Article on Venezuela poll

[ken hanly]

August 15, 2004

U.S. can redeem itself after Venezuelans vote

By Elliott Young
History News Service



 http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/08/15/f1.ed.col.venezuela.0815.html




Venezuela will face the most important election in its history today. For
the first time, Venezuelans will vote on whether to recall their president.

The United States had better respond more responsibly than it did two years
ago.

In April 2002, the United States stunned the world by immediately
recognizing an illegal government installed after a military coup ousted the
constitutionally elected president, Hugo Chavez.

This time, the United States has the opportunity to support democracy and
allow the Venezuelan people to decide the fate of their country at the
ballot box.

 With heavy scrutiny from the Organization of American States, the Carter
Center, the European Union and thousands of international electoral
observers, there should be no question of the legitimacy of this referendum.

Therefore, there will be no grounds for the United States to reject its
outcome.

Both U.S. presidential candidates have made threatening remarks about
Chavez's supposedly authoritarian and undemocratic rule. John Kerry went so
far as to say that Chavez's close relationship with Cuba's Fidel Castro
``raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly
democratic country.''

The opposition-controlled media in Venezuela feed this sort of anachronistic
anti-communism with one-sided coverage. Yet the more relevant historical
analogy for Chavez's Venezuela would be Juan Peron's Argentina, a legacy
that Chavez himself frequently invokes.

In the middle of the 20th century, Latin American populists cultivated
highly personable styles of leadership while they nationalized key
industries, stressed independence from the United States and ultimately
strengthened capitalism in their countries that benefited labor unions and
workers.

Chavez's charismatic hold on the vast majority of poor Venezuelans and his
anti-Yankee rhetoric fit the populist profile.

Inheriting a state-owned oil industry at a time of record high oil prices
has enabled Chavez to pursue his ambitious social program of distributing
resources to the poor without having to expropriate private industry.

As long as oil prices remain high, Chavez may be able to have his cake and
eat it, too.

So why are members of the Venezuelan elite and significant sectors of the
middle classes apoplectic at the thought of Chavez finishing out his term in
office?

Anti-Chavistas point to corruption, crime and economic crisis to justify
their opposition, but crime and corruption are hardly new to Venezuela. And
a good part of Venezuela's economic decline, which has been turned around in
the last year, can be attributed to the three-month-long strike led by
oppositionists. These are the same people who supported the April 2002 coup
and who publicly declared their desire to topple the government by crippling
the economy.

The vehement opposition to Chavez by the Venezuelan elites is cultural as
well as economic. Put simply, they are embarrassed by their president. He's
a ``clown,'' he acts like a ``monkey,'' they complain, pointing to his
impromptu singing and folksy digressions on his six-hour weekly call-in
television program, ``Al Presidente.''

Labeling Chavez a monkey plays the race card, hinting that Chavez (who is
part Indian and part black) is distinct from the lily-white Venezuelan
elites. Historian Samuel Moncada, chair of the history department at the
Universidad Central de Venezuela, calls this the ``aesthetic opposition.''
As Moncada put it, ``The Venezuelan elites will simply not forgive Chavez
for breaking the cultural codes that distinguish them from the rest of
Venezuela,'' the darker-skinned 80 percent of the people who live in
poverty.

Like Peron's descamisados (shirtless ones), Chavez's supporters are mostly
poor and landless, the wretched of the earth. The passionate identification
of the poor with Chavez cannot be chalked up solely to rhetoric or populism;
he has produced results. Sixty thousand peasant families have received more
than 5.5 million acres of land, thousands of schools, health clinics and
low-income housing have been built, an ambitious literacy program has
graduated more than 1 million adults and higher education is being
democratized.

Venezuela is polarized today, as it has always been. On one side are the
rich who drive in caravans of SUVs with designer sunglasses, honking their
horns to get rid of Chavez. On the other side is a heterogeneous crowd of
loud and rambunctious Venezuelans, most too poor to afford cars, who seem
willing to lay down their very lives for their comandante. Most Chavez
supporters carry in their pockets a miniature edition of the new
constitution, a symbol they frequently brandish as if it were a weapon.

The most reliable polls predict that Chavez will win in the referendum, yet
the opposition has already begun to say that i

Over 6, 000 US wounded

[ken hanly]

Note that the post talks of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan both as the war
on terror!! At least Iraq is an occupation after an illegal invasion and
Afghanistan also involved the overthrow of a government and consequent
occupation but with more international junior imperialists than in Iraq at
most in the Afghan case the Taliban gave aid and comfort to terrorists.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

U.S. Military Wounded Numbers More Than 6,000, Wash. Post Says
Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. war on terrorism has wounded about 6,120
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Washington Post said.

Many soldiers are treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington,
D.C., where doctors have seen 3,358 soldiers from Operation Iraqi Freedom,
including 741 battle casualties. The rest have suffered from non-combat
conditions ranging from heat exhaustion to road accidents, the Post said.

A spokesman for Walter Reed said the hospital spent $42.3 million in fiscal
2003 treating wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fiscal 2004,
the cost has been $37.1 million, and that is expected to rise, the Post
said.

(Washington Post 8-11 A1)

Re: Economics and law

[ken hanly]

I meant I do think that it is a straightforward case of cb
analysis...sorry.. By the way a Pinto built in Canada and tested by the govt
in Arizona passed a crash test. Seems that the later models were built a bit
differently in Canada with a baffle that cost about a buck that made a lot
of difference in crash impact.


Cheers, Ken Hanly

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "ken hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law


> Actually I dont think that the Pinto Case was one of a straightforward
> cost-benefit analysis and didnt even include matters such as the cost of
> lawsuits per se except perhaps indirectly since it included the cost of
> human lives and of injuries. The human life values were themselves based
> upon government figures.
>
>
>

Re: Economics and law

[ken hanly]

I meant to incude this passage in the last message. Actually even less
costly improvements such as a bladder or a baffle in the gas tank would have
prevented most of the deaths and injuries. But even the original calculation
was not accurate as shown below. THere is nothing about legal costs either.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm
The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it
was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a
flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to
be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be
avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be
avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per
car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed
that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and
180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread
out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the
design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be
$137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures,
which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent
experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more
are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1
death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements
would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the
problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar
value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the
car.


- Original Message -
From: "Kenneth Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law


> Charles wrote:
>
> >You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely
> >on North American workers) have given such high awards
> >often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort
> >"reform" for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts.
>
> It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced
> on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people
> outside the law).
>
> There is a buffer there, too, no?
>
> (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the
> initial awards.)
>
> >Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big
> >role in developing products liability law.
>
> I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I
> would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any
> more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in
> context.
>
> Ken.
>
> --
> The future is something which everyone reaches at
> the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does,
> whoever he is.
>   -- C.S. Lewis

Re: Economics and law

[ken hanly]

Actually I dont think that the Pinto Case was one of a straightforward
cost-benefit analysis and didnt even include matters such as the cost of
lawsuits per se except perhaps indirectly since it included the cost of
human lives and of injuries. The human life values were themselves based
upon government figures.


- Original Message -
From: "Kenneth Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economics and law


> Charles wrote:
>
> >You are probably aware that many juries ( composed largely
> >on North American workers) have given such high awards
> >often that the rightwing has been carrying out tort
> >"reform" for a while, whereby caps are put on the amounts.
>
> It was my understanding that many of these awards are severely reduced
> on the appellate level... which does not involved juries (hence people
> outside the law).
>
> There is a buffer there, too, no?
>
> (But you are right about the political agenda behind removing in the
> initial awards.)
>
> >Left wing lawyers (Maurice Sugar and others) played a big
> >role in developing products liability law.
>
> I do not currently know the development of product liability law. I
> would imagine it came out of the early 1900s in the US. If you have any
> more research, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to put it in
> context.
>
> Ken.
>
> --
> The future is something which everyone reaches at
> the rate of 60 minutes an hour, whatever he does,
> whoever he is.
>   -- C.S. Lewis

Richard Falk on the ICJ decision on Israeli wall.

[ken hanly]

Kerry is obviously not a whit better that Bush on this  matter..If the
Israelis just wanted to protect their own territory they could legally build
the wall on their territory instead of within occupied territory. The self
defence defence is a non-starter.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/9194447.htm?1c

Miami Herald July 20, 2004

Support for wall mocks international law

By Richard Falk

What is most remarkable about the International Court of Justice decision on
Israel's "security barrier" in the West Bank is the strength of the
consensus behind it. By a vote of 14-1, the 15 distinguished jurists who
make up the highest judicial body on the planet found that the barrier is
illegal under international law and that Israel must dismantle it, as well
as compensate Palestinians for damage to their property resulting from the
barrier's construction.

The International Court of Justice has very rarely reached this degree of
unanimity in big cases. The July 9 decision was even supported by the
generally conservative British judge Rosalyn Higgins, whose intellectual
force is widely admired in the United States.

One might expect the government of Ariel Sharon to wave off this notable
consensus as an "immoral and dangerous opinion." But one might expect the
United States -- even as it backed its ally Israel -- at least to take
account of the court's reasoning in its criticisms. Instead, both the Bush
administration and leading Democrats, including Senators John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton, mindlessly rejected the decision.

Even the American justice in The Hague, Thomas Buergenthal, was careful in
his lone dissent. He argued that the court did not fully explore Israel's
contention that the wall-and-fence complex is necessary for its security
before arriving at its sweeping legal conclusions. But Judge Buergenthal
also indicated that Israel was bound to adhere to international humanitarian
law, that the Palestinians were entitled to exercise their right of
self-determination and, insofar as the wall was built to protect Israeli
settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that he had "serious doubt
that the wall would. . .satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify
as legitimate self-defense."

The nuance in Buergenthal's narrow dissent contrasts sharply with, for
instance, Kerry's categorical statement that Israel's barrier "is not a
matter for the ICJ."

To the contrary, Israel's construction of the wall in the West Bank has
flagrantly violated clear standards in international law. The clarity of the
violations accounts for the willingness of the U.N. General Assembly to
request an advisory opinion on the wall from the court, a right it has never
previously exercised in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The
clarity also helps to explain Israel's refusal to participate in the ICJ
proceedings -- not even to present its claim that the barrier under
construction has already reduced the incidence of suicide bombing by as much
as 90 percent.

Significantly, the court confirms that Israel is entitled to build a wall to
defend itself from threats emanating from the Palestinian territories if it
builds the barrier on its own territory. The justices based their objection
to the wall on its location within occupied Palestinian territories, as well
as the consequent suffering visited upon affected Palestinians.

If Israel had erected the wall on its side of the boundary of Israel prior
to the 1967 war, then it would not have encroached on Palestinian legal
rights. The court's logic assumes the unconditional applicability of
international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, to
Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza (a principle affirmed by
Judge Buergenthal). That body of law obliges Israel to respect the property
rights of Palestinians without qualification, and to avoid altering the
character of the territory, including by population transfer.

The decision creates a clear mandate. The ICJ decision, by a vote of 13-2,
imposes upon all states an obligation not to recognize "the illegal
situation" created by the construction of the wall. This is supplemented by
a 14-1 vote urging the General Assembly and Security Council to "consider
what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation."

Such a plain-spoken ruling from the characteristically cautious
International Court of Justice will test the respect accorded international
law, including U.S. willingness to support international law despite a
ruling against its ally. The invasion of Iraq and the continuing scandals
have already tarnished the reputation of the United States as a law-abiding
member of the international community. When U.S. officials dismiss the
nearly unanimous ICJ decision without even bothering to engage its
arguments, America

The West's pursuit of democracy in the Arab world

[ken hanly]

Toronto Star July 20, 2004

Why tyrants rule Arabs

For 60 years, the West has propped up Arab despots, creating poverty and
illiteracy where education once thrived

By Gwynne Dyer

It was just a random statistic, but a telling one: Only 300 books were
translated into Arabic last year. That is about one foreign title per
million Arabs. For comparison's sake, Greece translated 1,500
foreign-language books, or about 150 titles per million Greeks. Why is the
Arab world so far behind, not only in this but in practically all the arts
and sciences?

The first-order answer is poverty and lack of education: Almost half of
Arabic-speaking women are illiterate.

But the Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet; what
went wrong? Tyranny and economic failure, obviously. But why is tyranny such
a problem in the Arab world? That brings us to the nub of the matter.

In a speech in November, 2003, President George W. Bush revisited his
familiar refrain about how the West has to remake the Arab world in its own
image in order to stop the terrorism: "Sixty years of Western nations
excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did
nothing to make us safe ... because in the long run, stability cannot be
purchased at the expense of liberty" - as if the Arab world had wilfully
chosen to be ruled by these corrupt and incompetent tyrannies.

But the West didn't just "excuse and accommodate" these regimes. It created
them, in order to protect its own interests - and it spent the latter half
of the 20th century keeping them in power for the same reason.

It was Britain that carved the kingdom of Jordan out of the old Ottoman
province of Syria after World War I and put the Hashemite ruling family on
the throne that it still occupies.

France similarly carved Lebanon out of Syria in order to create a loyal
Christian-majority state that controlled most of the Syrian coastline - and
when time and a higher Muslim birth rate eventually led to a revolt against
the Maronite Christian stranglehold on power in Lebanon in 1958, U.S. troops
were sent in to restore it. The Lebanese civil war of 1975-'90, tangled
though it was, was basically a continuation of that struggle.

Britain also imposed a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq after 1918, and
deliberately perpetuated the political monopoly of the Sunni minority that
it had inherited from Turkish rule.

When the Iraqi monarchy was finally overthrown in 1958 and the Baath party
won the struggle that followed, the CIA gave the Iraqi Baathists the names
of all the senior members of the Iraqi Communist party (then the main
political vehicle of the Shias) so they could be liquidated.

It was Britain that turned the traditional sheikhdoms in the Gulf into
separate little sovereign states and absolute monarchies, carving Kuwait out
of Iraq in the process. Saudi Arabia, however, was a joint Anglo-U.S.
project.

The British Foreign Office welcomed the Egyptian generals' overthrow of King
Farouk and the destruction of the country's old nationalist political
parties, failing to foresee that Gamal Abdul Nasser would eventually take
over the Suez Canal. When he did, the foreign office conspired with France
and Israel to attack Egypt in a failed attempt to overthrow him.

Once Nasser died and was succeeded by generals more willing to play along
with the West - Anwar Sadat, and now Hosni Mubarak - Egypt became
Washington's favourite Arab state. To help these thinly disguised dictators
to hang on to power, Egypt has ranked among the top three recipients of U.S.
foreign aid almost every year for the past quarter-century. And so it goes.


Britain welcomed the coup by Col. Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1969,
mistakenly seeing him as a malleable young man who could serve the West's
purposes.

The United States and France both supported the old dictator Habib Bourguiba
in Tunisia, and still back his successor Ben Ali today. They always backed
the Moroccan monarchy no matter how repressive it became, and they both gave
unquestioning support to the Algerian generals who cancelled the elections
of 1991. They did not ever waver in their support through the savage
insurgency unleashed by the suppression of the elections that killed an
estimated 120,000 Algerians over the next 10 years.

"Excuse and accommodate"? The West created the modern Middle East, from its
rotten regimes down to its ridiculous borders, and it did so with
contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the local people.

It is indeed a problem that most Arab governments are corrupt autocracies
that breed hatred and despair in their own people, which then fuels
terrorism against the West, but it was the West that created the problem -
and invading Iraq won't solve it.

If the U.S. really wants to foster Arab democracy, it might try making all
that aid to Egypt conditional on prompt democratic reforms. But I wouldn't
hold my breath.



Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist based in London.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con

The New School of the Americas

[ken hanly]

Apologies if this was posted earlier. It seems that renaming is regarded as
a good substitute for doing away with torture and repression.


Cheers, Ken Hanly

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/35/news-ireland.php

LA Weekly July 23 - 29, 2004

Teaching Torture

Congress quietly keeps School of the Americas alive

by Doug Ireland

Remember how congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle deplored the
torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as "un-American"? Last Thursday, however,
the House quietly passed a renewed appropriation that keeps open the U.S.'s
most infamous torture-teaching institution, known as the School of the
Americas (SOA), where the illegal physical and psychological abuse of
prisoners of the kind the world condemned at Abu Ghraib and worse has been
routinely taught for years.

A relic of the Cold War, the SOA was originally set up to train military,
police and intelligence officers of U.S. allies south of the border in the
fight against insurgencies Washington labeled "Communist." In reality, the
SOA's graduates have been the shock troops of political repression, propping
up a string of dictatorial and repressive regimes favored by the Pentagon.

The interrogation manuals long used at the SOA were made public in May by
the National Security Archive, an independent research group, and posted on
its Web site after they were declassified following Freedom of Information
Act requests by, among others, the Baltimore Sun. In releasing the manuals,
the NSA noted that they "describe 'coercive techniques' such as those used
to mistreat the detainees at Abu Ghraib."

The Abu Ghraib torture techniques have been field-tested by SOA graduates -
seven of the U.S. Army interrogation manuals that were translated into
Spanish, used at the SOA's trainings and distributed to our allies, offered
instruction on torture, beatings and assassination. As Dr. Miles Schuman, a
physician with the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture who has documented
torture cases and counseled their victims, graphically wrote in the May 14
Toronto Globe and Mail under the headline "Abu Ghraib: The Rule, Not the
Exception":

"The black hood covering the faces of naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib was
known as la capuchi in Guatemalan and Salvadoran torture chambers. The metal
bed frame to which the naked and hooded detainee was bound in a crucifix
position in Abu Ghraib was la cama, named for a former Chilean prisoner who
survived the U.S.-installed regime of General Augusto Pinochet. In her case,
electrodes were attached to her arms, legs and genitalia, just as they were
attached to the Iraqi detainee poised on a box, threatened with
electrocution if he fell off. The Iraqi man bound naked on the ground with a
leash attached to his neck, held by a smiling young American recruit,
reminds me of the son of peasant organizers who recounted his agonizing
torture at the hands of the Tonton Macoutes, U.S.-backed dictator
John-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier's right-hand thugs, in Port-au-Prince in
1984. The very act of photographing those tortured in Abu Ghraib to
humiliate and silence parallels the experience of an American missionary,
Sister Diana Ortiz," who was tortured and gang-raped repeatedly under
supervision by an American in 1989, according to her testimony before the
Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

The long history of torture by U.S.-trained thugs in Latin and Central
America under the command of SOA graduates has also been capaciously
documented by human-rights organizations like Amnesty International (in its
2002 report titled "Unmatched Power, Unmet Principles") and in books like
A.J. Langguth's Hidden Terrors, William Blum's Rogue State and Lawrence
Weschler's A Miracle, a Universe. In virtually every report on human-rights
abuses from Latin America, SOA graduates are prominent. A U.N. Truth
Commission report said that over two-thirds of the Salvadoran officers it
cites for abuses are SOA graduates. Forty percent of the Cabinet members
under three sanguinary Guatemalan dictatorships were SOA graduates. And the
list goes on . . .

In 2000, the Pentagon engaged in a smoke-screen attempt to give the SOA a
face-lift by changing its name to the Western Hemispheric Institute for
Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) as part of a claimed "reform" program. But,
as the late GOP Senator Paul Coverdale of Georgia (where SOA-WHINSEC is
located) said at the time, the changes to the school were "basically
cosmetic."

The lobbying campaign to close SOA-WHINSEC has been led by School of the
Americas Watch, founded by religious activists after the 1990s murder of
four U.S. nuns by Salvadoran death squads under command of one of SOA's most
infamous graduates, Colonel Roberto D'Aubuisson. Lest you think that the
school's links to atrocities are all in the distant past, SOA Watch has
documented a raft of recent sca

Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior

[ken hanly]

Joyful gospel songs?

Cheers, Ken Hanly



- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic
Behavior


> Robert Naiman wrote:
> >
> >  From Capitol Hill Blue
> >
> > Bush Leagues
> > Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
> > By TERESA HAMPTON
> > Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
> > Jul 28, 2004, 08:09
> > http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml
> >
> > President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to
> > control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue
> > has learned.
>
> This sort of thing should be discouraged. "Powerful" would simply not
> not appear in an honest account as a modifier of "anti-depressant
> drugs." I've _never_ seen that adjective in straightforward discussion
> of anti-depressants, and the only excuse for it hear is that the  writer
> is trying to put across bullshit.
>
> What in the hell would a "weak anti-depressant drug" be?
>
> Carrol
>

Re: What is the total wealth ?

[ken hanly]

The BSers of the world have united. The revolutionary result is mainstream
economics..

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] What is the total wealth ?


> Right, they should teach that marginal productivity theory created
economic justice because
> everybody got rewarded according to their marginal product.  Sraffa proved
that it was BS.
> Samuelson and others attempted to refute him, but were unsuccessful.
Solow said that it
> was a tempest in a teapot.  Now nobody cares, but they continue to teach
the same BS.
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:07:17PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, but nobody cares about that anymore. It was an obsession of
> > some weirdos in England a generation ago, but we've moved beyond that
> > now.
> >
> > Doug
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

1.9 billion of Iraqi money to US firms

[ken hanly]

$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A01
Halliburton Co. and other U.S. contractors are being paid at least $1.9
billion from Iraqi funds under an arrangement set by the U.S.-led occupation
authority, according to a review of documents and interviews with government
agencies, companies and auditors.
Most of the money is for two controversial deals that originally had been
financed with money approved by the U.S. Congress, but later shifted to
Iraqi funds that were governed by fewer restrictions and less rigorous
oversight.



For the first 14 months of the occupation, officials of the Coalition
Provisional Authority provided little detailed information about the Iraqi
money, from oil sales and other sources, that it spent on reconstruction
contracts. They have said that it was used for the benefit of the Iraqi
people and that most of the contracts paid from Iraqi money went to Iraqi
companies. But the CPA never released information about specific contracts
and the identities of companies that won them, citing security concerns, so
it has been impossible to know whether these promises were kept.
The CPA has said it has awarded about 2,000 contracts with Iraqi money. Its
inspector general compiled records for the major contracts, which it defined
as those worth $5 million or more each. Analysis of those and other records
shows that 19 of 37 major contracts funded by Iraqi money went to U.S.
companies and at least 85 percent of the total $2.26 billion was obligated
to U.S. companies. The contracts that went to U.S. firms may be worth
several hundred million more once the work is completed.
That analysis and several audit reports released in recent weeks shed new
light on how the occupation authority handled the Iraqi money it controlled.
They show that the CPA at times violated its own rules, authorizing Iraqi
money when it didn't have a quorum or proper Iraqi representation at
meetings, and kept such sloppy records that the paperwork for several major
contracts could not be found. During the first half of the occupation, the
CPA depended heavily on no-bid contracts that were questioned by auditors.
And the occupation's shifting of projects that were publicly announced to be
financed by U.S. money to Iraqi money prompted the Iraqi finance minister to
complain that the "ad hoc" process put the CPA in danger of losing the trust
of the people.
Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a subsidiary of Halliburton, was paid $1.66
billion from the Iraqi money, primarily to cover the cost of importing fuel
from Kuwait. The job was tacked on to a no-bid contract that was the subject
of several investigations after allegations surfaced that a subcontractor
for Houston-based KBR overcharged by as much as $61 million for the fuel.
Harris Corp., a Melbourne, Fla., company, got $48 million from the Iraqi oil
funds to manage and update the formerly state-owned media network, taking
over from Science Applications International Corp. of San Diego. The new
television and radio services and newspaper have been widely criticized as
mouthpieces for the occupation and symbols of the failures of the
reconstruction effort. When it was being financed with U.S.-appropriated
funds, the contract drew scrutiny because of questionable expenses,
including chartering a jet to fly in a Hummer H2 and a Ford pickup truck for
the program manager's use.
Fareed Yaseen, one of 43 ambassadors recently appointed by Iraq's
government, said he was troubled that the Iraqi money was managed almost
exclusively by foreigners and that contracts went predominantly to foreign
companies.
"There was practically no Iraqi voice in the disbursements of these funds,"
Yaseen said in a phone interview from Baghdad, where he is awaiting his
diplomatic assignment.
Even Iraqi officials who served in the government while the CPA was in
charge complained they had little say in the use of their own country's
money. Mohammed Aboush, who was a director general in the oil ministry
during the occupation, said he and other Iraqi officials were not consulted
about expanding the KBR contract. But he said he informed his American
"advisers" at the CPA that the Iraqis felt KBR's performance had been
inadequate and that he'd prefer that another company take over its work.
Aboush said that he was ignored and that he believes the decision to go with
KBR was political. "I am old enough to know the Americans and their
interests and they are not always the same interests as the Iraqi
interests," he said.
U.S. officials contend the CPA was faithful to the terms of a United Nations
resolution that gave the United States authority to manage the Iraq oil
money during the occupation. "We believe that contracts awarded with Iraqi
funds were for the sole benefit of the Iraqi people, without exception,"
Brig. Gen. Stephen M. Seay, head of contracting activity for the successor
to the CPA's office, wrote in a r

Re: No Bounce for Kerry

[ken hanly]

Well I think that Plato argued it a bit earlier..in The Republic..


Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] No Bounce for Kerry


> Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also, I have never heard of any competitive contest where you aim to
just get over
> > the hump.  Sounds like a stupid strategy.
>
> The alternative strategy would be to arouse public passion (and
> participation!). It has long been my own theory that the DP leadership
> would always choose losing rather than risk such arousal. The Public is
> a great Beast, and dangerous when aroused. (I think Zinn argues this
> someplace, but I'm not sure of my memory on this.)
>
> Carrol

Walmart costs California

[ken hanly]

Wal-Marts cost state, study says
Retailer refutes UC research that claims taxes subsidize wages
- George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 3, 2004

Employment practices at Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer with
relatively lower labor costs in the retail sector, cost California taxpayers
about $86 million annually in public assistance to company workers,
according to a study released Monday by a UC Berkeley research institute.
The study estimates that low wages force employees to accept $32 million
annually in health-related services and $54 million per year in other
assistance, such as subsidized school lunches, food stamps and subsidized
housing.
Wal-Mart questioned the validity of the report, saying the authors
undervalued the wages and benefits the chain's employees receive.
The UC report comes from the Berkeley Labor Center, an institute that is
openly supportive of union causes. Although its researchers have in the past
accepted funding from the grocery workers' union to conduct studies, this
report was not funded by labor, its authors said.
Wal-Mart, and its possible expansion in California, is a major topic in
labor circles as negotiators for 45,000 union grocery clerks in the Bay Area
begin contract talks with Safeway, Albertson's and other major employers.
The current contract expires Sept. 11. The union, the United Food and
Commercial Workers, and management are also working on a separate pact
covering 15,000 Sacramento Valley union workers.
These negotiations follow the disruptive 139-day strike and lockout of
nearly 70,000 union grocery clerks in Southern California that ended Feb.
29.
In all these talks, management is using Wal-Mart's presence and proposed
California expansion as a negotiating tactic, arguing they must lower labor
costs to be competitive with the company and other low-cost grocers. Union
leadership is backing political efforts to limit Wal-Mart's growth. Authors
Arindrajit Dube of the UC Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations and Ken
Jacobs of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education make a
number of assumptions in their study, beginning with a workforce estimate of
44,000 Wal-Mart employees at 143 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in
California who earn an estimated 31 percent less than workers in the large
retail sector as a whole.
The wage difference is even greater when comparing Bay Area Wal-Mart workers
with other union retail workers: The estimate is that Wal-Mart workers earn
on average $9.40 an hour compared with $15.31 for union grocery workers, 39
percent less, and the study estimates that they are half as likely to have
health benefits.
A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, Cynthia Lin, said, "It's disappointing that UC
researchers would release a study which has such questionable findings, but
then again, they are going to arrive at faulty conclusions when they work
off faulty assumptions.''
She said the study reports wages incorrectly. Bay Area workers earn an
average of $11.08 an hour while statewide it is $10.37.
Also, 90 percent of Wal-Mart's workers have health insurance, Lin said.
Of them, 50 percent have coverage through Wal-Mart and 40 percent through
other sources. She added that two-thirds of workers are senior citizens,
college students or second-income providers.
The UC authors do not have data on actual public assistance for Wal-Mart
workers. They take information from several sources, including testimony
about company wages in a sex-discrimination lawsuit brought against
Wal-Mart. They say that, at such low wages, many Wal-Mart workers rely on a
public safety net.
The authors extrapolate that if other large California retailers apply the
Wal-Mart model of wages and benefits to their 750,000 employees, it would
cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to
employees.
David Theroux, founder and president of the libertarian Independent
Institute in Oakland, said it is important to consider who the Wal-Mart
employees are: They may be former unemployed workers, they may be retirees
or have taken a second job out of necessity, or they may be developmentally
disabled or have any number of disadvantages. "If we eliminate Wal-Mart ...
it means those people are unemployed. Is it better for them to be employed
or unemployed?'' Theroux asked.
Theroux also faulted the study for what he said is a presumption that Wal-
Mart employees are more prone to go on welfare rolls. "How do they know
that? They need to show that,'' he said.
He added that, historically, competition drives up wages. It sharpens
workers' skills and boosts productivity so workers can command higher wages.
"It works in high tech. Why would retail be any different?'' Theroux said.
The study authors say in their conclusion, "In effect, Wal-Mart is shifting
part of its labor costs onto the public.'' Co-author Jacobs, in an
interview, said he hopes that policy-makers keep that argument in mind when
Wal-Mart seeks to expand.
Indeed, the Los Angeles Cit

Fiske on Iraq

[ken hanly]

August 01, 2004
The War Is a Fraud
Robert Fisk, The Independent, August 1, 2004:
The war is a fraud. I'm not talking about the weapons of mass destruction
that didn't exist. Nor the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida which
didn't exist. Nor all the other lies upon which we went to war. I'm talking
about the new lies.
For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did
not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has
fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we
are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month.
But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of
Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the
invasion ended. But we are not told.
The stage management of this catastrophe in Iraq was all too evident at
Saddam Hussein's "trial". Not only did the US military censor the tapes of
the event. Not only did they effectively delete all sound of the 11 other
defendants. But the Americans led Saddam Hussein to believe - until he
reached the courtroom - that he was on his way to his execution. Indeed,
when he entered the room he believed that the judge was there to condemn him
to death. This, after all, was the way Saddam ran his own state security
courts. No wonder he initially looked "disorientated" - CNN's helpful
description - because, of course, he was meant to look that way. We had made
sure of that. Which is why Saddam asked Judge Juhi: "Are you a lawyer? ...
Is this a trial?" And swiftly, as he realised that this really was an
initial court hearing - not a preliminary to his own hanging - he quickly
adopted an attitude of belligerence.
But don't think we're going to learn much more about Saddam's future court
appearances. Salem Chalabi, the brother of convicted fraudster Ahmad and the
man entrusted by the Americans with the tribunal, told the Iraqi press two
weeks ago that all media would be excluded from future court hearings. And I
can see why. Because if Saddam does a Milosevic, he'll want to talk about
the real intelligence and military connections of his regime - which were
primarily with the United States.
Living in Iraq these past few weeks is a weird as well as dangerous
experience. I drive down to Najaf. Highway 8 is one of the worst in Iraq.
Westerners are murdered there. It is littered with burnt-out police vehicles
and American trucks. Every police post for 70 miles has been abandoned. Yet
a few hours later, I am sitting in my room in Baghdad watching Tony Blair,
grinning in the House of Commons as if he is the hero of a school debating
competition; so much for the Butler report.
Indeed, watching any Western television station in Baghdad these days is
like tuning in to Planet Mars. Doesn't Blair realise that Iraq is about to
implode? Doesn't Bush realise this? The American-appointed "government"
controls only parts of Baghdad - and even there its ministers and civil
servants are car-bombed and assassinated. Baquba, Samara, Kut, Mahmoudiya,
Hilla, Fallujah, Ramadi, all are outside government authority. Iyad Allawi,
the "Prime Minister", is little more than mayor of Baghdad. "Some
journalists," Blair announces, "almost want there to be a disaster in Iraq."
He doesn't get it. The disaster exists now.
When suicide bombers ram their cars into hundreds of recruits outside police
stations, how on earth can anyone hold an election next January? Even the
National Conference to appoint those who will arrange elections has been
twice postponed. And looking back through my notebooks over the past five
weeks, I find that not a single Iraqi, not a single American soldier I have
spoken to, not a single mercenary - be he American, British or South
African - believes that there will be elections in January. All said that
Iraq is deteriorating by the day. And most asked why we journalists weren't
saying so.
But in Baghdad, I turn on my television and watch Bush telling his
Republican supporters that Iraq is improving, that Iraqis support the
"coalition", that they support their new US-manufactured government, that
the "war on terror" is being won, that Americans are safer. Then I go to an
internet site and watch two hooded men hacking off the head of an American
in Riyadh, tearing at the vertebrae of an American in Iraq with a knife.
Each day, the papers here list another construction company pulling out of
the country. And I go down to visit the friendly, tragically sad staff of
the Baghdad mortuary and there, each day, are dozens of those Iraqis we
supposedly came to liberate, screaming and weeping and cursing as they carry
their loved ones on their shoulders in cheap coffins.
I keep re-reading Tony Blair's statement. "I remain convinced it was right
to go to war. It was the most difficult decision of my life." And I cannot
understand it. It may be a terrible decision to go to war. Even Chamberlain
thought that; but he didn't find it a difficult 

First unionised walmart?

[ken hanly]

Associated Press
Quebec Wal-Mart Could Become Unionized
08.02.2004, 07:41 PM

A Wal-Mart store in Quebec may become the retail giant's first unionized
outlet after the Quebec Labor Relations Board accredited a union there to
represent the workers.

The Quebec Federation of Labor announced the accreditation Monday. The store
in Saguenay has about 180 employees.

"The union represents the large majority of the store's employees," said
Marie-Josee Lemieux, president of the union local of the United Food and
Commercial Workers. "We hope that Wal-Mart will accept this decision and
negotiate a labor contract with the union."

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has no unionized stores,
although a handful of meat cutters at a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Texas had
voted to join the United Food And Commercial Workers in 2000.

The retailer appealed the decision, and last June, an administrative law
judge ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, saying that the retailer had no obligation
to negotiate an agreement with the union because the meat cutter function
was being eliminated as the chain was moving toward prepackaged meat,
according to Christi Gallagher, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart's U.S. division.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., appears ready to battle the Canadian
effort.

"We are reviewing the decision," said Andrew Pelletier, spokesman for
Wal-Mart Canada. "There was no vote held in the store. This appeared to be
an automatic certification, and employees were not given the opportunity to
vote on the issue on unionization in a democratically held election, which
is of enormous concern."

The Quebec labor board will hold a meeting Aug. 20 to rule on the job
descriptions of those who can be covered by negotiations.

Wal-Mart operates 231 discount department stores and five Sam's Clubs and
employs more than 62,000 people across Canada. Wal-Mart entered Canada 10
years ago with the purchase of 122 Woolco stores.

Wal-Mart has more than 1,300 stores in nine countries employing 300,000
people. Besides Canada, Wal-Mart operates in Argentina, Brazil, China,
Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Great Britain.

Several efforts to form unions in other provinces have so far been
unsuccessful.

Wal-Mart has cited the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its legal challenge
of the Saskatchewan Labor Relations Board's authority. The move halted
hearings which began in May regarding the automatic union certification of a
Wal-Mart store in Weyburn, Saskatchewan.

Insurgent attacks in Iraq

[ken hanly]

Here is an article by Fisk that shows the degree to which many attacks go
unreported. It also shows the typical targets...

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07292004.html

Big brother's qualifications...

[ken hanly]

Administration picks disgraced judge for Homeland Security
By Michael J. Sniffen and Leslie Miller, Associated Press  |  July 28, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) A key overseer of the Bush administration's unsuccessful
efforts to create a more comprehensive screening process for airline
passengers resigned in disgrace four years ago from the New Hampshire
Supreme Court to avoid prosecution over his conduct on the bench.

W. Stephen Thayer III, who left New Hampshire's high court in 2000 under a
deal with prosecutors, is now serving as deputy chief of the Transportation
Security Administration's Office of National Risk Assessment.
Thayer resurrected his public career with a stint at a conservative
political group in Washington before landing the job last summer where he
oversees the administration's Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening
System. The project encountered such technical difficulty and so much
resistance from privacy advocates that it was sent back to the drawing board
earlier this month.
The project, which was known as CAPPS II, was to develop software to bar any
passenger from getting on an airplane if a computer analysis of unidentified
government terrorist watchlists and private commercial electronic records
judged him or her to be a security threat. The project has been sharply
criticized by congressional auditors.
The administration's selection of Thayer made with no fanfare last summer
has raised some eyebrows.
''To appoint someone who had to resign in public disgrace in lieu of being
indicted is incredibly offensive,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director
the Center for Public Integrity, a private ethics watchdog. CAPPS II has
been ''one of the most sensitive projects in the U.S. government,'' because
''we are talking about data-mining the records of millions of Americans. The
people in charge have got to be beyond reproach in every way.''
Thayer declined to be interviewed.
But TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield said Thayer was qualified for the job
because he helped the American Conservative Union organize a task force with
other conservative and liberal groups, including the American Civil
Liberties Union, to lobby on the government's handling of citizens' personal
information, including CAPPS II.
''That was as direct involvement in that field as you can get,'' Hatfield
said.
Hatfield said the New Hampshire controversy was reviewed by those who
appointed Thayer and posed no bar to his getting the federal job because no
charges were filed and no action was taken against him by the state judicial
conduct committee or the bar association.
''He faced the allegations for a significant time and significant cost and
at some point he chose to withdraw from the battle as it was in the best
interests of himself and his family,'' Hatfield said.
Months behind schedule, the two-year-old CAPPS II was sharply criticized in
February by the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of
Congress, for failing to fully address seven of eight targets for accuracy,
privacy and security.
Concerned that the program would invade privacy and leave air travelers with
no way of correcting its errors, Congress has prohibited the program's
deployment until those benchmarks are met. Earlier this month,
Transportation Security Administration chief David Stone told Congress the
program is being ''reshaped and repackaged.''
Thayer's fast-moving legal career U.S. attorney at 35, state supreme court
justice at 40 came to an abrupt halt March 31, 2000, when he resigned from
the state's highest court in a deal with New Hampshire Attorney General
Philip McLaughlin.
In return for Thayer's resignation, McLaughlin agreed to drop plans to
indict him. In a public report, McLaughlin criticized Thayer for
participating in deliberations on a case he was recused from. He also said
he would have sought felony or misdemeanor charges against Thayer for
allegedly trying to influence the choice of a judge to hear his wife's
appeal of their divorce and threatening fellow justices if they allowed his
conduct to be reported to judicial oversight groups.
McLaughlin's report said Supreme Court Justice John T. Broderick quoted
Thayer as saying if his conduct were reported to oversight groups ''I'm
done. It's over for me  We all do it. We can either hang together on
this or hang separately.'' Chief Justice David Brock said Thayer told him,
''I'm not going to hang alone.''
Thayer insisted at the time, ''I committed no criminal act.'' But McLaughlin
had decided to seek the criminal indictment when Thayer volunteered to
resign.
Two years after the episode, McLaughlin wrote Thayer in December 2002 and
cited Thayer's reputation for scholarship and fairness as a judge. He added
that during the investigation, Thayer acted ''in a most professional,
forthright and honest manner.'' But McLaughlin did not back off his
findings, noting his report ''will be a matter of public record forever.''
In a rare public appearance last fall, Thayer did not supply a bi

Re: Israel pushing for Kurdish state?

[ken hanly]

I posted before I had received the termination notice. Anyway my points are
different. The whole idea that the resistance is mostly from fundamentalist
bombers is misleading and the idea that even the suicide bombers let alone
the resistance in general is mainly targeting open air markets is just plain
wrong to put it politely.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Israel pushing for Kurdish state?


> I thought we were dropping this!
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Israel pushing for Kurdish state? -

[ken hanly]

Even the fundamentalist suicide bombers dont usually just target open air
markets. They target police or lineups of people waiting to sign up for
security forces etc. The resistance is manifold. US forces are still prime
targets and the toll of dead and injured is still rising day by day.
Government officials are prime targets and have been dispatched in
increasing numbers. Sabotage of oil and other facilities is also an aim as
is to make supply lines unsafe driving up the cost of what is a continued
occupation. You talk of unreconstructed Saddamites. I guess this contrasts
with the reconstructed Saddamites such as Allawi who front for and
co-operate with the imperial occupation.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Israel pushing for Kurdish state? -


> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >Have you added up all the Iraqi civilians killed by various factions
> >of Iraqi and non-Iraqi terrorists and compared the number to that of
> >Iraqi civilians killed by US and other foreign troops who invaded and
> >have occupied Iraq and by economic sanctions before the invasion and
> >occupation?
> >
> >Americans who vote for John Kerry who will be the next POTUS, aka the
> >biggest terrorist and war criminal, have no moral standing to pretend
> >to be appalled by un-American terrorists.
> >
> >Only those who do not vote for Kerry or Bush have the moral standing
> >to criticize foreign terrorists.
>
> What a load of crap. Elections are about contesting for power, and
> often involve debased compromises; votes aren't symptoms of moral
> purity.
>
> And why is it impossible to hold two thoughts in mind at once? The
> sanctions were murderous and the war a horrible crime. There's no
> doubt that the U.S. and its very junior partners have killed far more
> Iraqi civilians than the "resistance." But there are some people on
> the western left - some of them members of PEN-L, even - who can't
> acknowledge that a lot of the Iraqi "resistance" consists of
> jihadists and unreconstructed Saddamites, i.e., absolutely awful
> forces.
>
> As Christian Parenti said when he returned from his first trip to
> Iraq - there's no way anything good can come of this.
>
> Doug

Re: How Mass is Mass Media?

[ken hanly]

All I know is that Jesus gets to vote first since he saith:

He (sic) who is without sin gets to cast the first ballot..

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scanlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] How Mass is Mass Media?


> >Kenneth Burke repeats a conversation in which one party says, "I'm a
> >Christian," and the other party replies, "Yes, but who are you a
> >Christian AGAINST?"
> >
> >according to one observer, the following sign was seen at the DP
convention.
> >
> >"Which Way Would Jesus Vote?"
>
> Only evidence available is who he threw out of the temple. He
> wouldn't attend either one of the corporate orgies.
>
> Dan Scanlan
>
> --
> ---
> IMPEACHMENT: BRING IT ON NOW!
> NOVEMBER COULD BE TOO LATE.
> --
>
> .com

Rumsfeld ordered attack on Pentagon?!!!\

[ken hanly]

Full article at: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030127/nrummy4.html
 
 
Right after Labor Day in 2001, Rumsfeld declared "the Pentagon bureaucracy" 
a mortal enemy of the U.S. The next day, the Pentagon was attacked by 
terrorists.

Re: It's not about oil

[ken hanly]

So the moral is that the war is not about oil but about establishing
democracy in Iraq I guess. If democracy is not established in Iraq but the
oil fields are run by  appointees or lackeys  of the Bush government of
former oil men then
this argument doesnt seem very convincing.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "joanna bujes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:33907] It's not about oil


FYI/Joanna

>TheDay.com
>http://www.theday.com/eng/web/mktplace/re.aspx?reIDx=0351ae00-6fa4-48d4-a33
3
>-6c539fce14a4&prntV=1
>
>All Of Iraq's Oil Can't Pay The Cost Of A War
>Iraq's Annual Oil Revenues At Present Are Only Around $10 Billion A Year.
>
>
>By TRUDY RUBIN
>Published on 1/14/2003
>
>Is the United States going to war with Iraq to get its hands on Iraqi oil
>fields? Nearly everyone in the Middle East thinks so. So do some Americans.
>
>The theory is seductive. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves,
>with rich new fields to explore.
>
>It's not just critics of an Iraq war who speculate about a war-oil linkage.
>Conservative pundits contend that post-Saddam Iraq will turn on the pumps
>and drive global oil prices down, while pulling out of the OPEC oil cartel
>and replacing the unpleasant Saudis as our key oil ally. Administration
>officials predict that oil will pay for all of Iraq's reconstruction - and,
>some hint, for the costs of war.
>
>The only problem with all these oil theories is that they are wrong.
>
>There will be no fantastic oil bonanza at hand if Saddam Hussein is ousted.
>After 20 years of war and sanctions, Iraq's oil infrastructure is in
>disarray. It will take three or more years and $7 billion to $8 billion
just
>to get back to 1980 production levels of 3.5 million barrels per day,
>according to experts.
>
>Boosting production to 6 million barrels per day would take $30 billion to
>$40 billion more in investment - and many more years. (So much for hopes
>that the Iraqi oil tap will soon make Saudia Arabia's 8 billion barrels per
>day irrelevant).
>
>Moreover, Baghdad doesn't even have the cash to get started. Iraq's annual
>oil revenues at present are only around $10 billion a year.
>
>Even if we assume that Saddam doesn't torch the oil fields as a parting
>gesture, that level of income won't begin to meet the country's immediate
>needs.
>
>There will be huge emergency humanitarian bills after a military conflict.
>There will be an urgent need to rebuild basic infrastructure, like power
>grids, roads, and hospitals, which will eat up $25 billion to $100 billion
>more.
>
>Do the math, and what you get is a huge shortfall. In the next couple of
>years, international donors will have to pour money into Iraq. Anyone who
>imagines that Iraqi oil is going to pay the $100 billion bill for a war
>there is in fantasyland.
>
>Of course, foreign investment could help speed up the oil industry's
>recovery and augment Iraq's future income. But this brings us to the
>political impediments to dipping into Iraqi oil.
>
>U.S. companies might not be in a hurry to invest in an Iraq whose stability
>will be shaky in the near term. Even if they are eager, they will confront
>crucial issues of Iraqi nationalism - and of law.
>
>Iraq, like the rest of the Gulf, has a state-owned oil company. No foreign
>oil company has operated in Iraq since 1960. Multinationals buy Iraqi oil
>for refining, but they have no equity share in the oil fields, nor do they
>get any percentage of oil for services performed.
>
>In a desperate bid for political support, Saddam promised the Russians and
>the French that he would offer them a chance to develop new oilfields. But
>if his dictatorship ends, any new oil arrangement will require the passage
>of new laws by a new, democratically elected parliament. This process will
>be time-consuming, but - if the Bush administration really means to support
>democracy - it must accept the results. And the results may not be to its
>liking.
>
>"If the Baath Party survives, or some general makes a coup, it might be
>conceivable they would give the U.S. some oil contracts," says oil expert
>Fereidun Fesharaki of the East-West Center in Honolulu. "But if they have
>proper elections

Re: Re: Question

[ken hanly]

I have an article in the Journal of Business Ethics on Rent Control: Hanly,
Ken * The Ethics of Rent Control. * Journal of Business Ethics: jbe. MAR 01
1991 v 10 n 3 Page: 189

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:08 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:33805] Re: Question


> Time for Revisionism on Rent Control? Arnott, Richard
> Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(1), Winter 1995, pages 99-120.
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 04:54:49PM -0500, Ellen Frank wrote:
> > I have to write a short piece on rent control and
> > remember that the Journal of Economic Perspectives
> > did an overview of the literature a few years (maybe even
> > more than a few years) back.  Does anyone happen to
> > know when that was, so I can save myself some
> > search time?  Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Ellen
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Activisits going to Iraq from Canada

[ken hanly]

Rosemary Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:35:05 -0500 Subject: 
FW: I'm leaving for Iraq with the Peace Team and we need your 
support."Montreal/Ottawa activists joining the Iraq Peace Team, leaving 
for Iraq, 26 January" Four members of the Ottawa and Montreal 
communities will be leaving for Iraq at the end of January, as 
participants in the Iraq Peace Team at the end of January. This 
message provides the basic details of the delegation and 
the various ways in which you can support the IPT. IRAQ 
PEACE TEAM. In the face of mounting threats against Iraq on the part 
of the Bush administration, the US/UK group Voices in the 
Wilderness initiated the Iraq Peace Team project.  Since 
September 2002, this has ensured ongoing presence of international 
activists on the ground in Iraq standing in solidarity with the 
Iraqi people, while at the same time working to prevent a US/UK 
attack. The Iraq Peace Team intends to remain with the Iraqi 
people during an attack and will provide accurate reports about the 
effects of the war (both economic and military) on Iraqis. Voices in 
the Wilderness participated in the Gulf Peace Team in 1990, and has 
been very actively opposing the sanctions and continuing bombing 
ever since. They have organised over 50 delegations to Iraq from 
the US and, as a result, have excellent connections in Iraq and a 
solid understanding of the situation. For more information about 
the Iraq Peace Team, see www.iraqpeaceteam.org . Throughout November and December 2002, Canadians 
associated with the Canadian Network to End Sanctions on 
Iraq (CANESI) have also been active participants in this 
project.  First, with the 4-week presence of Dr. David Swann 
from Calgary (see ) and Dr. Amir Khadir from Montreal. And 
then with the more recent trip of four women from Vancouver: Irene 
MacInnes, Linda Morgan, Irene Vandas, and Jennifer Ziemann 
(see www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/anti_war_iraq.html ). GOALs. Although we don't 
entertain any illusions that the presence of four Canadians in 
Baghdad is going to directly influence the Bush administration's 
decision to escalate the war on Iraq, we do hold out hope that it 
can deepen resolve and concretely assist the growing 
antiwar movement in Canada. This is our primary goal as 
participants of the IPT. This goal is important not only for the 
immediate situation in Iraq, but because the invasion of Iraq is 
unlikely to be the last step along the war path of the Bush 
administration. The mere fact of our presence - a powerful symbol 
of solidarity and a statement that Iraqi lives are no less 
valuable than Canadian and American lives - can potentially help to 
build the antiwar movement in North America and beyond. To 
facilitate this, insofar as possible in the very difficult 
circumstances, we will be providing our networks and media with 
accurate reports (written, radio, interviews, and photos) on the 
impact that the war (or threat of an escalated war) is having on 
Iraqis, already weakened by over a decade of sanctions and bombing. 
A second possible goal, depending on circumstances, is to use our 
localised presence in particular situations to protect Iraqi citizens 
from attack, where this is likely to be effective through support 
from our networks. ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ. Our programme in Iraq 
could include visits to families, hospitals, universities, and 
other public centres. If the situation allows, we will meet with 
NGOs and other organisations, give interviews with international 
and Canadian media, participate in press conferences, and take part 
in public protests against the war. Our programme will have to 
be flexible to adapt to the volatile 
situation. MONTREAL/OTTAWA GROUP. The members of the 
Montreal/Ottawa group soon leaving for Iraq are Mary Foster (peace 
and social justice activist in Ottawa and Montreal), Lisa Ndejuru 
(religious studies student at Université du Quebec a Montréal), 
and Mick Panesar (a teacher working for CAUT and journalist 
with CKCU FM in Ottawa). Bios of each individual are to be found at 
the end of this message. We will be joining other internationals, 
mostly from the United States, in a delegation due to enter Iraq 
around 30 January. We intend to remain two weeks. YOUR 
SUPPORT. There are many ways in which you can help to ensure 
our delegation to Iraq happens and is effective in building 
resistance to the war. ---> Financial support. Each 
member of the team needs to raise $2400. This will cover the flight 
to Amman (about $1200) and all logistical costs, including 
transportation to Baghdad, accommodation, food, support from Voices 
in the Wilderness (about $1000). In addition, we will be 
purchasing and bringing a limited supply of children's vitamins, other 
vital health supplies, CD ROMs of medical journals and small gifts 
prohibited by the sanct

Rumsfeld the artificial sweet guy...

[ken hanly]

Thought this was interesting. It is from 
http://aspartamekills.com/mpvalley/
The website is a mixture of fact fiction and some goofy rhetoric. Did you 
know that the Gulf War Syndrome is a result of drinking warm diet pop?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
 
On June 1, 1977, Donald Rumsfeld became Chairman and CEO 
of G.D. Searle.   Rumsfeld, straight out the White House as Gerald Ford's 
Secretary of Defense and before that his Chief of Staff, was a heavy gun for 
Searle to secure FDA approval of aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet).  A 
hard-right Republican who served four terms in Congress (1962-69), Rumsfeld 
voted against food stamps, Medicare and anti-poverty funds. Rumsfeld's political 
ideology encompasses the stockpiling of chemical weapons, downsizing the Federal 
government, and eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
In a 1995 speech to the Heartland Institute, Rumsfeld 
told his audience, "At G.D Searle, we reduced the centralized corporate 
activities to about 20 percent of their original size, divested businesses, sold 
assets and moved the stock from about $12 a share to $50-$60 a 
share."
Testimony in the US Senate records show that G.D. Searle 
suffered a $28 million dollar loss in 1984, sold off 30 subsidiaries, and faced 
a lawsuit filed by 780 women claiming that Searle's intrauterine device caused 
them pelvic inflammatory disease.
For Rumsfeld's part he was paid, between 1979 and 1984, 2 
million dollars in salary and 1.5 million in 
bonuses.

words to banish

[ken hanly]

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current/default.html

GE Strike over health insurance costs

[ken hanly]

GE Braces For 
Strike As It Lifts Co-PaysWorkers' Health Costs To Be Raised TodayBy 
Martha McNeil HamiltonWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, 
January 1, 2003; Page E01General Electric Co. plans to increase the 
share of medical costs paid byits workers starting today -- setting the 
stage for the first strike againstthe industrial giant in three 
decades.The dispute highlights what is expected to be the major issue this 
year inlabor negotiations -- the battle over who will pay for rapidly 
increasinghealth care costs.GE plans to increase the amount that workers 
pay for doctors visits andother health care expenses from about $500 to $700 
a year, said spokesmanGary Sheffer. This amounts to a 40 percent increase in 
such co-payments,which are only part of what GE workers pay for health 
insurance. Overallcosts to workers will go up about 20 percent above the 
current $1,000 ayear. The company said that its health care costs have 
increased 45 percent,from $965 million in 1999 to $1.4 billion in 
2002.Unions representing approximately 17,500 of GE's 121,000 workers 
alreadyhave authorized a strike against the company, saying they will set 
the datefor the strike once the increases take effect."Workers have less 
leverage at a point where the unemployment numbers aregrowing and the 
economy is weak," but health care cost disputes may stilllead to strikes, 
said Harley Shaiken, a professor specializing in laborissues at the 
University of California at Berkeley. "From the point of viewof many unions, 
what they see is an unraveling of what it has taken manydecades to put 
together, which is the employer paying most of the costs 
ofbenefits."Companies across the board are facing double-digit inflation 
in health carecosts. The cost of health insurance rose 12.7 percent between 
the spring of2001 and the spring of 2002, a survey by the Kaiser Family 
Foundation andthe Health Research and Educational Trust found. That was the 
highest rateof growth since 1990, according to the survey, which predicted 
that theincreases would continue.As a result, many companies are testing 
the limits on how much of theincrease they can pass on to their workers. 
Last summer 2,700 workers atHershey Co. struck for 44 days to ward off a 
proposal to double health carepremiums. Ultimately the Bakery, 
Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and GrainMillers International Union agreed 
to a smaller pay increase rather than tothe increase in health care 
premiums. And health care costs are expected tobe an issue in two major 
negotiations this year: contract talks between U.S.automakers and the United 
Auto Workers union and between the InternationalBrotherhood of Teamsters and 
the trucking companies.In the case of GE, the contracts in question don't 
expire until June, butthe company decided last summer to impose the 
increases after discussionswith the International Union of 
Electrical-Communications Workers ofAmerica. The contract allows the company 
to do so and also allows the unionto strike in retaliation, said GE's 
Sheffer. The IUE-CWA would be joined inthe strike by the United Electrical, 
Radio and Machine Workers of America,the only other union with a nationwide 
contract with GE. Together the unionsrepresent about 6 percent of GE's 
workforce. Overall, about 22 percent of GEworkers are represented by unions, 
but the other contracts are negotiated atthe local level.The principal 
facilities that will be affected in the event of a strike areplants that 
make appliances in Louisville; aircraft engines in Lynn, Mass.;turbines and 
other power systems in Schenectady, N.Y.; and specialtymaterials in 
Waterford, N.Y., said Sheffer. He said the company plans tokeep those 
facilities operating.The union has no other option than to strike, Art 
Smith, chairman of theIUE-CWA/GE Conference Board, said in October when 
delegates authorized anational strike. "If we don't act now, GE will 
steamroll us come Maynegotiations," Smith said. The union said such cost 
shifting by a companythat expects to earn $16 billion this year is 
unacceptable.Unions are resisting because they don't want to set the 
precedent of payingan increasing share for employer-provided benefits, said 
Berkeley's Shaiken.Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research 
at CornellUniversity, said that the issue has also raised workers' ire 
because pay hasstayed stagnant over the past several years at a time when 
companies weremaking record profits and compensation for chief executives 
has grown torecord levels. "That fuels a real anger and a sense that any 
increase in thecost of health care for workers is a pay cut at the time when 
they can leastafford it," she said."Rising health care costs mean that 
health care benefits and who should payfor the increases are going to be an 
issue in almost every set ofnegotiations until those increases disappear," 
said Rick Banks, director ofcollective bargaining for the AFL-CIO. "And 
that's not going to happen

Turkey gets10% of oil for backing US?

[ken hanly]

Turkey and the Iraqi 
oilIraq-Turkey, Politics, 12/28/2002 
The Turkish daily Sabah said yesterday that Turkey informed the US officially 
that it wants a share of the Iraqi oil at a rate of 10%, noting that in case 
that Washington approves the said request, Ankara will get a 5.5 billion dollars 
of the oil revenues annually.The paper quoted Murad Murjan, the deputy 
chairman of the Turkish justice and development party, as saying that a group of 
academics had prepared a study to this effect and it was submitted officially to 
certain American officials.Murjan indicated that the said study is based 
on Luzanne Treaty which Turkey had signed with Britain during the demarcation of 
the Turkish borders with Iraq in 1926. The Treaty states to offer Turkey a rate 
of 10 % of the Iraqi oil production.Murjan added that Luzanne agreement 
has not only confined to offering Turkey the said 10% rate but also states an 
obligatory item for Turkey to get a share of oil companies revenues and from oil 
transportation as well as a share from other oil byproducts.Worthy 
mentioning that the Luzanne agreement which was signed in 1926 and according to 
which Turkey was afforded 10% of the oil revenues in al-Mousel for 25 years. 
However, Turkey had given up its share for 500,000 Sterling 
Pound

Re: Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism

[ken hanly]

Are we to understand that Andie is a reborn Justin?

Welcome back...

Cheers, Ken Hanly (yet to be born again anything)

P.S. What exactly does nachgeborenen mean?

- Original Message - 
From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32921] Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism


> 
> > 
> > If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find
> > some pretext to defend 
> > Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I
> > am bending over 
> > backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not
> > provoking certain people 
> > any more. I can certainly add you to the list.
> >
> 
> Please do. And you needn't speculate about my motives
> for rejoining PEN-L. Engaging in fruitless discussion
> with you was not high on my list of reasons. Matzel
> tov. jks
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> 

Encouraginge defections or kidnappings?

[ken hanly]

The relevance of the UN seems to be in spying and aiding and abetting US war
plans for Iraq.
The Iraqi scientists could safely carry on their careers in the US. No
inspection worries re biological and chemical warfare research. The US has
explicitly rejected international agreements requiring inspections.


Cheers< Ken Hanly

P.S. Why doesnt the US just press Inpectors. Guess it is better than
"pressurizing"  though.



December 6, 2002
U.S. Is Pressuring Inspectors in Iraq to Aid Defections
By PATRICK E. TYLER


ASHINGTON, Dec. 5 - The Bush administration has stepped up pressure on Hans
Blix and the United Nations weapons inspection team to identify key Iraqi
weapons scientists and spirit them out of Iraq so they can be offered asylum
in exchange for disclosing where Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass
destruction, according to administration and United Nations officials.
High-level negotiations on the issue became visible when Condoleezza Rice,
President Bush's national security adviser, met with Mr. Blix in New York on
Monday and pressed the issue of interviewing Iraqi scientists. The
administration is offering to set up a witness protection program for
defecting Iraqi scientists, thus enabling a more aggressive approach.
A United States official at the United Nations said that the talks on how to
handle Iraqi scientists were continuing and that the initial message to Mr.
Blix, a chief arms inspector, was that Washington wanted him to "make it a
priority" to use the full powers conveyed by the Security Council resolution
passed on Nov. 8.
The resolution demands that Iraq provide "unimpeded" and "unrestricted"
access "to all officials and other persons" that inspectors decide they want
to interview "inside or outside Iraq."
The purpose of this inspection tool, perhaps the most aggressive tactic in a
decade of Iraq inspections, is to achieve a breakthrough in gathering fresh
evidence about Iraq's weapons program at a time when Baghdad is under
mounting criticism from senior American officials for previously concealing
its weapons programs and lying about them.
Private tips and defectors have contributed to most of the American
intelligence gathered on Iraq's secret nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs, United States officials said.
It is not clear what intelligence the administration is using as a basis for
its deductions or how much of this information has been shared with the
United Nations.
The push by Washington for defectors has further pressurized the atmosphere
surrounding the first week of inspections as Iraq prepares to make what the
Security Council has said must be a full disclosure of its secret arms
programs.
A senior administration official tonight said that "the United States is
concerned with the safety, welfare and nonintimidation of people who may
wish to cooperate" with inspectors. "We take this issue seriously," the
official continued, "and we hope the international community would also
attach the same importance to the issue."
The reliance on the United States to take over from the United Nations the
handling of Iraqi defectors is a very delicate issue, senior administration
officials said.
The United Nations is keen to protect its mission from activities that might
compromise it, and the handling, debriefing and resettlement of defectors is
traditionally a function of intelligence agencies.
Senior Iraqi officials have begun to assail the inspection mission as a tool
of American intelligence and war preparation. On Wednesday, Iraq's vice
president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, referring to the inspectors, said that
"their work is to spy to serve the C.I.A. and Mossad," the Israeli
intelligence agency.
According to the arrangements under discussion in Washington and New York,
United Nations inspectors could identify Iraqi scientists who are believed
to have crucial knowledge of weapons programs. They would be flown out of
the country, perhaps with their families.
American officials would then debrief the Iraqis, feed any useful
information back to the United Nations teams and then help resettle the
Iraqi scientists in a country willing to take them. Those who wanted to
return to Iraq could, but American and United Nations officials said the
risks of return would be high for any Iraqi taken outside the country.
American official say Iraqi intelligence agencies routinely kill any Iraqi
suspected of cooperating with foreign countries.
An intense argument is under way, however, on almost all of the details of a
protection program. Some American officials want the United Nations team to
be aggressive in identifying scientists and demanding that they leave the
country, perhaps without the scientists' permission. Mr. Blix is said to be
arguing that the United Nations cannot, in effect, abduct people against
their will. His view is being backed by most of 

Public Opinion Survey Turkey

[ken hanly]

83 percent of Turks oppose allowing U.S. to use Turkish military bases to
attack Iraq
Wed Dec 4, 2:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The following is a summary of results for Turkey from the 2002
Global Attitudes Survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, based in Washington.

Opinion on the United States, Iraq and War on Terror:
_The U.S. image in Turkey has declined sharply over the past two years. Just
30 percent of Turkish respondents have a favorable view of the United
States, while 55 percent have an unfavorable view (42 percent very
unfavorable). That is a marked change from 2000 when 55 percent held a
favorable view of the United States.
_Nearly three-quarters of Turkish respondents (74 percent) say the United
States does not take into account the interests of countries like theirs in
formulating foreign policy; just 16 percent believe the United States is
attentive to the interests of others. This is consistent with opinion in
many parts of the world, including most nations in Eastern Europe and the
Middle East.
_There is significant opposition in Turkey to the war on terror, and even
broader opposition to Turkey playing a role in any conflict in Iraq. By more
than six-to-one (83 percent to 13 percent), Turkish respondents oppose
allowing the United States and its allies to use bases in Turkey to launch
military action against Iraq.
_A majority of Turks (53 percent) believe the United States wants to take
military action against Iraq as "part of the United States's war against
Muslim countries that it sees as unfriendly"; significantly fewer (34
percent) think the United States is taking action because it believes Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) is a threat to stability in the
Middle East.
_There is widespread concern in Turkey that war in Iraq will lead to all-out
war in the Middle East: 63 percent say they have a great deal of concern
about this while 23 percent have a fair amount of concern. Just 12 percent
have little or no concern about this.
_In contrast to other countries with predominantly Muslim populations,
relatively few people in Turkey believe that suicide bombings can be
justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Only 13 percent of
Muslim respondents in Turkey say suicide bombings are justified, while 71
percent disagree. By comparison, 73 percent of Muslims in Lebanon, and 43
percent of Muslims in Jordan, believe suicide bombings are justified. This
question was asked only of Muslim respondents.
Personal and National Perspectives:
_Just 17 percent of people in Turkey give their current lives a high rating
(seven or more on a scale of one-to-10). That is among the lowest ratings
among 44 nations surveyed. And by two-to-one (49 percent to 24 percent),
respondents in Turkey say they have lost ground when comparing their current
lives with their lives five years ago.
_Turkey's economy gets dismal ratings: Just 14 percent rate the economy as
good, while 84 percent view it negatively. And more than six-in-10 (62
percent) expect the economy to get worse over the next year, while 28
percent expect it to improve. Roughly seven-in-10 Turks (71 percent)
volunteer the economy as their top personal problem.
_There is some optimism about the near-term future: 44 percent of those
surveyed in Turkey expect to be better off five years from now, while 19
percent think they will be worse off. But overwhelmingly, Turks think the
country's children will be worse off than people today: 62 percent think the
current generation of children will be worse off, 28 percent say better off.
_Turks have little regard for their government and national institutions -
except the military. Roughly eight-in-10 (79 percent) view political
corruption as a "very big" national problem; it is the most frequently cited
national problem. Just 7 percent think that the national government is a
good influence on the country, 92 percent see it as a bad influence.
Religious leaders also are not broadly admired: 32 percent believe they are
a positive influence, while 54 percent say they are a bad influence. But
Turkey's military forces are widely admired: 79 percent think they have a
good influence, 16 percent say they have a bad influence.
_Nine-in-10 Turkish respondents (91 percent) said former Prime Minister
Bulent Ecevit had a bad influence on the country, the lowest rating for any
national leader tested. His government was replaced in Turkey's November
elections.
_Respondents in Turkey, which has sought for years to join the European
Union (news - web sites), have a generally favorable reaction to the
institution. Roughly half of Turkish respondents (52 percent) view the EU as
a positive influence on their country, while 32 percent say the EU has a
negative influence on the country.
About the Survey:
The Global Attitudes Project conducted personal interviews with a random
sample of 1,005 Turkish residents from July 21-Aug. 9, 2002. Based on the
total sample, one can say with 95 percent confid

US parallel legal system

[ken hanly]

In Terror War, 2nd Track for Suspects
Those Designated 'Combatants' Lose Legal Protections

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 1, 2002; Page A01



The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in
which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike --
may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without
legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside
and outside the government say.

The elements of this new system are already familiar from President
Bush's orders and his aides' policy statements and legal briefs:
indefinite military detention for those designated "enemy
combatants," liberal use of "material witness" warrants,
counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law
enforcement officials and, for noncitizens, trial by military
commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.

Only now, however, is it becoming clear how these elements could
ultimately interact.

For example, under authority it already has or is asserting in court
cases, the administration, with approval of the special Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, could order a clandestine search of
a U.S. citizen's home and, based on the information gathered,
secretly declare the citizen an enemy combatant, to be held
indefinitely at a U.S. military base. Courts would have very limited
authority to second-guess the detention, to the extent that they were
aware of it.

Administration officials, noting that they have chosen to prosecute
suspected Taliban member John Walker Lindh, "shoe bomber" Richard
Reid and alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in ordinary
federal courts, say the parallel system is meant to be used
selectively, as a complement to conventional processes, not as a
substitute. But, they say, the parallel system is necessary because
terrorism is a form of war as well as a form of crime, and it must
not only be punished after incidents occur, but also prevented and
disrupted through the gathering of timely intelligence.

"I wouldn't call it an alternative system," said an administration
official who has helped devise the legal response to the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "But it is different than the criminal
procedure system we all know and love. It's a separate track for
people we catch in the war."

At least one American has been shifted from the ordinary legal system
into the parallel one: alleged al Qaeda "dirty bomb" plotter Jose
Padilla, who is being held at a Navy brig, without the right to
communicate with a lawyer or anyone else. U.S. officials have told
the courts that they can detain and interrogate him until the
executive branch declares an end to the war against terrorism.

The final outlines of this parallel system will be known only after
the courts, including probably the Supreme Court, have settled a
variety of issues being litigated. But the prospect of such a system
has triggered a fierce debate.

Civil libertarians accuse the Bush administration of an executive-
branch power grab that will erode the rights and freedoms that
terrorists are trying to destroy -- and that were enhanced only
recently in response to abuses during the civil rights era, Vietnam
and Watergate.

"They are trying to embed in law a vast expansion of executive
authority with no judicial oversight in the name of national
security," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National
Security Studies, a Washington-based nonprofit group that has
challenged the administration approach in court. "This is more tied
to statutory legal authority than J. Edgar Hoover's political spying,
but that may make it more dangerous. You could have the law serving
as a vehicle for all kinds of abuses."

Administration officials say that they are acting under ample legal
authority derived from statutes, court decisions and wartime powers
that the president possesses as commander in chief under the
Constitution.

"When you have a long period of time when you're not engaged in a
war, people tend to forget, or put in backs of their minds, the
necessity for certain types of government action used when we are in
danger, when we are facing eyeball to eyeball a serious threat,"
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who leads the administration's
anti-terrorism legal team in the federal courts, said in an
interview.

Broadly speaking, the debate between the administration and its
critics is not so much about the methods the government seeks to
employ as it is about who should act as a check against potential
abuses. Executive Decisions

Civil libertarians insist that the courts should searchingly review
Bush's actions, so that he is always held accountable to an
independent branch of government. Administration officials, however,
imply that the main check on the president's performance in wartime
is political -- that if the public perceives his approach to
terrorism

Re: Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky

[ken hanly]

Sorry about the blank message. Lee Kuan Yew was prime minister of Singapore
from 1959-1990.  Although Singapore did very well in economic terms during
his term of office he was quite authoritarian argued against liberal
principles such as habeas corpus etc. He could probably get a job as legal
consultant to Bush on the rights of terrorists.

Here is a URL: http://www.geocities.com/rajeevgm/lky/

Cheers, Ken Hanly

P.S. The post from Doyle sounds similar to the position that SInger would
take.
- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:50 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32753] Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky


> > The "anti-globalization" movement has leaders?
> >
> > Ian
>
> No. I am against leaders. By the way, who is this Lee Kuan Yew?
>
> Sabri
>

Re: Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky

[ken hanly]

- Original Message - 
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:50 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32753] Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky


> > The "anti-globalization" movement has leaders?
> >
> > Ian
> 
> No. I am against leaders. By the way, who is this Lee Kuan Yew?
> 
> Sabri
> 

Americans score low on knowledge of Canada

[ken hanly]

POSTED AT 9:04 PM ESTSunday, December 1


In the shadow of the elephant





Canadian Press

Montreal - Canadians are much more informed than Americans when it comes to
knowing the identity of their neighbours' political leader, national capital
and largest city, an opinion poll suggests.
The Léger Marketing survey found that only 8 per cent of 1,500 adult
Americans named Jean Chrétien when they were asked to identify Canada's
Prime Minister.
Five per cent gave other answers, including Pierre Trudeau, who died two
years ago after last being in power in 1984.
A whopping 86 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer.
The Americans were polled Oct. 7-13, long before Mr. Chrétien's
communications director, Françoise Ducros, created a stir in the United
States and elsewhere when she called U.S. President George W. Bush a
"moron."
Conversely, 90 per cent of the 1,502 adult Canadians who were polled Nov.
6-10 (also before the Ducros brouhaha, which led to her resignation) knew
Mr. Bush was U.S. President, compared with 3 per cent who gave other
answers.
When asked to name the capital of the other country, 88 per cent of the
Canadians said Washington and 21 per cent of the Americans got Ottawa right.
Such numbers didn't surprise Colin Campbell, a professor of political
science at the University of British Columbia who spent 19 years in
Washington, D.C.
"I think Canadians are much more citizens of the globe than Americans are
and I think they're much more attuned to their own nation than Americans
are," Mr. Campbell said in an interview.
"Canadians are really intrigued by the world around them in a way that
Americans aren't."
But Mr. Campbell wasn't about to let all Canadians off the hook.
"That 12 per cent [who couldn't name Washington] must be incredibly ignorant
people. It just shows that in any population, there are some people who
probably couldn't even give you the name of their grandfather."
Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of
Toronto, said the lack of knowledge about Canada south of the border
shouldn't surprise people.
"Americans are much more insular," said Mr. Clarkson, who has recently
written a book entitled Uncle Sam and Us.
"It's not particularly Canada they don't know a lot about. They might have
trouble with England. ...
"The Americans are ignorant about us. We're not important to them. We're not
ignorant about the United States because they are important to us."
That sentiment was also reflected when the two sets of respondents were
asked to name the other country's largest city.
Twenty-seven per cent of the Americans named Toronto, followed by Montreal
at 22 per cent.
Vancouver got 3 per cent and Calgary had 1 per cent.
Other cities garnered 13 per cent, while the remaining 34 per cent either
said they didn't know or refused to answer.
Meanwhile, 72 per cent of Canadians knew New York was the largest city in
the United States.
Both Dr. Campbell and Mr. Clarkson said reports in the United States about
Canada's professional sports teams might have had an influence on the U.S.
answers.
Mr. Campbell almost seemed to find 27 per cent a reasonable level of
knowledge.
"I'm not saying that Americans are geography geniuses," he said. "Virtually
every survey that's ever been taken has shown that they're numbskulls when
it comes to geography, even their own geography.
"But, still, that [27 per cent] is a surprisingly robust number from my sort
of jaundiced perspective of what the general public would know."
Meanwhile, both professors reacted similarly when asked whether the number
of Americans who knew Mr. Chrétien was Prime Minister would have been higher
had the poll been conducted after Ms. Ducros's "moron" comment.
Mr. Clarkson: "Oh sure, for five minutes it would be ... but they probably
would have thought the prime minister was called Ducros."
Mr. Campbell: "No, they'd say she [Ms. Ducros] was prime minister."
The poll is considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out
of 20.

Re: Re: Re: John Rawls

[ken hanly]

Why does it remind you of middle class pieties. In his discussion of
background institutions for a just society Rawls envisions extensive
government involvement to secure equal opportunity, a basic standard of
primary goods for all etc.etc.. I append examples from a lecture on Rawls.
Rawls could be faulted for not showing how it is possible within capitalist
society to achieve the sort of just society her imagines but he is hardly
just expressing middle class pieties. He sketches out the sort of
institutions that would be required.

Cheers..Ken Hanly.

3) Background Institutions for Distributive Justice
Rawls argues that justice as fairness requires many particular things about
just societies. The first principle implies that basic civil and political
liberties will be protected by a constitution (either written or implicit)
that ensures that these rights are respected and makes it impossible for
society to override them for social or economic reasons. Moreover, the
principle of fair equality of opportunity implies that society should fund
education for all (either directly, through public education, or indirectly,
by subsidizing private education), and police firms and private associations
to ensure that fair equality of opportunity is not violated. Finally, to
satisfy the difference principle, society must guarantee an acceptable
minimum level of the social primary goods, and police firms and private
associations to ensure that their gains are not at the expense of the least
fortunate in society.

This implies that resources must be transferred from one sector of society
to another to provide the acceptable minimum to each person, and that there
is some mechanism for redistributing social primary goods to ensure a just
society according to the difference principle. Certain taxes (e.g.,
inheritance taxes) would exist solely for such purposes of redistribution.

Rawls (page 277): "The purpose of these levies and regulations is not to
raise revenue (release resources to government) but gradually and
continually to correct the distribution of wealth and to prevent
concentrations of power detrimental to the fair value of political liberty
and fair equality of opportunity."

There would also be a branch of government (the "allocation" branch)
designed to ensure that unreasonable (i.e., unjust) gains in market power
are not acquired by certain firms over others, and another branch (the
"stabilization" branch) designed to ensure that employment opportunities are
efficiently and justly distributed in society (so that full employment, as
far as this is possible, is secured). There would also be an "exchange"
branch so that those segments of society that would benefit from certain
goods being made public (e.g., transportation, the arts, public parks) will
not create injustice for those who would not. A taxation scheme to support
such public goods would have to satisfy the difference principle.

Finally, there would also need to be taxation to ensure revenue to the
government, rather than just to redistribute social primary goods. Such
taxation would have to be justly distributed. (In an ideal society, Rawls
argues that consumption taxes would be preferred to progressive income
taxes. However, in a society with injustices, progressive income taxes may
be permissible to balance other injustices.)


- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:54 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32564] Re: Re: John Rawls


> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > He was not claiming that we should look at actually existing societies
as
> > if they were the product of a social contract. Rather, Rawls asked "what
> > would society look like IF it was designed from scratch by people who
did
> > not know what position they would have in this newly designed society
> > when it came into being." The resulting "social contract," Rawls
> > suggests, should be the blueprint of the society we should construct.
> > This society would, arguably, have no classes. This blueprint has NOT
> > guided the construction of the actual societies we see in front of us
> > (with classes, injustice, etc).
>
> I don't understand how you can be proposing the abolition of class
> society while still being a proponent of liberalism. Rawls's whole
> notion of redistributive justice reminds me of nothing less than
> Victorian era middle-class pieties, Charles Dickens's "Christmas Carol"
> in particular.
>
>
> --
>
> The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
>

Re: Re: John Rawls

[ken hanly]

Rawls uses a maximin principle to argue for his difference principle. It
does assume that people in the original position are rational
self-interested actors an assumption common in game theory and welfare
economics. The longer article is available at:
http://www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/College_Street/extension/philosophy/rawls.htm

Actually the difference principle is used to justify inequality even though
Rawls is portrayed as an eqalitarian.
If an unequal distribution benefits the worst off more than if there were an
equal distribution then it is justified.
This could obviously be used to justify certain aspects of capitalist
distribution. It could be argued for example that it is necessary to give
the owners of the means of production a greater slice of the economic pie
than workers. If the owners are given a larger share than they will invest
etc. and the pie will be much larger and the workers will get a larger slice
than if the division were equal and there was no motivation to invest.
Hence, egalitarianism of the liberal Rawlsian sort could be made into an
apologia for capitalism .

Cheers, Ken Hanly

The argument for the difference principle

  The argument for the principles of justice is based on what Rawls
calls the "original position".  Imagine a fairly large group of people
establishing a community, perhaps in a newly discovered territory - much
like the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower and settled on the east coast
of North America.  This group, we suppose, has to set up a political
constitution for their society more or less from nothing.  This constitution
will establish basic rights, duties and determine how social and economic
benefits are to be divided.  It is this purely hypothetical situation which
Rawls calls the "original position".  There are two basic assumptions.
Firstly, the people in the original position are self interested and
rational.  They are concerned only with doing the best for themselves and,
being rational, will tend to act in such a way which will in fact promote
their best interests - they want to further their interests and will act
appropriately in the light of this aim.  The second assumption concerns what
Rawls calls the "veil of ignorance".  Here's what he says:

 "Among the essential features of this situation is that no-one knows his
place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know
his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his
intelligence strength, and the like.  I shall even assume that the parties
do not know their conception of the  good or their special psychological
propensities.  The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of
ignorance.  This ensures that no-one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the
choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or  the contingency of
social circumstances.  Since all are similarly situated and  no-one is able
to design principles to favour his particular condition, the principles of
justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain."  (p.12).
So the basic idea is this:  we imagine a group of rational, self interested
people choosing the fundamental principles governing the political, social
and economic structure of their society.  However, because the original
position has been specially designed so that people are forced to choose
impartially, the principles thus chosen will be, Rawls claims, principles of
justice.  In other words, choosing behind a veil of ignorance guarantees
that the principles chosen in the original position are in fact basic
principles of justice.
 It is important to understand here that the idea is not that
certain principles are chosen because they are just, but rather that they
are just because they are chosen.  Here's an example:  Consider the
principle concerning the division of economic benefits "Whites should get
more than blacks".  This couldn't be chosen in the original position but
not, as you might think, because it's morally wrong, evil, racist and
discriminatory.  It couldn't be chosen - and hence is not a principle of
justice -  because it's irrational. If you are choosing basic principles
behind a veil of ignorance it is simply irrational to choose principles
which favour whites and discriminate against blacks, because you don't know
whether you're white or black.   So if you're out to do the best for
yourself, and don't know whether you're white or black, then you had better
not choose principles which may turn out to discriminate against you.  Thus,
to repeat, the original position creates a situation where the choosers are
forced to choose impartially.  Therefore whichever principles it is rational
to choose under these circumstances are, as a result, basic principles of
justice.  According to Rawls, the question  "What are the basic principles
of justice?"  is a

Aid to Israel, Turkey and Jordan

[ken hanly]

>From Ha'arretz (sp?) Cheers, Ken Hanly


Tuesday, November 26, 2002 Kislev 21, 5763Israel Time:  17:05  (GMT+2)





U.S. expected to approve $14 billion aid request

By Moti Bassok




Israel will today submit a request for $14 billion in economic aid to U.S.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. President George Bush is
expected to quickly approve the request - $4 billion in defense aid. and
U.S. guarantees for $10 billion - with minor changes, Israeli sources said.

The sources said the Republican congressional majority would approve the aid
within 3-6 months. After Finance Ministry director general Ohad Marani and
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau chief Dov Weisglass submit the request,
it will be handled by both Israeli and U.S. officials who will determine the
duration of the grant and guarantees, and various technical details. The
guarantees will apparently be for five years but it is unclear how the
defense aid will be laid out.

Sharon told Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz during a meeting eight days ago
with Finance Minister Silvan Shalom, that as soon as the U.S. makes a
positive decision on the defense grant, he will consent to some of Mofaz's
requests for budget increases. The sources say the grant will allow the
government to direct defense spending to growth oriented projects.

Some treasury officials are not pleased with the request for such high
guarantees, fearing that some of the money will not be directed to growth
projects.

However, sources at the prime minister's office say news of the aid will
improve the country's international financial standing, and could encourage
both local and foreign investors to reconsider Israel. The U.S. aid will
also substantially influence the strategic situation in the Middle East.

Sharon first raised the question of aid in his Washington meeting with Bush
in mid-October. The formal request was completed by Marani's staff in the
past two weeks, with the explanation that Israel has increased military
spending in the past two years because of the Palestinian uprising and the
expected U.S. war with Iraq. Last week, Turkey and Jordan received generous
American military aid of $2 billion to prepare for the possible war with
Iraq.

The request for the guarantees - the option of getting improved loan terms
from U.S. banks - is based on Israel's need to stabilize the economy and
pull out of recession.

Last week Washington approved Israel's annual military aid of $2.16 billion
for 2004, and is expected to approve its civil aid soon.

Attack Inspectors or Not

[ken hanly]

>From the Mirror...(UK) cheers, Ken Hanly


WAR, WHATEVER


Bush aide: Inspections or not, we'll attack Iraq
Exclusive By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack
Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.
Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN
chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine.
Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be
enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting
on global security.
Former defence minister and Labour backbencher Peter Kilfoyle said: "America
is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections. President
Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing.
"This make a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real
determination to bomb Iraq."
Dr Perle told MPs: "I cannot see how Hans Blix can state more than he can
know. All he can know is the results of his own investigations. And that
does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction."
The chairman of America's defence policy board said: "Suppose we are able to
find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says
there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are
so well hidden.
"Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve agents to convince? We
are not dealing with a situation where you can expect co-operation."
Mr Kilfoyle said MPs would be horrified at the admission. He added: "Because
Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it would be easy to find someone to say they
witnessed weapons building.
"Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such claims even if no
real evidence was produced.
"That's a terrifying prospect."

Re: Re: Re: Birds of a feather

[ken hanly]

I intersperse comments after selected passages. We have had long discussions
about Peter Singer before. The discussions are in the LBO archives I believe
but it could be Pen-L. Just a few questions first for Doyle:

1) Do you agree that a woman has a right to abort. That is are you
pro-choice? If you answer is yes then:
i) Does this right apply when the woman aborts because the fetus is
deformed or has some disabillity?
  ii) Does this right apply when the woman aborts because she wants a son
and it is a daughter or vice versa?
2) If you agree that a woman has a right to abort why is there not a right
also to kill the newborn? What is the big difference that creates such a
huge moral gap between the term fetus and the newborn.

I think that Peter SInger is one of the pre-eminent 20th century
philosophers in terms of bringing important social issues back into the
philosophcial arena and making philosophical discussion of these problems
important issues in public discussion. This is just a fact no matter what
you might think of his particular views.

Personally I think his arguments for a more equitable distribution of wealth
are sound and his critique of lifeboat ethics people such as Garret Hardin
are compelling. Also, his speciecism arguments are not easy to meet but are
easy enough to ignore and marginalise by epithet as Easterbrook and others
do without showing the slightest comprehension even of what the issues are.
I do not agree with some aspects of his arguments re infants with
disabilities.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Doyle Saylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:32388] Re: Re: Birds of a feather


> Greetings Economists,
> Peter Dorman writes,
> There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about a year ago
> that was fair-minded, I thought, on Singer and his critics.  The man is
> not a monster...
>
> Doyle,
> "Writings on an Ethical Life", Peter Singer, Harper Collins books, 2000,
>
> page 163,
> We might think that we are just more "civilized" than these "primitive"
> peoples.  But it is not easy to feel confident that we are more civilized
> than the best Greek and Roman moralists.  It was not just the Spartans who
> exposed their infants on hillsides: both Plato and Aristotle recommended
the
> killing of deformed infants.   Romans like Seneca, whose compassionate
moral
> sense strikes the modern reader (or me, anyway) as superior to that of the
> early and medieval Christian writers, also thought infanticide the natural
> and humane solution to the problem posed by sick and deformed babies."
>
> Doyle,
> So is that what we ought to do Peter expose babies on the hillside above
the
> towns to show our moral superiority we've gained from an ethical insight?
>
COMMENT: Singer's point is that infanticide is not some unnatural, far out
kookie ethical notion but one that some societies as well as some eminent
philosophers have adopted. So are you saying SInger is not correct? What is
your evidence against him?

> attitudes.  But there are some questions that are more difficult.  Among
> them are questions concerning the treatment of infants with Down syndrome.
> ...
> "When Down syndrome is detected and abortion available, the overwhelming
> majority of women, in most countries in excess of 90 percent, choose
> abortion.  The fact that so many women carrying fetuses with Down syndrome
> choose not to give birth to the child surely tells us something about
their
> attitude to life with Down syndrome, and their desire to avoid, if
possible,
> being the mother of such a child."

COMMENT: Just what is your point that women who have fetuses with Downs
syndrome have no right to abortion?
>
You actually quote stuff from SInger but rather than analysing you
go on an emotional rant. So you feel he is a monster. At least you could
learn from him just as we learn from Plato and Aristotle who  would equally
be monsters to you I guess.

The Irrelevance of the UN

[ken hanly]

The no-fly zones were never specifically authorised by UN resolutions. The
northern zone became irrelevant after Iraq withdrew troops from the north
and the US also withdrew after a Kurdish faction called in help from Hussein
to oust a competing faction supported by the US and Iran! Before that at
least the northern no fly zone could be understood as giving some protection
to relief operations on the ground. In the south there was even less
rationale for the no-fly zone. The south zone was extended north when
Hussein helped a Kurdish faction in the north. The no fly zones never
hampered Turkish operations and incursions against the Kurds..
The no-fly zones are obvious violations of Iraqi sovereignty. Talk about
Newspeak. Now attempts to assert sovereignty are grounds for war. The US
cares not one bit that UN resolutions are actually irrelevant to what the US
claims and even Britain acknowledges this. The UN is relevant only insofar
as it can be interpreted as supporting US policy of replacing Hussein no
matter what..

Cheers, Ken Hanly

.
Nov. 19
- By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Barely two weeks after the United Nations adopted
a new resolution on Iraq, the Bush administration is insisting that firing
on U.S. and British planes over the "no-fly" zone is a violation of the
measure.
None of the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council, including
Britain, believe the no-fly zone is included in the resolution, much less a
possible cause for a violation.
For the moment, diplomats on all sides are keeping quiet after Iraqi troops
on Monday again fired on allied aircraft, bringing harsh criticism from the
United States.
But several Western envoys, speaking on condition of anonymity, said eight
weeks of arduous negotiations would be for naught if Washington continued,
in their eyes, to misinterpret resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, and then
expected support for any future action against Iraq.
"It's one thing to keep up 'zero tolerance' to put the squeeze on Iraq," one
council source said. "But in practice they know perfectly well that the
other 14 council members were voting for disarmament, not the no-fly zone,
or there would have been no vote."
In Washington, Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said on Monday,
"The United States believes that firing upon our aircraft in the no-fly zone
or British aircraft is a violation. It is a material breach."
'ASSESS AND REVIEW'
McClellan said President Bush's policy toward Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
remained one of "zero tolerance" and that clashes over the no-flight zones
were "something that we will assess and review" and reserve the option to
bring before the Security Council.
But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in Chile for a meeting with Western
hemisphere defense ministers, was more measured than he had been on the
issue in recent weeks.
"I do find it unacceptable that Iraq fires," Rumsfeld told a new conference
in Santiago. "It is for the president of the United States and the U.N.
Security Council to make judgments about their view of Iraq's behavior over
a period of time."
Iraq does not recognize the flight exclusion zones, set up by the United
States and Western allies unilaterally after the 1991 Gulf War to prevent
Baghdad from attacking rebellious Kurds in the North. Later the zone was
expanded to prevent attacks against Shi'ite Muslims in the south.
Paragraph 8 of the Nov. 8 resolution says Baghdad cannot "take or threaten
hostile acts" against a U.N. member "seeking to uphold any council
resolution."
MATTER OF PERSONNEL
British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, co-sponsor of the resolution, told
the Security Council before the vote that paragraph 8 referred to any
personnel that the inspectors might ask to help them and not the no-fly
zones. Diplomats assumed Britain and the United States had coordinated
interpretations.
Shortly after the 15-0 vote, Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, in his
public council speech, echoed this view, attributing it to "sponsors of the
draft."
And a French diplomat said, "We were listening to the co-sponsor, Ambassador
Greenstock, and believed what he said."
Some U.S. officials say Washington would not use the Iraqi attacks in the
no-fly zone as a sole trigger for war, nor necessarily report them. But U.N.
Security Council members say the issue is not one that should be discussed
in connection with the resolution.
"To get allies, the United States is going to have to look and behave as if
it wants to achieve disarmament and wants to avoid war," another diplomat
said.
Resolution 1441 gives Iraq one last chance to disarm or face "serious
consequences." U.N. weapons inspectors, who just returned to Iraq after a
four-year hiatus, have to report or verify any major violation to the
Security Council. U.S. officials have already claimed the right to do the
reporting themselves without back up from the inspectors.

More on US policy and Iraq Oil

[ken hanly]

from Sunday Herald (UK)

Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis



By Neil Mackay



President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a
destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the
Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military
intervention' is necessary.
Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy
Development Group, commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker
Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former
US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century,
concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq
remains a de- stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international
markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a
willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export
programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an
immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and
political/ diplomatic assessments.
'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key
allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to
restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive
coalition of key allies.'
Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief
executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the
disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went
bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.
The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive
director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief
executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh
Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the
Baker Institute.
President Bush also has strong connections to the US oil industry and once
owned the oil company Spectrum 7.
The Baker report highlights massive shortages in world oil supplies which
now leave the US facing 'unprecedented energy price volatility' and has led
to recurring electricity black-outs in areas such as California.
The report refers to the impact of fuel shortages on voters. It recommends a
'new and viable US energy policy central to America's domestic economy and
to [the] nation's security and foreign policy'.
Iraq, the report says, 'turns its taps on and off when it has felt such
action was in its strategic interest to do so', adding that there is a
'possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an
extended period of time' in order to damage prices.
The report also says that Cheney should integrate energy and security to
stop 'manipulations of markets by any state', and suggests that Cheney's
Energy Policy Group includes 'representation from the Department of
Defence'.
'Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new
rules of the game,' the report says, 'US firms, US consumers and the US
government [will be left] in a weaker position.'
www.rice.edu/projects/baker/

Speakers on Mid-East banned from speaking at Concordia University (Canada)

[ken hanly]

>From the Toronto Star.. cheers Ken Hanly

OTTAWA- Montreal's Concordia University was granted a court injunction
yesterday that allowed it to bar NDP MPs Svend Robinson and Libby Davies
from using its campus to discuss the Mideast conflict.

It was a move condemned by Canada's university teachers but it did not stop
the students' union from sponsoring a speech by Robert Fisk, a veteran
Mideast journalist. The speech is to take place on campus tomorrow.

"It's a disgraceful day. There's no precedent for this in the last 50 years
in Canada," said James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association
of University Teachers, which represents some 40,000 faculty members across
the country.

Turk said his organization will seek legal action against Concordia.

"The fact that a university would attempt to shut down discussion of a major
issue is inconceivable. It's even more upsetting that a court would go along
with this," he said.

"We don't need to pre-empt free and open discussion. What then
differentiates us from totalitarian societies?"

The injunction was sought because yesterday's event would have ignored a
moratorium on all debate regarding Israel and Palestine. Concordia imposed
the moratorium after a stormy demonstration Sept. 9 resulted in several
arrests and forced former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to
cancel a speech.

Yesterday's injunction forced the New Democratic Party MPs to speak on the
sidewalk just off campus, where about 300 people listened to them denounce
the university's actions against an event originally billed as "Peace and
Justice in the Middle East."

"We're here to say we won't be silenced," Robinson, the NDP foreign affairs
critic, told the cheering crowd.

In an interview, Robinson called the injunction "an outrageous assault on
freedom of speech." He suggested the university was afraid of losing money
in donations from pro-Israel corporations.

Human-rights activist Judy Rebick, a Jew, said Jewish groups who accuse
Robinson and all other Palestinian supporters of anti-Semitism are not
speaking for all Jews. She said there are "hundreds of thousands of Jews in
Israel, and around the world, who believe the policies of (Prime Minister)
Ariel Sharon are not just causing terrible suffering to the Palestinian
people but are a catastrophe for the Jewish people of Israel."

University spokesperson Dennis Murphy said yesterday the 10-day injunction
against the MPs also prohibits any public meetings discussing the Mideast
issue.

But the students' union is set to sponsor a speech tomorrow by Fisk, a
Middle East correspondent for London's The Independent newspaper.

In a column last month, Fisk wrote: "In much of the Western world, a vicious
campaign of slander is being waged against any journalist or activist who
dares to criticize Israeli policies or those that shape them. The
all-purpose slander of `anti-Semitism' is now used with ever-increasing
promiscuity against anyone ... in an attempt to shut them up."

The Beirut-based journalist is scheduled to speak on Afghanistan and Iraq.

"He's a left-wing journalist on the Middle East. He supports Palestinian
self-determination," said students' union vice-president Kealia Curtis
yesterday. "I'm sure he'll bring the Palestinian question into it."

Murphy warned yesterday: "If Mr. Fisk discusses this in contravention of the
injunction it will be followed up with contempt of court provisions."

After consulting the university's lawyer, he said the students' union, not
Fisk, will face the consequences.

Fisk could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Murphy said the injunction is to ensure freedom of speech by stopping
intimidation.

"It has a lot to do with the right of people to feel secure," he said.

Re: Re: Polluted Air Increases medical expenses:ken hanly

[ken hanly]

My son is an economist who works for the Sask government and tries to
determine costs to Saskatchewan of the Kyoto agreement. His take on the
Liberals is that they think the overall political impact of signing on to
Kyoto is positive. It will not be a case of Martin paying the bill.
The targets simply will not be met insofar as they create any serious
economic disruption. What is the cost of not meeting them? Bombing by Bush!
So some environmentalists will howl. The government can point out that it is
the protector of jobs economic growth etc.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Hari Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pen-l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:32177] Re: Polluted Air Increases medical expenses:ken hanly


> Ken:
> Thanks.
> Have any economists done an analysis on the societal benefits resulting
> from reduction of emissions etc.? Given the barrage of stuff from the
> anti-Kyoto-ists in Canada - it might be useful grist.
> PS: What do you think the Chretien push on Kyotot is all about? Leave
> Martin with the bill?
> H
>

Re: Re: Iran prof. persecuted

[ken hanly]

If this fellow is sentenced to death how is that he is also sentenced to
exile and banned from teaching for ten years? Is he allowed to return from
the dead to teach as long as he doesnt insult Islam?

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Mohammad Maljoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32149] Re: Iran prof. persecuted


> Several days ago, a court in Iran has sentenced university professor
> Aghajari making comments during a student gathering to death for allegedly
> insulting Prophet Mohammad.The local court has further sentenced Aghajari
to
> exile in desert cities of Tabas, Zabol and Gonabad and banned him from
> teaching for 10 years!!! The death sentence issued against the university
> him, too, has outraged the university students across Iran, who have been
> taging strike after strike in protest against the verdict. The majority of
> Iranian parliament members, too, have seriously condemned the verdict, and
> Parliament Speaker called the death penalty against him a shame for the
> country's judiciary system. Also two of Hamedan Constituency MPs presented
> their letters of resignation to show their objection to the verdict issued
> by their constituency's court. It is comparable with verdicts issued by
> Middle Ages courts in Europe.Of course, this event must be considered as a
> serious war between two dominant parties in Iran.The sentence is backed by
> religious leader as a private reprisal.
>
> Mohammad Maljoo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: "Pen-l (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [PEN-L:32145] Iran prof. persecuted
> >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:58:14 -0800
> >
> >from SLATE: >... the growing student protests in Iran
> >over the death sentence given a prominent professor convicted of
> >insulting Islam. (The professor, who's close to Iran's reformist
> >president, had publicly said that people should be allowed to
> >interpret Islam as they see fit.) <
> >
> >Does anyone know anything about this case?
> >
> >is it simply that antagonism toward profs is universal? ;-)
> >
> >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> >
> >
>
>
> _
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>

Polluted Air Increases medical expenses

[ken hanly]

REDUCING POLLUTION COULD CUT MEDICAL SPENDING,
ACCORDING TO A STUDY PUBLISHED IN HEALTH AFFAIRS.
Using air pollution data from the Environmental
Protection Agency and averaged data from 1989-91, a
study of 183 metropolitan areas found that air
pollution significantly increases Medicare recipients'
medical care needs, even after controlling for region,
population size, education, income, cigarette use and
obesity, reported the Associated Press. The analysis
found hospital admissions for respiratory problems
were, on average, 19 percent higher in the 37 areas
with the highest air pollution compared with the 37
areas with the least amount of pollution, while
Medicare would have saved an average of $76.70 per
person in inpatient care and $100.30 in outpatient care
for every drop of 10 micrograms per cubic meter in air
pollution, controlling for demographic and health
factors, the Associated Press added.
Health Affairs, November 11, 2002
Associated Press, November 11, 2002
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/health/1657381

UN resolutions and Desert Fox (98) and Sept 96 attacks on Iraq

[ken hanly]

Were there ever any specific UN resolutions giving authority for these
attacks? Or were they just carried out unilaterally by the US (and UK) to
punish Iraq for its "transgressions"?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

At last--actually existing market socialism!

[ken hanly]

China Seeks 'Socialist Market Economy'
VOA News
10 Nov 2002, 13:49 UTC


China's Communist leaders say they are building a "socialist market
economy."

The minister of the Economic and Planning Commission, Zeng Peiyan, says
state-owned companies will remain the backbone of the economy, while private
companies will help create jobs and growth.

He made the comments at the Chinese Communist Party Congress in Beijing on
Sunday. Chinese officials predict their economy will grow by eight percent
this year.

Delegates are expected to approve rule changes allowing entrepreneurs to
join the Communist Party for the first time.

The man who is expected to become China's next leader, Vice President Hu
Jintao, spoke to the delegates Saturday, saying he will adhere to Marxist
ideals, while working to bring affluence to the nation's citizens.

During the congress, 76-year-old President Jiang Zemin is expected to hand
over his post as head of the Communist party to Vice President Hu. He is
then expected to resign as president early next year.

Nursing shortage (canada)

[ken hanly]

Jun. 21, 05:11 EDT
Nursing crunch will soon tighten, report says
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's nursing shortage will deepen dramatically in the next
three years, Ontario research suggests.
Ontario is expected to lose 14,000 of its 81,000 nurses due to retirement
alone by 2004, Linda O'Brien-Pallas of the University of Toronto nursing
faculty said today.
But nursing resources are already stretched so thin that patient care is in
jeopardy, O'Brien-Pallas told a forum sponsored by the Canadian Nurses
Association.
Trends are similar across the country, with retirements far exceeding the
inflow of new recruits.
Only 10 per cent of Canadian nurses are under the age of 30, while almost a
third are over 50, data show.
''We're going to have to improve the work environment if we're going to
shift those statistics,'' said O'Brien-Pallas.
She attributed the current health system crisis, including labour
disruptions in two provinces, to the downsizing of the 1990s, when Ottawa
slashed transfer payments to provinces to balance its books.
''When everything was falling apart consistently, nurses were there being
the glue in the system to keep it going for patients. Right now we find
ourselves in a situation where they can't do it any more.''
The Ontario estimate on retirements in coming years assumes nurses will work
to retirement age but the shortage will be worse if many choose to retire
early.
A study released at the forum cites figures from numerous studies showing
the impact that job stress is having on nurses's health, and offers dozens
of recommendations on changing the situation.
''Canada's nursing shortage is at least in part due to a work environment
that burns out the experienced and discourages new recruits,'' says the
study, titled Commitment and Care.
It says stressed-out workers risk injuring themselves and harming patients.
Stress factors include excessive workload, proliferation of casual and
part-time jobs rather than full-time positions, unpredictable schedules,
mandatory overtime, lack of support staff, violence and lack of respect.
''We need to make sure that we have more money in the system to hire enough
nurses so we can reduce workload and provide a meaningful work
environment.''
O'Brien-Pallas said the federal government should provide money designated
specifically for nursing, and require auditing to ensure it is spent as
intended.
Many things could be done to improve the situation at no cost, she added.
''Look at the dollars we spend on overtime at time-and-a-half payment. If we
could reduce the number of dollars there and put that into full-time
employment we may in fact see a reduction of overall cost.
The lack of solid national figures on retirement and recruitment points to
the difficulty governments are having in taking the nursing shortage
seriously.
O'Brien-Pallas said nurses believe their work is not valued, and sometimes
feel as if they are no better than widgets. ''We need to keep getting the
message out that nurses are not widgets.''











Legal Notice:- Copyright 1996-2002.

Bombing of Yugoslavian Industrial Plants

[ken hanly]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For further information contact:
Sriram Gopal: (301) 270-5500
Nicole Deller:(212) 818-1861
Arjun Makhijani: (301) 270-5500

P R E S SR E L E A S E
NEW STUDY RAISES LEGAL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
OVER NATO'S 1999 "PRECISION BOMBING" OF YUGOSLAVIAN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
United States should not consider bombing civilian facilities containing
dangerous materials until it agrees to abide by relevant international legal
standards



Takoma Park, MD, November 5, 2002: The destruction of chemical plants in
Pancevo and Kragujevac, Yugoslavia during the 1999 "Operation Allied Force"
bombing campaign may have caused long-term damage to the environment and
public health in areas surrounding those facilities, according to a new
report released today. Precision Bombing, Widespread Harm by the Institute
of Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), warns that bombing civilian
industrial facilities can lead to contamination that is very difficult to
clean up and may violate international humanitarian law.
Among the findings of Precision Bombing, Widespread Harm:
The NATO bombings released significant amounts of toxic substances into the
environment;
Civilians living near the targets may have been exposed to greater health
risks from contamination in air, water and food products;
Due to long delays in its inception, the post-war cleanup process in
Yugoslavia has been more costly, and risks to the public may have been
increased.
"There is no doubt that the bombings released large quantities of
contaminants such as mercury but it is impossible to precisely determine
their effects because of lack of data about pre-conflict pollution levels,"
explained Sriram Gopal, IEER Staff Scientist and principal author of the
report. IEER's investigation was also hampered by rejection by the U.S.
Department of Defense of an IEER Freedom of Information Act request and
classification of an assessment by the General Accounting Office of the 1999
bombing campaign.
"This report does show that there is need for a sharp redefinition of how
target sets and collateral damage are evaluated," Mr. Gopal added.
"Currently collateral damage is measured in terms such as the number of
civilian casualties or the cost of replacing property. Long-term
environmental harms can be much more difficult to quantify and evaluate,
despite their very significant costs."
Precision Bombing, Widespread Harm also calls into question the legal
rationale used by NATO and the United States to justify the bombings. Nicole
Deller, a lawyer and co-author of the study, said, "Precision targeting may
be intended to minimize civilian damage, but the choice of targets may still
violate the international laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions."
Under the laws of war, weapons that will cause excessive injury to civilians
and damage to property are prohibited. "The deliberate targeting of
industrial facilities that hold little military value yet can cause severe
health and environmental damage appear to violate these laws," Ms. Deller
concluded.
The report offers six major recommendations:
The strategy of bombing civilian facilities to accomplish military
objectives needs to be openly and thoroughly debated;
Environmental clean-up after military conflicts needs to be expedited,
perhaps by establishing an emergency fund in an international body such as
the United National Environmental Program;
Information regarding past bombings of civilian industrial facilities should
be available to the public for legal review;
The United States should not bomb civilian industrial facilities until it
agrees to abide by the legal prohibitions on environmental damage during
wartime;
Extensive monitoring programs should be established in Pancevo and
Kragujevac; and
The clean-up process should be more transparent in order to allow for
independent assessments.
IEER's research raises significant questions relevant to future conflicts,
including a possible war on Iraq. "When civilians, the environment, or
future generations are harmed by bombing, the countries carrying it out have
the responsibility to abide by international law and to subject themselves
to its strictures," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER. "Sadly, the
United States, which is the progenitor of the idea of the rule of law,
refuses to do so. As a result, it is becoming the police, prosecutor, judge,
jury, and executioner, in international affairs, all at the same time. This
ought to be unacceptable to the international community, no matter how
powerful the country espousing such policies may be. The matter is
especially urgent in the context of the debate of a possible war led by the
United States on Iraq."
The report recommends that the United States, as well as other countries
that have not yet done so, ratify the framework of international law that
would enable international jurisdiction over their military actions. This
framework includes the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and
th

Building socialism with Chinese characteristics

[ken hanly]

that is to say--- creating a smooth transition to capitalism..


CHeers, Ken Hanly

China rolls out red carpet for capitalists
By Hamish McDonald, Herald Correspondent in Beijing
November 9 2002



Chinese leaders and delegates listen to the national anthem at the start of
the congress yesterday. Photos: AFP
Speaking in front of a hammer-and-sickle emblem in the Great Hall of the
People, China's supreme leader yesterday told his communist comrades they
had to respect property rights and investment income.
In a two-hour speech at the Chinese Communist Party's congress, held only
every five years, the national president and party general secretary, Jiang
Zemin, pointed to a future where private rights were guaranteed by law, and
a vibrant business sector flourished alongside continuing communist rule and
state-sector dominance. Mr Jiang, 76, who is expected to hand over his party
job to a younger official during the congress, spelled out his vision in a
report of which the less-than-handy title - "Build a well-off society in an
all-round way and create a new situation in building socialism with Chinese
characteristics' - reflects the growing conflicts and ironies of communist
rule in a booming economy led by market activity.
The 2134 delegates, mostly wearing Western-style business suits with a
sprinkling of military uniforms, listened intently as Mr Jiang urged them to
"blaze new trails" in extending Marxism as the speech was broadcast live on
all channels of Chinese state television. This party congress has been hyped
to unprecedented levels by propaganda agencies. As well as countless red
flags, the central Tiananmen Square outside the congress venue has been
decorated with transplanted palm trees, electrically heated against
temperatures now slipping below freezing at night.
Security has been just as tight, but one note of dissent in Beijing has been
an open letter circulated this week by intellectual Lin Mu - a former
secretary to the late party general secretary Hu Yaobang, who was purged for
 his liberal tendencies. Mr Lin called on the party congress to reassess the
Tiananmen incident, rehabilitate the ideas of Hu Yaobang and his purged
successor Zhao Ziyang, allow Chinese exiles to freely enter and leave the
country and begin studies on how to shift to electoral democracy.
The congress is unlikely to take up the suggestion. Mr Jiang has ruled China
for 13 years with an iron grip since the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy
demonstrators gathered on Tiananmen, and his apparent political swan song
was more notable for policy departures in the economic sphere than in
political freedoms.

He said all investors at home or from overseas should be encouraged to carry
out business activities to develop China, and all legitimate income, from
work or not, should be protected. "It is improper to judge whether people
are politically progressive or backward simply by whether they own property
or how much property they own, but rather, we should judge them mainly by
their political awareness, state of mind and performance," Mr Jiang said.
Even private businessmen were building socialism "with Chinese
characteristics", he said.
The congress is expected to run for at least seven days.
Vice-President Hu Jintao, 59, is expected to take over the party
secretaryship and the national presidency from Mr Jiang in March. Wen
Jiabao, 60, is likely to replace the Premier, Zhu Rongji, and Wu Bangguo
will probably take over the National People's Congress chair from Li Peng.

Re: Re: Re: Re: re: US needs 1.2 million more nurses by 2010

[ken hanly]

There is a fact sheet here:
http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Media/Backgrounders/shortagefacts.htm

cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:40 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32035] Re: Re: Re: re: US needs 1.2 million more nurses by
2010


> For those of you outside of the US,  I might mention that nurses probably
> took the heaviest hit of any of the health care workers with the onslaught
> of managed care.  Their workloads increased drastically; their
> responsibility did not decline even though they were expected to perform
> much of their work by administering non-professionals to do what used to
> be nurse's work.
>
> I don't have the figures, but retirements and quit rates are very high.
> Maybe someone with some expertise can shore up what I am writing.
>
>
>  --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Oregon health care measure etc.

[ken hanly]

from NY Times...cheers Ken Hanly

Advocates of drug policy reform were firmly rebuffed, after
>several years of winning initiatives around the country.
>Voters in Nevada rejected a proposal to legalize small
>amounts of marijuana, 61 percent to 39 percent, and Ohio
>residents turned down a requirement that nonviolent drug
>offenders receive treatment instead of jail. However, the
>District of Columbia approved a pro-treatment measure.
>
>Ethan Nadelman, executive director of the Drug Policy
>Alliance, said advocates may have overreached in Nevada,
>which is among the states he called most receptive to
>marijuana use. "It's a case of an initiative being put to
>the voters ahead of its time," he said.
>
>Oregon voters resoundingly defeated two health-related
>initiatives that captured national attention and even drew
>financing from supporters and opponents overseas.
>
>A proposal to provide universal health care reprised many
>of the debates over President Bill Clinton's national
>overhaul effort a decade ago. The plan would have replaced
>existing health insurance with a statewide program at a
>cost of as much as $1.7 billion in new taxes the first
>year. Health care and insurance interests rallied against
>the initiative, Measure 23.
>
>"As soon as Oregonians got beneath the surface of Ballot
>Measure 23, they realized how flawed it was," said Dave
>Fiskum, a spokesman for Oregon Against Unhealthy Taxes,
>after the initiative was defeated 79 percent to 21 percent.
>"It would have imposed a huge tax burden on individuals and
>businesses throughout the state. Many companies would have
>been forced to close their doors for good."
>
>A second Oregon proposal, to require the labeling of food
>products that contain genetically altered ingredients, was
>trounced by a similar margin. That initiative pitted
>organic farmers and consumer groups - with advertisements
>by Paul McCartney - against American and European
>agribusiness companies.
>
>Christie Quirk, a Democratic pollster who was not involved
>in either initiative, said their proponents were
>overwhelmed by industry's deep pockets.
>
>"So much money was spent against them," Ms. Quirk said,
>though she also faulted advocates as hastily drafting the
>health care measure.
>
>Ms. Quirk voiced pessimism that similar proposals would
>emerge anytime soon, despite considerable support in polls
>for change. "If they go down by large margins," she said,
>"the issues become toxic."

Leaked pics of detainees in transport

[ken hanly]

This seems absolutely gross humiliation combined with arrogant display of
sick patriotism..An accompanying poll puts approval of treatment of
detainees at over 80 percent. Fascism next?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/detainees.pictures/


Ken Hanly

Re: Re: re: US needs 1.2 million more nurses by 2010

[ken hanly]

There is probably a lot more poaching by Canada from the UK and particularly
South Africa etc. then the US poaches from Canada.
Our local hospital has two doctors from South Africa and one from Poland,
and that is the total number of doctors there.

Cheers,  Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:32027] Re: re: US needs 1.2 million more nurses by 2010


> At 08/11/02 07:08 -0500, you wrote:
> >Chris:
> >This is definitely not a new problem. It has been the same with
> >'poaching' from Canada. It is one of the reasons that the English
> >speaking metropolitan countries have used English countries for sourcing
> >nurses (& drs let us add) as we have discussed on the list before.
> >It may -  I grant you - be getting worse.
> >H
>
>
> Yes it is not new, and it may be getting worse.
>
>
>
>

More double standards?

[ken hanly]

Of course it is doubtful that the US really disapproves of Israel's action.
Just going through politically correct motions.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Do as we say, not as we do, U.S. affirms







Associated Press


Washington - The Bush administration renewed its opposition Tuesday to
Israel's assassination of terror suspects, even after a U.S. missile killed
a top al-Qaeda operative and five other people in his car in Yemen.

Sunday's strike in Yemen was the first such overt attack outside Afghanistan
and could signal a new U.S. strategy against anti-Western terrorists.

Israel, which pioneered targeting militants for assassination, sometimes
also killing and injuring civilians in the attacks, has been admonished
publicly and regularly by the State Department for the tactics.

On Tuesday, while declining to discuss the U.S. operation in Yemen,
spokesman Richard Boucher said, "Our policy on targeted killings in the
Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed."

Suggesting the two situations were not comparable, Mr. Boucher said, "The
reasons we have given do not necessarily apply in other circumstances."

While criticizing Israel for targeting suspected Palestinian terrorists, the
State Department usually has suggested the preferred approach would be to
some form of prosecution.

Also, State Department officials generally have coupled the criticism with
calls for restraint while endorsing Israel's right to defend itself.

For the most part, the State Department worries that assassinations
contribute to a cycle of violence.

The U.S. assassination of Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi and five of his
associates Sunday in northwestern Yemen drew criticism from Swedish Foreign
Minister Anna Lundh.

"If the USA is behind this with Yemen's consent, it is nevertheless a
summary execution that violates human rights," she said. "If the USA. has
conducted the attack without Yemen's permission it is even worse. Then it is
a question of unauthorized use of force," Ms. Lindh told Swedish news agency
TT during an official visit to Mexico.

"Even terrorists must be treated according to international law. Otherwise,
any country can start executing those whom they consider terrorists," she
said.

U.S. counterterror officials say al-Harethi was al-Qaeda's chief operative
in Yemen and a suspect in the October 2000 bombing of the destroyer USS
Cole.

Re: Re: Re: Re From Toronto Star_Assaults on Public Health Carein

[ken hanly]

The situation in health care varies from province to province as does the
political "climate". My impression is that the majority of people are just
not that politically astute or active. Not because they are stupid but
because politics is just not a significant concern. Less and less people
even have enough interest to vote.
Media concentrate on personalities and a shooting or some "newsworthy" event
will always trump analysis of significant issues. I expect even when the
media does do good investigative work on health care issues it is just one
program with limited audience and that it mostly disappears in an ocean of
trivia. But this is the way it is meant to be.
Democracy works best as they say when there arent significant issues. If
a Marxist gets in in Chile, it goes by the boards or as in Brazil or perhaps
Turkey
there is some consternation among capitalists but leftists or Islamists
adapt or will get tossed out somehow.
In Manitoba changes have been gradual and the government has done a few
things such as giving funds to build a hospital extension in Manitoba. They
are also doing a few innovative things such as diagnosing skin problems etc.
by
web technology. Patients can be diagnosed by experts in Winnipeg without a
three hour drive or more. But waiting lists are still long for some
operations.
   The other thing that is being done in most provinces is further
amalgamation of regions to save money on administration and board
appointments. HOwever this has the result of  creating administration
further from the grass roots and making local input even less. It is not
clear that it saves that much money. However it looks as if something is
being done to make the system more efficient and it gives more control to
those whose livelihood depends upon good relationships with governing
capitalist parties.

CHeers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:31844] Re: Re: Re From Toronto Star_Assaults on Public
Health Carein


>
>
> Hari Kumar wrote:
> >
> >  I suggest that it is for the same reason. i.e.: The lack of the
> > subjective factor.
> > I know that does not sit well with some. However... that is just my
> > little old view.
>
> To paraphrase an old question: Where do "subjective factors" come from?
> Do they drop from the sky? et cetera.
>
> Carrol
>
> > H
>

Carving up Iraq oil

[ken hanly]

Carve-up of oil riches begins

US plans to ditch industry rivals and force end of Opec, write Peter
Beaumont and Faisal Islam

Sunday November 3, 2002
The Observer

The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has
met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of
Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC
spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British
oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first
shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.

Confirming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said:
'The oil people are naturally nervous. We've had discussions with them, but
they're not in the habit of going around talking about them.'

Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham
to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by
Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a
former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Minister and City
financiers. Topics for discussion include the country's oil potential,
whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a
post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries.

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys
the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate
friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and
veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of
a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.

Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has
made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative
oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: 'American companies
will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'

Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world's second largest oil
reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Council over
a new resolution on Iraq.

If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As
of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multi-billion-dollar deals
with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.

Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms
deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a
$3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15
billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila
field.

Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia's Lukoil has prepared a
plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day
from West Qurna's Mishrif formation.

French interest is also intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with
Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field.

Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition
of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush
administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support.
Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help
deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil
producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with
American interests.

Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a
successful war on Iraq would be good for business.

'When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million
barrels [per day] of production to world supply,' he said in September. 'The
successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'

Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping 10m barrels of
oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations
breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.

Russian concern over a future INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq's oil to the
benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to
hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August
the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil
markets by the US.

A model for the carve-up of Iraq's oil industry was presented in September
by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links
to the Bush administration.

In The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement,
Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the
privatisation of Iraq's nationalised oil industry, and warning that France,
Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not
honour their oil contracts.

Cohen's proposal would see Iraq's oil industry split up into three large
companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the
largely Shia south, another for

Mistry cancels US tour.

[ken hanly]

---
POSTED AT 11:56 AM ESTSaturday, November 2


Mistry cancels U.S. tour over racial profiling



By COLIN FREEZE
>From Saturday's Globe and Mail


Rohinton Mistry, one of Canada's most celebrated authors, has cancelled his
U.S. book tour, complaining that he has faced "unbearable" humiliation as a
result of racial profiling in American airports.

Publishers for Mr. Mistry, an Indian-born Canadian who is scheduled to
appear at a sold-out literary event in Toronto tonight, says he wants to
stay home to avoid any further degradation.

"He has been extremely unhappy about the way he has been treated in airports
around the U.S. in the first half of the tour," a representative of his U.S.
publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, wrote in a memo sent to bookstores affected by
the decision. "As a person of colour he was stopped repeatedly and rudely at
each airport along the way - to the point where the humiliation for both he
and his wife has become unbearable."



Mr. Mistry, who was nominated for this year's Man Booker Prize and was
recently recommended to millions of Americans by Oprah Winfrey, could not be
reached for comment yesterday. But even at last month's Man Booker Prize
dinner in Britain, he made no secret of his disgruntlement.

"He just said that he had a terrible time travelling in the U.S. He was
really very upset," said Sonny Mehta, his New York publisher, who attended
the event with him.

The author has raised his complaints amid a cross-border rift over racial
profiling, which began after the United States started to fingerprint,
photograph, and register Canadian citizens originally from certain Muslim
countries.

The United States has backed down and will no longer automatically register
Canadians from certain countries. But Canadians can still be registered at
the discretion of U.S. border authorities.

Mr. Mistry is not from a country originally targeted by the United States,
nor is he a Muslim. And yet he and his wife would appear to have suffered
some serious scrutiny while travelling on the first leg of his U.S. tour at
the end of September.

This spring, he was asked by The Globe's Sandra Martin about whether the
aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had complicated his travels. At
the time, he said he was taking it in stride.

"I did feel for the first few weeks, right through to December when I was
travelling, that a brown skin and a beard were not a felicitous
combination," he said. "I could feel the looks from the security personnel.
That is okay; it is part of their job."

But his opinion appears to have changed since the first leg of the tour.
This week, Mr. Mistry told his publishers he was fed up. He cancelled
scheduled stops in Chicago; San Francisco; Boston; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Iowa City, and Madison, Wis.

The reason behind the cancellations has upset U.S. booksellers.

"I find it outrageous," said Betsy Burton of The King's English bookstore in
Salt Lake City. "It makes me feel ashamed of my country."

She had planned to fill a high-school auditorium on Monday with 300 people
for Mr. Mistry's visit. The proceeds were to benefit a local food bank.

The author's agent, Bruce Westwood, spoke to him yesterday by telephone and
discussed comments that Foreign Minister Bill Graham has been making about
racial profiling in the United States. Mr. Mistry is said to be considering
making a public statement, but has yet to speak out to anyone but those
close to him.

He is scheduled to appear at an on-stage interview this evening with the
CBC's Shelagh Rogers at Toronto's Harbourfront.

"There certainly is an issue surrounding the security issues he faced in the
States," Mr. Westwood said. "It was sufficient to cancel the rest of the
tour."

In September, the Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a travel advisory, saying
Canadians born in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, or Syria could be subjected to
increased attention from U.S. authorities. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen
were later added to the list.

That meant Canadians were fingerprinted and photographed at certain border
crossings. Reaction from senior Canadian officials has been vigorous.
Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal called it "the ugly face of
America."

Yesterday, the U.S. embassy in Ottawa attempted to quell concerns, issuing a
statement that "place of birth by itself will not automatically trigger
registration."

With reports from Sandra Martin, John Stackhouse, Jeff Sallot and The
Canadian Press

Village guards in Turkey

[ken hanly]

In Kurdish Turkey, a New Enemy
Village Guards, Empowered During War, Turn Guns on Returnees
 advertisement



By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A18


UGRAK, Turkey -- The family name translates as "powerful," but by most
accounts the Guclus wielded no particular clout until the state made them
the law in these parts.

It was intended as a purely military measure, deputizing villagers to open a
new front in a long civil war against ethnic Kurdish guerrillas. But in
Ugrak, which is little more than a fold of green in the rolling umber hills
of southeastern Turkey, the policy had the effect of emptying the village of
everyone not named Guclu.

The families who left describe being pushed off their land by neighbors who
used police powers to commandeer better land and bigger houses -- an
allegation the Guclus deny.

What no one disputes, however, is the number of people shot dead the day
last month when those families returned: three, including a 7-year-old boy.
In the aftermath, 10 members of the Guclu clan were arrested by the very
authorities who had put them in charge.

"These people given weapons by the state used the weapons for their own
benefit," said Sait Tanguner, 30, who survived the fighting. "Rather than
lose confiscated land, they massacred people."

Turkey is facing the possibility that the United States will go to war
against Iraq, but the corner of Turkey along the Iraqi border has yet to put
the last war behind it.

For 15 years, militants fought the Turkish security forces, demanding
autonomy for the ethnic Kurdish minority. Most guerrillas laid down their
arms in 1999 following the capture of Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the Kurdish
Workers' Party, or PKK. Except for perhaps 300 rebels said to be hiding
inside Turkey in remote mountains, the rest moved across the border to
northern Iraq, where Turkish troops pursue a few thousand diehards.

Tensions still fester, however, three years after the separatist war ended -
- a situation that is both illustrated and sustained by the continued
presence of the so-called village guards. Across southeastern Turkey,
between 46,000 and 90,000 local men are still nominally on duty. Recruited,
armed and paid by the state, they agreed to form the first line of defense
against the guerrillas .

For the government, the logic was plain. After all, who better than local
residents know when the insurgents arrive in the night, demanding food and
other assistance from the people they claimed to be fighting for? In divided
nations from Guatemala to Rwanda, the home guard concept has been a standard
counterinsurgency tactic for decades.

In Turkey, the military tried to make the decision irresistible to the
potential recruits. "You really didn't have a choice," said Mehmet Refiktas,
37. Asked what happened to the homes of men in his mountain village,
Islamkoy, who declined the government's offer, he explained, "Oh, they were
burned."

More than 3,000 villages were set afire or otherwise emptied by Turkish
security forces during the war, not only to punish uncooperative families
but to deny the insurgents food, supplies and manpower -- another classic
counterinsurgency tactic known as "draining the sea."

The war displaced between 400,000 and 1 million people in parts of
Kurdish-speaking Turkey, according to various estimates. Now, as they return
to their former homes, many find that little has changed. Though the
government has begun building new villages, like the cluster of pink
two-story homes that flanked Refiktas as he shoveled dried manure onto a
trailer, they remain under the sway of the village guards, whom many locals
describe as mafias. Armed with state-issued G-3 assault rifles, some do as
they please under the color of law, enjoying virtual immunity from
prosecution, according to human rights activists and local residents.

Human Rights Watch, a research and advocacy group based in New York,
identified the village guard system as a major impediment to bringing
displaced Kurds back to their homes. In a new report, "Displaced and
Disregarded: Turkey's Failing Village Return Program," the group listed
cases of guards looting timber, homes and fields, as well as attacking
returning villagers, in some cases fatally.

Reports of rape at the hands of village guards are rising, and critics
describe leaders of prominent clans using guard status to cement their
already considerable power, in some cases running smuggling rings
unchallenged by state authorities afraid to try to disarm them.

"The need is going down, so we are not enlisting new ones," said Gokhan
Aydiner, governor for the sections of southeastern Turkey placed under
"emergency rule" for the war. "But it would be so unfair that these men
served and then were thrown away."

In dangerous assaults on rebel strongholds, Turkish security services
routinely forced village guards to lead the charge. Experts say their ranks
account for a large share of the 30,000 pe

UN resolutions that are not enforced

[ken hanly]

By Maggie Farley, Times Staff Writer


UNITED NATIONS -- When President Bush chastises the U.N. for letting Iraq
violate 16 Security Council resolutions, what he doesn't mention is that
Iraq is not alone. Nearly 100 U.N. resolutions are being violated by other
countries, and in many cases, a recent study notes, enforcement is being
blocked by the United States or its allies.

The consistent breaches highlight the essential conundrum of the United
Nations: The world body has the power to pass resolutions but not always the
power to enforce them -- creating sometimes catastrophic situations and, as
Bush has charged, eroding its own relevance.

In a review of five decades of U.N. resolutions, University of San Francisco
professor Stephen Zunes identifies at least 91 resolutions that clearly are
being violated in addition to the Iraq violations. His analysis suggests
that the degree of compliance depends on the influence of each state and its
backers.

Israel, by Zunes' count, is in violation of 31 resolutions. The violations
stem from its refusal to accept the U.N.'s land-for-peace formula put
forward in 1967 and its defiance of a dozen later resolutions demanding that
it cease violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention for Occupying Powers,
such as deportations, demolitions of homes and seizure of property.

Resolution 487, passed in 1981, has particular resonance in the debate over
Iraq's disarmament because it calls upon Israel to place its nuclear
facilities under the safeguard of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy
Agency.

The discrepancy is not lost on Iraq. In a speech Wednesday to the Security
Council, Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Douri pointed out that by
Iraq's reckoning, Israel has refused to implement 28 resolutions, but the
U.S. is not talking about invading Israel.

The U.S., one of five veto-holding members of the Security Council -- along
with Britain, France, China and Russia -- has used its veto more than 40
times to block additional resolutions on Israel.

In second place is Turkey, with 23 breaches following a resolution in 1974
calling for it to withdraw its troops from Cyprus. When Turkey -- a member
of NATO and key U.S. ally -- did not comply, the Security Council reiterated
its demand 11 more times over a decade.

In 1996, the Security Council demanded that Turkey at least reduce its
troops and military spending in Cyprus, and repeated that demand eight more
times through 2001.

Morocco has 18 violations, following demands in 1975 that it withdraw its
occupation forces from Western Sahara and in 1991 that it allow a referendum
for Western Saharans on self-determination.

While some resolutions create legally binding obligations under Chapter 7 of
the U.N. Charter, which allows military enforcement, others function more
like formal recommendations that have no teeth but carry political weight.

"Despite the failures to follow them, the Security Council's decisions do
matter," said Robert Rosenstock, former legal counsel for the U.S. mission
at the U.N. "Even if the resolution is not legally binding, there is a
political price to be paid for violating it."

But the fact that, in most cases, all the U.N. can do is repeat itself shows
the inherent weakness of the world organization: There is often not enough
resolve behind its resolutions.

"This has been the dilemma for the U.N.: It has the legal authority, but not
always the means to follow up its decisions," said Edward Luck, director of
the Center on International Organization at Columbia University. "It's a
rare case that they do."

Although the U.N. Charter authorizes military action for enforcement of
Chapter 7 resolutions, there is no formal agreement about how force should
be used. Each time the Security Council deems military action necessary, its
member states must decide the details among themselves -- an often
time-consuming process, with varying degrees of commitment.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, a 1995 resolution creating U.N.-protected "safe
havens" for Bosnian Muslims turned into a catastrophe. A safe haven at
Srebrenica became a death trap when Bosnian Serbs overcame the understaffed
Dutch U.N. peacekeepers and massacred thousands of Bosnian Muslims seeking
asylum there.

Despite periodic attempts to guarantee strong enforcement with a
quick-reaction force made up from member nations' troops, the U.S. has been
quick to squelch such efforts.

"Neither the U.S. nor other countries have been willing to allow
international command of their forces," Luck said. "The last thing the U.S.
wants is an independent U.N. throwing its weight around."

Although Bush has castigated the U.N. for its apparent weakness,
historically the United States has not wanted the U.N. to become too
powerful.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in the 1970s, wrote in
his memoirs: "The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove
utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. The task was given to
me, 

Balines banned from bombed club

[ken hanly]

An interesting factoid that seems to have escaped most media...from the
Scotsman...

Experts, including Professor Paul Wilkinson, the chairman of the Centre for
the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St
Andrews, believe the bombing bore the hallmarks of al-Qaeda. It targeted
Westerners in a club where Balinese were banned. The operation was
well-organised and executed and one of the three bombs went off outside the
US consulate

cheers, Ken Hanly

Re: Re: Re: What is science

[ken hanly]

There is no such Platonic argument. Thrasymachus in the Republic argues this
and gets a good trouncing for doing so at the hands of Socrates. Where do
you think that PLATO argues this? Or do you think that Thrasymachus is
actually Plato in the Republic. That is an interesting theory.

Cheers. Ken Hanly...

- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:31316] Re: Re: What is science


>
>
> Charles Jannuzi wrote:
> >
> >The science report
> > is that sad sick pretense of an exercise in c/v
> > building that pretends we can.
> >
>
> The basis both of "SCIENCE" (deified -- as at Sceptical Inquiere) and of
> SCIENCE (demonized -- as with Carl & too many others) -- is the Platonic
> argument that a mathematician is not a mathematician when he/she is
> making a mistake. Both (Carl & Sceptical Inquirer) are pitching religous
> woo-woo and can't tell us much about the actual world.
>
> Carrol
>

PBM's

[ken hanly]

from another list:
cheers, Ken Hanly

> Mail-order medicine
 >Pharmacy benefit managers say mail-order prescriptions save patients and
 >their employers money. But some clients and others question just how cozy
 >PBMs are with the drug companies.
 >
 >By SARA FRITZ, Times Washington Bureau Chief
 >
 >St. Petersburg Times, published September 15, 2002
 >
 >Pharmacy benefit managers say mail-order prescriptions save patients and
 >their employers money. But some clients and others question just how cozy
 >PBMs are with the drug companies.
 >
 >WASHINGTON -- Americans frustrated in their dealings with HMOs and PPOs
are
 >getting to know another three-letter acronym for an organization that
 >controls their access to health care: PBM.
 >
 >That stands for pharmacy benefit manager, a company that buys drugs from
 >pharmaceutical manufacturers, then fills the prescriptions of insured
patients.
 >
 >There are four major PBMs in the United States -- Medco Health Solutions,
 >AdvancePCS, Express Scripts and Caremark -- that together serve
200-million
 >people. They are hired by insurance companies and self-insured employers
 >with the promise they will provide savings through massive buying power,
 >convenience and close monitoring of patient prescriptions to prevent
adverse
 >drug interactions.
 >
 >Already an important link in the health delivery system, PBMs are
 >anticipating a big windfall if, as expected, Congress eventually gives
them
 >a central role in delivering a prescription drug benefit for Medicare
 >beneficiaries. Virtually every Medicare bill proposed in Congress this
year
 >would have relied on PBMs.
 >
 >"PBMs are part of the solution to Medicare," says LaVarne Burton,
president
 >of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents PBMs
in
 >Washington. "Only PBMs have the necessary systems and experience to expand
 >Medicare to include prescription drugs."
 >
 >Yet many experts in the health care field are skeptical that PBMs can
 >deliver on their promise to limit future increases in prescription drug
 >spending. Critics say PBMs are more loyal to drug manufacturers than to
plan
 >beneficiaries, intent on encouraging patients to take more prescription
 >drugs and guilty of using creative accounting to mask their sizable
profits.
 >
 >* * *
 >
 >PBMs are also under siege in the courts. Numerous lawsuits have been filed
 >charging them with violating their legal duty to serve only the interests
of
 >the plan beneficiaries enrolled in their drug programs. And the Justice
 >Department is looking into allegations of fraud by at least two major
PBMs.
 >
 >"PBMs have a record of gross violations of contracts, fraud and exceeding
 >costs," says Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., who represents a state where
 >many drug manufacturers are headquartered. "Pretty soon, all major PBMs
will
 >be answering fraud charges."
 >Bait and switch?
 >
 >When Gina Gruer went to her drug store in Suffern, N.Y., in June, 1995,
with
 >a prescription for Pravachol, a drug that lowers cholesterol, she
discovered
 >her PBM had a different medicine in mind for her.
 >
 >Manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Pravachol sells for less than $2
 >per tablet. But Medco, the pharmacy benefit manager used by Gruer's
insurer,
 >switched her to Mevacor, a medicine manufacturered by Medco's parent
 >corporation, Merck. Retail customers normally pay about $2.25 a pill for
 >Mevacor.
 >
 >Gruer's subsequent lawsuit, pending in federal court in New York, says the
 >plaintiff "believes Medco's drug switch was not solely in her interests,
but
 >rather in the interests of Medco and Merck."
 >
 >Lawsuits like Gruer's have been filed elsewhere by employers and health
plan
 >beneficiaries who say that PBMs are violating their duty under federal law
 >to operate only on behalf of their plan members. Medco executives deny
they
 >are violating any law.
 >
 >Yet Medco and other PBMs acknowledge they sometimes switch customers from
a
 >medicine prescribed by their doctor to an equivalent drug on their
preferred
 >list, a technique called "therapeutic interchange." They say they do it
 >because they are getting a better deal from the manufacturer of the
 >preferred drug.
 >
 >Medco is the only PBM owned by a drugmaker. Merck had planned to spin it
off
 >this year but has postponed the offering.
 >
 >The role of PBMs has grown since many of these companies were founded
about
 >a quarter-century ago to assist insurance companies and large,
self-insured
 >employers with the administration of drug benefits. At first, PBMs were
paid
 >small fees just to handle the paperwork.
 >
 >But 

Fw: HHS Seeks Science Advice to Match Bush Views (fwd)

[ken hanly]

Subject: NEWS: HHS Seeks Science Advice to Match Bush Views (fwd)


> >HHS Seeks Science Advice to Match Bush Views
>  >
>  >By Rick Weiss
>  >Washington Post Staff Writer
>  >Tuesday, September 17, 2002; Page A01
>  >
>  >The Bush administration has begun a broad restructuring of the
scientific
>  >advisory committees that guide federal policy in areas such as patients'
>  >rights and public health, eliminating some committees that were coming
to
>  >conclusions at odds with the president's views and in other cases
replacing
>  >members with handpicked choices.
>  >
>  >In the past few weeks, the Department of Health and Human Services has
>  >retired two expert committees before their work was complete. One had
>  >recommended that the Food and Drug Administration expand its regulation
of
>  >the increasingly lucrative genetic testing industry, which has so far
been
>  >free of such oversight. The other committee, which was rethinking
federal
>  >protections for human research subjects, had drawn the ire of
administration
>  >supporters on the religious right, according to government sources.
>  >
>  >A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental
>  >chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members
will
>  >be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the
industries
>  >that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who
>  >helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin
>  >Brockovich.
>  >
>  >The changes are among the first in a gradual restructuring of the system
>  >that funnels expert advice to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
G.
>  >Thompson.
>  >
>  >That system includes more than 250 committees, each composed of people
with
>  >scientific, legal or academic expertise who volunteer their services
over
>  >multiyear terms.
>  >
>  >The committees typically toil in near anonymity, but they are important
>  >because their interpretation of scientific data can sway an agency's
>  >approach to health risk and regulation.
>  >
>  >The overhaul is rattling some HHS employees, some of whom said they have
not
>  >seen such a political makeover of the department since Ronald Reagan
took
>  >office in 1981.
>  >
>  >HHS spokesman William Pierce said he could not provide a tally of the
number
>  >of committees that had been eliminated or changed so far, but he denied
that
>  >the degree of change was out of the ordinary for the first years after a
>  >change of administration.
>  >
>  >He acknowledged that Thompson has irritated some HHS veterans with his
"top
>  >down" approach to reshaping the department, but he defended Thompson's
>  >prerogative to hear preferentially from experts who share the
president's
>  >philosophical sensibilities.
>  >
>  >"No one should be surprised when an administration makes changes like
this,"
>  >Pierce said. "I don't think there is anything going on here that has not
>  >gone on with each and every administration since George Washington."
>  >
>  >Routine or not, the restructuring offers a view into how tomorrow's
science
>  >policies are being constructed -- and how the previous administration's
>  >influence is being quietly dismantled.
>  >
>  >One example of the recent changes is the Secretary's Advisory Committee
on
>  >Genetic Testing, created during the Clinton administration after a major
>  >federal report concluded that the public was at risk of being harmed by
the
>  >emerging gene-testing industry.
>  >
>  >One of the first topics tackled by the committee was how to deal with
the
>  >proliferation of so-called home-brew genetic tests, which are offered by
a
>  >growing number of companies and doctors.
>  >
>  >The blood tests can detect DNA variations that may increase a person's
odds
>  >of getting a disease or affect a patient's response to medicines.
>  >
>  >The Food and Drug Administration has long asserted that it has the
authority
>  >to regulate these tests, but it has opted not to do so -- in part
because of
>  >a lack of resources. As a result, companies are free to market tests for
>  >genes even if those genes have no proven role in disease susceptibility
or
>  >any proven usefulness at all. A growing number of companies are doing
just
>  >that -- at no small expense to consumers -- in some cases needlessly
>  >alarming people with meaningless results and in other cases offering
false
>  >reassurance.
>  >
>  >The committee convinced the FDA to use its authority to oversee the
>  >marketing of these tests, and the agency was developing rules when the
Bush
>  >administration took over. Suddenly the FDA's stance changed: The agency
was
>  >no longer certain it had the regulatory authority in question. Oversight
>  >plans stalled. Today the FDA is still mulling whether it has authority,
>  >Pierce said, and last week members learned that the committee's charter,
>  >which just expired, will not be renewed.
>  >
>  >"This is a real tur

Re: Why do they hate us?

[ken hanly]

Ted Honderich was my classmate at the U of Toronto. He was perhaps the best
student in the class. Nice to see that he has come to no good according to
the hacks hired to smear any criticism of capitalism and US foreign policy.
It is amazing that these reviews actually present almost no evidence for
their conclusions or rather slurs.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:30297] Why do they hate us?


The Telegraph, Sept. 17, 2002
When in doubt, blame the US

Noel Malcolm reviews The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and
Infuriates the World by Mark Hertsgaard and After the Terror by Ted
Honderich

"Why do they hate us?" is, we are told, the question that most Americans
were asking themselves in the immediate aftermath of September 11 last
year. The "they" that mattered here turned out to be an unrepresentative
ultra-extremist organisation, and so the question may have lost some of its
force. But, put another way, it is still a question worth asking: what are
the origins of anti-Americanism, and why is it capable of attaining such
virulence, such extremes of hatred?

A well-researched cultural and ideological history of anti-Americanism,
exploring its history, its different strands - Leftist, Rightist,
Euro-nationalist, Cold War, Islamic, Third Worldist and so on - and, above
all, the strange interactions and cross-fertilisations between them, is a
book that I would dearly like to read. But, if one is being written as a
response to September 11, do not expect it to appear just yet. Serious
research requires more than the six months' writing time that went into
most of the current crop of anniversary publications.

Instead, what we have is writers on the hobby-horses that they had already
mounted, long before the Twin Towers were hit. These two books, by the
American journalist Mark Hertsgaard and the Canadian-British philosopher
Ted Honderich, are dressed up as meditations on the significance of that
terrible event: their titles hint at it portentously, and their
dust-jackets have sombre photographs of US flags and vapour trails, the
Statue of Liberty and a pall of smoke. But a truer subtitle, in each case,
would be: "As I Was Going To Say, Before I Was Interrupted".

Mark Hertsgaard did at least have one major advantage: by September last
year he was already more than half-way through a lengthy round-the-world
tour, collecting interviews and impressions for a book about popular
attitudes to America. Some of that material (though not much - his
publishers should look again at his expense claims and try calculating the
unit cost per anecdote) has found its way into this slim volume. He has
discovered, for example, that young people round the world like watching
pop videos on MTV, that American tourists abroad can sometimes seem loud
and pushy, and that many people still want to emigrate to the United States.

But the main purpose of this book is not to unveil these and other such
remarkable findings. Rather, it is to tell readers (American ones,
primarily) what is wrong with America in Mr Hertsgaard's opinion - an
opinion that was formed, evidently, quite a long time before he reached the
departure lounge. His previous publications include a book about the
dangers facing the global environment, and one entitled On Bended Knee: The
Press and the Reagan Presidency. Sure enough, this book contains tirades
about the global effects of American consumerism, the pro-corporate bias of
the American press, and the general evils of Reagan, Bush and Bush.

What has all this got to do with September 11? Since the al-Qaeda
terrorists were not, so far as we know, protesting about greenhouse gas
emissions, or about the stage-management of White House press conferences,
or even about Reagan's tax policies or the vote-counting procedures in
Florida, the answer has to be: not much.

Professor Honderich has tried to stick closer to the really big issues.
Instead of anecdotes and vox pops, his book (Edinburgh UP, £15.99, 160 pp)
is filled with abstract argumentation about moral philosophy, the nature of
democracy, the definition of political violence, and so on. As a result,
this book is able to be bad in a much more serious way. Indeed, I think it
is one of the worst books I have ever read.

The key points of the argument are as follows. There is no real difference
between an act of omission and an act of commission. This means that each
time I fail to give money to Oxfam to save the lives of starving Africans -
for example, each time I spend money on a holiday - I am responsible for
killing people. Therefore we are all, in a real sense, murderers, and the
West is collectively responsible for the elimination of human life on a
colossal scale. (Western interventions to help starving

Re: Open letter to Michael Berube

[ken hanly]

Heck Louis 5 out of 43 is  just over ten percent. Shows that almost 90 per
cent of  them have an elementary knowledge of history.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:30283] Open letter to Michael Berube


> Dear Professor Berube,
>
> I hope that you don't mind that I respond to your attack on the Chomskyan
> left that appears in the Sept. 15 Boston Globe
> (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/258/focus/Peace_puzzle+.shtml) through
> this email. In fact--come to think of it--I do hope that you do find it
> intrusive since I myself have grown sick of people like you, Christopher
> Hitchens and Marc Cooper chastising the left from the pages of mass
> circulation bourgeois media such as the LA Weekly, the Boston Globe, etc.
> Years ago, when people like John Reed spoke on behalf of the left, they
had
> ties and accountability to a largely working-class base. Nowadays, we find
> all too often that journalists and college professors speak only for
> themselves and through the auspices of the very publications that are
> beating the drums of war. On side of the op-ed page, we get snarling
> attacks to remove Saddem Hussein. On the other, we get rueful professors
> striking Orwellian poses against the radical movement. Sort of a hard
> cop/soft cop combination if you gather my drift.
>
> On to the substance. You are troubled by the wing of the left that another
> "opposes all military interventions regardless of their objectives." Since
> you were only five years old when the Vietnam war started, it is entirely
> possible that you missed out on the rather rich discussion that involved
> historians like Gabriel Kolko who questioned whether the USA ever
> intervened overseas for the right reason. Along with older scholars like
> Howard Zinn, a veteran of WWII who writes for the Z Magazine that disturbs
> you so much, they demonstrated in copious detail that the USA only acts
out
> of material self-interest and never for humanitarian reasons.
>
> Unlike yourself, they have an analysis of imperialism. You say that "The
> antiwar left once knew well that its anti-imperialism was in fact a form
of
> patriotism - until it lost its bearings in Kosovo and Kabul, insisting
> beyond all reason that those military campaigns were imperialist wars for
> oil or regional power." My dear professor, there is abundant evidence that
> the USA only fights for raw materials or regional power.
>
> Let's take a look at WWII, the war that is so often offered up by people
> like yourself and Hitchens as a positive example of resisting evil. In
> fact, the mushy left that got on board NATO's bombing campaign in the
> Balkans must have been reading Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" for
> inspiration at the time.
>
> Reading Howard Zinn, you would know that diplomat Sumner Welles assured
the
> French that they could hold on to their colonies after WWII. He said,
"This
> Government, mindful of its traditional friendship for France, has deeply
> sympathized with the desire of the French people to maintain their
> territories and preserve them intact."
>
> Secretary of State Cordell Hull said "Leadership toward a new system of
> international relationships in trade and other economic affairs will
> devolve very largely upon the United States because of our great economic
> strength. We should assume this leadership, and the responsibility that
> goes with it, primarily for reasons of national self-interest."
> Self-interest? Get it, Professor Berube? That's kind of like saying that
> WWII was about regional power and straight from the horse's mouth, no
less.
>
> The poet Archibald MacLeish, at that time an Assistant Secretary of State,
> predicted the outcome of an allied victory. He declared, "As things are
now
> going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a
> peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace, in
> brief...without moral purpose or human interest.
>
> In any case, I doubt that any of this will mean anything to you because
you
> are one of those postmodernist leftists who refuse to be burdened by
> historical grand narratives. I myself think that this might be intimately
> linked to the undergraduate malaise described so frequently in the media
as
> "historical illiteracy". For example, the Princeton University website
says
> that 5 out of 43 students in a group selected at random from Ivy League
> colleges could not identify Germany or Italy as enemies of the USA during
> WWII. Do you suppose this comes from reading too much Derrida?
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> www.marxmail.org
>

Re: bankruptcy bill and the real estate bubble

[ken hanly]

Interesting. I kept getting requests to apply for a card from MBNA. I
applied and was rejected. Why? Not enough credit info. I havent had any
loans or a credit card for about 7 years. I guess that makes me a bad risk.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:30281] bankruptcy bill and the real estate bubble


The interesting kicker comes at the end.

Published on Friday, September 13, 2002 in the Boulder Daily Camera
Credit-Card Companies Manipulate Congress by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas - Sometimes you have to connect the dots, and sometimes
the connections just hit you over the head.

Congress is on the verge of taking a final vote on the bankruptcy bill,
the product of a five-year effort by credit-card companies to stack the
law in their favor and against average citizens. But you will be
relieved to learn that our lawmakers have thoughtfully included a
loophole that leaves six states, including Florida and Texas, free to
continue providing extraordinary advantages to rich citizens from all
over the country who need to shelter their gelt from bankruptcy
proceedings. The millionaire protection amendment.

And this is about to happen despite the fact that one of the bill's most
important sponsors, a congressman with financial problems, got a
$447,500 loan - as The New York Times genteelly put it, "on what
appeared to be highly favorable terms," from (guess who? Right again) -
a major credit card company.

Rep. James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, got the loan from the MBNA
Corp. of Delaware in 1998, the world's largest independent credit card
agency, just one month before he signed on as the lead Democratic
sponsor of the bill, giving it the appearance of a bipartisan effort.
Quite a coincidence, eh?

And that's just what Rep. Moran said. "The timing of my loan was wholly
coincidental with the co-sponsorship of bankruptcy reform."

I find that entirely believable, since I live in Texas where such
coincidences lie thick on the ground. Just last summer, our governor
Rick Perry appointed a former Enron executive to the state Public
Utilities Commission, to better to regulate our energy market. The very
next day, Perry got a $25,000 check from Kenny Boy Lay, but Perry
explained, it was "totally coincidental."

You would think Moran would have a little more sympathy for Americans
caught in the toils of the bankruptcy laws - his own financial problems
stem from running up debts on his credit cards, stock market losses and
paying for cancer treatment for his daughter. Ninety-percent of all
bankruptcies are caused by getting sick, getting laid off or divorce.
But then, most Americans don't get half-million-dollar loans that
qualify as the largest mortgage package given by MBNA to any single
debtor that year.

Naturally, most congresspeople get their money from credit card
companies in the form of campaign contributions, rather than loans. And
that makes it so much better, you see. MBNA was President Bush's largest
corporate contributor in 2000 and, since 1990, banks alone have made
contributions of over $106 million to Congress, the parties and
presidential candidates. The Center for Responsive Politics website
(opensecrets.org) has the gory details on who got how much with links to
current contributions.

Bankruptcies have been rising in recent years, but there is no evidence
of abuse of the system by average Americans or that it is hurting the
card companies. Credit-card debt and credit-card companies profits are
rising, too.

This card-company bill institutes a harsh "means test" and makes it much
harder to get the "fresh start" status from bankruptcy. Average citizens
will be pushed into five-year repayment plans, leaving less for child
support. The bill will particularly affect women.

But whose fault is it that bankruptcies are rising? The Public Interest
Research Group points out that the four leading banking regulatory
agencies - the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC - just
issued a report in June documenting predatory lending practices. The
credit card companies are making loans to consumers already in debt
trouble, not to mention offering cards to teenagers. Some credit-card
companies charge monthly minimum payments so low consumers wind up owing
more than they did before, instead of ever paying off their credit-card
debts.

Citibank has just agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission $200
million to settle predatory lending charges. So why reward the very
companies that are causing the problem? Is this what Congress intended
with its "Corporate Responsibility Act"?

The bill does contain a provision to keep Kenny Boy and Company from
taking advantage of the millionaire's

US policies partly to blame for 9/11 Canadian PM says

[ken hanly]

PM says U.S. attitude helped fuel Sept. 11







By SHAWN McCARTHY
>From Thursday's Globe and Mail


Ottawa - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien says the United States and the West
must shoulder some of the responsibility for last year's terrorist attacks
on New York and Washington because of their wealth and exercise of power in
the world.

In a CBC interview taped in July and aired last night, Mr. Chrétien
suggested the root causes of last year's Sept. 11 attacks were global
poverty and an over-bearing American foreign policy.

"It's always the problem when you read history - everybody doesn't know when
to stop. There's a moment when you have to stop, there's a moment when you
are very powerful," he said.

Immediately following Sept. 11, Canadian politicians rejected the "root
causes" argument, saying the attacks were the work of irrational fanatics
that had nothing to do with legitimate grievances.

But Mr. Chrétien told CBC, religious fanatics are using the anger and
resentment of the world's poor to fuel their terrorism.

"I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relations to the
poor world," he said.

"And necessarily, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied,
greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me
to realize it even more."

In the CBC documentary, the Prime Minister recalled being in New York prior
to last year's terrorist attacks and hearing complaints from Wall Street
capitalists about Canadian economic ties to Cuba and other disagreements
over foreign policy.

"I told them: When you are powerful like you are, you guys, it's the time to
be nice," he said.

"And it is one of the problems - you cannot exercise your powers to the
point of humiliation of the others. And that is what the Western world - -
not only the Americans but the Western world - has to realize."

On Wednesday, Mr. Chrétien attended memorial services in New York City,
saying he wanted to show solidarity with mourning Americans.

The CBC interview marked the first time Mr. Chrétien has said the United
States and its Western allies bear some responsibility for the events of
Sept. 11, suggestions that have been angrily dismissed by American
officials.

Mr. Chrétien's comments echo the findings of a recent Ipsos-Reid poll, which
suggested that 84 per cent of Canadians believe the United States bore at
least some responsibility for the stunning attacks.

The CBC documentary, which traced the actions of senior government officials
that fateful day, revealed that the Prime Minister had essentially
authorized U.S. fighter jets to shoot down a Korean airliner over Canadian
skies if it diverted from a planned emergency landing in Whitehorse.

While still over Alaska, the pilot of the Korean Airlines 747 had
erroneously sent coded signals indicating the airliner had been hijacked.
The pilot was ordered to land in Whitehorse, and was met by U.S. jet
fighters while still over American territory.

NORAD command in Winnipeg agreed the airliner could enter Canadian airspace
accompanied by the U.S. fighters, but insisted the decision to shoot it down
must reside with the Canadian government.

On the afternoon of Sept. 11, Mr. Chrétien received a phone call and was
told the airliner might have to be shot down.

"I said, 'Yes, if you think they are terrorists, you call me again but be
ready to shoot them down.' So I authorized it in principle," the Prime
Minister said.

"It's kind of scary that [there is] this plane with hundreds of people and
you have to call a decision like that. But you prepare yourself for that. I
thought about it - you know that you will have to make decisions at times
that will [be] upsetting you for the rest of your life."

Double standards

[ken hanly]

>From the Guardian

Opponents of UN sanctions against Baghdad allege that Israel has been
permitted to defy resolutions for the past 30 years ordering it to quit the
West Bank and Gaza, while Iraq's non-compliance has been punished by
repeated bombings and a rigorously enforced trade embargo.

They "allege" that Israel has been permitted to defy resolutions? This is
typical media spin. Surely Israel has defied these resolutions. I have even
seen recently statements in supposedly reputable media that: i) the no-fly
zones were created by a UN resolution ii)Kuwait supports a US attack on
Iraq. Often British media are no better than US media on these matters..

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Re: The reluctant imperialists

[ken hanly]

This is a good parody of US history.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Sabri Oncu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PEN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ALIST"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:37 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:30124] The reluctant imperialists


> The reluctant imperialists
> By Gerard Baker
> Financial Times, September 8 2002
>
> It must be one of the cruel jokes history plays on the world from
> time to time that the one good consequence of September 11 was
> also the quickest to dissipate.
>
> Events a year ago produced waves of sympathy for America. Much of
> it poured forth from predictable sources, albeit in unfamiliar
> garb - the Queen ordered the guards at Buckingham Palace to play
> the "The Star-Spangled Banner"; Nato members invoked Article V in
> the name of collective defence. But plenty came, too, from some
> unlikely places. When Iranian mullahs, French editorialists and
> Chinese Communist party officials rush to express support for
> Americans, you know something large has happened in international
> relations.
>
> Sadly, the post-mortems on Americaphobia proved premature. The
> old curse twitched back to life during the initial prosecution of
> the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, as civilian casualties and
> the treatment of captives unsettled allies. Within months, George
> W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech and his support for Israeli
> suppression of Palestinian violence had nursed it back to full
> health. Now, with the growing threat of war against Iraq and a
> new stridency in Washington foreign policy generally,
> anti-Americanism is as robust as ever.
>
> It is important here to disentangle the new from the old. It has
> been the lot of the world's sole superpower to find itself the
> object of an odd mixture of fear and contempt for years. If
> anti-Americanism was in vogue during the perilous years of the
> cold war, when the US stood as the only reliable bulwark against
> tyranny, we should not be surprised that it has flourished in an
> era when there is no such obvious threat.
>
> The current resentment also stems from a newer but equally silly
> dislike of US economic power: the dominance of American companies
> and products in the world and the pervasive sense of cultural
> conformity they impose.
>
> Silly, because the tautology of free markets is that products
> (and indeed markets) succeed because people like them. No one
> ever forced a Frenchman to eat a Big Mac. No Arab leader ever
> ordered the haunting call of the muezzin to be replaced by the
> siren squeal of Britney Spears. The prosaic truth is that America
> is a big, successful economy that exports its success around the
> world by satisfying the demands of consumers.
>
> The bigger and more serious objection to American power today is
> that, thanks to a combination of post-September 11 insecurity and
> unrivalled military might, the US is about to embark on a new age
> of imperial adventurism.
>
> The focus, of course, is confrontation with Iraq. But more
> troubling still, even for some reliable friends of America, is
> the sense that this may be only phase one of the new global
> strategy. Indeed what many critics fear is not US failure in Iraq
> but success attended by bold plans for regime change to roll back
> unfriendly governments everywhere.
>
> This may be too pessimistic a view. It reckons without the
> aspirations, ideals and plain common sense of the American
> people. It is worth remembering amid the hysteria that the US is,
> and has proved itself for a couple of centuries, a reliable
> democracy and a reluctant imperialist.
>
> It is far from clear, for instance, that support for a strategy
> of reshaping the world is widely shared in the US. So far the
> most gung-ho proponents of a "new realism" on Iraq, the Middle
> East and beyond ranges from Richard Perle on the far right to,
> well, to Paul Wolfowitz on the far right.
>
> The self-reinforcing creed of the neo-conservatives flourished in
> the shadowy counsels of the Pentagon and the National Security
> Council for months. But it has not fared too well in the less
> forgiving light of public discourse in recent weeks. Critics now
> include old-fashioned isolationists such as Patrick Buchanan and
> Dick Armey, diplomatist-pragmatists such as Brent Scowcroft and
> James Baker, former military types such as Chuck Hagel and
> General Norman Schwarzkopf. And that is just inside the
> Republican party. There is a range of contrary views out there
> beyond the American Enterprise Institute and the Weekly Standard;
> and polls suggest public support for military interventionis

Re: ex-URPE member makes good

[ken hanly]

Do these characters advocating democracy in Iraq and elsewhere really
believe what they are saying? Are they completely self-deceived? Or is it a
conscious smoke-screen to disguise the fact they are really after control of
oil. Wouldnt, the frist result of democracy be the election of a radical
Muslim government at least in many Arab countries?

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:53 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:30144] ex-URPE member makes good


> Common Dreams has an article from the Boston Globe.
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0910-01.htm
>
> In it you can read:
>
> Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East
> Policy, contends that a pro-US Iraq would lead to a reassessment of the
> US-Saudi alliance, which dates to World War II but has become strained
> since Sept. 11 attacks, and the worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict.
>
>  --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: r.biel@ucl.ac.uk

[ken hanly]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:30061] Re: RE: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Not only that but Husky chain saws are among the 
best. There is even an ad for a husky grass whipper that shows someone trimming 
the grass around a telephone pole and as the person moves to the next one the 
pole falls down. So as usual Louis is wrong, Shiva would not survive. She and 
her arguments would be cut to pieces. (Of course much that Shiva has to say is 
correct but has already been said by countless other less adorable 
people)
 
Cheers, Ken Hanly

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Devine, James 

  To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' 
  
  Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:47 
  PM
  Subject: [PEN-L:30062] RE: Re: RE: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  >There is a graduate student in Sweden named Bo 
  Husqvarnaquistholm who is closely aligned with Bjorn Lomborg, the 
  self-described skeptical environmentalist who favors 
  global warming< 
  heck, if I lived in Sweden, maybe I'd favor global warming 
  too. 
   Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine 
  > -Original Message- > 
  From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 
  Subject: [PEN-L:30061] Re: RE: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Devine, 
  James wrote: > > > 
  Mark Jones writes:>Those  who want to silence such > authentic voices of > > the 
  oppressed women of the South as Vandana Shiva are its servants.< 
  > > > > could you name 
  someone who wants to _silence_ Shiva? as opposed to > > simply disagreeing with her opinions and thus being willing 
  to > > criticize them? > > > > (BTW, is it some government 
  that wants to silence her? > people on the 
  > > left don't have the power to do so.) 
  > > > > I think I know whom Mark is referring to. There is a graduate 
  > student in > Sweden 
  named Bo Husqvarnaquistholm who is closely aligned with Bjorn >  Lomborg, the self-described skeptical environmentalist who 
  favors > global warming, genetically modified food 
  and keeping the beef fat on > Mcdonald's french 
  fries. Husqvarnaquistholm is working on a > 
  dissertation > as I understand it which implicitly 
  defends the need to > reintroduce DDT. 
  > He argues that if Great Britain survived without 
  condors, so can the > rest of the world. 
  Husqvarnaquistholm is not only completely > wrapped 
  up > in this ideology, he is also a bit manic it 
  seems. Well, when Shiva > showed up at his college 
  last year to speak on GM crops, he > attacked her 
  > with a chainsaw. As I understand it, she survived 
  with minor cuts and > scratches. > > -- > 
  > Louis Proyect > 
  www.marxmail.org > > 
  

Re: Indian questions hi-tech agriculture

[ken hanly]

What is this supposed drought resistant farming in the US model. There are
certain practices that can conserve water etc. but I have never heard of a
system that is immune from droughts. As the article shows the US (and parts
of Canada) are experiencing some of the worst drought conditions ever. The
article says nothing about what these methods are. Where are the documents
where the US makes any such claims? The most that can be done is to
alleviate drought conditions to some extent. Plains farming has always been
Next Year Country. That is a favorite term of Saskachewan farmers for  their
country. Years of drought, hoppers, disease, but there is always next year.
Stoicism and government support are what make Canadian prairie farming
drought resistant.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 5:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:30024] Indian questions hi-tech agriculture


> INDIAN FOOD AND TRADE ANALYST
> QUESTIONS U.S "PRECISION FARMING" AND
> "EFFICACY OF THE AMERICAN MODEL OF FARMING"
>
> DEVINDER SHARMA: There isn't a time when an educated Indian doesn't search
> for answers from "America --- the dream land" for the problems that crop
up
> time and again back home. Whether it is hunger, sustainable agriculture,
> kick-starting industrial growth, food habits, music, and of course the
> successful model of economic growth, India must follow the Americans.
>
> No wonder, the intelligentsia, the economists and the scientists are
always
> desperate for opportunities to travel and return with a bag full of
answers
> to our multitude of problems.
>
> The solutions to India's raging drought --- some call it the worst in
> recent memory --- which haunts and ravages 12 States, too rests in the way
> America has managed its crop lands. After all, the United States has put
> together a drought-mitigation strategy, which has been touted as something
> that India needs to follow immediately.
>
> With hi-tech transformation, American agriculture, we all believe, has
> become insulated from the vagaries of drought. They apply laser,
> information technology and huge machines to crop farm land. They use
> satellite data, electronics and now genetic engineering for what is
> popularly called "precision farming."
>
> For Indian agriculture, with its fragmented land holdings, subsistence
> farming methods, poor productivity and the exploitation of the natural
> resource base as a consequence have cast serious doubts over the
> sustainability and viability of the farms.
>
> The only escape for the country, we are invariably told by agricultural
> scientists, is to follow the American model. Such an approach will provide
> an impeccable drought proofing. And it is primarily for this reason,
> corporate agriculture is being pushed as the way out from the crisis that
> afflicts Indian agriculture.
>
> By a strange coincidence, America too is faced at present with its worst
> drought since the days of the great "dust bowl" of the 1930s. As many as
26
> of the 50 American States are reeling under a severe drought, with
> "exceptional drought" conditions --- the worst level of drought measured
> --- prevailing in thirteen states, including New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado
> and Utah.
>
> Such is the crop damage that like the drastic reduction expected in rice
> production this year in India, the U.S. wheat production is anticipated to
> fall to its lowest levels in nearly 30 years. There couldn't have
therefore
> been a better time to study America's drought coping mechanisms and
suggest
> its replication in a poor developing country like India and for that
matter
> in South Asia, Africa and Latin America.
>
> It comes as a rude shock. The American agriculture that we all studied in
> the universities and appreciated has crumbled with one year of severe
> drought. The drought proofing that we heard so much about the American
> agriculture appears to be a big farce. It is a known fact that Indian
> agriculture falters because of its complete dependence on monsoons. But
> with the kind of industrialization that took place in American
agriculture,
> and with the amount of investments made, we were always told that the U.S.
> agriculture is not dependent upon rains.
>
> "Precision farming" is the most-efficient farming method that needs to be
> adopted on a mass scale. At first impression, news reports appearing in
the
> American media looks like emanating from a drought-stricken village in
> India's hinterland. Till of course you see the dateline. You continue to
> read in utter disbelief.
>
&g

Blandford MSA proposals

[ken hanly]

If anyone has a critique of these I will forward them to the Healthre list
whence it came> CHeers, Ken Hanly

In my approach to universal health care,
www.his.com/robertb/hlthplan.htm I require that there be a mandatory MSA
for workers in the same sense as Social Security is mandatory.

Some have questioned this mandatory requirement. In looking over the
writeup I noticed that I do not explain why I feel that it is a
requirement that the MSA be mandatory; so here is an explanation. I
would appreciate any comments from the list as to why the MSA should or
should not be mandatory.

Bob Blandford
Alexandria, VA

-
Why MSA Feature Should be Mandatory

The MSA needs to be mandatory because it is desired that the voucher +
MSA, together with strongly regulated catastrophic insurance, as much as
possible take the place of comprehensive insurance, whether private,
medicare, or medicaid.

If the MSA is not mandatory, employers will be much more tempted to
grant comprehensive insurance as a benefit to their employees, in order
that the employees need not draw down their voucher. On the other hand,
if the MSA is mandatory, most employers and employees will feel that
comprehensive insurance is not necessary. Employers in that case, if
they decide to provide any health benefit, will be inclined to
contribute extra money to the employees with the proviso that it go into
the MSA.

It is important that comprehensive insurance not dominate; if it did,
then the health market would be suppressed, because third party payments
would continue to distort the market. If many employers, especially
employers of the middle and upper-middle classes, offered comprehensive
insurance; then that paradigm would be seen to be standard and
desirable. So advocates for the poor would continue to argue that the
poor also should have comprehensive insurance. If, on the other hand,
the middle-class get MSA-support from their employers; then the Federal
government will be urged to give the same benefit to the poor; enhancing
the market.

Also, these middle-class people are the ones who will seek out the
lowest prices and thus make the market. They also are the people who
will make the best use of the information sent back from the federal
government to those who use the voucher and MSA to pay bills, thus
enhancing market efficiency. (This information feedback is a feature of
my approach).

I do discuss in the existing writeup that a mandatory MSA is not as
radical as it may seem in light of the fact that taxes for Social
Security and medicare are mandatory and progressive, and that it is
mandatory to pay the taxes which support medicaid. So mandatory MSA is
less confiscatory than many other taxes; at least the money goes
exclusively for the good of the taxed person.

Of course the general, progressive taxes nonetheless pay for the
lifetime voucher, yearly use-or-lose voucher, and strongly rationed
safety net which are features of my approach.
--

Ashcroft's "camps"

[ken hanly]

General Ashcroft's Detention Camps
Time to Call for His Resignation
Nat Hentoff
VillageVoice.com

September 4 - September 10, 2002

Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and public-interest law at
George Washington University Law School in D.C. He is also a defense
attorney in national security cases and other matters, writes for a number
of publications, and is often on television. He and I occasionally exchange
leads on civil liberties stories, but I learn much more from him than he
does from me.

For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the August
14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision")
begins:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S.
citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a
political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." Actually, ever
since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly
supine Congress soon after September 11, he has subverted more elements of
the Bill of Rights than any attorney general in American history.

Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"--which
won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld--anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including
American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without
charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado.

Two American citizens--Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla--are currently
locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." (Hamdi is in solitary in
a windowless room.) As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's
Nightline (August 12):

"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that
just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not
just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in
this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because
the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . . And no
court can even figure out whether we've got the wrong guy."

In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in
a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When
Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice
Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the
government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush
administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere.

Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental
legal right in our system of justice and put into camps. Jonathan Turley
reports that Justice Department aides to General Ashcroft "have indicated
that a 'high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be
stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps."

It should be noted that Turley, who tries hard to respect due process, even
in unpalatable situations, publicly defended Ashcroft during the latter's
turbulent nomination battle, which is more than I did.

Again, in his Los Angeles Times column, Turley tries to be fair: "Of course
Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used
to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be
credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience
that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable." (Emphasis
added.)

Turley insists that "the proposed camp plan should trigger immediate
Congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for
important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens,
Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties." (Emphasis
added.)

On August 8, The Wall Street Journal, which much admires Ashcroft on its
editorial pages, reported that "the Goose Creek, South Carolina, facility
that houses [Jose] Padilla--mostly empty since it was designated in January
to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunals--now
has a special wing that could be used to jail about 20 U.S. citizens if the
government were to deem them enemy combatants, a senior administration
official said." The Justice Department has told Turley that it has not
denied this story. And space can be found in military installations for more
"enemy combatants."

But once the camps are operating, can General Ashcroft be restrained from
detaining--not in these special camps, but in regular lockups--any American
investigated under suspicion of domestic terrorism under the new, elastic
FBI guidelines for criminal investigations? From page three of these
Ashcroft terrorism FBI guidelines:

"The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will
justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice
inve

OPEC weighs impact of Iraq strike

[ken hanly]

OPEC weighs impact of Iraq attack

U.S. move to topple Saddam could squeeze
producers
An Iraqi worker tends to the Iraqi-Turkish pipeline in Krkuk, northern Iraq.
Iraq cut off oil shipments for a month this spring to protest the Israeli
military offensive against the Palestinians.


By John W. Schoen
MSNBC

Aug. 29 -  As Mideast nations warn the U.S. against going to war with Iraq,
most cite the political turmoil that such a unilateral attack would create.
But oil-producing countries, many of whom will meet next month in Japan to
adjust production levels, have another big reason to fear a regime change. A
new government in Baghdad could increase Iraqi oil production - and take a
bigger share of the world market for crude.

At OPEC's Sept. 19th quarterly meeting - held in Osaka to coincide
with an International Energy Forum gathering of 70 nations - the cartel will
once again try to manage the price of oil by tweaking production levels to
better match supply and demand.
   With oil prices nearly 60 percent higher than lows hit in January,
some oil analysts and traders expect to see OPEC raise production to help
tame prices. OPEC has said it wants to keep oil prices around $25 a barrel -
high enough to churn out the cash needed to meet member countries' spending
needs, but low enough to prevent higher-cost non-OPEC production from coming
on line and stealing market share.
   But the rise in the price of oil this summer has had less to do with
supply and demand than White House threats of war with Iraq. Most analysts
suggest that, with oil now trading at levels not seen since Sept. 11,
current prices reflect a "war premium" of as much as $6 a barrel. The
reason: Traders fear that war would bring a short-term interruption in
supplies - especially if Iraq strikes back at key oil production and
transportation sites outside its borders.

 In 1991, Iraqi troops retreating after a seven-month occupation of Kuwait
smashed and torched 727 wells, badly polluting the atmosphere and spilling
up to eight billion barrels of oil into the sea.

   But OPEC is apparently still undecided about whether to combat the
"war premium" by increasing supplies. On Thursday, Iran and Indonesia
weighed in by joining Venezuela and Kuwait in calling for keeping production
levels unchanged.
   "The consumer countries say oil prices are high, so please add oil,"
said Roger Diwan, an oil analyst at PFC in Washington. "OPEC says the market
is high from the war premium that [the Bush administration has] created."

 OPEC output hikes see opposition

 Even in more tranquil times, managing oil prices by forecasting
demand is a tricky business and OPEC's track record is mixed. At this time
of year, as consumption of heating oil rises, oil demand forecasts rely
heavily on weather projections.
   So even if they leave production unchanged, "the chance they're going
to overshoot or undershoot is very big," said Diwan.
   As the world's economy has slowed, the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries has moved to prop up oil prices by cutting production by
some 20 percent since the beginning of last year. With prices still
approaching $30 a barrel, oil consuming countries say more oil is needed to
avert higher prices.



Much of that extra oil is already coming to market from non-OPEC
producers, especially Russia. A revitalized oil industry in the former
Soviet Union is now overtaking Saudi Arabia as the world biggest supplier.
And Russian oil companies are among those poised to help a new Iraqi
government boost oil production when and if export sanctions are lifted.
   "OPEC right now has a lot of members who are fighting for more market
share," Phil Flynn, a oil trader at Alaron Trading, told CNBC. "The worst
thing that could happen to OPEC is to have a lot of Iraqi oil come onto the
market. So, they're very happy with the way things are right now."
   At current levels of about one million barrels a day, Iraqi
production is a drop in the global oil bucket. But Iraq is sitting on the
world's second-largest reserves, behind Saudi Arabia. Though the Bush
administration has argued for the need to pre-empt terror attacks, economics
is playing a big part in the debate over the pros and cons of ousting Saddam
Hussein from power.



"If you had control of Iraqi oil reserves you could break the oil
cartel," said Bill O'Grady, a commodities analyst at A.G. Edwards in St.
Louis. "You could have oil prices fall to 10 to 15 dollars (a barrel) for as
far as the eye could see. And if you want to perk up the world's economy,
$10 oil will do the trick."
   But it's far from certain that a regime change would bring a
government friendly to the U.S. In fact, any new government will face huge
obstacles, as competing Iraqi factions move to settle old scores and vie for
power, according to Jim Placke, a Middle East analyst at Cambridge Energy
Research.
   "And they are very nationalist," he sa

Re: Re: From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-More Hyperbole

[ken hanly]

Why is the distinction lost on you? Surely it is likely that the planet will
survive. The idea of a vulnerable planet is a bit weird in itself except
that a meteorite or MAD atomic blast might destroy it. What is vulnerable
are some species and perhaps humans are one of them. I really dont know. But
surely not all species are likely to be destroyed and even some members of
the human species will probably survive a considerable amount of
environmental degradation but not with a "standard of living" such as we now
have. So what is it you mean when you claim not to understand Harvey's
distinction? Or does he mean something different that what I described
above?

Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
>)
>
> Neither of these characters have anything to do with Marxism, but they
> both figure in debates between Marxists over the ecological crisis. For
> example, David Harvey argued that MR editor John Bellamy Foster was
> veering in the same direction as people like Erlich because he titled
> his book "The Vulnerable Planet." Harvey argued that we might despoil
> the planet, but it will survive. This was a distinction lost on both
> John and me.
>

universal welfare accounts

[ken hanly]

Is this a new trend? What are pen's economists take on this..
Can you explain how they work a bit?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

> "Assessing Welfare Accounts"
>
>   BY:  STEFAN FOELSTER
>   Confederation of Swedish Enterprise
>   Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI)
>ROBERT GIDEHAG
>   Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI)
>J. MICHAEL ORSZAG
>   Watson Wyatt Worldwide
>   Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)
>DENNIS J. SNOWER
>   University of London, Birkbeck College
>   Department of Economics and Finance
>   Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)
>   Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
>
> Document:  Available from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection:
>http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=325326
>
>Other Electronic Document Delivery:
>ftp://ftp.iza.org/dps/dp533.pdf
>SSRN only offers technical support for papers
>downloaded from the SSRN Electronic Paper Collection
>location. When URLs wrap, you must copy and paste
>them into your browser eliminating all spaces.
>
> Paper ID:  IZA Discussion Paper No. 533
> Date:  July 2002
>
>  Contact:  DENNIS J. SNOWER
>Email:  Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Postal:  University of London, Birkbeck College
>Department of Economics and Finance
>7-15 Gresse Street
>London WIT 1LL,UNITED KINGDOM
>Phone:  +44 171 631 6408
>  Fax:  +44 171 631 6416
>  Co-Auth:  STEFAN FOELSTER
>Email:  Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Postal:  Confederation of Swedish Enterprise
>Storgatan 19
>SE-114 82 Stockholm,SWEDEN
>  Co-Auth:  ROBERT GIDEHAG
>Email:  Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Postal:  Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI)
>S-103 29 Stockholm,SWEDEN
>  Co-Auth:  J. MICHAEL ORSZAG
>Email:  Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Postal:  Watson Wyatt Worldwide
>6707 Democracy Boulevard Suite 800
>Bethesda, MD 20817-1129  UNITED STATES
>
> ABSTRACT:
>  The paper examines the possible effects of introducing a
>  large-scale welfare reform in Sweden, namely, the introduction
>  of comprehensive welfare accounts. Under this policy,
>  individuals make mandatory contributions to accounts, which they
>  can top up with voluntary contributions. In return, individuals'
>  welfare benefits are paid from their accounts. The paper uses a
>  large panel of individual income data to examine how the
>  adoption of universal welfare accounts may affect economic
>  activity. We find that this policy could be designed so as to
>  reduce social insurance expenditure considerably, improve the
>  incentives to work and save, all with relatively small
>  redistributive impact.
>
>  Keywords: Welfare Reform, Welfare Accounts, Social Insurance,
>  Taxes, Welfare State Benefits
>

Kirkup

[ken hanly]

>From the Assembly of American Turkish Associations... cheers, Ken Hanly


Latest News August 13, 2002
One Iraqi obstacle you haven't heard of
Asla Aydintasbas,City Limits,The New Republic, 08.07.02 - As Washington
finally begins its long-awaited debate over war with Iraq, skeptics are
having a field day with all the potential obstacles to an American march to
Baghdad: international opposition; the difficulty of targeting Saddam's
diffuse chemical and biological weapons; the fear that he might use them;
the potential for American casualties. But there's one potential problem
that so far has slipped under the radar screen: the little-known city of
Kirkuk.

The oil-rich town, which lies just south of the Kurdish safe haven
established at the end of the Gulf war and 150 miles due north of Baghdad,
has long been central to the Kurds' nationalist aspirations. It also happens
to be home to some of Iraq's oldest oil fields, which are still among the
world's most lucrative. So it's hardly surprising that the Kurds--who have
so far proved cool to America's war planning--have made control of the city
in a post-Saddam Iraq a key condition of their support. A post-Saddam Iraqi
constitution, drafted by one of the main Kurdish parties and circulated in
Washington last month, designated Kirkuk as nothing less than the capital of
an autonomous Kurdish federation.

The problem for the Bush administration is that the Kurds are not the only
contenders for the city. Iraq's Turkmen minority--ethnic Turks who insist
they constitute a majority in the city--vow they will not live under Kurdish
rule. And Turkey, which greatly fears Kurdish nationalism (given the
secessionist inclinations of the Kurds within its borders), considers itself
the guardian of its ethnic brethren inside Iraq. The government in Ankara
recently informed Washington that it will do whatever it takes to protect
Turkmen interests--including invading Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. "This
is a nonstarter, a red line for us," a senior Turkish official told me.
During a recent visit to Ankara, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was
told by Turkey's military brass that if Kirkuk is promised to the Kurds,
they won't back an American attack on Iraq.

With reports that tensions between Kurds and Turkmen are escalating on the
ground, U.S. policymakers need a creative solution soon. Otherwise a city
you have never heard of might just undermine our entire plan for Iraq.

At Ankara's urging, senior State Department officials have been negotiating
with Turkmen leaders about their interests in a post-Saddam Iraq since the
mid-'90s; the Turkmen Front, a coalition of Turkmen groups, is active within
the Iraqi opposition to Saddam. But just as that opposition is finally
garnering serious U.S. support, the Turkmen are growing skittish about
whether their participation will bring them what they want most: control of
Kirkuk. Turkmen complain that they never get as much attention as the Kurds
despite the fact that they too have suffered repression and mass
deportations at the hands of Iraq's brutal regime. "Whenever Iraq is
mentioned, it is about Saddam, the oil, or the plight of the Kurds. We are
absent from the debate," protests Kirkuk-born Orhan Ketene, Washington
representative of the Iraqi Turkmen Front. Backed by Ankara, Turkmen
publicly oppose Kurdish proposals to establish a federative Iraq divided
between Kurdish and Arab entities, and they argue that the country's future
should be determined after Saddam is overthrown. Privately, Turkmen concede
that if the future administration of Iraq ends up being federative, as most
in the opposition assume, there should be a Turkmen federation on the
"Turkmen strip" stretching from the Syrian border to the Iranian border and
including, you guessed it, Kirkuk. A recent statement by the Turkmen Front
reads: "Turkmen areas in Iraq cannot be the subject of negotiations. ... The
world has to know that if there is an attempt to negotiate the land we live
on, we would protect it at all costs."

The Kurds--whose epic history of persecution is better known--are at least
as adamant that an American overthrow of Saddam leave Kirkuk in their hands.
"Turkmen are really overreacting," says Dr. Najmaldin Karim, president of
the Washington Kurdish Institute and a leading Iraqi Kurdish voice in
Washington. Karim, also born and raised in Kirkuk, argues that the decade of
Kurdish selfrule in northern Iraq has benefited the country's Turkmen and
that most of the tensions between the two communities stem from meddling by
Ankara. At a conference at American University earlier this summer on the
future of Iraqi Kurds, someone from the audience asked the panelists, "If
there is a Kurdish federation in future Iraq, will you demand Kirkuk to be
part of that?" The audience erupted in boisterous applause.

But

Pharmacy Benefit Manager charged..

[ken hanly]

   From another list. Sorry about the formatting.

Cheers, Ken Hanly   

 Justice Department Gives Pharmacy Benefit
Manager
 Medco 30 Days To Respond to Whistleblower
Charges 
 08/21/2002 


 The Justice Department has sent a letter to
Medco Health
 Solutions giving the pharmacy benefit
manager 30 days to
 respond to "sealed whistle-blower lawsuits"
against the
 company or to enter into settlement
discussions, the Wall
 Street Journal reports. Although neither
Medco, a subsidiary of
 Merck & Co., nor the U.S. Attorney's Office
in Philadelphia
 would reveal the full contents of the
letter, the Journal reports
 that it pertains to a four-year federal
investigation that may have
 discovered "serious issues about the way
pharmacy benefit
 managers work." According to a Medco
statement, the letter
 gives a "preliminary assessment" of the
investigation and
 "summarizes the remedies the government
could seek if it
 could prove violations of the law." The
letter to Medco, which
 manages drug benefits for 65 million
Americans, "comes amid
 increasing scrutiny" from lawmakers about
how pharmacy
 benefit managers negotiate discounts from
drug makers in
 exchange for promoting manufacturers'
products, the Journal
 reports. The letter also comes at a time
when the Bush
 administration is working to establish a
drug discount card
 program that relies on pharmacy benefit
mangers. The Justice
 Department also is conducting a fraud
investigation of
 pharmacy benefit manager AdvancePCS,
according to a June
 filing from the U.S. Attorney's Office
(Martinez, Wall Street
 Journal, 8/21).

Afghan Opium Production Increases

[ken hanly]

>From the Scotsman. Karzai says: "We are determined, like hell, to fight the
cultivation of poppy..."
 Hmmm.....

Cheers, Ken Hanly


Afghan opium crop back to record levels

CHARLES HANLEY in KABUL


THE new Afghan government has "largely failed" in its effort to eradicate
the opium poppy crop in Afghanistan, which in recent years became the world'
s biggest producer of the raw material for heroin, United Nations crop
experts reported yesterday.

The 2002 crop was close to the record levels of the late 1990s and could be
worth more than $1 billion (£650 million) at the farm level in Afghanistan.
The nation's GDP for 1999 was put at $21 billion

By the late 1990s, Afghanistan was supplying 70 per cent of the world's
opium. Then, in 2000, the Taleban government banned poppy cultivation and UN
and US drug agencies determined that this led to an almost total - 96 per
cent - reduction in acreage devoted to the crop in the 2001 growing season.

However, the US-led war that ousted the Taleban late last year prompted
Afghan farmers to plant poppies again over tens of thousands of acres. In
April, the interim government of President Hamid Karzai announced an
eradication programme.

Under its terms, farmers would be compensated with $500 (£325) per acre for
destroyed poppy, the government said. That is only a fraction of the
estimated $6,400 per acre a farmer can earn on poppy, according to the FAO
report.

The government effort, however, never reached the level of required to tear
up or burn the crop, which is cultivated so extensively, in relatively small
patches, in several regions of Afghanistan.

The poppy forecast came in a joint report by the FAO and the World Food
Programme assessing all Afghan crops and food supplies. "The Afghan Interim
Administration banned opium production in January 2002, but by then most
opium fields were already sown," the report said. "The subsequent
eradication programme largely failed."

It estimated that 225,000 acres of poppy had been planted, and 150,000 to
175,000 acres have been or will be harvested. "The programme had a very
limited impact," Hector Maletta, a spokesman for the FAO, said. He added
that eradication was "a transient thing. It can be replanted".

The Taleban prohibition had driven prices for Afghan opium up
astronomically, approaching $1,000 a kilogram, and the "farm gate" price
remained relatively high, Mr Maletta said, at $350 to $400 a kilogram.
Farmers can produce 16 kilograms per acre of opium.

The great bulk of the heroin produced from Afghan opium - with some of the
drug made in Afghanistan, but most in Turkey and other countries - is used
by addicts in Europe.

The move back into poppy cultivation, which has supported tens of thousands
of Afghan farmers and farm labourers, has hurt the domestic food supply, the
UN report said. It said that poppy production was estimated to have reduced
the area of irrigated wheat by some 10 per cent.

President Karzai, at an anti-drug conference in Kabul, repeated his
government's commitment. "We are determined, like hell, to fight the
cultivation of poppy ... and to destroy all forms of this menace's
cultivation and use and trafficking," he said.

The UN specialists predicted an even larger crop next year, however. "The
returns . are high and the risks are seen to be low," they wrote.

Re: Re: RE: Re: PK endorses populism?

[ken hanly]

What Sweden are we talking about? Sweden has been beset by liberal reforms
for more than a decade. Changes in the health care system are very much
towards a more quasi market system and exhibit the same  penchant for
privatization cost-offloading through user fees etc.etc as other regimes.
The Sweden of the Third Way is long gone, the old social democratic paradigm
with an extensive welfare state and co-opeative planning between labor
industry and government is gone swept away in the neo-liberal tide. That is
why Canada is looking towards Sweden for reform of our health care system.
People still think of the Swedish system as progressive when in actuality
the progressive features have been flushed down the sewer for the most part.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "Doug Henwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:29660] Re: RE: Re: PK endorses populism?


> Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> >Sweden is the liberal mainstream ideal because it is
> >viewed as a place with relatively little market-distorting
> >policy and a reliance on tax and transfer mechanisms to
> >uphold social welfare.
>
> But they seriously interefere(d) with the labor market and created
> one of the most egalitarian societies in the world. A high-wage
> policy forced companies to invest more than they would have
> otherwise. The ideology was one of solidarity and decommodification.
> That's all well beyond standard-issue liberalism, no?
>
> Doug
>

Hardly news

[ken hanly]

but surprising that a significant media head should admit it. From the Press
Gazette (UK)

Cheers, Ken Hanly

CNN chief claims US media 'censored' war

By Julie Tomlin

Posted 15 August 2002 12:00 GMT



Golden: "a reluctance to criticise"

US news organisations "censored" their coverage of the US campaign in
Afghanistan in order to be in step with public opinion in the wake of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, a CNN senior executive has claimed.

Coverage of the war in Afghanistan was shaped by the level of public support
that existed for US action, Rena Golden, the executive vice-president and
general manager of CNN International claimed.

Speaking at Newsworld Asia, a conference for news executives in Singapore,
Golden said: "Anyone who claims the US media didn't censor itself is kidding
you. It wasn't a matter of government pressure but a reluctance to criticise
anything in a war that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the
people.

"And this isn't just a CNN issue -every journalist who was in any way
involved in 9/11 is partly responsible." Senior figures from Afghanistan and
Pakistan criticised Western news organisations which flooded the region with
journalists, who were unfamiliar with its politics and history.

Major General Rashid Quereshi, chief media advisor to Pakistan's president,
General Pervez Musharraf, spoke during a debate on whether Western news
coverage undermined the Government's ability to balance its support for the
anti-terror campaign and the hostility of its Muslim people.

He told delegates that at one stage there had been 3,500 foreign journalists
in the country "many of whom knew nothing about the country or its problems"
.

The presence of so many journalists caused "serious difficulties for a
Government determined not to impose press restrictions on the media", he
claimed.

APTN chief Ian Ritchie agreed: "If journalists are to have objectivity, they
first need to understand."

CNN New Delhi chief Satinder Bindra also backed claims that by pushing
"harder than they should for a story" some journalists endangered other
colleagues in the field.

"One of many totally untrained journalists I encountered was determined to
get closer to the front - close enough to see the Taliban frontline," said
Bindra. "I told him that if we could see the Taliban, they could see us, and
they'd shoot us. For what purpose? There was no story, no good picture, but
because this guy wanted to make a name for himself we all had to follow,
just in case."

Investment Overhang

[ken hanly]

Could someone explain what Stiglitz means when he speaks of an investment
overhang and how it is a problem? Or is it an investment hangover when the
champagne no longer flows and the bubbles burst?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Re: Re: Re: Stiglitz interview

[ken hanly]

Well you are no doubt right about that but  as Stiglitz claimed most of
these people actually believe they are doing the "right thing" in terms of
development yet they are blind and arrogant even within their own narrow
framework. Two examples:
1) The IMF favors countries with balanced budgets in terms of loans etc.
Yet Ethiopia was not regarded as having a balanced budget even though it did
if  aid funds were included in the budget. But these characters in the IMF
claimed that aid funds could not be counted as income in determining whether
a budget was balanced since the aid varied from year to year and could even
be cut off.
As Stiglitz pointed out so do other revenues such as tax revenues. The rule
just seems perverse. As the Ethiopian representatives pointed out if they
received less aid they just would build fewer schools and hospitals etc. The
budget would remain balanced. But these guys didnt listen.
2) When the IMF was negotiating  with South Korea there was a group from
the World Bank also in Korea and they expected to be asked for advice. The
World Bank had lots of experience in Korea the IMF virtually none. But the
IMF people just went ahead without taking advantage of this expertise. Now
that is just plain arrogant and stupid period even in terms of their own
agenda it seems to me.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

- Original Message -
From: "joanna bujes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:29614] Re: Re: Stiglitz interview


> At 04:48 PM 08/19/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >  was not particularly impressed by Stiglitz. He stands out only
> >compared to the complete dolts at the IMF who are not only stupid but
> >obviously arrogant and blind to reality, completely brain-washed by
> >text-book economics and immune and unable to appreciate even the most
> >evident errors in their programs.
>
> The IMF is channelling money to the right people and protecting the right
> people. The fact that its stated "development" aims are not working out
> does not show that they are morons; it just shows that we are morons for
> giving any credence to these stated aims.
>
> Joanna
>

Re: Stiglitz interview

[ken hanly]

I don't understand what is meant by describing China as "postcapitalist". If
anything it seems to be post-communist objectively or "post-socialist". It
is capitalist enough to join the WTO and to have special economic zones that
give special incentives for foreign investment capital including a docile
labor force with few rights. The socialist health care system  is a
shambles. Inequality and corruption reign supreme supported by the
leadership of  the communist party--well corruption is not supported in word
just in deed.
I was not particularly impressed by Stiglitz. He stands out only
compared to the complete dolts at the IMF who are not only stupid but
obviously arrogant and blind to reality, completely brain-washed by
text-book economics and immune and unable to appreciate even the most
evident errors in their programs.
While Stiglitz certainly saw difficulties ahead I didnt get any impression
that he had a doom and gloom feeling. In fact I was disappointed that there
was no time for him to elaborate on what should be done beyond starting over
since the IMF was beyond reform. He seems no less a market-worshipper than
the others and certainly anti-Marxist ( ie. his remarks about the Marxist
regime in Ethiopia--even though it certainly was no paradigm of Marxism.) He
is simply more realistic and aware of problems and willing to look at and
take account of the negative features of  the transition to a market
economy.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


Again, although I don't quite agree on what has made
> China successful, it was interesting that he cited a country which by
> objective criteria can still be characterized as postcapitalist. He
> reflects a mood among the more far-sighted elements of the bourgeois
> intelligentsia about a deep crisis of the world capitalist system that
> might lie in store. It reminds me of a painting on my living room wall
> done by Alfredo Ceibal, one of Guatemala's finest living artists. Called
> "Fiesta in the Mountains", it depicts a wild party near a steep
> precipice. Everybody at the party is either drunk, dancing or making
> out. Except for one old woman who is looking over the edge of the
> mountains at the rocks below with deep concern on her face. Stiglitz
> reminds me of that figure.
>
> --
>
> Louis Proyect
> www.marxmail.org
>
>

More on the US buildup in the Gulf

[ken hanly]

>From NY times International.

American Arsenal in the Mideast Is Being Built Up to Confront Saddam Hussein
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER


ASHINGTON, Aug. 18 - In the first tangible signs of a logistical buildup
around Iraq, the Pentagon is sending weapons and other supplies to the
Middle East that could be a critical part of the war stocks if President
Bush decides to attack President Saddam Hussein, Defense Department and
military officials have said in recent interviews.

Advertisement




The Pentagon has hired two giant cargo ships to carry armored vehicles and
helicopters, among other war matériel, and eight additional cargo ships
capable of carrying ammunition, tanks and ambulances.

The Air Force is stockpiling weapons, ammunition and spare parts, including
airplane engines, at depots in the Persian Gulf region and in the United
States. Arsenals of Air Force and Navy precision-guided weapons, which
proved devastating in Afghanistan, should be fully replenished by autumn,
military officials said.

Senior Pentagon officials say the logistical movements do not represent a
stealth deployment and should not be interpreted as evidence that a campaign
against Iraq is imminent, or even a certainty.

Indeed, some of the movements now under way were ordered months or even
years ago. But taken together, the steps suggest that those responsible for
arming America's fighting forces in time of war are beginning serious
planning.

"We don't know when the next contingency might be, but we want to get this
in the hands of the war fighters," Gen. Lester L. Lyles, chief of the Air
Force Matériel Command, said in an interview.

Of course, with the United States having just waged war in the region, a
certain amount of replenishment is to be expected. But Defense Department
and military officials who described the logistical plans indicated that a
public discussion of the growing American arsenal confronting Mr. Hussein
fit an emerging information strategy to unnerve Iraq ahead of possible comba
t and weaken it in case of war, as well as reassure skittish allies in the
region.

The Pentagon is contracting for one ship to move troop-carrying combat
vehicles from Europe and the United States to the Persian Gulf to join
equipment for four armored brigades already stored there. Another will carry
vehicles, helicopters and ammunition to a Red Sea port for a military
exercise this year.

The Defense Department also has awarded a contract to Maersk Line to operate
eight cargo ships capable of carrying ammunition and tanks. The ships will
be positioned near the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, home of a
British base used by the United States as a staging point.

Senior officials acknowledge that the shipments could support war options
that Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the chief of the military's Central Command, has
recently presented to Mr. Bush.

Logistics planners are closely tracking the various war options, officials
said. The mundane task of setting aside food, fuel and weaponry for troops
is essential for sustaining any major military operation. It takes time, and
to avoid tipping adversaries off about a military operation, Pentagon
officials say, it is prudent to start the flow of supplies now, even without
specific orders.

Indications of American resolve and advance placement of weapons are
intended to reassure skittish gulf allies and Iraqi opposition groups,
officials said, and to convince Iraqi officers and their troops that the
Americans would win - especially the Iraqis responsible for weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles or artillery to deliver them. American planners
hope that Iraqi officers will not pull the trigger after calculating the
punishment awaiting them if they unleash weapons on behalf of a crumbling
government.

Military transportation planners say the magnitude of the air and sea lift
of United States troops and equipment to the Middle East would be daunting:
7,000 miles by air and 12,000 by sea from the East Coast, and more from the
West Coast.

"Logistically it won't be a cakewalk," said Gus Pagonis, a retired
three-star Army general who was chief of logistics during the gulf war of
1991. "To feed, house, equip and medically support 250,000 troops is not an
easy task, but it's not insurmountable."

Plans for positioning American military equipment in the gulf began just two
months after the 1991 war ended, military officials noted.

Today, equipment for two reinforced Army armored brigades is on the ground
in the region, and the 9,000 troops to use it could be airlifted and ready
for action in 96 hours. The armaments are stored in 37 warehouses, each
averaging 60,000 square feet, in Kuwait and Qatar.

Each of those countries holds in storage about 115 M-1A1 Abrams tanks, 60
M-2A2 Bradley fighting vehicles, 100 armored personnel carriers, 25 mortars
and 20 155-millimeter howitzers, said a spokesman for Army forces assigned
to the Central Command.

Ammunition is stored in both countries,

The Anthrax Investigation

[ken hanly]

>From BBC News

Anthrax killer 'is US defence insider'


Prof Don Foster analyses the anthrax letters

An FBI forensic linguistics expert believes the US anthrax attacks were
carried out by a senior scientist from within America's biological-defence
community.
Professor Don Foster - who helped convict Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and
unveiled Joe Klein as the author of the novel Primary Colors - says the
evidence points to someone with high-ranking military and intelligence
connections.



My anxiety is that FBI agents assigned to this case are not getting full and
complete co-operation

Prof Foster
Speaking about the investigation for the first time, Prof Foster told the
BBC he had identified two suspects who had both worked for the CIA, the US
Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and other
classified military operations.

Controversially, Prof Foster says the killer is likely to be highly
patriotic individual who wanted to demonstrate that the US was badly
prepared for an act of biological terrorism.

The weapons-grade anthrax was posted in letters just days after the 11
September terror attacks, leaving five people dead, 18 injured and 35,000
forced to take precautionary antibiotics.

The professor says he does not believe the killer will strike again as he
has achieved his goal.

He explained: "To that end his misplaced patriotism has worked. Today
millions of government dollars have gone into research and anthrax
antibiotics are now available to the public."

Agency rivalry?

However, he fears the investigation is now being hampered in its gathering
of vital documents that could lead to the killer.


Prof Foster analysed the anthrax letters for clues

Prof Foster says investigators need examples of the suspects writing to
analyse their style and use of language - which the professor believes is as
unique as DNA and could unveil the perpetrator.

He said: "It's very frustrating. Ordinarily with the FBI if there's some
documents needed - known writings - boom, they're on my desk the next day.

"My two suspects both appear to have CIA connections. These two agencies,
the CIA and the FBI, are sometimes seen as rivals.

"My anxiety is that the FBI agents assigned to this case are not getting
full and complete co-operation from the US military, CIA and witnesses who
might have information about this case."

Killer 'diverting suspicion'

Prof Foster was given four letters recovered by investigators to analyse for
clues to the killer's identity.



There's something very fishy... that this particular word should be
misspelled and it should be misspelled in such an unconvincing way

Prof Foster
"As I worked through these documents it became apparent that USAMRIID was
ultimately the best place for the FBI to begin looking for a suspect," he
said.

All of the letters contain the following messages "Death to America" and
"Death to Israel". All were dated 11 September, a clear reference to the
terror attacks.

But while investigators searched for links between the anthrax attacks and
al-Qaeda, Prof Foster immediately suspected that dating the letters 11
September was merely a ruse to throw the authorities off the scent.

He says: "When an offender gives you some piece of information that's just
completely unnecessary and that, in this case, is inaccurate, it becomes
immediately suspect.

"It becomes a statement of 'Here's what I want you to believe about this
document'."

Prof Foster also says the killer seems to have tried implicating two former
USAMRIID scientists who had left the laboratory in unhappy circumstances by
posting the letters from near their homes in New Jersey.




He says only someone in contact with a senior insider at USAMRIID would have
known how the two scientists left the lab and that they would then be likely
targets for the FBI investigation.

He says: "They are looking at someone who's a little bit higher up the food
chain, who would have to have access to personnel information."

Deliberate mistakes

The professor also identified a number of mistakes and misspellings in the
letters which he suspects are a deliberate ploy to confuse investigators.

The author of the anthrax letters tells his victims to take penicillin. Not
only is penicillin the wrong antibiotic to take, the killer also misspells
the word.

Prof Foster says: "You mean to tell me this guy is dealing with anthrax, a
trillion spores a gram, and he thinks penicillin is going to be the
antibiotic of choice?

"There's something very fishy about that misspelling there, that this
particular word should be misspelled and it should be misspelled in such an
unconvincing way.

"It looks like an attempt on the offender to say 'Hey, don't think I'm a
scientist, don't think I know anything about antibiotics'."

The FBI have placed a number of scientists under intense scrutiny and
recently questioned US scientist Dr Steven Hatfill in connection with the
attacks.

Dr Hatfill strenuously denies any involvement in th

Iraq attack plans

[ken hanly]

Here is another article detailing some of the preparations in the Gulf area
for an attack. It seems that the forces will be ready to attack soon, but of
course that does  not mean that it will necessarily happen soon. Perhaps
Bush will wait for better political weather conditions.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Strike plans against Iraq move ahead
Despite debate, US readies gulf military bases

By Anthony Shadid and Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff, 8/18/2002

WASHINGTON - Despite internal divisions and the president's insistence that
he has made no decision on military action against Iraq, the Bush
administration has stepped up its military planning for an invasion, the
rhetoric to justify it, and a diplomatic campaign to prepare for the
potentially messy aftermath, administration officials and analysts say.

Speculation about the timing of a military operation remains rife among
diplomats, the Iraqi opposition, and within the administration itself. But
even without a date - and US officials insist that the decision to attack
Iraq has not been made - the pieces are gradually being put into place for
an invasion.

''This kind of planning and looking at assessments in case we should do it
is absolutely going on, and I see no change in that whatsoever,'' said Phebe
Marr, a specialist on Iraqi affairs who testified in Senate hearings this
month and who advised the first Bush administration during the Gulf War.

''The more you plan,'' Marr added, ''the more things fall into place, the
more you look at difficulties, and the more prepared you are to say, `OK,
it's the third of December or whatever.'''

Some analysts suggest that the planning represents a ''slippery slope,''
making it more difficult to turn back after each incremental step toward
war.

That sense appears to have alarmed opponents of military action, even within
Republican circles. Echoing concerns of key members of Congress, Brent
Scowcroft, national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush,
warned in an opinion article Thursday in the Wall Street Journal that an
attack might jeopardize and perhaps even destroy the administration's
antiterrorism campaign, as well as unleash a wider war between Israel and
Arab states.

''I think we're very much sliding into confrontation,'' said Laith Kubba, an
Iraq expert at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington. ''We're
all sliding into it. The clock is ticking very quickly toward a
confrontation.''

Despite leaks of possible war plans, the Pentagon has insisted that movement
of troops and equipment in the region is routine. But commercial satellite
imagery has shown that between January and June, the US military quietly
expanded Al-Udeid Air Base in the Persian Gulf country of Qatar, complete
with a 13,000-foot runway to handle heavy bombers.

The photographs also appear to show hardened aircraft shelters, a
sophisticated command and control center, and a tent city to house thousands
of troops in the sun-scorched terrain.

Analysts point out that the base could be an alternative to facilities in
Saudi Arabia, which has said it would not allow its territory to be used to
launch a strike against Iraq.

General Tommy Franks, who heads US Central Command, has said the base is
being developed for ''times of crisis.''

John Pike, head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military policy organization, said
the United States also has positioned equipment for two divisions in the
Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, and South Pacific regions that can be moved
with relatively little notice to Kuwait, which neighbors Iraq.

The tiny Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, where the US military keeps
supplies and a listening post, has enough equipment for an army brigade and
a marine brigade, with three brigades forming a division.

The marines also have equipment for one brigade on ships in the
Mediterranean and for another on ships anchored at Saipan in the Pacific,
Pike added. The Army also has equipment for a brigade in Kuwait and for
another in Qatar, he said.

If President Bush gave the order to attack on Nov. 6, the day after this
year's election, ''you could have all of the hardware and all of the troops
for a four-division assault force ready to go in Kuwait by Thanksgiving, and
they could be in Baghdad by Dec. 7,'' he said.

The US military confirmed last week, one day after denying it, that it had
contracted for a pair of commercial cargo ships to move helicopters and
other military equipment from its European Command area to the Central
Command area. That region stretches from Egypt to Afghanistan, an area that
includes Iraq. The military described the movement through the Red Sea as
routine.

Al-Hayat, a leading Arabic newspaper based in London, reported this month
that US forces were overseeing the renovation of an air s

Re: Rumours of war on Iraq

[ken hanly]

There is a great deal going on in the Gulf in preparation including a huge
expansion to runways, storage facilities in various UAE states and transfers
out of Saudi Arabia.  Here is just one example of the navy stuff. Of course
with appropriate denial that it has anything to do with an Iraq war.
Sorry about duplication Louis' post. GMTA :)

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Navy gears up in gulf

But says there's no Iraq attack in the works

By RICHARD SISK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - The Navy has put out contracts for 10 cargo ships to move Army
tanks and other equipment to the gulf region that could be used for a ground
war against Iraq, military officials said yesterday.
Two charters for fast roll-on, roll-off civilian ships to carry the
equipment from the U.S. and Europe to an unidentified Discharge Port 4 in
the Red Sea were approved this month.

The Navy's Military Sealift Command also signed a $220million contract last
week with Maersk, a shipping company, to operate and maintain eight 950-foot
roll-on, roll-offs.

That contract called for the ships to "carry U.S. Army cargo such as
ammunition and vehicles such as M1A1 [Abrams] tanks" and take them to
"pre-positioning sites" off the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Several of the ships are from the Navy's Afloat Pre-Positioning Force Four,
which also operates in the Arabian Gulf.

Navy Cmdr. Dan Keesee, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said one of
the civilian charter ships would be used for the "routine transport of
military equipment from Europe to pre-positioning sites in our area of
responsibility," which includes Iraq.

He said the equipment would include Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Humvees.

'It's routine'

Keesee said the movement of equipment should not be considered a buildup for
a possible invasion to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The shipments
"had been planned for a couple of years," and the equipment might be used
for military exercises, he said.

"We charter ships all the time, it's routine for us" to station military
equipment around the world, said a spokeswoman for the Sealift Command.

But Dan Goure, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the
cargo shipments "suggest something is in the works" on Iraq. "The
pre-positioning stuff is already out there. This is something else," he
said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had little knowledge of the
shipments but said they might have something to do with training exercises
in Jordan, which borders Iraq.

He dismissed claims by Iraq that it has no weapons of mass destruction and
that there is no need for weapons inspections.

"It seems to me it's like a broken record," Rumsfeld said. "They're in
violation of the UN resolutions."


- Original Message -
From: "Rob Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:40 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:29568] Rumours of war on Iraq


> I'm with Michael Pollack on this one.  No realistic discernable
> strategic goal.  No reliable staging posts.  No enduring alliance.  No
> conceivable solution to the Palestine question.  No decisive good will
> in the region.  No hard evidence to defend pretext #1 (Baghdad links to
> al Qaeda), pretext #2 (capacity and intention to deploy weapons of mass
> destruction against 'west'), or the desperately shrill pretext #3
> (Saddam is worse than any other despot in the world and it's worth
> killing tens of thousands of people who aren't Saddam to depose him).
> So what support there is even at home for a unilateral first strike is
> likely a mile wide and an inch deep (even if enough support for
> November, that support would be wider than it is deep, and likely to
> damage 2004 chances).
>
> Anyway, if the attack was to be a full scale November invasion, would
> they not already have to be landing armour, logistics and troops in
> discernable quantities?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
> Michael Pollak wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that the war is directed at the Nov. elections.
> >
> > Michael, if it will cheer you up, I'll bet you there's no war before the
> > elections.  In fact I'll give you 2 to 1.  And if you'll give me 2 to 1,
> > I'll bet you they will be no war in next 365 days.
> >
> > Michael
>
>

US opposition to Iraq's chemical weapons just so much gas

[ken hanly]

>From NY Times International...cheers, Ken Hanly

 Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
By PATRICK E. TYLER


ASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - A covert American program during the Reagan
administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a
time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would
employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war,
according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not
be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature
of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981
to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President
Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as
justification for "regime change" in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top
aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary
Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security
adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially
after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that
Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states
in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided
intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help
the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the
full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence
Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers'
description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His
deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an
expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United
States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard
Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr.
Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was
general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."

"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and
strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."

Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I
certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned
Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the
American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush
and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the
highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense
Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian
deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and
bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

Iraq shared its battle plans with the Americans, without admitting the use
of chemical weapons, the military officers said. But Iraq's use of chemical
weapons, already established at that point, became more evident in the war's
final phase.

Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to
offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves
of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the
Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President
Saddam Hussein of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence
Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was
ready to accept American aid.

In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance,
retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the
Persian Gulf, a defense intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now
retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers, the American
military officers said.

He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one
former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for
chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered
around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect
themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their
positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)

C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not
involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of
the war front.

C

Pakistan reject UN inspection of nuclear plants

[ken hanly]

So how come Pakistan isnt part of the axis of evil and attacked for
developing weapons of mass destruction and ignoring the UN?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Pak rejects UN inspection of N-plants


UPI [ SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, 2002  11:16:44 AM ]

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will not allow UN monitors to inspect its nuclear
facilities, President Pervez Musharraf said Thursday.


In an interview with Russia's Izvestia newspaper, Musharraf also ruled out
the possibility of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.


"Our nuclear facilities are fully secure and there's no need for inspection
by UN experts," the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency quoted
him as saying.


Musharraf said his country's nuclear capabilities were meant "only for
deterrence," dismissing speculation about a nuclear confrontation with rival
India as "irresponsible."


He repeated Pakistan's offer to sign a no-war pact with India, which, he
said, would "preclude all use of force in our region."


Asked if India and Pakistan would transfer their nuclear arsenals under the
international trusteeship, Musharraf said Pakistan had a robust command and
control system. "We, therefore, do not see the need or the possibility of
involving any other country in these matters."


Appreciating Russia's efforts to defuse tensions between India and Pakistan,
Musharraf said he was ready to enter into a "meaningful dialogue" with India
to address all outstanding issues. He regretted that New Delhi was avoiding
bilateral consultations. "We would, therefore, welcome a third-country role,
if not to mediate in our differences, then at least play the role of a
facilitator."


"We believe Russia can play this important role," he added.


Musharraf said he believed that suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban leader Mullah Omar have both died but said he had no
evidence to prove it. "Nobody can be certain about their whereabouts," he
added.

Of mice and men...

[ken hanly]

Pig, goat sperm produced by mice



By ANNE MCILROY
SCIENCE REPORTER



>From the Globe and Mail...cheers, Ken Hanly

Thursday, August 15, 2002 - Page A7


Researchers have succeeded in getting mice to produce healthy pig and goat
sperm, and they say they soon may get the rodents to churn out human sperm.

The mice were turned into foreign-sperm factories when specks of testicular
tissue from a newborn goat and pig were grafted onto their backs, just under
the skin. The squishy mounds of tissue that sprouted after a few weeks
produced vast amounts of sperm.

The researchers made sure the sperm was viable by using it in the laboratory
to fertilize mouse eggs, creating cross-species embryos that they kept for
only a couple of days. The scientists are working on using the
mouse-generated pig and goat sperm to fertilize pig and goat eggs to produce
normal offspring.

Ina Dobrinksi, a veterinarian and researcher at the University of
Pennsylvania, acknowledged that some people may be appalled by her work and
fear it will lead to vast numbers of genetically similar humans being bred
from the technique.

But she said that in a few years the method could be used on men. Doctors
could save testicular tissue from boys about to undergo cancer treatments
that would make them infertile. Later in life the tissue specimens would be
used to produce sperm by implanting them in mice or in their own bodies. The
sperm would be retrieved after the tissue is removed.

"Using a mouse would certainly be easier, but it might not be acceptable to
some people," said Prof. Dobrinksi, whose paper on the first cross-species
production of sperm is to be published in today's issue of the scientific
journal Nature.

The technique also could be used to help preserve species that are in danger
of extinction, such as the grizzly bear, or to reproduce prized livestock.

Re: Backlash in Saudi Arabia

[ken hanly]

Christian Science Monitor. 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0812/p09s02-coop.html

Cheers, Ken Hanly


- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Pollak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ken hanly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L:29354] Backlash in Saudi Arabia


> 
> Ken, this is an interesting article.  Where was it published?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 

Countering drug ads etc..

[ken hanly]

>From another list,,, cheers Ken Hanly>

Doctors Hear Alternatives To Drug-Firm Sales Pitches
 >
 >By Marc Kaufman
 >Washington Post Staff Writer
 >Monday, August 5, 2002; Page A01
 >
 >Marcia Drummond sees doctors for a living. On a typical workday, she may
 >drive from Upper Marlboro to Silver Spring to Alexandria to Northeast
 >Washington to visit pediatricians, internists, cardiologists and family
 >practitioners. She is a pharmacist by training, but she's now a foot
soldier
 >in a mounting clash between the pharmaceutical industry and the benefit
 >plans that pay for their products.
 >
 >For years, the pharmaceutical industry has been sending salespeople called
 >"detailers" to doctors' offices to promote their latest patented
blockbuster
 >drugs.
 >
 >Drummond is a "counterdetailer" -- a paid consultant for a prescription
 >benefit company whose job is to question those sales pitches, to counsel
 >doctors to look at cheaper and generic drugs whenever appropriate. And the
 >rise of this figure in the health care landscape has opened another front
in
 >the battle to control prescription drug costs, which have been rising more
 >than 17 percent yearly since 1997.
 >
 >The most public front was active last week, with the Senate passing a bill
 >intended to make it easier for cheap generic drugs to come onto the
market.
 >The bill, sponsored by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain
 >(R-Ariz.), drew considerable support in Congress and strong opposition
from
 >the pharmaceutical industry.
 >
 >But the less visible fronts are constantly active, especially now that
drug
 >costs are straining budgets for governments, corporations and unions. And
 >because the most direct way to manage drug costs -- setting the kind of
 >price ceilings found in most other countries -- is politically
unacceptable,
 >those involved have had to be inventive.
 >
 >The advocacy group AARP, for instance, began a $10 million advertising
 >effort this spring to encourage the use of generics and cheaper drugs,
using
 >veterans of anti-smoking ad campaigns. The Food and Drug Administration
will
 >also soon start a major effort, mandated by Congress, to explain that
 >generic drugs are as safe and effective as the brand-name drugs they copy
 >after patents have expired. Major corporations joined unions and health
 >advocates joined managed-care companies in supporting the Schumer-McCain
bill.
 >
 >Then there are counterdetailers, targeting doctors. The states of West
 >Virginia and Michigan have hired their own counterdetailers to visit
doctors
 >and encourage them to prescribe generics whenever possible. Legislators in
 >other states, including Vermont, Massachusetts and Washington, have
proposed
 >or passed similar programs. First Health Group Corp., which manages
 >prescription benefit plans in 14 states, reports that the states' interest
 >in counterdetailing is growing fast.
 >
 >It is no coincidence that all this activity on drug costs has occurred as
 >Congress has tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to fashion a Medicare drug
 >benefit that would give coverage to the elderly.
 >
 >"There is a widespread feeling that there has to be a one-two punch on
 >prescription drugs, that for them to become more accessible they first
have
 >to become less expensive," Schumer said. "If nothing is done on the cost
 >side, then obviously it makes it much harder to act on the accessibility
side."
 >
 >To the large and powerful pharmaceutical industry, selling more brand-name
 >drugs is both good and appropriate for health and business reasons, and it
 >is aggressively fighting efforts to limit drug companies' prices and
profits.
 >
 >The industry spent $2.5 billion last year to advertise new and generally
 >more expensive prescription drugs, according to published reports. Its
trade
 >organization says there were more than 86,000 detailers visiting doctors,
 >hospitals and nursing homes last year. The industry now has more than one
 >paid lobbyist for every senator and congressman in Washington -- and
 >products that most Americans use and value.
 >
 >The result has been an unprecedented increase in drug spending in recent
 >years -- largely because of increased usage, rather than price inflation.
 >Although Americans have become more willing to use generic drugs, most of
 >the money is still going to the name-brand companies. According to recent
 >congressional testimony, almost 50 percent of prescriptions now are for
 >generics, but more than 90 percent of drug spending is still for the name
 >brands.
 >
 >Persuading doctors to prescribe generics -- and patients to use them --
can
 >bring enormous savings. As explained by Tom Susma

Backlash in Saudi Arabia

[ken hanly]

Backlash in Saudi Arabia

By Nawaf Obaid

LONDON - As revealed in a recent front-page story in The Washington Post,
"Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies," neoconservatives in the US are
gaining a wider audience for their attempts to demonize Saudi Arabia.
Such jingoistic talk runs counter to the position of the Bush
administration, which recognizes Saudi Arabia as a vital ally. Still, the
talk is fanning resentment in the kingdom and making it more difficult for
the royal family to cooperate with the US on a range of initiatives, such as
regional peace, economic development, and maintaining stability in the oil
markets.

Saudis see a growing animosity in American government and media. A string of
editorials and analyses in major US publications harshly criticize the
kingdom for its perceived role in the 9/11 attacks - namely, that Saudi
Arabia supports, finances, and politically backs terror groups around the
world - claims that are unsubstantiated. Pundits such as Bill Kristol,
editor of the influential Weekly Standard, have advocated the removal of the
Saudi royal family.

While Americans may realize that a free and independent media can give an
outlet for extremist views, domestic Saudi critics such as Eid Al Qarni have
argued on several Arab satellite networks that such remarks are part of "an
orchestrated US media campaign against Saudi Arabia." American determination
to remove the Palestinian and Iraqi leaders, Yasser Arafat and Saddam
Hussein, regardless of the kingdom's view, has strengthened the conclusion
that Americans hold the Saudis in disdain.

But what has especially enraged Saudis are rumors of an American plan to
partition the kingdom. A few weeks ago, I received a phone call from Riyadh
from an enraged domestic Saudi dissident recently released from house
arrest. He wanted to know if the US had commissioned a plan to invade Saudi
Arabia and set up a puppet regime in the oil-rich Eastern Province? This
would supposedly guarantee US oil supplies and shift US troops away from the
holy soil of Mecca and Medina.

I had also heard that a senior Saudi security official hurried back from a
trip abroad last month to discuss similar news with senior Saudi
policymakers.

It turns out there was something behind these rumors. As reported in the
Post, a July 10 briefing to the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board argued for
giving the Saudis an ultimatum: "Stop backing terrorism or face seizure of
its oil fields." I have procured another recent report, prepared for the
Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, which discusses the option of invading
the kingdom to secure oil fields.

Last month, the satellite TV station Al Jazeera dedicated its most popular
talk show to a discussion of the supposed American plan to invade and
dissect the kingdom. The main guest, Dr. Mohsen Al Awaji, a prominent
liberal Islamic scholar once jailed for his criticisms of the Saudi
government, denounced the plan on the show. Even the most senior Saudi
Shiite cleric, Sheikh Hassan Al Saffar (who would ostensibly benefit from
the plan if this mainly Shiite province were detached from majority Sunni
Saudi Arabia), condemned the idea vociferously.

In this climate, those leaders who have most distanced themselves from the
United States - such as Minister of Defense Prince Sultan and Minister of
Interior Prince Nayef - have seen their popularity skyrocket. That a
prominent figure such as Prince Sultan has moved away from the pro-American
camp is important: As minister of defense for the past several decades, he
oversaw billions of dollars of defense contracts with American firms, making
Saudi Arabia the largest importer of US arms. He was also, until recently,
one of the most vocal proponents of the kingdom's strategic partnership with
America.

After Sept. 11, shortcomings in Saudi society and lapses in its government
policies have become apparent, such as a failure to control and moderate
extreme rhetoric in mosques and universities, massive unemployment, and the
role of women.

But more than 50 years of cooperation with the United States should provide
impetus to work with, not alienate, this vital US ally. As the world's
largest exporter of petroleum, Saudi Arabia has played a stabilizing role in
global energy markets for decades, guaranteeing America reasonable oil
prices.

And while Saudi foreign policy will always be informed by the kingdom's
responsibilities as guardian of Islam's holiest sites, the Saudi monarchy
has more often been a force for cooperation with the non-Muslim world. This
stance has been extremely valuable to America in economic, political, and
military terms.

America and Saudi Arabia are at the heart of two great but very different
civilizations. It is natural that major disagreements should occur, but
through 10 US administrations and five Saudi kingships these differences
have been handled peacefully. If those who want an enemy in Saudi Arabia
gain the upper hand, they will, unfortunately, find one. And the w

Terror threat overblown

[ken hanly]

Strange the article doesnt mention that there doesnt seem to have been a
significant Al Qaeda terrorist act in the US since Sept. 11, almost a year
now. None of the periodic warnings have been followed by attacks.

Cheers, Ken Hanly'


Terror threat overblown, says expert
By Christian Bourge
UPI think tank correspondent
>From the Think Tanks & Research Desk
Published 8/10/2002 0:24 AM


WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 (UPI) -- The response of U.S. policymakers to the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks is based upon an overestimate of the threat of
terrorism, and ignores the lessons that can be gained from an
interdisciplinary approach to the problem, according to some think tank
experts who are analyzing the issue.

"I basically think we are really overreacting to this in a fairly large
way," said George Mason University economist Roger Congleton. "I think it
would be useful for the press and the government to be reminded that the
risks are not as gigantic as we seem to have been encouraged to believe over
the last year."

In an essay entitled "Terrorism, Interest-Group Politics, and Public Policy:
Curtailing Criminal Modes of Political Speech," in the summer edition of the
Independent Institute's Independent Review, Congleton argues that
policymakers should be taking a closer look at just how great a risk is
posed by terrorist activities, as well as how much effort and money should
be committed to address that threat, versus the other risks faced by
society.

He also notes that much can be learned by comparing terrorist groups with
non-violent political action groups. Congleton believes that many
anti-terrorism policies are effective, just like similar policies aimed at
limiting legal forms of political action.

But critics of Congleton's quantitative approach to antiterrorism policy
argue that although a multi-disciplinary view is required to address the
thicket of policy concerns raised by terrorist threats, a qualitative review
is a much better means for developing an effective policy response.

Congleton says that the risks of dying in more ordinary crimes or
accidents -- being run over by a car, killed in the traffic accident while
driving, or even being murdered -- are much higher than those of being
killed in a terrorist act.

"All of these risks are historically vastly larger than the risks we face
from terrorists," he told UPI. "The right thing to do is to seek perspective
and then to think about the costs associated with policy."

He noted that about 15,000 people were murdered last year in the United
States, and that the 10-year national average for murders is around 20,000
people per year, compared to the 2,800 who died in the World Trade Center
and Pentagon attacks.

In 2001, he says, the risk of death from terrorism was less than one-fourth
that of being murdered, and far smaller than the risk of being involved in a
fatal car accident.

Despite this, he says, the $20 billion allocated last September in the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal 2002, earmarked for
increased spending on antiterrorism activities, represents about 20 percent
of the funds used annually for highway safety, and one-third of the money
used to provide daily police protection in the United States. This is
spending is unnecessary, given the risk of terrorism, he says.

Congleton says the drama of the Sept. 11 attacks makes the overreaction
understandable but that the statistical reality of the terror threat should
be the key to allocating resources.

"When you have 3,000 people killed at once it is a very shocking and trying
event, but that many people were killed in highway accidents in September
2001," said Congleton. "This is no less shocking for the people who lost
loved ones."

But Mark Burgess, a research analyst at the Center for Defense Information,
argues that a qualitative examination of policy, not a quantitative one, is
necessary to ensure an effective terror policy.

"I feel this sort of quantitative approach to terrorist incidents doesn't
really take into consideration the true nature of terrorism," said Burgess.
"It is one thing to say that maybe a person is more at risk of being run
down by a bus than they are of being killed by a terrorist, but that is
neither here nor there."

John Parachini, a terrorism expert at the RAND Corp., agreed that
Congleton's approach of managing risk is important and should be part of the
"portfolio of ideas" used to evaluate terrorism policy.

"One of the problems we have, particularly in this country, is assessing the
risk of terrorism," Parachini told UPI. "We tend to exaggerate the actual
impact because of the unknown nature of it. "

He noted that the General Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of
Congress -- has long been urging the use of risk management as a means of
maintaining budgetary discipline and ensu

Quote of the day

[ken hanly]

from the Globe and Mail: cheers, Ken Hanly

George W. Bush's declaration to seek out corporate wrongdoers sounds
strangely like a burglar calling for better alarm systems. -- Manish
Patwari, Montreal

Re: Re: Re: Industrial farming

[ken hanly]

There are possible hazards to irradiation but there has been little
risk-assessment of potential hazards. Not irradiating also has risks. The
CDC for example sees the potential for better control of contamination as
important enough that it recommends the adoption of irradiation. Some of the
issues brought up in Louis' post are addressed. eg. the problem of
transportation of radioactive materials.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm#wastegenerate
d

The stuff about chest xrays is surely irrelevant and implicitly a scare
tactic.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

P>S> The link that Ian posted re GMO's seems to me an excellent article with
a wealth of relevant references.
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:29067] Re: Re: Industrial farming


> ken hanly wrote:
>
> >Wow! Ill bet that will render hamburgers sterile and there will be no
baby
> >99 cent Macs.
> >
> >Cheers, Ken Hanly
> >
> >
> Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, June 1990
> Vol. 46, No. 5
>
> Zapping the food supply
>
> Donald B. Louria
>
> New arguments are boiling up over an old idea--irradiating food with
> ionizing radiation to kill microorganisms and prolong shelf life. The
> idea of exposing food to gamma radiation is over 30 years old, and in
> 1963 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to permit the
> irradiation of wheat. Over the years, a few more foodstuffs such as
> spices and tea were added to the FDA's list of candidates for
> irradiation. But in 1984 the FDA started to approve irradiation of a
> much broader list of products which now includes meat, poultry, and
> fresh fruits and vegetables. Simultaneously the FDA has increased the
> levels of radiation that may be used. The FDA's recent willingness to
> allow most of the food supply to be irradiated--and at high doses--has
> triggered an acrimonious debate.
>
> The amount of radiation involved is substantial. The FDA has approved a
> 3,000,000 rad dosage for treating spices, 300,000 rad for pork, and
> 100,000 rad for fresh fruits and vegetables. These intensities are
> millions of times greater than that of an ordinary chest X-ray (which is
> typically about 20 millirad). The announced goal of promoters of food
> irradiation is to obtain general approval for the use of up to one
> million rad.
>
> Irradiation does not make food radioactive, nor has alleged
> radioactivity been at issue in the debate. But there is concern that
> foods processed by irradiation may contain radiolytic products that
> could have toxic effects.
>
> The source of radiation is either cobalt 60 or cesium 137. The prospect
> of increased transportation and handling of cobalt and cesium--dangerous
> substances--has caused negative publicity. Some irradiation proponents
> say food processors could theoretically use as-yet-undeveloped linear
> acceleration techniques instead. But if food irradiation becomes
> commonplace any time soon, cesium or cobalt will be used.
>
> The major objective of irradiation is to destroy microorganisms that
> cause food to spoil. For example, irradiating chicken should reduce the
> outbreaks of salmonella that are probably caused by careless or
> unhygienic methods in production and processing. Irradiating pork might
> reduce the already limited risk of trichinosis, and irradiating turkey
> would diminish the number of episodes of diarrhea that result from
> eating undercooked meat. William McGivney, an advocate of the
> technology, asserts that "irradiation offers a means to decontaminate,
> disinfect and retard the spoilage of the food supply."1 Most opponents
> counter that adequate cooking and hygienic preparation will accomplish
> the same goal.
>
> Promoters of irradiation emphasize that the shelf life of various foods
> will be increased. But these proponents have not produced any
> projections of the actual economic, or other, benefits of longer shelf
> life, especially in a developed country that has an abundant food
> supply. It may be easier to imagine that less developed countries might
> benefit if the shelf life of foodstuffs could be prolonged. But
> advocates have made no estimates of the extent to which better
> preservation would reduce world hunger, or of the cost of widespread
> food irradiation in less developed countries.
>
> Irradiation is expected to reduce the need to use toxic chemicals as
> post-harvest fumigants, but some evidence indicates that irradiated
> foods are more, not less, subject to infection with certain fungi.2
>
> At dispute in the controversy over food irradiation are the quality of
> the FDA'