new frontiers of e-commerce

[Eubulides]

Cannabis online: click now and it's with you in 24 hours

As the drug is downgraded, police crack down on internet vendors offering
supplies by post

David McCandless
Saturday January 31, 2004
The Guardian

It will arrive next day by registered delivery in an unassuming padded
envelope, promises the blurb on the British website. Inside,
vacuum-sealed, will be 7.5g of AK47 - high-grade Cannabis sativa. "Very
strong nice smoke," gushes the sales copy on the site. "Back by popular
demand."

On Thursday British drug law underwent its most radical shakeup for
decades when cannabis was downgraded to class C. Although simple
possession is unlikely to lead to prosecution in most cases, the drug
remains illegal and dealing or possession with intent to supply will carry
a maximum 14-year prison sentence.

But a Guardian investigation has established that at least five
large-scale online cannabis vendors are operating in this country, in
competition with more established Dutch sites. As a result, the drug has
never been so easy to buy online.

Electronic payment systems, anonymity and ease of-use have led to a boom
in illegal web weed outlets. For an increasing number of dealers and
users, the internet is now the first port of call for buying and selling
cannabis.

The British sites vary in sophistication and scale. Some are glossy and
graphic-designed, brazenly selling their wares to all comers. Others are
just simple login pages, with passwords for regular customers only.

All offer a selection of cannabis rarely seen outside Amsterdam coffee
shops: potent connoisseur varieties including Jack Herer, Charas, and
Ketama Gold. Some are so strong they require health warnings. "Caution!"
reads the description for super-strong hashish Black Ice available from
one retailer. "Extremely experienced smokers only, please."

Each of the sites boasts levels of technological sophistication more
associated with mainstream 21st century e-commerce outfits such as Amazon
or eBay. Most sites support "one click" ordering and secure digital
payment systems such as Paypal and its smaller rival, nochex.com. Minimum
orders are typically 7g (0.25oz), maximum 28g. Many are open from 9am
until 5pm weekdays and provide customer service via email. Orders placed
before 1pm are guaranteed to arrive the next day. They can even be tracked
via the Royal Mail website.

The product arrives fresh, potent and perfectly weighed. The prices are
not cheap - around £50 for a quarter of an ounce on average - but web
forums have been full of customers praising the merchandise.

There are now the first signs of a crackdown by the authorities. On
December 22, in the first operation of its kind, police from the National
Hi-Tech Crime Unit raided one of the leading cannabis e-tailers after a
five-month investigation. The site - which before the raid had the
internet address www.pepespage.net - had been active for around 18 months.
A picture of the cartoon skunk Pepe Le Pew, smoking a large joint, adorned
the homepage.

The police estimate that the site generated more than £500,000 in
revenues. They made three arrests and confiscated several computers in
Herefordshire and Sussex.

"All the investigation team have been amazed by the amount of activity
that these sites have had and the quantity of orders placed via the
internet," said an investigating officer, Matt Cornish of the
Herefordshire police.

This sudden show of force has sent ripples through an already fearful
market. Since the bust, several leading sites have shut down. One, similar
in scale to Pepe's, has taken an extended Christmas break. A promise on
its homepage to "reopen fully on December 29" has not been honoured.
Forums are swollen with pot smokers bemoaning the loss of their suppliers.

Given the scale and openness of the industry, few seem surprised that the
crackdown has been launched.

"Advertising a website in that way, they were asking for it. I would never
do that," said Hermes the Hash Trader, a Dutch online dealer with a large
customer base in Britain.

Hermes, in his late 20s, is one of several dealers who operate out of
email addresses to minimise their chances of being caught.

The former trader and funds administrator has been running his e-business
for six months. "I spent months, not to mention thousands of euros,
establishing a network of contacts," he said.

His downloadable menu offers 50 varieties of grass and hash. Prices range
from £15 to £75 for an eighth of an ounce. The minimum order is £50.

But he confesses to being dogged by constant worries about being busted.
"Generally I do enjoy it," he said.

"It's a good job, and usually fun, but it has its downside. It can get
very stressful at times."

Customs' seizures are also a constant bugbear. He estimates that one in 50
of his deliveries is intercepted en route to Britain. He does offer
refunds for lost orders but only to customers who supply a digital scan of
the official Customs and Excise 271 form received if controlle

Re: faxed article

[Michael Perelman]

Apologies again.  Swamped with about 1500 MyDoom insults per day, I sent
it to the list instead of Ian.  It is interesting nonetheless, describing
Space Warfare.
 --
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

faxed article

[michael]

the last page never came.  I found it on the web.

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/e-news/PDF/CGSC_Space_News_04-02-13Jan04.pdf

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Break Through 2004: A Refuser Solidarity Network Conference (3/13-14)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:30:12 -0800
From: Steven Feuerstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: You are invited to Break Through 2004, an RSN conference
List-Subscribe:

Update and request for action from the Refuser Solidarity Network
Dear friend of the Refuser Movement:
Below you will find an announcement of an upcoming conference
organized by the Refuser Solidarity Network. It is going to be an
exciting and important weekend and I hope you will be able to attend.
Please pass on this invitation to anyone and everyone you know who is
engaged in organizing to end the Occupation. We believe that the
Refusers offer one of the most powerful and persuasive voices on this
issue; this conference will help you take advantage of the Refusers
to strengthen your own efforts!
Warm regards,
Steven Feuerstein
President, Board of Directors
Refuser Solidarity Network
www.refusersolidarity.net
BREAK THROUGH 2004: Carrying the Refuser Message into the Mainstream
A conference for anti-Occupation organizers sponsored by the Refuser
Solidarity Network
March 13-14, 2004 at DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois
Break Through 2004 will gather together official representatives of
all the Refuser groups, other refusers living in the United States,
leaders and volunteers of the Refuser Solidarity Network, and
anti-Occupation activists from around the country. Through
discussions, workshops and sharing of ideas, we will develop concrete
plans for using the courageous stand and sacrifices of the Refusers
to increase the effectiveness of our own anti-Occupation organizing.
The information below will give you a solid overview of Break Through
2004. For much more detailed information and to register, please
visit www.refusersolidarity.net
Who should attend Break Through 2004?

You should make it a priority to attend Break Through 2004 if you

** Plan to bring a Refuser to your community for speaking events or
would like to organize support activities for Refusers. Not only with
you learn about the Refuser Movement at BT2004, but you will meet
with and establish personal relationships with key Refuser leaders.
You will also learn concrete skills and take back materials to help
make your events extremely successful.
** Are actively organizing to end the Occupation now and want to
figure out how to increase the effectiveness and impact of your work.
The Refuser message should be a key part of everything you do; the
story of an Israeli soldier or conscript rejecting Occupation open
doors and minds in a way that few other voices from the region can.
** Would like to help the Refuser Solidarity Network get bigger and
stronger in 2004 and beyond. We are growing quickly and expanding our
capacity, but we still need many volunteers to help increase our
effectiveness.
For more information: www.refusersolidarity.net

Representatives of all the Refusers groups (Ram Rahat-Goodman of Yesh
Gvul; Ruth Hiller of New Profile; Asaf Shtul-Trauring of the
Shministim; Chen Alon of Courage to Refuse; Noam Kaminer of the
Parents Forum), Refusers living in the United States, leadership of
the Refuser Solidarity Network and activists from around the country
will be in attendance. For more details on our speakers and
attendees: www.refusersolidarity.net
Why focus on the Refuser Movement?

The Occupation is possible only through the presence, threat and
actions of the Israel Defense Forces. In the territories, the IDF
cannot enforce the Occupation without soldiers. When enough
courageous Israelis refuse to serve the Occupation (either by direct
public refusal or through more private means), a new direction in
Israel must and will take hold. A growing Israeli Refuser Movement
directly threatens Sharon and the continuation of the policies of his
government. For more information: www.refusersolidarity.net
More information about the conference agenda

The agenda will provide you with an opportunity to hear from all the
Refuser groups, attend workshops that offer concrete skills and time
for sharing of ideas, develop exciting new program ideas, and help
RSN develop its program for the coming year. With all of that,
however, we are still leaving lots of time free for you to network,
get to know on a personal basis the Refusers, find out who else
around the country is doing similar work and can work with you, and
share meals. Here is the outline of the agenda:
Saturday morning: registration, welcome, keynotes from Refusers,
discussions with them
Saturday afternoon: two sets of workshops, separated by an hour
break; plus the Imagine Ten Million program (see below and on website
for more details).
Saturday evening: Celebration dinner

Sunday morning: two sets of workshops; RSN program planning; Closing comments

Sunday lunch: post-conference opportunity to network and plan future
activities with attendees and Refusers.
Sunday afternoon: RSN Board of Directors meeting (open to conference attendees)

For more info: www.refusersolidarity.net

Exciting 

Re: Iowa subborned

[Brian McKenna]

yo-da-ladeee.. .yo-da-lay-deee
Rock-a-fellah.. .rock-er-fell eer

Rocky money was also tied to medical science and the Flexner Report. . .which helped create bio-medicine a century ago. . .the scourge of social medicine. . . 

Brian McKenna.

Re: China's new Marxist left

[eatonak]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Because the amount of labor-time of capitalists, which can fit to this
>>identification of productive labor, is so small (almost non-existing in
>>contemporary capitalisms) there is no reason to theorize this phenomenon.
>
> Who are the capitalists you're thinking of? Entrepreneurs who run
> companies? Large shareholders? Portfolio managers? CEOs?
> Boardmembers? Senior managers? Middle managers?
>
> Doug
>
>
Hi Doug,

If they are not involved in production activities, obviously none of their
labor should be considered as productive. So, in this regard the issue is
an empirical one, i.e. one should observe, for example, how a given
entrepreneur who runs his own company spends his work-day.  When one is
only interested in aggregate measurement of PUPL, then the BLS
classifications are usually a good starting point as you know.

On the other hand, one has to have a notion of what constitutes production
activities before starting to apply any criteria for PUPL to any
capitalist setting.  I still think that my C&C piece (w/ Savran; partially
based on Anwar's work) does a good job in clarifying what production,
circulation, etc. mean.

Here is the link to that piece:

http://www.simons-rock.edu/%7Eeatonak/pupl.htm

Ahmet

Re: China's new Marxist left

[Doug Henwood]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Because the amount of labor-time of capitalists, which can fit to this
identification of productive labor, is so small (almost non-existing in
contemporary capitalisms) there is no reason to theorize this phenomenon.
Who are the capitalists you're thinking of? Entrepreneurs who run
companies? Large shareholders? Portfolio managers? CEOs?
Boardmembers? Senior managers? Middle managers?
Doug

Nanoparticles in the Brain

[Mike Ballard]

Thought this might be of interest.  Nanotech is
getting a lot of attention by those in the van of the
capitalist production process these days.

Regards,
Mike B)

***
Tiny particles enter the brain after being inhaled
JIM GILES / Nature 9jan04
Nanoparticles - tiny lumps of matter that could one
day to be used to build faster computer circuits and
improve drug delivery systems - can travel to the
brain after being inhaled, according to researchers
from the United States1.

The finding sounds a cautionary note for advocates of
nanotechnology, but may also lead to a fuller
understanding of the health effects of the nanosized
particles produced by diesel engines.

Gunter Oberdorster of the University of Rochester in
New York and colleagues tracked the progress of carbon
particles that were only 35 nanometres in diameter and
had been inhaled by rats. In the olfactory bulb - an
area of the brain that deals with smell -
nanoparticles were detected a day after inhalation,
and levels continued to rise until the experiment
ended after seven days.

"These are the first data to show this," says Ken
Donaldson, a toxicologist at the University of
Edinburgh, UK. "I would never have thought of looking
for inhaled nanoparticles in the brain."

Substances such as drugs can cross from the brain into
the blood, but Oberdorster believes that the carbon
nanoparticles enter the brain by moving down the brain
cells that pick up odours and transmit signals to the
olfactory bulb. He says that unpublished work, in
which his group blocked one of the rats' nostrils and
tracked which side of the brain the nanoparticles
reached, appears to confirm this.

Little is known about what effect nanoparticles will
have when they reach the brain. The toxicity of the
nanoparticles that are currently being used to build
prototype nanosized electronic circuits - such as
carbon nanotubes, which are produced in labs around
the world - has not been thoroughly assessed.

But Donaldson says that there is a growing feeling
that other nanoparticles, such as those produced by
diesel exhausts, may be damaging to some parts of our
body. He estimates that people in cities take in about
25 million nanoparticles with every breath. These
particles are believed to increase respiratory and
cardiac problems, probably by triggering an
inflammatory reaction in the lungs.

Oberdorster's unpublished work includes evidence that
some nanoparticles may trigger a similar inflammatory
reaction in the brains of rats.

References
Oberdorster, G. et al. Translocation of inhaled
ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhalation
Toxicology, (in press, 2004).

source: http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0401/42.htm
17jan04


http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2004/Nanoparticles-Enter-Brain9jan04.htm


=

The mass of men lead lives of quiet
desperation and go to the grave with
the song still in them.

Henry David Thoreau

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

Re: Iowa subborned

[Michael Perelman]

Not to get conspiratorial about it, but it was Rockefeller Fdn. money that
pushed the ag. modernization movement.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

dinnertime reading ;-)

[Devine, James]

Reuters in Taipei
Friday January 30, 2004

The Guardian

The decomposing remains of a 60-tonne sperm whale exploded on a busy
street in Taiwan, showering cars and shops with blood and organs and
stopping traffic for hours.

The 17 metre (56 foot) mammal had been on a truck bound for postmortem
examination at a university when gases from internal decay caused its
entrails to explode in the southern city of Tainan.

The whale had died after it became beached on the south-western coast of
the island.


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

how it's done

[Dan Scanlan]

Title: how it's done


The very secret service

David Kelly referred obliquely to Operation Rockingham.
What role did this mysterious cell play in justifying the Iraq
war?

Michael Meacher
Friday November 21, 2003
The Guardian

 David Kelly, giving evidence to the prime minister's
intelligence and security committee in closed session on July 16 -
the day before his suicide - made a comment the significance of which
has so far been missed. He said: "Within the defence
intelligence services I liaise with the Rockingham cell."
Unfortunately nobody on the committee followed up this lead, which is
a pity because the Rockingham reference may turn out to be very
important indeed.

 What is the role of the Rockingham cell? The evidence comes
from a former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, who had
been a US military intelligence officer for eight years and served on
the staff of General Schwarzkopf, the US commander of allied forces
in the first Gulf war. He has described himself as a card-carrying
Republican who voted for Bush, but he distinguished himself in
insisting before the Iraq war, and was almost alone in doing so, that
almost all of Iraq's WMD had been destroyed as a result of
inspections, and the rest either used or destroyed in the first Gulf
war. In terms, therefore, of proven accuracy of judgment and weight
of experience of the workings of western military intelligence, he is
a highly reliable source.

 In an interview in the Scottish Sunday Herald in June, Ritter
said: "Operation Rockingham [a unit set up by defence
intelligence staff within the MoD in 1991] cherry-picked
intelligence. It received hard data, but had a preordained outcome in
mind. It only put forward a small percentage of the facts when most
were ambiguous or noted no WMD... It became part of an effort to
maintain a public mindset that Iraq was not in compliance with the
inspections. They had to sustain the allegation that Iraq had WMD
[when] Unscom was showing the opposite."

 Rockingham was, in fact, a clearing house for intelligence, but
one with a predetermined political purpose. According to Ritter,
"Britain and America were involved [in the 1990s and up to 2003]
in a programme of joint exploitation of intelligence from Iraqi
defectors. There were mountains of information coming from these
defectors, and Rockingham staff were receiving it and then
selectively culling [picking out] reports that sustained the [WMD]
claims. They ignored the vast majority of the data which mitigated
against such claims."

 Only one other official reference to Operation Rockingham is on
record, in an aside by Brigadier Richard Holmes when giving evidence
to the defence select committee in 1998. He linked it to Unscom
inspections, but it was clear that the Rockingham staff included
military officers and intelligence services representatives together
with civilian MoD personnel. Within, therefore, the UK intelligence
establishment - MI6, MI5, GCHQ and defence intelligence - Rockingham
clearly had a central, though covert, role in seeking to prove an
active Iraqi WMD programme.

 One of its tactics, which Ritter cites, is its leaking
of false information to weapons inspectors, and then, when the search
is fruitless, using that as "proof" of the weapons'
existence. He quotes a case in 1993 when "Rockingham was the
source of some very controversial information which led to
inspections of a suspected ballistic missile site. We ... found
nothing. However, our act of searching allowed the US and UK to say
that the missiles existed."

 A parallel exercise was set up by Donald Rumsfeld in the US,
named the Office of Special Plans. The purpose of this intelligence
agency was the provision of selective intelligence which met the
demands of its political masters. Similarly, in the case of the UK,
Ritter insists that Rockingham officers were acting on political
orders "from the very highest levels".

 Both Ritter and British intelligence sources have said that the
selective intelligence gathered by Operation Rockingham would have
been passed to the joint intelligence committee (JIC), which was
behind the dossiers published by the UK government claiming Iraq had
WMDs.

 The significance of this is highlighted by Tony Blair's
statement: "The intelligence that formed the basis of what we
put out last September... came from the JIC assessment." So
Rockingham was an important tributary flowing into the government's
rationale for the war.

 This shoehorning of intelligence data to fit pre-fixed
political goals, both in the US and the UK, throws new light on the
two most controversial elements of the government's dossier of
September 2002. One was that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes.
Was this "sexed up" on the orders of No 10 or - derived
allegedly from an Iraqi brigadier via an informant - did Rockingham
put a gloss on it to please its political masters? The other highly
contentious item in the dossier was that Saddam tried to buy uranium
yellowcake

Iowa subborned

[Dan Scanlan]

Below is an excerpt from an excellent article on the Kucinich Iowa
campaign by William Pitt Rivers. The etnire article can be found at :
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/012604A.shtml
Dan
-
100 years ago, agriculture in Iowa was dominated by family farmers.
Each farm raised its own portion of crops and kept a few head of
cattle. Those cattle were fed whatever was grown on the land. It was
a perfect machine, an agrarian society that hummed along in a
timeless harmony. Then came the 1980s, and a new generation of
farmers graduated from agricultural colleges. Their heads were filled
with a desire to purchase the shiny new farming machines pitched to
them in classrooms by corporate agribusinesses. Farms that had been
in families for three generations or more took on hundreds of
thousands of dollars in debt as these new farmers bought equipment
they didn't need. The debt held, however, because the agrarian
harmony paid enough dividends to keep the banks at bay.
 In the 1980s, however, corporate agribusinesses convinced those
banks to call in those debts, and thousands of farms crashed. There
were about two suicides a month for a long period, as farmers who
felt they had failed their families killed themselves out of rage and
shame and despair. The farms went up for sale, and were purchased at
fire-sale prices by corporations like ADM.
 Today, the cattle and crop industries in Iowa are owned by massive
agribusinesses which keep thousands of head in tight quarters. The
waste created by this is extraordinary, and goes straight into the
ground. Likewise, massive industrial pig farms create untold
thousands of gallons of pig manure which are stored in huge
'lagoons.' No material crafted by human ingenuity can contain this
caustic filth, and so these lagoons breach their containers and
further contaminate the water table. The stench from these lagoons is
so extreme that houses a mile downwind become covered in flies.
 In five years, the aquifer underneath the state will be completely
polluted by dung and chemicals. The topsoil, denuded by factory
farming, will continue to disappear, and continue to require chemical
fertilizers to bring forth the crops. The introduction of genetically
modified crops to the landscape, meanwhile, will change the ecosystem
in ways we do not even begin to understand.
 Recently, America endured its first Mad Cow scare. We were told that
everything was under control, but this was a fantastic lie. Mad Cow
is transferred two ways: In the manure or in the feed, two conduits
that are demonstrably connected. Factory cattle farms in Iowa feed
their animals an incredibly dangerous mixture. A massive turkey farm
north of Des Moines composts the corpses of dead turkeys, mixed with
the sawdust bedding they live in. The product of this is sold to the
factory farms, which mix it with rotten candy bars purchased from
candy manufacturers.
 Finally, the brew is spiced with the dross created in the process of
cattle slaughter: Blood and offal sluiced through grates when the
animals are killed. Into this mixture goes neurological material from
slaughtered cattle - brains and spines - and cattle feed is the final
product. It is in the neurological parts of the cow that Mad Cow
breeds. The animals eat this, and then defecate it by the ton in
these massive factory yards, and all the other animals walk around in
it. Because of the profoundly unhealthy manure-filled environment in
which these cattle are kept, the feed is heavily spiced with
antibiotics to keep them from dropping dead because of the diseases
they stand in all day long. Those antibiotics translate into humans,
making us more susceptible in the long run to bacteria.
 This is a ticking time bomb.

 If you think this problem is limited to Iowa, you are dead wrong.
David, the man driving the van, described all of this to me in the
context of Iowa, and in the context of the farm his grandfather owned
there many years ago, but it is a national crisis. When Dennis
Kucinich went on later that weekend to discuss farm policy, the
control of genetically-modified crops, and a process of moving away
from corporate concentrations of power in agriculture, it wasn't just
pandering to the farm voters.
 The fog that morning offered only a postcard. The problems that were
hidden - the wreckage of the environment, the dominance of
corporations, the danger of a poisoned food source - await us all.

clinton and clinton

[Dan Scanlan]

 Wall Street Journal January 29, 2004

COMMENTARY

Clinton & Clinton ==

By R. EMMETT TYRRELL JR.

So, no sooner does Sen. John Kerry emerge from the New Hampshire
primary as the Democrats' fragile frontrunner than word gets out that
ex-President Bill Clinton is flying down to Washington to plan the
Democrats' return to the White House, and at this "high-level"
meeting Sen. Hillary Clinton will join him. What is this all about?
Are the Democratic presidential contenders not capable of sorting
things out on their own? Two, after all, were coaxed into the race by
the Clintons, Sen. John Edwards and Gen. Wesley Clark.
* * *

To understand the 2004 presidential campaign we must bear in mind
that there are actually two campaigns going on. The first appears to
be a campaign among Democrats for the party's presidential
nomination. Actually, as is becoming clearer every day, it is a
campaign for control of the party for years to come; and that the
Clintons are waging it is increasingly apparent. The second campaign
is a historic struggle between the two factions of the 1960s
generation -- once known as the young right and the young radicals --
to claim that generation's identity once and for all. That explains
the Democratic contenders' already active vituperation of President
George Bush, who never joined with fellow Yalies Howard Dean or Sen.
Kerry in the peace demonstrations.
The most imminent of these campaigns now is the Clintons' campaign to
maintain control of the Democratic Party. Last summer's noisy rise of
Mr. Dean, the outsider, sent alarm through the Clinton camp. The open
field after New Hampshire is more to their liking. It allows for
Bill's high-profile trip to Washington this week. His influence will
grow, and the arrival of a bruised Democratic frontrunner at the
convention this summer will allow Senator Hillary to play a dominant
role. What that role might become will be the topic of many a cable
television talk show in the months ahead.
Today the party of Roosevelt and Truman is the party of Clinton &
Clinton. Bill Clinton remains a mesmerizing figure to those he does
not repel. Hillary's appeal is in some ways broader than his. As a
U.S. senator she has gained stature and positioned herself as a
"Scoopette" Jackson, but one for the progressive bien pensants. She
can represent the transcendent dreams of the feminists, the gay
rights activists, the environmental rigorists.
Behind the scenes, Clinton servitors run the Democratic Party,
beginning at the DNC with Chairman Terrence McAuliffe. Though the
McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" law has left Democratic campaign
committees with depleted coffers the Clintons' neo-Georgian mansion
in Northwest Washington has become a money magnet, with generous
lobbyists rolling up in their black Lincolns nightly to make New
York's junior senator a richly endowed political donor. Hillary also
presides over a New Age political machine, starting with a host of
fundraising honeypots with cute names such as HILLPAC and Hill's
Angels. Long-time Clinton loyalists are directing tens of millions of
dollars to organizations under their control, including a liberal
radio talk- show network and a moneyed think tank just off K Street,
the Center for American Progress. Clinton lieutenant Harold Ickes is
directing funds to what is expected to become a $250 million behemoth
political organization called America Votes, which will rely on
shared polling data, research, and mailing lists, including
"Demzilla" -- the data bank on voters maintained by the DNC. "It
doesn't take much to figure out what the issues are and the messages
you need to be helpful," the clever Mr. Ickes told one reporter.
Al Gore, the Democrats' martyred 2000 candidate, should have been in
control of all this, but for whatever reason he could not put it
together. The retired president and his wife did, and when they saw a
political unknown stumping across America, bringing in millions of
new dollars and thousands of new supporters on the Internet, they
felt the ground quake. They urged the New Democrat, Mr. Edwards, into
the race and the smooth -- though accident-prone -- Gen. Clark. When
Mr. Dean hissed at the Clinton's majordomo, Mr. McAuliffe, they knew
they had to take action.
Looking back on the assault on Mr. Dean before the Iowa caucuses, one
is reminded of the old joke that politics really is a blood sport,
and by caucus day the blood was everywhere and so were the Clintons'
fingerprints. I cannot recall such a concerted assault on a
frontrunner in any other primary season. Dick Morris was, perhaps,
the first to claim that Mr. McAuliffe's agents spread negative
research against Mr. Dean. Now we have more evidence. Sources in the
Kerry camp and the Edwards camp told my colleague "The Prowler" at
Spectator.org1 that much of the opposition research that smeared Mr.
Dean in Iowa came from the Clark campaign. "It wasn't just Clark,
though," a Kerry staffer reported, "We know of at least tw

Re: new frontiers of profit......

[Dan Scanlan]

Is the Exxon Valdez verdict final or will it be appealed?
I believe it's been appealed. I just spoke with a friend, a salmon
fisherman, who stands to get a small sum of money if the suit is ever
settled. He's says one of the long reaching effects of the spill was
that the salmon farms got a fin hold on the market in the interim. A
curious state of affairs has emerged recently -- the huge
conglomerates who moved in when the price was high have left Alaska's
coast, leaving the fishing to those who have done it as usual for the
last 100 years. He says it's actually better for the common fisherman
that the price is down. The assholes have left town, so to speak.
Dan

US: unemployment benefits running out

[Eubulides]

Record Number to Run Out of Unemployment Benefits
By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 30, 2004; Page A05


A record-high 375,000 jobless workers will exhaust their unemployment
insurance this month and an estimated 2 million workers will find
themselves in the same predicament during the first half of the year,
according to an analysis of Labor Department statistics by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.

The report from the center, a liberal research and policy group, found
that in the first six months of the year, about 5,800 jobless workers in
the District of Columbia, 20,200 in Maryland and 29,600 in Virginia will
run out of unemployment benefits unless they find new jobs or get
additional government help.

The jobless recovery has become an issue in this presidential election
year, and the report shows the jobless benefits will run out for large
numbers of workers in several key states, including Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and South Carolina.

While the unemployment rate dropped to 5.7 percent in December, down from
6.3 percent in June, businesses added only 1,000 jobs that month. The
country has lost more than 2.8 million manufacturing jobs in a steady
erosion over the past 41 months.

Congress voted in 2002 to give unemployed workers an additional 13 weeks
of benefits and extended the program twice. But it expired just before
Christmas. Congressional Republicans said another extension wasn't
necessary because the economy was gaining strength and job growth was near
at hand.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has proposed extending the
benefits again, told reporters yesterday that such action is needed
because "we are living in an economy that is not creating jobs."

"Republicans lead the opposition on an unemployment insurance extension
because they believe they have solved America's economic problems,"
Clinton said. "People are desperate but they are being ignored by the Bush
administration."

Labor Department officials noted that President Bush approved extensions
of jobless benefits since he took office.

"New jobs have been created five months in a row, while the nation's
unemployment rate and new [insurance] claims have fallen significantly,"
Ed Frank, a department spokesman, said in a statement. "Still, the
president has said many times that he's not going to rest until every
person who wants a job can find one."

"We're in a deficit situation, and we need to be very careful about
government expenditures," said Jack Finn, a spokesman for Sen. John Ensign
(R-Nev.), who opposed a recent effort by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)
to seek unanimous consent for a vote on extending unemployment insurance
benefits again.

"We can't get into the position where benefits are extended indefinitely,"
Finn said. "There needs to be a point where we draw the line."

The center's report said the 375,000 workers who will draw their last
jobless check this month is the highest number for January in the three
decades that the statistics have been tracked.




To this day, no one has come up with a set of rules for
originality. There aren't any. [Les Paul]

Kerry's falsehoods

[Louis Proyect]

Counterpunch, January 30, 2004

Same Skeletons, Different Closet
How Many People Will Die Because of This "Mistake", Senator Kerry?
By SAM HUSSEINI
Truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.

-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

At the debate last night, John Kerry, asked to give examples of the
administration's deceptiveness on the "war on terrorism," said the
following:
"Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.
Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction,
number two. I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three. I could run a
long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration"
On Oct. 9, 2002 John Kerry participated in "a long list of clear
misleading, clear exaggerations," to put it mildly. In his speech on the
floor of the Senate just before voting to authorize Bush to invade Iraq,
Kerry said:
"Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most
nations don't even try? ... According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical
and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles
capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..."
Kerry became famous by asking senators "How do you ask a man to be the
last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to
die for a mistake?" Kerry is now himself a senator.
Mr. Kerry: How do you ask someone to die for your support of the
invasion of Iraq? How do you ask someone to die for this mistake? More
than a "mistake," how do you ask someone to die because you voted for an
illegal , unconstitutional invasion? How do you ask Iraqis and Americans
and others to die because you backed Bush?
How can you tell us that Bush was deceitful when you uttered many of the
same falsehoods? How can you hold him accountable when you refuse to be
held accountable yourself?
How can you be "electable" when you have many of the same skeletons in
your closet as Bush? Do you really think the Republican machine won't
cite your speech over and over again -- "Kerry claims that Bush lied
when Kerry said many of the same things!" Fox will blare. Or, after you
get the Democratic nomination, will you be quiet about Iraq, other than
to talk about narrow issues like Halliburton -- searching for something,
anything, that Bush is guilty of that you are not? You will come off as
petty. Bush will come off as the visionary.
How could you have been deceived by the administration on Iraq? You tout
your leadership and foreign policy experience. How could the idea of a
government lying systematically about a war not been considered
seriously by you, given your experience in Vietnam? How could you not
know that Bush was lying even before the invasion?
How do you explain your speech -- lies in your speech that were known
lies at the time.
You said:

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf
War. It has been with us for the last four years -- since Saddam Hussein
kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors at the end of 1998. And frankly,
after Operation Desert Fox failed to force Iraq to readmit inspectors,
the United States - and the international community -- erred in failing
to find effective ways to compel Iraqi compliance, thus giving Saddam
Hussein a free hand for four years to reconstitute his weapons of mass
destruction programs and allowing the world to lose focus on the threat
of proliferation.
Can you count the lies here? If anything, Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction capability ended with the Gulf War, the exact opposite of
what it claimed. Hussein did not "kick out U.N. weapons inspectors at
the end of 1998." They were withdrawn by UNSCOM head Richard Butler at
the behest of the Clinton administration so it could launch the "Desert
Fox" bombing campaign on the eve of Clinton's scheduled impeachment
vote. And "Desert Fox" did not "fail" to achieve Iraqi compliance, it
succeeded in destroying UNSCOM. The U.S. government, well before Bush,
clearly did not want a successful weapons inspection program. If Saddam
could continue verifying his compliance, there would be more pressure to
lift the draconian economic sanctions.
How can you talk of the administration rushing to war when you said:

But the Administration missed an opportunity two years ago and
particularly a year ago after September 11th to address this issue. They
regrettably, even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of
September 11 created a new understanding of the terrorist threat and the
degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled
the Administration to forge a broad and impressive coalition against
terrorism. Had the Administration tried then to capitalize on this unity
of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be debating
this question now, just a few weeks before Congressional elections. The
Administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a
year ago or earlier, a

Higher Price Tag for Drug Benefit

[Diane Monaco]

January 30, 2004
Bush's Aides See Higher Price Tag for Drug Benefit
By ROBERT PEAR

ASHINGTON, Jan. 29 ? The Bush administration said on Thursday that the
new Medicare drug benefit would cost at least $530 billion over 10
years, or one-third more than the price tag used when Congress passed
the legislation two months ago.

Conservative Republicans said the new estimate confirmed their worst
fears, while Democrats said it vindicated their view that the law gave
far too much money to drug manufacturers and insurance companies. The
bill passed narrowly in the House after Republican leaders gave
assurances that the cost would not exceed $400 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office said in November and again this week
that the cost was about $400 billion for the 10-year period 2004 to
2013, the amount originally proposed by Mr. Bush. But White House
officials said Thursday that the president's budget would put the cost
at $530 billion to $540 billion.

At the same time, the officials said that the overall budget deficit
for the current fiscal year would exceed $500 billion. The deficit for
fiscal 2003 was $375 billion, a record amount.

Mr. Bush says his budget request, to be unveiled on Monday, will cut
the deficit in half within five years, by promoting economic growth and
keeping spending under control.

The Medicare law, which Mr. Bush signed on Dec. 8, will offer drug
benefits to 41 million elderly and disabled people. It will also give
insurance companies and private health plans a huge new role in the
Medicare program.

A White House official said the new estimate reflected "the Medicare
actuaries' best estimate of the future cost." The actuaries and White
House budget officials often differ with Congressional budget experts,
he said.

"Health costs are very volatile," the official said. "It's difficult to
predict the behavior of 40 million people in a market that does not now
exist."

The Bush administration did not explain how it arrived at its cost
estimate, but health economists and budget analysts suggested two
factors.

The administration predicts that the new law will produce a sharp
increase in the number of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in health
maintenance organizations and other private health plans. In addition,
the law significantly increases Medicare payments to private health
plans.

"For the foreseeable future, the private plans are more expensive than
the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program," said Robert D.
Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and vice chairman of a
federal commission that advises Congress on Medicare.

Republicans say the private plans will enhance competition and
efficiency in the Medicare market, saving money in the long run.

Democrats have introduced legislation to augment what they see as a
meager Medicare drug benefit.

The new cost estimate could strengthen the hand of Republicans who
oppose any expansion of the benefit. But it could also strengthen the
hand of Democrats who want to save money by controlling drug prices and
reducing Medicare payments to private insurers.

The White House tried to persuade Congress to include stringent cost
controls in the law. But Democrats balked, saying the proposals could
have led to cuts in Medicare benefits.

Passage of the Medicare bill was a major political achievement for Mr.
Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress. But lawmakers would
probably not have approved the legislation in its current form if they
had thought the cost would exceed a half-trillion dollars.

The bill was passed by a vote of 220 to 215 in the House, with
reluctant support from some conservative Republicans who were deeply
troubled by the cost.

The new estimate confirmed the fears of many conservatives. "We told
you so," said Robert E. Moffit, director of the Center for Health
Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Mr. Moffit said the new estimate "will create an enormous problem for
the Congressional leadership, which repeatedly told Republicans that
this was a fiscally responsible bill."

An aide to the Senate Republican leadership said that he did not know
why the new estimate was higher.

Thomas A. Scully, the federal official in charge of Medicare from May
2001 to December 2003, said: "The estimate may be surprising to some
people, but it's not shocking to me. It just reflects a difference of
opinion among actuaries who make different assumptions about the growth
of drug spending and enrollment in private plans."

William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human
Services, said: "The Medicare bill had lots of moving parts. We could
not make a final analysis of the cost until it became law."

Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, who voted for the
bill, said he was surprised at the new figure. But he said, "Cost
estimates for entitlement programs have been notoriously unreliable,
often too low."

Representative Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted
against the bill,

Was that health care or wealth care?

[Diane Monaco]

January 28, 2004
Chicago Sun-Times
Was that health care or wealth care?

American HMOs show record profit of $2.3 billion in first quarter of
2003, up 60 percent from the year before.

Just to let you know the higher premiums aren't going to waste.

Correction/addition

[Jurriaan Bendien]

I wrote:

Total federal employees  1.8 (domestic & overseas)

Should be:  not "1.8" but "1.8 million".

Because US capitalist society is a competitive society based on business and
government secrets, rivalry and lack of nationwide coordination or planning
in most fields (i.e. the "closed-off society" model where you need homeland
security), there is also a proliferation of statistical surveys and data
sources using different categories to quantify the same type of phenomena -
and not one integrated system, based on nationwide standard classifications,
permitting a "data warehouse" that permits all analyses that anybody might
like to do. There is a certain amount of overlap in classifications, between
different surveys, but also divergences in the survey instruments used.

The advantage of that reality is that you can get different angles on the
same subject, such that one survey might correct the limits of another. Say
that, for example you want to measure a flow of funds collected by the
government, and redistributed by the government to citizens, let's say, some
kind of social assistance benefit. First all, a worker might authorise the
employer to deduct that money from his wage and pay it, and receives a
confirmation that it has been deducted in his paycheck. On his tax form, he
will declare what he has paid. The employer pays the money from an account.
Then the federal government collects it as income. The government places the
money in an account. The government charges administration costs. Then the
account managers allocate the money to a specific budget. That budget has
again got an account. Then the funds are authorised to be spent.  Then the
federal government transfers funds to the state government. Then it's
federal expenditure and state income. The state government then puts the
money into an account, and allocates it to a budget, charging administration
costs.   The money is then authorised to be spent for the designated
purpose. Then it is authorised to be spent on a specific person who is
eligible to receive it. Then it is transferred to a private back account.
The state records an expenditure, and the bank account records an income.
The bank charges an administration cost. Then somebody from a household
records that that money as an income. Then th person uplifts the money. Then
that income is again declared for tax purposes. Finally, the money is spent
again to buy a designated good or service priced by the supplier. The
supplier receives the money, and places it in an account. The economist then
calls this "the market" (it doesn't really matter whether we're taling about
a corporation or a government, the principle of the thing is the same).

Clearly then, as a statistician, you could attempt to survey that financial
flow at dozens of different points, using administrative, personal,
household, financial, bank and commercial records and accounting statements.
In addition, you could also use data on other associated financial flows, to
estimate the magnitude of this flow, because you know it must be within a
certain range, within certain limits. If you started out with 1,000 dollars,
then you cannot end up with a million dollars or 10 dollars in most cases,
unless there is some very creative accounting occurring, a bit of "magic".
Or, you could utilise surveys already collected previously for estimation
purposes.  This insight is sometimes used in the investigation of frauds and
corruption: by tracing a financial flow through and cross-referencing, we
can discover whether money suddenly "disappears" or "mysteriously appears"
out of nowhere. The problem with a system which relies on buying and selling
for its morality is that the number of transactions is so great that it is
almost impossible to verify all transactions. To secure a money-price
morality is impossible, all you can really to is trust in God and hope for
the best. It's not that the information is not there, it is rather the
quantity of information and the fact that money in circulation can be used
in transactions which escape accounting scrutiny.

The disadvantage of many different types of information records and
statistical surveys on the same phenomenon is, that it is frequently
difficult to get believable data, you really have to compare different data
sets on the same topic with respect to concepts and methods, in order to
assess the accuracy, validity and relevance of statistical descriptions. For
that purpose, you need to know a lot about the available information, and
cross-check different observations of the same thing. This is not
necessarily an argument about data quality, but an argument about the
validity and relevance of statistical descriptions. A statistician may
conscientiously seek to obtain the best measurements possible, but because
of the conceptualisation of his measurement units, he may still miss
something. He requires good qualitative knowledge, before he can obtain good
quantitative knowledge.

Obvio

Re: intermediate microeconomics textbook...

[Diane Monaco]

To all you good people of pen-l,

Thank you! Thank you! I now have everything -- textbooks, supplemental
readings AND syllabi -- necessary to give intermediate microeconmic
theory a go.  The only thing missing is someone to teach it for me :).
Actually, I'm sort of looking forward to drawing those 3-D diagrams of
K, L, and output to construct isoquant projections, if the calculus
fails or to perhaps go along with it. Really.

Many thanks again.

I remain your erstwhile friend and humble servant,

Diane

Chemical warfare in the 1920s & 30s

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

*   Chemical warfare in the 1920s & 30s. (Frontline).

History Today, June, 2002, by Sebastian Balfour

BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS, Britain, Spain and Italy launched
chemical offensives against their enemies in Afghanistan, Iraq and
North Africa. Most of these wars have been kept secret for decades
and official documents relating to them have still not been released.
Politicians and military leaders in Europe were well aware of the
effects of the deadliest of these chemicals, mustard gas. It had
caused deaths and horrific injuries among soldiers in the
battlefields of the First World War before they began to wear
protective clothing. Yet this was the preferred chemical warhead used
by European armies in these areas and their victims were often old
men, women and children because they were easier to target and had no
means of protection.
After Hiroshima and the Vietnam War, it may seem whimsical to suggest
that war is anything else but barbaric. But in the aftermath of the
Great War, in which military technology such as the development of
deadly poisons overwhelmed the inherited rules of engagement, the
European Powers agreed to re-affirm the principle that chemical and
bacteriological weapons should be excluded from all future conflicts.
Moreover, war was still considered a matter between men in uniforms.
As late as 1938, Chamberlain insisted that civilians were not
legitimate targets of war.
Yet the new standards that Europeans wished to apply to war were not
extended to military action against their colonial enemies. Britain
launched mustard-gas artillery shells against Afghans in 1919,
shortly after signing the Treaty of Versailles prohibiting their use,
and then in 1920-21 against Iraqis resisting British invasion of
their lands. War Office documents on the build-up of these chemical
warheads are available for consultation but none have yet been
released about the chemical war itself, even 83 years later, and
there is no guarantee that they ever will be made available.
Why this continued secrecy when the values that drove these chemical
wars have been overturned? At the time non-whites in the Third World
were regarded with paternalist racism. European expansion was
justified on the grounds of civilisation. Natives were being brought
the advantages of a superior society. Those who failed to embrace the
benefits of Western values needed to be taught a harsh lesson, for
their own good. As Colonial Secretary in 1919, Winston Churchill
expressed impatience with the RAF's reluctance to drop mustard-gas
bombs. `I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas',
he wrote. `I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against
uncivilised tribes'.
The deployment of chemicals was also justified because the `natives'
did not behave with appropriate decorum on the battlefield. Yet among
many military spokesmen, there was a wilful self-deceit about the
effects of these chemicals. `If it is fair for an Afghan to shoot
down a British soldier and cut him to pieces as he lies wounded on
the ground', wrote one such officer, `why is it not fair for a
British Artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native
sneeze? It is really too silly'.
Of all these chemical wars, only the Italian use of mustard gas
against Ethiopians in 1936 has been well documented (although the
Italian historian who published the evidence has been hounded by the
Right). Italy's toxic gas offensives in Libya in 1923-24 and 1927-28
are less well known. But probably the least known and possibly the
most extensive of chemical wars in this period was that waged by
Spain against Moroccans between 1921 and 1927. The matter has been
hushed up ever since and the vast majority of Spaniards know nothing
about it.
Spain was in northern Morocco as part of the deal between the Great
Powers in the first decade of the twentieth century to share out
Africa. Britain insisted that Spain should be awarded a sphere of
influence (later a protectorate) in northern Morocco in order to
prevent the French expanding to the coast opposite Gibraltar. With
the acquiescence of the Sultanate, Spain moved out of its old coastal
enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in 1908 and continued to expand into
the craggy terrain of the Rif Mountains, encountering sporadic and
violent resistance from its inhabitants.
A bloody disaster in July 1921, in which over 8,000 Spanish troops
were massacred in the space of one week, led to a new jihad under the
leadership of Abdel Krim, a progressive Moroccan who had collaborated
for many years with the Spanish. Spain was driven out of most of the
land it had occupied. In response, the Spanish army began to fire
chemical shells at their enemy bought from the French. The Spanish
government and the military also secretly approached the German High
Command and the ex-Director of the German chemical war service.
Evading the slow-moving post-war controls of the Allies, the Germans
supplied Spain with the materiel and technicians that allowed t

Re: How to Defeat the US Military with your Underpants

[Louis Proyect]

A fascinating website. It is filled with antiwar material, although Lew
Rockwell describes himself as "founder and president of the Mises
Institute in Auburn, Ala., and vice president of the Center for
Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, Cal., is an opponent of the central
state, its wars and its socialism."
Brian McKenna wrote:
PEN-L folks,

You must read this story, posted on the web a few days ago.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wiggins/wiggins8.html

It's about David Wiggins, a West Point (United States Military Academy)
distinguished graduate and an honors graduate of New York Medical
College. He left the  Army as a Conscientious Objector, resigning his
commission as an Army Captain on the Iraqi front lines during Operation
Desert Storm. He is currently an Emergency Physician.
Brian McKenna


--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: my new book

[Devine, James]

what's the 
book about, exactly? macro? micro? what is one of its major theses? 

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

  -Original Message-From: Robert Scott Gassler 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 8:30 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L] my new 
  book
  Dear PEN-L: You 
  might be interested in my new book from Elgar: Robert Scott Gassler. 
  Beyond Profit and Self-Interest: Economics with a Broader Scope. 
  It is out in Europe and will be out in the US in February (I guess 
  that's next week). Without a trace of modesty I'll reproduce the publisher's 
  blurb "Here is 
  the book Leon Walras should have written, or would have written if he had also 
  been Kenneth Boulding's student. It is ingenious in content and wholesome in 
  attitude. It combines neoclassical economics, departures arguably within 
  neoclassicism, and varieties of heterodox economics, within the ambit of 
  systems theory. It is only one of many possible combinations but it is rich 
  and open-ended. Its attitude is especially striking. Gassler departs from the 
  trap of unbending defense of the neoclassical hard core versus its equally 
  unbending critique.He departs, too, from seeing othodoxy and heterodoxy as 
  either alternatives or supplements; he constructs a model that permits all to 
  survive as tools in the art of economics. It enables economists to escape from 
  many of their current impasses. The book needs to be widely read." -- Warren 
  J. Samuels Thanks. Scott
  Robert Scott GasslerProfessor of EconomicsVesalius 
  College of the Vrije Universiteit BrusselPleinlaan 2B-1050 
  BrusselsBelgium32.2.629.27.15 

How to Defeat the US Military with your Underpants

[Brian McKenna]

PEN-L folks,

You must read this story, posted on the web a few days ago.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wiggins/wiggins8.html

It's about David Wiggins, a West Point (United States Military Academy)
distinguished graduate and an honors graduate of New York Medical
College. He left the  Army as a Conscientious Objector, resigning his
commission as an Army Captain on the Iraqi front lines during Operation
Desert Storm. He is currently an Emergency Physician.

Brian McKenna

Eco-imperialism?

[Louis Proyect]

(From ultrarightist David Horowitz's website. The Center for the Defense 
of Free Enterprise was founded by "wise use" spokesman Ron Arnold, who 
was cited heavily on the infamous British TV channel 4 documentary on 
the Greens produced by Frank Furedi's crew. The notion of 
"Eco-Imperialism" is interesting. These pro-capitalist swine are 
appropriating the language of the left to mount a demagogic attack on 
environmentalist organizations, who--whatever their faults--are viewed 
as an obstacle to turning rainforests into commodities for sale at the 
Home Depot. This was Living Marxism's stock-in-trade for the longest 
time and continues unabated in libertarian garb at Spiked-online.)

Green Power, Black Death
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 30, 2004
Frontpage Interview has the pleasure to have Paul Driessen as its guest 
today. Mr. Driessen is a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research 
Foundation, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and Committee 
For A Constructive Tomorrow -- and the director of the new Economic 
Human Rights Project, a joint initiative of the CDFE and CORE. He is 
also the author of the new book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black 
Death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com), which addresses the hidden agendas and 
fatal repercussions of the radical environmental movement.

*

Frontpage Interview: Mr. Driessen, welcome to Frontpage Interview. In 
your book, you show that the green agenda actually fuels the 
impoverishment of many poor people in developing nations. Could you tell 
our readers briefly how the environmentalists do this in the name of 
“corporate social responsibility” and “saving the planet”?

Driessen: Radical greens are masters at devising exaggerated, imaginary 
and bogus eco-catastrophes – then imposing policies that give them 
unprecedented power, deprive other people of their freedoms and 
opportunities, impoverish entire nations, and cause not just 
impoverishment, but incalculable misery, disease and death. Of course, 
they claim their actions are motivated by concern for people, animals 
and the planet. However, the ecological benefits are often minimal to 
existent, the human toll is profound, and the absence of real 
compassion, ethics or social responsibility is glaring.

Two billion people still don’t have electricity. In Uganda and many 
other countries, less than 3 percent of the population has regular 
access to electricity. Abundant, reliable, affordable electricity is a 
precondition for health, economic and environmental progress. Without 
it, people cannot have light and refrigeration in their homes; modern 
hospitals, schools, factories or water purification plants for their 
communities; economic opportunity or hope for the future.

And yet, radical environmentalists adamantly oppose fossil fuel, nuclear 
and hydroelectric power projects – and insist on inadequate wind 
turbines, or little solar panels on huts, instead. This means millions 
of mothers and girls must continue spending hours each day cutting down 
forests for firewood, or gathering, drying and storing cow dung to burn. 
Then they are forced to spend more hours carrying water from lakes and 
rivers that are often tainted with bacteria – and still more hours 
breathing acrid, polluted smoke from their cooking and heating fires. 
The results are easily foreseeable.

Wildlife habitats are destroyed. Vast areas are blanketed with dense air 
pollution. And over 4 million infants, children and mothers die every 
year from lung infections we never even hear about anymore in the USA – 
millions more from dysentery and other diseases caused by unsafe water 
and spoiled food.

Malaria is another scourge made infinitely worse by green extremists. We 
used DDT to eliminate this mosquito-borne disease in the United States 
and Europe. Now well-off environmental activists can afford to rail 
against pesticide use in Africa, while they enjoy all the comforts that 
our high-tech, malaria-free society bestows upon them.

Meanwhile, 2 million Africans die every year from this dreaded disease. 
Hundreds of millions get so sick each year they can’t work, attend 
school, care for their families or tend their fields for weeks or months 
on end. Millions are so weakened from malaria that they succumb to AIDS, 
dysentery, tuberculosis and other serial killers that stalk these 
impoverished lands – diseases that many of them would survive if they 
weren’t so weakened by malaria and malnutrition. It’s no wonder 
sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most destitute regions on Earth.

full: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11989

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

my new book

[Robert Scott Gassler]

Dear PEN-L: 
You might be interested in my new book from Elgar: 
Robert Scott Gassler. Beyond Profit and Self-Interest: Economics with
a Broader Scope. 
It is out in Europe and will be out in the US in February (I guess that's
next week). Without a trace of modesty I'll reproduce the publisher's
blurb 

"Here is the book Leon Walras should have written, or would have
written if he had also been Kenneth Boulding's student. It is ingenious
in content and wholesome in attitude. It combines neoclassical economics,
departures arguably within neoclassicism, and varieties of heterodox
economics, within the ambit of systems theory. It is only one of many
possible combinations but it is rich and open-ended. Its attitude is
especially striking. Gassler departs from the trap of unbending defense
of the neoclassical hard core versus its equally unbending critique.He
departs, too, from seeing othodoxy and heterodoxy as either alternatives
or supplements; he constructs a model that permits all to survive as
tools in the art of economics. It enables economists to escape from many
of their current impasses. The book needs to be widely read." --
Warren J. Samuels 
Thanks. 
Scott

Robert Scott Gassler
Professor of Economics
Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2
B-1050 Brussels
Belgium
32.2.629.27.15

Re: China's new Marxist left - a Dutch socialist reply concerning "managerial socialism" ideology

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> "The capitalist, as representative of capital engaged in its valorisation
process - productive capital - performs a productive function, which
consists precisely in directing and exploiting productive labour.

Marx distinguishes in the manuscripts of Das Kapital between what he calls
the "functioning capitalist" or entrepreneur and coupon clippers, and he
regards the technical organisation and coordination of production as a
productive force.

Thus, for Marx, the management function was always a two-edged issue; a
technical division of work between "thinkers" and "doers" or between
"co-ordinating" and "executive" functions was often technically necessary
for productive efficiency (we cannot all do everything, and must co-operate
to maximise results), but this technical division of work (specialisation)
was interlaced with a social division of work, which had nothing to do with
any technical requirements, but rather with power-relations and the private
appropriation of net profits.

In the personality structure of the individual, these two sides are combined
in the concept of "responsibility", which denotes both technical skill and a
personal moral development enabling leadership in organising people to do
things, i.e. a degree of self-management or self-determination, which
enables the management of others. However, the concept of responsibility in
civil society is not "neutral", but has an inevitable moral-political
dimension, because of structural class conflict and competition in
capitalist society among employers, between employers and employees, and
between employees.

Since, however, under capitalism the economising of work is subordinated to
the imperative of realising and privately appropriating the maximum possible
surplus-values through market sales, as net income, it frequently becomes
difficult to distinguish clearly between "technically indispensable"
specialisations, and modes of organising production which owe their
characteristics mainly to the imperative of the private appropriation of
wealth, or to power relations deriving from the ownership and control of
private or publicly owned assets.

That is to say, "market competition" can be as much a constraint on the
development of the productive powers of creative human work as an incentive
or stimulus to develop them further, and this creates new categories in the
division of work, exclusively concerned with the defence and realisation of
surplus-values, as net income entitlements. I am using the term "creative
human work" in the broad cultural sense - i.e. human culture includes
everything humans have made, in contrast to that provided by nature. A
bricklayer "creates" just as much as an artist does, he creates pavements
instead of sculptures maybe, but it is creative work anyhow.

I also use the expression "private appropriation of net profits"
deliberately, since this appropriation is as much a question of relations of
production (ownership entitlements) as of relations of distribution (access
entitlements to functions and occupations which permit this appropriation,
and functions concerned with the realisation of surplus-values in trading).
"Professionalisation" processes in capitalist society can show similarities
to the medieval guild system, i.e. rules of inclusion and exclusion are
enforced which (1) protect incomes, (2) prevent certain social classes from
entry into occupations, and thus from certain types of income entitlements.
"Free markets" such as envisaged in Marx's model of a purified capitalism
are hypothetical, basically a bourgeois myth, the question is really more
how exactly markets are regulated (i.e. what legal and enforcement rules
apply).

Simply put, the thought of Aristotle and Plato was based on slave-labour,
without which they would not have had the time to philosophise.
Nevertheless, part of the thought of Aristotle and Plato proved of enduring
value, so much so, that we still refer to their ideas today. The fact that
we do so, does not constitute a justification of slave labour. But it does
affirm that such a mental-manual division of labour could produce
constructive results, whatever the oppression, which could not be have been
achieved if everybody had to do everything it takes to survive for himself.
Naturally, the rich and the tyrants will always argue slaves are necessary,
and they will justify that e.g. by saying that some people are just stupid
or defective, they haven't got what it takes, or they just want to be
slaves. But socialists think that stupidity or intelligence is something
that humans produce or reduce, rather than something which is just natural.
It's a result of civilisation and emancipation processes.

The more pertinent conclusion to draw, is that the achievement of human
progress depends crucially on teamwork, on cooperation. When bourgeois
ideologues extol the virtues of competition, they don't know what they are
talking about. Because to engage in private competition at all, already

Separated at birth

[Louis Proyect]

http://www.marxmail.org/separated_at_birth.htm

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org