either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 12, 2004
Iraq, Ballots and Pistachios
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
DOHA, Qatar
On the flight over to the Persian Gulf, I was reading an article in The Financial Times about NATO fighting with itself over whether to send a few dozen more trainers to Baghdad to help the Iraqi Army. I couldn't help but wonder to myself: Let's see, there are now 26 countries in NATO. If each NATO country contributed just 100 soldiers, roughly speaking we could have five NATO soldiers guarding every polling station in Iraq for the January election. That would be a huge help. After all, what does NATO stand for today if not for helping to protect a free and fair election in Iraq that is being opposed by a virulent minority whose only motto is: "You vote, you die - elections must fail." Is it so much to ask that each NATO country contribute 100 soldiers for a long weekend to advance the prospect of Iraqi elections? Heck, I'll throw in the air fare myself. I have so many frequent-flier miles, I could even fly over a few hundred soldiers from European Union countries that aren't in NATO.
Wait a minute, did I say European Union? Do you know how many trees have been cut down to publish studies about the European Defense Initiative - the E.U.'s quest to build a military force independent of NATO and America? Whole forests have been devoted to studies of E.D.I. So I was thinking: What does E.D.I. stand for today, if not for sending 500 E.U. soldiers to Iraq for a long weekend so that Iraqis might begin to create the first real bottom-up democracy in the Arab League?
Wait a minute, did I say Arab League? The Arab League has been sniping at the U.S. from the minute it toppled Saddam's tyranny, constantly barking that the Iraqi government there was not representative. Well now we're trying to help elect one that would be the most representative in the Arab world, and what is the Arab League doing? Virtually nothing. Why couldn't it offer to send some Arab and Muslim soldiers to protect polling places in the Sunni towns of Iraq?
If only we could call the Iraqi election, "A Seminar on the European Defense Initiative: Why NATO Is passé and E.D.I. Is the Future"; then we could get thousands of Europeans to take part. If only we could call the Iraqi elections, "A Seminar on George Bush and Genghis Khan: Why Bush Is Worse"; then the Arab League would send so many people, we'd be turning them away. We'd be talking pay-per-view on Al Jazeera.
Hey, look, I have no idea what sort of government the Iraqis might elect. I believe it's their first step in a thousand-mile journey to make that country something halfway decent and normal. But I do know this: There are a lot of Iraqis who would really like the chance to vote on their future, just once, and there is a virulent minority that is butchering people there just so they can never have that chance. Yes, the Bush team's incompetence in securing Iraq is a travesty. But even with all that said, is it such a hard call for Arabs and Europeans to figure out on whose side they should be? Do these people really feel good about not lifting a finger?
"We in Iraq have a lot of disappointment with many of our neighbors," Ghazi al-Yawar, Iraq's interim president, told me the other day while he was visiting Washington. President Yawar described Iraq's neighbors as sitting on a fence "dangling their legs and munching on pistachios," while "the forces of darkness" try to rip Iraq to shreds. "We do not understand why a vicious suicide bomber who claims the lives of innocent civilians is a terrorist in one country and in Iraq he becomes a freedom fighter," added Yawar, a bright and decent man.
The situation in Iraq is a microcosm of what is going on in the whole Middle East today. Everywhere you turn, the debate is over but the fight is not - because determined minorities are determined to thwart the will of majorities, and the majorities are too weak or divided to push back. The vast majority of Israelis want to get out of Gaza, but a determined, potentially violent, fanatical Jewish minority has been holding them back. Among the Palestinians, the debate is over, but the fight is not. Most Palestinians clearly want an end to the conflict with Israel and a chance to live a normal life, but a determined minority from Hamas has been resisting. Most NATO countries (I hope) would prefer a decent outcome in Iraq, but a determined minority, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding NATO back.
So let the record show that when Iraq finally decided to hold a free and fair election, all the bad guys decided to come and "vote" and all the good guys sat on the fence, dangling their legs, eating pistachios.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2004
Judges as Plumbers
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Washington — Activist federal judges in the District of Columbia and Providence, R.I., have already thrown two chilling strikes at journalists for refusing to betray their sources. In San Francisco, a third strike against reporters' ability to gather the news may be on the way.
This sudden wave of judicial repression, unless checked quickly by higher courts or by Congressional action, will make it much easier for the government to deny a citizen's right to know about wrongdoing by every miscreant from corrupt officials to sports heroes.
One year ago, baseball's leading slugger, Barry Bonds, was called before a federal grand jury in the Northern District of California investigating steroid use by athletes to enhance performance. He admitted using a "clear substance" he said he thought was a muscle rub provided by his trainer, who has since been indicted.
The secret Bonds testimony, along with admission of steroid use by Jason Giambi, the Yankee, was reported by The San Francisco Chronicle.
As a result, baseball fans are dismayed and infuriated; the Senate Commerce chairman, John McCain, threatens legislation unless the "national pastime" cleans up its act; Major League Baseball's see-no-evil officials belatedly promise to deal with the worst scandal since the Black Sox of a century ago; even the players' union may consent to more than one drug test per season.
What will happen, now that this stunning news has finally been brought before the public? No, not retribution for the wrongdoers or even an asterisk next to records broken of unhyped athletes of the past.
Such justice is secondary to the new vogue of leak-plumbing that has seized the federal judiciary. Inspired by the sentences for contempt imposed in D.C. on Judith Miller of The Times and Matthew Cooper of Time, and on Jim Taricani, the TV reporter in Rhode Island, a judge in San Francisco is urging the Justice Department to conduct an investigation of who brought the evidence of steroid abuse into public view one year after the explosive testimony was taken.
If the new plumbing pattern is followed, Chronicle reporters will be threatened with jail for contempt unless they reveal who provided the transcripts of grand jury testimony (which the paper had the First Amendment right, and journalistic obligation, to print). I cannot imagine the newspaper burning its source.
Stipulated, as lawyers say, that grand jury testimony is secret, protecting the privacy of reluctant witnesses. If the source violated an oath, that was wrong. But it is the publication's obligation to the public to publish what it considers newsworthy - and not to assist the government in punishing the provider of that news.
Counters the court cohort of coercion: isn't every citizen obliged to give sworn testimony to help the government enforce the law?
The answer is no. Government may not compel a man to testify against his wife, nor doctor against patient, nor priest against penitent, nor lawyer against client. The law has extended this "privilege" to psychologists and social workers, on the theory that society is ill served by erosion of trust within relationships dependent on such trust. Certainly the public interest in the robust and uninhibited flow of information should continue to protect confidential relations between source and journalist (as more than 30 states now do through "shield" laws).
Here's the rub: no privilege is absolute. Constitutional rights sometimes conflict. Extreme example: Everybody - spouses, doctors, lawyers, clergy, journalists, bartenders - must break any confidence to prevent a murder. We are expected to use common sense in balancing our right to remain silent with our obligation to bear witness.
That good sense is being swept away today by leak-happy prosecutors and activist judges. This trend toward the jailing of journalists for protecting the free flow of news is an abuse-of-power abomination. If higher courts can't control the plumbing fashionable below, it's up to Congress to enact a federal shield law.
Liberals may now be fearful of opposing mindless media hatred, but why are principled conservatives not aroused by imperial judges? The founders ensured freedom of the Fourth Estate as a check against the powers of all three branches of central government. Most states are doing their part. Pass that federal shield law before a judiciary on steroids throws Strike 3.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
December 13, 2004
Judges as Plumbers
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Washington — Activist federal judges in the District of Columbia and Providence, R.I., have already thrown two chilling strikes at journalists for refusing to betray their sources. In San Francisco, a third strike against reporters' ability to gather the news may be on the way.
This sudden wave of judicial repression, unless checked quickly by higher courts or by Congressional action, will make it much easier for the government to deny a citizen's right to know about wrongdoing by every miscreant from corrupt officials to sports heroes.
One year ago, baseball's leading slugger, Barry Bonds, was called before a federal grand jury in the Northern District of California investigating steroid use by athletes to enhance performance. He admitted using a "clear substance" he said he thought was a muscle rub provided by his trainer, who has since been indicted.
The secret Bonds testimony, along with admission of steroid use by Jason Giambi, the Yankee, was reported by The San Francisco Chronicle.
As a result, baseball fans are dismayed and infuriated; the Senate Commerce chairman, John McCain, threatens legislation unless the "national pastime" cleans up its act; Major League Baseball's see-no-evil officials belatedly promise to deal with the worst scandal since the Black Sox of a century ago; even the players' union may consent to more than one drug test per season.
What will happen, now that this stunning news has finally been brought before the public? No, not retribution for the wrongdoers or even an asterisk next to records broken of unhyped athletes of the past.
Such justice is secondary to the new vogue of leak-plumbing that has seized the federal judiciary. Inspired by the sentences for contempt imposed in D.C. on Judith Miller of The Times and Matthew Cooper of Time, and on Jim Taricani, the TV reporter in Rhode Island, a judge in San Francisco is urging the Justice Department to conduct an investigation of who brought the evidence of steroid abuse into public view one year after the explosive testimony was taken.
If the new plumbing pattern is followed, Chronicle reporters will be threatened with jail for contempt unless they reveal who provided the transcripts of grand jury testimony (which the paper had the First Amendment right, and journalistic obligation, to print). I cannot imagine the newspaper burning its source.
Stipulated, as lawyers say, that grand jury testimony is secret, protecting the privacy of reluctant witnesses. If the source violated an oath, that was wrong. But it is the publication's obligation to the public to publish what it considers newsworthy - and not to assist the government in punishing the provider of that news.
Counters the court cohort of coercion: isn't every citizen obliged to give sworn testimony to help the government enforce the law?
The answer is no. Government may not compel a man to testify against his wife, nor doctor against patient, nor priest against penitent, nor lawyer against client. The law has extended this "privilege" to psychologists and social workers, on the theory that society is ill served by erosion of trust within relationships dependent on such trust. Certainly the public interest in the robust and uninhibited flow of information should continue to protect confidential relations between source and journalist (as more than 30 states now do through "shield" laws).
Here's the rub: no privilege is absolute. Constitutional rights sometimes conflict. Extreme example: Everybody - spouses, doctors, lawyers, clergy, journalists, bartenders - must break any confidence to prevent a murder. We are expected to use common sense in balancing our right to remain silent with our obligation to bear witness.
That good sense is being swept away today by leak-happy prosecutors and activist judges. This trend toward the jailing of journalists for protecting the free flow of news is an abuse-of-power abomination. If higher courts can't control the plumbing fashionable below, it's up to Congress to enact a federal shield law.
Liberals may now be fearful of opposing mindless media hatred, but why are principled conservatives not aroused by imperial judges? The founders ensured freedom of the Fourth Estate as a check against the powers of all three branches of central government. Most states are doing their part. Pass that federal shield law before a judiciary on steroids throws Strike 3.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
WHAT DID GOLDWATER MEAN?
By William F. Buckley Jr.
PHOENIX -- They continue to celebrate Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater Institute, now 16 years old, gets in speakers, most of whom reflect on the achievements of their favorite son.
Goldwater was an enormously accomplished man, indulgent of life's amenities and challenged by its perversities. He attracted an extra-political following by cultivating pursuits not easily done by those more timorous than he. He inclined to do that which was risky, including national politics, and he emerged in the early 1960s as spokesman for the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
A question arose at the Goldwater Institute's proceedings last week when the speaker dwelled, for a few moments, on the later Goldwater. The story is as follows:
A few years before his death in 1998, Goldwater started taking positions different from those of the conservative constituency at large. Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state.
Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion. What emerged as a question, at the meeting in Phoenix, was whether his abortion position was owing to judicial ultramontanism, or to his general devotion to individual rights.
It is not challenged that Goldwater defended abortion as though it were a closed issue, closed in the sense that the Supreme Court had ruled, in Roe v. Wade, that abortion was a constitutional right. By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort.
What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a "right," then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that Sen. Goldwater, when he affirmed the right to abort, was doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.
Other analysts believe that the senator was fooled by the respect he felt for the Supreme Court. Since the court had ruled that abortion was OK, what more argument was there to dwell upon?
There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments that, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a "right," the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, it is the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother's right.
There were two responses to the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. One of them can be characterized, roughly, as Lincoln's. What he said, pure and simple, was that the court had reasoned incorrectly. The slave was not "property" in the conventional sense. If so, then an owner who wished to transport that slave to another state or territory, where slavery was not institutionalized, could not do so without imperiling his title to the property.
Others defended the decision, sometimes for political reasons -- states' rights was a sundering national issue. Therefore great relief was wrought by the positive reasoning: If the court said it's OK, then it's OK.
One visitor to Phoenix recalled that Sen. George McGovern, during his campaign for the presidency, was asked his views on busing. He replied, "The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the question." That was true, but did not answer the question: What were the senator's views on busing?
On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.
Was Sen. Goldwater acting as a constitutional exegete? Or was he reasoning for himself that the right of the unborn child was irrelevant? The question was not answered, but Goldwater's memory had provoked curiosity on the matter, and it is reassuring that how Goldwater thought on a great public question continues to concern thoughtful conservatives.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
PHOENIX -- They continue to celebrate Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater Institute, now 16 years old, gets in speakers, most of whom reflect on the achievements of their favorite son.
Goldwater was an enormously accomplished man, indulgent of life's amenities and challenged by its perversities. He attracted an extra-political following by cultivating pursuits not easily done by those more timorous than he. He inclined to do that which was risky, including national politics, and he emerged in the early 1960s as spokesman for the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
A question arose at the Goldwater Institute's proceedings last week when the speaker dwelled, for a few moments, on the later Goldwater. The story is as follows:
A few years before his death in 1998, Goldwater started taking positions different from those of the conservative constituency at large. Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state.
Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion. What emerged as a question, at the meeting in Phoenix, was whether his abortion position was owing to judicial ultramontanism, or to his general devotion to individual rights.
It is not challenged that Goldwater defended abortion as though it were a closed issue, closed in the sense that the Supreme Court had ruled, in Roe v. Wade, that abortion was a constitutional right. By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort.
What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a "right," then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that Sen. Goldwater, when he affirmed the right to abort, was doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.
Other analysts believe that the senator was fooled by the respect he felt for the Supreme Court. Since the court had ruled that abortion was OK, what more argument was there to dwell upon?
There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments that, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a "right," the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, it is the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother's right.
There were two responses to the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. One of them can be characterized, roughly, as Lincoln's. What he said, pure and simple, was that the court had reasoned incorrectly. The slave was not "property" in the conventional sense. If so, then an owner who wished to transport that slave to another state or territory, where slavery was not institutionalized, could not do so without imperiling his title to the property.
Others defended the decision, sometimes for political reasons -- states' rights was a sundering national issue. Therefore great relief was wrought by the positive reasoning: If the court said it's OK, then it's OK.
One visitor to Phoenix recalled that Sen. George McGovern, during his campaign for the presidency, was asked his views on busing. He replied, "The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the question." That was true, but did not answer the question: What were the senator's views on busing?
On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.
Was Sen. Goldwater acting as a constitutional exegete? Or was he reasoning for himself that the right of the unborn child was irrelevant? The question was not answered, but Goldwater's memory had provoked curiosity on the matter, and it is reassuring that how Goldwater thought on a great public question continues to concern thoughtful conservatives.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
December 14, 2004
Necessity as the Mother of Tenure?
By ERICH E. KUNHARDT
Hoboken, N.J. — AS we fret over the nation's fitful economic growth and the growing number of jobs moving overseas, few are discussing a matter that may be a better indicator of our future in the global marketplace: the declining number and quality of patents awarded to Americans.
Patents, along with available investment capital, are an excellent measure of the potential for job creation. America's competitive advantage in the global economy has long rested on our ability to generate intellectual property - patents and other expressions of creativity - and to leverage it by creating companies or increasing market share. The virtual demise of Bell Laboratories, the longtime icon of American inventiveness, and the fact that nothing has emerged to take its place should be seen with alarm. The United States' share of its own industrial patents has fallen steadily over the decades and now stands at 52 percent.
As corporations have cut back on research, the government has increasingly encouraged universities to take a larger role in maintaining American economic competitiveness - as, for example, in the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which encouraged universities to commercialize inventions created with federal financing. However, "academic entrepreneurship" - the patenting and licensing by universities and their faculty - has not become part of the academic mainstream, and is generally viewed within the Ivory Tower as conflicting with the mission of the university. That mission is now often captured by the phrase: "to teach, and to research." I think a third element should be added: "to invent." There are two compelling reasons for broadening the academic mission. First, the university shapes the thinking and outlook of our future workers, and also offers one of the most stable environments for bright Americans to work on new things and sustain our creative leadership. Second, putting an emphasis on invention would enrich the academic community by adding a new dimension of creative expression. Independent of whether inventing can be taught or not, affirming the creative process as a long-term value in the university will serve to stimulate faculty and students alike.
The idea of changing the mission of the university in such a substantial way should not be alarming; a similar shift occurred once before, in the late 1800's, when research was made a priority. A few visionaries then saw that research could be of great benefit to industrial expansion as well as enriching academic life. In fact, the new push for research helped transform what had become a stale academic community.
Johns Hopkins University, which opened in 1876, was the first to require its faculty to conduct research. That model proved so successful that research - be it empirical exploration in the sciences or writing books in the liberal arts - is now a pillar of the tenure process nearly everywhere.
So how can we make the process of invention an equally vital aspect of higher education? One possible approach would be to emulate Johns Hopkins, creating new institutions or remaking existing universities with a focus on invention. The results - a creative effervescence of the community and concomitant attractiveness to students, faculty and society - will speak for themselves.
The other approach will require a joint effort among faculties and administrations at our major universities. A professor's success at invention must be recognized in his pay and promotion. Unfortunately, for some time now universities have placed more value on patents that bring in revenue than those that might show more originality. Thus inventing is viewed mainly as technology transfer, not as something with academic value of its own. It is no surprise, then, that few faculty members get involved in inventing, and students are not challenged to attempt it. And any arguments that inventing should be nurtured for its potential contribution to American economic development are quickly dismissed.
The quickest way to change this mind-set will be to get administrations and faculties to accept successful inventing as a step toward tenure. After all, in a few decades research went from being a foreign concept in academia to being the most important factor in tenure decisions. However, unlike research, there is no established peer-review process for evaluating inventions, no way to evaluate the academic significance of a new idea beyond its potential economic value.
That must change, and the academic community, perhaps with a push from the professional societies and the financial support from the government, should take the lead in clarifying the principles for doing so. Not only could it have profound benefits for the intellectual vigor of the university, it would also help America keep its place in the global economic order.
Erich E. Kunhardt is a professor of physics and dean of the School of Science and Arts at Stevens Institute of Technology.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Necessity as the Mother of Tenure?
By ERICH E. KUNHARDT
Hoboken, N.J. — AS we fret over the nation's fitful economic growth and the growing number of jobs moving overseas, few are discussing a matter that may be a better indicator of our future in the global marketplace: the declining number and quality of patents awarded to Americans.
Patents, along with available investment capital, are an excellent measure of the potential for job creation. America's competitive advantage in the global economy has long rested on our ability to generate intellectual property - patents and other expressions of creativity - and to leverage it by creating companies or increasing market share. The virtual demise of Bell Laboratories, the longtime icon of American inventiveness, and the fact that nothing has emerged to take its place should be seen with alarm. The United States' share of its own industrial patents has fallen steadily over the decades and now stands at 52 percent.
As corporations have cut back on research, the government has increasingly encouraged universities to take a larger role in maintaining American economic competitiveness - as, for example, in the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which encouraged universities to commercialize inventions created with federal financing. However, "academic entrepreneurship" - the patenting and licensing by universities and their faculty - has not become part of the academic mainstream, and is generally viewed within the Ivory Tower as conflicting with the mission of the university. That mission is now often captured by the phrase: "to teach, and to research." I think a third element should be added: "to invent." There are two compelling reasons for broadening the academic mission. First, the university shapes the thinking and outlook of our future workers, and also offers one of the most stable environments for bright Americans to work on new things and sustain our creative leadership. Second, putting an emphasis on invention would enrich the academic community by adding a new dimension of creative expression. Independent of whether inventing can be taught or not, affirming the creative process as a long-term value in the university will serve to stimulate faculty and students alike.
The idea of changing the mission of the university in such a substantial way should not be alarming; a similar shift occurred once before, in the late 1800's, when research was made a priority. A few visionaries then saw that research could be of great benefit to industrial expansion as well as enriching academic life. In fact, the new push for research helped transform what had become a stale academic community.
Johns Hopkins University, which opened in 1876, was the first to require its faculty to conduct research. That model proved so successful that research - be it empirical exploration in the sciences or writing books in the liberal arts - is now a pillar of the tenure process nearly everywhere.
So how can we make the process of invention an equally vital aspect of higher education? One possible approach would be to emulate Johns Hopkins, creating new institutions or remaking existing universities with a focus on invention. The results - a creative effervescence of the community and concomitant attractiveness to students, faculty and society - will speak for themselves.
The other approach will require a joint effort among faculties and administrations at our major universities. A professor's success at invention must be recognized in his pay and promotion. Unfortunately, for some time now universities have placed more value on patents that bring in revenue than those that might show more originality. Thus inventing is viewed mainly as technology transfer, not as something with academic value of its own. It is no surprise, then, that few faculty members get involved in inventing, and students are not challenged to attempt it. And any arguments that inventing should be nurtured for its potential contribution to American economic development are quickly dismissed.
The quickest way to change this mind-set will be to get administrations and faculties to accept successful inventing as a step toward tenure. After all, in a few decades research went from being a foreign concept in academia to being the most important factor in tenure decisions. However, unlike research, there is no established peer-review process for evaluating inventions, no way to evaluate the academic significance of a new idea beyond its potential economic value.
That must change, and the academic community, perhaps with a push from the professional societies and the financial support from the government, should take the lead in clarifying the principles for doing so. Not only could it have profound benefits for the intellectual vigor of the university, it would also help America keep its place in the global economic order.
Erich E. Kunhardt is a professor of physics and dean of the School of Science and Arts at Stevens Institute of Technology.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Lebonese Editorial
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp ... e_id=10886#
Copyright (c) 2004 The Daily Star
Saturday, December 11, 2004
A window through which to engage U.S. foreign policy
Just over a month since the re-election of President George W. Bush, after a campaign in which the Iraq war did not figure very prominently, the U.S. administration finds itself ever more perplexed about how to behave in Iraq. The Bush White House will start its second term faced with contradictory forces at play. This creates an opportunity for the world - especially Arabs and Europeans - to engage the U.S. more meaningfully, in order to help it exit from its Iraq quagmire while addressing core issues of stability and development in our region.
The Middle East is now defined by a series of conflicts or simmering crises, all deeply linked with U.S. policies or susceptible to major influences from Washington. Such is the nature of the American imperium today. The Iraq situation is proving to be a much more difficult and expensive venture than the neocons had expected. The full costs of the venture to the U.S. are starting to become clear - in terms of dead and wounded, lost diplomatic prestige and national credibility around the world, new terror threats and the sheer financial burden on a stressed U.S. economy.
Tensions between Syria and the U.S. are chronic, as are American-Iranian confrontations. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and wider Arab-Israeli relations continue to fluctuate between making war and seeking peace. In the background is the persistent U.S. push for political, economic and social reforms throughout this region. In all these issues, Washington is a central actor, often the main instigator. Yet it is also in a deep dilemma - as the regionwide instability and potential disruptions it has unleashed with its Iraq war are just now becoming clear. This happens at a time when public opinion in the U.S. is less enthusiastic about the neoconservative agenda that has created the Iraq mess and badly hurt America's standing in the world. Bush's conservative base also will want to reap its rewards in the new administration in domestic terms, not in more foreign entanglements. Bills are coming due, and a moment of reckoning is near.
This is a golden opportunity, therefore, for Europe and the Arab world to participate more meaningfully and constructively in the processes of U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. This should be done both for the best interests of the people of the Middle East and Europe, and for a more rational global order. Current pressures on the Bush administration could easily overwhelm it and lead it astray into ever more erratic and destructive policies. Europe and the Arab world should consult more urgently on a common approach to the U.S. that would slow down the deterioration in Iraq, more wisely address the regional agenda of priority issues, and reformulate American-European-Arab relations on a more sensible basis. A window is opening through which the world can engage Washington on foreign policy issues for the common benefit of all, and that opportunity should be grasped quickly.
Copyright (c) 2004 The Daily Star
Saturday, December 11, 2004
A window through which to engage U.S. foreign policy
Just over a month since the re-election of President George W. Bush, after a campaign in which the Iraq war did not figure very prominently, the U.S. administration finds itself ever more perplexed about how to behave in Iraq. The Bush White House will start its second term faced with contradictory forces at play. This creates an opportunity for the world - especially Arabs and Europeans - to engage the U.S. more meaningfully, in order to help it exit from its Iraq quagmire while addressing core issues of stability and development in our region.
The Middle East is now defined by a series of conflicts or simmering crises, all deeply linked with U.S. policies or susceptible to major influences from Washington. Such is the nature of the American imperium today. The Iraq situation is proving to be a much more difficult and expensive venture than the neocons had expected. The full costs of the venture to the U.S. are starting to become clear - in terms of dead and wounded, lost diplomatic prestige and national credibility around the world, new terror threats and the sheer financial burden on a stressed U.S. economy.
Tensions between Syria and the U.S. are chronic, as are American-Iranian confrontations. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and wider Arab-Israeli relations continue to fluctuate between making war and seeking peace. In the background is the persistent U.S. push for political, economic and social reforms throughout this region. In all these issues, Washington is a central actor, often the main instigator. Yet it is also in a deep dilemma - as the regionwide instability and potential disruptions it has unleashed with its Iraq war are just now becoming clear. This happens at a time when public opinion in the U.S. is less enthusiastic about the neoconservative agenda that has created the Iraq mess and badly hurt America's standing in the world. Bush's conservative base also will want to reap its rewards in the new administration in domestic terms, not in more foreign entanglements. Bills are coming due, and a moment of reckoning is near.
This is a golden opportunity, therefore, for Europe and the Arab world to participate more meaningfully and constructively in the processes of U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. This should be done both for the best interests of the people of the Middle East and Europe, and for a more rational global order. Current pressures on the Bush administration could easily overwhelm it and lead it astray into ever more erratic and destructive policies. Europe and the Arab world should consult more urgently on a common approach to the U.S. that would slow down the deterioration in Iraq, more wisely address the regional agenda of priority issues, and reformulate American-European-Arab relations on a more sensible basis. A window is opening through which the world can engage Washington on foreign policy issues for the common benefit of all, and that opportunity should be grasped quickly.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
ILLEGALIZING ILLEGALS
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The new intelligence law, courtesy of 9/11, is mystifying because it does not face directly what is the most prominent threat to homeland security. It is: inimical action by non-Americans. All the people who participated in 9/11 were foreigners, here under various auspices. And yet the bill that has evolved from the findings of the 9/11 commission reads like an elocutionary exercise by a national committee to avoid saying anything unpleasant about unpleasant people born abroad.
Specifically, the threat at this moment is from foreign terrorism. The day may come when there are native-born Americans who join in such a threat, such as the Weather Underground types we experienced during the '60s.
But at this point, the terrorists come from abroad. "Last May," writes National Interest editor John O'Sullivan, "illegal aliens from Malaysia, Pakistan, Morocco, Uganda and India were released without bond. They are now at large in the U.S."
What happened is that as the intelligence bill crystallized, a fear developed that it might be construed as xenophobic. Somewhere along the line the word came down from the White House that for the president to be able to sign the bill, it had to be plucked clean of any suggestion that an illegal Muslim fundamentalist should be treated at all differently from an illegal Christian evangelist. Remember the odd deportment of Norman Mineta, who has been reappointed as transportation secretary? He went to extraordinary lengths several years ago to insist that security personnel at airports should pay no greater attention to 30-year-old Near-Eastern Muslims called Mohammed than they would to Shirley Temple.
The immigration problem is the primary unmet challenge of modern times. It is so because the whole of our political establishment cringes at any suggestion that the United States is inhospitable to immigration. We do have laws on the books, but they are apparently made for the sole purpose of flouting them. Time magazine published the most florid essay on the question, estimating the annual flow of illegal immigration at more than 2 million persons.
There are two questions on the table. The first deals with raw immigration: How many people beyond those formally welcome under existing laws should we admit into the United States? The second, what are the risks to security in being as offhanded as we have been?
In the age of terrorism, it is obvious that the enemy will seek to do damage operating within U.S. territory. That, of course, was the story of the 9/11 hijackers, 19 Muslim terrorists who took advantage of loose laws to practice flying accurately into U.S. skyscrapers.
But the movements of such folk are not of primary concern to the U.S. government, to judge from the record. Mr. O'Sullivan reports that the Transportation Department has launched several lawsuits against airlines because pilots had banned passengers they thought were security risks.
Asa Hutchinson, an official in the Department of Homeland Security, recently cut down a Border Patrol initiative to catch illegal aliens. The reason? It was catching too many illegal aliens.
We have the piquant problem of what to do with illegals. It approaches the problem of what to do with drinkers during Prohibition. You couldn't put them all in jail because there weren't enough jails. Illegals remain largely undisturbed, and the main reason for it isn't U.S. sentimentality toward aspirant Americans. It is the market contribution to the dilemma: There are jobs only illegals are willing to perform, e.g. serving as nannies for Bernard Kerik. Much of the menial and agricultural work done in the southwestern states is done by illegals.
The result of the combined forces -- the need for cheap labor and the passion to avoid any appearance of ethnic or religious discrimination -- is an open frontier. Yes, a few illegals are deported. These should get a parade, signaling such distinction as attaches to the infrequency of their apprehension. And perhaps a parade when they come through the next time, often through the same gap in the southwestern frontier.
A subsidiary but not uninteresting question is: Where do our deportees gather? What help is available to them to reassemble? Perhaps to return to Arizona in time for high school reunions?
It's a tough one politically, but Congress should bear down on the subject, intimately related to concerns for homeland security.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The new intelligence law, courtesy of 9/11, is mystifying because it does not face directly what is the most prominent threat to homeland security. It is: inimical action by non-Americans. All the people who participated in 9/11 were foreigners, here under various auspices. And yet the bill that has evolved from the findings of the 9/11 commission reads like an elocutionary exercise by a national committee to avoid saying anything unpleasant about unpleasant people born abroad.
Specifically, the threat at this moment is from foreign terrorism. The day may come when there are native-born Americans who join in such a threat, such as the Weather Underground types we experienced during the '60s.
But at this point, the terrorists come from abroad. "Last May," writes National Interest editor John O'Sullivan, "illegal aliens from Malaysia, Pakistan, Morocco, Uganda and India were released without bond. They are now at large in the U.S."
What happened is that as the intelligence bill crystallized, a fear developed that it might be construed as xenophobic. Somewhere along the line the word came down from the White House that for the president to be able to sign the bill, it had to be plucked clean of any suggestion that an illegal Muslim fundamentalist should be treated at all differently from an illegal Christian evangelist. Remember the odd deportment of Norman Mineta, who has been reappointed as transportation secretary? He went to extraordinary lengths several years ago to insist that security personnel at airports should pay no greater attention to 30-year-old Near-Eastern Muslims called Mohammed than they would to Shirley Temple.
The immigration problem is the primary unmet challenge of modern times. It is so because the whole of our political establishment cringes at any suggestion that the United States is inhospitable to immigration. We do have laws on the books, but they are apparently made for the sole purpose of flouting them. Time magazine published the most florid essay on the question, estimating the annual flow of illegal immigration at more than 2 million persons.
There are two questions on the table. The first deals with raw immigration: How many people beyond those formally welcome under existing laws should we admit into the United States? The second, what are the risks to security in being as offhanded as we have been?
In the age of terrorism, it is obvious that the enemy will seek to do damage operating within U.S. territory. That, of course, was the story of the 9/11 hijackers, 19 Muslim terrorists who took advantage of loose laws to practice flying accurately into U.S. skyscrapers.
But the movements of such folk are not of primary concern to the U.S. government, to judge from the record. Mr. O'Sullivan reports that the Transportation Department has launched several lawsuits against airlines because pilots had banned passengers they thought were security risks.
Asa Hutchinson, an official in the Department of Homeland Security, recently cut down a Border Patrol initiative to catch illegal aliens. The reason? It was catching too many illegal aliens.
We have the piquant problem of what to do with illegals. It approaches the problem of what to do with drinkers during Prohibition. You couldn't put them all in jail because there weren't enough jails. Illegals remain largely undisturbed, and the main reason for it isn't U.S. sentimentality toward aspirant Americans. It is the market contribution to the dilemma: There are jobs only illegals are willing to perform, e.g. serving as nannies for Bernard Kerik. Much of the menial and agricultural work done in the southwestern states is done by illegals.
The result of the combined forces -- the need for cheap labor and the passion to avoid any appearance of ethnic or religious discrimination -- is an open frontier. Yes, a few illegals are deported. These should get a parade, signaling such distinction as attaches to the infrequency of their apprehension. And perhaps a parade when they come through the next time, often through the same gap in the southwestern frontier.
A subsidiary but not uninteresting question is: Where do our deportees gather? What help is available to them to reassemble? Perhaps to return to Arizona in time for high school reunions?
It's a tough one politically, but Congress should bear down on the subject, intimately related to concerns for homeland security.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Hey Joel, you know I've been thinking.....do you think anybody bothers to read your cut and pastes? Why don't you conduct a poll? Then publish the results? Since I asked first you don't get to ask me the same. (just the justice dept reads my stuff)
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
you know that keeps getting you in trouble, don't youcowboyangel wrote:Hey Joel, you know I've been thinking.....
yescowboyangel wrote:do you think anybody bothers to read your cut and pastes?
a poll of?cowboyangel wrote: Why don't you conduct a poll? Then publish the results?
okay, fair enough.cowboyangel wrote:Since I asked first you don't get to ask me the same. (just the justice dept reads my stuff)
-
QuasiPseudo
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:59 am
I for one enjoy the cut-n-pastes... theres a lot more news out there than what gets written in the local paper. Not to say that one piece of info is more likely credible than another, but in the general absence of quality Ill take quantity - and take it upon myself to determine what to seriously consider and what to trash. Keep em coming! I try to read info from many sources, and often have already seen a cut-n-paste article elsewhere, but appreciate the effort nonetheless. I struggle to stay informed even tho my own sanity is at peril in doing so.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
samtzu
- Posts: 3403
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
- Contact:
Cowboy... I like Joel's cut and pastes... and you know that I don't work for him. I may disagree with the content (sometimes) but I want to see what's going on out there, and Joel's got a good idea about that. At least he's out there reading, and not just slamming drinks in the bar, expecting his next peeled grape...
Which reminds me.... someone was supposed to peel my grapes over there... later, y'all...
Which reminds me.... someone was supposed to peel my grapes over there... later, y'all...
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer
-
QuasiPseudo
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:59 am
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
another cut and paste post for CowboyAngel
a little conservative thought for you today...
grow your own victory garden... be victorious over corporate food suppliers... grow your own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 18, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Think Globally, Eat Locally
By JENNIFER WILKINS
Ithaca, N.Y. — WHEN Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced this month that he was resigning, he made an unexpected comment: "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." He added, "We are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."
Unexpected, but right. The United States is importing more and more food, and not just from the Middle East (which actually accounts for only 0.4 percent of our food imports). Tomatoes from Mexico, grapes from Chile and beef from Brazil are standard fare on American tables. The Department of Agriculture reports that in 2005, our nation will fail to record an agricultural surplus for the first time in 50 years, demonstrating our rising dependency on foreign agricultural production and distribution systems that may not be safe.
Yet few of these imports are examined to ensure they meet American health and safety standards. This year, the Food and Drug Administration will inspect about 100,000 of the nearly five million shipments of food crossing our borders, and distribution is so rapid that tainted food can reach consumers nationwide before officials realize there is a problem. The increasing control of the global food supply by a few corporations has made such tampering even more tempting for a terrorist who wants to have a big impact.
You might think that the solution is obvious: we should rely on our domestic food supply. Unfortunately, when it comes to food security, our vulnerabilities at home rival those we face abroad. The federal government's encouragement of consolidation in agriculture diminishes the security of our food supply.
Since the 1950's, American agricultural policies have been grounded in the belief that farms should produce as much food as possible for the least cost. These policies have led to a landscape of fewer but bigger farms that specialize in a decreasing number of commodities that are destined for fewer processors and packers.
From 1993 to 2000, 33,000 farms with annual sales of less than $100,000 disappeared. Meanwhile, very large farms play a larger role in the United States: farms generating more than $500,000 a year are only 3.3 percent of all farms but use 20.3 percent of America's farmland and account for 61.9 percent of all sales. The 10 largest food companies account for more than half of all products on supermarket shelves. Imagine what might happen to our food supply if a widespread contamination by a food-borne disease, accidental or intentional, were to strike even one of those megafarms or food companies.
The increasing power of food processors means that the farmer no longer controls the quality of the food system. About 85 percent of all vegetables destined for freezing and canning are grown under contract, with processors dictating variety, quantity, quality, delivery date and even price. If American farmers cannot produce the cheapest food, the processors turn to foreign countries, where there is greater potential for contamination, whether because of less strict inspection procedures or because of fewer protections against bioterrorism.
The combination of cheap food from overseas and the consolidation of domestic production compromises America's ability to feed itself. A food system in which control of the critical elements is concentrated in few hands can and will fall victim to terrorism or accidents.
The solution to these insecurities is to establish community-based food systems that include many small farmers and a diversity of products. Such systems make large-scale contamination impossible, even for determined bioterrorists. Far more people have contact with the Mexican lettuce at the supermarket, for example, than with the locally grown lettuce at the farmers' market.
But is it possible for farmers' markets to feed a growing country and provide the range of produce we demand? The answer is yes. With some exceptions, like coffee and chocolate, American farmers can easily meet demand. They've also had great success in marketing directly to the consumer: the number of farmers' markets has increased to 3,100 in 2002 from approximately 1,700 in 1994.
But creating this system of agriculture would require a shift in policy. We should encourage smaller, diversified farms, a reallocation of farmland from feed grains to food crops, and local food processing. And the change in the cabinet, at both the department of health and human services and the department of agriculture, is an opportune moment for a such a change in policy.
It would be reassuring to one day hear a new secretary of health and human services report that a terrorist attack on our food system would be next to impossible because it is a complex network of farmers, processors and consumers integrated into communities nationwide. Strengthening local food systems and supporting policies that shorten the distance between producers and consumers will reduce the points of vulnerability and make America truly food-secure.
Jennifer Wilkins is a food and society policy fellow in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
grow your own victory garden... be victorious over corporate food suppliers... grow your own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 18, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Think Globally, Eat Locally
By JENNIFER WILKINS
Ithaca, N.Y. — WHEN Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced this month that he was resigning, he made an unexpected comment: "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do." He added, "We are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."
Unexpected, but right. The United States is importing more and more food, and not just from the Middle East (which actually accounts for only 0.4 percent of our food imports). Tomatoes from Mexico, grapes from Chile and beef from Brazil are standard fare on American tables. The Department of Agriculture reports that in 2005, our nation will fail to record an agricultural surplus for the first time in 50 years, demonstrating our rising dependency on foreign agricultural production and distribution systems that may not be safe.
Yet few of these imports are examined to ensure they meet American health and safety standards. This year, the Food and Drug Administration will inspect about 100,000 of the nearly five million shipments of food crossing our borders, and distribution is so rapid that tainted food can reach consumers nationwide before officials realize there is a problem. The increasing control of the global food supply by a few corporations has made such tampering even more tempting for a terrorist who wants to have a big impact.
You might think that the solution is obvious: we should rely on our domestic food supply. Unfortunately, when it comes to food security, our vulnerabilities at home rival those we face abroad. The federal government's encouragement of consolidation in agriculture diminishes the security of our food supply.
Since the 1950's, American agricultural policies have been grounded in the belief that farms should produce as much food as possible for the least cost. These policies have led to a landscape of fewer but bigger farms that specialize in a decreasing number of commodities that are destined for fewer processors and packers.
From 1993 to 2000, 33,000 farms with annual sales of less than $100,000 disappeared. Meanwhile, very large farms play a larger role in the United States: farms generating more than $500,000 a year are only 3.3 percent of all farms but use 20.3 percent of America's farmland and account for 61.9 percent of all sales. The 10 largest food companies account for more than half of all products on supermarket shelves. Imagine what might happen to our food supply if a widespread contamination by a food-borne disease, accidental or intentional, were to strike even one of those megafarms or food companies.
The increasing power of food processors means that the farmer no longer controls the quality of the food system. About 85 percent of all vegetables destined for freezing and canning are grown under contract, with processors dictating variety, quantity, quality, delivery date and even price. If American farmers cannot produce the cheapest food, the processors turn to foreign countries, where there is greater potential for contamination, whether because of less strict inspection procedures or because of fewer protections against bioterrorism.
The combination of cheap food from overseas and the consolidation of domestic production compromises America's ability to feed itself. A food system in which control of the critical elements is concentrated in few hands can and will fall victim to terrorism or accidents.
The solution to these insecurities is to establish community-based food systems that include many small farmers and a diversity of products. Such systems make large-scale contamination impossible, even for determined bioterrorists. Far more people have contact with the Mexican lettuce at the supermarket, for example, than with the locally grown lettuce at the farmers' market.
But is it possible for farmers' markets to feed a growing country and provide the range of produce we demand? The answer is yes. With some exceptions, like coffee and chocolate, American farmers can easily meet demand. They've also had great success in marketing directly to the consumer: the number of farmers' markets has increased to 3,100 in 2002 from approximately 1,700 in 1994.
But creating this system of agriculture would require a shift in policy. We should encourage smaller, diversified farms, a reallocation of farmland from feed grains to food crops, and local food processing. And the change in the cabinet, at both the department of health and human services and the department of agriculture, is an opportune moment for a such a change in policy.
It would be reassuring to one day hear a new secretary of health and human services report that a terrorist attack on our food system would be next to impossible because it is a complex network of farmers, processors and consumers integrated into communities nationwide. Strengthening local food systems and supporting policies that shorten the distance between producers and consumers will reduce the points of vulnerability and make America truly food-secure.
Jennifer Wilkins is a food and society policy fellow in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
sparkletarte
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: valley of the dolls
Oh my goodness, I find myself agreeing with one of Joel's pasties, er, pastes...mostly. I don't agree with the writer's conclusion- we need to focus more on locally produced foods not because of fear of outside terrorist contamination, but to prevent US corporate contamination from chemicals, gmos, etc.
If a 'terrorist' wanted to fuck up US food, I'm sure they could do it very well from inside the states.
If a 'terrorist' wanted to fuck up US food, I'm sure they could do it very well from inside the states.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
try this one on for size buckerooSimply Joel wrote:could you be more specfic in your assertions?cowboyangel wrote:Joel...we have food terrorists here already...they are called Novartis, Archer Daniels Midland, & Monsanto.
in what manner are these corporations "food terrorists?"
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
and this one too.....
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Taken in a global context it is probably perfectly reasonable. Every region has something that is heavily subsidized by the government. In the US it is agriculture, or closer, agribusiness.
The Arabs have oil, but they can't eat sand. China will have all the heavy industry in the world in a few years time but too many mouths to feed. What is going to keep us afloat in the global market is food and products derived from agriculture so it is in the strategic national interest for our agribusiness to not only compete, but to win. We must create a barrier of entry by keeping prices so low that new business can not enter the marketplace or if they do, can't stay there long.
Just as China will be selling steel for half what American companies are once they get the roads from the mines to the ports built in Brazil, we must be ready to outcompete anyone in the agribusiness area. You can do without steel. You can't do without food. For our own security we need to be the world's breadbasket. Then to damage us is to damage their own food supply. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The Arabs have oil, but they can't eat sand. China will have all the heavy industry in the world in a few years time but too many mouths to feed. What is going to keep us afloat in the global market is food and products derived from agriculture so it is in the strategic national interest for our agribusiness to not only compete, but to win. We must create a barrier of entry by keeping prices so low that new business can not enter the marketplace or if they do, can't stay there long.
Just as China will be selling steel for half what American companies are once they get the roads from the mines to the ports built in Brazil, we must be ready to outcompete anyone in the agribusiness area. You can do without steel. You can't do without food. For our own security we need to be the world's breadbasket. Then to damage us is to damage their own food supply. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
in what manner is this case terrorism?cowboyangel wrote:try this one on for size buckerooSimply Joel wrote:could you be more specfic in your assertions?cowboyangel wrote:Joel...we have food terrorists here already...they are called Novartis, Archer Daniels Midland, & Monsanto.
in what manner are these corporations "food terrorists?"
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Here is another view of the same story.
http://afaa.com.au/news/news-1444.asp
patent protection is terrorism?Agrifood News Archive
CANADA - SCHMEISER STILL GUILTY
Supreme Court of Canada finds in favour of Monsanto in Schmeiser vs. Monsanto patent infringement case
21 May, 2004
Winnipeg, MB - Monsanto Canada today welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in ruling that the subject matter claimed within its patent for Roundup Ready® canola falls within the Patent Act and that Mr. Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd. of Bruno, Saskatchewan infringed that patent.
"We are gratified the Supreme Court of Canada found that Monsanto's patent pertaining to the Roundup Ready gene is valid and enforceable," said Carl Casale, executive vice-president, Monsanto Company. "The Supreme Court has set a world standard in intellectual property protection and this ruling maintains Canada as an attractive investment opportunity. Patent protection encourages innovations that will lead to the next generation of value-added products for Canadian farmers."
Monsanto originally pursued this case in the Federal Court of Canada because Mr. Schmeiser knowingly infringed Monsanto's patents on Roundup Ready technology by planting 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola without paying the required license fee for using the technology. After reviewing all the evidence, Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court of Canada did not find Mr. Schmeiser's explanation of the events credible and held him liable for infringing Monsanto's patent.
"More than 30,000 Canadian farmers have chosen our technology because of the economic and environmental benefits it brings," said Casale. "We believe the Supreme Court of Canada decision is good news for farmers and Canadians, all of who benefit from the innovative work that is going on across the country to produce more abundant, high quality food."
As a result of his infringement, Mr. Schmeiser will be required to comply with several remedies awarded by the Courts, including: (1) an injunction against Mr. Schmeiser and employees of Schmeiser Enterprises that prohibits planting, growing, cultivating, harvesting, selling, marketing or distributing the patented technology in the future; (2) an order to deliver to Monsanto any seed in Mr. Schmeiser's possession known to contain the Roundup Ready gene. However, the Supreme Court determined there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Schmeiser intentionally made use of the benefits provided by Monsanto's technology by spraying his crop with Roundup. Therefore, the Court has decided that both sides will be responsible for absorbing their own costs.
And is corporate welfare as described herein, terrorism?cowboyangel wrote:and this one too.....
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
[/quote]
Archer Daniels Midland:
A Case Study In Corporate Welfare
by James Bovard
James Bovard is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute. His most recent book is Shakedown: How the Government Screws You from A to Z (Viking, 1995).
Executive Summary
The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30. [/quote]
i don't quite see it your way CA... I see ADM as a large manufacturuer/processor of food for the world... and i live 45 miles from its central illinois site. ADM a large number of folks, and continues to grow... with the permission of the people in the area as well as state and federal government's blessing.
http://www.admworld.com/pdf/the_adm_way.pdf
in as mush it punches a hole through your theories and fears like the outer skin other Hindenberg, ADM's food processing and ethanol production is a reality and a requirement to feed the world.
what the author point stated in my re-post was...
The solution to these insecurities is to establish community-based food systems that include many small farmers and a diversity of products.
the author then speaks of shift in policy... and while i agree in that i would also say a shift in thinking is in order...But is it possible for farmers' markets to feed a growing country and provide the range of produce we demand? The answer is yes. With some exceptions, like coffee and chocolate, American farmers can easily meet demand. They've also had great success in marketing directly to the consumer: the number of farmers' markets has increased to 3,100 in 2002 from approximately 1,700 in 1994.
a shift away from the boogeyman mentality that is liberal american politics...
come up with some plan of action beyond finger pointing and saying "It is the boogeyman"
my personal plan of action... a victory garden with a combination of modern and heirloom seeds.
happy gardening.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
OK, Christians. As we approach Jesus' 2005thy birthday, it's time to follow his words and stop voting Republican.
JESUS WAS A LIBERAL
By Chaelan MacTavish, Counter Propaganda
[This article was published in the Portland State University Vanguard, 12/3/2004. Chaelan MacTavish can be reached at [email protected].]
OK, Christians. As we approach Jesus’ 2005th birthday, it’s time to follow his words and stop voting Republican.
Read the Bible and you will see the obvious: Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal. He believed in the core liberal values: feed the hungry. Cure the sick. Be nice to people. Don’t hurt others. Share. Take care of each other. The ideals that conservatives hate and fear with all of their being, these are the values that Jesus Christ held dear.
Read the Bible: Jesus did not like the rich. From John 2, when he threw over the moneychanger’s tables, to when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matt. 19:24) he never mentioned “free trade” or “estate tax.” Being rich wasn’t the bad thing, however, it was the greed that came with it. If a rich man gave away all he owned, he could go to heaven (Mk. 10:21). But wealthy Republicans don’t have such a good chance.
Imagine Jesus in modern society. Would he forget that archaic “turning the other cheek” nonsense, and advocate wars of aggression and the death penalty? Of course not. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt.5:39). So why do so many Christians turn to the warlike Republican Party, if Jesus never would have? God, guns and gays, goes the conservative mantra. Many Christians erroneously believe that Jesus was against homosexuality, and join the conservatives to keep with their church. In fact, it is the church that calls homosexuality a sin, and not the Savior on which the church is based.
Jesus never advocates homosexuality in the Bible, but neither does he condemn it. To say that he would not allow two monogamous, devout Christians of the same sex entry into heaven for loving one another is absurd. The story of Sodom and Gommorah (Gen. 19), which is usually trumpeted as proof of the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, is inapplicable. They were perverts there, sure. They would have “known” anything that crossed their path, even the two angels who visited. But to say that rapists are the same as gays is not an interpretation that can be attributed to Christ.
As for Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination,” the Hebrew word for “abomination” was “to’ebah.” It was also used to describe the mixing of meat and milk pans in a kitchen, wearing a belt on Saturdays, and other “ritual impurities,” the word for “moral violation,” or sin, is not used in connection with any of these acts.
Jesus loved everyone, unlike modern conservatives. He hung out with prostitutes and thieves; he would treat gays differently than Pat Robertson does. Even if they were sinners, it doesn’t mean they deserve condemnation or second-class status. The compassion of Jesus cannot be translated into the condemnation of the Religious Right. They condemn others not because they are Christians but because they are mean.
The Son of God did not advocate striking potential enemies first, or keeping what you earn without sharing, or condemning other sinners. Jesus was definitely not a conservative.
Come on, Christians. It’s time to start reading the book yourself and finding some people to talk about it with besides the ditto-heads that watch Fox News all day long. Because when the Rapture comes, you can be sure that the hypocrites and conservatives will be the ones left behind.
www.mbtranslations.com
JESUS WAS A LIBERAL
By Chaelan MacTavish, Counter Propaganda
[This article was published in the Portland State University Vanguard, 12/3/2004. Chaelan MacTavish can be reached at [email protected].]
OK, Christians. As we approach Jesus’ 2005th birthday, it’s time to follow his words and stop voting Republican.
Read the Bible and you will see the obvious: Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal. He believed in the core liberal values: feed the hungry. Cure the sick. Be nice to people. Don’t hurt others. Share. Take care of each other. The ideals that conservatives hate and fear with all of their being, these are the values that Jesus Christ held dear.
Read the Bible: Jesus did not like the rich. From John 2, when he threw over the moneychanger’s tables, to when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matt. 19:24) he never mentioned “free trade” or “estate tax.” Being rich wasn’t the bad thing, however, it was the greed that came with it. If a rich man gave away all he owned, he could go to heaven (Mk. 10:21). But wealthy Republicans don’t have such a good chance.
Imagine Jesus in modern society. Would he forget that archaic “turning the other cheek” nonsense, and advocate wars of aggression and the death penalty? Of course not. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt.5:39). So why do so many Christians turn to the warlike Republican Party, if Jesus never would have? God, guns and gays, goes the conservative mantra. Many Christians erroneously believe that Jesus was against homosexuality, and join the conservatives to keep with their church. In fact, it is the church that calls homosexuality a sin, and not the Savior on which the church is based.
Jesus never advocates homosexuality in the Bible, but neither does he condemn it. To say that he would not allow two monogamous, devout Christians of the same sex entry into heaven for loving one another is absurd. The story of Sodom and Gommorah (Gen. 19), which is usually trumpeted as proof of the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, is inapplicable. They were perverts there, sure. They would have “known” anything that crossed their path, even the two angels who visited. But to say that rapists are the same as gays is not an interpretation that can be attributed to Christ.
As for Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination,” the Hebrew word for “abomination” was “to’ebah.” It was also used to describe the mixing of meat and milk pans in a kitchen, wearing a belt on Saturdays, and other “ritual impurities,” the word for “moral violation,” or sin, is not used in connection with any of these acts.
Jesus loved everyone, unlike modern conservatives. He hung out with prostitutes and thieves; he would treat gays differently than Pat Robertson does. Even if they were sinners, it doesn’t mean they deserve condemnation or second-class status. The compassion of Jesus cannot be translated into the condemnation of the Religious Right. They condemn others not because they are Christians but because they are mean.
The Son of God did not advocate striking potential enemies first, or keeping what you earn without sharing, or condemning other sinners. Jesus was definitely not a conservative.
Come on, Christians. It’s time to start reading the book yourself and finding some people to talk about it with besides the ditto-heads that watch Fox News all day long. Because when the Rapture comes, you can be sure that the hypocrites and conservatives will be the ones left behind.
www.mbtranslations.com
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
sparkletarte
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: valley of the dolls
This is just another version of US 'superiority' over the rest of the world. No, you do not need to be the world's breadbasket. To do so would be another way of exerting military might. All countries need to work to strengthen their own internal food systems, for lots of reasons, including economic, environmental, safety, and nutrition.For our own security we need to be the world's breadbasket. Then to damage us is to damage their own food supply.
For your own security, you need to look at the way that your government and corporations treat other people and other countries. Trying to find yet another way to dominate others is not going to do it.
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
I wasnt saying I agree with it. I was saying it didn't surprise me. And I see nothing wrong with a country being superior in one thing or another. Canada is pretty good with hockey ... when they can get players on the ice.
I see it as a potential way of peaceful deterrance. Rather than having nuclear missiles aimed at someone, you just make it in their best interest to solve things peacefully else they risk problems with their food supply. Nobody is FORCING them to buy our food, it just happens that we produce pretty good food. Our air and water is less polluted than in other industrial countries so our food has less heavy metal contamination, for example.
China is going to be the world's number one industrial power in a few years. We gotta have SOMETHING.
I see it as a potential way of peaceful deterrance. Rather than having nuclear missiles aimed at someone, you just make it in their best interest to solve things peacefully else they risk problems with their food supply. Nobody is FORCING them to buy our food, it just happens that we produce pretty good food. Our air and water is less polluted than in other industrial countries so our food has less heavy metal contamination, for example.
China is going to be the world's number one industrial power in a few years. We gotta have SOMETHING.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
the Percy Smizer story is a sad indictment on the state of the fascistic power of one out-of-control company, Monsanto. ADM is responsible for poisoning the US with High Fructose Corn Syrup leading to soft drink addiction ( AMA stated soft drinks are the cause of obesity in kids and for instigating diabetes)
Subsidies to giant companies like ADM are ok but aid to poor kids is not?
Go figure
Subsidies to giant companies like ADM are ok but aid to poor kids is not?
Go figure
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
sparkletarte
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: valley of the dolls
No, no one is forcing anyone, but the tone is still that of something you can use to threaten people with. If someone threatens me, maybe I'll do what they want, but not because I want to do it out of respect, kindness, etc. Isn't that a better ideal to work towards- mutual respect?
And no, your air and water is not less polluted than in other industrial countries. Some yes, and in some areas of the US, yes, but you guys crank out the most pollution of any country. 'Course most of it from the east goes airborn into Canada, isn't that nice. And then the big chemical countries make chemicals banned in NA for other countries to use, which we then eat when we import tropical food.
Yes, you gotta have something...hmmm....how about Hollywood? You're good at making pop culture. Although really, you don't have to be #1. You'll be just fine if you aren't, we'll still like you.
And no, your air and water is not less polluted than in other industrial countries. Some yes, and in some areas of the US, yes, but you guys crank out the most pollution of any country. 'Course most of it from the east goes airborn into Canada, isn't that nice. And then the big chemical countries make chemicals banned in NA for other countries to use, which we then eat when we import tropical food.
Yes, you gotta have something...hmmm....how about Hollywood? You're good at making pop culture. Although really, you don't have to be #1. You'll be just fine if you aren't, we'll still like you.
-
sparkletarte
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: valley of the dolls
Have you read up on the Percy deal lately CBA? It's getting quite interesting. Since the court ruled that Monsanto is completely in ownership of and fully responsible for their Roundup canola, they may be able to be taken to court for environmental damages and contamination in the future. Really, that's ideal, and Monsanto is probably wondering what it actually 'won'. Percy's wife, Louise, has filed a suit (for $150!) against Monsanto because pollen has contaminated her home garden.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
full of observatrions yet offer few solutions, which is what i have come to expect.cowboyangel wrote:the Percy Smizer story is a sad indictment on the state of the fascistic power of one out-of-control company, Monsanto. ADM is responsible for poisoning the US with High Fructose Corn Syrup leading to soft drink addiction ( AMA stated soft drinks are the cause of obesity in kids and for instigating diabetes)
Subsidies to giant companies like ADM are ok but aid to poor kids is not?
Go figure