Economics and law

[Kenneth Campbell]

I've mentioned to friends I've known before law studies the plethora of
suits involving electric space heaters -- apparently a sort of a
chew-toy for tort lawyers.

There is an implied (depends how you read it) "acceptable death rates"
formula in tort. That "Learned Hand Formula?" Anyone read about that,
other than Andy Nachos (to whom this will be elementary)?

An AP story crossed the wires of late (attached at bottom) that made me
think again about this nexus of social utility and economic fairness.

Hand's Formula is more formally known as the "aggregate-risk-utility
test" and seeks to establish when a manufacturer is negligent in product
(or service or whatever). Works like this:

  If
P = Probability of injurious event
L = Gravity of the resulting injury
B = Burden, or cost, of adequate precautions

  Then
Injurer is negligent only if B < P x L

Biz (ostensibly) should show that B > PL —- in other words, minimizing P
or L, or both -- to avoid losing tort claims of product negligence.

Another, more heartless, way of expressing this would be "allowable
losses" through manufacturer negligence. (In pop culture, we saw this
sarcastically referred to in the movie Fight Club, where the narrator is
talking about his job with a black woman sitting beside him on a air
flight and explaining why he, as a claims investigator, helps car
companies decide if they should settle death suits or make a general
recall.)

Calculate the number of deaths resulting from, say, a space heater (P)
and multiply that by the average out of court settlement (P). If those
estimated losses from defective products are less than the cost of
removing those deaths through product improvement (B), then do not make
those improvements.

Simple math and business measurement of costs of human death.

With a product like a space heater, the consumers are usually not
wealthy, lacking resources to fight a large suit and lacking the sort of
serious earning power that would increase the L (and a death is usually
measured in lost earning power).

In the case of space heaters, the drastic reduction in the L (lower
income demographic, etc.) means there can be an increase in P (number of
deaths) without disturbing the balance of B.

 * * *

Seems the most famous judicial exposition on this was by Yanqui Second
Circuit Judge Learned Hand in a series of opinions that began in 1938.

The concept first appeared in 1934 in the first Restatement of Tort Law.
Hand helped draft the first Restatement. His follow-up decisions were
perhaps an attempt to "popularize" the test.

It appears to have not been used. Hand himself, in service as a federal
judge until 1961, mentioned it in 11 opinions. After 1949 (last
reference), it seems to have died.

It was resurrected by a series of publications by Richard Posner. Posner
contends the test is imbedded in decisions on "economic efficiency
interpretation of negligence."

Critics have said Posner's arguments are

composed of speculative and implausible assumptions, overbroad
generalizations, and superficial descriptions of and
quotations from cases that misstate or ignore facts, language,
rationales, and holdings that are inconsistent with his
argument. None of the cases discussed by Posner support his
thesis. Instead, the reasoning and results in these cases
employ varying standards of care, depending on the rights and
relationships among the parties, that are inconsistent with
the aggregate-risk-utility test but consistent with the
principles of justice.

See: Wright, Richard W., "Hand, Posner, and the Myth of the
'Hand Formula'". Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Vol. 4, 2003
http://ssrn.com/abstract=362800

Once made a federal judge, Posner began applying the Hand formula. Frank
Easterbrook, a like-minded former professor who joined Posner on the
Seventh Circuit, has also endorsed the Hand formula. However, neither of
them has been able to employ the Hand formula to resolve the negligence
issue in any case, and none of their fellow circuit judges has attempted
to do so.

 * * *

Thought I'd pass along this news item below. Yet another space heater
problem. The manufacturer would likely not have issued the recall,
regardless of what the B < PL calculation yielded. It needed a
government agency to force it.

Ken.

--- cut here ---

One Million Electric Heaters Recalled

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Kansas company is recalling 1 million electric
heaters after receiving two dozen reports of fires caused by
overheating.

Vornado Air Circulation Systems Inc. of Andover, Kan., is not aware of
any injuries caused by the portable electric room heaters, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission said Tuesday.

A faulty electrical connection can make the indoor heater overheat and
stop working, posing a fire hazard, the commission said.

Standing about a foot tall and weighing about 6 pounds, the recalled
product bears model numbers 180VH, VH, Intellitemp, EVH or DVH, located

nader to lobbyist

[Dan Scanlan]

Title: nader to lobbyist


Nader Tells Toby
Moffett: "Stop making false statements concerning allegations of
Republican support."
Rebuts False Allegations of Republican Support
Describes Moffett As a "Corporate Lobbyist," Not a Nader's
Raider
Moffett is Part of the Problem of Corporate Control of Government
Urges Kerry/Edwards to Debate Nader/Camejo on the Issues

August 5, 2004

Anthony J. (Toby) Moffett
The Livingston Group
499 South Capitol St SW # 600
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Mr. Moffett:

I am writing to request that you stop making false statements
concerning allegations of Republican support for the Nader/Camejo
Campaign. I have said repeatedly that I am seeking votes and support
from Republicans who support my candidacy, but not from Republicans,
organized or otherwise, seeking to use my campaign for manipulative
purposes. As you well know, your Democratic Party has taken many
millions of dollars from favor-seeking Republicans hedging both sides
of the party aisles.

In fact, 2000 exit polls showed that approximately 25% of those who
voted for the Green ticket were registered Republicans. Over the
years I have worked with individual Republicans on issues of mutual
concern - e.g. securities fraud, environmental protection,
corporate crime, and corporate welfare. In addition, many people
supporting our candidacy in 2004 supported President Bush in 2000,
including members of the Reform Party. Indeed, many people who
supported President Bush in 2000 are not happy with the Patriot
Act's undermining of the Constitution, the fabrications and lies
that led to war, the record budget deficits, the sovereignty
infringing trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, and a host of other
issues. So, it is not surprising that 5% of our major donors are
Republicans.

Regarding support from Republicans helping to get Nader/Camejo on the
ballot: the three most common claims come from Michigan, Nevada and
Oregon - all three are false. In Michigan, our campaign turned in
our signatures to protect our rights in court because we have been
endorsed by the Reform Party, which has a ballot line. The
signature-gathering campaign by others was not consistent with our
strategy, and we had nothing to do with it.

In Nevada, there were unsubstantiated allegations that Steve Wark
helped our campaign get on the ballot. However, we have never had any
contact with Mr. Wark, never received any donations from him, and
neither has our signature gathering firm. This is a story that is
unsubstantiated, and, as best we can see, completely false.

In Oregon, the most important activity of a major party was the
Democrats spoiling our ballot access convention by organizing and
sending Democrats in - to fill out the auditorium, undermine the
convention by swelling the numbers, and then not sign the petitions.
While there was talk of Republican support in the media, we saw no
evidence of it on the ground.

It is amazing that the media still describes you as a
Nader's-Raider - Toby, that was thirty years ago. Today, you are
a corporate lobbyist with a firm whose clients are military
contractors, telecom giants, and industry trade associations. You
were a former vice president with Monsanto and now are a partner with
Robert Livingston, a reactionary Republican who was about to serve as
the Speaker of the House until he resigned. If the media focused on
who you really are - a corporate lobbyist - it would not be
surprising that you oppose our candidacy , since our focus is
challenging the corporate domination of Washington, DC and its
erosive impact on domestic and foreign policy.

While Nader/Camejo would be happy to debate your candidates - John
Kerry and John Edwards - on the issues, I reject your falsehoods,
which are part of a coordinated Democratic dirty tricks campaign to
keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot. Stop knowingly misleading the
public and stop trying to undermine democracy by limiting the choice
of voters to two candidates representing, in varying degrees, two
corporate political parties.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

interesting reading

[Dan Scanlan]

More land for the military than for Hawaiians
Two-part series by Winona LaDuke in Indian Country Today:
Part One
http://www.indiancountry.com/?1090938578&style=printable&style=printable
Part Two
http://www.indiancountry.com/?1091536055&style=printable&style=printable

SUVs are illegal in many parts of the California

[Devine, James]

[from 
SLATE] 
hey, wait a minute
California's SUV Ban
The Golden State has outlawed big SUVs on 
many of its roads but doesn't seem to know it.
By Andy Bowers
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2004, at 11:42 
AM PT
Unless you drive one of the largest SUVs, 
such as the Chevy Suburban, the Cadillac Escalade, or the Ford Excursion, I'll 
bet you've watched them thundering down quiet residential lanes and wondered to 
yourself: Why is that monster allowed on this little street?
Well, here's a surprising piece of news. 
It may not be. Cities throughout California—the nation's largest car 
market—prohibit the heaviest SUVs on many of their residential roads. The 
problem is, they don't seem to know they've done it.
I discovered this secret ban after 
noticing the signs at both ends of my narrow Los Angeles-area street (a favorite 
cut-through route for drivers hoping to avoid tie-ups on bigger roads). The 
signs clearly prohibit vehicles over 6,000 pounds.
I knew a 6K pound limit ruled out a lot 
of the larger trucks that routinely rumble by my house, unpursued by traffic 
cops. But then I got to thinking: Could some of those bigger SUVs exceed 3 tons? 
So I did some research, and I hit the mother lode.
It turns out every big SUV and pickup is 
too heavy for my street. Here's just a sampling: The Chevy Suburban and Tahoe, 
the Range Rover, the GMC Yukon, the Toyota Land Cruiser and Sequoia, the Lincoln 
Navigator, the Mercedes M Class, the Porsche Cayenne S, and the Dodge Ram 1500 
pickup (with optional Hemi). What about the Hummer, you ask? Hasta la vista, 
baby!
If you look at the manufacturer's specs 
for these vehicles, you'll discover that they all have a gross vehicle weight 
rating of more than 6,000 pounds. (Click here for more on GVWR vs. curb weight.) 
Some are way over (the Hummer H2 weighs in at 8,600 pounds, and its older 
sibling the H1 at an astounding 10,300 pounds—I'm talking to you, Governator). 
Others manage to top the 3-ton mark by just a hair (the BMW X5 boasts a GVWR of 
6,008 pounds). For comparison, a Honda Accord is about 3,000 pounds.
It's no accident the automakers churn out 
so many SUVs that break the 6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's 
how they're classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a 
huge federal tax break. If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for work, 
you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in fact, Congress 
raised the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy SUVs qualify for similar 
state tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) and elsewhere. These vehicles are 
also exempt from the federal "gas guzzler tax" because they're trucks. (And you 
probably know that many SUVs are exempt from the tougher gas mileage and safety 
standards of cars because they're classified as trucks, but that's another 
story.)
Tax advisers actually warn their clients 
to make sure they buy vehicles that are heavy enough to qualify for the tax 
breaks. Some offer helpful lists of which SUVs will tip the IRS's 
scales.
Here's what few people seem to realize: 
By weighing in at more than 6,000 pounds, big SUVs are prohibited on thousands 
of miles of road in California. Cities across the state—including San Francisco, 
Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Santa Monica—use the 3-ton cutoff for many or nearly 
all of their residential streets. State law gives them the ability to do this 
for very straightforward reasons: The heavier the vehicle, the more it chews up 
the roads, endangers pedestrians and smaller vehicles, and makes 
noise.
This isn't an arbitrary weight limit. 
6,000 pounds has long been a recognized dividing line between light and heavy 
trucks. (For example, the Clean Air Act defines "heavy duty vehicle" as a truck 
with a gross vehicle weight "in excess of six thousand pounds.")
But local officials either don't realize 
they've banned big SUVs, or they're hoping no one will make a stink. For 
example, San Francisco and Los Angeles ban 6K vehicles on numerous streets 
(including one of San Francisco's main tourist draws, the famously twisty 
Lombard Street). One L.A. city council member, Janice Hahn (the sister of L.A. 
Mayor James Hahn), recently proposed that fines for breaking this law be hiked 
from $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second to $250 and $1,000, 
respectively. Hahn told me her district, near L.A.'s huge port complex, is 
plagued by trucks cutting through residential streets.
When I informed Hahn that all the big 
SUVs also break the 6K barrier, she seemed surprised. "That's interesting," she 
said.
I asked if she thought the ban should be 
enforced against them. She answered bluntly: "I don't favor that." Even for 
10,000 pound Hummers? "I have my own issues with Hummers and SUVs, but this was 
not the intent of this ordinance."
She's right—it wasn't the intent. But 
that's because these weight limits generally predate the 1990s SUV craze that 
lured suburbanites out of their lighter sedans and m

new bushism

[Dan Scanlan]

from msnbc.
A new 'Bushism': We're gonna get us
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:24 p.m. ET Aug. 5, 2004
WASHINGTON - President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of
"Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."
Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a
$417 billion defense spending bill.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush
said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we."
No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

autism book.

[Devine, James]

yes. it's an excellent book. It's even good if you're not
interested in the autism spectrum. 

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

[was: RE: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs]

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list on behalf of Marvin Gandall
Sent: Thu 8/5/2004 2:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
 
Speaking of autism, read -- if you haven't already -- Mark Haddon's The Serious 
Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, an outstanding first novel by a British writer 
with a background in working with autistic kids. Very funny and empathetic, about one 
such terrifically engaging 15 year old.

MG

new radio product

[Doug Henwood]

[Tariq's position on Bush's defeat will annoy some, but it's splendid
stuff - he gives some of the best radio around.]
Just added to my radio archive
:
August 5, 2004 Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup and author of
Polling Matters, on the public opinion trade and the 2004 election
polls * Tariq Ali, author most recently of Bush in Babylon, on the
importance to the whole world of defeating Bush, and the maddening
wrongness of the "no difference" position
July 22, 2004 Judith Levine, author of Do You Remember Me?, on her
father's Alzheimer's, and the social meanings of the disease * Ian
Williams, author of Deserter!, on George W's military career
it joins

July 15, 2004 Nomi Prins, investment banker turned journalist, on
Martha's sentencing, Ken Lay's indictment, and sex discrimination on
Wall Street * Charlie Komanoff, car-hater, on why we use so much oil,
and how we could use less of it
July 8, 2004 Lakshman Achuthan of the Economic Cycles Research
Institute and co-author of Beating the Business Cycle, on cycles in
general, this odd one specifically, and the likely slowdown by
yearend * Norman Kelley, author of The Head Negro In Charge Syndrome,
on the crisis in black politics
July 1, 2004 Phyllis Bennis, lead author of Paying the Price, on the
human, economic, and environmental costs of the war on Iraq * Joe
Garden, Mike Loew (both of The Onion), and Randy Ostrow, authors of
Citizen You!, a manual of patriotic duty (some of the original audio
was lost - details at the top of the show)
June 24, 2004 Michael Hardt, co-author of Empire, on the state of the
empire in the light of the Iraq war * Stonewall segment: Julie
Abraham, professor of LGBT studies at Sarah Lawrence, on why she's no
fan of same-sex marriage
along with
--
* Chalmers Johnson on the U.S. empire
* Jagdish Bhatwati on globalization
* Bill Fletcher on war and peace
* Slavoj Zizek on war, imperialism, and fantasy
* Naomi Klein on Argentina and the arrested political development of
the global justice movement
* Ralph Nader, at the Council on Foreign Relations, on foreign policy
* Susie Bright on sex and politics
* Richard Burkholder of Gallup on that firm's Iraq polls
* Anatol Lieven on Iraq
* Jomo on the Asian economies
* Cynthia Enloe on masculinity in the Bush administration (and oil)
* Laura Flanders on Bushwomen
* Carlos Mejia, deserter from Iraq
* Joseph Stiglitz on the IMF and the Wall St-Treasury axis
* Lisa Jervis on feminism & pop culture
* Nina Revoyr on the history of Los Angeles, real and fictional
* Joel Schalit on anti-Semitism
* Robert Fatton on Haiti
* Gary Younge on a foreign journalist's view of the U.S.
* Ursula Huws on work and why capitalism has avoided crisis
* Michael Albert on participatory economics (parecon)
* Marta Russell on the UN conference on disability
* Corey Robin on the neocons
* Sara Roy on the Palestinian economy
* Christian Parenti on Iraq and surveillance
* Michael Hardt on Empire (several times, the last June 2004)
* Judith Levine on kids & sex
* Walden Bello on the World Social Forum and alternative development models
* Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
38 Greene St - 4th fl.
New York NY 10013-2505 USA
voice  +1-212-219-0010
fax+1-212-219-0098
cell   +1-917-865-2813
email  
web

More on Venezuela and oil numbers

[Robert Naiman]

I'd like our broker colleague -- and others -- to consider the following.
In Peter Millard's (Dow Jones) article "Venezuela 's PdVSA Ramps Up
Publicity Ahead Of Recall" (July 30), the second-to-last paragraph reads:
"The government claims the "new PdVSA" has brought oil production back to
the 3.1 million barrels a day Venezuela was producing before the strike,
but independent analysts put the figure closer to 2.6 million b/d."
I suspect that there is an apples-and-oranges issue here. I think the
government is counting 200,000 bpd in petroleum products that the analysts
are not counting. If so, the govt and "independent analyst" numbers are
closer than usually acknowledged.
The last paragraph reads:
"Furthermore, oil analysts warn that the focus on social spending has
diverted funds from needed investments in exploration and production,
making it difficult for PdVSA to increase production in the near term."
I have no doubt that *some* oil analysts do say this (especially the ones
that used to work for PDVSA!), but I think the numbers tell a different story.
On July 16, Millard reported that PdVSA has a total investment budget of
$5.3 billion this year, but noted that analysts warn that the company will
fall short of this target.
On July 12, Matthew Robinson, reporting for Reuters, cited Jan Dehn,
emerging markets analyst for Credit Suisse First Boston in London: "I would
expect that unless they meet the $2.7 billion capital spending they need
every year, production would start to suffer in 2005."
Now, if we assume that the numbers here ($2.7b and $5.3b) are
apples-and-apples, and we suppose that in the range we're talking about,
future production capacity is a roughly linear function of investment, then
those numbers would suggest to me that PDVSA could miss its investment
target by a country mile and still invest enough to increase production. If
this is so, then, unless one takes it as an axiom that any amount of social
spending by PDVSA is intrinsically offensive to oil markets -- which I'm
sure some people do! -- isn't social spending by PDVSA totally irrelevant
to the question of future oil production? Might it be the case that some
"independent oil analysts" simply have an ideological bias against the
notion of using some of PDVSA's profits for social spending? What am I missing?
By the way, in an article on July 24 in the New York Times, Juan Forero
reported that many oil analysts and executives of large oil companies doing
business in Venezuela say that the government may be able to spend big on
social programs and still invest adequately in production.
What do you make of all this?
--
Robert Naiman
Senior Policy Analyst
Venezuela Information Office
733 15th Street, NW Suite 932
Washington, DC 20005
t. 202-347-8081 x. 605
f. 202-347-8091
www.veninfo.org
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American
public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the
FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Marvin Gandall]

Sorry. The title is The Curious Incident of the Dog in the 
Night-Time.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Devine, James 

  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:04 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an 
  emotion based left was Bush using drugs
  
  I agree: as I've said 
  before, people such as Castro and Noriega 
  are dismissed as 
  "crazy" by establishmentarian figures.
   
  As someone who deals 
  with the community of parents of kids on the autistic 
  spectrum,
  I'm always fighting 
  the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, 
  
  Asperger's, etc. 
  without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These 
  
  people include 
  Albert 
  Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) 
  
   
  Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 
  
-Original Message-From: PEN-L list 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian 
McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion 
based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . 
.Mental health tags are continually used to discredit 
whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This 
reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to 
individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a 
pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view 
that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their 
leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings 
bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies 
their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, 
there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual 
causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of 
biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for 
this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna 

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Marvin Gandall]

Speaking of autism, read -- if you haven't already -- Mark 
Haddon's The Serious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, an outstanding first 
novel by a British writer with a background in working with autistic kids. Very 
funny and empathetic, about one such terrifically engaging 15 year 
old.
 
MG
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Devine, James 

  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:04 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an 
  emotion based left was Bush using drugs
  
  I agree: as I've said 
  before, people such as Castro and Noriega 
  are dismissed as 
  "crazy" by establishmentarian figures.
   
  As someone who deals 
  with the community of parents of kids on the autistic 
  spectrum,
  I'm always fighting 
  the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, 
  
  Asperger's, etc. 
  without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These 
  
  people include 
  Albert 
  Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) 
  
   
  Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 
  
-Original Message-From: PEN-L list 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian 
McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion 
based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . 
.Mental health tags are continually used to discredit 
whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This 
reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to 
individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a 
pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view 
that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their 
leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings 
bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies 
their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, 
there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual 
causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of 
biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for 
this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna 

Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior

[Charles Brown]

 Of course, there are also the reports that Bush has or had a drinking
problem , and we know he has declared that he is a born again Christian. I
wonder if , oddly, this means he has more of a conscience and sensitivity
than your average president, and he is depressed because he feels guilty
about all the bad stuff he is doing, or knows is going on. Perhaps he really
believed in Amurika, and has become disallusioned from what he has learned
about the truth since becoming president.

Rush, Bush...whose next ?

Charles

^

by Robert Naiman
04 August 2004 23:16 UTC
>From Capitol Hill Blue

Bush Leagues
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue

Nation Magazine editorial on Mussolini (July 29, 1925)

[Louis Proyect]

Mussolini’s Fascist State Italy is passing through a period of political 
and social change. Single events, however important in themselves, can 
hardly give the significance of this change or its direction. The 
following summary of the accomplishments of the last parliamentary 
session is reprinted from the London Observer of June 28:

"The parliamentary session has just closed with a series of dramatic 
surprises. Signor Mussolini has given the country plenty to think about 
during the holidays. During the last few sittings of the Chamber three 
important laws were passed in rapid succession, regulating respectively 
the position of the bureaucracy, the activities of the press, and the 
power of the Government to legislate by the use of royal decrees."

Without entering into details, it may be said that the general effect of 
these measures will be to strengthen the position of the executive and 
render it difficult if not impossible, for either Parliament, press, or 
civil servants to offer opposition to, or criticism of, its methods.

Lest the full import of this victory should be lost on the country, the 
Prime Minister closed the Fascist Congress last Monday with one of the 
most remarkable speeches he has ever made. It is an absolutely clear 
statement of his deliberate intention to create a Fascist state, a state 
in which Fascism will not be a part of the nation but the nation itself, 
so that the words Italian and Fascist shall come to be synonymous, just 
as are practically the words Italian and Catholic. As a preliminary, he 
announces that parliamentarism has been conquered. The laws that have 
been passed so far are for the defense of Fascism; those that will be 
put before the country in the autumn will carry on the work in a 
constructive and creative sense.

A REAL FASCIST STATE
That these intentions are the logical outcome of Signor Mussolini’s 
policy for the last three years no one can doubt who has made any 
consecutive study of his acts, which are invariably plain, and of his 
public utterances, which have never been tortuous. The very boldness of 
his conceptions has caused many people to assume that he could not 
possibly mean what he said, and to hope that with time Fascism would 
slough off its most marked characteristics and cool down into a party 
more or less like any other, ready to give and take. They can hardly 
think this any more after his last declarations. He has flung out a 
straight challenge to his adversaries, and, in the absence of any really 
strong, homogeneous opposition, he may possibly go some way toward 
realizing his ideal of a state in which “all the power will be to all 
the Fascists.”

So far as Mussolini is concerned the old Italy, the Italy of Liberals, 
Democrats, and Socialists, has passed away. We are at the dawn of the 
new Italy, which needs new institutions, new laws, and an entirely new 
directive. What is to be the type of the new Italian? He is to have 
“courage, intrepidity, love of risk, a repugnance for pacifism at all 
costs, readiness to dare both in individual and in collective life, and 
a hatred for all that is sedentary. He is to show discipline in work, 
respect for authority, and to feel pride every hour of the day in the 
thought that he is Italian.”

This, as a Roman paper calls it, is the breviary of the perfect Fascist. 
In the new Fascist Government the executive power will practically 
control the destinies of the nation, for it is continuous and omnipresent.

It is the power that finds itself called at any moment to solve vast 
problems, to decree great things, to declare war, to conclude peace. 
This power, which disposes of all the armed forces of the state, which 
controls day by day the complex machinery of state administration, 
cannot take a second place. It cannot be represented by a group of 
puppets who dance according to the caprices of popular assemblies.

A CONSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION
Yet Parliament is not to be abolished; it is even to be strengthened in 
one sense by the introduction of new forces. An organization of national 
syndicates will group the workers and producers of the country together 
in their different categories and classes. In the Italian Chamber of the 
future two-thirds of the deputies will be elected as before by universal 
suffrage, the remaining third will consist of technical representatives 
of the arts, professions, and industrial and agrarian interests of the 
country, elected from among the members of the local syndicates. This 
innovation, which has no precedent, will need the creation of an 
entirely new electoral law. It forms the basis of the constructive 
legislation now in course of preparation by a parliamentary commission 
of eighteen, popularly known as The Solons.

Signor Mussolini openly admits that in his hands Italy’s goal is empire, 
not necessarily territorial, for empire may be political, economic, or 
spiritual. Yet Italians must never forget that their capital is Rome, 

Defrauding Women of Abortion

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

"Defrauding Women of Abortion" (an anti-abortion fraudster preyed on
working-class women by promising them discount abortions and then
cancelling appointments repeatedly, until it became too late for them
to have abortions -- the fraud enabled by an anti-abortion myth that
women who want abortions need extensive counseling about abortion's
"emotional and physical side effects"):
.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: 
* Greens for Nader: 
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Brian McKenna]

In a message dated 8/5/04 11:41:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I take any attack on anyone on the basis of mental illness as a personal attack. I.e., as far as I am concerned Brian's post boils down to the proposition that "Cox is a
shithead."


there is a slippery slope between the person and the culture. . .that's what Frank and others argue. I'm an anthropologist, and recognize that different cultures can be said to possess metaphoric "personalities" that shift with historical struggle. . .

I presented no evidence that I thought of Mr. Cox in such a crude manner. To disagree is not a mental illness. . .

Brian

Call for Papers: New Working Class Studies

[Michael Hoover]

CALL FOR PAPERS

NEW WORKING-CLASS STUDIES: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

The 10th Aniversary Conference of the Center for Working-Class Studies
at
Youngstown State University, May 18-21, 2005, Youngstown, Ohio

In 2005, the Center for Working-Class Studies will celebrate the 10th
anniversary of its founding.  In honor of that occasion, we are planning
a
conference that will reflect the diversity, creativity, and energy of
New
Working-Class Studies.  The conference will feature plenary sessions
reflecting on the development of the field, taking stock of where we
stand
today, and looking ahead to new possibilities and challenges.  Our
conferences always include arts exhibits, film screenings, poetry
readings,
and other events.  The 2005 conference, co-sponsored by the Ford
Foundation,
will also include a business meeting of the Working-Class Studies
Association.

We invite proposals from students, workers, faculty members, organizers,
artists, and activists in all fields, from literature to geography,
history
to filmmaking, union organizing to neighborhood activism.  Along with
papers, we invite performances, film showings, roundtables, and
presentations of all kinds.  In addition, we invite proposals for
three-hour
interactive workshops and field trips, which will be scheduled for
Saturday
morning.  We encourage proposals that explore literature by and about
the
working class; working-class and labor history; material and popular
culture; current workplace issues; geography and landscape; journalism
and
media; sociology; economics; union organizing and practice; museum
studies;
the arts; multiculturalism; ethnography, biography, autobiography;
pedagogy;
and personal narratives of work.

Presenters should describe the presentation they would like to give,
including the suggested presentation format (panel, roundtable, reading,
workshop, etc.) and length. Proposals should be no longer than one page
and
must be received by January 3, 2005.  Address written correspondence to
John
Russo, Biennial Conference, Center for Working-Class Studies, Youngstown
State University, Youngstown, Ohio 44555.  Fax or e-mail inquiries
shouldbe
sent to Patty LaPresta, (330) 941-4622 and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The Center for Working-Class Studies's website is located at
http:/www.as.ysu.edu/-cwcs/ and its discussion group at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
Please Note:
Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from 
College employees
regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon 
request.
Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.

PartyBuilder - August 2004

[Michael Hoover]

PARTYBUILDER - August 2004
IN THIS ISSUE:
DC LABOR FILM FEST - AD DEADLINE AUGUST 10TH!
CNA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROSE ANN DEMORO SPEAKS OUT ON HEALTH CARE
THE MEDICARE DRUG WAR
DO FAT CATS PAY LOWER TAX RATES THAN WORKERS?
FREE HIGHER ED CAMPAIGN NEWS

DC LABOR FILM FEST - AD DEADLINE AUGUST 10TH!
The 2004 DC Labor FilmFest is scheduled for September 10-12 at the
American Film Institute's Silver Theater. The festival opens with a 15th
anniversary screening of Michael Moore's first film, "Roger and Me" and
closes with a new print of the classic 1969 Marlon Brando film "Burn!"
In between are five brand new films chronicling coal miners in China
(Blind Shaft), a "post-industrial, pre-apocalyptic, existential comedy"
(Human Error) as well as the premiere of concert film "Tell Us the
Truth." The November 2003 musical tour featuring Billy Bragg and Steve
Earle called attention to issues of media consolidation and trade
policy.

We need your support! It's not too late to support the FilmFest with an
ad from your union or organization in the Festival Guide.
Ad space is available at the following rates:
Friend of the Festival: $100
Quarter page: $250
Half page: $500
Full page: $1,000
Silver Screen Page: $2,500

Please call DJDI at 202 234-0040 x13 to reserve your ad.
Many thanks to our Labor Party affiliates and supporters for ads already
placed. For more information, click here:
www.djdinstitute.org/f_index.html

CNA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROSE ANN DEMORO SPEAKS OUT ON HEALTH CARE
In a recent guest commentary in the "Contra Costa Times," Rose Ann
DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association (a Labor
Party affiliate) charges that it is "time to get serious on health
care." DeMoro argues that "Verbal commitments to universal health care
are for some a charade, a cover for tinkering with the current system to
avoid substantive change. Typical of such ideas is the notion that
people without employer-provided benefits be required to purchase
insurance, subsidized for the low income through tax credits, without
any financial contribution by the HMOs and insurance giants that would
reap gain." Read the full article at www.justhealthcare.org. Click here.


THE MEDICARE DRUG WAR
The pharmaceutical and managed care industries spent a record $141
million in 2003 to lobby Congress for last year's Medicare prescription
drug legislation. According to "The Medicare Drug War," a new report by
Public Citizen, the new law may increase those industries' revenues by
as much as $531.5 billion. The army of 952 lobbyists (nearly 10 for each
U.S. Senator) helped ensure that the new drug benefit will be
administered by private companies. The new law expressly prohibits the
government from using its bargaining clout to negotiate lower prices and
effectively bans the "reimportation" of cheaper drugs from Canada. For
more information and to download the report, visit www.citizen.org.
Click here

DO FAT CATS PAY LOWER TAX RATES THAN WORKERS?
Thanks in part to George W. Bush's recent cut in the top tax rate on
dividends and capital gains, the average tax rate workers pay on wages
is more than DOUBLE the rate on investment income. According to Citizens
for Tax Justice (CTJ) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
(ITEP), federal personal taxes on investment income now average only 9.6
percent, while federal personal taxes on wages and other earnings
average 23.4 percent. Before Ronald Reagan took office, the top income
tax rate on most investment income was 70 percent. The top capital gains
tax rate, now 15 percent, was more than 35 percent.

ITEP's analysis estimates that "taxing investment income like earnings
would raise $338 billion in 2004 enough to cut this year's budget
deficit by two-thirds or more." Or enough to fund free higher education
several times over or enough to fund a substantial part of a Just Health
Care budget. For more information, www.ctj.org. Click here

FREE HIGHER ED CAMPAIGN NEWS
The July/August 2004 issue of "ACADEME" the bulletin of the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP) features the article "Free
Higher Education" by campaign co-chair Adolph Reed Jr. and Sharon
Syzmanski, an economist with the Labor Institute. The bulletin is
distributed to every member of the AAUP nationwide. The AAUP's
Collective Bargaining Congress has endorsed the Free Higher Ed campaign.


AAUP also invited Reed to present a workshop on the campaign at its
Summer Institute at the University of Scranton on July 31st. The
workshop was well received by AAUP members from around the country and
was an opportunity to introduce AAUP members outside the collective
bargaining section to our campaign. Visit our website at
www.freehighered.org

ABOUT THE LABOR PARTY
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 delegate

Nostradamus predicts...

[Shane Mage]

Title: Nostradamus predicts...


(Rediscovered Quatrain)

Les Gracchus du
sud surgiront triomphales
Au grand dépit des sbires imperiales
Bougrelas Ubu remplacera
Mais wirtschaft polnische restera

Michèl de Nôtre-Dame
(p.c.c. le petit poete)

Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition

[Carrol Cox]

> "Devine, James" wrote:
>
>
> This suggests that, for clarity's sake, future discussions of the DP
> and ABB should make it clear whether we're talking about
>
> (1) working within the DP; or
>
> (2) voting for Kerry.
>
> as for me, I agree that working within the DP is absolutely the wrong
> way to go. What we need is an anti-war movement and other
> anti-establishmentarian movements. As for issue #2, voting is a very
> personal decision -- and very powerless.

I would agree. And indeed, though I have sometimes been careless in
making the distinction, it is _political activity_, not voting, that is
of interest to me. Voting seems more or less a symbolic activity in the
dark appreciated only by the voter him/herself. I couldn't care less
what private symbols voters send to themselves.

Carrol

Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition

[Devine, James]

CC writes: >I would 
prefer to speak of different sectors of one working class in formation, since 
most of those "yuppies" would be -- or since the 2000 crash are already -- in 
great trouble if their paychecks cease for a few months.<
 
especially if the housing bubble pops... 
 
> And those "culture wars" need, eventually, to 
be won _inside_ the working class. AND that will be rather difficult to do so 
long as a large number of leftists remain tied to the DP.<
 
This suggests that, for clarity's sake, future 
discussions of the DP and ABB should make it clear whether we're talking about 

 
(1) working within the DP; or
 
(2) voting for Kerry.
 
as for me, I agree that working within the DP is 
absolutely the wrong way to go. What we need is an anti-war movement and other 
anti-establishmentarian movements. As for issue #2, voting is a very personal 
decision -- and very powerless. 
 
A lot of people here in California will be follow Molly 
Ivins' 2000 advice and will be voting for Nader (or Leonard Peltier) precisely 
_because_ it will have no effect on the actual election. It's a mystery to me 
why all those "yuppies" in California are so adamantly anti-Nader! 
 
Jim Devine
 

Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition

[Carrol Cox]

"Devine, James" wrote:

> Todd Chretien writes:
> >The Democrats do nothing to challenge the indifference of the poorest
> people and youth in the United States to the outcomes of elections,
> because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to the Democratic
> Party's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, confident
> and organized working class. The submission of most of the left in the
> United States to the mantra of "Anybody But Bush" is of enormous
> importance to maintaining this subjegation.<

> Though this is accurate (as is the critique of the DP's
> anti-democratic ways), it misses an important dimension of the
> middle-class white ABB movement, i.e., the culture war stuff. Though
> it's very true that the DP doesn't want organized and class-conscious
> workers, there's a big component of the working class that doesn't
> want abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. The yuppies that Chretien
> discusses are typically more in favor of those, and are deeply worried
> about who Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court (someone _worse_ than
> Clarence Thomas?)

I would prefer to speak of different sectors of one working class in
formation, since most of those "yuppies" would be -- or since the 2000
crash are already -- in great trouble if their paychecks cease for a few
months. And those "culture wars" need, eventually, to be won _inside_
the working class. AND that will be rather difficult to do so long as a
large number of leftists remain tied to the DP.

Carrol

P.S. Many ABBs affirm that they have no allegiance to the DP but believe
that 2004 represents a special case; that one can work for Kerry now but
return to the struggle against the DP after the election. For some no
doubt this is true. But it seems to me at least that as the months have
passed those ABBs have increasingly used arguments that simply do not
differentiate between now and any other election past or future -- i.e.
are arguments which will equally apply when a run-of-the-mill DP
reactionary is running against a run-of-the-mill RP reactionary in
future elections. ABB is turning into The DP Now and Forever. And that
brings us back to Chretien's point, that the DP is essentially
anti-democratic, and any movement for democracy in the U.S. must see the
DP as its chief enemy. Hence my increasing irritation with (most) ABBs.

P.S. 2 This irritation does not extend to the 20 to 30 rabid Kerry
supporters in the local anti-war group: they are just getting started in
non-electoral political activity and take supporting the DP for granted.
They will learn. But the ABBs who publish in various left journals and
on maillists are a different matter -- they are (supposedly) not
political amateurs or new to left activity.

Re: [Marxism] The NY Times, the Democratic Party and Italian fascism

[Louis Proyect]

Mallard Q. Duck wrote:
Scary. Any examples of this? Online New York Times archives or whatever?
Here's something fairly typical.
NY Times, July 22, 1923
"The Swashbuckling Mussolini"
by Anne O'Hare McCormick
(clip)
The miracle is a miracle of conversion. Here at last is a Government
that has transformed a people. If that sunds too strong, I can only say
that it is the only term that does justice to the first impiression made
on one who left Italy two years ago and comes back today. Then it was a
land visibly running down, wiht a kind of hand-to-mouth administration,
so that one never knew today where tomorrow's government was coming
from. There was no assurance that anything was going to work--railroads,
telegraphs, trains, posts, power plants, bakeries, any kind of public or
private service. One tried a water faucet skeptically; one bet on the
chances of getting a train. Life was a daily gamble; sporting enought
for the traveler but pretty desperate for the native. The people were
either idle and rebellious or idle and dispirited. The war had elft them
bitter and poor; subsequent events had made them lose pride in their
country and respect for their Government. Everywhere was slackness,
despondency, recklessness.
One left confusion and fear, and under confusion and fear, apathy and
discouragement. One returned to a country cheerful, industrious,
interested and orderly. All the railroads were running and running on
time. There was not even the threat or shadow of a strike. There has not
been a single strike in any part of Italy since the Fascistii came into
power. The streets were clean, the roads were being mended, the
enlivening sounds of construction were heard everywhere. Workers were
singing at their work. It was like a land recovered from a blight.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition

[Devine, James]

Todd Chretien writes:>The Democrats do nothing to challenge the 
indifference of the poorestpeople and youth in the United States to the 
outcomes of elections,because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to 
the DemocraticParty's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, 
confidentand organized working class. The submission of most of the left in 
theUnited States to the mantra of "Anybody But Bush" is of 
enormousimportance to maintaining this subjegation.<
Though this is accurate (as is the critique of the DP's anti-democratic 
ways), it misses an important dimension of the middle-class white ABB movement, 
i.e., the culture war stuff. Though it's very true that the DP doesn't want 
organized and class-conscious workers, there's a big component of the working 
class that doesn't want abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. The yuppies that 
Chretien discusses are typically more in favor of those, and are deeply worried 
about who Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court (someone _worse_ than Clarence 
Thomas?)
Jim Devine
 

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Devine, James]

I agree: as I've said 
before, people such as Castro and Noriega 
are dismissed as "crazy" 
by establishmentarian figures.
 
As someone who deals 
with the community of parents of kids on the autistic 
spectrum,
I'm always fighting the 
urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, 

Asperger's, etc. without 
actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These 

people include 
Albert 
Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) 

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

  -Original Message-From: PEN-L list 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian 
  McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion 
  based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . 
  .Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, 
  Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant 
  view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly 
  those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social 
  order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to 
  isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .Bush on the 
  Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and 
  phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources 
  of perversion in the land.Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the 
  prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured 
  in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and 
  others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .Brian 
  McKenna 

Tricky John

[Louis Proyect]

A Low Profile For the Big Issue
Kerry Treads Lightly on War in Iraq
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A06
In the early days of the general-election campaign, Democrat John F.
Kerry has mounted a strong effort to erode President Bush's advantage on
national security. But on the defining issue of war in Iraq, his shots
have appeared oblique at best.
The war received relatively short shrift at last week's Democratic
National Convention -- Kerry devoted only six sentences to Iraq policy
in his 45-minute acceptance speech -- and on the stump he seldom
discusses his plans for bringing the U.S. occupation to a close and
stabilizing the country.
(clip)
Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said Kerry's inability to "talk
straight about that vote on Iraq" will haunt him. "He voted for the war
and voted against funding for Iraq," Holt said. "As long as you look at
John Kerry through a gauzy haze of images and rhetoric, they have a
chance. You have to look at his record."
In Bush's revamped stump speech Friday, he drew particular glee in
focusing on the vote over the $87 billion. "He tried to explain his vote
by saying: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted
against it. End quote," Bush said to laughter. "He's got a different
explanation now. One time he said he was proud he voted against the
funding, then he said that the whole thing was a complicated matter."
Bush then added: "There is nothing complicated about supporting our
troops in combat!"
There is some precedent for Kerry's approach on Iraq. In 1968,
Republican challenger Richard M. Nixon took virtually the same tack as
Kerry when he accepted the GOP nomination. Despite mass protests against
the Vietnam War, Nixon only briefly touched on the conflict in his
speech, criticizing the Democrats for incompetence in conducting the
war, pledging to bring it to an "honorable end," and calling on allies
to bear more of "the burden of defending peace and freedom around this
world." Nixon, who had been Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice president, also
said he had experience in ending wars, pointing to the conclusion of the
Korean War during the Eisenhower administration.
full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40925-2004Aug4.html
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Scott Ritter on John Kerry

[Louis Proyect]

Boston Globe op-ed
SCOTT RITTER
Challenging Kerry on his Iraq vote
By Scott Ritter  |  August 5, 2004
WITH THE release last month of the report by the Senate Select Committee
on intelligence and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, John Kerry was
handed a gift that rarely occurs in a major political race: the chance
to underscore a major failing on the part of an opponent. The committee
found that there was no intelligence data to sustain President Bush's
oft-cited reason for last year's invasion of Iraq -- the presence of
WMDs and ongoing projects dedicated to their manufacture. Kerry said
that the Bush administration had been "wrong, and soldiers lost their
lives because they were wrong."
But Kerry failed to address that he was also wrong and that it was his
leadership in the Senate that enabled President Bush to oversee the most
flagrant abrogation of congressional constitutional responsibilities in
modern time, the October 2002 vote to give Bush power to wage war
against Iraq without assuring that there was a clear and present threat
to the United States. It is Kerry's yes vote that calls into question
the character of the man who wants to replace Bush in the White House.
When asked if he would agree with other Democratic senators who said
they would not have voted to give Bush war powers authority if they had
known about the lack of intelligence on WMD, Kerry let his vice
presidential nominee, Senator John Edwards, speak for him: "I'm not
going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would
have done had I known this." Kerry concurred with Edwards, adding, "The
vote is not today, and that's it."
More than 900 American troops in Iraq are dead and more than 5,000
wounded as a result of that vote, numbers that are sure to go higher.
Kerry cannot honestly say he was not aware of the paucity of verifiable
intelligence concerning the existence of WMD in Iraq on the eve of war.
I personally discussed this matter with Kerry in April 2000 and again
with his senior staff in June 2002. I asked Kerry to allow me to testify
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its hearing on Iraq
in July-August 2002 but was denied. Kerry knew that there was a viable
case to be made to debunk the president's statements regarding the
threat posed by Iraq's WMD, but he chose not to act on it.
As a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush, I have made it my personal
goal to make sure that he does not survive his first term because of his
decision to go to war with Iraq without any legitimate justification.
However, I believe there are many people, especially disenchanted
Republicans like myself, who even though we reject Bush are looking for
a good reason to vote for Kerry. Bush's elective war with Iraq provides
that reason, if only Kerry could find a way to separate himself from the
Bush record that does not insult the intellect and integrity of the
electorate.
Kerry claims he voted for the war resolution to give Bush the support
needed to win over much-needed international support to confront Saddam.
According to Kerry, Bush failed to do this. "With a new president,"
Kerry pronounced during his acceptance speech last week at the
Democratic National Convention, "who strengthens and leads our
alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that
Iraq's neighbors like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a
democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries
to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction."
However, a prerequisite for getting such support rests on the legitimacy
of the conflict with Iraq. This legitimacy hinged on Saddam's possession
of WMDs in violation of Security Council resolutions, a notion that has
been totally discredited. Kerry can quibble about the hypothetical
nature of looking back on his decision to vote for war, but one must
question how Kerry plans to enlist support for a war that not only has
been proven to be without justification but violates the very principles
of international law one presumes would serve as the rallying cry for
garnering international support to begin with.
Kerry needs to publicly reexamine the reasoning for his vote for war and
articulate a clear strategy for Iraq that includes not only a plan for
reengagement with the international community but also disengagement of
American soldiers.
These are real issues that must be addressed directly if Kerry plans on
winning the votes of the many Republicans who have been put off by the
disingenuous nature of Bush's war in Iraq. To brush them off as
hypothetical puts Kerry on the same hypocritical plane as President Bush
when it comes to Iraq, something that will not endear him to the legions
of crossover voters he needs to win the presidency.
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, is author of
"Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of
America."
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Doyle Saylor]

Greetings Economists,
It is but a small step from what CC writes:
As a friend of mine in the local Depressive Support Group once observed,
Just because you're crazy doesn't mean you're not also a jerk! There is
no difficulty in demonstrating that Bush and his friends are one large
bunch of thugs & war criminals. There is no need for Capital Blue's
baiting of the mentally ill!

Doyle,
to taking seriously what emotion contributes to society.  Everyone knows the
Enlightenment view of emotion is that it does not belong in rational
discussion.

Contrarily, the philosopher of law at the University of Chicago, Martha
Nussbaum posits a society in which asocial emotions do not shape society,
and social emotions do.  It is a far cry from that position to one which
condemns Bush for being depressed.  It is bigoted anti-disability claim
about Bush.

Just to be clear Nussbaum for example distinguishes disgust as an asocial
emotion from anger or fear which are social emotions.  In other words
Nussbaum takes seriously the role of emotion in the construction of society
and gives us probably the first non bigoted way to approach this issue.  She
in fact directly addresses bigotry against disabled people.

No socialist or Marxist can possibly stand by an attack upon depressed
people as a legitimate left path.  Down with the bigots.
thanks,
Doyle

PPP comparisons

[sam pawlett]

Take a simple example of Japan and the US.  Say the market exchange rate
is 110 Yens = One US$. Now take an equivalent basket--in quantity and
quality--that contains a burger with fries and a drink. It costs 450
Yens in Tokyo and US$ 2.50 in New York. The PPP exchange rate is then
180 Yens = One US$ (450/2.50). There is nothing imaginary about the PPP
exchange rate since it gives you the purchasing power of  a country's
currency vis-a-vis the US dollar.
One thing I've never understood about PPP, is it an attempt to measure
-what it is like living in a poor country- or is the idea more modest as
the above paragraph suggests trying to demonstrate  what the market
equivalent amount of currency buys in a given country? For example the
PPP GDP or GNP per capita of a country is $US 500. Does this mean that
living in that country on that given amount of money is like living in
the USA on the same amount of money?
 PPP (and the averaging and aggregating that goes on) can be
misleading.A string sampling bias exists. There are no price differences
between countries in goods and services that are offered by MNC's. The
costs of Mcdonalds,Bechtel water, Enron nat. gas, or a Blockbuster video
is the same across geographical space with very limited differential.
The IMF and its coat-tailers always (and ,yes, still) say that the most
important economic fundamental is getting prices right. The right price
or international market price always seems to be what the good or
service costs in the USA. How could it be otherwise, inflation always
exists and the bulk of demand  for the goods and services offered by
MNC's is still in the North hemisphere. Ultimately, the WTO project gets
more goods and services  to cost what they cost in the USA and Europe.
And as that happens, people's access to those goods and services becomes
more limited, Bechtel water in South Africa for example.
  The products offered by local or import substituting businesses cost
much less. The marlboro, pizza hut or coca-cola knockoff costs %25 as
much. The more foreign based products it counts in its basket of goods,
the bigger the PPP number will be.  As the world becomes globalized and
the stricter that gov'ts enforce WTO rules, the Atlas rather than ppp
will come closer to the truth especially with imports and exports being
priced in US dollars and the ongoing dollarization of world economies. I
don't think this is an unimportant quibble, as it represents trends
sometimes called combined and uneven development.
Sam Pawlett

Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition

[Louis Proyect]

Counterpunch, August 5, 2004
The Dem Plot Against Nader
Florida Comes to California
By TODD CHRETIEN
Having spent the last month helping organize the petition drive to get
Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo on the ballot in California, I'd like to
make two observations and some comments.
1. There are an appalling number of "liberals" or "progressives" who are
willing to scream and spit in your face (literally) when you ask them if
they'd like to sign a petition so that people who want to vote for a
candidate who opposes the occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Act will
have that right.
Here's a typical conversation:
Petitioner: "Excuse me, are you a registered voter in California?
We're trying to get Ralph Nader on the ballot."
Liberal Yuppie: "No, no, no!!! You cost Gore the election! F**k you,
b**tch!"
Petitioner: "We're not asking you to vote for him, just help us get on
the ballot, so that people who would like to vote for him will have that
right."
Liberal Yuppie: "I don't care about your rights. You're going to hell!"
Apologies to the faint at heart for the strong language, but for all of
Norman Solomon's conspiracy theories about Nader being a Republican
tool, the reality is that the less than 5% of campaign contributions
Nader has received from individual Republicans (mostly old classmates
and small Arab-American businessmen who voted for Bush in 200, but now
disgusted with Kerry and Bush alike) has absolutely no influence on the
campaign. The real story is that hundreds of left-wing and progressive
people spent the last month collecting tens of thousands of signatures
from ordinary people. We didn't go to Beverly Hills or Point Reyes. We
went to Oakland and San Leandro and Stockton and East LA and Chico and
Sacramento and the Mission in San Franciso and Santa Cruz and Davis and
Butte County and San Diego and everywhere in between. I'd like to send a
warm thanks to everyone here and across the country who has stood their
ground petitioning against the anti-democratic, and often racist and
sexist abuse.
2. There is an inverse relationship between youth, poverty and
oppression on the one hand and hostility to Nader on the other.
Petitioners encountered the MOST hostility in more middle-class areas,
where indignant liberal yuppies felt perfectly comfortable yelling all
sorts of vulgar insults. In neighborhoods that were poorer, more working
class and more multi-racial, petitioners got a much better reception.
Same goes for younger voters. And in the working class areas, even those
who did not want to sign the petitions tended to be more respectful and
support our right to speak our minds.
These are generalizations. There are many better off progressive people
who support Nader and there are many young, poor and people of color who
do not. But the trend is unmistakable.
What can we learn from these facts?
The Democratic Party survives off the passivity and demoralization of
the poorest and most oppressed sections of the working class.
The Democrats do nothing to challenge the indifference of the poorest
people and youth in the United States to the outcomes of elections,
because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to the Democratic
Party's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, confident
and organized working class. The submission of most of the left in the
United States to the mantra of "Anybody But Bush" is of enormous
importance to maintaining this subjegation.
If we held an election tomorrow in which everyone (whether or not they
are registered to vote) voted on Bush's, Kerry's and Nader's platforms,
Nader would get 20% or 30% of the vote, if not more. Would that cost
Kerry the election? Probably, but it would also terrify Bush and
paralyze the main stream parties' capacity to march lock-step down the
road of war, prisons and corporate power.
Of course, there WON'T be that kind of election this year. Why not?
Because the Democrats and the corporate media are doing their best to
stamp out the challenge from Nader. They are determined to destroy any
left-wing opposition today and effectively cripple it for the future.
Unfortunately, they have enlisted many progressive political people in
this campaign. If they succeed in driving Nader/Camejo from the field,
then the likelihood of an election like that EVER taking place will be
set back tremendously.
In the meantime, the damage being done to the Green Party is
accumulating. I've talked to dozens of Greens who say, "I can't believe
David Cobb is encouraging people to vote for Kerry. What's the point of
being a Green. I'm quitting the party, I'm going with Nader." Cobb likes
to talk about "growing the Green Party." But prominently displayed on
his website is an essay by Medea Benjamin and others called, "An Open
Letter to Progressives: Vote Cobb, Vote Kerry." No doubt, this "vote
Kerry" line will earn the Green Party thanks from the pro-war forces.
But it will lose something much more valuable. Namely, the respect of
people who are looking for 

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Brian McKenna]

Hi all,

I disagree strongly with this view. . .

Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .

Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.

Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .

Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .

Brian McKenna

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs

[Carrol Cox]

Brian McKenna wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I disagree strongly with this view. . .

The rest of this post is so incoherent that I am baffled by how to
respond to its actual arguments (since every argument the post advances
it also attacks as far as I can see: hence it refutes itself pretty
conclusively).

But the rationale of the argument aside, I take any attack on anyone on
the basis of mental illness as a personal attack. I.e., as far as I am
concerned Brian's post boils down to the proposition that "Cox is a
shithead."

Same to you Brian.

Carrol