Product: developing workplace processes and code to address various forms of conflict
Training - 3 hours (two evening of 1.5 hours, or 3 sessions during the lunch break)
Goal: institutionalizing workplace code to address the issues
What issues: sexism, racism, homosexuality, x,y,x.. addressing conflict in the workplace
Who: NGO’s (build the contact base, and most likely to want to improve in these areas)
Numbers: small groups.
Price: I see this as a product that we can begin as pro-bono conducted by students. Later on this could be a situation where new students could be the second facilitator and gain experience and be involved in the consulting group project. Eventually, I think this product could then charge on a pre-determined price. 3 hours = how much?
What is needed: create a framework of practice that will be used in all of these trainings. This will be the ICAR brand.Here is my idea about the framework that would need some professional input, using the example of a gender workshop:
Goal: awareness of gender stereotypes, establish processes and code that address sexism, and practices to confront and handle it in the workplace. Creation of a more productive and positive work environment
session 1: 1.5 hours
20 minutes: large group, general discussion of what sexism is, provide definitions,
- 10 min: small group discussion of stereotypes for males and females
- 10 min: share in large group what each small group discussed – collaboration of ideas
20 minutes: What kinds of issues / concerns does this create in the workplace? (eg promotions, childcare..)
- 10 Small group activity
- 10 Large group presentations
15 minutes: vision – what would the ideal workplace look like
Session 2: What are the workplace procedures that most appropriately prevent and address gender issues in the workplace
My idea behind this is the language learning model: that there is a general framework that has been developed – what needs to be learned first, etc. but for each topic, the teacher / consultant can modify the small group activity, or how people interact to best demonstrate the theory. The working groups could help come up with what theories should be presented in what order, and what could be covered in a few hours. I believe the part with the least amount of creativity involved would be the workplace code that would be most effective. This should be pre-developed. We could also offer advanced training to go more in depth in handling these issues.
Thoughts anyone?
martes, 17 de noviembre de 2009
martes, 10 de noviembre de 2009
consulting group
How do a group of people with little business experience start one up? The beginning of the unfinished process began a few months ago.
Goals of the group: first, brainstorm. What are our ideas, what would a consulting group require? the goal is to have deliverables every two weeks so that we can move this process along. One of the people had experience with business plans, so for the next week, we used a template to get us going.
Concept:
Goals
product:
marketing analysis - who you are selling to, is there a market for it, who is your competition - what makes you different.
Concept: improving processes. Instead of an ngo or business having to hire a fulltime person they can hire a consultant. what we can offer is a variety of expertise from addressing conflict in the workplace to expertise in a specific area - like the effect of water on conflict.
Each time we meet - twice a month - the group gets bigger. last time we met with six MBA students from GW who were interested in partnering up. They read our concept and other documents we had put together on the wiki site. We had some nice input from a professor to start the ball rolling. It also helps that people in the conflict resolution program have a variety of life experiences. They recommended we really hammer out "who are we" what is it that we are offering - study other groups to see what they are doing. And come up with a product - one girl recommended a training program. I thought this would be interesting. after all, after teaching english i could come up with my own lesson plans based on a template. a professor could help create the framework, and students could do the training. one of my interests in this group is to be able to participate before i am a certified "expert" with a PhD. the more practice you get - you become good at it. like giving trainings even if i didn't have the theoretical background to develop the blueprint. but hey, that's ok! other people didn't like the training idea saying that it should be the last thing we develop. We decided to go ahead.
There are now three teams working on different things: analyzing the competition, etc. our next meeting we want to have
"1. Identify 5 products : details, hours, deliverables, feasibility and revenue prospect
2. Draft a list of main competitors: name, location, contact info
3. Draft a value proposition: What can we do better than anyone else?
4. Participant Expertise: Years, industry, experience
5. Develop a guiding framework for our work: simple and applicable.
6. Compile a list of all of our own contacts within the industry that we are willing to share
7. Organizational Structure: Leadership, consulting teams, responsibility and team building"
The part that i am working on is product that we can offer relatively soon like trainings. We want five. I posted my training idea up on the site and they suggested that i go forward with it. which i am excited about.
"I also would suggest that you go forward with your idea as well. Put together some sort of deliverable, perhaps an HR best practices manual? Or perhaps a training seminar, where the deliverables would be a power point presentation and some sort of training binder complete learning modules and tests. What do you think?"
Done.
Goals of the group: first, brainstorm. What are our ideas, what would a consulting group require? the goal is to have deliverables every two weeks so that we can move this process along. One of the people had experience with business plans, so for the next week, we used a template to get us going.
Concept:
Goals
product:
marketing analysis - who you are selling to, is there a market for it, who is your competition - what makes you different.
Concept: improving processes. Instead of an ngo or business having to hire a fulltime person they can hire a consultant. what we can offer is a variety of expertise from addressing conflict in the workplace to expertise in a specific area - like the effect of water on conflict.
Each time we meet - twice a month - the group gets bigger. last time we met with six MBA students from GW who were interested in partnering up. They read our concept and other documents we had put together on the wiki site. We had some nice input from a professor to start the ball rolling. It also helps that people in the conflict resolution program have a variety of life experiences. They recommended we really hammer out "who are we" what is it that we are offering - study other groups to see what they are doing. And come up with a product - one girl recommended a training program. I thought this would be interesting. after all, after teaching english i could come up with my own lesson plans based on a template. a professor could help create the framework, and students could do the training. one of my interests in this group is to be able to participate before i am a certified "expert" with a PhD. the more practice you get - you become good at it. like giving trainings even if i didn't have the theoretical background to develop the blueprint. but hey, that's ok! other people didn't like the training idea saying that it should be the last thing we develop. We decided to go ahead.
There are now three teams working on different things: analyzing the competition, etc. our next meeting we want to have
"1. Identify 5 products : details, hours, deliverables, feasibility and revenue prospect
2. Draft a list of main competitors: name, location, contact info
3. Draft a value proposition: What can we do better than anyone else?
4. Participant Expertise: Years, industry, experience
5. Develop a guiding framework for our work: simple and applicable.
6. Compile a list of all of our own contacts within the industry that we are willing to share
7. Organizational Structure: Leadership, consulting teams, responsibility and team building"
The part that i am working on is product that we can offer relatively soon like trainings. We want five. I posted my training idea up on the site and they suggested that i go forward with it. which i am excited about.
"I also would suggest that you go forward with your idea as well. Put together some sort of deliverable, perhaps an HR best practices manual? Or perhaps a training seminar, where the deliverables would be a power point presentation and some sort of training binder complete learning modules and tests. What do you think?"
Done.
domingo, 11 de octubre de 2009
Galtung
What is structural violence, according to Galtung: "violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual". while personal violence is direct - from person to person, - even even direct mental violence in some cases, structural entails indirect violence - meaning there is no actor who is committing the violence. It is violence by other means. Structural violence can be both latent and manifest, as expressed though cause and effect. Structural violence uses the vehicle of monopoly over decision making powers. This fans out into decisions over allocation of resources, of the laws - and other systems of governance, and especially the power over access to decision making powers. The effects from an inherently violence structure can be latent or manifest, manifest being more easily observable through poverty, inadequate resources, and inequality in all its manifestations - whether it is intended or not.
Identity based violence, as defined by Celia Cook- Huffman is a special case of structural violence as defined by Galtung. Access to decision making powers can be denied by identification with a specific group. Collective identities are used to justify social inequality. "In many post-colonial societies the structures of the state are dominated by and benefit one communal group or a coalition of groups and are unresposive to the needs of other groups. This inequality feeds frustration, fragmentation, a lack of system legitimacy, and ultimately, conflict" (HCAR Cook-Huffman,pg. 21) Cook-Huffman notes that identities are social constructs, rooted in history but lived out on a daily basic. Identities can also be salient, with the meaning as well as level of identification changinf over time. Identity as understood through structural violence is manifested usually through collective identities,and the exclusion or privileging of groups based upon their collective identity. Collective identites can be willfully chosen in a salient social structure, but in cases of exclusion are often imposed by those with decision making power.
The Rwandan genocide had many structural underpinnings that helped lead to the genocide of 1994. This took on two major components. Colonial domination aimed to solidify ethnic divisions and ingrain them into the social and political structures of society. Tutsi's were given decision making power Such things as identity cards, tutsi’s as the ruling class, superiority, inequality of resources on the basis of belonging to a defined category. Social and political relations were designed around these categories. These definitions were helped out by previous hierarchies of Tutsis as the ruling class, and domination over Hutus even before the Rwandan territory was colonized. However, as was pointed out in the article, tutsi was often used to describe a social class – referring to the amount of cattle one owned in contrast to differing histories, language, or physical features. The lived reality of social injustice helped and violence helped make genocide possible.
Identity based violence, as defined by Celia Cook- Huffman is a special case of structural violence as defined by Galtung. Access to decision making powers can be denied by identification with a specific group. Collective identities are used to justify social inequality. "In many post-colonial societies the structures of the state are dominated by and benefit one communal group or a coalition of groups and are unresposive to the needs of other groups. This inequality feeds frustration, fragmentation, a lack of system legitimacy, and ultimately, conflict" (HCAR Cook-Huffman,pg. 21) Cook-Huffman notes that identities are social constructs, rooted in history but lived out on a daily basic. Identities can also be salient, with the meaning as well as level of identification changinf over time. Identity as understood through structural violence is manifested usually through collective identities,and the exclusion or privileging of groups based upon their collective identity. Collective identites can be willfully chosen in a salient social structure, but in cases of exclusion are often imposed by those with decision making power.
The Rwandan genocide had many structural underpinnings that helped lead to the genocide of 1994. This took on two major components. Colonial domination aimed to solidify ethnic divisions and ingrain them into the social and political structures of society. Tutsi's were given decision making power Such things as identity cards, tutsi’s as the ruling class, superiority, inequality of resources on the basis of belonging to a defined category. Social and political relations were designed around these categories. These definitions were helped out by previous hierarchies of Tutsis as the ruling class, and domination over Hutus even before the Rwandan territory was colonized. However, as was pointed out in the article, tutsi was often used to describe a social class – referring to the amount of cattle one owned in contrast to differing histories, language, or physical features. The lived reality of social injustice helped and violence helped make genocide possible.
lunes, 28 de septiembre de 2009
Jeffrey Sachs' fear of 3rd world womens' wombs
"Common Wealth" is the title of the occasionally interesting, often outright sexist thoughts of the economist and co-creator of Goldman and Sachs. influenced by keynesian economics, - that poverty can be a powerful creator of violence; but yet ultimately profoundly influenced by neo conservative milton friedman ideology - Markets are Awesome - especially when implemented by force.
Theme of the day: population control. Watch out world. women are on the loose. With babies. lots of them. ahhhhh! Human survival is doomed. The culprit? women. Poor women from Africa and India would kill us all in a heartbeat if they could do it tomorrow. Unless... we fix this problem Now! through: "voluntary reduction in fertility rates". Why Jeffrey, you are a genius.
getting serious, so i can present my viewpoints 'academically' in a classroom that does not look kindly on sarcasm or jokes.
Sachs presents 10 other positive things that all point to lower fertility - eg education for girls, labor equality, health services,empowerment through equality in land titles and the law, better child survival rates.
1. misguided cause and effect
- low Fertility rates (having 3 children or less)is not a virtue by itself. Having fewer children does not magically create a functioning educational and health system. It does not grant equal access to the law. It certainly does not stop male privilege and gendered violence.
(In fact, male privilege may be the single largest factor creating all of these other negative factors, yet Jeffery does not address this. For example, he claims that education is important for women to 'get ahead'. I don't disagree. However, Conservative male dominated governments in places like Iran and that seized power they forbade women to work - even those with a university degree. Female doctors, lawyers, and professors that had been earning an income were suddenly barred from using their education. The only thing that stood in the way was penis power. The same with Afghanistan. the US supporter the Taliban against Russia, helped install conservative male power which demonized women. On top of that, the US then invades Afghanistan which killed off many of the women as well as their children and bombed them into the stone ages. War is much more devastating than high fertility rates.)
2. How many people can the earth hold? If population by itself is to blame for the pollution and destruction of the earth's environment, then that would mean that each person contributes equally to the destruction. however, as Sach's wrote in the previous chapter - 1st world countries, especially America - and the rich within America are disproportionately destroying the earth. logic would follow, that rich American women should stop having children - because her child pollutes as much as about 100 African children (if not more). not to mention that child will live twice as long - meaning that if we calculate the destruction that "paul" has - living to 78 years old as compared with "mandella" who lived to be 46, that is twice as much time to pollute. meaning paul pollutes in his lifetime as much as 200 african children. This of course does not even take into account the likely hood mandella lives to be 46 rather than 5. Point is, the sheer amount of time those that are destroying the earth have is far greater. Not to mention that 1st world countries' fertility rates are actually increasing! but this causes no alarm bells.
The critique that Sachs does not address is (which he even mentions, pretending that he will address) is that the problem is not population, but about living sustainably. For example, imagine if the earth held 11 billion people rather than the 6.7 we currently have. The only reason a large population is bad - is because we are too destructive. Because even when we had 3.5 billion in the 1950's this was the start of the worst environmental destruction in earth's history. Mostly through large polluters like coal production, steel mills, and deforestation. So large populations don't destroy the earth - single people do. So imagine if we were less destructive at 11 than at 6.7, then logically there would be no problem. But yet Sachs creates the goal of 'stabilizing at 8 billion' because 'we cannot continue the current path we are on'. Again, the path he refers to is the complete destruction of our environment. At 6.7 billion we are very wasteful. Do we need to fix shit? yes. get rid of coal. get rid of open pit mining. stop oil drilling. This obsession with 3rd world women's motherhood choices creates fear and will not solve the real problem. SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES.
Theme of the day: population control. Watch out world. women are on the loose. With babies. lots of them. ahhhhh! Human survival is doomed. The culprit? women. Poor women from Africa and India would kill us all in a heartbeat if they could do it tomorrow. Unless... we fix this problem Now! through: "voluntary reduction in fertility rates". Why Jeffrey, you are a genius.
getting serious, so i can present my viewpoints 'academically' in a classroom that does not look kindly on sarcasm or jokes.
Sachs presents 10 other positive things that all point to lower fertility - eg education for girls, labor equality, health services,empowerment through equality in land titles and the law, better child survival rates.
1. misguided cause and effect
- low Fertility rates (having 3 children or less)is not a virtue by itself. Having fewer children does not magically create a functioning educational and health system. It does not grant equal access to the law. It certainly does not stop male privilege and gendered violence.
(In fact, male privilege may be the single largest factor creating all of these other negative factors, yet Jeffery does not address this. For example, he claims that education is important for women to 'get ahead'. I don't disagree. However, Conservative male dominated governments in places like Iran and that seized power they forbade women to work - even those with a university degree. Female doctors, lawyers, and professors that had been earning an income were suddenly barred from using their education. The only thing that stood in the way was penis power. The same with Afghanistan. the US supporter the Taliban against Russia, helped install conservative male power which demonized women. On top of that, the US then invades Afghanistan which killed off many of the women as well as their children and bombed them into the stone ages. War is much more devastating than high fertility rates.)
2. How many people can the earth hold? If population by itself is to blame for the pollution and destruction of the earth's environment, then that would mean that each person contributes equally to the destruction. however, as Sach's wrote in the previous chapter - 1st world countries, especially America - and the rich within America are disproportionately destroying the earth. logic would follow, that rich American women should stop having children - because her child pollutes as much as about 100 African children (if not more). not to mention that child will live twice as long - meaning that if we calculate the destruction that "paul" has - living to 78 years old as compared with "mandella" who lived to be 46, that is twice as much time to pollute. meaning paul pollutes in his lifetime as much as 200 african children. This of course does not even take into account the likely hood mandella lives to be 46 rather than 5. Point is, the sheer amount of time those that are destroying the earth have is far greater. Not to mention that 1st world countries' fertility rates are actually increasing! but this causes no alarm bells.
The critique that Sachs does not address is (which he even mentions, pretending that he will address) is that the problem is not population, but about living sustainably. For example, imagine if the earth held 11 billion people rather than the 6.7 we currently have. The only reason a large population is bad - is because we are too destructive. Because even when we had 3.5 billion in the 1950's this was the start of the worst environmental destruction in earth's history. Mostly through large polluters like coal production, steel mills, and deforestation. So large populations don't destroy the earth - single people do. So imagine if we were less destructive at 11 than at 6.7, then logically there would be no problem. But yet Sachs creates the goal of 'stabilizing at 8 billion' because 'we cannot continue the current path we are on'. Again, the path he refers to is the complete destruction of our environment. At 6.7 billion we are very wasteful. Do we need to fix shit? yes. get rid of coal. get rid of open pit mining. stop oil drilling. This obsession with 3rd world women's motherhood choices creates fear and will not solve the real problem. SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES.
sábado, 5 de septiembre de 2009
conflict studies
thus begins my formal academic career in conflict studies. perhaps one of the most highly contested and political fields in my opinion. terrorism, what creates it, how to best respond to genocide, wars of agression... the list goes on. while the program is rooted in the idea that peace is indeed desireable and possible, much of the current literature is not.
current class: reinventing foreign policy from a conflict resolution perspective for Obama. self reflection: i have difficulty reading material i disagree with, because it makes me angry. trying to dissacociate from it, and try to understand their argument without having to agree with it. The book "peace and conflict 2008" by hewitt and wilkenfeld is like reading what the US state department wants you to believe. As I am reading through, in the back of my mind - why did they choose that definition? or, if they use that, why did they not include x,y,z? such as in the chapter discussing terrorism. "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation." the us state department only uses the term political - and actual violence rather than threat of violence. legal terrorism questions not withstanding as a moral problem, what about the war in iraq? wars of agression are illegal accourding to international law, with bombings, for political reasons. this is terrorism. why did they choose to consider rebel groups, or minority groups the sole perpetrators of terrorism? without admitting that they actually did so? but they did not consider any state terrorism. not even the razed villages campaign in Guatemala that killed 200,000 people and the gov't was responsible for 93% of the deaths. but the resistance group is counted among the terrorist? give me a break.
other areas of concern: "economic openess" is discussed as 1 of 4 main criteria for judging instability.
wow: i just looked up the political instability task force: where much of this info is analyzed. it says the task force was created by request from senior policy makers to understand failed states. columbia university, arizone, george mason public policy program.. the kicker: "funded by the CIA. are you kidding me!!! wtf george mason? how legitimate is any academic study funded by the CIA.
"The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency. The PITF website is hosted by the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University and is provided as a public service. The views expressed herein are those of the Task Force and its individual members, and do not represent the views of the University or the US Government."
wow.
current class: reinventing foreign policy from a conflict resolution perspective for Obama. self reflection: i have difficulty reading material i disagree with, because it makes me angry. trying to dissacociate from it, and try to understand their argument without having to agree with it. The book "peace and conflict 2008" by hewitt and wilkenfeld is like reading what the US state department wants you to believe. As I am reading through, in the back of my mind - why did they choose that definition? or, if they use that, why did they not include x,y,z? such as in the chapter discussing terrorism. "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation." the us state department only uses the term political - and actual violence rather than threat of violence. legal terrorism questions not withstanding as a moral problem, what about the war in iraq? wars of agression are illegal accourding to international law, with bombings, for political reasons. this is terrorism. why did they choose to consider rebel groups, or minority groups the sole perpetrators of terrorism? without admitting that they actually did so? but they did not consider any state terrorism. not even the razed villages campaign in Guatemala that killed 200,000 people and the gov't was responsible for 93% of the deaths. but the resistance group is counted among the terrorist? give me a break.
other areas of concern: "economic openess" is discussed as 1 of 4 main criteria for judging instability.
wow: i just looked up the political instability task force: where much of this info is analyzed. it says the task force was created by request from senior policy makers to understand failed states. columbia university, arizone, george mason public policy program.. the kicker: "funded by the CIA. are you kidding me!!! wtf george mason? how legitimate is any academic study funded by the CIA.
"The PITF is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency. The PITF website is hosted by the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University and is provided as a public service. The views expressed herein are those of the Task Force and its individual members, and do not represent the views of the University or the US Government."
wow.
martes, 1 de septiembre de 2009
liberals vs. conservatives
From my first impression of my first class - arguably not the best sample to form a real opinion, but that has never deterred me before... It seems that we ("liberals") vastly underestimate who conservatives are, what they believe, and the ideology that we disagree with. conservatives are not only undeducated rural americans. They are professors, they are the heads of think tanks, they are military generals, they are our congressmen. and a few are even our congresswomen.
People were commenting on the anger and division during the elections. or how they can't really talk to their conservative friends. Personally, I enjoy rural america. maybe not all of it. the white supremicist groups are unwelcome and protested almost everywhere they go in Montana, but they still do have their supporters. Unlike dc, you can actually have a conservation not involving politics. unwillingly i do as much as i can to change that.
if we use education as our measure to create an inferiority complex, why would it uniquly be a white thing? What about the labor movement with low wage jobs?
Lets face it folks, the war cry is not limited to republicans. in fact, ron paul was against iraq also. education makes one docile in the face of authority. pavlov's other experiment - asking people to shock their peers by pretending to be a doctor. despite hearing their screams to stop.
anyways, my point is, i think people overestimate democrats, which doesn't seem like such a radical concept, concerning what most progressive blogs write about concerning the blue dog betrayal on health care... so it surprised me to see that partisan adherence come out even in the initial conversations. fake liberals annoy me most because they pretend they are pro humanity. yet they still want to bomb people, because that is the practicality of life.
People were commenting on the anger and division during the elections. or how they can't really talk to their conservative friends. Personally, I enjoy rural america. maybe not all of it. the white supremicist groups are unwelcome and protested almost everywhere they go in Montana, but they still do have their supporters. Unlike dc, you can actually have a conservation not involving politics. unwillingly i do as much as i can to change that.
if we use education as our measure to create an inferiority complex, why would it uniquly be a white thing? What about the labor movement with low wage jobs?
Lets face it folks, the war cry is not limited to republicans. in fact, ron paul was against iraq also. education makes one docile in the face of authority. pavlov's other experiment - asking people to shock their peers by pretending to be a doctor. despite hearing their screams to stop.
anyways, my point is, i think people overestimate democrats, which doesn't seem like such a radical concept, concerning what most progressive blogs write about concerning the blue dog betrayal on health care... so it surprised me to see that partisan adherence come out even in the initial conversations. fake liberals annoy me most because they pretend they are pro humanity. yet they still want to bomb people, because that is the practicality of life.
lunes, 17 de agosto de 2009
washington times
my personal crusade is quite amusing. I might have hoped that my rallying cry of 'fuck the old people' - might have been condemned rather than cheered.
example 1:
"Government needs to get out of all of it! Veterans health care, medicare, its all a sham. if seniors weren't smart enough to save for retirement, why should i have to subsidize it? even if the insurance companies don't offer cheap enough plans for most people to have access to a doctor, well that's life. much prefer that than a government takeover. " woohoo!
my new strategy is disguising criticism within praise. It amuses me.
"kudos to the WT! not many people have the courage to stand against people from their own party. republican johnny isakson of georgia wrote the death panel bill. thanks again washington times. evil must be fought against no matter which party came up with the idea."
is the american psyche really that easily wiped of suspicion of expansive power that is fucking them in the ass at the very same moment they are spewing their support? don't they feel it? i don't get it. i don't trust uncle sam anymore than the next fellow. partly because they prop up mr. ceo. government in and of itself is not evil if it is a democracy. our government is being gutted as we speak. less social services, while expanding measures for to be 'the enforcer'. more police, more weapons, more prisons, more military, more surveilance, more... holy shit... they are out to get me. but not to take me to the hospital for my diabetes.
What kind of society do we want? create the ideals, live out the process that exemplifies the ideals - because a lived process creates and affirms the end result. you can't win a race if you don't practice running. you can't end up with a utopia if you don't live your ideals in your daily life.
example 1:
"Government needs to get out of all of it! Veterans health care, medicare, its all a sham. if seniors weren't smart enough to save for retirement, why should i have to subsidize it? even if the insurance companies don't offer cheap enough plans for most people to have access to a doctor, well that's life. much prefer that than a government takeover. " woohoo!
my new strategy is disguising criticism within praise. It amuses me.
"kudos to the WT! not many people have the courage to stand against people from their own party. republican johnny isakson of georgia wrote the death panel bill. thanks again washington times. evil must be fought against no matter which party came up with the idea."
is the american psyche really that easily wiped of suspicion of expansive power that is fucking them in the ass at the very same moment they are spewing their support? don't they feel it? i don't get it. i don't trust uncle sam anymore than the next fellow. partly because they prop up mr. ceo. government in and of itself is not evil if it is a democracy. our government is being gutted as we speak. less social services, while expanding measures for to be 'the enforcer'. more police, more weapons, more prisons, more military, more surveilance, more... holy shit... they are out to get me. but not to take me to the hospital for my diabetes.
What kind of society do we want? create the ideals, live out the process that exemplifies the ideals - because a lived process creates and affirms the end result. you can't win a race if you don't practice running. you can't end up with a utopia if you don't live your ideals in your daily life.
lunes, 10 de agosto de 2009
Mainstream loses another one
For the longest time I have justified myself with the idea of being a bridge. a link - between the ideas I believe in and those that don't. I wanted to convince them. But as long as i try to maintain these links, it is undermining my own growth. Instead of spending more time living out my beliefs, and practicing them, I am wasting time getting to know those who wish to ruin the utopia.
I have had enough. The more saturated I become with my own existence, the more difficult it is to venture forth into the hypo-reality. People protest, and they don't even know what they are protesting. ..yeah.. i would love to have medicare for all.. but i hate that socialized medicine stuff single payer... And how much were they paid?
Mainstream press is more censored than porn on a disney channel. Certainly, not everything is censored good sir. Everything? yes my child. I can see their mind at work. It's like fountainhead, but it doesn't take a Toohey do manipulate the outcome. Pretend you are the Washington Times, and facts are irrelevant. It is actually quite clever of them to insert the "union connection" about healthcare. Indeed, Sweeney has unleashed his union thugs to counter the real grassroots protests that have erupted. And, like clockwork, it plants the idea. damn those unions! Healthcare: its a thug thing.
I have had enough. The more saturated I become with my own existence, the more difficult it is to venture forth into the hypo-reality. People protest, and they don't even know what they are protesting. ..yeah.. i would love to have medicare for all.. but i hate that socialized medicine stuff single payer... And how much were they paid?
Mainstream press is more censored than porn on a disney channel. Certainly, not everything is censored good sir. Everything? yes my child. I can see their mind at work. It's like fountainhead, but it doesn't take a Toohey do manipulate the outcome. Pretend you are the Washington Times, and facts are irrelevant. It is actually quite clever of them to insert the "union connection" about healthcare. Indeed, Sweeney has unleashed his union thugs to counter the real grassroots protests that have erupted. And, like clockwork, it plants the idea. damn those unions! Healthcare: its a thug thing.
lunes, 20 de julio de 2009
sailing!
certification course in sailing, then I can rent out their boats! Preparing the groundwork for a summer solo trip... my childhood dream. probably a few years down the road though.
thoughts on persuasive arguement. I have come to realize that ideas and beliefs are intensly personal. Even the most logical arguement will do no good, even with the most 'rational' person. But if you trust someone, you are more likely to believe them. Hence the idea behind making personal connections to relate to their point of view and life story. But is this saying that logic has limited reality in social change? But how much logic? Which facts? if you believe it is fact, it can become fact, and previous reality becomes irrelevant. Or having a different premise which leads to different conclusions, regardless of the philosophical methods one applies.
Speaking of lack of facts, how bout that pat buchanan? When i watch these people, I can't distinguish between whether people are actually that unintelligent to think that facts don't matter - (they get paid to lie) or if they actually believe what they say. Probably a little of both, more so I believe getting paid to lie. which is why Rachel didn't directly challenge him on any of his mistatements (eg sotomayor benefited from AA programs the whole way through, or, no black people died in the civil war..) Heard a compelling arguement that Rush limbaugh and Bill O'riely have been bought out as well. Bigots don't draw party lines so easily. If you dislike government policy due to ideology - than it would be impossible to critize only one party to such a high proportion of the time. it is not ideology. If pat buchanan really believed that stuff what he was saying, he would fit right in with most the elite democrats as well, who believe the same things. They are after all, rich white and male as well. bought and paid for.
just my two cents. First, I will need two cents. I can see how getting paid is appealing to many. Paid? ha!
Shall I go into work tomorrow? probably. do I feel like it? no. Is it easy? yes. and you don't want to go in? no. not really.
would rather be sailing.
or reading
drinking coffee
eating
mmmm..eating
thoughts on persuasive arguement. I have come to realize that ideas and beliefs are intensly personal. Even the most logical arguement will do no good, even with the most 'rational' person. But if you trust someone, you are more likely to believe them. Hence the idea behind making personal connections to relate to their point of view and life story. But is this saying that logic has limited reality in social change? But how much logic? Which facts? if you believe it is fact, it can become fact, and previous reality becomes irrelevant. Or having a different premise which leads to different conclusions, regardless of the philosophical methods one applies.
Speaking of lack of facts, how bout that pat buchanan? When i watch these people, I can't distinguish between whether people are actually that unintelligent to think that facts don't matter - (they get paid to lie) or if they actually believe what they say. Probably a little of both, more so I believe getting paid to lie. which is why Rachel didn't directly challenge him on any of his mistatements (eg sotomayor benefited from AA programs the whole way through, or, no black people died in the civil war..) Heard a compelling arguement that Rush limbaugh and Bill O'riely have been bought out as well. Bigots don't draw party lines so easily. If you dislike government policy due to ideology - than it would be impossible to critize only one party to such a high proportion of the time. it is not ideology. If pat buchanan really believed that stuff what he was saying, he would fit right in with most the elite democrats as well, who believe the same things. They are after all, rich white and male as well. bought and paid for.
just my two cents. First, I will need two cents. I can see how getting paid is appealing to many. Paid? ha!
Shall I go into work tomorrow? probably. do I feel like it? no. Is it easy? yes. and you don't want to go in? no. not really.
would rather be sailing.
or reading
drinking coffee
eating
mmmm..eating
martes, 30 de junio de 2009
i'm sorry rant
the ever important phrase "i'm sorry" should be weilded carefully. Not only does it imply you have done something wrong that you are apologizing for, but that you genuinely feel bad for what you have done. These two requirements cannot be easily met, and it is best not to lie than utter falsehoods. People often get around this simplistic formula by stating 'i'm sorry i made you feel bad'. which translates to, i don't give a shit about what i did, i just wish you didn't take offense to it. This pathetic excuse for an apology should not pass. Am I just being stubborn? probably. but would someone really want me to apologize for something i didn't regret? if people wan't to be soothed by words without significance, i'm all for it. just like telling your two week old crush you love them. But apologizing at its root - if you recognize what you did was wrong, then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. Maybe the apologizer should look to themselves and just not do it... far more productive than offering a sugary apology without action.
just my two cents.
just my two cents.
domingo, 21 de junio de 2009
immigration and labor unions
while immigration reform is in my thoughts, it doesn't often come to the forefront. AFter hiking over the weekend with a women's group (mostly progressive independent women who like the outdoors).. it surprised me to hear about 'the illegals in california ruining the economy'. especially the part about the schools losing so much money to teach the 'Illegals'. I tried to counter this with logic, pointing out the immigrants pay social security and sales tax, are exploited at work, and don't really use any of the services anyways... I always feel uncomfortable with these confrontations. since i am somewhat of a confrontational person anyways, i think i need to be a nicer, more bubbly personality to discuss harmful stereotypes. Maybe i just make people angry and they don't listen anyways.
So...semi-book review of "disposable domestics" (grace chang) which helped me understand immigration as a labor issue, and why the hate speech is simply false.
rough draft for internship:
Anti-immigrant sentiment changes on who it is directed against and when it is deployed. Economic crisis' are one of those times that predictably drum up anti-immigrant fears. The usual charges vary from overwhelmed social services, taking Americans jobs - or for the ambitious immigrant, taking down the economy. Not only are these statements ingenious, they are simply false.
It has been long recognized that immigrants provide cheap labor at little. They use a relatively small proportion of social services, pay sales tax and even social security tax, of which they will see none of. However, even as countless studies show that the net 'economic benefits' of immigrants outweighs the 'costs' this misses the point. Economic refugees do not come to sweatshops for the English.
Grace Chang's book, Disposable Domestics, is as relevant today as it was ten years ago. She notes that one of the reasons immigration is so cost effective for the United States is that their home country has borne the costs of raising them. Many people come to the United States as a young and employable workforce. immigration patterns do not correlate only with the poverty, but rather with US influence and interference in a country. Chang notes that "the extraction of resources by the United States and other First World nations forces many people in the Third World to migrate and follow their countries' wealth." We can see this playing out before our very eyes with the multinational corporations operating in Mexico. They save money through lax environmental laws, and abuse labor laws they know will not be enforced. These corporations put small stores out of business and destroys the places where they operate, syphoning the profits back into the United States. Companies such as Dole own unused large swathes of land, rendering a significant part of a country, such as Guatemala, unproductive.
Upon coming to American, the questions remains, - are illegal immigrants taking American jobs? As Chang points out about immigration raids, - "Creating job vacancies is not the same as creating jobs" - factory raids do not provide decent jobs to Americans. Many of these jobs would not exist in the first place were it not for a super exploitive labor force. This is because if the company employed Americans, the working conditions would be illegal. Under the threat of deportation, undocumented workers face extreme obstacles to organize to confront employer abuses. Even after forced to work long hours, in poor conditions for low pay, employers often do not give a paycheck. The fact that even legalized workers in the United States face harassment, intimidation or fired for trying to organize gives us insight to what companies will resort to to wreck havoc on their workers - without these laws for minimal protection. Companies have even called the INS on themselves during an organizing drive to thwart unionization. American workers have a vested interst in ensuring labor rights to all documented and undocumented workers. It is impossible to compete with a labor force without rights. Power in number ensures that companies cannot use technicalities to justify inhumane conditions.
Part 2. more musinggs: morality of selective law.
Even if people do not agree on many things, being against sweatshops or child labor shouldn't depend on one's nationality or having the right papers. Many of our laws exist because it is simply wrong. If an immigrant commits murder this is wrong. Are they subject to punishment under the law? yes. Why? it is wrong. Is it wrong to have people working in conditions that would be illegal if they company had hired Americans? Yes. But yet these distinctions remain in our legal system and our psyche. Laws should not be something to pick and choose which ones I should abide by, yet this is the system that operates. If the act is immoral, why should it matter who does it? Chang notes that many people believe that "people [low wage laborers] should be grateful for the work they get under any conditions, that it is a privilege, that they are better of with it than without.... At the core, the struggle that all of these workers share is to disabuse the American public and US employers of the belief that employing them in service work resembling servitude in an act of justice or charity."
So...semi-book review of "disposable domestics" (grace chang) which helped me understand immigration as a labor issue, and why the hate speech is simply false.
rough draft for internship:
Anti-immigrant sentiment changes on who it is directed against and when it is deployed. Economic crisis' are one of those times that predictably drum up anti-immigrant fears. The usual charges vary from overwhelmed social services, taking Americans jobs - or for the ambitious immigrant, taking down the economy. Not only are these statements ingenious, they are simply false.
It has been long recognized that immigrants provide cheap labor at little. They use a relatively small proportion of social services, pay sales tax and even social security tax, of which they will see none of. However, even as countless studies show that the net 'economic benefits' of immigrants outweighs the 'costs' this misses the point. Economic refugees do not come to sweatshops for the English.
Grace Chang's book, Disposable Domestics, is as relevant today as it was ten years ago. She notes that one of the reasons immigration is so cost effective for the United States is that their home country has borne the costs of raising them. Many people come to the United States as a young and employable workforce. immigration patterns do not correlate only with the poverty, but rather with US influence and interference in a country. Chang notes that "the extraction of resources by the United States and other First World nations forces many people in the Third World to migrate and follow their countries' wealth." We can see this playing out before our very eyes with the multinational corporations operating in Mexico. They save money through lax environmental laws, and abuse labor laws they know will not be enforced. These corporations put small stores out of business and destroys the places where they operate, syphoning the profits back into the United States. Companies such as Dole own unused large swathes of land, rendering a significant part of a country, such as Guatemala, unproductive.
Upon coming to American, the questions remains, - are illegal immigrants taking American jobs? As Chang points out about immigration raids, - "Creating job vacancies is not the same as creating jobs" - factory raids do not provide decent jobs to Americans. Many of these jobs would not exist in the first place were it not for a super exploitive labor force. This is because if the company employed Americans, the working conditions would be illegal. Under the threat of deportation, undocumented workers face extreme obstacles to organize to confront employer abuses. Even after forced to work long hours, in poor conditions for low pay, employers often do not give a paycheck. The fact that even legalized workers in the United States face harassment, intimidation or fired for trying to organize gives us insight to what companies will resort to to wreck havoc on their workers - without these laws for minimal protection. Companies have even called the INS on themselves during an organizing drive to thwart unionization. American workers have a vested interst in ensuring labor rights to all documented and undocumented workers. It is impossible to compete with a labor force without rights. Power in number ensures that companies cannot use technicalities to justify inhumane conditions.
Part 2. more musinggs: morality of selective law.
Even if people do not agree on many things, being against sweatshops or child labor shouldn't depend on one's nationality or having the right papers. Many of our laws exist because it is simply wrong. If an immigrant commits murder this is wrong. Are they subject to punishment under the law? yes. Why? it is wrong. Is it wrong to have people working in conditions that would be illegal if they company had hired Americans? Yes. But yet these distinctions remain in our legal system and our psyche. Laws should not be something to pick and choose which ones I should abide by, yet this is the system that operates. If the act is immoral, why should it matter who does it? Chang notes that many people believe that "people [low wage laborers] should be grateful for the work they get under any conditions, that it is a privilege, that they are better of with it than without.... At the core, the struggle that all of these workers share is to disabuse the American public and US employers of the belief that employing them in service work resembling servitude in an act of justice or charity."
sábado, 13 de junio de 2009
Peru
President Garcia: "We have to understand" he said, that "when there are resources like oil, gas and timber, they don't belong only to the people who had the fortune to be born there because that would mean more than half of Peru's territory belongs to a few thousand people."
Oil and gas are finite resources and the land the rest under cannot be simultaneiously lived on as well as exploited. Who owns this oil? Using his same logic the oil doesn't really belong to Peru either - just because that country happens to posses oil within its borders. They belong to the people of the world!
Since the use of these resources requires ownership, he is saying not only that they don't belong to the indigenous groups, but that they "Belong" the ruling elite. Its not like cleaning up the river so we all benefit - so the corporation has no right to pollute. No, this is the taking of land, to be given to someone else, at the expense of uprooting and potentially murdering an entire people.
This statement implicitely shows who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' in Garcia's mind, and exposes his racism.
Protests like the ones in Peru and around the world such as for water rights or what have you, it is often said that the motivation is purely political. I fail to see how this denigrates the objective. Of course it is political! Government policies and international policies are political decisions. How can it NOT be political? I think what they are insinuating is 'political gain' in that people care more about raw power than about the issues. This is precisely the point. Their use of 'political gain' is almost absurd because if this were true, the elites would be quite excited. If the indigenous leaders actually renounced their movements, for 'reconciliation' this would be 'politically motivated'. If Obama pledged to renounce torture unequivocally, and doesn't, it is for 'political' reasons. If Max Baucus doesn't support a government sponsored health care plan against the wishes of Montanan's... THIS is politically motivated at its finest. But when people risk their lives for a cause and refuse to renounce and reject everything they stand for... is this politically motivated? I think not.
Oil and gas are finite resources and the land the rest under cannot be simultaneiously lived on as well as exploited. Who owns this oil? Using his same logic the oil doesn't really belong to Peru either - just because that country happens to posses oil within its borders. They belong to the people of the world!
Since the use of these resources requires ownership, he is saying not only that they don't belong to the indigenous groups, but that they "Belong" the ruling elite. Its not like cleaning up the river so we all benefit - so the corporation has no right to pollute. No, this is the taking of land, to be given to someone else, at the expense of uprooting and potentially murdering an entire people.
This statement implicitely shows who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' in Garcia's mind, and exposes his racism.
Protests like the ones in Peru and around the world such as for water rights or what have you, it is often said that the motivation is purely political. I fail to see how this denigrates the objective. Of course it is political! Government policies and international policies are political decisions. How can it NOT be political? I think what they are insinuating is 'political gain' in that people care more about raw power than about the issues. This is precisely the point. Their use of 'political gain' is almost absurd because if this were true, the elites would be quite excited. If the indigenous leaders actually renounced their movements, for 'reconciliation' this would be 'politically motivated'. If Obama pledged to renounce torture unequivocally, and doesn't, it is for 'political' reasons. If Max Baucus doesn't support a government sponsored health care plan against the wishes of Montanan's... THIS is politically motivated at its finest. But when people risk their lives for a cause and refuse to renounce and reject everything they stand for... is this politically motivated? I think not.
lunes, 8 de junio de 2009
Fair Trade vs. Direct Trade
Stepping into my local coffee shop inquiring if they sell fair trade coffee – I was told that they had something better – “Direct Trade”. I was told this cut out the middle man in Free trade, and was the next step up. Excited, I bought the coffee, and then came home to investigate.
I also began reading more intensly my book on fair trade "the prospects and pitfalls of market driven social justice"
I am disappointed by both. More so by Direct Trade since they are demeaning to Fair Trade on their website, and trying to compete in a tiny market of ethical consumers rather than bring in new ones. And it appears they don't have better labor standards.
The book points out that with the collapse of the international coffee agreement in 1989 the price of coffee was much higher than it is today - even above fair trade prices. Fair trade a few years ago only compromised about .5% of the coffee market. So here we have some people making a little bit of money, but it is bascally peanuts. And people buy it thinking they are doing good, when they don't realize that even walmart used to pay higher price - more fair - than they are now!
I wanted to write a critical assesment of both on the blog at my internship, but I was censored. First time. I guess i can understand why since we put out catalogues of suggestions for how people can be more ethical consumers. But at the same time, isn't being realistic also neccesary? like tossing a dime to the starving child and feeling warm and fuzzy for your contribution for solving world hunger.
So even while fair trade has its pitfalls, some within it are actually trying to change the marco-economic policies, and sell fair trade products as only one small part to increase awareness and create fertile ground for cooperatives around the world who are trying to create an alternative structure to the corporate model. ie no hierarchy, democratic control of the workplace, social conciousness. the foundation must be layed first. Although other fair trade theorists have no such desire and want to increase marketability and don't believe the neocapitalist can or should be changed. It is what it is.
The dangers of co-optation. If Starbucks becomes the major buyer of fair trade coffee this raises legitamate holy fuck type questions. apparently they have already pushed for changing the labor standards, and who fair trade deals with. I think some of this already was implemented. If fair trade becomes mainstream through corporations, who then determines its course? who holds the power? these alliances should be made with suspicion. the book points out that the world bank, imf, starbucks etc. are all in favor of fair trade - at the micro level. (just enough anyways - starbucks only buys 6% fair trade coffee). But none of them would ever support changing the fundamental structures of domination - macroeconomic policies.
I emailed "Counter Culture" about their labor standards with the following questions. What really bugs me is that try to pretend to be all revolutionary on their websites, when they don't even have a vision to change anything. They also mention how transparency is fundamental, but none of the farms they trade with have websites, no way i can check up on them. I guess its easy to be transparent when there is no information. Like me: i am completely honest concerning all aspects of my artwork! uhhhh...
1. Are there specific criteria used to judge labor standards?
2. Are these criteria a prerequisite to developing trade relations?
3. Direct Trade is compared to Fair Trade throughout the website. Since an integral mission of Fair Trade is based on ethical working conditions adhering to ILO standards (no child labor, right to unionize, etc.); by saying Direct Trade has higher standards suggests that Direct Trade ensures better working conditions. Is that a proper assessment?
(“Meanwhile, we recognized that our own standards of quality, transparency, and fair pricing were somewhat higher than the FTC standard. We developed the Counter Culture Direct Trade Certification in the desire to raise the bar of fairness and sustainability and lead by example in the coffee trade”.)
4. One of the biggest criticisms of Fair Trade coffee is that its ‘fair’ price is actually below what the market was before the International Coffee Agreement was abandoned in 1989. The sales of both fair trade and direct trade do not even begin to fill the gap of the price drop. In the interests of social sustainability, does Counter Culture support efforts to change macro-economic relations?
5. Why did Counter Culture choose to peg its bottom floor price in relation to Fair Trade – which it can be argued, is not meeting the needs of farmers.
6. Does Direct Trade aim at increasing the amount of ethical consumers – by offering better coffee, or does it simply compete with Fair Trade consumers?
I also began reading more intensly my book on fair trade "the prospects and pitfalls of market driven social justice"
I am disappointed by both. More so by Direct Trade since they are demeaning to Fair Trade on their website, and trying to compete in a tiny market of ethical consumers rather than bring in new ones. And it appears they don't have better labor standards.
The book points out that with the collapse of the international coffee agreement in 1989 the price of coffee was much higher than it is today - even above fair trade prices. Fair trade a few years ago only compromised about .5% of the coffee market. So here we have some people making a little bit of money, but it is bascally peanuts. And people buy it thinking they are doing good, when they don't realize that even walmart used to pay higher price - more fair - than they are now!
I wanted to write a critical assesment of both on the blog at my internship, but I was censored. First time. I guess i can understand why since we put out catalogues of suggestions for how people can be more ethical consumers. But at the same time, isn't being realistic also neccesary? like tossing a dime to the starving child and feeling warm and fuzzy for your contribution for solving world hunger.
So even while fair trade has its pitfalls, some within it are actually trying to change the marco-economic policies, and sell fair trade products as only one small part to increase awareness and create fertile ground for cooperatives around the world who are trying to create an alternative structure to the corporate model. ie no hierarchy, democratic control of the workplace, social conciousness. the foundation must be layed first. Although other fair trade theorists have no such desire and want to increase marketability and don't believe the neocapitalist can or should be changed. It is what it is.
The dangers of co-optation. If Starbucks becomes the major buyer of fair trade coffee this raises legitamate holy fuck type questions. apparently they have already pushed for changing the labor standards, and who fair trade deals with. I think some of this already was implemented. If fair trade becomes mainstream through corporations, who then determines its course? who holds the power? these alliances should be made with suspicion. the book points out that the world bank, imf, starbucks etc. are all in favor of fair trade - at the micro level. (just enough anyways - starbucks only buys 6% fair trade coffee). But none of them would ever support changing the fundamental structures of domination - macroeconomic policies.
I emailed "Counter Culture" about their labor standards with the following questions. What really bugs me is that try to pretend to be all revolutionary on their websites, when they don't even have a vision to change anything. They also mention how transparency is fundamental, but none of the farms they trade with have websites, no way i can check up on them. I guess its easy to be transparent when there is no information. Like me: i am completely honest concerning all aspects of my artwork! uhhhh...
1. Are there specific criteria used to judge labor standards?
2. Are these criteria a prerequisite to developing trade relations?
3. Direct Trade is compared to Fair Trade throughout the website. Since an integral mission of Fair Trade is based on ethical working conditions adhering to ILO standards (no child labor, right to unionize, etc.); by saying Direct Trade has higher standards suggests that Direct Trade ensures better working conditions. Is that a proper assessment?
(“Meanwhile, we recognized that our own standards of quality, transparency, and fair pricing were somewhat higher than the FTC standard. We developed the Counter Culture Direct Trade Certification in the desire to raise the bar of fairness and sustainability and lead by example in the coffee trade”.)
4. One of the biggest criticisms of Fair Trade coffee is that its ‘fair’ price is actually below what the market was before the International Coffee Agreement was abandoned in 1989. The sales of both fair trade and direct trade do not even begin to fill the gap of the price drop. In the interests of social sustainability, does Counter Culture support efforts to change macro-economic relations?
5. Why did Counter Culture choose to peg its bottom floor price in relation to Fair Trade – which it can be argued, is not meeting the needs of farmers.
6. Does Direct Trade aim at increasing the amount of ethical consumers – by offering better coffee, or does it simply compete with Fair Trade consumers?
sábado, 30 de mayo de 2009
z course economics
the answers from prof. bond from my online course:
me:
Hello everyone, I am a preemie with this stuff, as my following questions will demonstrate. Attempting to stay afloat, but enjoying the readings nonetheless.
“One indicator of the super-profitability of the financial sector is that while profits in the US manufacturing sector came to one percent of US gross domestic product (GDP), profits in the financial sector came to two percent.” What constitutes the other 97 percent?
PB: Hi, it's just a measure, e.g., how much do I weigh in proportion to,say, all the things in my apartment: about 2%, I'm guessing. And my 14 year old son? His weight is closer to 1%. The other 97% is the furniture, the appliances, the books in the little study, etc. Most of the 97% of the GDP that you refer to is the input cost of production; a typical surplus in the 10% range is divided into all the various economic sectors. (I'm surprised its so low for finance, insurance and real estate, and maybe can get around to looking at that again).
ME: Bello talks about bubbles and that the profits are only made by selling before ‘reality sets in’ - is there any such thing as ‘real values’? If someone is willing to pay x amount for a house, why isn’t it worth that much? If the loans could not have been restructured would things have turned out any different?
PB: An underlying value in the marxian sense is the potential for maintaining a decent rate of return by extracting surplus value. That's the ultimate 'real sector' productive value we would look for, to see if an investment can be sustained. We would look for that, but capitalists don't, they look for profit. So if a company like GM makes much more money from GMAC financial gimmicks than from making cars, GM will still get investments in the stock market from gullible brokers and consumers who believe they're buying 'value'. When the bubble bursts and GM goes under, it is all revealed as speculation, with so little production that the company can be trashed. In the case of mortgages, the real estate bubble was fueled by easy credit (not just subprime but more generally). Once the credit ends, as we're seeing, prices crash.
ME: What exactly is speculation – and its connection with fictitious capital. It seems that speculation is referred to not how much something could be worth, but rather how much people can be tricked into thinking its worth.
PB: These are great questions, and I should have backed up long ago on this to try making these links. Let me append the section from my book Uneven Zimbabwe which covers all this, ok? Again, I'll apologise in advance for jargon, but I hope you will see where financial speculation, financial control and financial crisis are all rooted.
me:
Hello everyone, I am a preemie with this stuff, as my following questions will demonstrate. Attempting to stay afloat, but enjoying the readings nonetheless.
“One indicator of the super-profitability of the financial sector is that while profits in the US manufacturing sector came to one percent of US gross domestic product (GDP), profits in the financial sector came to two percent.” What constitutes the other 97 percent?
PB: Hi, it's just a measure, e.g., how much do I weigh in proportion to,say, all the things in my apartment: about 2%, I'm guessing. And my 14 year old son? His weight is closer to 1%. The other 97% is the furniture, the appliances, the books in the little study, etc. Most of the 97% of the GDP that you refer to is the input cost of production; a typical surplus in the 10% range is divided into all the various economic sectors. (I'm surprised its so low for finance, insurance and real estate, and maybe can get around to looking at that again).
ME: Bello talks about bubbles and that the profits are only made by selling before ‘reality sets in’ - is there any such thing as ‘real values’? If someone is willing to pay x amount for a house, why isn’t it worth that much? If the loans could not have been restructured would things have turned out any different?
PB: An underlying value in the marxian sense is the potential for maintaining a decent rate of return by extracting surplus value. That's the ultimate 'real sector' productive value we would look for, to see if an investment can be sustained. We would look for that, but capitalists don't, they look for profit. So if a company like GM makes much more money from GMAC financial gimmicks than from making cars, GM will still get investments in the stock market from gullible brokers and consumers who believe they're buying 'value'. When the bubble bursts and GM goes under, it is all revealed as speculation, with so little production that the company can be trashed. In the case of mortgages, the real estate bubble was fueled by easy credit (not just subprime but more generally). Once the credit ends, as we're seeing, prices crash.
ME: What exactly is speculation – and its connection with fictitious capital. It seems that speculation is referred to not how much something could be worth, but rather how much people can be tricked into thinking its worth.
PB: These are great questions, and I should have backed up long ago on this to try making these links. Let me append the section from my book Uneven Zimbabwe which covers all this, ok? Again, I'll apologise in advance for jargon, but I hope you will see where financial speculation, financial control and financial crisis are all rooted.
Colombia! ILRF
final draft.. not yet approved for my new internship at the International labor rights forum (!) apparently all my cool little links i had put in were de-installed with the copy and paste. I am not (yet) tech savvy enough, nor motivated enough to fix it. My new project is on the colombia free trade agreement, and to make a simple graphic to make it easily understood why we oppose it. This should be fun.
Colombian Senator and Liberal Party Presidential candidate, Cecilia López, spoke about her ideas for peace and human rights in the country yesterday in Washington, DC at an event sponsored by the Washington Office on Latin America and the Center for Justice and Environmental Law. Senator Lopez founded the organization ‘Agenda Colombia Foundation’, has taught economics and demography at various universities, and has written numerous publications addressing solutions to the conflict. She described the current situation in Colombia as a human rights catastrophe.
Her platform, titled ‘Security with Rights’, combines safety with social concerns - “there is no real peace without development”. The elimination of poverty is not simply humane, it is essential for ending the conflict. This is no simple task. In the book she contributed to: “Colombia: Essays on Conflict, Peace and Development”, she says that poverty is an effect of limited democracy and is not the driving force of the conflict. Poverty alone does not cause violence, “the cause… and the resulting escalation in violence, is the insufficiently acknowledged political, economic, and social exclusion which has characterized its [Colombia’s] society.” The solution is to fundamentally change the power structures and opportunities for citizen participation. Unless citizens have a greater say in determining their own fate, the cycle of poverty and violence will continue.
Some of those rights include freedom at work. Intimidation, violence, threats and displacement characterize workers’ daily lives. USLEAP has documented that even though there has been improvements, more unionists are killed in Colombia than the entire world put together – still! Less than 2% of these cases are ever even prosecuted. Fighting for small protections has always been an uphill battle, yet companies’ have still found ways around them. According to the ILRF report, “The Right to Associate”, contract labor has substantially increased in Colombia. Contract laborers do not have access to any of the protections of being in a union, and are often used as ‘union busters’ through mass firing of workers and re-hiring of contract laborers. One of the bottling plants in Bogota was found to have contracted more than 70% of its workforce from associated work cooperatives. One of our previous blogs discusses the five worst offenders of worker rights, and what we, as consumers, can do about it.
The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, (FTA) which is not expected to be debated in Congress this session, has been criticized on many levels. The most common critique is of Colombia’s substantial number of human rights violations. While important, this fails to take into account the causes of these violations as well as the other things inherently wrong with the agreement. (And as if being the worst offender in the world by a small margin rather than a large margin implies victory!) Upside Down World activist, Heidi Andrea Restrepo Rhodes, notes that heavily subsidized US goods would be allowed to enter Colombia duty free. The service and agricultural workers could not possibly compete, and job loss is estimated at 250,000 – mostly rural farmers. In an open letter to Obama and Nancy Pelosi last year, the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council adamantly rejected the FTA. In a popular referendum, 98% of the people responded unfavorably towards the agreement. They say that, “We want an agreement that has real trade as its content, trade that guarantees reciprocal opportunity, so that the well-being of peoples is realized in a manner that is autonomous and sovereign and protects nature and life.”
As Colombia becomes integrated in the global economy, worker rights are even more important. This includes the right to land. Agrarian reform is essential for environmental and cultural protections, as well as moving towards a more egalitarian society. Colombia’s roots are derived from unequal land distribution which has left a lasting legacy of inequality. The conflict continues to drive people off their lands, and the millions of people internally displaced have also been driven from their livelihood.
Senator López declares “the rights of the people are a duty of the state and not a favor”. While current President Alvaro Uribe has dismissed unionists concerns and human rights groups as ‘guerrillas’, she says that it is precisely these things that a democratic government should defend. Laws protecting trade unionists should be enforced and backed by the government. These bold statements will serve as a challenge to Uribe in 2010, arguing that he has put security ahead of everything else, including peace.
Colombian Senator and Liberal Party Presidential candidate, Cecilia López, spoke about her ideas for peace and human rights in the country yesterday in Washington, DC at an event sponsored by the Washington Office on Latin America and the Center for Justice and Environmental Law. Senator Lopez founded the organization ‘Agenda Colombia Foundation’, has taught economics and demography at various universities, and has written numerous publications addressing solutions to the conflict. She described the current situation in Colombia as a human rights catastrophe.
Her platform, titled ‘Security with Rights’, combines safety with social concerns - “there is no real peace without development”. The elimination of poverty is not simply humane, it is essential for ending the conflict. This is no simple task. In the book she contributed to: “Colombia: Essays on Conflict, Peace and Development”, she says that poverty is an effect of limited democracy and is not the driving force of the conflict. Poverty alone does not cause violence, “the cause… and the resulting escalation in violence, is the insufficiently acknowledged political, economic, and social exclusion which has characterized its [Colombia’s] society.” The solution is to fundamentally change the power structures and opportunities for citizen participation. Unless citizens have a greater say in determining their own fate, the cycle of poverty and violence will continue.
Some of those rights include freedom at work. Intimidation, violence, threats and displacement characterize workers’ daily lives. USLEAP has documented that even though there has been improvements, more unionists are killed in Colombia than the entire world put together – still! Less than 2% of these cases are ever even prosecuted. Fighting for small protections has always been an uphill battle, yet companies’ have still found ways around them. According to the ILRF report, “The Right to Associate”, contract labor has substantially increased in Colombia. Contract laborers do not have access to any of the protections of being in a union, and are often used as ‘union busters’ through mass firing of workers and re-hiring of contract laborers. One of the bottling plants in Bogota was found to have contracted more than 70% of its workforce from associated work cooperatives. One of our previous blogs discusses the five worst offenders of worker rights, and what we, as consumers, can do about it.
The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, (FTA) which is not expected to be debated in Congress this session, has been criticized on many levels. The most common critique is of Colombia’s substantial number of human rights violations. While important, this fails to take into account the causes of these violations as well as the other things inherently wrong with the agreement. (And as if being the worst offender in the world by a small margin rather than a large margin implies victory!) Upside Down World activist, Heidi Andrea Restrepo Rhodes, notes that heavily subsidized US goods would be allowed to enter Colombia duty free. The service and agricultural workers could not possibly compete, and job loss is estimated at 250,000 – mostly rural farmers. In an open letter to Obama and Nancy Pelosi last year, the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council adamantly rejected the FTA. In a popular referendum, 98% of the people responded unfavorably towards the agreement. They say that, “We want an agreement that has real trade as its content, trade that guarantees reciprocal opportunity, so that the well-being of peoples is realized in a manner that is autonomous and sovereign and protects nature and life.”
As Colombia becomes integrated in the global economy, worker rights are even more important. This includes the right to land. Agrarian reform is essential for environmental and cultural protections, as well as moving towards a more egalitarian society. Colombia’s roots are derived from unequal land distribution which has left a lasting legacy of inequality. The conflict continues to drive people off their lands, and the millions of people internally displaced have also been driven from their livelihood.
Senator López declares “the rights of the people are a duty of the state and not a favor”. While current President Alvaro Uribe has dismissed unionists concerns and human rights groups as ‘guerrillas’, she says that it is precisely these things that a democratic government should defend. Laws protecting trade unionists should be enforced and backed by the government. These bold statements will serve as a challenge to Uribe in 2010, arguing that he has put security ahead of everything else, including peace.
lunes, 18 de mayo de 2009
colombia / guatemala
from upside down world "The water is ours damnit!" - (signs in bogota against water privitization)
lawyer from guatemala murdered, accuses government. Who is probably guilty. even though he is the first 'progressive' government in almost fifty years. He has ruined the reputation. continuing the policies of corruption and money laundering.
While studying in Xela i had many conversations with my spanish teacher over the politics. Apparently a few years ago the national bank went bankrupt and refused to pay back people's money. People lost their entire life savings and suicides went up tenfold. even though it was a government bank, the gov't did not feel obligated to pay the money back. And the banks have been revived with out this burden.
There were both military and police patrolling the streets. Colom (the pres.) had disbanded the military due to Guatemala's violent past, crime spiraled out of control and some cities requested to have them back. Many rural villages took justice in their own hands wishing neither for military nor to just let the crime go. The gangs of Guatemala city had effectively taken it hostage and the police force was entrenched in corruption and collusion. The prison system was critized for holding theives and murderers for a week or so, and then letting the criminal go. In an effort to limit corruption police forces rotated cities they patrolled, so as not to develop ties to the community and give favors. My critique of this (and my teaachers as well) is that the net effect is the corruption becomes integral of the entire police force. They feel no obligation to any community which increases violence. As the police rotate in and out of Guatemala city the ties have already been made with the gangs - to the police force institution, rather than to only a few corrupt ones. The alliance becomes a national one. As Jessica tells me - even if someone wanted to be a good police officer, there is nothing they could do. They will either be killed, or they can benefit. police officers are underpaid and seen as corrupt and disrespected. Since the military was disbanded by the gov't without re-integration programs, many become angry and joined the narco traffickers. Many are well trained with no job, or job relocation programs. Guatemala city has not invited the military back, despite the highest crime rate in central america, (possibly latin america with the exception of mexico). So in the city where i was studying, police patrolled some areas, miltary were in other's, and private security guards were mandated in front of businesses. The crime was not very high in this town, but the gangs were reportedly trying to move in. About 30 bus drivers had been murdered in the last few months for not paying ransom to the gangs. They were killed along with their assistant. Some threats had been made to do the same in Xela and the drivers were going to go on strike.
Femicide: premeditated killing of women - as a hate crime, for simply being female. This often includes torture
Feminicide: a government policy of femicide.
Femicide was finally recognized as an official crime about ten years ago. There still have been very few prosecutions, but awareness and acknolwedgement is nonetheless being made. The woman who came to speak about women and politics believed many of these crimes in the past ten years were because of the feminist movement and women challenging the status quo. Domestic violence is extremely high as is domestic murder. 4 women were violently killed and tortured and xela in the past year. occaisonally these are political crimes. women are vastly under represented in politics and organizations in general. Because education is expensive male children are given priority to study. So lack of education and skills keep women locked into poverty and less job opportunities.
Health: very poor health system. Colom was actually making some head way on this. It is upsetting that the left is most likely going to be discredited because Colom is upholding the status quo in other areas (corruption and intimidation). pneumonia is the leading cause of death in Guatemala. Illiteracy reaches 40% in some of the rural areas. Public hospitals are available for free and open to anyone. The better hospitals are mostly located in the bigger cities. Patients must pay for their drugs though. since almost half the population lives in rural areas this makes health care in those areas very difficult. there is also a separate system for privitized care and for people with insurance. Some people with government jobs have "IGGS" which is insurance provided by an employeer, or purchased. It works very well except hardly anyone has it. The other main complaint with IGGS is that it may take up to three weeks in order to receive care. For serious illnesses this can be dangerous and inneffective.
- "pharmacists" sell pills on the bus. They tell people how to take the medicine.
- wandering caravans of missionaries to provide health care are everywhere. The lecturer on this topic was highly critical of the practice. i asked what the effect is of the high number of foreign NGO's that received most of the aid from foreign sources - ie the obligation is to the funders not to the people who recieve treatment. She said there are some very good NGO's who have developed very good ties to the community. But not often. most pay more attention to attracting volunteers and making it a good program for foreigners rather than the locals. Some of the doctors don't even speak spanish. Some have lost their license and can't practice in their own country - so they come to guatemala where there is no regulation. or, most common, they do not know the culture, the illnesses, or the causes for the problems they wish to fix. They bring medicine for a disease that does not exist, or antibiotics that do not work.
lawyer from guatemala murdered, accuses government. Who is probably guilty. even though he is the first 'progressive' government in almost fifty years. He has ruined the reputation. continuing the policies of corruption and money laundering.
While studying in Xela i had many conversations with my spanish teacher over the politics. Apparently a few years ago the national bank went bankrupt and refused to pay back people's money. People lost their entire life savings and suicides went up tenfold. even though it was a government bank, the gov't did not feel obligated to pay the money back. And the banks have been revived with out this burden.
There were both military and police patrolling the streets. Colom (the pres.) had disbanded the military due to Guatemala's violent past, crime spiraled out of control and some cities requested to have them back. Many rural villages took justice in their own hands wishing neither for military nor to just let the crime go. The gangs of Guatemala city had effectively taken it hostage and the police force was entrenched in corruption and collusion. The prison system was critized for holding theives and murderers for a week or so, and then letting the criminal go. In an effort to limit corruption police forces rotated cities they patrolled, so as not to develop ties to the community and give favors. My critique of this (and my teaachers as well) is that the net effect is the corruption becomes integral of the entire police force. They feel no obligation to any community which increases violence. As the police rotate in and out of Guatemala city the ties have already been made with the gangs - to the police force institution, rather than to only a few corrupt ones. The alliance becomes a national one. As Jessica tells me - even if someone wanted to be a good police officer, there is nothing they could do. They will either be killed, or they can benefit. police officers are underpaid and seen as corrupt and disrespected. Since the military was disbanded by the gov't without re-integration programs, many become angry and joined the narco traffickers. Many are well trained with no job, or job relocation programs. Guatemala city has not invited the military back, despite the highest crime rate in central america, (possibly latin america with the exception of mexico). So in the city where i was studying, police patrolled some areas, miltary were in other's, and private security guards were mandated in front of businesses. The crime was not very high in this town, but the gangs were reportedly trying to move in. About 30 bus drivers had been murdered in the last few months for not paying ransom to the gangs. They were killed along with their assistant. Some threats had been made to do the same in Xela and the drivers were going to go on strike.
Femicide: premeditated killing of women - as a hate crime, for simply being female. This often includes torture
Feminicide: a government policy of femicide.
Femicide was finally recognized as an official crime about ten years ago. There still have been very few prosecutions, but awareness and acknolwedgement is nonetheless being made. The woman who came to speak about women and politics believed many of these crimes in the past ten years were because of the feminist movement and women challenging the status quo. Domestic violence is extremely high as is domestic murder. 4 women were violently killed and tortured and xela in the past year. occaisonally these are political crimes. women are vastly under represented in politics and organizations in general. Because education is expensive male children are given priority to study. So lack of education and skills keep women locked into poverty and less job opportunities.
Health: very poor health system. Colom was actually making some head way on this. It is upsetting that the left is most likely going to be discredited because Colom is upholding the status quo in other areas (corruption and intimidation). pneumonia is the leading cause of death in Guatemala. Illiteracy reaches 40% in some of the rural areas. Public hospitals are available for free and open to anyone. The better hospitals are mostly located in the bigger cities. Patients must pay for their drugs though. since almost half the population lives in rural areas this makes health care in those areas very difficult. there is also a separate system for privitized care and for people with insurance. Some people with government jobs have "IGGS" which is insurance provided by an employeer, or purchased. It works very well except hardly anyone has it. The other main complaint with IGGS is that it may take up to three weeks in order to receive care. For serious illnesses this can be dangerous and inneffective.
- "pharmacists" sell pills on the bus. They tell people how to take the medicine.
- wandering caravans of missionaries to provide health care are everywhere. The lecturer on this topic was highly critical of the practice. i asked what the effect is of the high number of foreign NGO's that received most of the aid from foreign sources - ie the obligation is to the funders not to the people who recieve treatment. She said there are some very good NGO's who have developed very good ties to the community. But not often. most pay more attention to attracting volunteers and making it a good program for foreigners rather than the locals. Some of the doctors don't even speak spanish. Some have lost their license and can't practice in their own country - so they come to guatemala where there is no regulation. or, most common, they do not know the culture, the illnesses, or the causes for the problems they wish to fix. They bring medicine for a disease that does not exist, or antibiotics that do not work.
domingo, 17 de mayo de 2009
palestine
what is the difference between a militant and a civilian? A civilian is a citizen of a state, so perhaps a better term is militant civilians. Do you categorize child soldiers as children killed, or as militants?
The catch 22 of war. It is impossible not to resist.
From an article critiquing the philosophy of israeli warfare "concerning the difference between combatants and non-combatants, justifying it thus:"
[Israeli war manual]
'We reject such conceptions, because we consider them to be immoral. A combatant is a citizen in uniform. In Israel, quite often he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His blood is as red and thick as that of citizens who are not in uniform. His life is as precious as the life of anyone else (p.17).'"
So is a militant. The difference i see is that soldiers are sent to kill, that is why the distinction has historically been made. That supposedly the fight should be between willing parties. (although mandatory conscription has made this arguement less relevant as does modern warfare which expertly targets civilians)
After having finished reading the article I think his words say it better than mine:
"The moral distinction is based on the fact that combatants have intentionally embarked on acts of violence and are actively seeking to endanger others, whether they are conscripts or not, thereby forfeiting their right to security and to be left in peace. In addition, combatants are armed, prepared for combat, and capable of defending themselves militarily."
Welfare:
In reading Globalization and its discontents' side by side with milton friedmans book there seem to be a point both miss. friedman says ' you cannot do good with other people's money'. stiglitz uses the term 'spread' the wealth or re-allocate it etc. I agree with friedman. The point these interpretations miss is WHOSE wealth has been stolen. When a corporation, or single individual takes over a river to build a dam, they are stealing the resources of the community. the water for the farmers, the land from the people who live there. Land allocation shows the history of collective theft all over the world. They are not doing good with other people's property. When Stiglitz uses the term 're-allocation' it buys into this same idea that you are giving people hand outs of something that does not belong to them. welfare. free money. pity. When in fact, this ideology is better attacked head on. Stolen land, stolen wealth, give it back.
Unionization fails in the sense it does not challenge the idea of ownership. A corporation cannot have entitlement to a communities' wealth. so just as the person who does no work is not entitled to the earnings of the hard working man, an individual has no right to take away someone's means of being able to do work. Namely resources. ideologically it seems friedman would agree. He says he is suspicious of concentrated power. and that ownership breeds productivity. (main critique of communism). So let the people own their own land!!
The catch 22 of war. It is impossible not to resist.
From an article critiquing the philosophy of israeli warfare "concerning the difference between combatants and non-combatants, justifying it thus:"
[Israeli war manual]
'We reject such conceptions, because we consider them to be immoral. A combatant is a citizen in uniform. In Israel, quite often he is a conscript or on reserve duty. His blood is as red and thick as that of citizens who are not in uniform. His life is as precious as the life of anyone else (p.17).'"
So is a militant. The difference i see is that soldiers are sent to kill, that is why the distinction has historically been made. That supposedly the fight should be between willing parties. (although mandatory conscription has made this arguement less relevant as does modern warfare which expertly targets civilians)
After having finished reading the article I think his words say it better than mine:
"The moral distinction is based on the fact that combatants have intentionally embarked on acts of violence and are actively seeking to endanger others, whether they are conscripts or not, thereby forfeiting their right to security and to be left in peace. In addition, combatants are armed, prepared for combat, and capable of defending themselves militarily."
Welfare:
In reading Globalization and its discontents' side by side with milton friedmans book there seem to be a point both miss. friedman says ' you cannot do good with other people's money'. stiglitz uses the term 'spread' the wealth or re-allocate it etc. I agree with friedman. The point these interpretations miss is WHOSE wealth has been stolen. When a corporation, or single individual takes over a river to build a dam, they are stealing the resources of the community. the water for the farmers, the land from the people who live there. Land allocation shows the history of collective theft all over the world. They are not doing good with other people's property. When Stiglitz uses the term 're-allocation' it buys into this same idea that you are giving people hand outs of something that does not belong to them. welfare. free money. pity. When in fact, this ideology is better attacked head on. Stolen land, stolen wealth, give it back.
Unionization fails in the sense it does not challenge the idea of ownership. A corporation cannot have entitlement to a communities' wealth. so just as the person who does no work is not entitled to the earnings of the hard working man, an individual has no right to take away someone's means of being able to do work. Namely resources. ideologically it seems friedman would agree. He says he is suspicious of concentrated power. and that ownership breeds productivity. (main critique of communism). So let the people own their own land!!
martes, 12 de mayo de 2009
milton friedman chapter 1
'capitalism and freedom'. it seems that there is the inherent contradiction between "the preservation of freedom is the protective reason for limiting and decentralizing government power" and then advocating for state militarism and absolute control. One might even say these are opposites. 'Contradictions don't exist.' Is it like the perversion of communism under totalitarianism pretending it is marxism? did he actually see Chile in its form as being free? on to chapter two. no. not yet.
Questions and critiques. Perhaps chapter 2 will make more of a case that capitalism is PRO freedom rather than using the law of negatives. Totalitarian communism limits freedom. capitalism apparently is the exact opposite because it is NOT communism, (stalinist) therefore, it is free.
Question: why is freedom important? eg - what do you get out of it? ayn rand would say it is for the expression of the ego. But he states that in a "society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom... leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with.." Briefly used an example of amazing writers as a product of nongovernment interference, but did not equate freedom with being amazing. (also did not include space exploration, or government funding in research, including his own school...)
- i am also looking for a better definition of coercion
I agree: the market place should be: "both parties to an economic transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed...individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary"
- however, he seems to define involuntary as explicit state violence. does not address other types of involuntary transactions such as forced labor (poverty, child labor, etc)
"Economic power can be widely dispersed...But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed."
what??? no comment. democracy... (true democracy)
"historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market." he backs this up with "i know of no example". he doesn't use any historical evidence, so one must trust that him not knowing is equivalent and better than backing up statements with facts. He uses this "not that i know of" to back up similar wild statements.
he critiques socialism: "in order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living". precisely. This is one of the biggest critique of the free market!! because it leaves most the population unable to earn a living. therefore, unfree. right on, miltie.
This one had to be quoted in its entirety:
"In a capitalism society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institution with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful.."
- does this not then advocate that capitalism is irrational? quality need not be important in the free market. the only obstacle is you need to persuade a rich person. At what point does the idea change from 1. working in the area one wishes to work, 2. pandering to what the population will consume 3. pandering not only to the population but to the rich financier. there are inherently less millionaires than poor people.
when Hollywood people were blacklisted (by Hollywood, not the government..) and says "Their appeal to the fifth amendment would have been a hollow mockery without an alternative to government employment."
I agree. however, he fails to recognize the same goes true when there is no alternative to exploitative employment. And by using the Hollywood example he plainly shows that private enterprises indeed discriminate. the free market, just like government is made up of people.
"To the liberal, the appropriate means are free discussion and voluntary co-operation, which implies that any form of coercion is inappropriate."
one word. Pinochet. Why did he advise the dictatorship and draw up plans for its economy? I don't understand. I had been wondering if he did believe that the ends justified the means, but he says he doesn't. So what then explains for this glaring contradiction?
Questions and critiques. Perhaps chapter 2 will make more of a case that capitalism is PRO freedom rather than using the law of negatives. Totalitarian communism limits freedom. capitalism apparently is the exact opposite because it is NOT communism, (stalinist) therefore, it is free.
Question: why is freedom important? eg - what do you get out of it? ayn rand would say it is for the expression of the ego. But he states that in a "society freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom... leave the ethical problem for the individual to wrestle with.." Briefly used an example of amazing writers as a product of nongovernment interference, but did not equate freedom with being amazing. (also did not include space exploration, or government funding in research, including his own school...)
- i am also looking for a better definition of coercion
I agree: the market place should be: "both parties to an economic transaction is bilaterally voluntary and informed...individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary"
- however, he seems to define involuntary as explicit state violence. does not address other types of involuntary transactions such as forced labor (poverty, child labor, etc)
"Economic power can be widely dispersed...But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his countrymen are centered? There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed."
what??? no comment. democracy... (true democracy)
"historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market." he backs this up with "i know of no example". he doesn't use any historical evidence, so one must trust that him not knowing is equivalent and better than backing up statements with facts. He uses this "not that i know of" to back up similar wild statements.
he critiques socialism: "in order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living". precisely. This is one of the biggest critique of the free market!! because it leaves most the population unable to earn a living. therefore, unfree. right on, miltie.
This one had to be quoted in its entirety:
"In a capitalism society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support. And, indeed, it is not even necessary to persuade people or financial institution with available funds of the soundness of the ideas to be propagated. It is only necessary to persuade them that the propagation can be financially successful.."
- does this not then advocate that capitalism is irrational? quality need not be important in the free market. the only obstacle is you need to persuade a rich person. At what point does the idea change from 1. working in the area one wishes to work, 2. pandering to what the population will consume 3. pandering not only to the population but to the rich financier. there are inherently less millionaires than poor people.
when Hollywood people were blacklisted (by Hollywood, not the government..) and says "Their appeal to the fifth amendment would have been a hollow mockery without an alternative to government employment."
I agree. however, he fails to recognize the same goes true when there is no alternative to exploitative employment. And by using the Hollywood example he plainly shows that private enterprises indeed discriminate. the free market, just like government is made up of people.
"To the liberal, the appropriate means are free discussion and voluntary co-operation, which implies that any form of coercion is inappropriate."
one word. Pinochet. Why did he advise the dictatorship and draw up plans for its economy? I don't understand. I had been wondering if he did believe that the ends justified the means, but he says he doesn't. So what then explains for this glaring contradiction?
lunes, 27 de abril de 2009
market challenges
My responses to my worker self management class. hopefully i can get an awesome responses to my internal contradictions between socialism and individuality.
I read the article by Lebowitz and I am having a hard time grasping worker self management as applied generally, rather than to the specific enterprises we have looked at. I liked the quote from the bolivarian constitution that ¨developing the creative potential of every human being and the full excercise of his or her personality in a democratic society¨ . My question is - what happens when there is a conflict between ones own creative interests and that of society. Or between the desires of the workers and the needs of society. For example, a hospital exists to care for the sick. But there are many sick people, and not enough qualified doctors and nurses, nor funds to pay the staff. Society requires that the staff work longer hours, for less pay, but this is at the expense of the time the nurse wishes to spend with her family, or other needs of the worker. Who´s needs are more important. In the model community, maybe they wouldn´t clash?
the article seems to also suggest that people work for the benefit and for the needs of the community. I see this as partly true, but that this is somewhat ignoring the creative potential, which may be serving only our own needs, rather than someone elses. goals and ambitions in general are self interested, and no one can realize them for us. For me, it seems that the worker cooperatives are the structures that allow people to become individuals, rather than existing only for the benefit for the community. Maybe i am not understanding the article correctly, but it seems to contradict the final point of the bolivarian constitution if everything we did was to benefit someone else. And that working in a cooperative is in a way self interested because we want our community to benefit, we want our families to benefit, we want to work with dignity, and most importantly this type of community enables us to realize our creative potential. Because this situation is a means to an end. But if there is conflict between the needs of society and our creative potential, and the needs of society take precendence, what then is the purpose of it?
As you can see, i am trying to reconcile my individualistic upbringing with what i see as a fantastic model for working with dignity. Sorry for the long rant.
I read the article by Lebowitz and I am having a hard time grasping worker self management as applied generally, rather than to the specific enterprises we have looked at. I liked the quote from the bolivarian constitution that ¨developing the creative potential of every human being and the full excercise of his or her personality in a democratic society¨ . My question is - what happens when there is a conflict between ones own creative interests and that of society. Or between the desires of the workers and the needs of society. For example, a hospital exists to care for the sick. But there are many sick people, and not enough qualified doctors and nurses, nor funds to pay the staff. Society requires that the staff work longer hours, for less pay, but this is at the expense of the time the nurse wishes to spend with her family, or other needs of the worker. Who´s needs are more important. In the model community, maybe they wouldn´t clash?
the article seems to also suggest that people work for the benefit and for the needs of the community. I see this as partly true, but that this is somewhat ignoring the creative potential, which may be serving only our own needs, rather than someone elses. goals and ambitions in general are self interested, and no one can realize them for us. For me, it seems that the worker cooperatives are the structures that allow people to become individuals, rather than existing only for the benefit for the community. Maybe i am not understanding the article correctly, but it seems to contradict the final point of the bolivarian constitution if everything we did was to benefit someone else. And that working in a cooperative is in a way self interested because we want our community to benefit, we want our families to benefit, we want to work with dignity, and most importantly this type of community enables us to realize our creative potential. Because this situation is a means to an end. But if there is conflict between the needs of society and our creative potential, and the needs of society take precendence, what then is the purpose of it?
As you can see, i am trying to reconcile my individualistic upbringing with what i see as a fantastic model for working with dignity. Sorry for the long rant.
jueves, 16 de abril de 2009
there is far too much to think about. started reading `¨shock doctrine, rise of ...capitalism`` on the plane. Some of it i knew already, but it does answer some of the questions on latin america concerning the economy that i needed some facts and figures on. such as that pinochet practically killed the economy and had to re-nationalize industries to keep it from going under. My main thoughts concern milton friedman. Is he the economic voice of ayn rand? it made me thoroughly disappointed to think this might be true. I am interested in reading his writings, he sounded intriguing. Initial thoughts= does the free market have an end in an of itself besides being a free market? supposedly it is in the defense of liberty, but if this is the case then it should be measured. The right to one´s life is the most fundamental freedom and liberty. So does friedan thought truly justify this? I also see poverty as limiting freedom, but that is for another day. also, private ownership. how can one company lay claim to a lake? how is this resolved? what about when two people have different goals within the free market structure '- such as short term goals and longterm ones. short term contradicts long term since less money goes towards sustainability and health of the factory / etc. and.. why does the free market call for privitizing everything BUT security? is this due to the idea that there exists certain enterprises where there should be no profit to be made? blackwater does it better! I see a fundamental contradiction between privitizing something for the government to then pay for, vs. going directly to the consumers. It seems that if the market were truly free the government would not be an intermediary. This is why i find charter schools problematic. The government is still paying for it - even though it is not providing it, thus losing all incentive to make it more cost effective. although, perhaps strangely comforting is to think that there actually exists an ideology behind all of this rather than blind hatred for people, and love of money. I still fail to see why certain people`s liberty are held above others in the campaign for liberty. I believe no ideas should be surpressed. the only way to defeat an idea is by an idea. if you can only eliminate the thought by killing the body, the idea didn´t win.
Currently i am staying in 'gringolandia'. it is strange. looking forward to getting out of here soon. people were very helpful during my bus escapades as usual. and of course they would come up to me and speak english which drives me almost insane. And... i didn´t hyperventilate attack on the plane! first time in years. literally.
Currently i am staying in 'gringolandia'. it is strange. looking forward to getting out of here soon. people were very helpful during my bus escapades as usual. and of course they would come up to me and speak english which drives me almost insane. And... i didn´t hyperventilate attack on the plane! first time in years. literally.
miércoles, 25 de marzo de 2009
Guatemala!
who has plane tickets to Guatemala... Cassie does! spanish immersion, as well as first independent project on unions. exciting and scary all at once. my new internship is with the International Labor Rights Forum, and I have been accepted into grad school (yay!) so I actually have a title, per se, rather than 'concerned citizen'. I already contacted some people saying i was interested in writing an article on their work and would like to set up an interview. Easy as pie! I want to do justice to the project though rather than just an experiment, so I have been frantically trying to research the latest news with labor unions, etc. I will be there May 1st... workers of the world unite! So my labor rights focus happens to be timely with my cheap tickets, and long held desire to visit Guatemala. I am torn between devoting my efforts to the historical memory project, or the effects of CAFTA and rise in union member violence. Obviously, as beginner I cannot be expected to report new news, but rather to amplify the voices.
And, I can always fall back on reality - conduct an interview simply as a concerned citizen, and ask questions such as 'what significance does May 1st hold... what do you see for the future...?
I am reading on what Cato has to say about CAFTA to get a sense of measurement. The higher Cato rates it - the more bullshit it is.
Of other importance, but no less significant: I am taking two online courses 1. worker factory takeovers in Argentina, and the other on the economic crisis, its roots, and how it is affecting the global south. The latter is beyond my comprehension to contribute to the discussions, but interesting nonetheless. Thoughts of 'fictitious capital' keeps me awake at night. They answer my questions such as...can someone explain the housing bubble in baby babble please! and lovingly and gently, the radical leftist intellectual community has taken me under its wing. initial responses...
"You have put your finger on a fundamental difference between a materialist/Marxist analysis and a mainstream one. Marx argued that value was objective – the value of something was determined by the amount of labour time that it took to produce it. Mainstream economists say its all subjective – the value is what someone says its worth. It makes the interpretation of the current crisis quite different."
This reminded me instantly of Dostoyevsky - the man underground, and the ice castle. That no matter how silly our desires our, we still may want it. I believe that worth is extremely subjective. Whether its a house, a candy bar, or a jar of nutella that sells quite expensively in Colombia to an exclusively foreign crowd. A house for some is worth more than a house for others, regardless of the actual labor time it took to complete it. A better example might be coin collectors - why pay $20 for an old nickle? its only worth that much if someone is willing to pay that much. So the problem is not with the houses alone, per se, but with the idea behind them. That the mortages are what are not worth what they are then being packaged off and sold for. hmmm. i do not hold myself responsible for any statements made, as they will be changed probably within the week...
And, I can always fall back on reality - conduct an interview simply as a concerned citizen, and ask questions such as 'what significance does May 1st hold... what do you see for the future...?
I am reading on what Cato has to say about CAFTA to get a sense of measurement. The higher Cato rates it - the more bullshit it is.
Of other importance, but no less significant: I am taking two online courses 1. worker factory takeovers in Argentina, and the other on the economic crisis, its roots, and how it is affecting the global south. The latter is beyond my comprehension to contribute to the discussions, but interesting nonetheless. Thoughts of 'fictitious capital' keeps me awake at night. They answer my questions such as...can someone explain the housing bubble in baby babble please! and lovingly and gently, the radical leftist intellectual community has taken me under its wing. initial responses...
"You have put your finger on a fundamental difference between a materialist/Marxist analysis and a mainstream one. Marx argued that value was objective – the value of something was determined by the amount of labour time that it took to produce it. Mainstream economists say its all subjective – the value is what someone says its worth. It makes the interpretation of the current crisis quite different."
This reminded me instantly of Dostoyevsky - the man underground, and the ice castle. That no matter how silly our desires our, we still may want it. I believe that worth is extremely subjective. Whether its a house, a candy bar, or a jar of nutella that sells quite expensively in Colombia to an exclusively foreign crowd. A house for some is worth more than a house for others, regardless of the actual labor time it took to complete it. A better example might be coin collectors - why pay $20 for an old nickle? its only worth that much if someone is willing to pay that much. So the problem is not with the houses alone, per se, but with the idea behind them. That the mortages are what are not worth what they are then being packaged off and sold for. hmmm. i do not hold myself responsible for any statements made, as they will be changed probably within the week...
domingo, 1 de marzo de 2009
quotes:
"There is something worse than death, and that is the end of birth itself." - Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council
"To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. It is what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul, would you understand why that’s much harder" Ayn Rand (Roark - Fountainhead)
americorp website:
"White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Really? we really are a colorblind society... the whole world is white!
"To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. It is what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul, would you understand why that’s much harder" Ayn Rand (Roark - Fountainhead)
americorp website:
"White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." Really? we really are a colorblind society... the whole world is white!
Cato vs. truth: FTA
For my speech at the dc People's Media Center I had five minutes to write a coherent speech on unions and collective organizing. It was recorded onto a cd which i get next week to critique myself. Not sure if i want to listen to it... but it should be interesting none the less. The idea that has been on my mind is one of poverty, unionizing, labor in general. I couldn't help but to order a new bok about female immigrant labor in the U.S. and the fight for living wages. This struggle is intimately connected cheap labor in other countries as well. Yes, a Honduran worker can make more off two dollars per hour here than in their home country, but does this justify it? What kind of system allows this to exist? continuing with my on going project in search of rejecting these ideals of human rights on the basis of logic and facts, I have been reading the Cato Institute publication in support of the Colombian Free Trade agreement. I was hoping for a challenge...
General contradiction: If free trade agreements are supposed to embody less government restrictions and more liberty - if the majority of the people in a country oppose it - isn't this the pinnicle of Big Government? To styfle free speech, protests and dissent, the government signs an agreement that is overwhelmingly opposed by its citizens. Sounds suspiciously like a dictatorship. -not support of liberty...
Problem One: Factually incorrect
1.Graphs of trade unionists killed. Stats from "colombian military and defense" and "Colombian military of social protection" but these two government sources don't even give the same numbers. The government shouldn't be so obvious when it is lying. example - first graph attempts to show that the number of trade unionist killings have gone down since uribe took office: listing 196 killed in 2002. Graph two shows that 205 were killed rather than 196 -because it makes the percentage drop larger. Amnesty International reports that in 2005 73 trade unionists were killed - Cato says 49.
False: "In the early 1990s, right-wing paramilitary groups were formed by landowners to battle the left-wing guerrillas." Fact: They were created in 1980.
-False: "In the mid 1990s, once the drug cartels were dismantled, both guerillas and paramilitary groups moved into the narcotics business." Fact: US war on drugs began in the 1980's which was also a counterinsurgency operation. The drug cartels partnered up with paramilitaries to fight the guerrillas. FARC also at this time began instituting 'taxes' on farmers who grew it in exchange for their protection. The idea that neither were involved until mid 1990's even contradicts US propaganda from the 80's. Lieing about a lie? That's a new one.
-Even if just one single fact is false it discredits the arguement. Since almost every single political claim is either an outright falsehood or a distortion I think it suffices to say that Cato is bullshit.
Allow us to continue.
"Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 percentage points, representing a net loss of 460,000 jobs. GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points"
"It is not in the U.S. interest to inflict this kind of economic punishment on an ally in the Andean region. Left-wing populism is fueled by poverty and lack of opportunities, as can be easily seen in neighboring Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia." Interesting that poverty and lack of opportunity is cited. Given that the stat that povery would go down is rejected by almost all human rights and labor groups.
"Then we also have the political significance of rejecting the FTA, which has already been approved by the Colombian Congress and is supported by a majority of Colombians."
- What do Colombians say? from the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca:
"To declare that the popular consultation on FTA is not a rejection of 'free trade' but of the form and content of this process and of the proposed treaty for its anti-democratic character, its lack of transparency, and its intention of annexation, displacement, and impoverishment of the population of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru."
- In Cauca:
"Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favor of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" The people expressed their sovereign and conscious decision. Since that first consultation, others have been carried out throughout Colombia, all with the same result."
- one of the largest marches in Colombian history took place against the FTA
- "In Bogota, a million and a half people marched in what was described as the popular referendum against the FTA."
Although the point of this is not to present the case against it, which would take many many more pages, but to show once again that Cato is presenting false information -that the majority of Colombians support it and that Democrats are rejecting the wishes of the Colombian people.
tidbits;
"More than half of our $9.3 billion in imports from Colombia in 2006 were petroleum and coal."
America’s most competitive exports to Colombia in 2006, comprising more than 40 percent of U.S. goods sold there, were manufactured products such as drilling and oil-field equipment, excavating machinery, computers and computer accessories, telecommunications equipment, and medical equipment."
Amnesty says:
"Colombia’s wealth in water and mining, oil and gas, coupled with increased privatization of important parts of these industries, has attracted major transnational corporations to the country. Trade unionists in these sectors have faced repeated human rights violations, often because of their opposition to privatization. "
Cato says:
(CUT)"Free trade is killing us as much as bullets are."8 Equating peaceful, voluntary trade with murdering bullets is a gross comparison that shows the ideological agenda behind much of the opposition to an FTA" Free trade IS the bullets. This is the crux. This is the ideological difference I have with Cato. I don't believe you need to murder people to make money. It is not by chance that trade unions are targeted. They represent opposition to not only the trade policies, but the industries that thrive off it. Such as taking people's land, murdering the leadership of the mining union, and then giving a contract to a large multinational mining company. Or oil company. Or flower corporation. same scenario. Free trade thrives and survives through coercion and the lack of freedom. Trade is not peaceful when people are killed. Cato, do you understand this?
- to be edited at some point in the future
General contradiction: If free trade agreements are supposed to embody less government restrictions and more liberty - if the majority of the people in a country oppose it - isn't this the pinnicle of Big Government? To styfle free speech, protests and dissent, the government signs an agreement that is overwhelmingly opposed by its citizens. Sounds suspiciously like a dictatorship. -not support of liberty...
Problem One: Factually incorrect
1.Graphs of trade unionists killed. Stats from "colombian military and defense" and "Colombian military of social protection" but these two government sources don't even give the same numbers. The government shouldn't be so obvious when it is lying. example - first graph attempts to show that the number of trade unionist killings have gone down since uribe took office: listing 196 killed in 2002. Graph two shows that 205 were killed rather than 196 -because it makes the percentage drop larger. Amnesty International reports that in 2005 73 trade unionists were killed - Cato says 49.
False: "In the early 1990s, right-wing paramilitary groups were formed by landowners to battle the left-wing guerrillas." Fact: They were created in 1980.
-False: "In the mid 1990s, once the drug cartels were dismantled, both guerillas and paramilitary groups moved into the narcotics business." Fact: US war on drugs began in the 1980's which was also a counterinsurgency operation. The drug cartels partnered up with paramilitaries to fight the guerrillas. FARC also at this time began instituting 'taxes' on farmers who grew it in exchange for their protection. The idea that neither were involved until mid 1990's even contradicts US propaganda from the 80's. Lieing about a lie? That's a new one.
-Even if just one single fact is false it discredits the arguement. Since almost every single political claim is either an outright falsehood or a distortion I think it suffices to say that Cato is bullshit.
Allow us to continue.
"Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 percentage points, representing a net loss of 460,000 jobs. GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points"
"It is not in the U.S. interest to inflict this kind of economic punishment on an ally in the Andean region. Left-wing populism is fueled by poverty and lack of opportunities, as can be easily seen in neighboring Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia." Interesting that poverty and lack of opportunity is cited. Given that the stat that povery would go down is rejected by almost all human rights and labor groups.
"Then we also have the political significance of rejecting the FTA, which has already been approved by the Colombian Congress and is supported by a majority of Colombians."
- What do Colombians say? from the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca:
"To declare that the popular consultation on FTA is not a rejection of 'free trade' but of the form and content of this process and of the proposed treaty for its anti-democratic character, its lack of transparency, and its intention of annexation, displacement, and impoverishment of the population of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru."
- In Cauca:
"Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favor of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" The people expressed their sovereign and conscious decision. Since that first consultation, others have been carried out throughout Colombia, all with the same result."
- one of the largest marches in Colombian history took place against the FTA
- "In Bogota, a million and a half people marched in what was described as the popular referendum against the FTA."
Although the point of this is not to present the case against it, which would take many many more pages, but to show once again that Cato is presenting false information -that the majority of Colombians support it and that Democrats are rejecting the wishes of the Colombian people.
tidbits;
"More than half of our $9.3 billion in imports from Colombia in 2006 were petroleum and coal."
America’s most competitive exports to Colombia in 2006, comprising more than 40 percent of U.S. goods sold there, were manufactured products such as drilling and oil-field equipment, excavating machinery, computers and computer accessories, telecommunications equipment, and medical equipment."
Amnesty says:
"Colombia’s wealth in water and mining, oil and gas, coupled with increased privatization of important parts of these industries, has attracted major transnational corporations to the country. Trade unionists in these sectors have faced repeated human rights violations, often because of their opposition to privatization. "
Cato says:
(CUT)"Free trade is killing us as much as bullets are."8 Equating peaceful, voluntary trade with murdering bullets is a gross comparison that shows the ideological agenda behind much of the opposition to an FTA" Free trade IS the bullets. This is the crux. This is the ideological difference I have with Cato. I don't believe you need to murder people to make money. It is not by chance that trade unions are targeted. They represent opposition to not only the trade policies, but the industries that thrive off it. Such as taking people's land, murdering the leadership of the mining union, and then giving a contract to a large multinational mining company. Or oil company. Or flower corporation. same scenario. Free trade thrives and survives through coercion and the lack of freedom. Trade is not peaceful when people are killed. Cato, do you understand this?
- to be edited at some point in the future
domingo, 15 de febrero de 2009
memory additions
continuing on. Fiction vs. reality. The crux of the point below, is that often your own experience is not reflective of society as a whole. So to justify the dictatorship because the 'economy was good' is infactual. One could possibly say ' i benefited from it, but the majority of people did not, - so then it is ok'. is quite different. How do people reconcile this factual error when they study the massive amounts of debt that the dictatorship created? This is what i do not understand. I believe it is both ignorance and denial. if facts don't support your justifications... what do you do? Another reason for denial: feeling guilty - what if you found out when your child turned five years old that she had been stolen from a murdered pregnant woman? (common practice during the Argentine dictatorship) Could you honestly say this was a good thing? Although many wives were presented with children with full knowledge of where they came from. (The theory being that activists pass on poison ideas to their children, so two generations must be dealt with)
As Susana Kaiser discusses - the culture of fear stifles communication, discussion and dissent. even people that nostalgically remember the 'good ole days' do not want their children involved in activism or even community events because of fear they will be killed. So even they recognize it was 'dangerous' all the while speaking out of the other side of their mouth to claim that really, it was quite safe. That silence in fact speaks quite loud. What people don't discuss, is just as important as what they do -in analyzing the grip that terror has on a society even after twenty years.
Another tactic is discussing the violence without placing it within a historical context. The guerrilla insurgency is always exaggerated, their grievances are never discussed. A common theme is that the war was between the government and the guerrillas (rather than an all out war waged on civilian activists). As if opposition to state policies are caused for no reason. I still read articles on Colombia claiming 'Communist FARC' is trying to take over the government. The Montoneros in Argentina arose from anger about economic inequality. Along these same lines - an article i read yesterday on Hamas - how absurd the idea is that a relatively weak 'terrorist' organization is a realistic threat to nuclear armed Israel with the fourth most powerful military in the world. and so civilian annihilation is justified - to save the nation from a made up threat. (although a real threat to economic policies) Also importantly, is that civilian dissent is always lumped in with 'subversives' or guerrillas. This is especially true in Colombia to the point where even US human rights groups, the most moderate of all of them are called 'collaborators'. However this tactic is not new, in fact it seems to be the norm rather than the exception to demonize and criminalize dissent.
I have come to the conclusion that only through ignorance can most people support policies of violence, torture and massive inequality. I still fail to understand the mindset of higher levels of responsibility - those that orchestrate the policies. They are not ignorant. Those who intentionally deceive and manipulate public opinion because they know that the average citizen could not follow their ideas unless they are tricked. War for profit and power. There is a connection between most wars i read about - iraq, vietnam, state violence in latin america, etc. All of them depend on lies to fuel the conflict. This mass destruction will continue as long as ordinary society continues to cede power to these types of individuals. If you don't know what your government is doing - its most likely because they don't want you to know.
Ongoing thoughts concerning Israel's occupation:
1. To what extent should historical validity play in drawing the borders
2. If you follow the logic that Israeli's have historical ties to the land, how far back do you go? What about ancient Gaza and Egyptian rule? Is it relevant if the bloodline is diluted, or even nonexistent? (e.g is Palestinian an ethnic group, or rather more related to geographical location with a constant influx of relatively recent migration. also - european jews vs. arab jews? who has more legitimacy if they want different things)
3., how can biblical justification for land be used in the creation of a nation state considering the nation state is a recent phenomena?
4. last but not least, to effectively use this argument would that not entail the re-carving up of the Middle East (if not the world)
As Susana Kaiser discusses - the culture of fear stifles communication, discussion and dissent. even people that nostalgically remember the 'good ole days' do not want their children involved in activism or even community events because of fear they will be killed. So even they recognize it was 'dangerous' all the while speaking out of the other side of their mouth to claim that really, it was quite safe. That silence in fact speaks quite loud. What people don't discuss, is just as important as what they do -in analyzing the grip that terror has on a society even after twenty years.
Another tactic is discussing the violence without placing it within a historical context. The guerrilla insurgency is always exaggerated, their grievances are never discussed. A common theme is that the war was between the government and the guerrillas (rather than an all out war waged on civilian activists). As if opposition to state policies are caused for no reason. I still read articles on Colombia claiming 'Communist FARC' is trying to take over the government. The Montoneros in Argentina arose from anger about economic inequality. Along these same lines - an article i read yesterday on Hamas - how absurd the idea is that a relatively weak 'terrorist' organization is a realistic threat to nuclear armed Israel with the fourth most powerful military in the world. and so civilian annihilation is justified - to save the nation from a made up threat. (although a real threat to economic policies) Also importantly, is that civilian dissent is always lumped in with 'subversives' or guerrillas. This is especially true in Colombia to the point where even US human rights groups, the most moderate of all of them are called 'collaborators'. However this tactic is not new, in fact it seems to be the norm rather than the exception to demonize and criminalize dissent.
I have come to the conclusion that only through ignorance can most people support policies of violence, torture and massive inequality. I still fail to understand the mindset of higher levels of responsibility - those that orchestrate the policies. They are not ignorant. Those who intentionally deceive and manipulate public opinion because they know that the average citizen could not follow their ideas unless they are tricked. War for profit and power. There is a connection between most wars i read about - iraq, vietnam, state violence in latin america, etc. All of them depend on lies to fuel the conflict. This mass destruction will continue as long as ordinary society continues to cede power to these types of individuals. If you don't know what your government is doing - its most likely because they don't want you to know.
Ongoing thoughts concerning Israel's occupation:
1. To what extent should historical validity play in drawing the borders
2. If you follow the logic that Israeli's have historical ties to the land, how far back do you go? What about ancient Gaza and Egyptian rule? Is it relevant if the bloodline is diluted, or even nonexistent? (e.g is Palestinian an ethnic group, or rather more related to geographical location with a constant influx of relatively recent migration. also - european jews vs. arab jews? who has more legitimacy if they want different things)
3., how can biblical justification for land be used in the creation of a nation state considering the nation state is a recent phenomena?
4. last but not least, to effectively use this argument would that not entail the re-carving up of the Middle East (if not the world)
miércoles, 11 de febrero de 2009
memory
First off, I can't figure out the right way to eat muffins. Similar to large cupcakes, you cannot fit a proper bit into your mouth unless you bite if off the side or the top. Then it crumbles all over you. Everytime.
I have two different themes. One is, truth vs fiction with memories. "For memory is more about what we believe happened than about what actually took place" Susan Kaiser.
the book is on memories of the dictatorship by teenagers in Argentina that did not directly experience it. ie born right after it fell. The question that keeps coming back is one i have thought about before. Things people tell themselves to be 'ok' with the dictatorship are usually based on lies or infactual information. Because truthfully, how can one reconcile complicity with murder or torture? While there are many books exploring the memory of the victims, i am looking for one that examines what th ruling class / rich / military tell themselves, and how this period of time is remembered for them.
first innacuracy: "the economy at least, was good then" this is a big fat lie. the government brought in neo liberal policies, sky rocketed the debt, took over private debt, sold control of natural resources -- imf policies, decreased welfare spending. poverty increased, wealth for the wealthy increased, the economy tanked. I suppose it could be true then that the economy was ok. Because for them, it was. hmmm. interesting. but why do people say that when they are middle class, and they did not benefit from it? is it rich class envy? the idea that if only they were smarter then they, too, could take christmas in miami? However, - the economy did not flourish, and those policies paved the groundwork for the big crash in 2001.
2. "At least you could walk down the streets and be safe". It is interesting that people use this excuse considering 30,000 people were murdered. I tend to see a correlation between silent crime and chaos crime. Which is worse.
To be continued... i have been distracted.
I have two different themes. One is, truth vs fiction with memories. "For memory is more about what we believe happened than about what actually took place" Susan Kaiser.
the book is on memories of the dictatorship by teenagers in Argentina that did not directly experience it. ie born right after it fell. The question that keeps coming back is one i have thought about before. Things people tell themselves to be 'ok' with the dictatorship are usually based on lies or infactual information. Because truthfully, how can one reconcile complicity with murder or torture? While there are many books exploring the memory of the victims, i am looking for one that examines what th ruling class / rich / military tell themselves, and how this period of time is remembered for them.
first innacuracy: "the economy at least, was good then" this is a big fat lie. the government brought in neo liberal policies, sky rocketed the debt, took over private debt, sold control of natural resources -- imf policies, decreased welfare spending. poverty increased, wealth for the wealthy increased, the economy tanked. I suppose it could be true then that the economy was ok. Because for them, it was. hmmm. interesting. but why do people say that when they are middle class, and they did not benefit from it? is it rich class envy? the idea that if only they were smarter then they, too, could take christmas in miami? However, - the economy did not flourish, and those policies paved the groundwork for the big crash in 2001.
2. "At least you could walk down the streets and be safe". It is interesting that people use this excuse considering 30,000 people were murdered. I tend to see a correlation between silent crime and chaos crime. Which is worse.
To be continued... i have been distracted.
jueves, 5 de febrero de 2009
dear human rights watch...
"As a longtime human rights activist on Latin American issues I am concerned about the report by Jose Miguel Vivanco on Venezuela. In order to preserve the dignity of HRW, these accusations of bias and innacurate reporting need to be properly addressed."
fabulous websites: upside down world - "uncovering latin american activism"
Znet - absolutely awesome
znet has a two week course (some taught by noam chomsky!!) over the summer on alternative media and participatory democracy. i have been very politicaly influenced by many of these people and it would be one of the coolest things ever to take this course.
1. need to be employed before the deadline in a week
2. would need to be assured i could take the time off
i can't see the display of this blog anymore. my computer sucks ass and i deleted java and other programs in an effort to keep the computer running for longer. however, now i can't use a lot of programs. hmmm. i tried to re-dowload java which didn't work. did i break it? i need a new computer...
my other letter to the international labor rights forum.. since i occupy myself these days with reading immensly, then I offer my wonderful opinions to the open market. I also like to exagerate my credentials. Its interesting to think that even though I attended college, I am a self made "expert". most of what i learn i do on my own. Yet having gone to college is the only way I get some credibility with my self made knowledge. there is something seriously wrong with that picture.
Hello,
I read the educators packet on flower workers in Colombia. I study paramilitary violence against mine workers and various other trade unions in Colombia, as well as gendered studies. I found the report very informative but I suggest updating the portion on sexual violence.
1. connect sexual violence to the big picture of exploitation and globalization. The power structures involved in these exploitative jobs are at the root of sexual violence.
2 The issues of accountability and prosecution are only secondary problems considering 50% of the female floral workers experience sexual violence. even if the workers did not have work late at night or had better hours the problem would not go away.
2. The problem is not cultural attitudes in Ecuador. Please remember that immigrants in the U.S face similar proportions of sexual harassment and violence; as well as other groups working in exploitative working conditions around the world.
fabulous websites: upside down world - "uncovering latin american activism"
Znet - absolutely awesome
znet has a two week course (some taught by noam chomsky!!) over the summer on alternative media and participatory democracy. i have been very politicaly influenced by many of these people and it would be one of the coolest things ever to take this course.
1. need to be employed before the deadline in a week
2. would need to be assured i could take the time off
i can't see the display of this blog anymore. my computer sucks ass and i deleted java and other programs in an effort to keep the computer running for longer. however, now i can't use a lot of programs. hmmm. i tried to re-dowload java which didn't work. did i break it? i need a new computer...
my other letter to the international labor rights forum.. since i occupy myself these days with reading immensly, then I offer my wonderful opinions to the open market. I also like to exagerate my credentials. Its interesting to think that even though I attended college, I am a self made "expert". most of what i learn i do on my own. Yet having gone to college is the only way I get some credibility with my self made knowledge. there is something seriously wrong with that picture.
Hello,
I read the educators packet on flower workers in Colombia. I study paramilitary violence against mine workers and various other trade unions in Colombia, as well as gendered studies. I found the report very informative but I suggest updating the portion on sexual violence.
1. connect sexual violence to the big picture of exploitation and globalization. The power structures involved in these exploitative jobs are at the root of sexual violence.
2 The issues of accountability and prosecution are only secondary problems considering 50% of the female floral workers experience sexual violence. even if the workers did not have work late at night or had better hours the problem would not go away.
2. The problem is not cultural attitudes in Ecuador. Please remember that immigrants in the U.S face similar proportions of sexual harassment and violence; as well as other groups working in exploitative working conditions around the world.
jueves, 29 de enero de 2009
laws
to be continued: intial thoughts. To what extent do laws deter crime? What is more important - a value system in which people do not commit crimes, or a system of punishment to jail people after the fact. Is crime prevention more effective? If so, what would this model look like? Do laws have any affect except to serve the power of the state? even failed states have laws, but too many people break them to jail them. So it seems that norms are more important. Laws are better seen as a reflection of the power of the state.
perhaps laws are seen as "justice". is justice punishment? or perhaps justice is a society in which no crime exists.
perhaps laws are seen as "justice". is justice punishment? or perhaps justice is a society in which no crime exists.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)