Re: Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[Jurriaan Bendien]

I think the problem with Nader's stance is that he's "against the
corporations" but that conceptualisation or theme is unlikely to be
successful, it's essentially no different than being "against the public
service".

J.

Fwd: Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

[andie nachgeborenen]

Note: forwarded message attached.


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools--- Begin Message ---
Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:50:01 -0500
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.30 20040103
X-OriginatingIP: 66.65.35.252 (modps)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1

New Strategies

Why U.S. Labor Law Has Become a Paper Tiger

By David Brody
New Labor Forum - Spring 2004
http://forbin.qc.edu/newlaborforum/

The National Labor Relations Act, whose stated purpose
and original effect was to encourage collective
bargaining, has been hijacked by its natural enemies.
The law serves today as a bulwark of the "union-free
environment" that describes nine- tenths of our private
sector economy. My aim is to identify the central
process at work in this amazing outcome and, on that
basis, suggest a course of action.

The core of the law, as true today as on the day
Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it in 1935, are three
interlocking sections. Section 7 declares the rights of
workers. These were not new in 1935. They had already
appeared in the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act of
1932, and had been a long time evolving. In 1935 they
were uncontroversial. Section 8 listed a set of unfair
labor practices, acts that violate the Section 7
rights, which, under Section 10, the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) was empowered to prevent. This
was new, but not surprising. The rights enunciated as
public policy in Norris-LaGuardia  were merely
expressions of principle until the labor law made them
enforceable. Sections 7 and 8 were reported out of
Senator Wagner�s committee as a package. Finally,
Section 9 dealt with the issue of union recognition,
setting forth the criteria that justified, in effect, a
constraint on the employer�s liberty of contract. It
became an unfair labor practice to refuse to bargain,
and bargain exclusively, with a labor organization
chosen by a majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit. Section 9 further provided that, if the
demonstration of majority support was supervised by the
NLRB, the labor organization so chosen would be
certified and be officially designed as bargaining
agent. For that purpose, the NLRB could hold a secret
ballot. It is this final wrinkle, the representation
election,  that is the focal point of my discussion. I
want to defer any consideration of the defects that
make unions increasingly hostile to the representation
election and cut at once to what, viewed historically,
is the crux of the problem: namely, that the
representation election is the instrument by which
labor�s enemies have hijacked the law.

Historically, it was self-organization-workers freely
associating to advance their common interests-that
produced the labor movement and gave it legitimacy.
Indeed, the definitive case establishing the legality
of unions, Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842), grounded that
finding on the view that trade unions were voluntary
associations, and were presumed, in an enterprising
society whose hallmark was voluntary association, to be
in the public interest until, by the standards that
applied to all combinations, they acted unlawfully. The
trade unions embraced self-organization (and in
Gompers� time elevated it, under the rubric of
voluntarism, into the defining principle of the AFL).
And so did the Wagner Act, whose enumeration of the
rights of workers in Section 7 begins with self-
organization. The succeeding rights-to assist, form, or
join labor organizations, to bargain collectively, to
engage in concerted activity-all march in concert with
self-organization, except in one respect. The right to
bargain collectively is qualified by the words,
"through representatives of their own choosing."

This familiar phrase might seem unproblematic, inherent
in any statement of worker rights, but in fact
"representatives of their own choosing" has its own
particular history.[1] It first appeared, as best I can
determine, during the labor crisis after World War I
and was fashioned against a specific challenge: company
unions-employee representation plans, so called-that
gave employers the excuse that they need not deal with
outside unions because their employees already were
exercising their right to organize and bargain
collectively. The issue crystallized during the Steel
Strike of 1919, the greatest recognition strike in
American history. The union response was: ok, let the
employees choose-and that�s the origin of
"representatives of their own choosing." Nothing came
of this effort; the steel strike, in a long train of
failed recognition strikes, failed. But the issue had
been injected into a grand conclave on a postwar labor
policy for the nation, and given a standing it might
otherwise not have had. Once enunciated, employee
choice stuck, finding its way into every subsequent
federal law involving lab

Grocery strikers event

[Louis Proyect]

from Left Hook discussion list:

Last night I helped and took part in an event that was one of the most
remarkable events I have ever expierenced. I started out with simple idea
to organize a benefit and show a video on the UFCW strike and simply pass
the hat. Well I started working with two other people and for the last two
weeks we have been building this event to get Bay Area Safeway workers
involved and the rest of the general Bay Area population.
I was very nervous right before it started having a fear that it would
flop. When we started at 7:30 there were about 45 people or so but the
number kept growing. By the time we showed the video and some of the
rank-file workers spoke, one Guy named Gary spoke about his son who thinks
he has to drop out of college becuase of the economic hardship. He started
crying and the audience gave him a very supportive applause. The next
rank-file'r speaker spoke about her friend dying on the line from nmonia
and how she was one of the most militant picketers at her store. By the
time we had a our last speaker the hall was packed and loud applauses would
take place with idea of an injury to one is an injury to all. When the
discussion came about, an old man who was 80 came up and started crying
becuase he saw the strikers as his sons and duaghters and anounced that he
was donating 700 dollors, one penny for each worker on strike. At that
point many audience members started crying a nd a few striking workers from
the audience walked up in tears and gave him a hug before he could finish
talking.
The rest of the night there were series of militant declerations from
people in how we should fight like never before becuase our future was on
the line. At the event a feeling of  deep passionate conviction towards the
workers movement, penetarted the room that no one was imune to. At the end
of the night, I anounced that we made 2,183 dollars for the strike. We
finished with a roaring applause and a spontanteous outburst of singing
solidarity for ever where everyone grabed each others hands and held them
high in the sky.
Ill write a piece on it for Left Hook
It was the best event I have ever organized,
I will remember it forerver.
javier

www.lefthook.org



Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

[Fwd: Unionbuster Safeway's Burd Serves As Advisor To Ridge]

[Eugene Coyle]

 Original Message 

  

  Subject: 
  Unionbuster Safeway's Burd Serves As Advisor To Ridge


  Date: 
  Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:53:12 -0800


  From: 
  steve zeltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


  To: 
  Campaign Against T-H8-conf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  



Unionbuster Safeway's Burd Serves As Advisor To Ridge
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/22/BUGJ3559S51.DTL
2/22/2004
Letter To The Editor

Safeway's Burd serves as adviser to Ridge 

Editor  --  As I read your twin stories on Steve Burd ("Safeway CEO
finds  himself at the center of labor dispute" and "Grocery union
alleges  intimidation," Jan. 28) and the grocery workers strike and the
intervention of  (Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department) homeland
security officers, I  scanned the articles over and over for what I
understood as the obvious  missing link.  

It is no accident the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to
 intervene and intimidate the workers. 

A simple Google search of "Homeland Security and Steve Burd" clarifies
 that the Safeway CEO was recently appointed by Homeland Security
Secretary Tom  Ridge to the Homeland Security Private Sector Senior
Advisory Committee.  

Perhaps this link was known to your editors and ignored for fear that
 your readers would more readily connect the war on terrorism and
corporate  America's war on wages and living standards. 
ROB ROOKE
Delegate, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, 

Local 713 Oakland 

Re: more rightwing bands

[dsquared]

I don't think the Exploited belong on that list ...

dd


On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:14:47 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:

>
> My friend Joel Schalit (interviewed on the topic of
> anti-Semitism,
> and the Counterpunch book on the topic in particular,
at
> )
> listed some
> right-wing rock bands (some dupes from my list):
>
> >-Skrewdriver (OG British racist band,70s-80s)
> >-Centurion (late 90s american nazi band)
> >-Vegan Reich (wierdo right wing john zerzan types)
> >-Rahowa (OG American racist band, 90s)
> >-The Exploited (long running British hardcore band)
> >-Aggravated Assaulted (generic skinhead racists)
> >-American Standard (ibid)
> >-Deaths Head (ibid)
> >-White Wash (ibid)
> >-Earth Crisis (eco-antiabortion straightedge
metalcore
> band)
>
> I've actually got some Skrewdriver, Rohowa, and
> Exploited in my
> iTunes library. Not too bad, if you overlook the
lyrics.
>
> Doug

the political ecology of tourism

[Eubulides]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4386,236479,00.html?
The Great Barrier grief
It will be dead in 50 years, due to global warming

SYDNEY

AUSTRALIA'S Great Barrier Reef is just 50 years from death.

A new report said that the reef will be largely dead by 2050 when instead
of the brightly coloured corals depicted in Finding Nemo, the world's
largest living organism will be bleached out and replaced by ordinary
seaweed because of global warming.

The damage to the rich environment that makes the reef one of the world's
natural wonders would cost the tourism industry billion of dollars, said
the report on the impact of global warming released yesterday.

Authors Hans and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg - the head of Queensland University's
marine studies centre and his economist father - said the destruction of
coral on the reef was inevitable, owing to global warming, regardless of
what actions are taken now.

'Coral cover will decrease to less than 5 per cent on most reefs by the
middle of the century under even the most favourable assumptions,' said
their 350-page report.

'Under the worst-case scenario, coral populations will collapse by 2100
and the re-establishment of coral reefs will be highly unlikely over the
following 200 to 500 years.'

The authors spent two years examining the effects of rising sea
temperatures on the reef for the Queensland tourism authorities and the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Their report found no prospect of avoiding the 'chilling long-term
eventualities' of coral bleaching because greenhouse gases were already
warming the seas as part of a process it said would take decades to stop.

Warmer sea waters put corals under thermal stress, eventually causing them
to bleach and die. The report said this could occur if temperatures rose
by as little as 1 deg C, well below the two to six degrees that water
temperatures around the reef are expected to rise by over the next
century.

'There is no evidence that corals can adapt fast enough to match even the
lower projected temperature rise,' it found.

Organisms reliant on coral would become rare or even face extinction, the
report said.

It said the bleaching would cost the economy up to A$8 billion (S$10.7
billion) and 12,000 jobs by 2020 under the worst-case scenario.

Even under the best-case scenario, about 6,000 jobs would be lost and
tourists would be forced to visit 'Great Barrier Reef theme parks'
offshore to view the remaining coral.

The reef covers more than 345,000 sq km off Australia's north-east coast.
Consisting of 2,900 interlinked reefs, 900 islands and 1,500 fish species,
scientists consider it the world's largest living organism.

Yet the delicate habitat faces numerous environmental threats, including
chemical run-off from farms, over-fishing, bleaching and the parasitic
Crown-of-Thorns starfish which attacks coral.

The government announced plans in December to reduce farm run-off and ban
fishing in about a third of the reef in a bid to protect Australia's No.1
tourist drawcard.

But the report's authors said the government needed to do more. They
recommend that it ratifies the Kyoto protocol on reducing greenhouse gases
and takes the lead in emission reduction.

The WWF also said urgent measures must be put in place to minimise reef
damage and reduce greenhouse gases. -- AFP, Reuters

Re: Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[jlwae3]

Fyi-  Why Ralph is running  
 Statement will be released at 10:00 a.m. EST on February 23, 2004
Live at Press Conference; Watch CSPAN-2  .
Check back here at that time for copy of the text.

http://www.votenader.org/
 
-jon



From: PEN-L list on behalf of Yoshie Furuhashi
Sent: Sun 2/22/2004 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")



>Michael Hoover wrote:
>
>>'best' reason why nader shouldn't run is that he is stone cold bore...
>
>But at least he has the nerve to stand up to Communist Chinese
>tyranny and those corporate purveyors of porn to children!
>
>>perhaps he should go back to doing what he does best, what
>>mainstream (specifically, 'rational choice') poli sci people call
>>'political entrepreneur', takes lead in setting up and operating
>>groups, lets others 'free ride' to give appearance of broad-based
>>support, political activity akin to 'business decision', nader as
>>'founder' of interest group lobbies/'astroturf' political orgs is
>>'good investment', nader as candidate is 'bad investment'...
>
>He lost a lot of trial lawyer funding, according to Thomas Burke
>(check out my interview with him at
>; scroll down to the
>Dec 19 2002 show). They're steamed that he cost Gore the election
>(their perception, not mine).
>
>Doug

The 2000 Nader/Green Party presidential campaign was, financially, a
minus for Ralph Nader as an individual political entrepreneur but, in
terms of gains in votes, offices, etc., a plus for the Green Party as
a mass political party in the making.

The impact of the 2000 presidential campaign on Nader: "Public
Citizen, the biggest group Nader founded, lost 20 percent of its
membership and $1 million in donations after 2000" (Dick Meyer, "Run,
Ralph, Run,"
.

The impact of the 2000 presidential campaign on the Green Party:

The Green Party in 2000 didn't do as well as many Green voters hoped,
but it did receive nearly 3 million votes for its presidential ticket
-- quadrupling the Green votes between 1996 and 2000:

*   Green Party
Year  Pres. Candidate  VP CandidateTotal Votes
1996   Ralph Nader  Winona LaDuke 684,872
2000   Ralph Nader  Winona LaDuke   2,882,955


*

According to former New Haven Green Alderman John Halle, "The 2000
Nader presidential run significantly enhanced the profile of the
Green Party.  The number of registered Greens since then has gone up
by a factor of four, I  believe, if not more.  There are also now
over 200 local officeholders, one of whom, the second highest elected
official in San Francisco nearly became mayor" (at
).

If the Howie Hawkins wing of the Green Party get their way, the Green
Party will nominate Nader as its presidential candidate again in
2004.  According to Hawkins, "Ralph would like the Green Party
nomination, but is running independent as 'insurance' because the
Greens aren't clear if and how they want to run a presidential
campaign and won't be until their June convention, too late for
ballot access reasons in many states" ("Nader Wants Green
Nomination," Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:51:41 -0500).  I recommend to John
Halle (to whom I am cc'ing this message) that the Green Party should
nominate Nader, unless Peter Camejo wants to run himself, which he
doesn't (and I have it on good authority that he doesn't).
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: Racism and Presidential Elections Since 1964: A Short History

[Dan Scanlan]

Racism and Presidential Elections Since 1964: A Short History

By Ted Glick
Thanks for posting this Michael Hoover. Very useful.

Dan Scanlan

Re: Parties & Entrepreneurs (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/22/04 01:07PM >>>
It's a vicious circle: leftists who could have become charismatic
party intellectuals and organizers become political entrepreneurs
instead because there is no mass political party on the left, and it is
extremely difficult to create any mass political party on the left
because smart leftists become political entrepreneurs rather than help
organize such a party.
Yoshie
<>

social class position/orientation of such folks a factor...

while there have, no doubt, been 'political entrepreneurs' in past
(from left, center, and right), contemporary usage often traced to
so-called 'new politics movement' of 60s and 70s, upper-middle class
professionals and intellectuals who started/strengthened 'public
interest' groups such as common cause, sierra club, environmental
defense fund, physicians for social responsibilty, public citizen,
national organization for women, etc., etc...

early on in their 'careers', new politics people played important role
in environmental, consumer, occupational health/safety policies,
influencing media, congress, and judiciary, latter signigicant in that
new politics forces often took litigation route, using lawsuits to try
to get gov't agencies to act more vigorously...

approach eschews political organization in favor of  'grassroots
mobilization' which means lobby group calls on dues-paying members
throughout country to write their elected reps in support of group's
position...   michael hoover

Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Michael Hoover wrote:

'best' reason why nader shouldn't run is that he is stone cold bore...
But at least he has the nerve to stand up to Communist Chinese
tyranny and those corporate purveyors of porn to children!
perhaps he should go back to doing what he does best, what
mainstream (specifically, 'rational choice') poli sci people call
'political entrepreneur', takes lead in setting up and operating
groups, lets others 'free ride' to give appearance of broad-based
support, political activity akin to 'business decision', nader as
'founder' of interest group lobbies/'astroturf' political orgs is
'good investment', nader as candidate is 'bad investment'...
He lost a lot of trial lawyer funding, according to Thomas Burke
(check out my interview with him at
; scroll down to the
Dec 19 2002 show). They're steamed that he cost Gore the election
(their perception, not mine).
Doug
The 2000 Nader/Green Party presidential campaign was, financially, a
minus for Ralph Nader as an individual political entrepreneur but, in
terms of gains in votes, offices, etc., a plus for the Green Party as
a mass political party in the making.
The impact of the 2000 presidential campaign on Nader: "Public
Citizen, the biggest group Nader founded, lost 20 percent of its
membership and $1 million in donations after 2000" (Dick Meyer, "Run,
Ralph, Run,"
.
The impact of the 2000 presidential campaign on the Green Party:

The Green Party in 2000 didn't do as well as many Green voters hoped,
but it did receive nearly 3 million votes for its presidential ticket
-- quadrupling the Green votes between 1996 and 2000:
*   Green Party
Year  Pres. Candidate  VP CandidateTotal Votes
1996   Ralph Nader  Winona LaDuke 684,872
2000   Ralph Nader  Winona LaDuke   2,882,955

*
According to former New Haven Green Alderman John Halle, "The 2000
Nader presidential run significantly enhanced the profile of the
Green Party.  The number of registered Greens since then has gone up
by a factor of four, I  believe, if not more.  There are also now
over 200 local officeholders, one of whom, the second highest elected
official in San Francisco nearly became mayor" (at
).
If the Howie Hawkins wing of the Green Party get their way, the Green
Party will nominate Nader as its presidential candidate again in
2004.  According to Hawkins, "Ralph would like the Green Party
nomination, but is running independent as 'insurance' because the
Greens aren't clear if and how they want to run a presidential
campaign and won't be until their June convention, too late for
ballot access reasons in many states" ("Nader Wants Green
Nomination," Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:51:41 -0500).  I recommend to John
Halle (to whom I am cc'ing this message) that the Green Party should
nominate Nader, unless Peter Camejo wants to run himself, which he
doesn't (and I have it on good authority that he doesn't).
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "Marvin Gandall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Details of this report first appeared in Fortune magazine last month.
Today's Observer article is a more sensational recycling of the already
sensational story which Fortune reporter David Stipp broke last month.
And the Observer account misses the main point of the exercise.

As reported by Fortune, the Pentagon study assumed a "midrange case" of
abrupt global warning, characterized by plunging temperatures in the
Northern hemisphere, droughts, storms, flooding, desperate illegal
migration from poorer regions, border raids, and the possibility of
full-scale warfare between alliances of nuclear-armed states over scarce
food, water and energy supplies.

Note, in particular, the reference to illegal migration. The study's
concern is less scientific than military, less the causes than the
effects of an environmental catastrophe. Stipp is, in fact, quite
explicitly says climate change should  be treated as a "national
security" issue to protect America's borders and resources.
Significantly - and presuming the reporter is reflecting the views of
his editors who reflect the views of the Fortune 500 - there is little
emphasis, despite the frightening apocalyptic scenario, on any urgent
preventative environmental measures, beyond tightening fuel emission
standards for new passenger vehicles.

It would appear the Pentagon planners invited Stipp in for a chat and
leaked the Marshall study to him in a bid for further resources. Must be
getting close to budget submission time in Washington.


==

UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY:
A STRATEGIC MILITARY PERSPECTIVE
Colonel W. Chris King
November 2000
AEPI-IFP-1100A
Army Environmental Policy Institute
http://www.aepi.army.mil/Publications/king.A.pdf

Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[Marvin Gandall]

Details of this report first appeared in Fortune magazine last month.
Today's Observer article is a more sensational recycling of the already
sensational story which Fortune reporter David Stipp broke last month.
And the Observer account misses the main point of the exercise.

As reported by Fortune, the Pentagon study assumed a "midrange case" of
abrupt global warning, characterized by plunging temperatures in the
Northern hemisphere, droughts, storms, flooding, desperate illegal
migration from poorer regions, border raids, and the possibility of
full-scale warfare between alliances of nuclear-armed states over scarce
food, water and energy supplies.

Note, in particular, the reference to illegal migration. The study's
concern is less scientific than military, less the causes than the
effects of an environmental catastrophe. Stipp is, in fact, quite
explicitly says climate change should  be treated as a "national
security" issue to protect America's borders and resources.
Significantly - and presuming the reporter is reflecting the views of
his editors who reflect the views of the Fortune 500 - there is little
emphasis, despite the frightening apocalyptic scenario, on any urgent
preventative environmental measures, beyond tightening fuel emission
standards for new passenger vehicles.

It would appear the Pentagon planners invited Stipp in for a chat and
leaked the Marshall study to him in a bid for further resources. Must be
getting close to budget submission time in Washington.


- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:28 AM
Subject: [PEN-L] Secret Pentagon report on global warming


Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global
catastrophe
costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising
seas
as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear
conflict,
mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the
world.

(snip)

Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[dmschanoes]

And of some importance... just what are we supposed to conclude from this
Pentagon speculation?  That the bourgeoisie are now trying to curb their
less enlightened members who want to pillage and loot in order to give the
more enlightened  more time to set the stage for pillaging and looting?

And that the same war-game entrepreneurs that back SDI,  shock and awe, and
the "new army" (meet the new army, same as the old army except better press
coverage), now predict Apocalypse Pretty Soon?

Headline reads:  Doomsday Salesmen Predict Doomsday Near.

That's news?  Give me Janet's wardrobe malfunction anytime.

This article is the complementary opposite of the "science" that has been
used to justify rejection of the Kyoto measures.

Bunch of crap not worthy of serious consideration.

dms

a unique leverage issue

[Craven, Jim]

Title: Message



Where a "wedge 
issue" is typically one that divides and causes people to become entrenched in 
their respective positions, a leverage issue can be one that causes people to 
examine other issues and perhaps even change from previous positions. I just had 
an example of this the other day which might offer a lesson for 
organizing.
 
Leonardo 
de Vinci once wrote: "For once you have tasted flight you will walk 
the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you have been, and there you 
long to return." Indeed all the real pilots I know: a) do turn 
their eyes skyward when a plane passes over (astro-projecting themselves into 
the cockpit of the plane passing over to visualize what the instruments are 
likely reading, what procedures the pilot is following and the view from 
above); b) live in dread of their next flight physical the older they get; 
my father and some of his oldtimer friends used to find a friendly flight 
surgeon who would, shall we say, look more "holistically" and sympathetically 
when doing his physicals. I 
have been on the ground for over two years due to medical issues and miss being 
in the air every day.
 
Well a 
colleague of mine, a hard-core Bush supporter, a Vietnam-era veteran and 
fellow pilot and I were out talking and watching planes flying the pattern 
at nearby Pearson Air Park. He told me that his "Type II diabetes" was kicking 
his ass and was worried about busting a medical. He asked how long I had been 
grounded and I told him a bit more than two years and that for now, my simulator 
has to do to try and keep up my skills. 
 
I asked him: 
"What kind of a real pilot would, after getting the advantage of over $1 million 
being spent on him to teach him to fly, and having access to F-102s to 
fly,
and claiming to be 
pro-military while there was a nationwide pilot shortage, claim that his 
personal physician (not a flight surgeon) was not available and then refuse to 
take a flight physical (he would have no trouble passing if drug testing were 
not part of it) effectively grounding himself with at least two years of flight 
status and duty ahead of him? My colleague said: "As usual you mean Bush". 
I said "Yes, and his buddy James R. Bath, who also refused to take the required 
flight physical at the same time." My colleague asked: "Who was or is James R. 
Bath?" I answered: "Instead of taking my word for it, as rabidly anti-Bush as I 
am, why not do a google search on Mr. Bath and see what you find; I'll give you 
a hint: James Bath, at the time, in addition to being a "Guard buddy" of 
L'il George, was a principal representative of the bin Laden family in 
Huston."  I noted to my colleague that "every time I see Bush wearing a 
military uniform, particularly with air force wings on it, my blood boils as 
L'il George wouldn't make a wart on a real pilot's or real soldier's ass." 
He asked if Bush's "honorable discharge" was not sufficient evidence that Bush 
had done his Guard duty and I noted that the same family wealth, name and 
connections that got him into the Guard, 12 days before his deferment was up, 
ahead of over 100,000 on a national waiting list and ahead of over 500 on a 
Texas Air Guard waiting list and with a 25 percentile score on the airman's 
aptitude exam, could easily be employed to get him an "honorable discharge" he 
didn't deserve. Further, even if the charge was not AWOL (Absent Without Leave), 
certainly a charge of AWPL (Absent With Privileged Leave) was appropriate. I 
also noted for him to check out when random drug testing was initiated in the 
Texas Air Guard (April 1972, the very month Bush made his last flight in a 
F-102).
 
Well this colleague 
has now come back, after doing a google-search on James R. Bath, finding out 
about the CIA connections, the leading role in the BCCI scandals, his 
role in arming Saddam and the Taliband on behalf of the Saudi Royal family, etc 
and now he says "it looks like [I] simply cannot vote for Bush and wants 
some more information. I lent him Hatfield's "Fortunate Son" plus some more 
information on the origins of the wealth and connections of the Bush empire 
(financing Hitler from 1924 onward, trading with the enemy during war time by 
selling nazi bonds after Pearl Habor, $1.5 million in "equity" from a 
synfuel plant at Auschwitz in partnership with Fritz Thyssen, etc) . I told 
him to please spread the information around to all his Bush-supporter 
buddies.
 
Some of the smallest 
and apparently least significant issues can indeed be used as leverage to much 
bigger and more significant issues depending upon how they are approached and 
handled. I plan to write pilot associations and magazines to put that one simple 
question: "What kind of real pilot would refuse to take a flight 
physical
and ground 
himself/herself (aftr declaring in his Guard application that he wanted to make 
a lifetime career of flying) and should such an individual wear the wings of a 
pilot?"
 
Jim 

Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[Devine, James]

> 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes
> the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

doesn't it _already_ define human life for them?

Jim D. 

Parties & Entrepreneurs (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Michael Hoover wrote:

perhaps he should go back to doing what he does best, what
mainstream (specifically, 'rational choice') poli sci people call
'political entrepreneur', takes lead in setting up and operating
groups, lets others 'free ride' to give appearance of broad-based
support, political activity akin to 'business decision', nader as
'founder' of interest group lobbies/'astroturf' political orgs is
'good investment', nader as candidate is 'bad investment'...
It's a vicious circle: leftists who could have become charismatic
party intellectuals and organizers become political entrepreneurs
instead because there is no mass political party on the left, and it
is extremely difficult to create any mass political party on the left
because smart leftists become political entrepreneurs rather than
help organize such a party.
And it's impossible to make a mass political party out of a
collection of confirmed political entrepreneurs, who are like
"potatoes in a sack of potatoes," to steal Marx's phrase.
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "Eugene Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



This account is very misleading.  They report a Pentagon "What if..."
exercise as a Pentagon prediction.

There is a frightening possibility that sudden climate change can occur,
with some of the outcomes described here.  But this sensationalism takes
away from the serious discussion that needs to hit the mainstream media.

Gene Coyle


=

Yeah, that piece read like the person who wrote it had thrown back a
couple of pints or been toking on that Brit weed. The Fortune article was
better. The reference to Yoda is a tiny hint as to how much sci. fi. is
read by military brass over the past 25 years. From people I know who are
in or have just left Orson Scott Card and Vernor Vinge are *very* popular
with the new generation of  Herman Khans.

Ian

Re: Maybe they should start calling him "angry"

[Doug Henwood]

Michael Hoover wrote:

'best' reason why nader shouldn't run is that he is stone cold bore...
But at least he has the nerve to stand up to Communist Chinese
tyranny and those corporate purveyors of porn to children!
perhaps he should go back to doing what he does best,
what mainstream (specifically, 'rational choice') poli sci people call
'political entrepreneur', takes lead in setting up and operating groups,
lets others 'free ride' to give appearance of broad-based support,
political activity akin to 'business decision', nader as 'founder' of
interest group lobbies/'astroturf' political orgs is 'good investment',
nader as candidate is 'bad investment'...
He lost a lot of trial lawyer funding, according to Thomas Burke
(check out my interview with him at
; scroll down to the
Dec 19 2002 show). They're steamed that he cost Gore the election
(their perception, not mine).
Doug

Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[Eugene Coyle]

This account is very misleading.  They report a Pentagon "What if..."
exercise as a Pentagon prediction.
There is a frightening possibility that sudden climate change can occur,
with some of the outcomes described here.  But this sensationalism takes
away from the serious discussion that needs to hit the mainstream media.
Gene Coyle

Louis Proyect wrote:

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global
catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising
seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear
conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt
across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the
planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to
defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The
threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the
few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes
the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which
has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said
that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has
insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser
Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military
thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping
recent review aimed at transforming the American military under
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US
national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA
consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and
Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and
would challenge United States national security in ways that should be
considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year
widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval
for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large
body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science
to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like.
Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was
a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of
climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could
prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real
and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United
States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic
change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to
voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive
to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The
Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about
the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance
appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about
some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony
Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's
position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor
John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German
government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at
the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the
Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in
persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office
- and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to
that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of
message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's
dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this
sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single
highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko,
liberal group, gener

Seven Oaks Magazine

[Louis Proyect]

New on-line magazine launched

Seven Oaks Magazine is now on-line at www.sevenoaksmag.com

In the first issue:

-The Seven Oaks Manifesto

-A feature interview with David Bacon, American labour journalist just back
from occupied Iraq.
-Child Labour in British Columbia.

-An American in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

-The politics of the Montreal mega-city debate.

-7 Questions with city councillor Ellen Woodsworth

-plus reviews and photo gallery...

Seven Oaks magazine is based in Vancouver, Canada, with an editorial board
composed of local activists, journalists and academics.
For more information, contact:
1-604-324-6059 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Maybe they should start calling him "angry"

[dmschanoes]

Why do we care whether he runs or not?  Does it make a difference in
teasing apart the intertwined strands of the organs of power, the officals
of private, state, and trade union bureaucratic property?

I don't think it does.  Not one bit.

dms

Re: Roger Burbach reconsiders the state...

[dmschanoes]

but the state doesn't reconsider 
itself.
 
First as RB reports, during 2002-2003 Argentinian 
suffered a net financial outflow in international debt receipts and 
payments.  So that even during the period when and after the government had 
"defaulted" on approximately $130 billion in debt, debt servicing 
continued.
 
Secondly, the "default" does not exist in isolation 
from the overall attempt of Argentine capitalism to preserve protect and extend 
its property at the expense of any and everyone.  Thus the default follows 
the freezing of bank accounts, the suspension of convertibility, dramatic 
devaluation, currency controls, wage reductions, unemployment and immiseration 
of the overall society. Default is part of a program.  And partial 
payment of the debt at 25% is also part of that same program of that same 
class, that same social organization.
 
So it seems the very least Marxists should do is a 
lot more than "critical support" of the current leadership of the 
bourgeoisie's plan to preserve the bourgeois ship of state and vice 
versa.  Like, hey, how about paying  0% of the debt?  Is that too 
radical?  It wasn't too radical in 1998 for Bono and the Jubilee 
types.  
 
Which brings us to the whole notion of critical 
support-- no such support exists separate and apart from an overall program 
carefully distinguishing the working class program and solution from the 
bourgeoisie's.
 
Kirchner says 25cents on the dollar, critical 
support means counterposing 0 cents on the dollar as the 25 cents is going to 
come out of the depreciated living standards of the poor.  And it's 0 
cents with wage increases and socialization of the banks to 
prevent financial sabotage..  Its 0 cents with asset takeovers of 
international firms shuttering production.  Just for starters, I 
mean.
 
Critical support is a great tactic, based on a 
class distinction.  "Like the rope supports the hanged 
man."   We're supposed to be the rope in that 
formulation.
 
dms 

Labor Party Email Update - February 2004

[Michael Hoover]

Labor Party Email Update - February 2004
IN THIS ISSUE: 
FREE HIGHER ED! IN THE NATION
JOBS WITH JUSTICE HEALTH CARE ACTION DAY
HELP SAVE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 
WORKER RIGHTS AT HOME AND ABROAD

FREE HIGHER ED! IN THE NATION
"What causes grown men and women to turn clear and simple public policy proposals into 
gibberish comprehensible only to pundits inside the Beltway?" So ask National 
Organizer Mark Dudzic and Free Higher Ed Campaign co-chair Adolph Reed Jr. in their 
article in the February 23 issue of The Nation.

Dudzic and Reed * pointing to the Democratic Presidential candidates' complicated 
proposals to address the ever-rising cost of higher education * suggest instead that 
Bush might be defeated if we use the 2004 elections as "a referendum on what kind of 
country we want and what its priorities should be." "The call for free higher 
education as a social right could help frame that debate through election day and 
beyond."


JOBS WITH JUSTICE HEALTH CARE ACTION DAY 
On March 4, Jobs with Justice is sponsoring a nationwide Health Care Action Day to 
"protest huge premium cost increases and cuts in benefits and essential services." The 
Labor Party is a participating national organization. Labor Party activists across the 
country are lending their support and National Organizer Mark Dudzic is scheduled to 
speak at the Denver events. For more information on how to get involved, visit 
www.jwj.org. 

HELP SAVE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 
The 23,000-member California Faculty Association * which represents professors, 
lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches who teach in the California State 
University (CSU) system and is an endorser of the Free Higher Ed campaign * is 
battling to save CSU from devastating budget cuts. By original design, CSU exists to 
provide an opportunity for every qualified student to go to college. For the first 
time this year, thousands of qualified students were turned away. If the CSU budget is 
cut again, at least 20,000 more will lose out next year. CFA is planning a day of 
regional actions April 26 in a show of solidarity and opposition to the governor's 
proposed budget cuts for 2004-05. For more information, go to www.calfac.org

WORKER RIGHTS AT HOME AND ABROAD 
The Kansas City chapter of the Labor Party is hosting a two-day conference on March 19 
and 20 in Kansas City, Missouri. The Labor Party's Campaign for Worker Rights 
co-chair, Ed Bruno, is the lead speaker. The conference will focus on the export to 
Iraq of the U.S. brand of union busting as well as worker rights here at home. For 
more information, visit www.workernet.org/workerrightsconference.htm 

ABOUT LABOR PARTY EMAIL UPDATES 
We are sending this update to you because you gave us your email and indicated an 
interest in our campaigns. If you do not wish to receive the Updates, please go to the 
bottom of the page and follow the instructions to unsubscribe. 

 
The Labor Party is a national organization made up of international unions and 
thousands of local unions * representing over two million workers * worker supportive 
organizations and individual members. Founded in 1996 at a convention of 1,400 
delegates, the Labor Party exists to develop an independent working-class politics. We 
believe that on important issues such as health care, trade, and the rights to 
organize, bargain and strike, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have failed 
working people.  
If you received this email from a friend, you may sign up for Labor Party Email 
Updates at our website (thelaborparty.org). Click here: http://www.thelaborparty.org 
  

Re: Maybe they should start calling him "angry"

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/22/04 9:23 AM >>>
nader left few 'tracks' in 2000, will leave fewer in 2000, offers little
likelihood of developing social movement potential (factors all
irrespective of whether one thinks of him as 'traitor nader' re. 2000
or not)...   michael hoover

will leaver fewer in 2000 should, quite obviously, have read 2004...

TV Network Looking for the American Candidate

[Michael Hoover]

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:35:33 -0800
Subject: TV Network Looking for the American Candidate
From: Leah Gillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

In America, we believe that anyone can grow up to be President of the
United States.

The reality is that most people don't have the means to try.

Now, anyone who ever thought they have what it takes will have the
opportunity to put their presidential chops to the test.

On American Candidate, an innovative new political television series by
howtime, 12 Americans from all walks of life will be selected to
participate in an unscripted, nationally televised political forum.

Through competitions, challenges, debates, and engagement with the 2004
presidential election, those 12 people will have a once in a lifetime
opportunity to
offer their perspective on the state of the nation and their vision for
our future.

We would like to offer your members the opportunity to be included in
this nationally televised political forum.

We are looking for:
* People who have a passion for creating change
* Leaders
* Diversity

We will present our contestants with challenges that mirror actual
political campaigns, and test the skills that make a good president.

We are now accepting applications from all eligible Americans who want
to participate in this show.

Re: Maybe they should start calling him "angry"

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/21/04 10:25 AM >>>
NY Times, February 21, 2004
Democrats United in Asking That Nader Not Enter Race
Some of Ralph Nader's best friends are desperately trying to persuade
him
not to run for president this year.
The left-leaning Nation magazine has pleaded in an open letter, "Don't
Run."
"As I said in 2000, he's one of the most stubborn men in America," said
Joan Claybrook, a close friend of his and head of Public Citizen, a
group
that Mr. Nader founded.
Louis Proyect
<>

'best' reason why nader shouldn't run is that he is stone cold bore...

perhaps he should go back to doing what he does best,
what mainstream (specifically, 'rational choice') poli sci people call
'political entrepreneur', takes lead in setting up and operating groups,
lets others 'free ride' to give appearance of broad-based support,
political activity akin to 'business decision', nader as 'founder' of
interest group lobbies/'astroturf' political orgs is 'good investment',
nader as candidate is 'bad investment'...

nader left few 'tracks' in 2000, will leave fewer in 2000, offers little
likelihood of developing social movement potential (factors all
irrespective of whether one thinks of him as 'traitor nader' re. 2000
or not)...   michael hoover

The future of warfare - a micro revolution ?

[Jurriaan Bendien]

Four strategic competitions will likely shape the transition to a future
warfare regime. The first will pit evolving anti-access or area-denial
capabilities against current and new forms of power projection. The second
will take place between hiders and finders. The third will pit capabilities
for stealth/barrage attack against missile and air defenses. The fourth will
be an offense struggle of information warfare and advanced biological
warfare attack and defense. (...)

The Continuous Revolution.
This view is derived from the belief that an enduring or sustained
information revolution will spawn a series of military revolutions, with
increasingly short intervals between them. In this view, the idea of a
military regime as a relatively stable equilibrium will itself become
obsolete. (...)

The Hidden Revolution.
This idea, which has been most forcefully advocated by Admiral William
Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasizes
joint warfighting and the centrality of long-range precision strike and
information supremacy. This vision of an emerging Revolution in Military
Affairs is largely limited to its impact on land combat. While naval and air
combat may rely more on information dominance and increased range, the
conduct of war in these dimensions is not seen as changing as radically as
the conduct of operations on land. No new platforms or new observable combat
formations are brought into existence by this Revolution in Military
Affairs - which is munition and C4I driven-hence the notion of a hidden
revolution. (...)

The Micro Revolution.
An even more radical extension of the hidden revolution is the notion of a
platformless micro revolution. Here, the idea is that a proliferation of
inexpensive, micro sensors and weapons systems will make all movement
impossible and all existing platforms and forms of combat obsolete. Thus,
the micro revolution would potentially render not only the current
conventional warfare regime obsolete but also the strategic nuclear regime.

The complete story is at: http://www.csbaonline.org/

Racism and Presidential Elections Since 1964: A Short History

[Michael Hoover]

Racism and Presidential Elections Since 1964: A Short History

By Ted Glick

(The brief overview below is largely drawn from two books,
"The Great Wells of Democracy," by Manning Marable, and
"Nixon's Piano: Presidents and Racial Politics from
Washington to Clinton," by Kenneth O'Reilly. This is a
modified version of a presentation I made at a January 31st
meeting in Atlanta, Ga. which developed plans for a 2004
Racism Watch.)

Racism within U.S. institutions, law and culture is deeply
imbedded in the history and reality of the United States
going back to the 17th century, but in the 20th century, the
deliberate and overt use of racially-coded language and
positions in Presidential campaigns was begun in 1968 by the
Richard Nixon campaign. Even Barry Goldwater, conservative
Republican that he was, made an agreement in 1964 with
Lyndon Johnson to keep race out of the Presidential contest
between them.

"'If we attacked each other,' Goldwater explained, 'the
country would be divided into different camps and we could
witness bloodshed.' Sensitive to the charge hurled 'again
and again. . . that I was a racist,' he stuck to his word
even in the campaign's last desperate days when fringe
advisor F. Clifton White produced a documentary film
intended to exacerbate white fears of black urban violence.
Goldwater condemned the film and ordered it suppressed." (O'
Reilly, p. 251)

But by 1968, with the dramatic spread of the black freedom
movement all over the country and uprisings in the cities,
and with the emergence of George Wallace running a racist
third party American Independent Party campaign, the Nixon
crowd made a very conscious decision to completely abandon
the Republican Party's anti-slavery roots. (Abraham Lincoln
won the Presidency in 1860 in a three way race as the
candidate of the newly-formed, somewhat-anti-slavery
Republican Party.) In the words of Manning Marable, "(Dwight
D.) Eisenhower had received the support of 39 percent of the
African-American electorate in his 1956 successful
reelection campaign, and at the time the Republican Party
had a strong liberal wing that was pressuring the White
House to take bolder steps on racial policy." (p. 118)
Twelve years later, that historical legacy was deliberately
jettisoned and, instead, "law and order," getting "welfare
bums" off welfare and opposition to busing became the major
issues for Nixon, Vice-Presidential candidate Spiro Agnew
and their ilk. "'You can forget about the Vietnam war as an
issue,' an NBC pollster told a White House aide [to Lyndon
Johnson]. 'Race is the dominant issue without any question.
'" (O'Reilly, p. 274)

Nixon barely squeaked through with 43.4% of the popular vote
in 1968, but by 1972 the "remarkable racial realignment
within the national Democratic Party [via the influx of
African American voters] unfortunately created the context
for the ideological and organizational transformation of the
Republican Party as well. The stage for the triumph of
racial conservatism in the Republican Party was set by
Nixon, who successfully put together a center-right
coalition, the so-called 'Silent Majority,' winning a little
more than 60% of the popular vote against liberal Democratic
presidential candidate George McGovern in 1972. The
Watergate scandal slowed, but did not stop, the acceleration
of the Republicans to the Far Right, especially on issues of
race. The former Dixiecrats [of the Democratic Party] and
supporters of George Wallace gravitated to the Republican
Party and within a decade began to assume leadership
positions in Congress." (Marable, p. 72)

The 1972 landslide victory of Nixon affected the Democrats.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter, southern evangelical Christian, won
the Presidential race over Gerald Ford. While more liberal
than Ford, "Carter also sent mixed messages during the 1976
push for the White House. The most controversial were his
remarks about busing and use of the phrase 'ethnic purity'
to describe white-ethnic enclaves and neighborhood schools.
. . Follow-up questions . . . led to additional warnings
from the candidate about 'alien groups' and 'black
intrusion.' 'Interjecting into [a community] a member of
another race' or 'a diametrically opposite kind of family'
or a 'different kind of person' threatened what Carter
called the admirable value of 'ethnic purity." (O'Reilly, p.
339)

The Reagan/Bush  Era

Carter's statements, however, were easily overtaken by the
Nixon-like approach used by Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan
officially kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia,
Mississippi, in Neshoba County, at a fairgrounds used as a
meeting place by the KKK and other racist groups. This was
also the part of the state where, in 1964, civil rights
workers Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney
were killed, about which Reagan said nothing.

As Marable explains, "Reagan never used blatantly racist
language, because he didn't have to. As sociologist Howard
Winant astutely observed, the New Right's approach to t

Secret Pentagon report on global warming

[Louis Proyect]

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe 
costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The 
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas 
as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, 
mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to 
the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and 
secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global 
stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to 
its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the 
Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has 
repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they 
will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national 
defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew 
Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the 
past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at 
transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US 
national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant 
and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of 
the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would 
challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered 
immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a 
rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body 
of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit 
its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy 
Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further 
example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the 
catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening 
phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to 
global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice 
their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the 
US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that 
American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced 
with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of 
touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of 
the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief 
scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue 
as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John 
Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government 
and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall 
Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal 
fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept 
climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - 
and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that 
of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, 
then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire 
warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of 
document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest 
priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, 
generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to 
national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups 
the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' 
added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax

World money, countertrade and exchange relations

[Jurriaan Bendien]

Robert Mundell, a nobel-prize winning economist, often credited with paving
the way to the European single currency, has called for a global currency.
In an interview with French paper Libération, Mr Mundell said, "with the
emergence of the euro and its instability against the dollar, Europe, the US
and the Asian powers should come together and create a new international
monetary system". However, this would not mean the end of the euro and the
dollar. Mr Mundell continues, "Of course, one would keep the dollar and the
euro. This international currency would be used in the large international
exchanges, for movements of capital and commercial transactions".
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=13988

International countertrade is a global phenomenon involving interaction
between parties linking sales with purchases so that each party is at some
point both buyer and seller. In its simplest form countertrade manifests
itself as a barter system; at the other end of the scale is
build-operate-transfer, used to finance large projects such as road
construction and utilities. Under this scenario a contractor or supplier
operates a facility in another country for a specified number of years and
takes the income. At the end of the period all assets are transferred to the
government or an operating agency of the country.
http://www.topnz.ac.nz/aboutus/corporateinformation/publications/research/au
research4.html

Noted economist Paul Samuelson (Economics, 1980) had a very dismal opinion
about the viability of countertrade as a marketing tool. He stated "Unless a
hungry tailor happens to find an undraped farmer, who has both food and a
desire for a pair of pants, neither can make a trade" World wide experience
reveals something else. Countertrade is being increasingly viewed by firms
and nations as an excellent mechanism to gain entry into new markets.
Countertrade transactions increased significantly during the late 1960s
through the 1980s as a result of shortage of hard currencies available to
industrialized nations. In 1972, countertrade was used by 15 countries. By
1979, the countries conducting countertrade transactions numbered 27, yet by
the start of 1990s, this figure had risen to around 100. (Vertariu 1992).
Research indicates that over 80 countries use or require countertrade
exchanges, and that countertrade has been growing both absolutely and as a
portion of international trade. (...) Lack of government statistics on such
activity forces one to evaluate the trend by analyzing the fragmented data
available. The belief of the US Department of Commerce is that countertrade
will have reached 50 percent of world trade by the beginning of twenty first
century. Thus, although exact growth figures are in doubt, it is difficult
to discount the emergence of a powerful trend. Officials of the GATT
organization, have stated that countertrade accounts for around 5% of the
world trade. The British government through its (Department of Trade and
Industry) countertrade for exporters documents suggests 15%, while numerous
scholars believe it to be closer to 30 percent, with east-west trade as high
as 50 percent in some trading sectors in Eastern European and Third World
Countries. A consensus of expert opinions (Okaroafo, 1989) has put the
percentage of world trade linked to countertrade transactions at between 20%
to 25 percent. http://www.academic.marist.edu/~jzej/countertrade.html

"The U.S. Government generally views countertrade, including barter as
contrary to an open, free trading system and, in the long run, not in the
interest of the U.S. business community. However, as a matter of policy the
U.S. Government will not oppose U.S. companies' participation in
countertrade arrangements unless such action could have a negative impact on
national security." (Office of Management and Budget; "Impact of Offsets in
Defense-related Exports," December, 1985)

In 2000, India and Iraq agreed on an "oil for wheat and rice" barter deal,
subject to UN approval under Article 50 of the U.N. Gulf War sanctions, that
would facilitate 300,000 barrels of oil delivered daily to India at a price
of $6.85 a barrel while Iraq oil sales into Asia were valued at about $22 a
barrel. In 2001, India agreed to swap 1.5 million tonnes of Iraqi crude
under the oil-for-food programme. The Security Council noted: "... although
locally produced food items have become increasingly available throughout
the country, most Iraqis do not have the necessary purchasing power to buy
them. Unfortunately, the monthly food rations represent the largest
proportion of their household income. They are obliged to either barter or
sell items from the food basket in order to meet their other essential
needs. This is one of the factors which partly explains why the nutritional
situation has not improved in line with the enhanced food basket. Moreover,
the absence of normal economic activity has given rise to the spread of
deep-seated poverty.
http://.reliefweb