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...
miércoles, 25 de marzo de 2009
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
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)