic, I appreciate
reading about what they did, specifically, in terms of their own group
conflict (with other members of their community).

The ability to understand where the Berrigans were coming from, or
anyone else offering to ally, it's at the heart of everything.

We are enormously complex beings, and we speak to different
"constituencies" all the time. We change things more by interacting with
others, finding common ground -- and creating numbers -- than pointing
out, loudly, where we differ.

Doesn't mean you conform to their opinions, it just means you shut the
fuck up sometimes. :) These are social behavior rules. I know there are
differences in local cultures, so maybe we "differ"... but I have never,
in my wildest moments of defiance, "gotten in someone's face" --
offending them directly in their self-respect, dignity. (And I don't
mean email lists, I mean life.)

But the preachers who offend directly are invariably non-social beings.
Sitting alone and writing ideological arguments. Not tempered by
interaction.

We are all grown-ups, self-controlled, and we can ally with anything we
want without feeling we sell out ourselves in the process.

The "party line" was a tool in an era of poor communications. When you
have the pony express, you need to have strongly stated guidelines,
because the news never comes. Today, the news never stops.

I can see an army of influences in history who have made positive
contributions to our world. I appreciate 'em all. None were pure. Nor
are any of you.

Ken.

P.S. I am, though.

--
I would have it written of me on my stone:
"I had a lover's quarrel with the world."
  -- Robert Frost

Nitzan on oil

On November 20, two explosions rattled Istanbul, pushing the price of
oil up to $32/bbl. Eventually, the
rally receded:

"It's hard to sustain prices at this level,'' said Marshall Steeves,
an analyst with Refco
Group Ltd. in New York. "There has to be a constant stream of
unsettling news items
to justify crude oil above $30.'' (see the full Bloomberg article)

According to both the neocon plans and their left-wing critiques, this
is not what was supposed to happen.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed, at least in part, as the
first step  toward regaining
"control" over Middle East oil. The aim was to finally relieve
capitalism from the "saboteurs" in OPEC
and to make energy cheap, so that capitalism could continue its
"expanded reproduction." Obviously, this
"plan" is not working very well. The Middle East remains unstable as
always (if not more). And the price
of oil keeps rising (see the two charts below).

Most analysts view the current chaos as entirely unintended. The more
optimistic hope the crisis will soon
be resolved. The pessimists talk about "entanglement." Had the American
known what was in store for
them, perhaps they would have thought twice before stepping into the
Iraqi trap. And maybe many in the
American Administration were dumb enough to be so misguided and
careless. But certainly many more
were not. George Bush Sr., for one, knew full well what the consequences
would be (read about it).
Many of his friends in the CIA and the military knew it too. Even we
knew it. Indeed, anyone who knew
anything about the current Middle East would have realized that a
"liberating" army would make for
sitting ducks. With no regular army to fight against, and being unable
to retaliate against a supposedly
"supportive" population, the soldiers can do nothing more than sit and
wait to be fired upon. And as the
attacks mount, perceptions of instability substitute for stability, and
the price of oil keeps creeping up. It
seems that America had shot itself in the foot. Or had it?

Perhaps there is an upside to regional instability and higher oil
prices? To read more, click on the
following links:

It's All About Oil
Dominant Capital and the New Wars
Ch. 6 in The Global Political Economy of Israel

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: the next wedge issue

As far as I am concerned, Justin's position is correct. What people always
forget in these disputes about reformism and revolutionism is that the
classical debates about this topic, which occurred in Europe, between
Kautsky, Bernstein, Lenin, Luxemburg and so on, took place in a historical
context in which there were fast-growing mass social democratic parties and
trade unions campaigning actively for social reforms which benefited the
working class, and the leftwing Marxist current within the social democracy
sought to shift this reformism towards a more radical, revolutionary
politics. That is how those debates arose. But these days, if you don't even
have any mass movement campaigning actively and democratically for social
reforms and able to make gains, then this whole dispute is irrelevant, it
skips over the question how you get masses of people to participate
politically about basic questions that concern them and their lives.

You could of course try to stereotype people and stigmatise people as
"reformist" while considering yourself very revolutionary, but that just
shows that you don't know how to take people a step further, and bring them
round to a more radical point of view. Such an attitude implies a labelling
theory of socialism, but a labelling theory of socialism doesn't work,
because people change over time, they evolve and develop their ideas and
practice, and therefore somebody who seems very radical today might be
reformist in the future, and vice versa, somebody who seems "reformist"
today might be revolutionary in the future. If you label and write them off
now, you make it much more difficult to work with them in the future - best
to say positively where you stand yourself, now. I have come across many
people who thought of themselves as super-radical, and then later they had
to tone things down, and they don't do very much, and their old "reformist"
enemies actually achieve far more for ordinary folks in winning battles for
civil rights, pay and conditions, i.e. have far more effect. Making
ultraleftist propaganda is not much of a skill, the skill is in winning real
political influence and having a real positive effect, and you don't do that
by pontificating about sexual relations. These days, the communicative
sophistication of people is very great and they realise that anybody can say
anything about anything, but what they look at, is whether you can actually
solve a problem for them. I don't say I am good at it really, I am more
concerned with my own problems just now, but that is the way it is.

As regards Melvin, I think he's basically a good guy, he just doesn't have
enough experience of socialist gay or lesbian people, that is all, and if he
did, he wouldn't talk that way. Personally, gay and lesbian friends helped
me out a lot quite a few times, and so I would never run down anybody like
that, quite apart from my belief that every adult must have the right to
make their own sexual decisions, what happens to their own body. My
experience was that people who had been through hell to sort out their
sexuality knew far more about it, than some heterosexual dilletante wanting
to make rules for the sex lives of other adults. Anyway, in places like
Amsterdam, San Fransisco, New York and Sydney, if you rave on with
homophobic cant, you can book a pack of problems, and the fact is, just
because somebody is gay or straight, it doesn't tell you much about the
person, other than giving you a clue about how to relate.

There is little point in sitting in on judgement about the sex lives of
other adults outside of a court of law, in cases of sexual offences, because
unless you are in the sexual relationship yourself, you can rarely
objectively judge the nature of the relationship anyhow, you basically have
to be in the relationship yourself to understand it - unless you think you
are God. Many people seek to discover and exploit the vulnerability of
others, there is lots of voyeurism these days and so on, both harmless and
harmful, but that is just to say that people want to appropriate and control
the intimacy they haven't really got themselves, and haven't created, pretty
sad really. The focus is on sex, but the real problem lies in the
negotiation of the intimacy that you really want. Therefore if you focus
obsessively on sex and sexual politics, you miss the real problems of human
relations in the society we live in, which are at best reflected in some way
way through sex. Biological urges in a human being are inseparable from his
personality, and that personality is formed within social relations, those
relations involve the interactions of giving and getting, taking and
receiving, and therefore a narrow focus on sex abstracts from all sorts of
cultural dimensions that need to be looked at, and the economic basis of
that culture.

Jurriaan

Re: the next wedge issue




In a message dated 11/21/03 2:21:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that the debate with Melvin has gone on long enough.  Let's callit finished.--Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929
Sorry I sent another article before I read this post. The debate is with the working class and its politics. Who represents whom and what issues and how. I will not develop the thesis here but no one even tried to speak to the wedge issue other than I. 
 
Mind boggling. 
 
Melvin P

In a message dated 11/21/03 11:44:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i have snipped out all the hand-waving (why, some of my best friends aregay! in fact some of them hit on me!) arguments. i want to hear thefactual basis (outside of the anecdotal evidence that is given) of thefar-reaching statements made above. i want further elucidation of theinferences drawn: for instance, what were these interviews? what werethe variables considered for correlation? what levels of heterosexualbehaviour was/is "connected" to sex abuse? what is the causalunderpinning of the "observed" correlation between homosexuality andchild abuse? what is the biological basis of the "learned behaviour"theory. if there is one, does that exclude "heterosexual behaviour"?claims of the decay and degeneracy of society beg the question.establish first that such decay is happening.is [reduction to] marxist or property/class relations the axiomaticsystem of this list? if it is, then i question such a system of logic.if not, then be sure that the proofs requested are derived from moreself-evident axioms.
I don't have close homosexual friends - except my younger brother who died of AIDS, because of my lifestyle and my inferences are to alert one to the high level of politics that characterize my life. Who elected you to anything in life? I am political with an acute political sense of maneuver.
1. The question of a social movement is complex and all social movement take place in definite context. Generally, I approach this from the materialist conception of history. No social movement is reducible to the framework of its emergence . . . period. Nor have I ever advocated such. There has taken place a social movement in America of industrial workers that was generated on the basis of changes in the material power of production. This social movement that was generated on the basis of the material power of production, does not require me proving its existence. This movement of industrial workers arose followed a line of trajectory roughly corresponding to the industrial curve - reached its zenith and began decay.
The Women Movement is a social movement that emerged and evolved from the division of labor in society but is not reducible to the division labor in society. What have been the context of its evolution and the changing shape of its class forms is the mode of production in material life. Here it is simply a question of ones belief system of theory framework of historical narrative. If one has a different theory framework I cannot prove to them why the property relations within a mode of production give rise and shape to historically evolved human social intercourse. One accepts the theory framework or one does not.
Homosexuality is not a social movement and will never be a social movement. Homosexuals are not exploited and oppressed on the basis of the configuration of the material power of production - the property relations, and this is obvious. People who are homosexual are exploited and oppressed n the basis of gender, nationality and economic status. Male Anglo-American homosexuals and say male African American homosexuals are subject to different class and national factors. Apparently this is not obvious. The latter is subject to second class citizenship status and sex or sexual intimacy is irrelevant to this fact of life.
2. I have absolutely no intention of trying to prove to anyone the obvious social and economic decay in society. Every statistic on the life of the peoples of America proves this. The growth of poverty, destitution and the intense polarization of wealth and poverty has reached monstrous proportions.
3. Allow one to back into the question. "What levels of heterosexual behavior was/is "connected" to sex abuse?" posed the question entirely incorrect because it is not learned behavior as such.
By heterosexual behavior is meant the spontaneous impulse of species propagation. One may learn technique but one does not learn heterosexual behavior as such. There is much sex abuse amongst heterosexuals. The biological basis is spontaneous reproduction not very different from a cat or dog. On this basis there is no such thing as heterosexual behavior other than species reproduction.
Homosexuality is learned behavior. One does not learn to reproduce as such. This is rather obvious. Society evolves rituals and traditions to ensure survival of species. Homosexuality is not a biological impulse. Sex is a spontaneous biological impulse, even if one concedes that there can exist a genetic disposition toward homosexuality. One has to learn not to have sex as reproduction with the opposite species, once the survival imperative is ritualized and made an institution.
What consenting adults do in their secual intimacy is their business, but reproduction - heterosexual behavior, is not learned behavior or we would not exist. :-)
Let's think out process logic so we understand what junctur

Re: the next wedge issue

I think that the debate with Melvin has gone on long enough.  Let's call
it finished.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

new economy spillover

2003-11-21 Thread Eubulides

Reefs at risk after Disney film

David Fickling in Sydney
Friday November 21, 2003
The Guardian

A booming trade in aquarium fish, sparked by Finding Nemo, the Disney film
featuring clownfish, is endangering the wildlife of the Vanuatu
archipelago in the South Pacific.

Over the past year about 200,000 fish and other marine creatures have been
exported from the country, and local tour firms are warning that the reefs
will be at risk if the tropical fish trade is not regulated.

"It's a very popular trade and on the back of Finding Nemo it's boomed,"
said Heidi Bartram, of Vanuatu's fisheries department. "It's developing
faster than anyone can keep up with. There's a lack of understanding of
reef systems and how fast they recover. Understanding them is hard enough
without having the added pressure of people taking the fish."

Concern about the trade and its sustainability is so great the government
has set up a committee to examine the issue.

The four species of anenome fish in Vanuatu - which are related to, but do
not include, the clownfish - are classified within the archipelago's top
10 most exported species.

Concern has grown among local dive firms following the arrival, in April,
of a US-owned company, Sustainable Reef Supplies, which employs 20 people
to fish the waters around Vanuatu's main island, Efate, and which
dominates the export market. The firm flies out up to 8,000 wild animals a
month from the capital, Port Vila.

Rare tropical fish can fetch more than £300 an animal in the US and
Australian markets, although clownfish can sell for £10.

Rod Habla, president of the Vanuatu tour operators' association, said
aquarium firms had to ensure sites were not overfished. "The problem is
managers will tell collectors not to go into restricted areas but at the
same time give them a list of the species they want."

Dive operators say that aquarium firms have over-fished several popular
scuba sites, including Hat Island where they claim 38,000 fish were taken
within one month this year.

Local businesses pay custom fees to traditional, Melanesian landowners for
the rights to fish or dive.

According to the United Nations, the global aquarium trade deals in 11m
tropical fish a year, with Britain alone importing 110,000 clownfish
annually.

Re: the next wedge issue

2003-11-21 Thread andie nachgeborenen

--- joanna bujes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > As Lou says, a revolutinary party that> Solidarity
is not the logic of an idea. I repudiate
> what Melvin is
> saying because I don't agree with himnot because
> PEN-L solidarity
> (whatever that means) requires that I do so.
>
> Joanna: There's not much love lost between Melvin
and me.
> But, it seems to me
> that the whole point of these list-servs is to
> engage in reasoned
> dialogs with people one doesn't totally agree with.
> How else to re-build
> the left? How else?
>

Right. Melvin offers an intelligent statement of a
position that was once widely held on the left,
probably less so today, that any organizing and
agitation that does not go to class and property
issues is a mere distraction. I believe that is what
he is saying, that the gay liberation movement is a
distraction at best because it doesn't address class.

That is not a popular position on whatever is left of
the left any more, and was not even popular in its
pure form back when it was more widely held. For
example, virtually every left organization that I can
think of has always opposed racial discrimination and
supported, e.g., black liberation under its various
names over the years. The "distraction" argument has
tended to be addressed to women's liberation and gay
liberation, I believe, and less so than formerly. Why
might that be? What explains the difference? That is
not a rhetrocal question.

One thing that is sometimes said is that women's and
gay liberation are merely bourgeois struggles for
bourgeois rights, equal treatment with others,
nondiscrimination -- but not against exploitation and
class privilege. But insofar as this is true, which is
limited, isn't that also true of black liberation? And
in fact it is not simply true. Just as the black
liberation/civil rights/etc. movement has had (to
simplify drastically), Booker T Washington
accomodationist winds and WEB DuBois militant wings,so
all these other movements have had too -- gay
liberation as well.

Two things should be said, though. One is that I
believe, and many on the left do, that reformist goals
that promote equality and humanity are worth fighting
for even if they do not have directly revolutionary
content. For example, it was worth the fight to get
women the vote -- and blacks too -- even if all that
got them was the right to vote for one or another
bourgeois candidate. The second thing is that if
improving the lives of people who are unjustifiably
oppressed and marginalized requires a further
justification, it does tend to overcome divisions
among the workers in the long run, even if it is
divisive at the time -- as suffrage was.

Now all of this is pretty measured. In addition to
offering a defense of a reasonable though in my view
misguided view, Melvin has expressed some views that
many would regard as prejudiced. While he says, and I
agree, that it is none of society's business what
consenting adults do in the bedroom, he says he finds
homosexuality "abhorrent." If that just means he
doesn't find the idea of engaging himself in that
behavior attractive, there can be no argument, but
other things he says suggest that he thinks something
stronger. He says that homosexuality is strongly
correlated to child-molestation, which I believe to be
a complete canard; he says that it is a sign of social
decadence, which is pretty hard to square with, for
example, the Golden Age of Greece. But these remarks
suggest that he thinks it is a bad thing. That does
not mean that he wants it banned or people who
practice it to be abused, but surely it would
stigmatize people to say that how they express their
love and lust is "abhorrent" -- not just, perhaps, to
Melvin? -- and "decadent." And surely stigmatizing
people for harmless consensual practices among adults
is not what the left wants.

jks

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

Re: the next wedge issue/end enough of this

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Expel Melvin because he thinks different from me. And my wrong thinking and
> political assessment is really Stalinism. Because Stalinism did something back
> n the 1930s. Forget the economic and social content of the times and the
> political maneuver. The issue is sodomy.
>
> Take your various positions to the working class. Any issue and I realy mean
> any issue that is not clearly a question of economic status - class, means
> defeat and many will learn this the hard way.
>
> In our political group...
>
> when the fact of the matter is that where I live we are the most...
>
> Reactionary industrial workers who in fact are the most tolerant...
>
> Talk like "us" and "think like us" and see the issue like us...
>

read the sentences aboves. and then the last one. and we are the ones
asking you to conform??? that you should think and talk like us?

> I fire my singular bullet - unwavering, at the state, disclose the property
> relations of the matter and is fired upon and expelled by the left. Which says
> absoutely nothing about the state power and the bourgeoisie and in unity
> screams get the guy trying to direct the fight against property.

stirring but untrue. nobody called for you to be expelled. carrol iirc
took trouble to suggest that you only be edited out, which i read to
mean ignored. joanna who first responded to you did not ask for even
that. etc.

i think it is time for you to take a position: either you make an
arguable claim that it is more appropriate to see particular issues such
as gay rights/abuse within the larger context of class struggle (the
latter providing a comprehensive basis for the entire class of
problems), or you make wild statements about the nature of
homosexuality, its connections with rape and child abuse, and so on.

--ravi

Re: the next wedge issue/end enough of this

In a message dated 11/21/03 11:04:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me repeat this with emphasis: the Soviet government did not viewsame-sex relations as being in any way *sick* or *perverted*. It didnot promote homosexuality, nor did it condemn it. This is all arevolutionary government is expected to do. Furthermore, this is allthe gay liberation movement has ever fought for in capitalist society.
Yep, the real villain is Stalinism - the argument of last resort. I speak of homosexuality as it exist here in America right now today and as it is promoted by the bourgeoisie. The Gay Liberation Movement is not a movement and was created by the bourgeoisie.
A comrade is beat up and called **, and the issue is not being beat up but being a homosexual and then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie.
Gay marriage hits the front page and everyone wants to know what one thinks about homosexuality and not the state "right" to enforce the property relations on society. The issue is Gay marriage I am told not the right of the state to issue a license.
Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie.
Expel Melvin because he thinks different from me. And my wrong thinking and political assessment is really Stalinism. Because Stalinism did something back n the 1930s. Forget the economic and social content of the times and the political maneuver. The issue is sodomy.
Take your various positions to the working class. Any issue and I realy mean any issue that is not clearly a question of economic status - class, means defeat and many will learn this the hard way.
In our political group one was expelled for feeling you have the right to raise one sexual behavior and apparently all the other groups fought over this issue. Then again we are the reactionaries.
Teach your children what I tell you to teach them Melvin and stop being a Stalinist or face expulsion. Do not spank your children or face expulsion. Be more tolerate - when the fact of the matter is that where I live we are the most tolerate and so was our political grouping.
Wedge issue? Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie.
Reactionary industrial workers who in fact are the most tolerant. Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie.
I fire my singular bullet - unwavering, at the state, disclose the property relations of the matter and is fired upon and expelled by the left. Which says absoutely nothing about the state power and the bourgeoisie and in unity screams get the guy trying to direct the fight against property.
Talk like "us" and "think like us" and see the issue like us - at all cost do not disclose how the wedge issue divides and stop him from solving the equation and how to surmount the efforts of the bourgeoisie. Get the Stalinist.
Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie.
Mind Boogling.
Enough of this.
Melvin P.

Re: the next wedge issue

Doyle Saylor wrote:
>
> My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working
> class.
>

what is the working class, in terms of unique characteristics or use
characteristics that help lend it definition? i am truly puzzled: i go
to work each day. i am part of the yuppie privileged class. there's a
guy wearing a union t-shirt who installs furniture in my building. am i
in the working class? is he? are we both in the same class? what about
my boss's boss's boss, who has a few million dollars in his bank? what
about the guy pulling ice in the sweltering heat in madras (pedalling a
three-wheel cycle), starting at maybe 5am and finishing up some time in
the night. what about the wife he goes home and beats up when she
returns from working at three houses as a maid?

perhaps this is all well defined in the classical texts (which i guess
are required reading for the list). if so, i hope that the texts do not
just stop at providing a definition of this class system, but also
explains the superior utility in seeing the world this way.

--ravi

Re: the next wedge issue

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Further, with the acceptance of homosexuality in society a number of
> social issue arise... <...> I teach them that homosexuality is
> primarily - not exclusively, learned behavior. <...> I maintain that
> at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by the
> bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society. <...> We
> can pretend that there is no connection between rape and sexual abuse
> of children and homosexuality but the fact speak of a different
> logic. I am no expert at anything but have interviewed close to a
> thousand men - my wife perhaps ten thousand people, and homosexuality
> amongst the people interview in connected with some form of sex abuse
> as a child in at least 80% of the cases. <...> Homosexuality and its
> growth in our very real society expresses the decay of bourgeois
> property. <...> I abhor homosexuality...
>

i have snipped out all the hand-waving (why, some of my best friends are
gay! in fact some of them hit on me!) arguments. i want to hear the
factual basis (outside of the anecdotal evidence that is given) of the
far-reaching statements made above. i want further elucidation of the
inferences drawn: for instance, what were these interviews? what were
the variables considered for correlation? what levels of heterosexual
behaviour was/is "connected" to sex abuse? what is the causal
underpinning of the "observed" correlation between homosexuality and
child abuse? what is the biological basis of the "learned behaviour"
theory. if there is one, does that exclude "heterosexual behaviour"?
claims of the decay and degeneracy of society beg the question.
establish first that such decay is happening.

is [reduction to] marxist or property/class relations the axiomatic
system of this list? if it is, then i question such a system of logic.
if not, then be sure that the proofs requested are derived from more
self-evident axioms.

if you cannot, at least refrain from using phrases such as "the facts
speak of a different logic", for you have presented neither fact nor
logic, thus far.

--ravi

Re: the next wedge issue

Melvin wrote:
I maintain that at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by
the bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society.
The Bolsheviks were outspoken supporters of gay rights. Not only did
the Soviet Union abolish all laws against homosexual acts in December,
1917, it also promoted a vision that the gay movement would described
in the slogan "Gay is just as good as straight.". This was viewed as
consistent with the emancipatory vision of the world's first socialist
revolution.
Dr. Grigorii Batkis, the Director of the Moscow Institute of Social
Hygeine, published a pamphlet titled "The Sexual Revolution in Russia"
in 1923 and attended the pro-gay World League for Sexual Freedom
congresses in an official capacity, where he offered the support of
the new revolutionary government. The pamphlet stated:
"The relationship of Soviet law to the sexual sphere is based on the
principle that the demands of the vast majority of the people
correspond to and are in harmony with the findings of contemporary
science...
"Now by taking into account all these aspects of the transition
period, Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle: it
declares that the absolute non-interference of the state and society
into sexual matters, as long as nobody is injured, and no one's
interests are encroached upon."
And just to make things crystal clear, it also states that "Concerning
homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual
gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses
against public morality--Soviet legislation treats these THE SAME AS
so-called 'natural' intercourse."
Let me repeat this with emphasis: the Soviet government did not view
same-sex relations as being in any way *sick* or *perverted*. It did
not promote homosexuality, nor did it condemn it. This is all a
revolutionary government is expected to do. Furthermore, this is all
the gay liberation movement has ever fought for in capitalist society.
All this changed after Stalin took power. His policies are the same
that are favored by Maoists and some Trotskyists unfortunately. After
1931, the ruling circles began to develop a whole mythology in which
homosexuality was "the product of decadence in the bourgeois sector of
society" and "the fascist perversion". The notion that homosexuality
is unnatural belongs to Stalinism, not Bolshevism.


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: the next wedge issue




In a message dated 11/21/03 9:30:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
recp 'comrades' used to kick shit out of gay rcp-er friend of mine for'bourgeois decadence' during 'maoist self-criticism'sessions...he remained member for number of years as this washappening...   michael hoover
Comment
 
The reactionaries bigots I was a part of would have expelled someone for feeling they have the right to raise the question of sex between consenting adults in a party organization. In fact during one of the many dance parties we would hold in Detroit a comrade asked why two women were dancing together and kissing and fondling one another on the dance floor. 
 
He was basically told that he could raise the issue in his unit but would probably be expelled because it is not a political issue. Yes, there are people with strong feelings but anyone with real world experience in politics have to sooner of later figure out the boundary of where other people begin. 
 
Why a political group discusses someone's sexual relations - above the age of consent, is mind boggling. But then again we were always reactionary. Homosexuality is not a political issue and everyone has been duped into thinking it is. I am to be expelled for abhorring homosexuality - not homosexuals, and spanking children. 
 
The above is equated to calling someone a nigger or a fag. 
 
 
Utterly mind boggling. 
 
Melvin P.

Re: the next wedge issue

In a message dated 11/21/03 8:12:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I was young I was assaulted many times as a queer. I didn't even knowwhat that meant. There are certainly many people like Melvin who are in theleft and feel they are leftists. To them I am morally wrong. To whatextent that affects my ability to be on the left I don't know. But we can'tbuild a left that includes gay people that sees them as morally wrong. Theymust keep their mouths shut, don't ask don't tell because there are so manywho disapprove.
Comment
Well, for me the issue is you being beat pure and simple. You should not be beat up period. Those who beat you should have been punished.
An issue arose on the factory concerning the rights of male homosexuals and one particular male. This particular male was physically beautiful - stunning attractive, and did not want to use the men restroom and began using the women's restroom. Some women objected to a man being in the women's restroom. This issue arose in the first place from continuous solicitations from men, more often than not in the restroom. There was even an incident where Renee was kissed and felt on in the restroom.
My first act was to ask Renee, what is it you want to happen and point out the persons harrassing you. Renee stated, "no I want the harrassment to stop and not to get someone fired."
The person that manhandled Renee would have gotten time off from work, not because Renee was homosexual but because you cannot harrass people or touch people. I explained to the fellows in a very vulgar manner that they would end up on the street in no undercertain terms if they did not stop immediately.
What remained was the question of which restroom to use. I hit the wall on this issue because the Company refused to build a third set of bathrooms. A temporary solution was made. A couple of bathrooms were set aside for Renee or any other homosexual male to use off limits to males. Women could use these restrooms if they choose because there was no harassment from the women in the plant.
The point is that one does not have to agree with someone to protect ones "rights" Further, with the acceptance of homosexuality in society a number of social issue arise, of which homosexual marriage is one.
In the political group I was part of there was never a political position on homosexuality because it is not a political question in our meaning of social movement generated on the basis of changes in the means of production. But a social issue fought out in the realm of politics. Therefore, no one in our group could fight for a position on homosexuality one way or another.
On this matter of homosexuals being granted state sanctioned marriage, is not the real issue, the right of the state to grant marriage license in the first place -- to those over the age of consent? On this question I would certainly be expelled from ones sectarian group because I would vote that we have no right to take a position one way or another on people, but rather the state.
The world of real politics require thinking matters out based on ones political tradition. Now, we did take a political posture on the question of abortion because we are dealing with a distinct configuration of humanity whose class attributes gyrate on the basis of a property relations. That is why we refer to this as the Women Question. There is no such thing as the "Homosexuality Question." There is no such thing as the "Black Question," or the "Handicap Question."
There does exist what past generations of Marxist called the National question - African American Liberation and Revolution in the United States, for instance. The question of Gay marriage is a question of the state really. I oppose the states right to grant marriage license because this is a question of a property relations as it arose encased in what is called the Women Question.
I do not care who marries whom or have sex with whom, provided they are consenting adults. I teach and taught my children that homosexuality as it arose is history is primarily a question of subjugation and domination on the part of one section of society by another. I teach them that homosexuality is primarily - not exclusively, learned behavior.
I maintain that at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by the bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society. As such it is not a crime and in the new world to come one will be able to assess human relations outside the bounds of property.
Were there homosexuals in our party? For such and a couple had a crush on me because I am not hard to look at. The growth and spread of homosexuality in our society has everything do with increased rates of incarceration - especially, amongst black males and is coined "the down low." The wearing of pants exposing ones buttock, is a fashion that originated in the prison system.
We can pretend that there is no connection betwee

Re: Sports of the Times

What a wonderful story. It's reassuring that:

"His mother tells him what to do. For the foreseeable
future, he will live at home in suburban Maryland, on her
say-so. In return, as man of the house, he protects her."

J.

Sports of the Times

Sports of The Times: A Teenager Handling the Adult World With Poise

November 20, 2003
By GEORGE VECSEY 

FREDDY ADU is mature far beyond his 14 years. 

When he makes a spin move on the soccer field, he leaves
opponents chomping on the turf, real or artificial. 

Adu is also mature in the complicated world of New York
news conferences. Yesterday he signed with Major League
Soccer, graciously thanking his mother and everybody else
who had helped him along the way. 

"The 46-year-old commissioner needed notes, but the
14-year-old player did not," announced Don Garber, the
commissioner of the league. 

Afterward, Adu was catching a bite to eat in a private
room. Sitting next to him was his mother, Emelia, who
brought him over from Ghana when he was 9 for the normal
survivor reasons people seek out the United States. 

His mother tells him what to do. For the foreseeable
future, he will live at home in suburban Maryland, on her
say-so. In return, as man of the house, he protects her. 

Emelia Adu does not give interviews. That was the word
yesterday after she discreetly slipped out of the crowded
news conference. But when I was ushered into the private
room to be introduced, I tried my luck with a question
about her high standards for her son. She smiled politely,
sweetly, but no words came out. 

Freddy Adu, all 5 feet 8 inches and 140 pounds, stood up
and intervened, turning the awkward moment into a joke. 

"People ask her questions and she freezes," he said,
smiling at her, smiling at me, bringing us together in the
glow of his presence. Every mother should have a son like
this at her side, and vice versa. 

Adu may indeed be one of a kind, just as the people in
American soccer dare to dream for him, for them. 

He has been a golden boy since he showed up for a mass
practice in Washington five years ago. People gasped at his
moves, which he learned playing barefoot from the age of 2
in Tema, Ghana. Growing up in a world that knows and loves
soccer, he saw photos of Pelé and Diego Armando Maradona,
and he wanted to be like them. 

"We had a tryout for 13-year-olds to go to France,"
recalled Kevin Payne, a former general manager for D.C.
United. One youngster impressed Payne so much that he
telephoned Bruce Arena, the United coach at the time, and
said, "Bruce, you have to come out here and watch this
kid." 

Later they found out Adu was only 9. He was just in from
Ghana, where his mother had won a government lottery for
the right to apply to emigrate to the United States, having
nothing whatsoever to do with soccer. Suddenly, he became
Ghana's great gift to the United States. 

Arena is now the national team coach, who just may consider
Adu for the next World Cup in 2006. New international
soccer rules made it difficult for the great clubs of
Europe to sign Adu and use him in senior competition, but
it was a moot point. His mother wanted him to finish high
school, which he will do in May, and she wanted him where
she could keep an eye on him for the apparent four years of
his new contract. 

During the news conference yesterday, video monitors played
endless loops of Freddy Adu highlight clips. In white
jerseys, blue jerseys and green workout vests, he
swivel-hipped his way through defenders of all nations. 

"Incredible ball control," said Mark Noonan, an executive
vice president for M.L.S., who played for Duke when it won
the national college championship in 1986. Yesterday,
Noonan quietly narrated Adu's clips, with a mix of jealousy
and awe. 

"Joy," Noonan said. "Vision. He's left-footed but he can
shoot with his right. The Maradona factor. Knowing where
his people are. Exuberance. Poise. Look at that, an uncanny
cutback. He doesn't hesitate. He just slalomed through five
guys! He's the youngest guy on the field. The tapes don't
lie." 

The tapes showed a youngster playing with the
improvisational skills of world soccer, the way they play
in dusty streets of Naples and Buenos Aires and Lagos,
rather than the rigid textbook drills of American youth
leagues. Soon Adu will be playing against hardened
professionals, twice his age, but yesterday he more than
handled his coming-out ceremony. He recalled playing on the
"rocks and broken bottles" in Ghana, with the occasional
goat wandering onto the field. 

"I'd cry if my mom called for me to come in," he said.

Some reporters wring their hands at the growing trend of
young players like LeBron James forsaking college to play
pro basketball and Maurice Clarett's eagerness to leave
college for the National Football League. Freddy Adu's
poise and his video clips kept reporters from reporting the
M.L.S. to the child-labor authorities. 

The league holds its championship game Sunday on ABC. The
next big date for the league is April 3 - Adu's first game
with D.C. United, also on ABC. 

Yesterday, the young man did not leave us twisted into
pretzel shapes on the grass, the way he does defenders. He
left us smiling in the glow of his presence. What a lovely,
hopeful

Facing South

F A C I N G S O U T H
A progressive Southern news report
November 19, 2003 - Issue 66

Published by the Institute for Southern Studies and Southern Exposure
magazine. To join the Institute and get a year's worth of Southern
Exposure and Facing South, visit www.southernstudies.org
_
INSTITUTE INDEX - Free Trade or Global Greed?

Year North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented: 1993
Number of jobs advocates said NAFTA would create in the U.S.: 200,000
Number of U.S. jobs lost to NAFTA according to federal statistics:
750,000
Amount by which U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has
increased, in billions: $78
Amount by which number of Mexican workers making less than minimum wage
has increased: 1,000,000
Number of countries proposed Free Trade Area of Americas would include:
34

Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies.
_

DATELINE: THE SOUTH - News Around the Region

MIAMI TRADE MEETINGS FACE ENERGIZED PROTEST MOVEMENT; INTERNAL DIVIDES
The anti-war and global justice movements will unite in Miami this week
to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting in Miami. Tens of
thousands of demonstrators are expected -- but little-noticed is the
fact that the FTAA meetings are already crumbling from within,
highlighted by a battle between the U.S. and Brazil. (Mother Jones,
11/17)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/11/we_606_01a.html

WAL-MART ACCELERATING U.S. LOB LOSSES TO OVERSEAS LABOR
By aggressively underselling domestic competitors, Arkansas-based
Wal-Mart, the world's largest company, is revolutionizing
labor/management relations and forcing more and more U.S. corporations
to use overseas labor.(Fast Company, December 2003)
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

SOUTH ATTRACTS MORE PEOPLE THAN IT LOSES
More non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics moved to the
South between 1995 and 2000 than left that region for other parts of the
country, according to a Census 2000 report released in late October by
the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the other three regions registered a
net domestic migration loss for some or all of these groups. The net
migration gains for these groups in the South were concentrated in
Atlantic coast states. (U.S. Census Bureau, 10/30)
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001505.html

DEMOCRATS WEIGHING "NON-SOUTHERN STRATEGY"
Believing that winning the South will require too many resources for
too little results, analysts like Prof. Thomas F. Schaller are
encouraging the Democrats to leave the region to the Rpublicans and
focus their energy elsewhere. (Washington Post, 11/16)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.html

THE MAKING OF THE CORPORATE JUDICIARY
Since 1998, major corporations -- like Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and the
insurance giant AIG -- have spent more than $100 million through front
groups to remake the courts. By targeting incumbent judges, they have
tilted state supreme courts to pro-business majorities and ousted
aggressive attorneys general. At the same time, corporate lobbyists have
blitzed state legislators with tort-reform proposals, overseeing the
passage of new laws in 24 states over the past year alone. (Mother
Jones, Nov/Dec 2003)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_564_01.html

PERSONAL BANKRUPTCIES SKYROCKETING
The record-setting pace of new personal bankruptcies continued in the
12 months ending Sept. 30, with their number rising 7.8 percent.
Personal bankruptcies jumped to 1,625,813 from 1,508,578 during the same
period a year earlier. The bankruptcy filings "are being overwhelmingly
driven by individuals with household debt," said one expert. (Associated
Press, 11/14)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031114/D7UQJ2A00.html

SOUTHERN DRAWL CONFUSES PHONE VOICE SYSTEMS
Southern drawls have thwarted voice recognition equipment used by the
Shreveport, L.A., Police Department to route non-emergency calls. The
system asked people to name the person or department they wanted. More
often than not, calls wound up at the wrong place. (Associated Press,
11/17)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20031117/ap_on_re_us/brf_voice_unrecognition

'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US

'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US
Martin Bright, home affairs editor
Saturday November 15 2003
The Guardian

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity
to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as
part of President Bush's entourage this week.

In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in
Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would
any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands
turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the
Bush visit.

These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force
planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to
use against rioters.

In return, the British authorities agreed numerous concessions,
including the creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a
series of road closures in central London and a security cordon keeping
the public away from his cavalcade.

The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under
parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials
dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by
blowing up a Tube train. Ministers are also believed to have dismissed
suggestions that a 'sterile zone' around the President should be policed
entirely by American special agents and military.

Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter
aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down.

The President's protection force will be armed - as Tony Blair's is
when he travels abroad - and around 250 secret service agents will fly
in with Bush, but operational control will remain with the Metropolitan
Police.

The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military
hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile
armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can
kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the
small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically
anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.'


Ministers have made clear to Washington that the firepower of the
mini-gun will not be available during the state visit to Britain. In
return, the Government has agreed to close off much of Whitehall during
the visit - the usual practice in Britain is to use police outriders to
close roads as the cavalcade passes to cause minimal disruption to
traffic.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: 'Negotiations between here and the US
have been perfectly amicable. If there have been requests, they have not
posed any problems.'

An internal memo sent to Cabinet Office staff and leaked to the press
this weekend urged staff to work from home if at possible during the
presidential visit. Serious disruption would be caused by 'the President
Bush vehicle entourage requesting cleared secured vehicle routes
around London and the security cordons creating a sterile zone around
him'.

Meanwhile, negotiations are continuing between police and demonstrators
about the route of the march. Representatives of the Stop the War
Coalition will meet police at Scotland Yard tomorrow to discuss whether
protesters will be able to march through Parliament Square and
Whitehall. Spokesman Andrew Burgin said he hoped for 'a good
old-fashioned British compromise'.

Re: the next wedge issue

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/03 11:48AM >>>
Michael Perelman wrote:
>I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
>that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.

What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he
made
here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that lots of
older
SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened by woman's and
gay
liberation but they had the common sense to keep their prejudiced
remarks
to themselves. Sadly, it was only in the late 1970s after the SWP made
its
infamous "turn" that members' private thinking began to become an
issue.
This is what helped to destroy the CP in fact. In the late 1940s, as
the
witch-hunt took shape, they made a big point of hounding out members
who
might have had "weak" understandings of the woman or Negro question
despite
remaining silent on those questions in party meetings, etc.
Louis Proyect
<<<>>>

recp 'comrades' used to kick shit out of gay rcp-er friend of mine for
'bourgeois decadence' during 'maoist self-criticism'
sessions...he remained member for number of years as this was
happening...   michael hoover

Refs

Hi Yoshie,

You were less dismissive about my argument about advertising. One could
think it through from our point of view reading such books as:

- Media Hypnosis by Lonny Kocina (Mid-America Entertainment Inc., 2002),
- The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR by Laura and Al Ries
reviewed at:
http://www.internet-marketing-research.net/fall_of_advertising.php

The real limit of alternative culture, which exists in rejection of the
mainstream culture, can be that it does not connect with the semiotics of
the mainstream public. That was a big defeat for socialism in my generation,
if you allow me to express it that way.

Jurriaan

Re: the next wedge issue

Carrol Cox wrote:

As Lou says, a revolutinary party that
did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party.


Well, if a specific revolutionary party sought human liberation
irrespective of wether that human was straight or gay, I assume Melvin
would not join this party.
Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is
measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has
been putting out.


Solidarity is not the logic of an idea. I repudiate what Melvin is
saying because I don't agree with himnot because PEN-L solidarity
(whatever that means) requires that I do so.
There's not much love lost between Melvin and me. But, it seems to me
that the whole point of these list-servs is to engage in reasoned
dialogs with people one doesn't totally agree with. How else to re-build
the left? How else?
Joanna

Re: the next wedge issue

Doyle Saylor wrote:

My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working
class.  We cannot build a socialist society that does not acknowledge all
the different elements that build a society and builds a whole society.
Thanks,
Doyle
Well put.

Joanna

Lee Harvey Oswald

Last night PBS Frontline aired a fascinating documentary on "Who Was Lee
Harvey Oswald?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/).
This show would have had a special resonance with members of the Socialist
Workers Party, past or present. In the course of his determined but
questionable attempts to establish some kind of leftist credentials, Oswald
subscribed to the Militant newspaper, the organ of the SWP. In one of the
most famous pictures of Oswald, you can see him in his backyard with a
rifle in one hand and the Militant newspaper in the other:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/glimpse/. Oliver Stone
and other conspiracy theorists argue that the photo is bogus, but I have no
reason to question its authenticity. It simply strikes me as just one of a
number of gestures on Oswald's part to look like some kind of leftist, but
with the predictable wrong note--in this case, holding the rifle that
killed JFK in all likelihood.
When I applied for membership in the SWP in 1967, it was only 4 years after
the assassination of JFK and the events were still very much alive in the
party leadership's mind. After I received a notice to report to the draft
board for a physical, a meeting was set up between Ed Shaw, the branch
organizer in NYC, and me. He was to explain the party's proletarian
military policy to me. In 1967 this meant trying to find a way to avoid
going into the army, although not out of any moral opposition. We were
simply more valuable on the outside. Eventually some SWP'ers did go in and
made a big "free speech" stink about the right to have antiwar discussions
at Fort Jackson. From that point on, the draft tended to pass us by.
Ed was a lot different than any of the party leaders who would eventually
assume the mantle of leadership. He was a merchant seaman during WWII and
sported a large tattoo on his bicep. He was also plainspoken and endowed
with a salty wit. During the course of our meeting, the question of the
Kennedy assassination came up. Ed said that when he returned to his
Washington Heights apartment the day of the assassination, shortly after an
APB had gone out for Oswald, his building was surrounded by cops looking
for him.
I seem to remember Ed saying that Lee Harvey Oswald actually applied for
membership, but was turned down because he gave out all sorts of wrong
signals. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which the SWP played a key role
in forming, also kept its distance from Oswald. As the PBS website points out:
"He shows an interest in guns. But Marxist politics are still his ruling
passion and his hero is Fidel Castro. He writes to the leading pro-Castro
group in the U.S., the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), offering to
start a New Orleans chapter. The committee discourages him, but he ignores
them and begins printing his own pro-Castro leaflets and phony membership
cards. He asks Marina to help him disguise the fact that he is the only
member of his organization."
I can only say that I am not surprised that Frontline can state that
"Marxist politics" are Oswald's ruling passion since PBS has only the
foggiest notion of what Karl Marx stood for. If hero worship for Fidel
Castro and brandishing firearms is supposed to amount to Marxism, I guess I
was wasting my time reading all that Leon Trotsky stuff.
There was so much heat on the SWP that party chairman Farrell Dobbs sent
Jackie Kennedy a telegram offering his condolences. This defensive and
eminently logical move sent youth leader James Robertson into orbit. From
his ultraleft perspective, the telegram was something akin to Christopher
Hitchens backing the invasion of Iraq. In a couple of years he would bolt
from the SWP and start a group called the Spartacist League which is
devoted to this kind of batty contrarianism.
When I was in the Houston branch of the SWP in 1974, I had the assignment
of forum director. Even then I had an appetite for reaching as wide an
audience for socialist ideas as possible--something that clashed with the
insular culture of the local party leadership. Since the JFK assassination
was always a hot topic for Texans, I had the bright idea to invite somebody
down from Dallas who gave talks on Zapruder's film, something that he
brought with him and which we showed as part of the meeting. He gave a talk
that was in the spirit of Oliver Stone's movie. Afterwards our branch
organizer Stu Singer spoke. He made the obvious points about JFK being a
capitalist politician who would have dragged us into Vietnam if he had
lived, etc., but in such a strident and obnoxious way that anybody
considering socialism would have probably run the opposite direction after
his presentation.
Last night's documentary tried to straddle rival interpretations of Oswald.
Gerald Posner, who wrote a book titled "Case Closed", defended the findings
of the Warren Commission. To the show's credit, it did not give a platform
to some of the more kooky conspiracy theorists like Mark Lane. It also came
u

Re: the next wedge issue

Michael wrote:

> My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets
> people emotional and prevents rational discourse.  I did not expect that
> observation to apply here on this list.

Does that mean we could realistically look forward to the next American
elections as emotionalist elections, in which the media seek to massage the
masses with emotional or moral messages conducive to achieving a specific
election result ? Or is it rather the case that by continuously being
bombarded with violence and violence on TV, Americans disregard emotional
messages, other than in specific contexts ? In his book Four Arguments for
the Elimination of Television, Jerry Mander notes the hypnotic induction
effect of television. For some statistical estimates on American TV habits
on a few sites, see for example:

http://youthtools.ibelieve.com/content.asp?SID=12&CID=519

http://youthtools.ibelieve.com/content.asp?SID=12&CID=514).

www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=27DC-0410-1CD0-B4A8809EC588EEDF

http://nces.ed.gov/

Jurriaan

Re: the next wedge issue

> At the same time, we need to struggle against all injustice, and cannot
> let toleration blind must to inequities.  I wish I knew the formula to
> achieve this.

The Irish formula, from what I understand of it, is that if toleration
blinds you to inequities, you get charged, whether you like it or not.

J.

Re: the next wedge issue

Michael Perelman wrote:
I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.
What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he made
here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that lots of older
SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened by woman's and gay
liberation but they had the common sense to keep their prejudiced remarks
to themselves. Sadly, it was only in the late 1970s after the SWP made its
infamous "turn" that members' private thinking began to become an issue.
This is what helped to destroy the CP in fact. In the late 1940s, as the
witch-hunt took shape, they made a big point of hounding out members who
might have had "weak" understandings of the woman or Negro question despite
remaining silent on those questions in party meetings, etc.
Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org

Re: the next wedge issue

I agree with everything that Doyle wrote and mostly agree with everything
that Carroll wrote.  I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.

I think that Doyle was closer to the mark.  He seems to understand that we
need to learn to communicate with Melvin and people like him.  If we were
to have the left in which everybody would have to agree with everyone one
of a large number of defining issues, we would have few people left.

I have great admiration for the courage of the Berrigan brothers.  They
did far more for the left than 1000 Michael Perelmans, yet they were very
bad on abortion.  Should we have expelled them from the antiwar movement?
I wish Melvin were more tolerant.  I hope that we can be equally so.

At the same time, we need to struggle against all injustice, and cannot
let toleration blind must to inequities.  I wish I knew the formula to
achieve this.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:19:17AM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:

> _Every_ issue of any importance to the left gets people emotional, or
> ought to. And gay marriage no more prevents rational discourse than does
> (e.g.) the question of whether radicals should support the DP in the
> 2004 election.
>
> There can be no left in the United States that does not take this issue
> seriously. To treat it as marginal or as a distraction is to deny the
> possibility of a unified left. As Lou says, a revolutinary party that
> did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party.
>
> How can you expect us to be concerned about wages if the only wages we
> are concerned with are (a) those for white male homophobes and (b) those
> wages revealed in the numbers on a check?
>
> Wages for the working class equal (with no real remainder) daily expense
> of reproducing themselves to go to work the next day. Those daily
> expenses include rent.
>
> You, by trivializing the issue of gay marriage, are saying that the
> wages of all gays and lesbians should be reduced since the denial of
> marriage rights means they pay more for rent, and also more in taxes.
>
> It is the defenders of gay marriage that are really most concerned with
> wages.
>
> Opponents of gay marriage (or those who trivialize the issue) are a
> disunifying force.
>
> That is obvious to everyone in respect to sexism and racism. Why is it
> not equally obvious in respect to any other sector of the working class
> who are singled out for special repression under contemporary
> capitalism?
>
> Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is
> measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has
> been putting out.
>
> Carrol

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

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

Re: the next wedge issue

2003-11-21 Thread Carrol Cox

Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>
> My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets
> people emotional and prevents rational discourse.  I did not expect that
> observation to apply here on this list.
>
_Every_ issue of any importance to the left gets people emotional, or
ought to. And gay marriage no more prevents rational discourse than does
(e.g.) the question of whether radicals should support the DP in the
2004 election.

There can be no left in the United States that does not take this issue
seriously. To treat it as marginal or as a distraction is to deny the
possibility of a unified left. As Lou says, a revolutinary party that
did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party.

How can you expect us to be concerned about wages if the only wages we
are concerned with are (a) those for white male homophobes and (b) those
wages revealed in the numbers on a check?

Wages for the working class equal (with no real remainder) daily expense
of reproducing themselves to go to work the next day. Those daily
expenses include rent.

You, by trivializing the issue of gay marriage, are saying that the
wages of all gays and lesbians should be reduced since the denial of
marriage rights means they pay more for rent, and also more in taxes.

It is the defenders of gay marriage that are really most concerned with
wages.

Opponents of gay marriage (or those who trivialize the issue) are a
disunifying force.

That is obvious to everyone in respect to sexism and racism. Why is it
not equally obvious in respect to any other sector of the working class
who are singled out for special repression under contemporary
capitalism?

Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is
measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has
been putting out.

Carrol

Re: the next wedge issue

2003-11-21 Thread Doyle Saylor

Hello All,
I am home today sick.  For me, this is a sad moment.  I don't look for times
like this to take stands they just seem to come to me.

When I was young I was assaulted many times as a queer.  I didn't even know
what that meant.  There are certainly many people like Melvin who are in the
left and feel they are leftists.  To them I am morally wrong.  To what
extent that affects my ability to be on the left I don't know.  But we can't
build a left that includes gay people that sees them as morally wrong.  They
must keep their mouths shut, don't ask don't tell because there are so many
who disapprove.

The same process affects disabled people.  I grew up feeling sad, depressed
if you will.  In those days denial was ubiquitous.  I think my depression
was a combination of being vulnerable and abusive conditions.  At any rate
don't ask don't tell also ruled my life about that.  One of the key factors
in dealing with depression is to be able to talk about depression to other
people.  The very high suicide rate among gay young people is an outcome
still of how the deadly combination of moral disapproval and silence
combines to kill.

I do appreciate Lou's comment here.  A real revolutionary movement
recognizes forms of oppression and does something concrete to change
conditions for those oppressed.  We all grew up in reactionary climates.  I
grew up to a large degree hating 'queers' even though in fact I was one.  I
had good reason to change that opinion, but lots of gay people just reflect
the prejudice around them and hate queers just as much as any 'hetero.

One left prejudice is that homosexuality is a reactionary element in
society.  Another prejudice (not left) is homosexuals are pedophiles.  Can't
be trusted around children.  A person can change but they must listen to a
cry for justice.  The disability rights movement goes a step further and
asks about the rights of people who have cognition outside of the 'norm'.
For various reasons people with prejudice and rigidity fall into an area
like a disability.  That abuse instills rigidity, that emotional
disabilities make it hard for many people to participate in able bodied
social structures.  For example Bill Choisser,
http://www.choisser.com/faceblind/ , who is face blind cannot see emotions
in the face, cannot hear emotions in the voice.  What is his right in a
society that considers certain ways of being the norm?  So nothing is ever
simple about oppression.  But a social movement that liberates people cannot
hold onto prejudice against homosexuals.

A wedge issue is an issue that seeks to portray itself as being for rights
when it actually divides the movement.  In the U.S. Christian fundamentalism
is morally outraged against homos, so they think if Homosexuals accept Jesus
Christ and their moral system then all will be well.  But a wedge is simply
a way to bring divisions into social settings.  I am for couple rights I
just don't like homos.  I'll give them their rights along with everyone
else.  They are still 'wrong' in my view.

My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working
class.  We cannot build a socialist society that does not acknowledge all
the different elements that build a society and builds a whole society.
Thanks,
Doyle

Re: the next wedge issue

Melvin, you oppose gay marriage.  I think that we all understand that by
now.  You are welcome to your opinion, but you should not get personal in
differing with those who differ from you.  Nor should those who differ
with you get personal with you.  So, please calm down.  You made your
opinion known and let's drop the matter.

My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets
people emotional and prevents rational discourse.  I did not expect that
observation to apply here on this list.


On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:12:47AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/03 12:50:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?
>
> Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book to
> pay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with a
> reply. If I were him, I'd give you the boot for sexism and homophobia.
> What you are saying is really ugly. I am reminded of an article that
> appears in the latest Harpers on Clear Channel Communications. Out in
> Denver there are 6 stations owned by this monopoly and they all have
> DJ's that make fag-bashing jokes. When the reporter asks the local
> president of Clear Channel whether that is appropriate, he replies that
> it is only a joke. What if you substituted the word "nigger" for "fag",
> he asks. Would that be as funny? That's the kind of question you should
> be asking yourself.
>
> 1. I have spanked children before. I have spanked them on their little hands
> and buts. In fact I once thumped by daughter - Mikkie, on the head when she
> was four years old, although she was never spanked by me. Her mother spanked her
> before and slapped her face when she was 13. Today she is 25 and just had her
> first baby. Did Mikkie need her face slapped? Well, she hit her mother back
> and I told her that she walks around her other house like she is a damn Queen
> and it is only one Queen per house hould. "Baby girl you are a beautiful
> Princess and it is time for you to come live with your dad before Sandra kick your
> little fannie." Sandra did not object to paying child support. You may suggest
> whatever you want, but people raise their children how they see fit and some
> of us get it right or basically right. What the word "nigger" or  "fag" has to
> do with this is beyond me.
>
> 2. I am not required to support or campaign on behave of homosexual life
> style and this does not make me homophobic. This means I believe it is wrong - not
> a crime.  What the word "nigger" or  "fag" has to do with this is beyond me.
>
> One person wrote:
>
> >Actually, there is no such thing as "a man's penis," right? I mean
> there's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.
> And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the question
> is, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it where
> it feels best?<
>
> To me - IMO, this reads like the opening paragraph of the Pedophile
> Manifesto. Do you understand what it means to say something like this to any section 
> of
> the working class? This is outrageous and I am to be unsubbed? Read the
> paragraph again. This is way beyond sex among consenting adults.
>
> Nevertheless, you are saying that if I advocate spanking children I will be
> kicked off of Marxline? If this is true then you can unsub me now. Children
> need to be spanked at times and its that simple. I will continue to tap their
> little hands when they try and stick objects into wall sockets.
>
> Be a real man Lou and send your address. You can have Shamelle - 30, and her
> two kids (Tapre 8 and Tkala 5) and Edonie - 20. :-)
>
> Now supporting homosexual lifestyle does not make one progressive and not
> supporting this life style does not make one reactionary.
>
> Spanking a child is not child abuse.  What the word "nigger" or  "fag" has to
> do with this is beyond me.
>
> It is you that cannot be taken serious by any parent I know. Nor, do you
> understand the real world of politics and the mechanics of elections - or the
> formation of "social issues" - or the art of political maneuver - or the nature of
> the battle in the ideological sphere. You do not understand how this identity
> movement was shaped in the ideological sphere and for what purpose.
>
> Go back to the 1950s and explore the formation of the concept called
> "teenager" in the ideological sphere and critically look at the evolution of the
> so-called nuclear family. You understand nothing of the property relations and the
> evolution of value and its social impact. It is in fact you that lack any
> critical understanding brother!
>
> You do not get it!
>
> I am telling you that I voted against extending benefits to same sex couples
> and voted in favor of extending benefits to all couples. The group of us that
> voted for benefits to all couples were defeated by the people who said "NO
> BENEFITS TO ALL COUP

Re: the next wedge issue

In a message dated 11/20/03 12:50:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book topay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with areply. If I were him, I'd give you the boot for sexism and homophobia.What you are saying is really ugly. I am reminded of an article thatappears in the latest Harpers on Clear Channel Communications. Out inDenver there are 6 stations owned by this monopoly and they all haveDJ's that make fag-bashing jokes. When the reporter asks the localpresident of Clear Channel whether that is appropriate, he replies thatit is only a joke. What if you substituted the word "nigger" for "fag",he asks. Would that be as funny? That's the kind of question you shouldbe asking yourself.
1. I have spanked children before. I have spanked them on their little hands and buts. In fact I once thumped by daughter - Mikkie, on the head when she was four years old, although she was never spanked by me. Her mother spanked her before and slapped her face when she was 13. Today she is 25 and just had her first baby. Did Mikkie need her face slapped? Well, she hit her mother back and I told her that she walks around her other house like she is a damn Queen and it is only one Queen per house hould. "Baby girl you are a beautiful Princess and it is time for you to come live with your dad before Sandra kick your little fannie." Sandra did not object to paying child support. You may suggest whatever you want, but people raise their children how they see fit and some of us get it right or basically right. What the word "nigger" or "fag" has to do with this is beyond me.
2. I am not required to support or campaign on behave of homosexual life style and this does not make me homophobic. This means I believe it is wrong - not a crime. What the word "nigger" or "fag" has to do with this is beyond me.
One person wrote:
>Actually, there is no such thing as "a man's penis," right? I meanthere's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the questionis, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it whereit feels best?<
To me - IMO, this reads like the opening paragraph of the Pedophile Manifesto. Do you understand what it means to say something like this to any section of the working class? This is outrageous and I am to be unsubbed? Read the paragraph again. This is way beyond sex among consenting adults.
Nevertheless, you are saying that if I advocate spanking children I will be kicked off of Marxline? If this is true then you can unsub me now. Children need to be spanked at times and its that simple. I will continue to tap their little hands when they try and stick objects into wall sockets.
Be a real man Lou and send your address. You can have Shamelle - 30, and her two kids (Tapre 8 and Tkala 5) and Edonie - 20. :-)
Now supporting homosexual lifestyle does not make one progressive and not supporting this life style does not make one reactionary.
Spanking a child is not child abuse. What the word "nigger" or "fag" has to do with this is beyond me.
It is you that cannot be taken serious by any parent I know. Nor, do you understand the real world of politics and the mechanics of elections - or the formation of "social issues" - or the art of political maneuver - or the nature of the battle in the ideological sphere. You do not understand how this identity movement was shaped in the ideological sphere and for what purpose.
Go back to the 1950s and explore the formation of the concept called "teenager" in the ideological sphere and critically look at the evolution of the so-called nuclear family. You understand nothing of the property relations and the evolution of value and its social impact. It is in fact you that lack any critical understanding brother!
You do not get it!
I am telling you that I voted against extending benefits to same sex couples and voted in favor of extending benefits to all couples. The group of us that voted for benefits to all couples were defeated by the people who said "NO BENEFITS TO ALL COUPLES AND THEIR CHILDREN" - BENEFITS TO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ONLY."
It is you who do not understand real world politics. And I am reactionary and need to be unsubed for spanking my child's hand! This is outrageous. This is Pen-L and I can abhor homosexuality. This does not make it a crime against the state or anything like that.
Have you any idea what a social movement is and on what basis social movements gyrate?
Melvin P.

Euro-survey: The flat earth society loses again - additional note on public opinion surveys

I still haven't been able to study the methodology of the EU survey on
globalisation, but one point I wanted to add, is that we can of course add
up quantified observations which really refer to different things.

For example, among other things, on my writing desk I have at the moment:

1. a computer monitor,
2. a keyboard,
3. a PC computing device,
4. a printer,
5. a cup,
6. a packet of drum tobacco,
7. a calculator,
8. a Velvet Underground CD,
9. a book by Thomas Friedman,
10. a red notebook,
11. a book by Studs Terkel,
12.  a book by Isaac Deutscher,
13. some writing paper,
14. two visiting cards.
15. a book by George Soros,
16. a lighter,
17. a book by Ernest Mandel,
18. a postcard advertising the movie "Divine Intervention"

If I said, after recording and counting up these observations, "I have at
least 18 objects on my desk", I would state the truth, because the term
"objects" as aggregation principle could be validly applied to all those
things on my desk. But if I said "I have at least 18 mechanical devices on
my desk" then I would not be telling the truth, because although some are,
many of the objects on my desk are not mechanical devices, at least not in
ordinary language. It could of course be argued that, if I had a certain
sort of lifestyle, then all the objects on my writing desk represent
mechanical devices in some sense - i.e. there is some relationship between
the objects on my desk, and mechanical devices which they symbolise.
Nevertheless, if I were to ring up my sister and report  "I have 18
mechanical devices on my desk" she would probably not understand what I mean
immediately, or indeed think that I had gone nuts, or at least was repairing
my computer. In which case my report is a miscommunication.

Suppose that I now do a telephone survey, and I ask respondents how many
objects are placed on their kitchen table. I would evoke considerable
response burden, because the aggregation principle is not clear - how do we
define discrete objects ? If some respondents are a bit blurry or blind, or
if they have two kitchen desks, this might add to the response burden. One
respondent might ask, do I count both the individual fruits in the
fruitbowl, or, for example, do I count the fruitbowl as one object - do I
count the pen and the cap of the pen as one object or two objects ? But on
the other hand, they might not ask this at all, either because they assume
that they know the meaning of the question, or, if they do not know it, they
don't want to ask, lest they be considered stupid by the interviewer. In
aggregating my telephonically gathered observations, I might therefore get a
considerable distortion between the data distribution and the actual
situation, exclusively because I asked respondents about "objects" without
specifying distinctions and rules necessary to count them as discrete
objects.

The same trick of course could be applied when we ask about globalisation.
There are many theories and ideas about globalisation, and therefore if I
ask people "are you in favour of globalisation, or not" (which contains the
assumption that globalisation is something you can be for or against) I may
get a "yes" or a "no" answers, but I still do not know what the "yes" or
"no" refers to, and it might well refer to a variety of things in the minds
of respondents. The result might be the finding that the majority of
respondents are in favour of globalisation, but I do not know exactly what
they are in favour of.

This is somewhat analogous to the survey question "do you like dogs, or not"
? Some respondents may like all dogs, some respondents may not like any
dogs, okay, but some respondents might like only some dogs, or only one dog,
or only fox terriers, or only pictures or sculptures of dogs but not real
dogs, or only the dogs which belong to someone else at a considerable
distance, and so on. And so they will understand the question differently,
based on their likes and dislikes and their interpretation of the survey
question.  I would obtain a result that X number of people like dogs, and X
number of people do not like dogs, but I do not really know what the result
really means, what reality it refers to.

Knowing that this is the case, we could design a survey question about
globalisation which is guaranteed always to obtain over 90% of respondents
in favour of globalisation, and in this way we could manufacture a public
opinion in favour of globalisation. The problem however is, that if the
discrepancy between survey results and real opinion is too great, people
will not longer trust surveys, and refuse to co-operate with them. In that
case, the survey research culture would be destroyed by the linguistic
communication used. Hence, only a limited amount of conceptual distortion is
compatible with survey research, such that the discrepancy between the
survey result and real opinion is not too great. You can fool some people
all of the time, you can fool all people some of the time, but you can

Venezuela confronts the FTAA

2003-11-21 Thread michael a. lebowitz


Venezuela confronts the FTAA


Michael
A. Lebowitz (4 October 2003)


Our principle, announced Ramón Rosales (Venezuelas Minister of
Production and Commerce) is as much market as possible, and as much
state as necessary. What that statement, released at the September 2003
WTO meeting in Cancun, means in terms of so-called international trade
agreements can only be understood in the context of what Venezuela was
arguing at Cancun.
Challenging
the effects of free trade on human development, calling for an end to
an unjust economic order, for the prioritizing of the fight against
poverty and social exclusion, for putting human rights before corporate
rights, the Venezuelan position called for a re-emphasis upon the role
of public policy as a tool without which it is impossible to achieve the
stated goal of equitable, democratic, and environmentally sustainable
development.
In short,
it was a position which directly rejects neo-liberalism and the
international institutions intended to enforce it. And, that is precisely
the stance taken by the government of Hugo Chavez for the discussions of
FTAA. In a statement released in April to delegations participating in
the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee (and oriented to gaining support
throughout the continent), Venezuela declared that the FTAA is not
merely a trade agreement; it establishes a supranational legal and
institutional system that will eventually prevail over the current system
in our country. Precisely because of the implications of FTAA for
national sovereignty, Venezuela announced that any FTAA agreement would
be the subject of a national referendum. Indeed, it pointed out that
Article 73 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
requires a referendum: International treaties, conventions, and
agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power
to supranational entities () shall be submitted to
referendum.
In
calling for the people to decide, the Venezuelan governments own
position would be clear. Ever since the defeated coup of 11 April 2002
and the subsequent opposition sabotage that has produced a crisis, the
document noted, Venezuela has a new appreciation of the extraordinary
importance of the need for governments to be able to draw on a wide
spectrum of public policies to respond to crises (whether environmental,
political, or economic), as well as to be able to tackle the challenges
and demands associated with fair, sustainable development. The proposal
for FTAA would prevent this. Indeed, the government argued, The recent
sabotage of PDVSA, the national oil industry, is a pathetic example of
everything stated in this document. 
Widespread
democratic involvement, though, should not be limited to a vote at the
end. Precisely because of the vast implications of FTAA, Venezuela
declared in its statement to the Trade Negotiations Committee, we cannot
continue to negotiate as if these were just some trade negotiations in
which only experts and specialists in the different areas of commercial
and international law need participate. Democratic negotiations need to
include in an effective manner all sectors of the population
continent-wide because every sector will be affected to some extent by
the agreements being negotiated.
And, what
of those popular sectors in Venezuela at this point? Although trade
unions and popular sectors have indicated that they oppose FTAA and all
it stands for, the priority is support for the government in its
resolve--- support in the face of an opposition aided by the US
government and prepared again to do everything possible to remove the
Chavez government. The struggle against international capital and its
goals at this point in Venezuela is a struggle to maintain and deepen the
Bolivarian Revolution.



-
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510

E=T=N=M1=R= M2=C= G1=W=P=G2