Colombia: A democratic solution for economic violence

In the interests of spreading academic work... i shall place part of the paper on a blog that no one ever reads. i tried... right?

In Eastern Colombia, in the Municipality of Saravena, Colombia, three community leaders were killed by the Colombian military on August 5, 2004. Jorge Prieto was the president of the Arauca Brand of the health workers union ANTHOC; Hector Alirio Martinez was the leader of the Arauca Department Association of Peasant Farmers; and the third was Leonel Goyeneche, who was a member of the largest trade union in Colombia, the CUT. According to Amnesty International, those responsible for the crime were soldiers who were part of the Battalion of the XVIII Brigade of the army.

The assassinations sparked international outrage, and in a rare conviction four people including army Lieutenant Juan Pablo Ordóñez and three soldiers were charged and sentenced to 40 years in prison in 2007. An investigation showed that the three activists had not been killed in combat, but rather in the back of the head. Violence is not new to Colombia, and a civil war has claimed thousands of lives and displaced more than 3 million internally. Depending on which model of conflict is used to analyze the situation, peace building would require different actions. This paper examines the international forces that are mediated through national policy to explain state violence against non violent activists.

Edward Azar: Protracted Social Conflict
The effects of trade, foreign aid, and multinational companies have a large role in the violence. Colombia is the only South American country to remain mired in conflict, despite many shared commonalities that exist in the region. Edwards Azar’s theory of Protracted Social Conflict (PSC) provides a useful framework for understanding the violence in Arauca. PSC theory uses the social group as the unit of analysis and understands conflict by a social group’s relation with the state. Social policies and democratic procedures can exclude a segment of the population based upon their social identity. Describing the kind of governance in which a PSC is most likely is one that “tends to be monopolized by the dominant identity group or a coalition of hegemonic groups’ which use the state to maximize their interests at the expense of others” This theory helps us understand ‘violence from above’ that targets nonviolent civil resistance to state policies. Oil development in Arauca is seen as a benefit to the governing institution that is centralized in the metropolitan capital Bogota`, and resistance to the policies is seen as illegitimate. This creates a clash of interests between the citizens of Arauca and their government.

Cecilia Lopez, a presidential candidate in the 2009 election contributed an essay to the book Colombia: Essays on Conflict, Peace and Development, 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.

Democracy is also hindered because of the high levels of violence. Armed groups on the left and the right have created a climate of fear and persecution during election time that impacts voting procedures. Politicians and judges have been targeted for their political beliefs which inhibit specific ideas and political platforms from ever being voted for or against. The structures of violence are so ingrained that even after the political will has been established to change things; it will take many years to implement democratic forms. Only until violence subsides and people can be involved in politics without fear, can there truly be democratic participation.

As illustrated by the deaths of the three community leaders, the military was directly responsible for the deaths of peaceful activists, which can only be interpreted that their work was interpreted as a threat by the ruling powers. Human rights group US Labor and Education Project (USLEAP) has documented the impunity of trade unionist is at 95%. The fact that some people were held responsible for this crime was due only to international outrage rather than recognition that the actions were wrong. By initially accusing the men as guerrilla fighters to justify their deaths also shows that most likely this type of crime is not even seen as legitimate by the other social groups that the government does represent.
Accountability

The exclusion of large segments of Colombian society from political participation is a consistent grievance, and some have argued that this is the true root cause of the violent conflict. However, the narrative of human rights groups in Arauca faults the government in their complicity, but is not trying to call into question the legitimacy of the state as is the case in other conflicts.

As the example in Arauca showed, the community still appealed to the judicial system despite a narrative of complicity in the violence by other Colombian institutions. Two prominent and separate issues are pointed out in the narrative. One, that laws exist that are not being applied to perpetrators; secondly, that unjust laws exist that are being used to jail activists. In the same town that the three community leaders were killed, in 2002 hundreds of people were rounded up and closed off in the stadium on charges of ‘rebellion’. Tens of people were subsequently arrested. While many were released not long after, the arbitrary nature of arrests as well as the application and definition of ‘rebellion’ allow existing community tensions to be exacerbated by armed groups on a relational level. Activists claim that this charge is used to jail social activists and to criminalize legitimate protest.
By appealing to the existing system rather than rejecting it outright, shows that there is some degree of legitimacy despite the problems. As more and more favorable cases work themselves through the judiciary, perhaps more judges will be emboldened to apply the law, and controversial laws can be changed. Reinforcement can help strengthen and empower these institutions.

Azar’s theory does not account for the commitment to non-violence by the community in Saravena, and a rejection of all armed groups, yet the protracted conflict continues. Violence comes not only from above, but from guerrilla groups as well that operate in the area. Collier’s theory of a war economy can help explain the high levels and brutality of the violence, as well as the incentives for why the government is not responsive to the needs of such a large portion of its citizens.

Guatemala’s efforts to reform the judicial system creates needed democratic opening

According to polls, perceptions of democracy are not very favorable in Central America, including Guatemala. But democracy means more than elections, and access to decision making power in all areas of life is strongly lacking. Political and economic freedoms are an integral part, if not a pre-requisite, to changing a country with vast social inequalities and reducing corruption and organized crime. Guatemala faces its biggest challenge in development due to political obstacles rather than a shortage of feasible ideas.

Guatemala signed peace accords in 1996 after a 36 year civil war, but current the crime rate remains one of the highest for a country not at war. Impunity plagues the small country, and the conviction rate remains below 2%. The International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG, has been operating in Guatemala since 2008 to help reform the judicial system and dismantle organized crime. Clandestine security groups that are remnants of the civil war are believed to account for a majority of the violence. Human rights organizations championed the creation of the Commission, although it is widely regarded to be a more watered down version than previously designed. The democratic opening that enabled the existence of the Commission is an opening that can be taken full advantage of to strengthen the foundation for democratic participation in all areas of governance such as decisions over health care, education or police reform.

CICIG has had unprecedented success in its short two years. Separate from international courts, it is a hybrid court which is embedded within the local legal system. The goal is long lasting institutional reform, and legitimacy was gained by immediate success in some high profile cases. Other measures for reform include training, and efforts to increase collaboration with police and prosecution units; and Congress recently approved changes in policies such as immunity of public officials and ammunition and arms laws.

The Commission was catapulted into existence after the murder of three Parliamentarians from El Salvador; and the subsequent murder of the four police who were imprisoned for the crime. The incident highlighted the fact that organized crime was out of control and united broad sectors of society. Guatemala is frequently polarized into a right / left dichotomy, but public discussions can bring these two sides together for a common cause. Citizens often find that their ideal visions of the future are not that far apart such as the desire for a functioning judicial system and being able to feel secure.

Having been requested to renew its mandate in 2010 for another two years, momentum can build on top of what was already accomplished to further institutionalize the changes. Perhaps one of the most important initiatives is the involvement of more civilian participation for Supreme Court nominees. The Supreme Court, along with the government and judges, has historically not been well trusted as an institution trusted to protect human rights. More civilian control fosters legitimacy and accountability which in turn fosters increased interest in being involved in the first place.

Literature on hybrid courts has reported on the importance of an outreach strategy as key to creating lasting change and capacity. International efforts can be a catalyst for change, but long term reform depends on the degree to which civil society takes ownership of the initiative. Other countries, such as Sierra Leone, have experimented with outreach efforts for their hybrid court through town hall style meetings to discuss how trials are proceedings, and to answer any questions and concerns people might have. Not only do town hall meetings offer widespread educational opportunities to learn about the legal system, they foster a mutual understanding of important issues like justice and accountability. Most importantly, this is a time for creativity at the grassroots level. The challenges Guatemala faces should not be underestimated, but they should not be considered insurmountable either. CICIG has created an opening for increased democratic participation, which can be seized and expanded on and serve as a bold model of reform.

work doesn't make the person

Does being a prostitute or a dancer damage your character? No. Is stripping an ideal to strive for? I would say no. I was asked - as a "feminist" wouldn't i support women stripping. I assume this concerns the idea of a woman being able to do anything she wants to do rather than looking at how ideal this type of work is. Putting the argument to the test: I think stripping is no better or worse than other degrading types of work. For me, working at Starbucks was degrading. People were rude, extremely disrespectful, and the pay was bad. Work is different from meaningful employment.

Women have entered the workforce in throngs, but have hardly broken into the power circles. ceo's and congress people are still overwhelmingly male. Granted, some dancers as well as some escorts do make quite a bit of money. During my union training someone mentioned that there was a union drive in LA for the prostitutes. I argue though, that is not normal, dancing is degrading, and a show run by males, paid by males, of the exploitation of the female body which does not enhance the freedom of women . just as working at wal-mart for low pay long hours and no health care when you have three kids is not liberating. Yes, women want work. But they want good work. As a feminist I am all for women choosing their type of work on their own terms. However, the idea that stripping is a great part time job designed for the ambitious college student is a far cry from reality. I won't pretend like any of my previous minimum wage part time jobs were great. I won't lie and say as a young woman it was so great to have employment.. and learn that your boss likes to go on power trips and that my time is worth shit. So those defending dancing should put it in the same category. taking off your clothes for pay is also degrading, and women rarely do this because they like it. Yes, people have to make choices in life, and sometimes life forces you into degrading, and demeaning employment - like stripping.

Show me a worker run cooperative owned and run by the dancers, and I'll show you my future child's mentor...

to be continued- initial thought:
the mistake of Ayn Rand and to a lesser extent milton friedman is that ability honesty and non discrimination pays. however, doesn't starting ahead five spaces on a game board help you win? why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that people would act in their interests to keep their privilege or advantage. corruption pays.

I think Fukuyama had an interesting point about the “radius of trust” which seems to me it can be fostered and destroyed in any community or group, and some of these ties do not translate into trust of others, or may be trust within destructive groups.

I think this applies not only to developing countries but to poor communities within the richer countries as well. I’ve heard argued convincingly that in impoverished areas individualism can be detrimental. A community that already is impoverished will have fewer opportunities, and more obstacles. The success of the group is integral to the success of the individual – as one person cannot magically obtain affordable healthcare if the program does not exist. I don’t believe this takes away emphasis away from individual agency, but rather that an individual is situated within a community, and their successes are integrated. A strong sense of community can positively impact the quality of lives of people. In developing countries practically no safety nets exist for large segments of society, and communities / groups must fill that role. Although it seems that even in areas with strong social cohesion, violence can tear this down. Dictatorships seem to specialize in using terror with the exact intent to sow fear and distrust – which then hinders shared quality of life development.
As a problem this poses to development aid, perhaps this should be taken into account to NGO’s or other international organizations just as much as developing the ‘right program’ is.

Dependency theory vs. culture vs. geography:
I think neither theory can claim a monopoly on explaining economic development. As we discussed in class week, the importance of human agency plays a large role as well as strong leaders. Many factors influence the course a country is taking, and the extent to which each factor plays a role is more important than privileging one over the other. For example, massive foreign intervention has had a far more destabilizing effect in Guatemala than Peru. Rather than claim that foreign aid to dictatorships or corporate ownership of half a country does not hinder economic growth, a better question is to what extent

Some of the authors, particularly Mariono Grondona would use broad generalizations to support a theory that had too many exceptions. As one of the authors Mala Htun – on gender inequality points out that there are drastic differences among Latin American countries as well as within the countries themselves. While culture is important, I think there is not enough correlation to tie values to economic performance as many of the authors would like. The book we read last week discussed the interaction between civil servants and the central government; and the complex relationships between keeping ones job, balancing ties where one works and to whom one reports to. He adds that the incentive for better work performance is strongly tied to belief that the job will allow one to move up in rank, and that the job security will not be influenced by politics. While this is also ‘work culture’ it is quite disconnected from work ethic or ones belief in the value of a hard day’s work.

atheist vs. me
who gave you morality?

one of the ten pillars of conflict resolution skills is communication. assertiveness, not aggression. non violence has nothing to do with being passive. Honest communication prevents you from holding grudges, and just keeping yourself honest with what you need in your life, and if you are giving yourself what you need.

I get to do a research project for one of my classes. have trouble narrowing it down though. Thinking about doing interviews for a restorative justice program if it exists. I wonder if it works as well for victims of vicious attacks in these types of programs or if it is mostly tailored to less violent crimes. It seems to work very well in juvenile small crime.. what about adults? vamos a ver.

got distracted by a pumpkin curry recipe. yum

my product

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.