The First Time as Farce, the Second Time as Tragedy
Paul Krugman is very worried about the economic implications of surging oil prices thanks to the rising demand for oil (especially due to the expansion of Chinese economy -- cf. China, in particular, still consumes only 8 percent of the world's oil -- but it accounted for 37 percent of the growth in world oil consumption over the last four years [Paul Krugman, The Oil Crunch Is Not Going to Go Away, New York Times, May 8, 2004]; and China overtook Japan last year to become the second biggest consumer after the United States, soaking up about 5.49 million barrels a day [bpd] of the world market of 78.66 million bpd [Felicia Loo/Reuters, China's Oil Thirst Changes Global Flows, Forbes, May 12, 2004]) and the increasing rarity of discovery of major new oil reserves since 1976 except two large fields in Kazakhstan (Krugman, May 14, 2004), compounded by war and terrorism . . . . What does it all mean for the working class of the world? . . . What about American workers in particular? . . . Will Kerrynomics be the second coming of Clintonomics? . . . Or, given Bush's trifecta legacy of war, deficit, and the crude shock, will we have to rewrite Marx's formula: the first time as farce, the second time as tragedy? The full text at http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/05/first-time-as-farce-second-time-as.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: knowledge, ego.......tragedy
Hey Jude, don't make it bad. Take a sad song, and make it better. Remember, to let her into your heart, Then you can start, to make it better. Hey Jude, don't be afraid. You were made to go out and get her. The minute, you let her under your skin, Then you begin, to make it better. And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jude, refrain, Don't carry the world upon your shoulders. For well you know that it's a fool, who plays it cool By making his world, a little colder. Hey Jude, don't let me down. You have found her, now go and get her. Remember, to let her into your heart, Then you can start to make it better. So let it out and let it in, hey Jude, begin, You're waiting for someone, to perform with. And don't you know that it's just you, hey Jude, you'll do, The movement you need is on your shoulder. Hey Jude, don't make it bad. Take a sad song and make it better. Remember to let her under your skin, Then you'll begin to make it Better better better better better better, oh. Na na na, na na na na, na na na, hey Jude... Source: http://www.bbgcarpet.com/beatleslyricsheyjude.html
knowledge, ego.......tragedy
Angry scientists attack Nobel loser Colleagues slam academic for adverts saying he deserved to win Robin McKie and Ben Wilson Sunday December 7, 2003 The Observer Scientists launched a scathing attack yesterday on a leading US academic for spending thousands of pounds on advertisements to denounce the Nobel Prize committee for ignoring his work. In one of the most vitriolic acts of academic indignation on record, Raymond Damadian - a pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in which radio waves and powerful magnetic fields are used to create pictures of internal organs - bitterly criticised the committee last week for giving the prize for medicine to Britain's Peter Mansfield and America's Paul Lauterbur. The award is to be presented at a ceremony in Stockholm on Wednesday. But the suggestion that the Nobel committee had behaved improperly has infuriated the scientific community. Far from being a maverick genius who created brain and body scanners years ahead of anyone else, Damadian played only a peripheral role in developing magnetic resonance imagers, they argue. 'Damadian's claims have tarnished Peter Mansfield's superb achievements for Britain,' said Peter Morris, professor of physics at Nottingham University. 'Yes, Damadian did some good work, but he is claiming ownership of the whole field. In fact, it was Mansfield and Lauterbur who did the crucial research.' This view was shared by Mick Brammer, professor of neuro-imaging at King's College, London. 'This is just a very expensive way of expressing sour grapes. He may have done good work, but he didn't develop MRI in the way Mansfield did. Thanks to Mansfield, we can see people's brain centres switch on as they carry out different mental tasks.' Equally dismissive was Professor Colin Blakemore, head of Britain's Medical Research Council. 'Frankly, it is quite extraordinary to petition for a Nobel Prize on your own behalf. The development of these scanners involved input from thousands of scientists. The committee has looked at those and concluded that Mansfield and Lauterbur stand out, and I trust their decision and expertise.' As another MRI expert put it: 'This is simply an attempt to buy a Nobel prize. You can't do that.' No one doubts the importance of Damadian's work. In 1970, he discovered that differences between cancerous and normal tissue could be identified using nuclear magnetic resonance. But it was the work of Lauterbur and Mansfield which let to the development of devices that use radio waves to 'tune' hydrogen atoms in different parts of the body, allowing doctors to monitor mental and bodily functions in patients. The first MRI scanners were made in the Eighties. Last year, 22,000 of them were used to perform 60 million operations. Recently MRI machines have been used to detect how the brains of moderate drinkers shrink in middle age, to diagnose early breast tumours and to reveal the neural roots of prejudice in racists. Damadian owns several patents for scanners, which have made him rich. His company, Fonar Corporation, has paid an estimated £290,000 for his newspaper adverts, in which he claimed the omission was 'a flagrant violation' of the Nobel awards' principles. 'Had I never been born, there would be no MRI today,' he said. However, his prospects of changing the committee's minds are remote. Despite a history of furious condemnations of awards, it has never rescinded a decision, though the row adds an exciting chapter to the already bulging book of slights and controversies that have dogged the Nobel. For example, UK cosmologist Fred Hoyle played a key role in explaining how elements formed in the universe but was refused a prize, even though his co-workers, who played less pivotal roles, were honoured. Hoyle was famously intemperate in his views about the committee who repaid him by rejecting him. Now supporters of Damadian - a creationist who thinks the world is 6,000 years old - claim he is being shunned for his beliefs. Few scientists sympathise. As one said: 'He should practise what he preaches and turn the other cheek.'
The Tragedy
Shuttle Disaster Hurts Retail Sales Tue 10:07am ET - Reuters Nonstop television coverage of the space shuttle Columbia disaster on Saturday kept riveted consumers away from stores, hurting retail demand last week, according to a report released on Tuesday. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
--- Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles, you don't seem to be familiar with the record/behavior of the ILWU. Please enlighten me. Their historical record and rhetoric sounds positively heroic. When they consort with Daschle, I have to think otherwise. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
--- Charles Jannuzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles, you don't seem to be familiar with the record/behavior of the ILWU. Please enlighten me. Their historical record and rhetoric sounds positively heroic. When they consort with Daschle, I have to think otherwise. C. Jannuzi And I might add, speak of the devil himself, Jerry Brown. Anyway, real searches beyond the surface rhetoric (which is real warrior stuff I admit, like Boromir taking the uber-orc arrows and still knocking them down), always lead me to exchanges like this: let's be honest by John Reimann Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 08:14 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was at both meetings Steve refers to - the rally in Oakland as well as the meeting that Richard walked out of. As chair of the latter meeting, Steve pulled every bureaucratic trick in the book to help stifle an open, democratic discussion on how independents, activists and socialists should relate to this struggle and on what the nature of the approach of the ILWU leadership was. (And bear in mind that union democracy is practically a mantra for Steve.) This merely bears out what we have long held: That when one's polices cannot lead a way forward, and when refuses to reconsider these policies, then one must resort to seeking to prevent free discussion. It is undoubtable that the ILWU leadership's approach is not basically different from the approach of the rest of the AFL-CIO leadership. This includes relying on the Democrats and refusal to even consider an open defiance of the union busting laws and courts. It means there is not the slightest consideration for how this struggle can be used to start to reverse the decades-long retreat and series of defeats of the unions. Unfortunately, at the meeting there was a notable lack of interest in considering this and how the Solidarity Committee should deal with this. And this from a group made up of a majority who consider themselves to be socialists of some type or another! As for Steve's note just look at his choice of terms: you want to recruit to your sect, you came slinking back into the meeting... This is the type of terminology used by the union bureaucracy when they want to discredit a left critic but can't defend themselves on the issues. John Reimann www.laborsmilitantvoice.com I'm unconvinced. C Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
RE: Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30963] Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm Joanna: It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? I wrote: 1) the current situation is a lock-out, not a strike. Yes, but the union had already ordered a work slow down, so the PMA will say the lockout was preemptive and designed to pressure the union for a settlement. why should anyone believe the PMA? 3) Bush's handlers think that they can blame the second dip of the Dubya recession on the long-shore union. Most Americans wouldn't even know what they are. I'd bet that most people in the U.S. can't find Iraq on a map, but the Bush propaganda machine has mobilized a lot to back his war there. Anyway, it's only the Wall Street jerks who need to be convinced on this. They'll repeat the blame the workers line enough so that it will become true-by-definition, as with blaming 911 for the 2001 recession. If these unions really are about challenging the system, why don't the east coast and Gulf longshoremen go out on strike in support of their western counterparts? That would certainly slow down the coming military strike against Iraq. Oh, I answered my own question. This misses the fact that there has been a persistent antagonism between the East West coast longshore unions. The East coast has a tradition of being mobbed up, while the West coast is more leftist in orientation. JD
Re: RE: Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joanna: It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? I wrote: 1) the current situation is a lock-out, not a strike. Yes, but the union had already ordered a work slow down, so the PMA will say the lockout was preemptive and designed to pressure the union for a settlement. why should anyone believe the PMA? The union site itself talks about the slowdown. Who is going to believe the PMA? Perhaps the current president? 3) Bush's handlers think that they can blame the second dip of the Dubya recession on the long-shore union. Most Americans wouldn't even know what they are. I'd bet that most people in the U.S. can't find Iraq on a map, but the Bush propaganda machine has mobilized a lot to back his war there. Anyway, it's only the Wall Street jerks who need to be convinced on this. They'll repeat the blame the workers line enough so that it will become true-by-definition, as with blaming 911 for the 2001 recession. Yeah, but it's easier to do high elevation bombing of a country than a union. If these unions really are about challenging the system, why don't the east coast and Gulf longshoremen go out on strike in support of their western counterparts? That would certainly slow down the coming military strike against Iraq. Oh, I answered my own question. This misses the fact that there has been a persistent antagonism between the East West coast longshore unions. The East coast has a tradition of being mobbed up, while the West coast is more leftist in orientation. Yeah, sure. From what I see, the ILWU talks the talk and that is it. I support their right to collectively bargain and to go on strike. But Ted Daschle is their go-to man on the Hill, so like I said when it's time to pay the devil his due... CJannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: Re: RE: Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
Charles, you don't seem to be familiar with the record/behavior of the ILWU. Gene Coyle Charles Jannuzi wrote: This misses the fact that there has been a persistent antagonism between the East West coast longshore unions. The East coast has a tradition of being mobbed up, while the West coast is more leftist in orientation. Yeah, sure. From what I see, the ILWU talks the talk and that is it. I support their right to collectively bargain and to go on strike. But Ted Daschle is their go-to man on the Hill, so like I said when it's time to pay the devil his due... CJannuzi
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? Joanna At 10:18 PM 10/05/2002 -0700, you wrote: Port Talks Resume; White House Warns of Economic Harm (Update3) By Karen Gullo San Francisco, Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Talks to end the nine- day West Coast port shutdown resumed between cargo companies and longshoremen as the Bush administration said the contract dispute is harming the U.S. economy. Representatives of shipping companies and the dockworkers union met from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. in a San Francisco hotel today. Talks were set to resume this evening and to continue until midnight, federal mediator Peter Hurtgen said. A 10-day lockout may cost the U.S. economy as much as $19.4 billion, according to a study conducted for the carriers by consulting firm Martin Associates. This is a short fuse. We all know it, Joe Miniace, chief negotiator for the shippers, said to reporters during a break in talks. We've got to get something done. The dispute has closed 29 ports, stranding ships from Washington to California. It has led to the shutdown of a California auto plant run by General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Agricultural goods are rotting on docks, the union said, and retailers warned that Christmas sales are threatened. The president's message to labor and management is simple: You are hurting the economy. You are hurting other workers and unions across the country, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. He wouldn't say if President George W. Bush is considering using the Taft-Hartley Act to open the ports. Lockout The shutdown started Sept. 27, when shipping companies locked out more than 10,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The companies and the union have disagreed during negotiations over carriers' efforts to use more computers to handle some dock work. The union wants to retain control of jobs affected by those changes. The union asked carriers today to allow dockworkers to move perishable items such as produce. The companies yesterday permitted shipments to Alaska and Hawaii. There are grain vessels and other perishables that are just rotting out there, said union President Jim Spinosa. We urge them to continue what they're doing with Alaska and Hawaii. They need to follow it up. Hawaiian businesses had been cut off from the U.S. mainland. Hawaii Governor Benjamin Cayetano wrote to the shippers and the union this week. He said the shutdown would have a devastating effect on the economy and morale of Hawaii. Ports could open for all shipments if the union would sign an extension to its contract, which lapsed in July, shippers said. It's as easy as signing a three-line contract extension, said Steve Sugerman, a spokesman for the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shipping companies in the talks. Today's talks brought some progress, Hurtgen said this afternoon. Things are improving, he said. The federal mediator joined the negotiations Thursday.
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
The union says that the estimates of economic loss come from a study commissioned by the Pacific Maritime Association. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
--- joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? Joanna Repugs want white male votes. These guys may be overpaid, but they aren't elite civil servants. A bit of a holdup in supplies creates bottlenecks and actually helps stem price deflation (Greenspan is really worried about deflation because if it does set in, he has no where to cut). And finally, Bush really needs to finesse this now in order to work this sector of the economy and labor into the homeland security apparatus now being set up. It's telling that it's easier to get Singapore and Kuala Lumpur to cooperate than the US's own. CJannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
What's the basis of saying these guys may be overpaid.? That's the employer's perspective. One difference with the air traffic controllers is that they were govt employees -- and could be fired. Bush can fire the longshoremen. Gene Coyle Charles Jannuzi wrote: --- joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? Joanna Repugs want white male votes. These guys may be overpaid, but they aren't elite civil servants. A bit of a holdup in supplies creates bottlenecks and actually helps stem price deflation (Greenspan is really worried about deflation because if it does set in, he has no where to cut). And finally, Bush really needs to finesse this now in order to work this sector of the economy and labor into the homeland security apparatus now being set up. It's telling that it's easier to get Singapore and Kuala Lumpur to cooperate than the US's own. CJannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
Title: Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm Joanna: It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? 1) the current situation is a lock-out, not a strike. 2) though the law was doubtful, the air traffic controllers' strike appeared to be illegal at the time. This allowed Reagan to screw labor within the popularly perceived law. 3) Bush's handlers think that they can blame the second dip of the Dubya recession on the long-shore union. and/or 4) they've made some sort of backroom deal that we don't know about. Jim
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
--- Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the basis of saying these guys may be overpaid.? That's the employer's perspective. One difference with the air traffic controllers is that they were govt employees -- and could be fired. Bush can fire the longshoremen. Gene Coyle I've said it before; I'll say it again to anyone in old unions or who propagandizes for them. Make your pact with the devil, but then don't come whining to me when it's time to pay the devil his due. I mean, if old unions couldn't effectively champion national health care insurance, a living minimum wage FOR ALL, and union membership FOR ALL, when the economy was good and there was no phony national security state crisis, when WILL THEY EVER? This is good (excerpt only): http://www.tao.ca/~colours/sakai2.html The average West Coast longshoreman earns about $60,000-80,000 a year. It's not unusual for highly-skilled longshoremen or clerks who push overtime to hit $125,000-150,000 per year. With income guarantees and a full benefits package. This is the kind of income that lawyers, accountants, corporate middle-managers, and successful small businessmen make. And union longshoremen have the vacation homes, boats, multiple cars, stock portfolios or rental properties that are common for the u.s. middle classes. How can capitalism pay blue-collar workers $75,000 and $100,000 per year? Because the Big Chalupa is only for a microscopic handful of strategically located workers in an increasingly mechanized and neo-liberalized transport industry. On the entire West Coast there are only 7,000 union longshoremen, with another 3,000 clerks and foremen (which is less than the number of airline pilots just at United Airlines). We are talking about the labor that handles the vast Pacific Rim trade in automobiles, electronics, grains, clothing, timber, ores, people, etc. for this continental u.s. empire of 250 millions. There are less union longshoremen on the entire West Coast than waterfront truckers just in Los Angeles. But these truckers are forced to be independent contractors who must furnish their own trucks, have no benefits or income guarantees, and are hired only daily by the task. After job expenses, they often earn one-third or less of what the longshoremen make. And we're not even dealing with the much larger numbers of minimum-wage messengers, cargo handlers, and delivery men in major cities who are primarily Black and Latino and immigrant. Like the Afrikan immigrant men who deliver for the German-owned AP, Waldbaum, and Food Emporium supermarket chains in Manhattan. According to the labor law violation suit just filed by the State Attorney General, these workers earn a nobel-prize-winning 87 cents to $1.74 an hour for 69 hour work weeks! But they didn't jet to Seattle. The ILWU may protest the WTO now. But it has spent the past fifty years actually fighting the working class that is really below them. For decades it kept most Black and Latin longshoremen as casuals, who had to show up daily in hope of work, and out of the union itself. Only federal court civil rights rulings forced it to stop being a small white men's club. Ironically, while the union has changed a lot in race and gender - with many Latino and New Afrikan and women members - its class politics haven't changed at all. It still pushes American nationalism, partnership with the shipping companies, and fighting the workers below them. ILWU leaders openly refer to the largely Latino waterfront truckers even in print by the racist slang term, Gypos. And tacitly support the shipping companies in keeping them down. This isn't class conflict in the form of race anymore, but openly about class conflict. For Class is everything. Unlike managers or accountants, if union longshoremen lose their footing on the capitalist mountainside they can't simply transfer their highly-paid skills elsewhere. There's no waterfront at the 7-11. Just as u.s. merchant seamen are highly paid, but have mostly been replaced by miserably paid Third World seamen on 'flags of convenience' ships, the state agencies and shippers want to reorganize labor in a more profitable way on the world's docks. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joanna: It's interesting that Bush has not treated this situation so far as Reagan did the air traffic controllers. Any speculation as to why he's holding off? 1) the current situation is a lock-out, not a strike. Yes, but the union had already ordered a work slow down, so the PMA will say the lockout was preemptive and designed to pressure the union for a settlement. 2) though the law was doubtful, the air traffic controllers' strike appeared to be illegal at the time. This allowed Reagan to screw labor within the popularly perceived law. That he would fire them all certainly showed his resolve in dealing with them. It certainly put a damper on any other such groups employed by the government. 3) Bush's handlers think that they can blame the second dip of the Dubya recession on the long-shore union. Most Americans wouldn't even know what they are. and/or 4) they've made some sort of backroom deal that we don't know about. The union leadership and the PMA are actually close on most things. But no doubt letting the surveillance jobs go outside the union is seen by the union as the thin edge of the wedge. If these unions really are about challenging the system, why don't the east coast and Gulf longshoremen go out on strike in support of their western counterparts? That would certainly slow down the coming military strike against Iraq. Oh, I answered my own question. CJ __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
William Mandel's experience with tragedy on the docks
This is the first time I am dealing with a labor matter on my complete list. My family is mourning the death of my grandson, Daniel Glick, age 38, San Francisco longshoreman, a month ago. My daughter Phyllis, his mother, is still mourning the death of Danny's father, Keith Glick, San Francisco longshoremen, several years ago at age 58. Both had repeatedly suffered severe disabling injuries on the job. My daughter subsequently lost her lover, San Francisco longshoreman, same age. The deaths of all three were consequences of the culture promoted by that job, in which one cannot plan one's life because one never knows what days one will work, and what shift, in an industry in which the most rapid turnaround of ships is the governing law. That industry has now locked out all longshoremen on the West Coast, San Diego to Seattle and northward, seeking to smash a union that insists on employers' adherence to agreed safety procedures and is resisting employers' desire to shift a major job category out of control of the union, whose past struggles have won good wages and benefits. Public opinion is vital in such struggles. It can be expressed in calls to talk shows, resolutions by organizations to which one belongs, letters to editors, and particularly by messages to members of Congress and the Senate. Even supposed middle-of-the-roaders like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has close ties to the Asia trade, are calling upon the government to use the Taft-Hartley Act to break the union. Public opinion is best expressed by physical presence at demonstrations in support of the workers. A powerful impact is created when TV shows large crowds including people who, by dress, manner, and age, are clearly not themselves the workers affected, but who are showing support. I hope recipients living in the San Francisco Bay Area will attend the rally tomorrow morning, Saturday, 10 a.m., at Port View Park in the port of Oakland. Take the Port of Oakland exit off 880 South, get off at Maritime Blvd., make a right onto 7th St., and take it till it dead-ends at the park. If you don't drive, there will be a volunteer car shuttle service from the West Oakland BART station from 9 to 10 a.m., and then back following the rally. If you can help carry people in your car, contact the organizers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone 1-415-641-8616. Sixty-five years ago I walked the picket line in the Little Steel Strike in Cleveland, Ohio. I'll be at Port View Park tomorrow at 10, cane and all. Hope to see you, if you are a Bay Area resident. William Mandel -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tragedy on the docks: White House Warns of Economic Harm
Port Talks Resume; White House Warns of Economic Harm (Update3) By Karen Gullo San Francisco, Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Talks to end the nine- day West Coast port shutdown resumed between cargo companies and longshoremen as the Bush administration said the contract dispute is harming the U.S. economy. Representatives of shipping companies and the dockworkers union met from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. in a San Francisco hotel today. Talks were set to resume this evening and to continue until midnight, federal mediator Peter Hurtgen said. A 10-day lockout may cost the U.S. economy as much as $19.4 billion, according to a study conducted for the carriers by consulting firm Martin Associates. This is a short fuse. We all know it, Joe Miniace, chief negotiator for the shippers, said to reporters during a break in talks. We've got to get something done. The dispute has closed 29 ports, stranding ships from Washington to California. It has led to the shutdown of a California auto plant run by General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Agricultural goods are rotting on docks, the union said, and retailers warned that Christmas sales are threatened. The president's message to labor and management is simple: You are hurting the economy. You are hurting other workers and unions across the country, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. He wouldn't say if President George W. Bush is considering using the Taft-Hartley Act to open the ports. Lockout The shutdown started Sept. 27, when shipping companies locked out more than 10,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The companies and the union have disagreed during negotiations over carriers' efforts to use more computers to handle some dock work. The union wants to retain control of jobs affected by those changes. The union asked carriers today to allow dockworkers to move perishable items such as produce. The companies yesterday permitted shipments to Alaska and Hawaii. There are grain vessels and other perishables that are just rotting out there, said union President Jim Spinosa. We urge them to continue what they're doing with Alaska and Hawaii. They need to follow it up. Hawaiian businesses had been cut off from the U.S. mainland. Hawaii Governor Benjamin Cayetano wrote to the shippers and the union this week. He said the shutdown would have a devastating effect on the economy and morale of Hawaii. Ports could open for all shipments if the union would sign an extension to its contract, which lapsed in July, shippers said. It's as easy as signing a three-line contract extension, said Steve Sugerman, a spokesman for the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shipping companies in the talks. Today's talks brought some progress, Hurtgen said this afternoon. Things are improving, he said. The federal mediator joined the negotiations Thursday.
FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy
Title: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy, Sep.11, 02 RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy Fundamentalism is the Enemy of All Civilized Humanity RAWA joins with the rest of the civilized world in remembering the innocent lives lost on September 11th, as well as all those others lost to terrorism and oppression throughout the world. It is with great sadness that RAWA sees other people experiencing the pain that the women, children and men of Afghanistan have long suffered at the hands of fundamentalist terrorists. For ten long years the people of Afghanistan -Afghan women in particular- have been crushed and brutalized, first under the chains and atrocities of the "Northern Alliance" fundamentalists, then under those of the Taliban. During all this period, the governments of the Western powers were bent on finding ways to "work with" these criminals. These Western governments did not lose much sleep over the daily grind of abject misery our people were enduring under the domination of these terrorist bands. To them it did not matter so very much that human rights and democratic principles were being trampled on a daily basis in an inconceivable manner. What was important was to "work with" the religio-fascists to have Central Asian oil pipelines extended to accessible ports of shipment. Immediately after the September 11 tragedy American military might moved into action to punish its erstwhile hirelings. A captive, bleeding, devastated, hungry, pauperized, drought-stricken and ill-starred Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion by the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry ever created in human history. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives in the September 11 atrocity, were taken. Even joyous wedding gatherings were not spared. The Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda support were toppled without any significant dent in their human combat resources. What was not done away with was the sinister shadow of terrorist threat over the whole world and its alter ego, fundamentalist terrorism. Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism have been eradicated in Afghanistan. There is neither peace nor stability in this tormented country, nor has there been any relief from the scourges of extreme pauperization, prostitution, and wanton plunder. Women feel much more insecure than in the past. The bitter fact that even the personal security of the President of the country cannot be maintained without recourse to foreign bodyguards and the recent terrorist acts in our country speak eloquent volumes about the chaotic and terrorist-ridden situation of the country. Why is it so? Why has the thunderous uproar in the aftermath of September 11 resulted in nothing? For the following reasons which RAWA has reiterated time and again: 1. For the people of Afghanistan, it is "out of the frying pan, into the fire". Instead of the Taliban terrorists, Jihadi terrorists of the "Northern Alliance" have been installed in power. The Jihadi and the Taliban fundamentalists share a common ideology; their differences are the usual differences between brethren-in-creed. 2. For the past more or less twenty years, Osama bin Laden has had Afghan fundamentalists on his payroll and has been paying their leaders considerable stipends. He and Mullah Omar, together with a band of followers equipped with the necessary communication resources, can live for many years under the protection of different fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continue to plot against the people of Afghanistan and the rest of humankind. 3. The Taliban and the al-Qaeda phenomena, as manifestations of an ideology and a political culture infesting an Islamic country, could only have been uprooted by a popular insurrection and the strengthening and coming to power of secular democratic forces. Such a purge cannot be effected solely with the physical elimination of the likes of Osama and Mullah Omar. The "Northern Alliance" can never sincerely want the total elimination of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda, as such elimination would mean the end of the raison d'être of the backing and support extended to them by foreign forces presently dominant in the country. This was the rationale behind RAWA's slogan for the overthrow of the Taliban and al-Qaeda through popular insurrection. Unfortunately, before such popular insurrection could come about, the Taliban and al-Qaeda forfeited their positions to the "brethren of the 'Northern Alliance'" without suffering any crippling decimation. With their second occupation of Kabul, the "Northern Alliance" thwarted any hopes for a radical, meaningful change. They are themselves now the source and root of insecurity, the disgraceful police atmosphere of the Loya Jirga, rampant terrorism, gag
RE: FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30185] FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy RAWA says: These Western governments did not lose much sleep over the daily grind of abject misery our people were enduring under the domination of these terrorist bands. To them it did not matter so very much that human rights and democratic principles were being trampled on a daily basis in an inconceivable manner. What was important was to work with the religio-fascists to have Central Asian oil pipelines extended to accessible ports of shipment. I remember someone giving me a hard time on pen-l because I referred to Osama bin Laden and Taliban as clerical fascists. It's not a perfect analogy, but few are. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:30 AM To: Pen-L@Galaxy. Csuchico. Edu Subject: [PEN-L:30185] FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy Fundamentalism is the Enemy of All Civilized Humanity RAWA joins with the rest of the civilized world in remembering the innocent lives lost on September 11th, as well as all those others lost to terrorism and oppression throughout the world. It is with great sadness that RAWA sees other people experiencing the pain that the women, children and men of Afghanistan have long suffered at the hands of fundamentalist terrorists. For ten long years the people of Afghanistan -Afghan women in particular- have been crushed and brutalized, first under the chains and atrocities of the Northern Alliance fundamentalists, then under those of the Taliban. During all this period, the governments of the Western powers were bent on finding ways to work with these criminals. These Western governments did not lose much sleep over the daily grind of abject misery our people were enduring under the domination of these terrorist bands. To them it did not matter so very much that human rights and democratic principles were being trampled on a daily basis in an inconceivable manner. What was important was to work with the religio-fascists to have Central Asian oil pipelines extended to accessible ports of shipment. Immediately after the September 11 tragedy American military might moved into action to punish its erstwhile hirelings. A captive, bleeding, devastated, hungry, pauperized, drought-stricken and ill-starred Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion by the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry ever created in human history. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives in the September 11 atrocity, were taken. Even joyous wedding gatherings were not spared. The Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda support were toppled without any significant dent in their human combat resources. What was not done away with was the sinister shadow of terrorist threat over the whole world and its alter ego, fundamentalist terrorism. Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism have been eradicated in Afghanistan. There is neither peace nor stability in this tormented country, nor has there been any relief from the scourges of extreme pauperization, prostitution, and wanton plunder. Women feel much more insecure than in the past. The bitter fact that even the personal security of the President of the country cannot be maintained without recourse to foreign bodyguards and the recent terrorist acts in our country speak eloquent volumes about the chaotic and terrorist-ridden situation of the country. Why is it so? Why has the thunderous uproar in the aftermath of September 11 resulted in nothing? For the following reasons which RAWA has reiterated time and again: 1. For the people of Afghanistan, it is out of the frying pan, into the fire. Instead of the Taliban terrorists, Jihadi terrorists of the Northern Alliance have been installed in power. The Jihadi and the Taliban fundamentalists share a common ideology; their differences are the usual differences between brethren-in-creed. 2. For the past more or less twenty years, Osama bin Laden has had Afghan fundamentalists on his payroll and has been paying their leaders considerable stipends. He and Mullah Omar, together with a band of followers equipped with the necessary communication resources, can live for many years under the protection of different fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continue to plot against the people of Afghanistan and the rest of humankind. 3. The Taliban and the al-Qaeda phenomena, as manifestations of an ideology and a political culture infesting an Islamic country, could only have been uprooted by a popular insurrection and the strengthening and coming to power of secular democratic forces. Such a purge cannot be effected solely with the physical elimination of the likes of Osama and Mullah Omar. The Northern Alliance can never sincerely want the total elimination
RE: RE: FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy
Title: RE: [PEN-L:30185] FW: RAWA Statement on the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy Jim Devine wrote:"I remember someone giving me a hard time on pen-l because I referred to Osama bin Laden and Taliban as "clerical fascists." It's not a perfect analogy, but few are." Idon't think it is a mere analogy.I heard a talk by Reza Afshari, a historian and human-rights specialist (with whom I work), in which he pinpointed a direct genealogical link. Apparently, one of the main developers of Islamic fundamentalist ideology borrowed heavily from andcredited the writings of a fascist physician (from France, who emigrated to the U.S). Unfortunately, I've forgotten both their names. In any case, it is an important point that fundamentalism is at least partly a modern, "Western" import, and not -- contrary to common portrayal -- thetraditional,indigenousideology of the people.
Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji,warns professor]
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 3385 POLITICS: Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji,warns professor Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 18:52:12 -0800 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 3385 POLITICS: Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji, warns professor Date -- 2 September 2001 Byline -- None Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- Wansolwara Online, 2/9/1 Copyright -- USP Journalism Status -- Unabridged --- USP Pacific Journalism Online: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ Fiji elections coverage: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/docs/news/index.html USP Pasifik Nius: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html USP Pasifik Nius stories on Scoop (NZ): http://www.scoop.co.nz/international.htm Have your say: http://www.TheGuestBook.com/vgbook/109497.gbook BLOCKING LABOUR 'TRAGEDY' FOR FIJI, WARNS PROFESSOR http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/docs/news/wansolnews/wansol0209013.html Staff Reporters: September 2, 2001 Wansolwara Online (USP) SUVA (Pasifik Nius): A leading political scientist today warned that any attempt to block the deposed Fiji Labour Party from forming a new government if it wins the largest number of seats when counting begins tomorrow will be a tragedy for the country. There is an enormous effort from the top down to do that, said Associate Professor Scott MacWilliam, of the University of the South Pacific's history/politics department. It is disappointing that the position was based upon the claim that there will be violence if the Labour Party wins. It simply means that a small number of thugs are holding the country to ransom and that's a tragedy in any country. Prof MacWilliam's comments, made in a fullpage interview with Daily Post reporter Mithleshni Gurdayal published today, followed lobbying by a group of Fijian lawyers last week to orchestrate a pact between indigenous parties aimed at blocking Labour from forming a government. Most political observers predict a Labour victory in the general election, in which the week-long voting ended yesterday. Police have set up tight security with razor wire barricades around the four counting centres in Suva. According to Prof MacWilliam, an Australian: It is likely that the Labour Party will win the most seats; it is less likely that they will win an absolute majority. Asked whether the election would bring about stability for Fiji, he said the ballot had been conducted in exceptional circumstances and is was debatable about whether elections could ever bring stability by themselves. Did the last election in 1999 bring stability? he asked. The [Labour-led] People's Coalition Government had an overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament and yet violence from outside the parliamentary arena eventuated in overthrowing the government. It seems that a lot of people take the rhetoric of elections as the way of solving crisis. Nowhere in the world have elections been the sole means of dealing with those matters. Elections have been accompanied by other things like presidential security guards and so forth. Elections alone don't solve anything. Prof MacWilliam said it was an exceptional election in the sense that it was not within direct constitutional provisions. There was also a question about whether the decision to hold an election itself was unconstitutional - it still hangs in the air. What, for instance, has been the effect of all the intimidation, harassment and so forth? he asked. When people talk about a free, fair and open election, it may be that the election process itself is fairly blemish-free or faultless, but what about the background to that? How have people been persuaded to vote by either bribes or by threats and fears? While Fiji had been undergoing a transition with urbanisation as elswhere in the world, it's been urbanised in poverty. Prof MacWilliam said the victory of Labour, which offered policies to address poverty, had been so substantial in 1999 that he had predicted then that the People's Coalition would win the next two elections. They had so far completely wiped out the Opposition. It would have taken something very dramatic for them to lose all that support as a result of last year, he said. In fact, you could say that there were things that have encouraged people to go to the Labour Party - the job losses and the kinds of appeals that the party had made like cutting off the value-added tax (VAT), he said. Finding jobs would appeal to the poor people. It not only appealed to the Indo-Fijians, but many ethnic Fijians in the urban areas who have seen their living standards decline. Prof MacWilliam said so much depended on what ethnic Fijians had done with their vote in the urban area. Urbanisation is a factor here, he said. Earlier, in an interview with Wansolwara Online last week, Prof MacWilliam had said many politicians vying for seats in the election were not serious about addressing
Tragedy of the Rockfish
Monday, July 31, 2000, 12:00 a.m. Pacific Northwest rockfish face chancy future Monday July 31st 2000 by Hal Bernton Seattle Times staff reporter Part two of a two-part series. WARRENTON, Ore. - The skippers out of this Columbia River port take pride in their skill at catching Pacific Northwest rockfish. Their intimate knowledge of undersea canyons, pinnacles and reefs yields nets full of prime seafood. But what happens after the fish come aboard is often a source of anger and shame. Fishermen working under some of the most convoluted harvest rules in the nation discard part of their catch. Sometimes they dump up to a third of it, they say, including thousands of pounds of dead and dying rockfish. Most people with a stake in the rockfish harvest - federal regulators, scientists, conservationists, community leaders and fishermen - agree the 24-year-old management system is failing. The harvest rules set strict limits on how much of each species can be brought back to port. But when fishermen accidentally exceed the limits for one species as they pursue another, there's no limit on the amount of discards. To avoid fines for landing the excess fish, fishermen toss them overboard. "This is sick," said Greg Caisse, skipper of the Blue Max. "This management by waste just doesn't make any sense." The rules have restricted port landing limits to less than one-fifth the annual poundage brought in during the early 1980s. But populations of four rockfish species have crashed in recent decades due to what scientists believe is a double whammy of overharvesting and poor ocean conditions through the late 1990s. Several other species also have show substantial declines. Though ocean conditions this year have dramatically improved, scientists say it may take decades for some of these species to recover. So fishermen are bracing for tough times. Earlier this year, the federal Commerce Department declared the West Coast harvest a federal disaster, a declaration that shook loose $5 million in taxpayer dollars to aid coastal communities in Northern California, Oregon and Washington. And a fishery council, composed of federal, state and industry officials, wants to slash the size of the fleet. The 245-vessel trawl-net fleet could be reduced by more than half. "I think the system is broke," said Bob Alverson, a Washington commercial-fishing-industry representative to the Pacific Fishery Management Council. "The amount of fish available just can't support this fleet." Some rockfish live to 140 More than 50 different species of rockfish have contributed to the commercial harvest. They have names like yellowtail, widow, splitnose, shortspine and chilipepper, and range from shallow intertidal zones to depths of more than 1,000 feet. These rockfish may lack the name recognition of a chinook salmon or the majesty of an old growth fir. Often, they end up at the fish-market counter sold under the humble moniker of "red snapper." But they, too, form part of the region's natural resource heritage. They rank among the most long-lived of fish with life cycles that biologists are only beginning to unravel. Many rockfish species live 50 years or more. One species - the rougheye rockfish - can live to be 140 years old. With the dramatic improvement in ocean conditions this year, scientists are seeing increased numbers of juvenile rockfish. But because the fish are so slow to reach maturity, no one is expecting the populations to bounce back. Stocks of red-hued canary, for example, may take 55 years to rebuild even if the catch were held near zero throughout that time, according to a federal research report. Fleet's future less than rosy The small town of Warrenton, near the mouth of the Columbia River, is a key port for the Oregon trawl fleet, which claims roughly 70 percent of the catch off Washington. The trawl fleet built up its muscle power in the 1970s, aided by federal loans intended to help push out foreign factory trawlers that had laid claim to most of the fish within the U.S.'s 200-mile coastal zone. The fishermen proved an innovative group, constantly finding ways to improve the nets so they could penetrate rocky areas known to be good fishing spots. Despite the recent harvest declines, the trawl vessels remain an impressive sight lined up at the dock, nets furled around deck-top reels. But tourism and recreational boating are claiming a growing share of the local economy. Many of the trawlers are aging, their wheelhouse cabinetry scuffed and worn and hulls badly in need of paint. Crews also are suffering. Paychecks once topped $80,000 annually for some of the top deckhands on rockfish boats. This year, some say they'll be lucky to gross $20,000. Some fishermen have moved into healthier Northwest fisheries such as Dungeness crab, or have quit the business. Others have abandoned the Northwest rockfish for the much larger and prosperous Alaska trawl fisheries. Blue Max skipper Caisse, a rail-thin
[PEN-L:6167] Humor, Tragedy, and Pious Platitudes (was A note of thanks to all)
Tom Kruse wrote: On the other hand, I find that in academic-ish US culture (like this list) humor is ubiquitous and often quite healthy. Yet sometimes, upon returning to the US -- or just downloading email -- I am sometimes blown away by how horrific events can be addressed in a humorous mode; I guess I'm not used to it anymore. But I see this more as a reflection of the (cultrally sepcific) discursive currency in ciruculation, and not a problem of morally irresponsible speakers. I'm also struck by the disappearance of tragedy (or the tragic mode of representation) in American culture in general (of which acadmic-ish US culture is a small part). I don't consider this disappearance to be healthy, though. What I think is a relentless insistence upon humor and entertainment, when combined with the exclusion of the tragic mode + the profusion of pious platitudes (as in most commonly heard responses to Littleton, for instance), points to the impoverishment of culture: a narrowing-down of what we are allowed to express (without being considered weird), an enforcement of superficial toughness (e.g. "we can laugh at anything--even the destruction of our own lives"), and finally an appearance of 'social harmony' when real solidarity doesn't exist and only competition prevails. Yoshie
[PEN-L:3528] Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons
From: "Paul Phillips" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael is right. In the case of Canadian water, we can control usage through community controls which are determined through a political process, not a 'free' market (though the controls may also include prices.) However, as many of us fear, NAFTA may be utilized to force Canada to give up controls and commodify water; i.e. common property will be converted into private property and Canada will lose control of its water utilization. To have a market and prices, there must be "ownership," right? Among South Africa's perplexing contradictions is the continual tendency of the ANC leadership, advised by Washington-Consensus consultants, to smash apartheid privileges with a neoliberal hammer. So in fact, in order to price water, it turns out you have to overthrow riparian rights and in effect nationalise water, even that which for instance falls from the sky straight onto pine and gum plantations. Our water minister is a social democrat and in our 1996 Bill of Rights we find the right to water, so his resolution is to begin pricing all water (the comment period for his regulations is 31/3/99 if anyone wants to get involved in a practical debate -- I can send you the policy and our critiques offlist) and to reserve around 5% of all water in our ecosystem for a combination of "basic human need" and environmental uses. All very abstract. From national to catchment-area to municipal tiers the bureaucrats become more decidely Old-Guard, disparaging of lifeline access, and willing to cut off people who can't pay their bills. In this context water pricing is not going to redistribute SA's shocking resource maldistribution (white households use 11% of all water at present, of which more than half goes to gardens and swimming pools, while all black SA households consume 1% of water). The progressive forces have argued for -- and in a few cases actually won -- a rapidly rising block tariff (with the first 50 litres per capita per day free), but World Bank pressure to privatise municipal water includes a critique of such incorrect market signalling (diverging marginal cost and pricing curves) and unfortunately the British and French companies are wandering around doing their various corrupt deals with even black liberation movement leaders and so lifelines are fading fast and water cut-offs are rising inexorably notwithstanding a terrific battle by the municipal workers union to put the brake on privatisation. The other progressive strategy has been to push for administrative controls on water, as well as "demand side management" techniques to reduce hedonistic consumption and fix the leaking apartheid-era pipes in black townships (which lose 50% of flow). But again, power relations being what they are, progress here is terribly slow... Instead, we get more World Bank-catalysed supply side "solutions" like building another $1.5 bn dam in Lesotho (which was a key reason for SA's infamous invasion last September), again, notwithstanding spirited critiques of big dams from greens and some of the township comrades. The economic logic of dumping a load of toxic waste on the lowest-wage country is impeccable, I was telling my students a couple of nights ago, and so too is the economic logic of pricing water at marginal cost and cutting people off if they can't pay. Our water minister -- who also runs the World Bank/IUCN "World Commission on Dams" -- hasn't even got the gumption to compel his underlings to factor in the externalities (public health, gender equalisation, environment, desegregation, economic multipliers) that come from a universal lifeline supply. Instead, marginal cost pricing is all the rage. The bastards have even tried to define "lifeline" as "operating and maintenance costs." Water wars will predominate across the world in the next century. Our supplies are due to run out in 2030. As ever, SA is likely to remain at the cutting edge of inequality and violent social resistance. *** Patrick Bond 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094 Johannesburg, South Africa phone: (2711) 614-8088 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: University of the Witwatersrand Graduate School of Public and Development Management PO Box 601, Wits 2050 phone (o): (2711)488-5917; fax: (2711) 484-2729 email (o): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3550] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons
Yes, that's a friendly amendment. Peter Dorman Patrick Bond wrote: From: Peter Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... The economics, as they say, is impeccable. The utility initially owns the water. They establish a marginal cost pricing rule (or something similar incorporating externalities etc.) and make everyone pay. So that the poor can have a basic supply they would be issued vouchers on the proceeds from sales to the well-off. You could, of course, cut out the pay and voucher stages and just give the poor the water. But we don't want to divide the "poor" from everyone else. Good social policy is universal-entitlement policy, without means tests. Free 50 l/c/d per day for everyone, that's the slogan. (I use my first 50 litres after 10 minutes, flushing and showering, in fact there goes about 100 litres...) P.
[PEN-L:3533] Re: Re: Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons
From: Peter Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... The economics, as they say, is impeccable. The utility initially owns the water. They establish a marginal cost pricing rule (or something similar incorporating externalities etc.) and make everyone pay. So that the poor can have a basic supply they would be issued vouchers on the proceeds from sales to the well-off. You could, of course, cut out the pay and voucher stages and just give the poor the water. But we don't want to divide the "poor" from everyone else. Good social policy is universal-entitlement policy, without means tests. Free 50 l/c/d per day for everyone, that's the slogan. (I use my first 50 litres after 10 minutes, flushing and showering, in fact there goes about 100 litres...) P.
[PEN-L:3487] Tragedy of the Commons36CA4D61.361687D2@igc.org v04003a00b2f08a22b618@[128.32.105.161]
Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. But after the land became privatized all hell broke loose. Brad might be correct about his understanding of the wells, but I want to correct his historical allusion (illusion) about the tragedy of the commons. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:3495] Re: Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. As long as population densities are low, and social pressures are strong...
[PEN-L:3508] Re: Tragedy of the Commons
Brad, True enough. But Michael P. is on to something that Hardin and most commentators regarding the "tragedy of the medieval grazing commons" case that Hardin was talking about rarely recognize. The "tragedy" not only coincided with the emergence of privatization, but that privatization in fact actively aggravated the problem as the commons grazing areas were reduced in size due to the enclosures. All these people who claim that the enclosures were a "rational response to the tragedy" have things backwards. More generally, as has been mentioned, it is possible for "common property" to be managed in ways that control or limit access. The original economics literature on this from Gordon's 1954 JPE paper on fisheries totally confused "common property" with "open access," a confusion that Hardin picked up on and amplified with his much-cited _Science_ article. The realization that these are distinct issues and that it is open access that is the source of the problem came later. I would date it to the 1975 paper in the _Natural Resources Journal_ by S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup and Richard C. Bishop, "'Common Property' as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy." Since then we have had a huge literature on this by people like Elinor Ostrom and Daniel Bromley on how to manage access in commonly owned properties, with a classic example of a successful system being the Swiss alpine grazing commons that are owned by Swiss villages and have been well managed since the 1200s. Certainly, the bigger the thing to be managed and the more people involved in it, the harder it is to set up a system of access control. These are the problems with the very large Ogallala aquifer. And this applies to privately owned property as well, which most of the Ogallala aquifer is, although by many different parties. I have a paper on this that emphasizes that the nature and scale of the ecosystem being managed is crucial, "Systemic Crises in Hierarchical Ecological Economies," _Land Economics_, May 1995, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 163-172. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:03:38 -0800 Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. As long as population densities are low, and social pressures are strong... -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3525] Re: Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons36CA4D61.361687D2@igc.org v04003a00b2f08a22b618@[128.32.105.161] 36CAE717.DA3AE265@ecst.csuchico.edu 36CAEB9D.375A321B@elwha.evergreen.edu 36CB13BD.172BDDAC@mb.sympatico.ca
t mean that markets in water as a commodity are the answer, because the common resource problem, the discounting problem, environmental interactions/nonconvexities all point to market failure at the level of the whole system. I am advocating using prices as a transmission mechanism for decisions made by other means.) My position is one of unblemished virtue in this discussion, of course, because I live in the pacific northwest, currently soaked with water. Peter Dorman Michael Perelman wrote: Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. But after the land became privatized all hell broke loose. Brad might be correct about his understanding of the wells, but I want to correct his historical allusion (illusion) about the tragedy of the commons. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:3565] Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin had the Tragedy of the Commons backwards. The enclosure movement in England actually harmed the environment, rather than saving it by privatizing it. Oliver Goldsmith wrote from The Deserted Village Sweet smiling village, loveliest of the lawn, Thy sports are fled, and all thy charms withdrawn; Amidst thy bowers the tyrant's hand is seen, And desolation saddens all thy green: One only master grasps the whole domain, And half a tillage stints thy smiling plain: No more thy glassy brook reflects the day, But chok'd with sedges, works its weedy way. Along thy glades, a solitary guest, The hollow sounding bittern guards its nest; Amidst thy desert walks the lapwing flies, And tires their echoes with unvaried cries. Sunk are thy bowers in shapeless ruin all, And the long grass o'ertops the mould'ring wall; And trembling, shrinking from the spoiler's hand, Far, far away, thy children leave the land. Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay: Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade; A breath can make them, as a breath has made; But a bold peasantry, their country's pride, When once destroy'd, can never be supplied. Oliver Goldsmith Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: Brad, True enough. But Michael P. is on to something that Hardin and most commentators regarding the "tragedy of the medieval grazing commons" case that Hardin was talking about rarely recognize. The "tragedy" not only coincided with the emergence of privatization, but that privatization in fact actively aggravated the problem as the commons grazing areas were reduced in size due to the enclosures. All these people who claim that the enclosures were a "rational response to the tragedy" have things backwards. More generally, as has been mentioned, it is possible for "common property" to be managed in ways that control or limit access. The original economics literature on this from Gordon's 1954 JPE paper on fisheries totally confused "common property" with "open access," a confusion that Hardin picked up on and amplified with his much-cited _Science_ article. The realization that these are distinct issues and that it is open access that is the source of the problem came later. I would date it to the 1975 paper in the _Natural Resources Journal_ by S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup and Richard C. Bishop, "'Common Property' as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy." Since then we have had a huge literature on this by people like Elinor Ostrom and Daniel Bromley on how to manage access in commonly owned properties, with a classic example of a successful system being the Swiss alpine grazing commons that are owned by Swiss villages and have been well managed since the 1200s. Certainly, the bigger the thing to be managed and the more people involved in it, the harder it is to set up a system of access control. These are the problems with the very large Ogallala aquifer. And this applies to privately owned property as well, which most of the Ogallala aquifer is, although by many different parties. I have a paper on this that emphasizes that the nature and scale of the ecosystem being managed is crucial, "Systemic Crises in Hierarchical Ecological Economies," _Land Economics_, May 1995, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 163-172. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:03:38 -0800 Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. As long as population densities are low, and social pressures are strong... -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3532] Re: Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons
I don't know enough (make than anything) about SA to say anything intelligent about SA water policies. I do know this though: any sensible price-based system would lead to upper-income (presumably white) folks paying enough money to publicly owned or regulated water utilities to fund basic provision for the poor plus hefty sums left over. The economics, as they say, is impeccable. The utility initially owns the water. They establish a marginal cost pricing rule (or something similar incorporating externalities etc.) and make everyone pay. So that the poor can have a basic supply they would be issued vouchers on the proceeds from sales to the well-off. You could, of course, cut out the pay and voucher stages and just give the poor the water. Anyway, unless the supplies needed to furnish basic needs are a very large share of the total resource, revenue should be more than adequate. In fact, the unit cost of water use to paying customers should be set to more than recompense an equivalent use by the poor since the latter is inframarginal, right? Something tells me this is a liquid version of Henry George. Patrick Bond wrote: From: "Paul Phillips" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael is right. In the case of Canadian water, we can control usage through community controls which are determined through a political process, not a 'free' market (though the controls may also include prices.) However, as many of us fear, NAFTA may be utilized to force Canada to give up controls and commodify water; i.e. common property will be converted into private property and Canada will lose control of its water utilization. To have a market and prices, there must be "ownership," right? Among South Africa's perplexing contradictions is the continual tendency of the ANC leadership, advised by Washington-Consensus consultants, to smash apartheid privileges with a neoliberal hammer. So in fact, in order to price water, it turns out you have to overthrow riparian rights and in effect nationalise water, even that which for instance falls from the sky straight onto pine and gum plantations. Our water minister is a social democrat and in our 1996 Bill of Rights we find the right to water, so his resolution is to begin pricing all water (the comment period for his regulations is 31/3/99 if anyone wants to get involved in a practical debate -- I can send you the policy and our critiques offlist) and to reserve around 5% of all water in our ecosystem for a combination of "basic human need" and environmental uses. All very abstract. From national to catchment-area to municipal tiers the bureaucrats become more decidely Old-Guard, disparaging of lifeline access, and willing to cut off people who can't pay their bills. In this context water pricing is not going to redistribute SA's shocking resource maldistribution (white households use 11% of all water at present, of which more than half goes to gardens and swimming pools, while all black SA households consume 1% of water). The progressive forces have argued for -- and in a few cases actually won -- a rapidly rising block tariff (with the first 50 litres per capita per day free), but World Bank pressure to privatise municipal water includes a critique of such incorrect market signalling (diverging marginal cost and pricing curves) and unfortunately the British and French companies are wandering around doing their various corrupt deals with even black liberation movement leaders and so lifelines are fading fast and water cut-offs are rising inexorably notwithstanding a terrific battle by the municipal workers union to put the brake on privatisation. The other progressive strategy has been to push for administrative controls on water, as well as "demand side management" techniques to reduce hedonistic consumption and fix the leaking apartheid-era pipes in black townships (which lose 50% of flow). But again, power relations being what they are, progress here is terribly slow... Instead, we get more World Bank-catalysed supply side "solutions" like building another $1.5 bn dam in Lesotho (which was a key reason for SA's infamous invasion last September), again, notwithstanding spirited critiques of big dams from greens and some of the township comrades. The economic logic of dumping a load of toxic waste on the lowest-wage country is impeccable, I was telling my students a couple of nights ago, and so too is the economic logic of pricing water at marginal cost and cutting people off if they can't pay. Our water minister -- who also runs the World Bank/IUCN "World Commission on Dams" -- hasn't even got the gumption to compel his underlings to factor in the externalities (public health, gender equalisation, environment, desegregation, economic multipliers) that come from a universal lifeline supply. Instead, marginal cost pricing is all the rage. The bastards have even tried to define "lifeline" as
[PEN-L:3504] Re: Re: Tragedy of the Commons36CA4D61.361687D2@igc.org v04003a00b2f08a22b618@[128.32.105.161] 36CAE717.DA3AE265@ecst.csuchico.edu 36CAEB9D.375A321B@elwha.evergreen.edu
The Olglalla aquifer. Perhaps those discussing this distinguished aquifer might enlighten unenlightened Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders, and Aussies..etc. as to where this aquifer is, and its significance. I also don't know what Ostromized co-operative management is as contrasted with unmodified co-operative management. I appreciate that you don't want to use free markets to allocate water resources but if you use price won't that still have the effect of rationing partly on the basis of income rather than need. Why is any other method "draconian"? For example, when water pressure is low in the summer in Brandon, people in odd numbered houses are required to water on one day and even numbered other days...or variations on that sort of schema. Of course some people cheat but enough obey that it works. No draconian water police are needed. I grant that this example may have little relevance to managing water from an aquifer but it just shows there are non-draconian ways of dealing with water scarcity that do not involve a price mechanism per se. If this aquifer is centred in aboriginal territory, what are native rights, with regards to usage of water on their territory and off their territory? Do they have exclusive jurisdiction on their territory and others exclusive jurisdiction outside of aboriginal territories? It seems that usage of water by those outside native territory will impact water supply within those terriitories and vice versa. I thought that was what Brad's original post might have been about. We are free riders on a Sioux aquifer but I guess not... By the way there are at 4 reasonably sized lakes within a 15 mile circumference of where I live, not to count innumerable small ponds (sloughs). If wells ever did dry up it would just be a question of treating the water that is widely available. Community wells used to pump water for cattle etc that are shallow and often have unpotable water are replenished by precipation. Unless there were a series of very dry years this is a renewable resource..These are not arid plains. but parkland. Just don't ask for a water pipeline from here to Arizona :) Cheers, Ken Hanly Peter Dorman wrote: I too am all for Ostromized cooperative management of common property resources, but the Oglalla acquifer spans too large an area to be managed that way. Unsustainable water mining is a problem in large parts of the plains and arid west and demands far-reaching policies which will affect settlement patterns and not merely agricultural techniques. I agree with Brad that choices will have to be made at higher levels, and one argument for using prices to implement them is that any other system would be draconian. (Note: this does not mean that markets in water as a commodity are the answer, because the common resource problem, the discounting problem, environmental interactions/nonconvexities all point to market failure at the level of the whole system. I am advocating using prices as a transmission mechanism for decisions made by other means.) My position is one of unblemished virtue in this discussion, of course, because I live in the pacific northwest, currently soaked with water. Peter Dorman Michael Perelman wrote: Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. But after the land became privatized all hell broke loose. Brad might be correct about his understanding of the wells, but I want to correct his historical allusion (illusion) about the tragedy of the commons. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:3488] Re: Tragedy of the Commons36CA4D61.361687D2@igc.org v04003a00b2f08a22b618@[128.32.105.161] 36CAE717.DA3AE265@ecst.csuchico.edu
I too am all for Ostromized cooperative management of common property resources, but the Oglalla acquifer spans too large an area to be managed that way. Unsustainable water mining is a problem in large parts of the plains and arid west and demands far-reaching policies which will affect settlement patterns and not merely agricultural techniques. I agree with Brad that choices will have to be made at higher levels, and one argument for using prices to implement them is that any other system would be draconian. (Note: this does not mean that markets in water as a commodity are the answer, because the common resource problem, the discounting problem, environmental interactions/nonconvexities all point to market failure at the level of the whole system. I am advocating using prices as a transmission mechanism for decisions made by other means.) My position is one of unblemished virtue in this discussion, of course, because I live in the pacific northwest, currently soaked with water. Peter Dorman Michael Perelman wrote: Hardin's story is a myth. In truth, the communities that he describes had customs and institutions that kept the amount of livestock in check. But after the land became privatized all hell broke loose. Brad might be correct about his understanding of the wells, but I want to correct his historical allusion (illusion) about the tragedy of the commons. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:2740] Re: Review of Olasky, THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMP
Mike M. posts on the topic of the views of the right wing have been food for thought. Francis "the end of history" Fukiyama was recently interviewed on the BBC pedalling essentially the same line as Olasky. It seems to me there currently exists two partially incompatible right wing ideologies. The first is a consistent liberalism which touts the freedom of the individual from interference in all spheres including the economic, the political, and the cultural. The only institution needed to control individual freedom of action is the market. This is not a particularly populist ideology but has a strong base in bourgeois, professional and intellectual circles. It has also had a strong innings as the fundamental base of government policy in much of the west, most especially Britain and the US. It's results have, however, tended to discredit it. Social breakdown, growing inequality, etc, etc, especially in Britain and the US have led some right wing 'intellectuals' to look for an alternative. In order to preserve the core of liberalism, the capitalist economic order, it is necessary to moderate the effects of economic liberalism through the intervention of traditional non-liberal institutions. These are fundamentally the European fascist trinity of God, Country, and Family. If only the market can be supplemented by a strong commitment to traditional religion, patriotism, and the traditional family, this could really be the best of all possible worlds. This also has the advantage of a more populist appeal than pure libertarianism. This turn in right wing ideology creates problems for the left. Some of the issues raised by this sort of appeal can be supported by almost everybody including the left. People (especially men) ought to behave responsibly toward their families; people ought to be good citizens, peoples personal and public behavior ought to be conducted according to some moral code. The left has always had a pretty sophisticated critique of economic liberalism. In relation to religion, nationality (of the imperial sort), and 'family values' the left has had more trouble deciding what it has to say. At base the left has defined these realms as sites of struggle between left and right. This position is the correct and as far as I can see inevitable conclusion. Nevertheless there is a serious political problem in that the left positions lack the populist appeal of the rightist positions on these issues. Sure the left supports the family but not of course the patriarchal family. Support for homosexual marriage and the economic independence of women are necessary and settled parts of any left program. But they do NOT appeal to the right wing populist desire for the atavistic security of traditional family structures. The left has attempted to subvert the patriotism issue by talking about "community". This is most striking in the New Labour Party rhetoric under Tony Blair. This tries to broaden the right wing approach to the state as the guarantor of order to include traditional social democratic welfare measures. There are several problems with this approach. The first problem is that the basic values of the left are really international and this is even more important in the current period. The second is that the left has always tried to portray itself as patriotic. At best this has been ineffective and at worst disarms the left totally in the face of international conflict. Thirdly the notion of community is inevitably an exclusionary principle resting on a sense of shared values and identity. Such common identities either don't exist among the left's potential constituencies in the metropolitan centers or are firmly reactionary in content. Fourthly the notion of community ignors class questions which must be addressed if the economic liberalism of right wing ideology is to be effectively addressed. As regards religion, the left's gut alternative to a left secular critique of religion is a position of liberal tolerance. Within this tolerance unity can be built around an essentially secular vision of the just society. Whatever the appeal of a just society, it does not directly address the question of religious belief. Thus while religion, nation, and family can and must be addressed by the left, these issues cannot form the basis of a populist appeal by the left. I want to close this post by suggesting that we look to our own tradition for an alternative appeal. The left's traditional concept of solidarity can cross religious boundaries, ethnic and gender identities and does not avoid the class question, while it is capable of identifying with that which is positive in the notion of community. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:2698] Review of Olasky, THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION (Long) (fwd)
Dear Penners: THis is a LONG review of a very popular book among the right
wing. It's quite influential and according to the following review,
HORRIBLE. I think we need to continuously arm ourselves against the
intellectual hatchet-men who advance the right wing agenda with political
tracts masquerading as scholarship. All the best, Mike
From: "E. Wayne Carp" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Review of Olasky, THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION (Long)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 07:36:49 PST
From: David Hammack (Forwarded by Peter Bobkin Hall)
NONPROFIT VOLUNTARY SECTOR QUARTERLY (NVSQ), the journal of the
Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
(ARNOVA) is pleased to post this abidged version of an important review by
Case Western Reserve University historian David Hammack. The full text of
the review will appear in the Spring 1996 issue of NVSQ.
Because Olasky's book is the "Bible" of the new right welfare reformers in
Congress and because Olasky's ideas draw heavily on the history of
religion, we at the journal believe that the book -- and Hammack's
critique -- merit the attention of scholars.
For futher information about NVSQ and ARNOVA as venues especially friendly
to the history of social welfare, public poilicy, and religion, please
contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Dobkin Hall).
Marvin Olasky, THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION (Washington, D.C.:
Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1992).
THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION, reissued in a paperback edition in 1995
with its original preface by Charles Murray, poses an interesting challenge
to an academic reviewer. The book was almost entirely ignored when first
published in 1992, receiving no reviews in scholarly publications and few
in mainstream journals. Thus I was not well prepared when several
journalists called for opinions on Olasky's book when the paperback edition
was released with great fanfare a year ago. The new edition comes with new
recommendations by William J. Bennett ("the most important book on welfare
and social policy in a decade. Period"), Charles Colson ("another great
work by one of today's foremost thinkers"), Cal Thomas ("Gives the
historical definition . . . of compassion [and] assistance for the poor"),
and, most importantly, Newt Gingrich (Olasky shows "what has worked in
America"). Clearly, many influential readers have taken this tightly
organized, insistent, and almost quotable work seriously. These readers
include not only many of the freshman Republicans in the current Congress,
but more importantly the conservative political entrepreneurs and religious
leaders who promoted their candidacies, and perhaps a good number of
conservative religious leaders -- and even some of the voters themselves.
Many of his readers may well think that Olasky's academic and
quasi-academic credentials -- Yale B.A., Michigan Ph.D. in American
Studies, University of Texas Professorship in Journalism, stints as Bradley
Scholar at the Heritage Foundation and as a participant in the "Villars
Committee on International Relief and Development" -- lend credibility to
his work. He reports many forays into the Library of Congress, the Chicago
Historical Society, and the New York Public Library, and he equips this
book with a blizzard of (quite accurate) references. And he is indeed
widely read and accurate in his references to sources. But Olasky's work is
a political tract that makes no effort to be a convincing history: it
ignores other historians, defines questions narrowly and arbitrarily, and
picks facts from here and there to support a preconceived thesis. It is
easy for a professional historian to critique the scholarship in THE
TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN COMPASSION. But it is more important to identify the
notions in the book that confirm the presuppositions of so many readers,
and to ask what historians might do to introduce a greater sense of reality
to discussions of social policy.
In the virtuous past, Olasky begins -- that is, during an unchanging
colonial period and through the urbanizing nineteenth century -- the
American people followed godly and (hence) effective social care practices
based in revealed religion. These practices -- the "Early American Model of
Compassion" -- included the direct, personal provision of spiritual and
material care by relatives wherever possible, by neighbors, or by the local
church; hospitality to victims of disaster; the provision of charity
schools for all poor children; a sometimes confrontational insistence on
decent living by recipients of help; and a willingness to withhold assistanc
e from those who were not worthy.
According to Ol
