11.6.03
the onion: january 01- prophetic article re: upcoming gwb "presidency"- remarkable
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.
"The CAP currently costs the average family of four £9 a week. European farm output is subsidised at a rate of 35%, compared with only 20% in America.
The current system has come under sharp attack because the average European dairy cow now has a bigger annual income - thanks to EU subsidies - than half the world's population."
The current system has come under sharp attack because the average European dairy cow now has a bigger annual income - thanks to EU subsidies - than half the world's population."
10.6.03
fantastic bit of pinklabour evasion. party chairman john reid gets grilled (if doesn't work click through from here) over his reponse to leaks from the security services detailing amendments that were made for political reasons to intellegence information. reid had explained the leaks as due to "rogue elements". in other words accusations from intelligence that their info was "sexed" up by downing street spin doctors who needed to sell the war to the punters on the grounds that the threat was imminent are not in fact happening because they are true but because persons in the intelligence agencies in some way have it in for the pm. even the mainstream media has spotted this is just ludicrous.
on the one hand alistair campbell, the pm's pr king (in other words the pm's surrogate testicles/spine etc) has apologised to the intelligence people he has so viciously wound up (his ruthlessness obviously offending their sense of fair play, this from the group that whistle blower david shayler allegedly plotted to murder colonel gaddaffi...) but on the other he has courageously elected not to appear (that is he has refused to appear) before the foreign affairs select commitee... as has tony...
on the one hand alistair campbell, the pm's pr king (in other words the pm's surrogate testicles/spine etc) has apologised to the intelligence people he has so viciously wound up (his ruthlessness obviously offending their sense of fair play, this from the group that whistle blower david shayler allegedly plotted to murder colonel gaddaffi...) but on the other he has courageously elected not to appear (that is he has refused to appear) before the foreign affairs select commitee... as has tony...
All Hail to the Pods
"The pods are the reason the world's most powerful bankrupt nation is ruled by an unelected Texan, rather than Bill Hicks. (I'd pick a dead comedian over a live fundamentalist flake any day.)"
"The pods are the reason the world's most powerful bankrupt nation is ruled by an unelected Texan, rather than Bill Hicks. (I'd pick a dead comedian over a live fundamentalist flake any day.)"
yesterday the long awaited eviction of the big squatted social centre (The Laboratorio 3) near my house came... with 15-20 vans of riot police the ten or so residents who were there had no hope of resistance, I think they agreed to go peacefully in return for the chance to take some of their stuff. so they took their stuff to the street where there rapidly gathered a group of a hundred or so sympathisers, myself included. we chanted slogans and helped move the stuff out, a cooker and loads of booze from the bar. There were quite a few jounalists there interviewing people and talking to one of the centre´s lawyers. The mood was sad, and sombre but insolent, the police managed to keep their sticks to themselves and only arrested 6 people for not having identification, they also stopped us cooking a meal on the street using the cooker (which runs on bottled gas) which was hilarious... ok ok the chef said we´ll have salad... when they told him he couldn´t cook on the street. this all happened before lunch
In the evening at 8 there was a protest called in a square nearby, where a thousand or so people gathered... this was where the real genius of these people was exposed, in the 3 months of impending eviction they had planned a publicity coup...
we were lead up through the narrow streets to a small looking building where the organisers proceded to break in the door and occupy a new building, "the Laboratorio 4" (there have been 3 previous ones, all in the same area, and we chanted "the Laboratorio stays in Lavapies") .The small looking building turned out to be enormous... which turned the resigned rebeliousness of the crowd into a new euphoria. It was perfect, the building was an old Socialist party building, now owned by the city council, but unused... there is something beautiful in this... the pathetic socialists (PSOE party) being occupied, no private owner and owned by a public institution not using it´s resources. The goal of course is for the council to be forced to give the building to the squatters eventually. Also with the crowd it was imposible for anybody to see who exactly was doing the "breaking and entering", the changing of locks, or to intervene in any way, the street was packed.
The Labo needs to be big as the last edition housed a cinema, concert hall, gallery and numerous rooms for dance, yoga etc etc... It is also, more importantly in my opinion, a planning and meeting centre for organising protests and legal advice after the protests. Many alternative organisations and events are also held there such as the Madrid Cannabis Cup, memorials to human rights lawyers, magazine launches, charity dinners, Zapatista meetings, experimental theatre amongst many others.
¡viva el laboratorio!
In the evening at 8 there was a protest called in a square nearby, where a thousand or so people gathered... this was where the real genius of these people was exposed, in the 3 months of impending eviction they had planned a publicity coup...
we were lead up through the narrow streets to a small looking building where the organisers proceded to break in the door and occupy a new building, "the Laboratorio 4" (there have been 3 previous ones, all in the same area, and we chanted "the Laboratorio stays in Lavapies") .The small looking building turned out to be enormous... which turned the resigned rebeliousness of the crowd into a new euphoria. It was perfect, the building was an old Socialist party building, now owned by the city council, but unused... there is something beautiful in this... the pathetic socialists (PSOE party) being occupied, no private owner and owned by a public institution not using it´s resources. The goal of course is for the council to be forced to give the building to the squatters eventually. Also with the crowd it was imposible for anybody to see who exactly was doing the "breaking and entering", the changing of locks, or to intervene in any way, the street was packed.
The Labo needs to be big as the last edition housed a cinema, concert hall, gallery and numerous rooms for dance, yoga etc etc... It is also, more importantly in my opinion, a planning and meeting centre for organising protests and legal advice after the protests. Many alternative organisations and events are also held there such as the Madrid Cannabis Cup, memorials to human rights lawyers, magazine launches, charity dinners, Zapatista meetings, experimental theatre amongst many others.
¡viva el laboratorio!
9.6.03
Monbiot has the cover story in this week's New Statesman (read ZNet issue here if NS wants money...).
Typical US hegemon intro, Bretton-Woods regime and UN veto issue. Goes on to offer globalist vision/strategy. Apparently,
"Harry Truman struggled to install a global trade regime which would permit the continuing growth of the US economy without alienating the nations upon whom that growth depended. He tried to persuade Congress to approve an International Trade Organisation which allowed less developed countries to protect their infant industries, transferred technology to poorer nations and prevented corporations from forming global monopolies. Congress blocked it.
[...]
...successive administrations seemed to understand the need to allow the leaders of other countries at least to pretend to their people that they were helping to set the global trade rules.
[other governments] knew that there was less to be lost by accepting their small share of power and supporting the status quo than by upsetting it and bringing down the wrath of the superpower. It seemed, until March 2003, that we were stuck with US hegemony."
And today?
"...the men who govern the United States today are greedy. They cannot understand why they should grant concessions to anyone. They want unmediated global power, and they want it now. To obtain it, they are prepared to destroy the institutions whose purpose was to sustain their dominion. They have challenged the payments the United States must make to the IMF and the World Bank. They have threatened the survival of the World Trade Organisation, by imposing tariffs on steel and granting massive new subsidies to corporate farmers. And, to prosecute a war whose overriding purpose was to stamp their authority upon the world, they have crippled the United Nations. Much has been written over the past few weeks about how much smarter George Bush is than we permitted ourselves to believe. But it is clear that his administration has none of the refined understanding of the mechanics of power that the founders of the existing world order possessed. In no respect has he made this more evident than in his assault upon the United States's principal instrument of international power: the Security Council."
Typical US hegemon intro, Bretton-Woods regime and UN veto issue. Goes on to offer globalist vision/strategy. Apparently,
"Harry Truman struggled to install a global trade regime which would permit the continuing growth of the US economy without alienating the nations upon whom that growth depended. He tried to persuade Congress to approve an International Trade Organisation which allowed less developed countries to protect their infant industries, transferred technology to poorer nations and prevented corporations from forming global monopolies. Congress blocked it.
[...]
...successive administrations seemed to understand the need to allow the leaders of other countries at least to pretend to their people that they were helping to set the global trade rules.
[other governments] knew that there was less to be lost by accepting their small share of power and supporting the status quo than by upsetting it and bringing down the wrath of the superpower. It seemed, until March 2003, that we were stuck with US hegemony."
And today?
"...the men who govern the United States today are greedy. They cannot understand why they should grant concessions to anyone. They want unmediated global power, and they want it now. To obtain it, they are prepared to destroy the institutions whose purpose was to sustain their dominion. They have challenged the payments the United States must make to the IMF and the World Bank. They have threatened the survival of the World Trade Organisation, by imposing tariffs on steel and granting massive new subsidies to corporate farmers. And, to prosecute a war whose overriding purpose was to stamp their authority upon the world, they have crippled the United Nations. Much has been written over the past few weeks about how much smarter George Bush is than we permitted ourselves to believe. But it is clear that his administration has none of the refined understanding of the mechanics of power that the founders of the existing world order possessed. In no respect has he made this more evident than in his assault upon the United States's principal instrument of international power: the Security Council."
Weinstein review of his latest book "The Long Detour - The History and Future of the American Left". In short, fall of the iron curtain doesn't mean end of history but offers opportunity for a reinstatement of the revolutionary dynamic.
"Today, the Soviet threat (and its identity with socialism) now appears to have been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, the Cold War itself can be seen as an historical hiatus—a ritually choreographed standoff that afforded the American ruling class with both protection from dissent and an organizing principle for its retrograde foreign and domestic policies, while it provided the Soviet Union with a rationale for the Communist Party’s unquestioned rule at home and in Eastern Europe. In short, this time of fear and conformity was a godsend for the rulers on both sides of the Iron Curtain."
Seems to go down a similar path as Chomsky in Soviet Union vs. Socialism (has been linked here a number of times - a very important piece indeed):
"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.
As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon."
Also check out the reader's comments at the end of Weinstein article. Telling.
"Today, the Soviet threat (and its identity with socialism) now appears to have been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, the Cold War itself can be seen as an historical hiatus—a ritually choreographed standoff that afforded the American ruling class with both protection from dissent and an organizing principle for its retrograde foreign and domestic policies, while it provided the Soviet Union with a rationale for the Communist Party’s unquestioned rule at home and in Eastern Europe. In short, this time of fear and conformity was a godsend for the rulers on both sides of the Iron Curtain."
Seems to go down a similar path as Chomsky in Soviet Union vs. Socialism (has been linked here a number of times - a very important piece indeed):
"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.
As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon."
Also check out the reader's comments at the end of Weinstein article. Telling.
And to put a smile on your face, read PNAC founder Robert "Mars" Kagan's "value-free" agenda selling re: WMD.
"This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."
Quite a bad case really. How can he expect this to wash? Also check author information at bottom of article:
The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.
Funny - mentioning the fact that Kagan is more importantly a main PNAC pillar, thus a chief architect of the "new and definitive world order" nonsense never seems noteworthy. It would admittedly induce a skeptic thought in the reader, so why bother flirting with bare truths?
Kagan and Perle at an AEI meeting
"This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."
Quite a bad case really. How can he expect this to wash? Also check author information at bottom of article:
The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.
Funny - mentioning the fact that Kagan is more importantly a main PNAC pillar, thus a chief architect of the "new and definitive world order" nonsense never seems noteworthy. It would admittedly induce a skeptic thought in the reader, so why bother flirting with bare truths?
Kagan and Perle at an AEI meeting
7.6.03
Noam on anarchism/libertarian socialism. Stonking form as ever (see below) but commenting more specifically on a vision of society in addition to the usual, endlessly repeated (but nonetheless important-to-be-familiar-with), paired examples some commentary.
"RBR: ...you compare the politics of President John F. Kennedy with Lenin, more or less equating the two. This, I might add, has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison?
CHOMSKY: I haven't actually equated the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Kennedy administration with Leninists, but I have noted striking points of similarity - rather as predicted by Bakunin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the new class. For example, I quoted passages from McNamara on the need to enhance managerial control if we are to be truly free, and about how the undermanagement that is the real threat to democracy is an assault against reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have standard Leninist doctrine. I've argued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. Without further clarification about what people find shocking, I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I think both proper and properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and I'd be interested to be enlightened about it."
Also parallels with Habermas' discourse ethics (bargaining after discounting the bargaining power of participants) and Rawls original position in that the justice of social arrangements/institutions can be measured by the extent to which participants can be said to "control" these arrangements/institutions.
"CHOMSKY: ...The tendencies in anarchism that I've always found most persuasive seek a highly organised society, integrating many different kinds of structures (workplace, community, and manifold other forms of voluntary association), but controlled by participants, not by those in a position to give orders (except, again, when authority can be justified, as is sometimes the case, in specific contingencies)."
Habermas seeks to describe a situation where such arrangements could be arrived at, an idealised bargaining scenario. Rawls speculates as to what arrangements such a situation, that is one in which control is in the hands of the participants, would result in.
Chomsky is pointing to the fact that once there are authoritarian type institutional arrangements the voluntary nature of social arrangements disappears, along with the justification of those arrangements. He extends the critical nature of the other thinkers observation as to the circumstances of justice (those in which justice can arrive) to observe that social arrangements are, particularly when formalised, likely to be prejudical to the liberty of the community as a whole. He is genuinely stressing the importance of individual liberty, not in the sense usually used by commissar hardliners (liberty = liberty in the marketplace, which is a cipher for freedom, in fact allowing the illegitimate power of capital free reign), but that any power, which by definition must limit the residual liberty of those it excludes (power after all being a question of relativity), must be justifiable and in particular be something to which those whom it sugbjugates genuinely consent (and which therefore, if they are rational, will be in their own and societies interest, and if not, well, they're being duped clearly...).
"CHOMSKY: ...One major element has been what has traditionally been called 'libertarian socialism'. I've tried to explain there and elsewhere what I mean by that, stressing that it's hardly original; I'm taking the ideas from leading figures in the anarchist movement whom I quote, and who rather consistently describe themselves as socialists, while harshly condemning the 'new class' of radical intellectuals who seek to attain state power in the course of popular struggle and to become the vicious Red bureaucracy of which Bakunin warned; what's often called 'socialism'. I rather agree with Rudolf Rocker's perception that these (quite central) tendencies in anarchism draw from the best of Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, well beyond what he described. In fact, as I've tried to show they contrast sharply with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable in the US and UK particularly, and other contemporary ideologies, all of which seem to me to reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny."
Here's some more from znet.
"As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on. "
Voltaire said "if god did not exist it would be necessary to create him" and i think that given Feurbach's compelling argument for god as a cipher for the cream of humanity we can say that if there is no such thing as human nature it is necessary to create a conception. for the idea that life is purposeful, that we have a nature or essence at all or that it is "knowable", is pervasive and a sigificant social fact, so by seizing a description that we would like to fit we evolve, or try to. rather than grimly accepting our fate as "mutually disinterested utility maximisers" (ask yourself who benefits from this! hoho!) we might at least appreciate that perseverance as a species is contingent on cooperation without restraint.
"RBR: ...you compare the politics of President John F. Kennedy with Lenin, more or less equating the two. This, I might add, has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison?
CHOMSKY: I haven't actually equated the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Kennedy administration with Leninists, but I have noted striking points of similarity - rather as predicted by Bakunin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the new class. For example, I quoted passages from McNamara on the need to enhance managerial control if we are to be truly free, and about how the undermanagement that is the real threat to democracy is an assault against reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have standard Leninist doctrine. I've argued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. Without further clarification about what people find shocking, I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I think both proper and properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and I'd be interested to be enlightened about it."
Also parallels with Habermas' discourse ethics (bargaining after discounting the bargaining power of participants) and Rawls original position in that the justice of social arrangements/institutions can be measured by the extent to which participants can be said to "control" these arrangements/institutions.
"CHOMSKY: ...The tendencies in anarchism that I've always found most persuasive seek a highly organised society, integrating many different kinds of structures (workplace, community, and manifold other forms of voluntary association), but controlled by participants, not by those in a position to give orders (except, again, when authority can be justified, as is sometimes the case, in specific contingencies)."
Habermas seeks to describe a situation where such arrangements could be arrived at, an idealised bargaining scenario. Rawls speculates as to what arrangements such a situation, that is one in which control is in the hands of the participants, would result in.
Chomsky is pointing to the fact that once there are authoritarian type institutional arrangements the voluntary nature of social arrangements disappears, along with the justification of those arrangements. He extends the critical nature of the other thinkers observation as to the circumstances of justice (those in which justice can arrive) to observe that social arrangements are, particularly when formalised, likely to be prejudical to the liberty of the community as a whole. He is genuinely stressing the importance of individual liberty, not in the sense usually used by commissar hardliners (liberty = liberty in the marketplace, which is a cipher for freedom, in fact allowing the illegitimate power of capital free reign), but that any power, which by definition must limit the residual liberty of those it excludes (power after all being a question of relativity), must be justifiable and in particular be something to which those whom it sugbjugates genuinely consent (and which therefore, if they are rational, will be in their own and societies interest, and if not, well, they're being duped clearly...).
"CHOMSKY: ...One major element has been what has traditionally been called 'libertarian socialism'. I've tried to explain there and elsewhere what I mean by that, stressing that it's hardly original; I'm taking the ideas from leading figures in the anarchist movement whom I quote, and who rather consistently describe themselves as socialists, while harshly condemning the 'new class' of radical intellectuals who seek to attain state power in the course of popular struggle and to become the vicious Red bureaucracy of which Bakunin warned; what's often called 'socialism'. I rather agree with Rudolf Rocker's perception that these (quite central) tendencies in anarchism draw from the best of Enlightenment and classical liberal thought, well beyond what he described. In fact, as I've tried to show they contrast sharply with Marxist-Leninist doctrine and practice, the 'libertarian' doctrines that are fashionable in the US and UK particularly, and other contemporary ideologies, all of which seem to me to reduce to advocacy of one or another form of illegitimate authority, quite often real tyranny."
Here's some more from znet.
"As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on. "
Voltaire said "if god did not exist it would be necessary to create him" and i think that given Feurbach's compelling argument for god as a cipher for the cream of humanity we can say that if there is no such thing as human nature it is necessary to create a conception. for the idea that life is purposeful, that we have a nature or essence at all or that it is "knowable", is pervasive and a sigificant social fact, so by seizing a description that we would like to fit we evolve, or try to. rather than grimly accepting our fate as "mutually disinterested utility maximisers" (ask yourself who benefits from this! hoho!) we might at least appreciate that perseverance as a species is contingent on cooperation without restraint.
monbiot on free trade myths, hitting nail on head:
"Almost every rich nation has industrialised with the help of one of two mechanisms now prohibited by the global trade rules. The first is "infant industry protection": defending new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to compete on equal terms. The second is the theft of intellectual property. History suggests that technological development may be impossible without one or both.
[...]
The nations which are poor today are forbidden by the trade rules from following either route to development. New industries are immediately exposed to full competition with established companies overseas, which have capital, experience, intellectual property rights, established marketing networks and economies of scale on their side. "Technology transfer" is encouraged in theory, but forbidden in practice by an ever fiercer patents regime. Unable to develop competitive enterprises of their own, the poor nations are locked into their position as the suppliers of cheap labour and raw materials to the rich world's companies."
"Almost every rich nation has industrialised with the help of one of two mechanisms now prohibited by the global trade rules. The first is "infant industry protection": defending new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to compete on equal terms. The second is the theft of intellectual property. History suggests that technological development may be impossible without one or both.
[...]
The nations which are poor today are forbidden by the trade rules from following either route to development. New industries are immediately exposed to full competition with established companies overseas, which have capital, experience, intellectual property rights, established marketing networks and economies of scale on their side. "Technology transfer" is encouraged in theory, but forbidden in practice by an ever fiercer patents regime. Unable to develop competitive enterprises of their own, the poor nations are locked into their position as the suppliers of cheap labour and raw materials to the rich world's companies."
6.6.03
wolfowitz II: zmag analysis
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both of who spent a better part of the past decade advocating the use of military force against Iraq, put the issue to rest once and for all. Judging by recent interviews Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz gave to a handful of media outlets during the past week, the short answer is yes, the public was mislead into believing Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz admit that the war with Iraq was planned two days after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with President Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a “gut feeling” [pnac?] Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there was a debate “about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist strategy". "On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when,” Wolfowitz said during the May 9 interview, a transcript of which is posted on the Department of Defense website. “There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first.”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both of who spent a better part of the past decade advocating the use of military force against Iraq, put the issue to rest once and for all. Judging by recent interviews Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz gave to a handful of media outlets during the past week, the short answer is yes, the public was mislead into believing Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz admit that the war with Iraq was planned two days after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with President Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason other than a “gut feeling” [pnac?] Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there was a debate “about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist strategy". "On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when,” Wolfowitz said during the May 9 interview, a transcript of which is posted on the Department of Defense website. “There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first.”
5.6.03
history minus class: nonsense?
Muddling Class: Populist Plutocracy and Millionaire Proletarians
"One of the more disturbing and dangerous aspects of American political discourse is its tendency to muddle class. For a host of reasons that have provided rich material for generations of academicians, Americans have long been exceptionally challenged in their ability to grasp and act against their steep differences in wealth, income, and power. Their difficulty in confronting class inequality has been cultivated for many decades by corporate public and human relations specialists, advertisers, industrial psychologists, and other ideological authority figures, who poison the waters of democracy in ways that only serve the opulent minority.
Whatever its history and explanation, this confusion on class carries catastrophic consequences at home and abroad. It elevates superficial matters of personality over relevant details of policy to the point where the supposedly charismatic George W. Bush and some of his fellow millionaires (including people like the FOX News Channel's faux-populist/right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly) are strangely permitted to identify themselves with "the working class." The president, a scoundrel child of High Class Privilege, gets to sell his radically regressive and economically dysfunctional tax cuts as "conservative" and "populist" measures on behalf of ordinary working people, broad-based "economic stimulus," and the general welfare.
Meanwhile, Bush's clever, class-conscious handlers work to keep American working people focused on pretend overseas threats, diverting the population from domestic inequalities with fantastic foreign fears and adventures. Such adventures put the predominantly working-class members of the United States military at direct risk and threaten ordinary Americans at home and abroad with increased likelihood of terrorist attack. The masters of American policy and opinion do this in connection with selfish imperial objectives crafted predominantly by and for Americans of extraordinary, corporate-connected wealth and power.
Too often lacking the elementary class awareness required to formulate such basic questions as "Who Makes Policy?" and "In Whose Interests Does Policy Work?," the hard-working (indeed badly overworked) citizenry of the world's most powerful nation slips deeper into confusion and disengagement, with dangerous consequences for itself and the rest of the world."
goes on to deconstruct lynch-corrie by klein "case study" style- enjoy
Muddling Class: Populist Plutocracy and Millionaire Proletarians
"One of the more disturbing and dangerous aspects of American political discourse is its tendency to muddle class. For a host of reasons that have provided rich material for generations of academicians, Americans have long been exceptionally challenged in their ability to grasp and act against their steep differences in wealth, income, and power. Their difficulty in confronting class inequality has been cultivated for many decades by corporate public and human relations specialists, advertisers, industrial psychologists, and other ideological authority figures, who poison the waters of democracy in ways that only serve the opulent minority.
Whatever its history and explanation, this confusion on class carries catastrophic consequences at home and abroad. It elevates superficial matters of personality over relevant details of policy to the point where the supposedly charismatic George W. Bush and some of his fellow millionaires (including people like the FOX News Channel's faux-populist/right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly) are strangely permitted to identify themselves with "the working class." The president, a scoundrel child of High Class Privilege, gets to sell his radically regressive and economically dysfunctional tax cuts as "conservative" and "populist" measures on behalf of ordinary working people, broad-based "economic stimulus," and the general welfare.
Meanwhile, Bush's clever, class-conscious handlers work to keep American working people focused on pretend overseas threats, diverting the population from domestic inequalities with fantastic foreign fears and adventures. Such adventures put the predominantly working-class members of the United States military at direct risk and threaten ordinary Americans at home and abroad with increased likelihood of terrorist attack. The masters of American policy and opinion do this in connection with selfish imperial objectives crafted predominantly by and for Americans of extraordinary, corporate-connected wealth and power.
Too often lacking the elementary class awareness required to formulate such basic questions as "Who Makes Policy?" and "In Whose Interests Does Policy Work?," the hard-working (indeed badly overworked) citizenry of the world's most powerful nation slips deeper into confusion and disengagement, with dangerous consequences for itself and the rest of the world."
goes on to deconstruct lynch-corrie by klein "case study" style- enjoy
texan pledge of allegiance law: heil hitler!
"Among its many dubious achievements this session, the Texas Legislature -- in the name of promoting appreciation for democratic political values in the public schools -- struck a blow against the critical thinking skills crucial for meaningful democracy.
The Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Perry last week signed into law, a bill ordering all school districts to require students to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags once during each school day, starting in the fall.
The message is pretty simple: To be good citizens-in-training, children must stand up, face a flag, and recite by rote a questionable set of political assertions. That's democracy in action? That's education?
No, that's instruction in subordination, the unquestioned acceptance of authority.
In his defense of the bill, sponsor Sen. Jeff Wentworth pointed out that the habits we form as children are crucial to moral and political development. "If you want children to know what work is, have them work," the San Antonio Republican said. I couldn't agree more."
"Among its many dubious achievements this session, the Texas Legislature -- in the name of promoting appreciation for democratic political values in the public schools -- struck a blow against the critical thinking skills crucial for meaningful democracy.
The Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Perry last week signed into law, a bill ordering all school districts to require students to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags once during each school day, starting in the fall.
The message is pretty simple: To be good citizens-in-training, children must stand up, face a flag, and recite by rote a questionable set of political assertions. That's democracy in action? That's education?
No, that's instruction in subordination, the unquestioned acceptance of authority.
In his defense of the bill, sponsor Sen. Jeff Wentworth pointed out that the habits we form as children are crucial to moral and political development. "If you want children to know what work is, have them work," the San Antonio Republican said. I couldn't agree more."
moellemann, german fdp politician who famously started parachuting during the campaign in the run-up to the 98 election down the blairite route, has now died in parachuting accident (4 km -> ground without parachute- ouch!). amidst the ongoing corruption enquiry ("well, I guess we can close the file on that one"), it has been asserted that it might have been a suicide jump..
Tony "Tosspott" Blair risked his political future when he joined George W. Bush's war on Iraq, but as U.S. hawks turn on neighbouring Iran the prime minister may have less appetite to participate in another Gulf showdown.
Just as he did over Iraq, Blair has ratcheted up his own warnings against Iran. But he has toed a less aggressive line than Washington and anxiously tried to play down talk of a rolling U.S. mission to topple Middle East governments.
And of course there is DU in Afghanistan too - Invisible Genocide:
"I realized this slow, yet certain death, when I saw blood in my urine and developed severe pain in my kidneys along with breathing problems I never had before. Many of my family members started to complain from confusion and the pregnant women miscarried their babies while others gave birth to disabled infants" (Akbar Khan from Paktika province, February 2003)
"The perpetuation of the perpetual death in Afghanistan continues with the passage of each day. Every day, people see the silent death striking their families and friends, hopeless and terrified at the sight of the next funeral in their minds' eyes. This indiscriminate murder of the Afghan people continues while those, whose tax money paid for the monstrous weapons and brought about this genocide pretend as though all is well. The horrific pictures of those dying--whose bodies do not correlate to their age since they have internalized so much uranium dust that it impacted the morphology of their bodies--remain in the memories of those still living who are fearfully waiting for their turn of disaster. The pregnant women are afraid from giving birth to babies--horrified to see a deformity instead of a healthy child. This is the legacy of the US "liberation", an indiscriminate murder of the weak and the unarmed that do not have any means of self-defense. In fact, there is no defensive measure against such Weapons of Mass Destruction because these deadly particles of uranium oxide--the dust formed after uranium pulverizes upon impacting a target--remain in soil, water and cover the surface of vegetation for generations to come.
[...]
The usage of great number of munitions and armaments dropped by US jets resulted in upsurge of various health problems weeks into 2002. This pattern is different from that experienced by the Iraqi after the first Gulf War where it took years for many of the birth defects, deformities and other health conditions to surface. This points to the enormity of uranium weapons used in Afghanistan, a fact, illustrated by many investigators world wide, notably Dai Williams in England, and Dr. Durakovic from the Uranium Medical Research Center in Canada, and Dr. Marc Herald in the United States among others. Furthermore, various international newspapers and media outlets notably Le Monde Diplomatique, Guardian, Frontier Post, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera among others have reported the types of weapon systems used against Afghan targets--villages, towns--and mountain cave complexes."
"I realized this slow, yet certain death, when I saw blood in my urine and developed severe pain in my kidneys along with breathing problems I never had before. Many of my family members started to complain from confusion and the pregnant women miscarried their babies while others gave birth to disabled infants" (Akbar Khan from Paktika province, February 2003)
"The perpetuation of the perpetual death in Afghanistan continues with the passage of each day. Every day, people see the silent death striking their families and friends, hopeless and terrified at the sight of the next funeral in their minds' eyes. This indiscriminate murder of the Afghan people continues while those, whose tax money paid for the monstrous weapons and brought about this genocide pretend as though all is well. The horrific pictures of those dying--whose bodies do not correlate to their age since they have internalized so much uranium dust that it impacted the morphology of their bodies--remain in the memories of those still living who are fearfully waiting for their turn of disaster. The pregnant women are afraid from giving birth to babies--horrified to see a deformity instead of a healthy child. This is the legacy of the US "liberation", an indiscriminate murder of the weak and the unarmed that do not have any means of self-defense. In fact, there is no defensive measure against such Weapons of Mass Destruction because these deadly particles of uranium oxide--the dust formed after uranium pulverizes upon impacting a target--remain in soil, water and cover the surface of vegetation for generations to come.
[...]
The usage of great number of munitions and armaments dropped by US jets resulted in upsurge of various health problems weeks into 2002. This pattern is different from that experienced by the Iraqi after the first Gulf War where it took years for many of the birth defects, deformities and other health conditions to surface. This points to the enormity of uranium weapons used in Afghanistan, a fact, illustrated by many investigators world wide, notably Dai Williams in England, and Dr. Durakovic from the Uranium Medical Research Center in Canada, and Dr. Marc Herald in the United States among others. Furthermore, various international newspapers and media outlets notably Le Monde Diplomatique, Guardian, Frontier Post, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera among others have reported the types of weapon systems used against Afghan targets--villages, towns--and mountain cave complexes."
re: sea of oil - Richard Perle -- NBC News Meet the Press - 23/02/03:
"But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it."
"But please allow me to say: I find the accusation that this administration has embarked upon this policy for oil to be an outrageous, scurrilous charge for which, when you asked for the evidence, you will note there was none. There was simply the suggestion that, because there is oil in the ground and some administration officials have had connections with the oil industry in the past, therefore, it is the policy of the United States to take control of Iraqi oil. It is a lie, Congressman. It is an out and out lie. And I’m sorry to see you give credence to it."
4.6.03
“We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam,” Kiesling wrote in a resignation letter on Feb. 27. “We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq.”
Kiesling also grasped the shift to empire – away from republic – that is underpinning Bush’s policies. The career diplomat asked, “Has ‘oderint dum metuant’ really become our motto?” citing a favorite saying of the mad Roman emperor Caligula, which means “Let them hate so long as they fear.”
“The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests,” Kiesling wrote. “When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry.”
from link below..
Kiesling also grasped the shift to empire – away from republic – that is underpinning Bush’s policies. The career diplomat asked, “Has ‘oderint dum metuant’ really become our motto?” citing a favorite saying of the mad Roman emperor Caligula, which means “Let them hate so long as they fear.”
“The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests,” Kiesling wrote. “When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry.”
from link below..
"In the latest sign of a troubled American democracy, a large majority of U.S. citizens now say they wouldn’t mind if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, though it was George W. Bush’s chief rationale for war. Americans also don’t seem to mind that Bush appears to have deceived them for months when he claimed he hadn’t made up his mind about invading Iraq.
As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”
etc. Interesting site btw.
Jessica, all is. Looking forward to conference. Arriving London Gatwick at 10:30 in the am, Thu 26/6, EZ5004.
As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”
etc. Interesting site btw.
Jessica, all is. Looking forward to conference. Arriving London Gatwick at 10:30 in the am, Thu 26/6, EZ5004.
"Perhaps the defining moment of Tony Blair's premiership was the speech that he gave to the Labour party conference in October 2001. In June, his party had returned to office with a monumental majority. In September, two planes were flown into the World Trade Centre in New York. The speech appeared to mark his transition from the insecure, focus-group junkie of Labour's first term to a visionary and a statesman, determined to change the world.
The most memorable passage was his declaration on Africa. "The state of Africa," he told us, "is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier." This being so, I would respectfully ask our visionary prime minister to explain what the hell he thinks he is doing in France.
[...]
But the ugliest of its hidden export subsidies is its use of aid as a means of penetrating the markets of poorer nations. While the other major donors provide food aid in the form of money, which the World Food Programme can use to buy supplies in local markets, thus helping indigenous farmers while feeding the starving, the US insists on sending its own produce. This programme, the government states with breathtaking frankness, is "designed to develop and expand commercial outlets for US commodities".
The result is that the major recipients are not the nations in greatest need, but the nations which can, again in the words of the US department of agriculture, "demonstrate the potential to become commercial markets" for US farm products. This is why, for example, the Philippines currently receives more US food aid than Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe put together, all of which, unlike the Philippines, are currently suffering from serious food shortages. In a way, this is a blessing for Africa: if the US dumped as much of its produce on the nations that need it as it does on the nations that don't, it would destroy their fragile agricultural economy."
africa that ugly scar
congratulations jesse! don't get too steaming! you've been seen "around town.."
The most memorable passage was his declaration on Africa. "The state of Africa," he told us, "is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier." This being so, I would respectfully ask our visionary prime minister to explain what the hell he thinks he is doing in France.
[...]
But the ugliest of its hidden export subsidies is its use of aid as a means of penetrating the markets of poorer nations. While the other major donors provide food aid in the form of money, which the World Food Programme can use to buy supplies in local markets, thus helping indigenous farmers while feeding the starving, the US insists on sending its own produce. This programme, the government states with breathtaking frankness, is "designed to develop and expand commercial outlets for US commodities".
The result is that the major recipients are not the nations in greatest need, but the nations which can, again in the words of the US department of agriculture, "demonstrate the potential to become commercial markets" for US farm products. This is why, for example, the Philippines currently receives more US food aid than Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe put together, all of which, unlike the Philippines, are currently suffering from serious food shortages. In a way, this is a blessing for Africa: if the US dumped as much of its produce on the nations that need it as it does on the nations that don't, it would destroy their fragile agricultural economy."
africa that ugly scar
congratulations jesse! don't get too steaming! you've been seen "around town.."
"Sheer urgency precludes a response to all the details of this nebula of falsehood. We have prisoners to defend, lungs to decontaminate and good stories to tell. However, one illusion that needs to be dispelled right now is the ritual separation between 'good' and 'bad' protesters, manufactured yet again by the corporate media in all its sensationalist glory. Le Matin, celebrating its greatest achievement to date in the art of rabid inflammation, tells us in a blood-red headline that 'the black blocks destroyed the dream of the pacifists' in Lausanne. Have they ever considered the possibility that the two share the very same dream? 24 Heures rushes to quote the rehearsed and predictable denunciations by the self-appointed 'leaders' of the 'altermondialistes', that ridiculous cadre of middle-aged, middle-class, white, male opportunists, most of whom might as well be picking the scraps from under the banquet table in Evian. As if to enforce this image, pictures of masked 'casseurs' are faced, on the opposite page, by the smiling faces of their holier-than-thou categeurs. And Le Temps, in the most shameless show of superficiality, characterises the 'casseurs' as anarchists and fascists at the same time, as if two such diametrically opposed ideologies could coexist in any space of political expression. And so on and so on, as it has always been, lies without end, amen."
lausanne - G8
re: below. verdon, n.b.
lausanne - G8
re: below. verdon, n.b.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)