[PEN-L] careerism gets a bad rap once again...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-robin14jan14,1,3155243.story Did getting ahead get us into Iraq? How upward mobility and careerism inside and outside government may have silenced naysayers before the U.S. invaded Iraq. By Corey Robin COREY ROBIN, author of Fear: The History of a Political Idea, teaches political science at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. A longer version of this artic January 14, 2007 WHEN philosopher Hannah Arendt died in 1975, she was primarily known as an argumentative woman who coined the phrase the banality of evil. Since then, her star has risen (literally: In 1990, two scientists named an asteroid after her). Last year, as professors, journalists and intellectuals celebrated the centenary of her birth, she completed the journey of all great philosophers, from controversy to canon. Every week, it seemed, some new pundit would trot out her theory of totalitarianism, dutifully extending it, as her followers did during the Cold War, to the nation's enemies: Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Iran. In what is now thought to be her masterpiece, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt argued that men and women in the first half of the 20th century were lonely and anxious. Stumbling through the rubble of war-torn Europe, they searched in vain for the touchstones that once had made their lives meaningful and secure: religion, social hierarchy and national identity. They found them in totalitarianism, sort of. Fitting men and women with a band of iron, Nazism and Stalinism gave desperate individuals a sense of connection and structure. Most historians who are truly familiar with the period have rejected this analysis. Supporters of Hitler and Stalin, they point out, were already integrated into society; the Nazis and Soviets, in fact, often worked through established institutions such as the military, the schools or the church. Mass violence spoke less to the psychic needs of the masses than it did to the political needs of the regime. Nevertheless, a number of writers and journalists have recently taken it up as an explanation of radical Islam, turning Arendt into the philosopher-queen of the war on terror. The way they see it, globalization threatens the traditional customs and institutions of the Middle East. Unable to adapt to secular trends and the creative destruction of modern capitalism, Muslims and Arabs now seek meaning in a meaningless world. Enter radical Islam. Fundamentalist piety rehabilitates medieval truths; rigid gender roles re-create feudal hierarchies; senseless violence against Westerners and Israelis happily divides the world into us and them. The main problem with this thesis is that, like Arendt's treatment of Nazism and Stalinism, it gives short shrift to politics. As we've seen again and again, radical Islamists are not driven so much by a feeling of being out of place as by their anger at long-standing U.S. support for Israel and repressive Arab regimes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in Europe, discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of Britain's counterintelligence and security agency, says that British suicide bombers are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims and by the perception that British foreign policy is anti-Muslim. Intellectuals and journalists aren't wrong to turn to Arendt for insight into today's events; they're just looking for it in the wrong places. If they worried less about the Muslim world and more about their own, they might find a clarifying mirror in Arendt's other masterpiece, Eichmann in Jerusalem. Great crimes such as the Holocaust, Arendt argued in Eichmann, often arise from small vices. Eichmann's was careerism. What for Eichmann was a job, with its daily routine, its ups and downs, was for the Jews quite literally the end of the world. Eichmann had no motives at all, she insisted, except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement. He joined the Nazis because he saw in them an opportunity to start from scratch and still make a career and what he fervently believed in up to the end was success. Like war, genocide is work. If it is to be done, people must be hired and paid. If it is to be done well, they must be supervised and promoted. Careerism, that pinched desire for self-advancement, makes the trains run on time — not just in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia but in the United States. When commentators try to explain how and why the nation went to war against Iraq, they generally focus on the neoconservatives who gave the project its philosophical underpinnings, or on the bad intelligence that persuaded so many others to back it. Few mention the rampant careerism that enabled the Bush administration to launch the war and to bungle the occupation. After a CIA station chief in Baghdad saw his career ruined because he wrote a negative assessment of
[PEN-L] Children of Men
a good film, I'd say. Very progressive. As critics have noted, it's really about the present (e.g., Abu Graib and Guantanamo transplanted to the UK). It was so well done that my wife and I forgot to eat the candy we'd smuggled into the theater. Of course, they borrowed those magic bullets that never hit the hero until the end of the film from the film Blood Diamond. -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
[PEN-L] Ah-nold
a few years ago, people on pen-l were sneering at California for electing Ah-nold Schwartzenegger as gov. Justly so, given the track record of Jesse Ventura and the like. But nowadays, he seems nothing but a more charismatic version of the previous gov, Gray Davis. (Of course, Davis isn't hard to beat in the charisma competition.) I think the similarity is that they're under similar political pressures. Davis took campaign contributions from the nurses' union, while the Austrian Axeman is pressured by their harassment (and justly so). In general, however, the constellation of forces isn't that different. -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
He's more clever than Davis. He ran as a centrist, then took the role of a hard right radical, except on social issues. Now he is running as a soft Democrat, working closely with the Democratic leadership, which consciously undercut the Democratic candidate in the last election. I'm not sure if his triangulation will work, offering some red meat to the Republicans, who are now behaving as his enemies. On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:47:41AM -0800, Jim Devine wrote: a few years ago, people on pen-l were sneering at California for electing Ah-nold Schwartzenegger as gov. Justly so, given the track record of Jesse Ventura and the like. But nowadays, he seems nothing but a more charismatic version of the previous gov, Gray Davis. (Of course, Davis isn't hard to beat in the charisma competition.) I think the similarity is that they're under similar political pressures. Davis took campaign contributions from the nurses' union, while the Austrian Axeman is pressured by their harassment (and justly so). In general, however, the constellation of forces isn't that different. -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/15/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, if the left and the Islamists were equally vying for the allegiance of the masses in their own countries, they'd be at each other's throats - as in Palestine, for example. Fatah is not the left, however. The current effort of some Marxists to ally with the Islamists and other religious parties with mass constituencies is a reflection of their isolation, their inability to project themselves as an independent mass force, an attempt to indirectly gain access to the masses through the churches and mosques. It's not so much isolation as non-existence: the left is virtually non-existent in the USA and the Middle East. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
[PEN-L] Fwd: gas prices
I notice that gasoline prices are _still_ mostly down since August. We still haven't seen the post-election spike that some theories predict. The fact is that oil and gas prices reflect the often unpredictable gyrations of supply, demand, and politics. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 29, 2006 6:45 AM Subject: gas prices To: Pen-l pen-l@sus.csuchico.edu On the cover of the current issue of the magazine THE FUNNY TIMES (which went to the printer before the election, I believe), there's a cartoon suggesting that immediately after the election, gasoline prices will jump. This magazine -- which presents a good sampling of liberal funny opinion -- had inadvertently presented a possible test of the gas price conspiracy theory that was popular before the election: the Bushwhackers had artificially lowered the price of gas to help them stem the DP tide, by calling in favors with the petrol industry, etc. As suggested by the cartoon, the corollary of that theory is that after the election, gas prices would soar, since Big Petrol would want to make up for lost time (or rather, lost profits). Did gas prices soar, provisionally validating the conspiracy theory? no. They've stayed flat. See the price at the pump. Or see the government data at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
Re: [PEN-L] gas prices
On 11/29/06, Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: On Nov 29, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: In the last 50 years how many price-changes of a few dollars a barrel have there been? The average of the absolute value of the yearly change in the yearly average price of oil is 22% since 1861; 27% since 1970. In other words, the price of oil is extremely volatile. O.K. And the implication I would draw from this is that when a point wanders all over the place all the time _nothing_ whatever can be inferred from one particular variation, or even half a dozen. I'm not sure what even in principle _might_ a variation that could be assigned any meaning. One of the determinants would be the degree of capacity for collective action on the part of oil producers, and it would be interesting to track that. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
He wants to be President, but the constitution says no. On 1/16/07, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He's more clever than Davis. He ran as a centrist, then took the role of a hard right radical, except on social issues. Now he is running as a soft Democrat, working closely with the Democratic leadership, which consciously undercut the Democratic candidate in the last election. I'm not sure if his triangulation will work, offering some red meat to the Republicans, who are now behaving as his enemies. -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
[PEN-L] Russia's Oil Output
The WSJ says that Russia's oil output growth has slowed down: Energy prices are falling, if slowly. Russia's rusty gas and oil rigs cry out for fresh investment. Oil output slowed again last year, to 2.2%, compared with near-double-digit growth earlier in the decade, when Russia's private concerns, some of them since nationalized, led the way. Alienating friends like the Germans and scaring away investors like Shell, dumped last month from the lead in the Sakhalin-2 project, aren't smart ways to address these problems (Crude Calculations, 11 January 2007). The WSJ attributes the slowdown to lack of foreign investment, but some Russia hands believe that it is due to Moscow's conscious efforts to conserve its resources. Which is true? -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's not so much isolation as non-existence: the left is virtually non-existent in the USA and the Middle East. You may be exaggerating the non-existence, but in any case - what do you propose to do about it? Just throw up your hands and join the fundies? Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Russia's Oil Output
both could be true. On 1/16/07, Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The WSJ says that Russia's oil output growth has slowed down: Energy prices are falling, if slowly. Russia's rusty gas and oil rigs cry out for fresh investment. Oil output slowed again last year, to 2.2%, compared with near-double-digit growth earlier in the decade, when Russia's private concerns, some of them since nationalized, led the way. Alienating friends like the Germans and scaring away investors like Shell, dumped last month from the lead in the Sakhalin-2 project, aren't smart ways to address these problems (Crude Calculations, 11 January 2007). The WSJ attributes the slowdown to lack of foreign investment, but some Russia hands believe that it is due to Moscow's conscious efforts to conserve its resources. Which is true? -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/ -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
Re: [PEN-L] gas prices
On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Jim Devine wrote: I notice that gasoline prices are _still_ mostly down since August. We still haven't seen the post-election spike that some theories predict. Oil is down 4% today to under $51 a barrel. It averaged $59 in November and $62 in December. Maybe Cheney's been distracted, preparing his testimony for the Scooter Libby trial. Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/16/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's not so much isolation as non-existence: the left is virtually non-existent in the USA and the Middle East. You may be exaggerating the non-existence, but in any case - what do you propose to do about it? Just throw up your hands and join the fundies? The first thing to do is to understand different currents of Islam -- e.g., not all Islamists are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists -- and figure out which currents we could support if we had our own social force. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On Jan 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: The first thing to do is to understand different currents of Islam -- e.g., not all Islamists are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists -- and figure out which currents we could support if we had our own social force. Dinesh D'Souza agrees! Except he thinks the secular left is very powerful: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/15/194522.shtml?s=lh [...] NewsMax: Doesn't your attempt to find common cause between traditional Christians and traditional Muslims support the left's argument that religious fundamentalists on both sides are the real cause of this terror war? D'Souza: Actually, it is the left that is allied with the radical Muslims. The Islamic radicals supply the terror, and the left uses that to demoralize the American people to persuade them to cut and run from Iraq and from the Middle East. My point is that conservatives should counter this by building alliances with the traditional Muslims, who are the majority in the Islamic world. Look, we don't support polygamy, the veil, or the patriarchal family, but this is all standard fare in the traditional cultures of the world, not just the Islamic world but much of Asia and Africa as well. While traditional Muslims are conservative on social issues, studies show that they are overwhelmingly pro-democracy. Many of them will be more pro-American, and stay away from the bin Laden camp, if they see us as permitting Muslims to live in Islamic societies and to stand up for Muslim interests. NewsMax: You note that many Muslims see the United Nations and other international organizations as tools of America, pushing a secular agenda even when these agencies often don't represent us. Why is that? D'Souza: The United Nations, and many of the other international agencies that have mostly been abandoned by the right, have been taken over and staffed by leftist Americans and Europeans pushing a secular, anti-religious agenda worldwide. When Muslims see groups such as Amnesty International undermining traditional Muslim norms in the name of human rights, and other groups filing lawsuits everywhere to change social legislation, they see America doing this. Many Muslims see that the secular left has been successful in emasculating Christianity in the United States, and virtually eliminating it in Europe, and believe that it's now trying to do the same to Islam. In this perception, of course, they're completely right. [...]
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
Greetings Economists, Within the U.S. I think Yoshie points at scrutinizing the political landscape with unfettered vision. Secondly, the issue is an organizational one. It's my view that someone must combine broadly anchorage in those elements we see now; immigrants, the old still radical identity groups, and use the new media to organize. So that a definite clear organizational structure is being laid down. Certainly I would expect that women be well represented rather than as still seems to be the case mainly a male interest in the left. Therefore the analysis of what is important work to ground the left in shifts toward what women do and like and understand. Sexuality, personal communication, appearance, friendship structure, clever talking, balancing a complicated social life with work. These are usually neglected in the left, and I think that is because it is considered not appropriate for work environments, but all the above have a great deal in relation to strong connectedness in social relations. We don't have that sense in the left. Religions to some degree trade upon the family being a part of the religion therefore the strong relationship is dragged into the arena, but the left could look at strong relationships as about a mental work process and understand what it would take to directly create strong relationships as a left goal. Doyle On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It's not so much isolation as non-existence: the left is virtually non-existent in the USA and the Middle East. You may be exaggerating the non-existence, but in any case - what do you propose to do about it? Just throw up your hands and join the fundies? Doug
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Jim Devine wrote: He wants to be President, but the constitution says no. If Congress doesn't impeach the current President, the Constitution is dead. Dan
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/16/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: The first thing to do is to understand different currents of Islam -- e.g., not all Islamists are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists -- and figure out which currents we could support if we had our own social force. Dinesh D'Souza agrees! Except he thinks the secular left is very powerful: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/15/194522.shtml?s=lh Where does Dinesh D'Souza agree with me? That he thinks that Washington needs to find some currents of Muslims it can ally with, just as I think that leftists need to find some currents of Muslims that we need to ally with? But we don't have the same currents in mind. Also, what's your alternative? You think that there is no current of Muslims with whom leftists should consider alliance? That sounds like a political non-starter, rather Islamophobic actually. Besides, I don't see the United Nations as being taken over and staffed by leftist Americans and Europeans pushing a secular, anti-religious agenda worldwide. The UN organ that really matters, the UN Security Council, is not interested in secularism vs. anti-secularism, or religion vs. anti-religion, but it's a place where differences among great powers get ironed out, alas, usually in favor of Washington's geopolitical agenda. I believe that Muslims, like others, are in favor of democracy, but, unlike D'Souza, I don't see any evidence that they will be pro-American, as long as Washington supports the Israeli occupation and the undemocratic pro-American regimes like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and itself militarily occupies many lands of the predominantly Islamic world. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
On 1/16/07, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He wants to be President, but the constitution says no. That probably helps. If he could run for president, he wouldn't be able to work as much with Democrats as he appears to do now, for he would have to mind the base of the national Republican Party. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] gas prices
or maybe he shot himself in the face. On 1/16/07, Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 16, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Jim Devine wrote: I notice that gasoline prices are _still_ mostly down since August. We still haven't seen the post-election spike that some theories predict. Oil is down 4% today to under $51 a barrel. It averaged $59 in November and $62 in December. Maybe Cheney's been distracted, preparing his testimony for the Scooter Libby trial. Doug -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
Re: [PEN-L] Why did Saddam become expendable?
Wayne Madsden has the best answer I've seen to date: January 15, 2007 -- WMR previously reported that the Bush regime wanted Saddam Hussein hanged quickly before he could testify about his knowledge about arms deals, including weapons of mass destruction transfers, agreed to with the Reagan-Bush I administrations. Saddam also was likely aware of the extent of secret Bush arms transfers to Iran in 1980 that were treasonously carried out against President Jimmy Carter's administration. It is now reported that former Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov has a similar opinion. He said on Russian television in Moscow that Saddam was executed in an unexpected way so he could not have the last word and reveal compromising information on the relationship between the United States and his former regime. Primakov added that if Saddam had said everything, the current US president would have been greatly embarrassed. The execution of Saddam by Bush regime was an extreme form of witness tampering. Saddam knew enough to embarrass George W. Bush, according to former Russian Foreign Minister. It is now apparent why Saddam was interested in passing to a Western journalist incriminating documents on the Bush family he had his intelligence services amass prior to the U.S. invasion. This editor received the offer through a British interlocutor but declined for safety reasons. However, if Saddam did manage to spirit this information out of Iraq, it could still prove embarrassing to George H. W. Bush Sons. Source: http://waynemadsenreport.com/ Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rui Correia Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:38 AM To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [PEN-L] Why did Saddam become expendable? Other US creations, offspring around the world have become embarassing butchers - yet the US continues to cover up for them. So, what was it about Saddam so so ticked off the Bushes Rui
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
On 1/16/07, Dan Scanlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Congress doesn't impeach the current President, the Constitution is dead. is the US constitution that good anyway? The Bill of Rights is great, but the constitution? -- Jim Devine / Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous. -- Voltaire.
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
I think this is quite dependent on a specifically theological definition of fundamentalists. Not all Islamists are particularly conservative theologically - not surprising given that Islamism has its root in Egypt - but they are all pretty conservative. There are absolutely no Islamists who are prepared to countenance homosexuality, for example. best dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi The first thing to do is to understand different currents of Islam -- e.g., not all Islamists are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists -- and figure out which currents we could support if we had our own social force. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/16/07, Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this is quite dependent on a specifically theological definition of fundamentalists. Not all Islamists are particularly conservative theologically - not surprising given that Islamism has its root in Egypt - but they are all pretty conservative. There are absolutely no Islamists who are prepared to countenance homosexuality, for example. I'd venture to say that Islamists in particular and Muslims in general can change. Socialists used not to countenance homosexuality, for instance, and some of them still don't, if a recent report on CPN(M)'s policy toward homosexuals is correct (I have yet to gather all relevant facts on the matter, so I am agnostic about the accuracy of the report). -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
During the Vietnam war, some devout Catholics were important allies, while others were fervent supporters of the war. I don't remember as many Protestants using religion the way the Berrigan brothers did. If somebody suggested making common cause with the Catholics at the time, I would not know what to make of it. I know far less about Islam than I do about Catholicism, and I know very little about Catholicism. How can we discuss making common cause with a group with whom we have not explored what we might have in common? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
[PEN-L] Just Foreign Policy News, January 16, 2007
Just Foreign Policy News January 16, 2007 http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/newsroom/blog/ Stop Bush from Attacking Iran: Petition More than 40,000 have signed the Peace Action/Just Foreign Policy petition. Please sign/circulate if you have yet to do so. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/iranpetition.html Ask Pelosi Reid to block the escalation in Iraq http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/nomoretroops.html January 27-29: March on Washington and Lobby Day UFPJ, MoveOn, Win Without War, many other groups and coalitions. http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3468 Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html Just Foreign Policy News daily podcast: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/podcasts/podcast_howto.html Summary: US/Top News The US might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, the Arab Times reported in Kuwait. The report said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard Arab countries in the Gulf. Reaction to the report in Kuwait suggested that it was being taken seriously, with the speaker of the parliament saying that Kuwait would not support a U.S. attack on Iran. The U.S. media misrepresents the reality of Venezuela, writes Mark Weisbrot on Huffington Post. Last week a Washington Post editorial claimed that despite a one-sided campaign that left a majority of Venezuelans believing they might be punished if they did not cast their ballots for him, Chávez received only 7 million votes. But voting in Venezuela is by secret ballot, as any observer from the OAS or EU could have told them. There was no reported evidence that this secrecy was violated or that voters were intimidated into re-electing Chavez. The 7 million votes constituted a 50-year record, in number and percentage - 63 percent, the highest of 9 presidential elections in Latin America last year. The Post description of the election was ridiculous. President Bush's address last week failed to move public opinion in support of his plan to increase US troop levels in Iraq, USA Today reports. More than 6 of 10 people back the idea of a non-binding congressional resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to commit additional troops. But those surveyed were split, 47%-50%, over whether Congress should deny funding for the additional troops. To pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has used its credit card, the Christian Science Monitor reports. The US is spending about $10 billion a month on Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, the total funds appropriated will be nearly $600 billion – approaching the amount spent on the Vietnam or Korean wars, when adjusted for inflation. Two Navy men have established a Web site, AppealforRedress.org, that enables active-duty, reserve and National Guard troops to appeal directly to Congress to withdraw military personnel from Iraq, the Washington Post reports. Monday the group held its coming-out news conference, announcing more than 1,000 people have signed appeals. On Tuesday, the pleas will be presented to Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Capitol Hill. Iran Defense Secretary Gates said Monday Iran was acting in a very negative way and the US was building up its forces to demonstrate its resolve to remain in the Persian Gulf, the New York Times reports. Gates, who endorsed resuming diplomatic contacts with Iran in 2004, said Iran's behavior had worsened and resuming diplomatic relations would be possible only when Iran was prepared to play a constructive role. The Iraqi government is moving to solidify relations with Iran, even as the US turns up the rhetorical heat and bolsters its military forces to confront Iran's influence in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reports. The US military is still holding five Iranians detained in a raid on an Iranian office in northern Iraq last week. Iraqis, who have echoed Iran's calls for the US to release the five men, say the three-way standoff that has ensued reveals more about American meddling in Iraqi affairs than about Iranian influence. Diplomats in Vienna, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is based, said Thursday that the enrichment program in Natanz had ground to a halt, AP reports. Iraq The Kurdish makeup of two of the three Iraqi army brigades due to be sent to Baghdad under President Bush's new strategic plan is drawing concern from Iraqi and US experts, the Washington Post reports. Last week a prominent member of the Iraqi Kurdish Coalition declared his opposition to Kurds going into Baghdad. There are fears that a fight like this, pitting Kurds against the Arabs, is bound to add an ethnic touch to the conflict, he said. Somalia Somalia's transitional government shut three of the country's biggest radio stations on Monday, the New York Times reports. The government also closed the Mogadishu office of Al Jazeera. Some accused the government of being hypocritical because officials had criticized the Islamists
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
Jim Devine wrote: is the US constitution that good anyway? The Bill of Rights is great, but the constitution? The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the constitution, more so than any or all of the other amendments, because the constitution would never have been ratified without a firm commitment to adopt it. Of course, the courts have always sought every possible way to disregard it. So, too, is that magnificent Preamble (whose recitation at the start of every school day a real republic would require, rather than a monarchistical pledge of allegiance to the Flag.) Plato, it should be emphasized, insisted (in the *Nomoi*) that by far the most important part of every law is its preamble. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
Yoshie wrote: On 1/15/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, if the left and the Islamists were equally vying for the allegiance of the masses in their own countries, they'd be at each other's throats - as in Palestine, for example. Fatah is not the left, however. Fatah - or rather, the PLO, which it dominates - still represents the Palestinian left, such as it is, against Hamas and the rest of the Islamist movement, which was set up in opposition to it. Fatah has become corrupted, however, and like Sinn Fein in Ireland, has given up the armed struggle and is groping for a settlement with the Israelis from a position of weakness. No other left of any consequence exists in Palestine or elsewhere in the Middle East. My point, in response to yours, was that if there were a strong left, it would very likely at some stage come into violent conflict with the Islamists, in the same way the alliances between the Kuomintang and the CP and the Iranian left and the militant Islamists disintegrated. While the Islamists deserve support against US-Israeli aggression and while it's understandable that small groups of leftists in that part of the world might want to tactically ally with the Islamists in order to strengthen their influence within the national movements, this point shouldn't be overlooked and the differences which seperate the left from the Islamists obscured, as I think you're inclined to do in pursuit of these aims. In reply to Daniel Davies, you note that that Islamists in particular and Muslims in general can change, which is of course true, but the change you anticipate would almost always be, almost always is, in the direction of liberalism - analogous to the development of social democracy within the early socialist movement - and it presupposes a reduction in the level of national and social conflict. I'm referring to a situation in which social tensions are acute and radical Marxists and radical Islamists are competing for the leadership of the mass movement. In that case, I think it is an illusion to believe there would be the same possibility of reconciliation between these contending forces as could be expected between progressive socialists and progressive Islamists who stray from their original convictions and move to the political centre in a less polarized environment. This isn't intended as a criticism of such an evolution, incidentally, so much as it is a description of the relationship which exists between changes in social conditions and corresponding changes in political outlook.
Re: [PEN-L] Ah-nold
Dan Scanlan wrote, If Congress doesn't impeach the current President, the Constitution is dead. Setting aside the sticky question of constitutionalism, the two-party system is certainly on life support. But I don't see how it matters whether Bush is impeached. The Democrats not only let him do absolutely anything he wanted before, they actively sold the Bush mission of invasion and occupation...and happily denounced in language questioning our right to express any opinion contrary to that they shared with Dubya. Their current posturing is hypocritical and probably meaningless. They could, of course, try to investigate or impeach Bush, but what would that mean? ML
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/16/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fatah is not the left, however. Fatah - or rather, the PLO, which it dominates - still represents the Palestinian left, such as it is, against Hamas and the rest of the Islamist movement, which was set up in opposition to it. So, that means Tel Aviv and Washington are supporting the left against Hamas, in your view? I very much doubt that's the way the Palestinians see it. In reply to Daniel Davies, you note that that Islamists in particular and Muslims in general can change, which is of course true, but the change you anticipate would almost always be, almost always is, in the direction of liberalism - analogous to the development of social democracy within the early socialist movement - and it presupposes a reduction in the level of national and social conflict. Adoption and acceptance of homosexuality as an identity under capitalism depends on the degrees of economic development, urbanization, an increase in the proportion of people living as singles, and so on more than anything else. So, whether adoption and acceptance of homosexual identity will grow in the predominantly Islamic world (the Middle East, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia) and whether adoption and acceptance of it will be done under liberalism both depend on whether the predominantly Islamic world will develop capitalistically to approximate the development of the rich nations. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
[PEN-L] Nader on class war
CounterPunch - January 16, 2007 http://counterpunch.org/nader01152007.html The Class War's New Map Billionaires Head for the Closet by Ralph Nader The boiling, surging, churning and corporatizing economy of the United States is racing far ahead of its being understood by political economists, economists, politicians and the polis itself. Tidbits from the past week add up to this view, to wit: -The giant, shut-down Bethlehem steel plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania will soon become a $600 million casino and hotel complex. With tens of millions of Americans lacking the adequate necessities of food, fuel, shelter, health care and a sustaining job, this project is part of a 25 year trend by the economy, moving away from necessities and over to wants and whims. Among the fastest growing businesses for three decades in America are theme parks, gambling casinos and prisons. -Our Constitution launched we the people to establish justice, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves. We're losing ground year after year on all three accounts. Yet to what does Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. devote his entire annual report on the federal judiciary this January 1, 2007? He called for a pay raise for judges, calling the current pay ranging from $165,200 to $212,000 (with a great retirement plan) a constitutional crisis. - General Motor has introduced yet another prototype electric car-called the Chevrolet Voltto distract attention from its ongoing engine stagnation and provide a little cover for its gas guzzling muscle cars displayed at the Detroit Auto Show. This procrastinatory tactic by GM has been going on since the 1939 New York World's Fair to keep people looking far into the amorphous future so as to not focus on the dismal today year after year while gasoline prices sky rocket and oil imports swell. We're still waiting for some of GM's engineering prototypes from 1939 to hit the road in the 21^st century. - Just as there are stirrings behind more shareholder rights over the companies they own and more disclosure by management of large corporations relating to executive pay and accounting information, the rapid rise of huge pools of capital controlled by private equity firms and Hedge Funds are buying larger and larger public companies and taking them out of the regulatory arenas into secrecy. Corporate morphing to escape public accountability has been going on for a long time. Note the coal corporations digging deep under residential streets in Pennsylvania and other neighboring states decades ago. As the homes began to cave in (this is called 'subsidence'), the coal companies disappeared by collapsing themselves only to be succeeded by their next of (corporate) kin. Today, this corporate morphing is far more ranging and far larger in the economy, drawing trillions of dollars from pension funds and institutional investor firms which themselves are largely closed off from workers and small investors whose money they shuffle around. Corporate attorneys are super-experts in arranging ways for corporate capital to escape not just the tax laws of the U.S. but also the public regulatory frameworks of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other public law and order entities. Independent and academic corporate analysts have barely begun to figure out the consequences of this seismic shift of capital structures. - Private Firms Lure C.E.O.’s With Top Pay was the headline in the January 8 edition of the New York Times. The subtitle was astonishingly worded as Less Lavish Packages at Public Companies. The reporters go on to say, in essence, that if you think that Home Depot's departed C.E.O., Robert L. Nardelli's $200 million plus take home pay package was a lot, you haven't seen what's happening behind the curtains at the large private equity firms buying up ever bigger public companies. Public company chieftains are deciding that they no longer want to be judged by their shareholders and regulators, and are going to work for businesses owned by private equity, write the authors. One such migrant executive, Henry Silverman, went from big riches running the conglomerate Cendant, to making $135 million just from selling one piece of Cendant, Realogy, to a private equity firm. There is no reason to be a public company anymore, said this happy corporate prophet. Now go to the other side of the tracks. In the last quarter century the value of the U.S. corporations has risen 12-fold, according to the Wall Street Journal. C.E.O. pay has skyrocketed similarly. But workers today, on average, are still making less, in inflation adjusted dollars, than workers made in 1973 -- the high point of worker wages! Citing data from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, New York Times' columnist, Bob Herbert, reports that between 2000 and 2006 the combined real annual earnings of 93 million American workers rose by $15.4 billion. That rise is less than half of
[PEN-L] MOre Blood for oil in Somalia
More Blood for Oil By Carl Bloice 01/16/07 Black Commentator -- -- Forget about all that stuff about Ethiopia having a 'tacit' o.k. from Washington to invade Somalia. The decision was made at the White House and the attack had military support from the Pentagon. The governments are too much in sync and the Ethiopians too dependent on the U.S. to think otherwise. And, it didn't just suddenly happen. Ethiopian troops, trained and equipped by the U.S. began infiltrating into Somali territory last summer as part of a plan that began to evolve the previous June when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) took control of the government. In November, the head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid (until last week he ran the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) was in Addis Ababa. After that, Ghanaian journalist Cameron Duodu has written, Ethiopia 'moved from proving the Somali government with 'military advice' to open armed intervention.' And not without help. U.S Supplied satellite surveillance data aided in the bombardment of the Somali capital, Mogadishu and pinpointing the location of UIC forces resulting, in the words of New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, in 'a string of back-to- back military loses in which more than 1,000 fighters, mostly teenage boys, were quickly mowed down by the better-trained and equipped Ethiopian-backed forces.' As with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the immediate question is why was this proxy attack undertaken, in clear violation of international law and the UN Charter? And again, there is the official line, the excuse and the underlying impetus. The official line from Addis Ababa is that it was a defensive act in the face of a threat of attack from Somalia. There's nothing to support the claim and a lot of evidence to the contrary. As far as the Bush Administration is concerned, it was a chance to strike back at 'Islamists' as part of the on-going 'war on terror.' For progressive observers in the region and much of the media outside the U.S., the conflict smells of petroleum. 'As with Iraq in 2003, the United States has cast this as a war to curtail terrorism, but its real goal is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region by establishing a client regime there.,' wrote Salim Lone, spokesperson for the United Nation mission in Iraq in 2003, and now a columnist for The Daily Nation in Kenya. 'The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea.' In a television interview broadcast on the day of the full-fledged Ethiopian assault, Marine General James Jones (who ironically, like Abizaid, recently lost his position), then-Nato's military commander and head of the US military's European army, expressed his concern that the size of the U.S. army in Europe had 'perhaps gone too low.' Jones went on to tell the CSpan interviewer the US needed troops in Europe partly so that they could be quickly deployed in trouble-spots in Africa and elsewhere. 'I think the emergence of Africa as a strategic reality is inevitable and we're going to need forward-based troops, special operations, marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors to be in the right proportion,' said Jones. 'Pentagon to train sharper eye on Africa,' read the headline over a January 5 report by Richard Whittle in the Christian Science Monitor. 'Strife, oil, and Al Qaeda are leading the US to create a new Africa Command.' 'Africa, long beset by war, famine, disease, and ethnic tensions, has generally taken a backseat in Pentagon planning - but US officials say that is about to change,' wrote Whittle, who went on to report that one of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's last acts before being dismissed from that position was to convince President Bush to create a new Africa military Africa command, something the White House is expected to announce later this year. The creation of the new body, he quoted one expert as saying, reflects the Administration concern about 'Al Qaeda's known presence in Africa,' China's developing relations with the continent with regards to oil supplies and the fact that 'Islamists took over Somalia last June and ruled until this week, when Ethiopian troops drove them out of power.' Currently, the US gets about 10 percent of its oil from Africa, but, the Monitor story said but 'some experts say it may need to rely on the continent for as much as 25 percent by 2010.' Reportedly, nearly two-thirds of Somalia's oil fields were allocated to the U.S. oil companies Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in January, 1991. Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman, said the division for African military operations causes some difficulty in trying to ... execute a more streamlined and comprehensive strategy when it comes to Africa. According to the plan, the Central Command
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
Yoshie wrote: On 1/16/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fatah - or rather, the PLO, which it dominates - still represents the Palestinian left, such as it is, against Hamas and the rest of the Islamist movement, which was set up in opposition to it. So, that means Tel Aviv and Washington are supporting the left against Hamas, in your view? I very much doubt that's the way the Palestinians see it. === Depends which Palestinians, I suppose. The ones who would like to see more Western investment, an end to the state of war with Israel, a Western-style judiciary and political system, and who look to European social democrats as political allies would still see Fatah as representing their aspirations - even while acknowledging that that the party is corrupt and badly in need of reform - and of being to the left of Hamas. There's probably a sizeable Palestinian constituency of this sort, which extends beyond the nascent bourgeosie, as there was in the USSR and Eastern Europe, which harbours the same illusions about the benefits of being a normal society in the Western orbit. The more devout Moslems who support Hamas because of its Islamic ideology would also agree that Fatah is on the political left, with all of the negative connotations whichthat implies for them, including that its supporters are being seduced by the material comfort and decadent culture of the West. But I don't know if the Palestinians are still as ideological as they once were. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many are politically worn out and distinguish between Hamas and Fatah less in relation to their political programs than in their potential to relieve the desperate living conditions in the occupied territories. If despair and exhaustion have overtaken struggle and steadfastness as the predominant political mood, then Fatah will have an advantage, even if the West supports it - and perhaps even because the West supports it. I don't know how reliable it is, but Ulhas on the LBO list today posted a Reuters report of a survey of Palestinian opinion showing that Fatah would decisively defeat Hamas if new elections were held, as Abbas is threatening to do. The punishing sanctions will have then accomplished what they were designed to do. Incidentally, while Marxists and anarchists oppose Tel Aviv and Washington, left liberals and social democrats, who are much more numerous, generally do not. But you know that, so it is a question of what we mean when we we talk of the left and whether the latter are included in discussing the political character of parties such as Fatah.
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/16/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoshie wrote: On 1/16/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fatah - or rather, the PLO, which it dominates - still represents the Palestinian left, such as it is, against Hamas and the rest of the Islamist movement, which was set up in opposition to it. So, that means Tel Aviv and Washington are supporting the left against Hamas, in your view? I very much doubt that's the way the Palestinians see it. === Depends which Palestinians, I suppose. The ones who would like to see more Western investment, an end to the state of war with Israel, a Western-style judiciary and political system, and who look to European social democrats as political allies would still see Fatah as representing their aspirations - even while acknowledging that that the party is corrupt and badly in need of reform - and of being to the left of Hamas. There's probably a sizeable Palestinian constituency of this sort, which extends beyond the nascent bourgeosie, as there was in the USSR and Eastern Europe, which harbours the same illusions about the benefits of being a normal society in the Western orbit. The more devout Moslems who support Hamas because of its Islamic ideology would also agree that Fatah is on the political left, with all of the negative connotations whichthat implies for them, including that its supporters are being seduced by the material comfort and decadent culture of the West. But have you found any actually-existing Palestinian, pro-Western or anti-Western, secular or religious, who speaks of Fatah as the left and Hamas as the right (or whatever)? The idea of Fatah = the left seems to me to be your own creation. But I don't know if the Palestinians are still as ideological as they once were. Terms such as left and right matter probably only to people who still belong to such currents as the PFLP and the Palestinian People's Party, but they don't speak of Fatah as the left. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many are politically worn out and distinguish between Hamas and Fatah less in relation to their political programs than in their potential to relieve the desperate living conditions in the occupied territories. The problem that most Palestinians think of as most urgent is the Israeli occupation, and the distinctions among political forces they make are probably based, first and foremost, on different relations they have to the Israeli occupation. If despair and exhaustion have overtaken struggle and steadfastness as the predominant political mood, then Fatah will have an advantage, even if the West supports it - and perhaps even because the West supports it. I don't know how reliable it is, but Ulhas on the LBO list today posted a Reuters report of a survey of Palestinian opinion showing that Fatah would decisively defeat Hamas if new elections were held, as Abbas is threatening to do. The punishing sanctions will have then accomplished what they were designed to do. If they vote against Hamas and for Fatah, they will do so for the same reason that the Nicaraguans voted against the Sandinistas and for Violeta Chamorro and UNO in 1990. That doesn't make Fatah the left in Palestine any more than it did Chamorro and UNO the left in Nicaragua. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
Yoshie wrote: But have you found any actually-existing Palestinian, pro-Western or anti-Western, secular or religious, who speaks of Fatah as the left and Hamas as the right (or whatever)? The idea of Fatah = the left seems to me to be your own creation...Terms such as left and right matter probably only to people who still belong to such currents as the PFLP and the Palestinian People's Party, but they don't speak of Fatah as the left...The problem that most Palestinians think of as most urgent is the Israeli occupation, and the distinctions among political forces they make are probably based, first and foremost, on different relations they have to the Israeli occupation...If they vote against Hamas and for Fatah, they will do so for the same reason that the Nicaraguans voted against the Sandinistas and for Violeta Chamorro and UNO in 1990. That doesn't make Fatah the left in Palestine any more than it did Chamorro and UNO the left in Nicaragua. Yoshie was replying to my comments as follows: But I don't know if the Palestinians are still as ideological as they once were...It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many are politically worn out and distinguish between Hamas and Fatah less in relation to their political programs than in their potential to relieve the desperate living conditions in the occupied territories...If despair and exhaustion have overtaken struggle and steadfastness as the predominant political mood, then Fatah will have an advantage, even if the West supports it - and perhaps even because the West supports it. I don't know how reliable it is, but Ulhas on the LBO list today posted a Reuters report of a survey of Palestinian opinion showing that Fatah would decisively defeat Hamas if new elections were held, as Abbas is threatening to do. The punishing sanctions will have then accomplished what they were designed to do. I don't know what's being disputed here. I'm not championing Fatah as a party of the left any more than I would the contemporary ANC or the Sandinistas, although, unlike yourself, I expect the supporters of these parties would continue to define them that way, rightly or wrongly, in relation to their political opponents. In itself, that has little significance for me, and I don't know why it has for you. On the essential point - that the Palestinians judge the parties in relation to the occupation and its effects and not ideologically - we're in agreement, as is evident from my remarks above. I happen to think this may now favour Fatah rather than Hamas, but nowhere have I indicated this has something to do with whether Fatah is on the left or not. It has everything to do with the sanctions. But you can have the last word.
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
On 1/16/07, Marvin Gandall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what's being disputed here. I'm not championing Fatah as a party of the left any more than I would the contemporary ANC or the Sandinistas To my knowledge, the ANC before the fall of Apartheid and the Sandinistas while their revolution lasted never went down to the low of Fatah. Can an organization that is supposed to be opposed to the Israeli occupation take Tel Aviv's and Washington's support and subvert the elected leadership of their own people and be still considered the left? If so, what does the left mean? It really means nothing, and we might as well give up meaningless terms like that. -- Yoshie http://montages.blogspot.com/ http://mrzine.org http://monthlyreview.org/
[PEN-L] Oil Falls to 19-Month Low on Saudi Rejection of More OPEC Cuts
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/37a6ccf8-a557-11db-a4e0-779e2340.html Oil falls sharply after Saudi comments By Chris Flood Published: January 16 2007 12:26 | Last updated: January 16 2007 18:06 US crude fell sharply on Tuesday after Saudi Arabia poured cold water on the prospect of an immediate production cut by the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in response to recent price weakness. Nymex February West Texas Intermediate dropped $1.50 to $51.48 a barrel as US traders returned to the floor following the Martin Luther King holiday on Monday. US crude sank to a session low of $51.15, the lowest level since late May 2005. ICE February Brent, which expired yesterday, fell 82 cents to $52.30 a barrel while the March contract sank $1.30 to $52.15. Ali al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, said the measures already taken by Opec were working well as oil stocks had fallen and the market was moving closer to balance. The comments from the cartel's most senior member come after pressure from other countries for more immediate action. On Monday, Venezuela proposed an emergency Opec meeting, saying global markets were oversupplied by up to 1m barrels a day. It remains unclear just how much crude Opec has removed from the market as the cartel has agreed to reduce production by a total of 1.7m b/d but the second part of the cut is not due to start until February. Traders said hedge funds and short-term momentum players would attempt to drag crude towards the $50 level, trying to test Opec's determination to defend prices at a higher level. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081sid=ap9i3C_FTkR4refer=australia Oil Falls to 19-Month Low on Saudi Rejection of More OPEC Cuts By Mark Shenk Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil in New York plunged to the lowest in more than 19 months after Saudi Arabia's oil minister rejected calls for more production cuts. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries must wait to assess the effect of supply curbs that start Feb. 1, the minister, Ali al-Naimi, told reporters in New Delhi. Prices have plunged 16 percent this year, leading Venezuela and Algeria to call for OPEC to restrain output. ``The Saudis don't see the need to take any immediate action, which just reinforces the bearish sentiment in the market,'' said Kyle Cooper, director of research at IAF Advisors in Houston. ``If the Saudis don't want OPEC to make further cuts it won't happen.'' Crude oil for February delivery fell $1.78, or 3.4 percent, to $51.21 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since May 26, 2005. Futures touched $50.53, the lowest intraday price since May 25, 2005. Prices are down 23 percent from a year ago. There was no floor trading in New York yesterday because of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Prices are down 35 percent from the record of $78.40 a barrel reached on July 14. The decline has accelerated during the past month because mild weather in the U.S. and Europe has curbed consumption of heating fuels. Colder Weather Below-normal temperatures will cover most of the U.S. from Jan. 21 through Jan. 25, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The Northeast, which accounts for 80 percent of the nation's heating-oil use, will be among the regions with colder weather. Heating oil for February delivery fell 2.33 cents, or 1.6 percent, to $1.4803 a gallon in New York, the lowest close since May 31, 2005. ``Heating oil is a crude-oil product so you expect them to move in the same direction,'' said Eric Wittenauer, an energy analyst at A.G. Edwards Sons Inc. in St. Louis. ``There's been a strong move in crude, and heating oil is following, even though it's cold. Also, because of the warm weather we've had there are substantial heating-oil stockpiles along the East Coast.'' Heating-oil inventories on the East Coast in the week ended Jan. 5 were 29 percent higher than a year earlier, an Energy Department report showed last week. A report from the department on Jan. 18 is expected to show that U.S. inventories of gasoline and distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, rose last week, a Bloomberg survey showed. OPEC Agreements OPEC, which produces about 40 percent of the world's oil, agreed last month in Abuja, Nigeria, to cut production by 500,000 barrels a day beginning Feb. 1. This comes on top of an agreement in Doha, Qatar, to cut output by 1.2 million barrels a day starting Nov. 1, 2006. ``There is actually no real need now'' for an extra output cut, al-Naimi told reporters at New Delhi's airport. ``All the fundamentals are significantly better than they were in Doha, and I believe in a very short time it is going to improve.'' Almost 100 million barrels were removed from the global oil market in the fourth quarter due to OPEC's Nov. 1 production cut, al-Naimi said today. That ``put the market closer to balance,'' he said. ``It's likely that the Saudis' major concern was high inventories and they now feel
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
there isn't a single veil that is a misconception. at the turn of the century nearly every rural community had its folkloric head dress and in rural communities there was no separation of the sexes because of the shallow division of labour. the present veil is the urban veil. if you look at egyptian films and egyptian society up 1990 you will see that the veil was almost non existent in the cities. the present, 1900 onwards, veil is homogeneous social symbol. the type and the shape of it indicate political allegiance. Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: [PEN-L] Socialism and Islam
Lenin to be inexact says something to the effect that there are leftists only by name. in Palestine as well apart from the pflp which the biggest leftist group, small factions of the left were elitist and getting support from Arafat. in fact Arafat was using these leftists on the negotiating so as to make appear that the left carries the sell out of paletinain rights of return and other paraphernalia of this question. the genuine left is hated by both fatah and hammas more than they hate one another. does this complicate life a bit more. TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
[PEN-L] shouting on aljazeera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsIJGnXkfSA Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
