|
Sunday, November 23, 2003 |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 7:06:34 PM 
Highly recommend this review, and possibly the book to which it refers The Looting of Chalmers Johnson It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, The real differences between the two nations, however, developed in the years and decades after 1945. Survivors and relatives of victims of the Holocaust have worked for almost six decades to win compensation from German corporations for slave labour and to regain possession of works of art stolen from their homes and offices. Litigation continues against Swiss banks that hid much of the Nazi loot. As recently as July 2001, the Austrian Government began to disburse some $300 million out of an endowment of almost $500 million to more than 100,000 former slave labourers. The German Government has long recognised that, in order to re-establish relations of mutual respect with the countries it pillaged, serious gestures towards restitution are necessary. It has so far paid more than $45 billion in compensation and reparations. ******** |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 7:06:30 PM Watch carefully for a logic leading to a new draft.
******** |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 11:55:59 AM In much of the world, the increase in wealth leads to..
******** |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 11:11:42 AM Forcing the country into this choice is the problem, not the solution. Making America and Americans, and the rest of the world, think that the key issue is security and terrorism misses the deeper issues that could unite us in optimism and strategy
Bush Campaign Chief Calls Democrats Weak on Security By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer BOCA RATON, Fla. - The manager of President Bush's reelection campaign portrayed Democratic candidates Saturday as weak on terrorism and defense, saying the 2004 race would offer a choice between "victory in Iraq or insecurity in America."
The remarks by campaign chief Ken Mehlman underscored the prominent role
that the Bush team expects national security to play in the president's
reelection effort. But his comments also led Democrats to renew accusations
that Bush was exploiting the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism for
political gain |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 11:11:40 AM Test post
Douglass Carmichael
blog, address and phone number at home page
|
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 10:51:45 AM The way in which we are repeating backwards ( that is, undoing the progress made) the struggles of the past. Just an example of the complexity of the stuggles..
John Horne, the son of a prosperous poulterer, was born in Westminster in 1736. Educated at Eton and Cambridge University, he became a lawyer and later, to please his father, in 1760 was ordained a priest and became a minister in Brentford.
In the early 1760s John Horne became interested in politics. He became friendly with John Wilkes, a man whose journal, The North Briton, had upset George III and his Tory government. In 1765 Horne wrote an anonymous pamphlet, The Petition of an Englishman, that defended Wilkes.
On 20th February 1769, a lawyer, John Glynn, organised a meeting at the London Tavern to discuss the refusal of the House of Commons to accept the election of John Wilkes. Glynn subscribed £3,340 to form an organisation, the Bill of Rights Society, that would help support the campaign to reinstate Wilkes. Robert Morris, a Welsh barrister, was elected secretary, John Horne Tooke became treasurer. Other members of the group included John Sawbridge, the MP for Hythe, Sir Cecil Wray, MP for East Retford and Sir John Molesworth, MP for Cornwall.
Meetings of the Bill of Rights Society took place fortnightly at the London Tavern. At first the main objective of the society was to "maintain and defend the liberty of the subject, and to support the laws and constitution of the country." John Horne Tooke, who eventually became the most important figure in the Society, believed that the organisation should campaign for a radical programme of parliamentary reform. Tooke managed to do this but some members disagreed and it was this conflict that eventually brought the Bill of Rights Society to an end in 1771. Horne now formed his own group, the Constitutional Society, to campaign for for parliamentary reform. In 1775 Horne attacked the government's actions in America and was imprisoned for libel. After his release from prison Horne joined with Major John Cartwright to establish the Society for Constitutional Information.
John Horne's campaign against the Enclosure Acts brought him to the attention of William Tooke, a wealthy landowner from Purley. The two men became close friends and in 1782 Horne adopted Tooke's surname. John Horne Tooke was strongly influenced by the ideas of Tom Paine and after the publication of The Rights of Man in 1791 he began to work closely with Thomas Hardy and the Corresponding Society.
At the end of 1793 supporters of parliamentary reform held a convention in Edinburgh. The leaders of the convention were arrested, tried for sedition, and sentenced to fourteen years transportation. The reformers were determined not to be beaten and John Horne Tooke Thomas Hardy and John Thelwall began to organise another convention. When the authorities heard what was happening, Tooke and the other two men were arrested and committed to the Tower of London and charged with high treason.
The trial began at the Old Bailey on 28th October, 1794. The prosecution, led by Lord Eldon, argued that the men were guilty of treason as they organised meetings where people were encouraged to disobey King and Parliament. However, the prosecution was unable to provide any evidence that Tooke and his co-defendants had attempted to do this and the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty".
After 1794 John Horne Tooke became less radical in his political ideas. He still favoured parliamentary reform but was opposed to universal suffrage. This gained him the support of the Whigs and Lord Camelford, arranged for John Horne Tooke to represent the rotten borough of Old Sarum. After Tooke's election in January, 1801, his admission to the House of Commons was opposed because he was a minister of the church. Lord Temple led the fight against the entry of Tooke and eventually a bill was passed making it impossible for clergymen to become members of the House of Commons. John Horne Tooke died in Wimbledon 1812.
Pasted from |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 10:51:41 AM Overheard, referring to the 16th century.. " Scholars, whose views generally reflected the interests of the rising nobility and bourgeoisie on whose patronage they depended, attempted to justify these innovations by demonstrating that they had precedents in ancient times. "
Comment: the malleability of thinkers to fit the stream of their time. Can't blame them, and those who didn't we don't hear from. But we cannot expect the independent judgment we might like. I say "might" because I am not sure many people want a more broadly framed perspectives. It gets in the way of functioning.
** Interview going on in the Washington Post
* David Rothkopf: The message has got to be that we will go after terrorists relentlessly and pursue justice...and that we will work just as hard to ensure that we build a global consensus because this is not a job we can do alone...and that we will not allow such attacks to weaken us by distracting us from our more important national priorities or undermining our most important principles of national behavior. Perhaps the biggest mistake was characterizing this as a war when in fact, it is a series of police actions. Wars imply victory is possible. It is not here. As in societies, we need to avoid the cycle of violence and retribution by putting in place an effective and respected system of justice. It won't eliminate violations...but it can eliminate "the old west".
Pasted from
Dc; see the probelsm, go after relentlessly. But the conditions of an
alternative are note4 spelled out enough.
And
* Monterey, Calif.: Hello, and thank you for your rational, balanced
Outlook piece. Something was missing, however, which I would like you to
address. I continue to be amazed that our political leaders, and thoughtful
analyses such as your own, seem to implicitly discount the notion that there
are current U.S. foreign and economic policies -- along with repression,
impoverishment and painful suffering of many of the peoples our government
has now labeled 'evil terrorists' (think Palestinians) -- which create the
legitimate human desperation to use last ditch terrorist tactics --
unconscionable though they may be. In this context, bombs, tough talking
politicians, and self-righteous preaching only make us LESS safe. I want a
leader who will work WITH the world community to discuss and engage these
very real human problems. Why don't you -- and so many Americans, it seems
-- value this more? Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to reply.
David Rothkopf: Of course I value this. We don't create justice in our own
communities with law enforcement only...we need to address the underlying
social causes for the crime, create and maintain effective institutions and
resist the impulse to go vigilante whenever something particularly heinous
happens. Why do we not apply the same rules to our global behavior that we
do in our own communities?
Pasted from
The thing is this view has become common sense. But Rothkopf's answer seems
weak, not whole hearted. The questioners keep nudging him in the more
social direction, and he seems to yield. My perception.
* David Rothkopf: If it weren't for oil, the U.S. would hardly care
that much for Israel. A well-known pundit friend of mine post 9/11 went out
and bought a hybrid car because he felt it was the single most constructive
thing he could to help change the dynamic of our relationship in the middle
east. But note this: by 10 years from now, we will receive the same amount
of oil from Central Africa as we do from the Middle East and many of that
region's problems mimic or are far worse than those encountered in the
Middle East.
Pasted from
DC: I had no idea that that was the course for central Africa.
-----
* On biology research paradigm
Big Picture Biotech
Systems biology, one of the hottest fields to spring from the Human Genome
Project, defies a simple description. This holistic approach aspires to
connect the dots of all of the bodys RNA, DNA, genes, proteins, cells, and
tissues, elucidating how they interact with each other to create a
breathing, blood-pumping, disease-fighting, food-processing, problem-solving
humanand ultimately bring about new medicines. Scientists have dreamed about
doing systems biology for decades, but explaining the workings of even a
single cell has proved too daunting. But the arrival of superfast computers
and the torrent of new genomic information has fundamentally altered
biology. [Topic: Biotechnology]
Dc: note that the higher human is defined as problem solver. This puts it in
the potentially mechanistic paradigm. It is too early a reduction, avoiding
the poetic. |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 10:51:36 AM Title: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:41:13 AM Juan Cole: "The Iraqi Shiites" Text: But the Bush administration badly neglected the history of the group they wanted to claim as their new ally. Who are the Iraqi Shiites? And how likely are they to support democracy or U.S. goals in the region? To address these questions, we will first need some background. Comment: Highly recommend this complex article. It's as if, in Iraq, all the chess pieces are painted different colors. Now try to play. From: http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/cole.html _____ Title: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:29:23 AM Guardian Unlimited | Online | Nothing to tell the grandchildren about Text: However, Priest-Heck argues that IT is now a $916bn market, and 90% of IT spending comes from the business-to-business sector. "The industry needs an annual gathering," he says. "Comdex is that gathering." Comment: the point is that bus does not like to sell to peole as much s to other businessess. More profit, easier to deal with, larger orders. People are marginalized in the process. Microsoft's new office 2003 is charging independent's for software that is developed for large organizations. Small subsidizes large. From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1088489,00.html _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:53:14 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: First, we have to take Tom Paine's example - and Danny Schecter's advice - and reach out to regular citizens. We have to raise an even bigger tent than you have here. Those of us in this place speak a common language about the "media." We must reach the audience that's not here - carry the fight to radio talk shows, local television, and the letters columns of our newspapers. As Danny says, we must engage the mainstream, not retreat from it. We have to get our fellow citizens to understand that what they see, hear, and read is not only the taste of programmers and producers but also a set of policy decisions made by the people we vote for. Comment: If I am right, the mainstream finds freedom and enlightenment in other directions. Deeper ananlysis needed. From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:51:19 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: You'd better get used to it, concluded Leaving Readers Behind, because the real momentum of consolidation is just beginning - it won't be long now before America is reduced to half a dozen major print conglomerates. Comment:
From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:51:09 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: Take a look at a new book called Leaving Readers Behind: The Age of Corporate Newspapering published as part of the Project on the State of the American Newspaper under the auspices of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Comment:
From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:47:40 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: When that landmark Communications Act of 1934 was under consideration a vigorous public movement of educators, labor officials, and religious and institutional leaders emerged to argue for a broadcast system that would serve the interests of citizens and communities. A movement like that is coming to life again and we now have to build on this momentum Comment: Does the Internet make this feel less urgent today? From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:46:36 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: Muckraking lingers on today, but alas, a good deal of it consists of raking personal and sexual scandal in high and celebrated places. Surely, if democracy is to be served, we have to get back to putting the rake where the important dirt lies, in the fleecing of the public and the abuse of its faith in good government. Comment:
From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:17:28 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: When the journalist-historian Richard Reeves was once asked by a college student to define "real news", he answered: "The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Comment: The purpose. Why does such news not create a market? Freedom for many is commercial and social, not political and economic. The links are not made, so the urgency is not there. Or is it possible the people get the amount of the "news" along these lines to know - big corporations for example - but there is no solid news about an alternative, so why bother? From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:14:20 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands? Ever saw eye to eye in putting the public's need for news second to free-market economics? That's exactly what's happening now under the ideological banner of "deregulation." Giant megamedia conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state. Comment: The symptom is well described. From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:12:30 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: Add to that the censorship-by-omission of consolidated media empires digesting the bones of swallowed independents, and you've got a major shrinkage of the crucial information that thinking citizens can act upon. People saw that coming as long as a century ago when the rise of chain newspaper ownerships, and then of concentration in the young radio industry, became apparent. And so in the zesty progressivism of early New Deal days, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 was passed (more on this later.) The aim of that cornerstone of broadcast policy, mentioned over 100 times in its pages, was to promote the "public interest, convenience and necessity." The clear intent was to prevent a monopoly of commercial values from overwhelming democratic values - to assure that the official view of reality - corporate or government - was not the only view of reality that reached the people. Regulators and regulated, media and government were to keep a wary eye on each other, preserving those checks and balances that is the bulwark of our Constitutional order. Comment: This is good history. The solutions have been half measures. Could more have been expected? From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:10:18 PM t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers | 'Our Democracy Is in Danger of Being Paralyzed' Text: Yet today, despite plenty of lip service on every ritual occasion to freedom of the press radio and TV, three powerful forces are undermining that very freedom, damming the streams of significant public interest news that irrigate and nourish the flowering of self-determination. The first of these is the centuries-old reluctance of governments - even elected governments - to operate in the sunshine of disclosure and criticism. The second is more subtle and more recent. It's the tendency of media giants, operating on big-business principles, to exalt commercial values at the expense of democratic value. That is, to run what Edward R. Murrow forty-five years ago called broadcasting's "money-making machine" at full throttle. In so doing they are squeezing out the journalism that tries to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth; they are isolating serious coverage of public affairs into ever-dwindling "news holes" or far from prime- time; and they are gobbling up small and independent publications competing for the attention of the American people Comment: OK, but this seems to me the result of the market, not of individual decisions. I don't think this anlysis gets at the affectable core. From: http://truthout.org/docs_03/111403E.shtml _____ Title: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:01:30 PM Books of The Times | 'Hug Them Close': Why Blair Took the Risk of Making War on Iraq Text: All of this, Mr. Riddell convincingly argues, helps explain why Mr. Blair was Mr. Bush's soul mate, not his "poodle," in confronting Saddam Hussein. "People say that you are doing this because the Americans are telling you to do it," he quotes Mr. Blair telling skeptical Labor Party colleagues on the eve of the war. "I keep telling them that it's worse than that. I believe in it." And so the paradox is resolved. For Tony Blair, ousting Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Mr. Blair got very little in return for his steadfast support of American policy, but then he never expected he would. Decisively dealing with the threat was enough of a reward - even if doing so meant risking his political future. For Mr. Blair, a man who came to power often derided as a master of spin and as overreliant on polls and focus groups, the Iraq crisis marked him as the conviction politician he is. Comment: He may be right. The question then is,w ahta laternatives were open p[re 911 for dealing with microthreats? From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/books/20DAAL.html?ex69909200
_____
Title:
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:45:51 PM
:: New Statesman - Books
Text:
My personal belief is that terrorism will cease to be the mortal threat to
world peace that it now seems to be. I believe that it is fairly easy to
stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Many of our present fears
are based on science fiction, not science. For this, scientists themselves
are largely to blame. It is time they joined in the construction of our
theories of international relations
Comment:
Terrorism will not remain the focus for long. What comes after? Bio
accident, nuclear excahnge, or some more cultural and intersting
alternative?
From:
http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSReview_Bshop
_____
Title:
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:43:36 PM
:: New Statesman - Books
Text:
How, then, to conceptualise the Janus-faced world we now inhabit - one that
aspires to post-historical bliss but still seems to be rooted in the
conflict of states and peoples? In his intelligent and stylish book The
Breaking of Nations, the diplomat Robert Cooper, said to be Tony Blair's
favourite foreign policy adviser and now based in Brussels, divides the
world into three parts: the postmodern, the modern and the pre-modern.
The postmodern consists of states that have decided never to fight each
other again and which value the rights of peoples above the rights of
nations. This enables their peaceful interdependence to be carried much
further than in the past. The chief example of postmodernity is the European
Union, a "highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's
domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages".
The "modern" world is roughly the world of sovereign states of traditional
international relations theory. Its ordering principles remain
hegemony/empire and the balance of power. The US, China, India and Russia
are the big beasts in this particular jungle. The pre-modern world is the
easiest of all to categorise: it is the world of "failed" states, which have
regressed from nationhood to tribalism, criminality and chaos. Most of them
are in sub-Saharan Africa, though Yugoslavia is a recent example.
Comment:
the issue here is that a three part process is a progressive one, as f one
part in the past, one the present, one the future. That prejudges the
interesting questions. In this case it implies that largeness and
integration win out.
From:
http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSReview_Bshop
_____ |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 10:51:29 AM BUSH and BLAIR combined with Turkey and Iraq earlier today are combing to make the England trip a defining moment when rsilution wins over an alterantive root. Perhaps full UN management of Iraq, or other compromises. BUSH's speech deepens the commitment because it is actually farily good, if it were not for the vagueness and sense that it is written for the occasion, not for nthe truth. Obviously well written. It has some peculiar moments, but on the whole seems to be "tell them what they want to hear", very well done. Is it "statesmanlike and vacuous" or solid and century direction setting?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1089231,00.html |
|
Posted here Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 10:51:07 AM From the lao tzu
The universe comes without being summoned, wins without a fight.
And, from inner
John, "I have so much avoided life by wanting understanding. To get the
ideas right rather than participate. I grieve for this." And Harry, "I have
so much wanted to act that I did not think. Perspective never occurred to
me, so engaged was I in the ditch." These are both true and while the
divide in thought should not lead us to divide in living. |
Last update: 6/15/2004; 2:20:54 PM .
