How Bhutto Won Washington - New York Times

How Bhutto Won Washington - New York Times


This article is from the NY Times and explains how Bhutto became the fair hair leader of Pakistan according to Washington.

Musharraf’s Political Future Appears Troubled - New York Times

Musharraf’s Political Future Appears Troubled - New York Times: "Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s death raises the specter of prolonged political conflict between Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, and the country’s opposition, according to Pakistani and American analysts. How he handles the next several days could determine whether nationwide antigovernment protests erupt.

“I see a lot more trouble for Musharraf in the near future,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a leading Pakistani political analyst.

Ms. Bhutto’s party, the largest in the country, is now leaderless, and many of its members already blame Mr. Musharraf’s government for her death.

Mr. Musharraf remains deeply unpopular after declaring a state of emergency in November and suppressing Ms. Bhutto and his other political opponents.

Meanwhile, Nawaz Sharif, the country’s other main opposition leader, is scrambling to reorganize his party after years in exile."

D.U.--That Is Depleted Uranium

Spent Uranium used in power production, is being sold and made into weapons by US companies. These weapons have been used in the wars of 1991, 1999,2001 and 2003. These weapons keep on killing after the initial attack. They have been banned by a UN council for that reason, these weapons do not differentiate between friend and foe. By making weapons of DU, the US is effectively dumping its nuke waste on other countries in the name of democracy.

I bring this up because that a recent report has said that Iran gave up its nuke weapon program back in 2003, shortly after the invasion and occupation of its neighbor, Iraq. Now that they are only in search of nuke power, they are more docile than we had been lead to believe. I am pleased that the truth has come out and that the chest thumping of Bush and the Boyz has been silenced.

But the waste from their civilian nuke power plants can be made into a weapon, and these weapons can be sold or given to what the US sees as "bad guys". My point is they may not be in search of a nuke warhead, but they can still make a nuke weapon out of the DU. The gift that keeps on giving long after it is used.

There Is Some Good News

That good news would be that Americans are starting to see the civil disobedience is on the rise. The protests in New Orleans, Native Americans are staring to act--again, anti-war and anti-globalization protests are on the rise. All this should continue and by next election it could be at a historic proportion.

This is good--why? Americans are starting to show that the are trying to reclaim their souls from the pundits that bought years ago. But the problem is will it last? The media will do it can to stem the tide of discontent.

The coming year will illustrate if Americans are reclaiming their very souls or if they will once again let it go for the cheap.

A Proud Momma

I know all have watched the train wreck that has been the meltdown of Britney Spears....you know Mom has got to be questioning her parenting decisions......

But guess what? The 16 yr old sis of Britney, Jaime Lynn, is pregnant.....she and her 19 yr old boyfriend met in church and have been dating for a few months. Now you know Mom has got to be scratchin her ass wondering what happened.

But wait! there is more...Jaime said when she found out she was pregnant she was totally surprised.....thinking...thinking....she has been bumping uglies with a fertile 19 yr old and she is surprised she got pregnant? They grow really stupid in Louisiana. Or maybe since they met in church that would somehow protect her from pregnancy. Or maybe because she is a star, that would somehow protect. Are these people really all this stupid? Was she home schooled? That could explain a lot.

At least Britney was married before she started squirting out babies........Jaime is 16 and pregnant and she will raise the baby in Louisiana.....she should be fairly incognito there where pregnant 16 yr olds is a common occurrence. Now that she has started down the road of bumping uglies with whoever she dates...will she become another train wreck?

Mitt And Defense

All the GOP candidates are pretty much united for a strong defense dept and a strong military. I find this fascinating, with the exception of McCain, not one of them has any idea what it is like to serve in the military. I, personally, can respect McCain's position on the military, but the rest I just shake my head and mumble expletives under my breath.

Example? Sure thing! Romney received a deferment from military service, so he could pursue whatever it is little rich kids pursue. With the "patriotic" fervor that has grasp the country, would that not make him a draft dodger?

I have found in the past, people who have never experienced certain things are the biggest supporters of those same things, like torture, abortion, military service. Why is that? I say if you have not experienced the situation, then your opinion is not founded in fact but hearsay.

Let Us talk Economy

Some new economic reports show that unemplyment is low, consumer spending is up and jobs were created. All this lead to a surge on Wall street, but what does it mean?

Consumer spending is up, but no one mentions that most of it is on credit, so not much real money in circulation. Jobs were created, but no statement of where they were created; what industry, most likely in the service and fast food. Unemployment low, but no report on the unemployed that have fallen off the rolls. Home sells up slightly, but that is the vultures swooping in to take advantage of the foreclosures.

These reports are issued to give a rosier than not picture of the economy; investors must keep active and good news is mined to make that happen. I say go to the street and talk with "real" peoploe who have to deal with "real" issues. One will find that it is only rosy for the investors, the rest of us are in a sad way.

The media is there only to assist the investor. For instance a couple of months ago GE closed some plants and laid off some workers but it was never reported on NBC, who by the way is owned by GE. But yet today, NBC reported that GE would have better than predicted profits. Just another way of keeping the charade going.

The people need an accurate picture of the economy that they are creating for others to take advantage of on a daily basis.

A New Iowa Poll

A new poll from Iowa shows that the war in Iraq is waning.

These are what responders see as the problems facing the new president.

The Economy--29%
Iraq war--28%
Health Care--18%
Terrorism--12%
Immigration--10%

With all the news about the ups and downs of the US economy and the "good news" surrounding the surge it is no wonder that the focus has changed. But the average worker in the US saw his/her wages rise by 3.4% and that is the same as last year. That is not good news, what with the surging prices for food and gas, they are no better off this year than last.

What the Dems need to do is find a way to tie the economy and the war and health care all together, this could diffuse any strides the Repubs are making with so-called "good news".

I doubt they will do this, but the idea is there for them to use.

Economic Reports

Have you noticed that all economic reports come out slowly and dis jointed? That is so that the report will positively influence the markets. those reports are never about what is good for the people, but rather to inform investors and to keep the markets more or less stable.

These reports should come out once a month, on the same day. BTW, ask a working person if they see the success that the markets show. the answer will mostly be....NO!

Debate Intelligence

I spend a good amount of time on discussion forums, trying to debate issues. You notice I said "trying". In the last twenty years or so. the debate and exchange has been replaced with insults and hate.

There is no longer an intelligent exchange of ideas; it seems to almost always digress into insults and attempts at bullying people they do not agree with. Sad and just f*cking silly! The discission of politics is no longer a subject to exchange ideas with respect and intelligence; now it is all about the hate, the insults and the throwing of mindless platitudes.

It is sad that an analyst cannot give an opinion without some mindless f*ck attacking his position. Personally, I do not give a sh*t! If someone wants to hurl insults, I can play; I would prefer an exchange of ideas, but if it digresses to insults---SO BE IT!

Washington, D.C.

The nation's capital, D.C., seems to always be in the news. Either there is a crack smoking mayor, or politicians in trouble or.......well, you fill in the blanks. Anyway, D.C. has a high rate of poverty. Why? I mean it is the capital of the country and visitors see this blemish on the landscape of the richest country in the world. Is that something to be proud of? Next, the area is not represented in Congress. How can that be? you mean the people of the capital have no representation? You got it.

I have a problem with a country that prides itself on its representation, but yet leaves a bulk of thye population without any at all.

Dr. Ron Paul

He has gained alot in the media lately, only because of his fundraising. On Guy Folkes Day, Nov. 5, his guys raised 4.7 million, not bad. all over the internet. He is gaining more and more respect by the media. But are the American people listening?

No they are not! They are, however, listening to the crap the media is feeding them about Mitt and Rudy, the big two; then they mention Huckabee and McCain as outside chances. But unfortunately for the media, Paul and his entourage just keeps plugging along and raising money.

Me? I like Paul's style, he is confrontational and committed to what he says. That is something sadly missing in the leaders of the pack. But I have a problem with a few of his stands. Like his vote on SCHIP, his stand on Social security and medicare. Those are major issues for me so that would preclude me ever voting for Paul.

IMO, Paul deserves more exposure than he is getting from the media. If I were him and I became a front runner, none of them would get access to me or my people. Pay back is a bitch!

Why Is Shopping A Story?

The shopping on "Black Friday" was a major story all day on the major media outlets. Why? What about the shopping habits of these people is worthy of an all day story? If one is out shopping you would not see the story. If one was at home, why report it?

The answers are--corporations own the major media and they want to influence the people into believing all is good with the economy, that is why so many are out shopping. Well, that is bullsh*t! It is just another attempt to get the people to believe that all is well when it is not. People are losing their homes, they are spending more for food and gas. If you are a working class family, there is nothing good in the economic news. If you are a massive investor then you will like the news. But if you have to eek out an existence on the salary that you now make, all is looking dismal.

News Of The Day

Here is the list of stories run on T/giving Day on MSNBC.

1--Holloway death story
2--Peterson in Chicago and his missing wife
3--Gen Sanchez statement
4--Pakistan story
5--Macy Parade
6--Utah tazer incident
7--Truck catches fire
8--Train wreck
9--Dog show

Not a bit of this is useful if you are a writer or analyst. All the news I can use. News 24 hr a day. The best political team on TV. What a steaming pile of shit!

What The F*ck?

A Saudi woman is raped by 7 men and she gets 6 months in jail and 200 lashes. Think about this! She is a victim and she is condemned to this retaliation. This is a country that the Bush family has strong ties with. Will they intervene? Doubtful!

Where do we as Americans draw the line? We have stuck our noses in Burma, but they are not a family friend. The admin has said that it cannot dictate how a country deals with its citizens. thinking....thinking.....is that not what we have done in Pakistan? Is that not what we have done in Burma? On and on and on...Saudi is a family friend of the Bushes, so they can do whatever they feel is good in the name of whatever they choose to invoke, without any interference from washington.

The woman was RAPED, let me say it a gain, the woman was RAPED! She is a victim and she is condemned to public humiliation. Makes me proud of my government. NOT!

This is what you get when you give fat cat pigs power and give them a free hand at running the world. You should be proud of your f*cking laziness!

Who Is Your Candidate?

Good question! But I am speaking as a writer. I will bet that 80% of you will say Rudy or Mitt or Clinton or Obama. Why?

For one thing the media is picking them for you. There are other candidates with far better vision of the future than these couple. look at CNN they seem to be firmly behind Clinton; MSNBC seems to be drawn to Clinton and Obama. They seldom give the others a shot.

The last Dem debate for CNN--the network lost in that one. Why? They allowed Clinton to stack the audience and then allowed lots of applause, cat calls and boos. It was a pathetic endeavor. CNN allowed it to get out of control. They allowed it to be the Clinton/Obama show with few interjections from the others. It was pathetic!

I was not surprised at all, they have been a staunch supporter of Clinton from the start and they give her every opportunity to be the star of the debates. Real visionaries are not allowed to answer the hard questions, but rather are asked menial bullshit questions and then move on to the leaders for the biggies.

So your candidate is most likely pick for you. They(the media)are marginalizing the others to influence the outcome. They want a cat fight and not a policy fight. So do most Americans.

CHUQ

A Few Thoughts On Society

Just a bit of the info that is sadly missing in the news. Average Americans have known for years that the economy, their economy has been in the toilet, while the media tells them how well the economy is doing; but that is for those with 7 figure incomes.

The income divide between white and black families has grown again and for the last 30 yrs it has continue to widen. The equality that has been promised for a 100 yrs has never quite made it to the mainstream.

Let us look at crime--the number of policemen killed in the line of duty has gone up and those killed with a firearm are as follows:

NY--22
Fla--18
CA--12
LA--8

The deaths are up by 31% and deaths by firearm is up 37%. Something to think about.

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but the top 3 states are lead by Repubs--just saying, not accusing.

What Do Kucinich And Thompson Have In Common?

At a recent Labor forum, Dennis got cheers, applause for his stances on the labor movement and unions. He spoke to the workers and they responded. He was by far the best candidate on the stage as for as labor was concerned. More on this in a moment.

Huckabee is a Baptist preacher and his views on abortions and gays and values are the same as the religious right. He is everything the rank and file are looking for in a candidate.

Where am I going with this. Dennis position, no matter how popular with labor got him no endorsements, instead the union's leadership went to Hillary, Edwards and Dodd, so far. Huckabee, his stands on the issues are in line with the religious right but instead they want to go with Rudy and Thompson so far.

What does this mean? It means these people are endorseing those they think can win the election not the ones that hold similar views. and that is the problem with this whole system. It is about winning not what is right.

Change is desperately needed, but the American people will allow this system to go on and on until there is no way out. Sad that the best person for the job is seldom in the running.

CHUQ

Hate Hillary

It seems, IMO, that the Repubs do not have much of a platforms other than 9/11 and hate Hillary. It also seems that the message the conservatives are pushing is stop Hillary. Who is a conservative Dem. This is all so childish and infantile.

Notice that almost every audience cheers and whistles and applauds, wherever Clinton is paraphrased, but this is just silly, because it will not help a party that is consuming itself from the inside out, slowly but slowly. The GOP has got to run on its conservative ideas, maybe even some libertarian ones, but if the best they can do is "anyone is better than Hillary", they are gonna lose and lose hard.

CHUQ

A Green City

After Katrina there was talk about maybe New Orleans would be rebuilt as a green city. Environmentally friendly, but that did not work out. The Gulf Coast the same thing, it was not to be a environmental friendly area because of developers and the rush for money.

Greenberg, KS, you know, that poor town that a tornado all but destroyed. well the city has decided that it would be the first environment friendly city. They are rebuilding with energy efficient homes, the school will be built to use natural light wherever possible and the town is going to power itself with geothermal and wind power.

My hat is off to them, finally some Americans that are thinking beyond the next tax day. I wish them luck and much happiness.

Here Comes Those Rainy Day Blues

Fed guy, Bernanke, testified before Congress and he gave some pretty bad news. The economy in the last quarter and possibly the first 2 quarters of next year will be slow. The possibility of a small recession is darn good.

More info--retail sales for last month were slow and they are not looking for much of an increase for this month. Gold is increasing another sign, the dollar is dropping--another sign. But keep in mind that the two markets that are not used to calculate inflation are Gas and Food. The government says they are too volatile. So inflation will always look low when the two most important parts are eliminated.

I suggest that they start asking the average Joe how the economy is doing, there will be the most accurate, not some song and dance from the government that wants to look good.

Shame On Yahoo

Has anyone heard about Yahoo? It seems they gave the Chinese government info on a dissident that was posted governmental plans to crack down on any protests. These dissidents are now doing some extremely hard time in the lovely Chinese prisons.

Why? I would guess that it was to protect their market share in China. In other words it was a bout profit, not what was right. They could always come back and say they were sorry and that it would not happen again. WAIT! That is what they are saying in Congress.


Yahoo CEO and others are PIGS! They sold out a person to a life in prison to protect their profits. Makes me proud to be an American! When possible I WILL NOT USE YAHOO FOR ANYTHING!


I would ask others to join me, but thyat would be a fart in the wind!

How Do We Get A Good Government?

They asked smilingly! first of all, we as American voters, need to get past the good ol' boy bullsh*t. We will not find a good representative among those that are in politics today. These people, and I use the term loosely, are not about the will of the people, but rather about their next re-election campaign. That alone will be hard to overcome. It is a bout money and power, no waht is best for the people.

A move to a participatory form of government cannot not start on the national level. I has to be done locally, starting with the city councils and then move on to state Congressional races and then slowly into national politics. If this is to be successful, the people must be involved. Granted they are not use to being consulted in the arena of politics, but they are capable of running the country and in doing so be in control of their lives.

Candidates must form a personal relationship with the people they want to represent. It must be a face to face relationship. They people must be involved in every aspect of the process. This can be accomplished by having neighborhood councils, which meet once a week and they will decide what is to be the agenda for their politician. The people must exert influence in every aspect, job, schools, and organizations all within their respective neighborhoods. Once that is accomplished they will meet with their rep. and present him with the list of concerns and he will then act on THEIR concerns, not his/hers.

This is not an overnight sensation. It will take long and hard work to get the people totally involved in their own lives. This will stop all the bitchin' that voters do about their concerns. The representative has got to be someone who truly wants the best for his people. He/she has got to be a statesman and not a politician.

This is a simple explanation of what I see as the only saving grace to the American ideal of democracy. If not, then I see the country slowly sinking into the sea of imperialism and inequality. The voter is a lazy individual, that must wake up or lose everything that this country stands for; there is nothing to gain from a continuation of politics as usual.

CHUQ
06 Nov 07

A Democratic Pakistan

Are you kidding me? When has it ever been on a democratic road?

Musharraf came to power through military coup. The he appointed himself president. Then he gave himself many parliamentarian powers. And then he held elections, but before many opposition people were arrested and Musharraf got 98% of the vote. Now he has called a state of emergency, closed TV stations and newspapers and now is arresting more opposition people.

That is the short history of Musharaf and his travels toward democracy.

I found it interesting that he allowed an opponent, Bhutto, to return to the country. Then she was home for a week or so and left the country to visit family in Abu Dahbi. Now is that a coincidence? Did Bhutto know what was coming and ran for her life? Or did Musharaf wait for the most opportune moment to eliminate the democratic progress?

The US is still considering Musharaf an ally in the war on terror, but what of the democracy thing? What will be happening in the coming days will be very interesting to see how the US will handle it. The situation is one that could bite us in the ass.

Why Iran?

Well first of all, they have never apologized for the embassy thing back in 1979 and that sticks in the craw of the American people.

Think about this we do not want them to have nukes for whatever reason. We have tried saber rattling, we are trying sanctions but we have NEVER tried talking to them. Direct talks, that is.

Where would talking be less acceptable than blowing them up? A recent poll says that 57% of the American people will support a military action against Iran. That plays well for Bush and the Boyz.

We need, above everything else, some level headed logic in Washington. we have none now and if the election were today, we would have none with a new president. I think all Americans do not want the Iranians to have a bomb, but why would bloodshed be preferable to diplomacy? That is not a sane reaction to the situation.

CHUQ

Panties For Peace

We all know of the problems that are causing pain and suffering in Burma, ok Myanmar, right? (long pause for thought) Right? OK then what are you doing to help the people of Burma? They are protesting and dying for democracy. What are you doing to help?

If I had to guess I would say that you are doing NOTHING, right? Here is any idea for you. Go to KMart and buy a cheap package of women's underwear and mail it to the Burmese Embassy near you.

I know, What in God's name will this accomplish, Professor? The junta and its representatives are a superstitious bunch of little pigs. Most believe that if they come in contact with women's underwear it will somehow sap a man's strength.

Try it you will like it!

Nukes! Nukes! Everywhere!

OK if you watch the news or at least listen to the talk show pundits who are soooo concerned with Iran getting a nuke bomb. Have you heard it? If not, you are in a coma!

Iran is it is for energy, US says it is for bomb and we cannot allow that to take place. But we are helping many Muslim countries pursue nuke technology. Countries like Saudi, Egypt and Jordan are willing to go nuke.

Where do you draw the line on who is to have nuke technology and who is not? Is the prerequisite that if they massage the US genitalia, you may have nukes? What is the conditions that will make a country suitable for nukes? Stability? Very little of that in Egypt , Saudi could be destabilized with little effort and Jordan, there is a question mark. How about Pakistan? they have nukes and they could be available to terrorist with just one well place bullet.

So where do you draw the nuke line? It is all so silly! And all the lame rhetoric is all too familiar. I have heard it all before and Iraq was the outcome. So where do you draw the line?

A New Green City?

I am sure that just about everyone has seen the massive destruction that occurred in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. It was a man-made disaster. The failure of the Levee system caused about 85% of the damage. The MS Gulf Coast got most of the wind and water damage from the storm.

There was a hope and a desire by many of us on the Gulf Coast that NO would be rebuilt as a Green City, but local politics and corruption won out. Yes, I said corruption! An opportunity was missed to have the first environmentally friendly city in the US.

NO was given the chance to be a model city for something other than debauchery. It failed! The Big Easy has returned to its days of yore (whatever that means) and a perfect opportunity was missed like so many in the past.

A Day Of Anti-War Protests

On 27 Oct 07, there will be a national day of anti-war protests.

The vast majority of people in every corner of the country want the Iraq war to end, but Washington has failed to take action. With each month some 12 billion dollars of our tax money is spent and the death and destruction continue. Our communities – from New Orleans to Minneapolis – are neglected and suffer the consequences. From Vermont to California, from Florida to Wisconsin, the people have spoken: We want this war to end, and we want it to end now!

On Saturday, October 27th, people from all walks of life will gather in 10 sites around the country for massive regional demonstrations coordinated by (UFPJ). CCDS is organizing contingents in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco to join the ralles for peace.

If there is a protest in your area, please support them and maybe we can MAKE the Congress act as it has promised. We can only do so much, but your participation will go a long way at helping those working to end the war.

California Fires

YAWN! When is there not a fire in Calif.? It concerns 7 counties in South Calif, where does that mean it should be a lead story on ALL media outlets? Turkey is gonna invade Iraq, PKK offers ceasefire to Turks, people are dying in Gaza, etc, etc, etc. My point is, it is not national news, maybe one report and let the locals handle it.

I say, remove people and animals and let the mutha burn! Why so angry, CHUQ? I want to let there be massive structural damage and then do a report on how well the insurance compnaies treated the policy holders. I want top see if the wealthy has as much prob getting their money as the poor in the Katrina area. I doubt that they will have any probs at all.

Come on, do you really give a sh*t about S. Ca.? No! You care about what happens to you and yours and f*ck everybody else.

CNN< MSNBC, FOX--move on to REAL stories and let the local station handle the filler stories that require NO prep.

CHUQ

Where Have All The Statesmen Gone?

A long time passing! We have not had a statesman, since Bobby Kennedy. Why do I say that? Easy, a statesman is someone who looks to the next generation; a politician looks to the next election. Sorry people, but if you take a close look at the field of candidates, both GOP and Dem, you will not find a statesman in the entire lot.

Bobby's stands were constructed to last a lifetime, or at least a generation. The lot now, the best they can accomplish is the next Congress. Bobby wanted the war to end, not of this group seems committed to that. Bobby wanted poverty to disappear, and now look at the new group, do they have anything in their speeches that even remotely sounds like they want poverty to end? Bobby wanted civil rights for all, watch the news, we were close, but no cigar.

The Afro-American forum that the GOP did not show up for in Baltimore is a good example. Bobby went against all advice to skip a speech in Indiana because of riots. He went in alone and made his speech and was appreciated for his guts. Find me one among ALL of today's candidates that would show that kind of guts. (long pause for thought) Give it up! Not one is a statesman with guts, they are however COWARDS with money.

The American people will get the leader they truly deserve--A COWARD with NO thought of the future beyond their next election! Truly what YOU DESERVE!

CHUQ

To Discipline The Children

How do you discipline your child? A time out or a loss of some lame privilege or how about a good whack on the butt? How do you do it?

I recently read a survey that was a bit telling. 95% of whites used the time out or loss of privilege as a punishment for misdeeds. In contrast, 89% of people of color used the time honored whippin'. This whole thing got me to thinking. So I thought back to some of the major societal problems in the past years.

Dahmer--white
Deputy killing people in Wisconsin--white
Columbine--white
Nevada child perv--white
Va. Tech--Asian

There are many more, but without coffee this is the best I could do.

Conclusion--if white people do not whip there kids, then they could grow up like the ones above. I think good ass bustin' once in awhile is good for the soul. And I think it made me a better person for receiving numerous of them while growing up.

What does a child learn by having to give up their IPod? Or that they must sit in a corner until parents get bored? A good ass bustin' is very memorable!

Putin Goes To Iran

Do you the news? Do you read a paper? Why the hell not!

Something you should be concerned about is Putin's visit to Iran. He has said that Russia will help Iran finish and start up their nuke power plant. He has also said that NO country on the Caspian can be used to launch an attack against Iran. He is thumping his chest; he has found a new confidence. Russia is maneuvering to regain the power it had internationally with it was the USSR. Russia is returning to the old Cold War.

Russia is confronting the US on many issues now, but why? The US prestige in the world is in the toilet and some countries are looking for other means of support. They are trying to head off any homegrown opposition as quickly as they can. This gives Russia an inside tract to world power, once again.

May I suggest that you keep an eye on the news and you will not be surprised when the Cold War returns and Russia is in our face throughout the world. But then what do you care? that would mean that you have to get off your cel and do some thinking and, well let us be honest, that is not one of your best traits.

CHUQ

Another General Speaks

A couple of days ago, Gen. Sanchez has criticized the Bush Administration with such words as incompetent and the situation in Iraq as a Nightmare. He did not pull any punches. Guess what? Another General has spoken out. This time it is Gen. Abazaid. Below is a quote from the general.


“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”

Amazing how fast these guys come out of the woodwork. Let one of them speak and they all want to say their thoughts. Gen. Abazaid will get a bunch of heat, but it will be mild. The Admin cannot afford to attack these generals outright, because of the gen. Patraeus thing. They would look like hypocrites if they are too hard on the generals and they cannot afford to lose any more support than they have now.

It will be interesting to see how they handle these on their policies. I will be watching!

CHUQ

The Real "Dr. No"

I remember seeing the first James Bond movie in 19.., I will not show my age. I went to the theater and it cost $.35. Yes, I am an old FART!

But I digress....the new "Dr. No" is Dr. Ron Paul. He got the name by voting NO on all issues that were unconstitutional, at least as he saw them. He is a big proponent of following the Constitution to the letter. in the beginning he was seen as a minor player and not taken too damn serious. However, his stand against the war and for smaller government and his confrontational style kept him in the news.

Now he is being seen as a real candidate. Why? The internet! Using the internet masterfully, Paul has raised more money than McCain and he has widened his appeal to the young voter, who like what he is saying. At his appearances the crowds are getting larger and larger, he is becoming a force that the GOP will have to deal with and soon.

In the beginning, I liked his style of debate; confrontational, passionate and well documented. I am not a repub by any stretch of the imagination, but from the start he was what I like in a politician. Will I vote for him. NO! But the GOP could do a lot worse than Paul as their nominee. And they probably will!

Just like the Dr. No in the 007 movie, he is thwarting everyone who tries to keep him from his mission. I wish him luck and I really enjoy being right once and while.

CHUQ

To Divide Iraq

The recent passing of the Biden-Brownback proposal in the Congress for the partitioning of Iraq into three states will not necessarily be a good thing. Yes, I have mixed emotions about the thing.

True that deaths are down. Was it the surge? Probably not, IMO. Why? Well the violence in Baghdad, especially has driven people away from their neighborhoods and into areas of similar beliefs; Sunni to Sunni, Shi'a to Shi'a, etc. Plus this type of forces segregation is going on throughout the country. So the drop in deaths is more that the ethnic division is more complete that not. So Iraq is already nearing the point where their are three distinct areas. So to say that the surge was the defining action would be just a spin on something that was already happening.

Recently, Iraqi lawmakers have said that they were considering taking a national reconciliation off the books, for the time being. Another indication that there is already a fledgling 3 states emerging.

If this division was being carried out already why would Biden, et al feel it necessary to make a proposal fir something already in process?

One can think of at least three reasons.

The first is Biden's desperate attempt at appearing a serious thinker on geostrategy without having to admit that the US has no choice but to remain on the side of the Iraqi people until they defeat their common enemies.

The second reason is that most of the leading Democrats in the senate, including several presidential candidates, believe that by passing resolutions such as this they could calm down their militant anti-war base. Last year, the Democrats recaptured both houses of the Congress partly thanks to the efforts of well-motivate grassroots organizations who had opposed the liberation of Iraq from the start. A year later, however, the Democrats have failed to have any significant effect on President George W Bush's strategy in Iraq. To calm the anti-war movement, the Democrats have to say and do something.

The third and perhaps the most important reason, as always in the Middle East, is oil.

Does it always come down to oil? Most assuredly! You would also not be surprised to learn that at least a dozen of the senators who backed Biden's carve-up plan have been recipients of campaign contributions from another oil company interested in Iraqi Kurdistan. This one is Hunt Oil, a Texas maverick in the oil business, which cut a deal with the autonomous Kurdish authorities just weeks before Biden made his move.

As you see, there is always ulterior motives for these actions in Iraq. Just like there were for the original invasion. And it always seems to come down to a common denominator--OIL!

CHUQ

A General Speaks

Just recently Gen. Sanchez, former commander of forces in Iraq, has spoken his mind on the situation. He has called the situation a "nightmare" among other things. He also stated that the administration has extremely naive and uninformed about the consequences of an occupation. Here is analysis of the people that ran the war.

Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez delivered a scathing assessment of the management of the war as he denounced US political leaders as "incompetent," "inept" and "derelict in the performance of their duty."

Gee, that is pretty much common knowledge, he is just reinforcing our beliefs.

I have heard people say that if things were that f*cked up, why did he not voice his concern to the leadership? I would guess that he probably did, but as an uniformed officer he is required to follow their orders. Even if he did not agree with them. And as an officer he would not have made his concerns public, it would have been a break with protocol.

IMO, everything he is saying is probably correct. Timing, I would imagine has something to do with a book that he has written or is writing. The thing is that all this stuff needs to be out there and the historians will play it as they see it. The more info they have the more accurate they will be.

The most important part of this is when Gen. Sanchez says that the leadership that screwed up the situation in Iraq "should be held responsible for their incompetence".

CHUQ

Iran Is Lying!

Our Sec. of State has made this statement recently. She has said that they are lying and deceiving the world about their desire for nuke technology. That is a bold and sweeping statement. Is it true? Or is it just more attempted provocation of the country? Or possibly, setting the stage for Americans when the military action comes?

It is a bold statement, but where is the proof? I mean this administration has lied repeatedly to the American people. And yet they want us to believe them when it comes to Iran. Why would we believe them?

Is it arrogance? Or maybe just stupidity? Am I the only one that sees a problem? If they are telling the truth and want the people's support, then put ALL the evidence out there for us to see and then maybe we will smile and accept the inevitable military action. It will not be done, so I am dreaming.

Just keep an eye on the news. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution will be the justification for any military action. Why else would the two biggest hawks in Congress stoop to offering such a minor resolution?

Peace--Out!

CHUQ

Look! It is Blackwater!

If you read, and I may be assuming too much, then you know all about the problems that the company called Blackwater is having in Iraq. Killing lots of people, owes lots of cash, so on and so forth.....yada, yada.

I have a thought for you, what has happened in Iraq since the Blackwater thing started? Anyone recall anything? Probably not. Let me help you out. Southern Iraq has been pretty much abandoned, Brits are leaving and US does not go there. Iraq is giving up on the reconciliation thing, which by the way was part of the benchmarks that Bush wanted. The embassy in Baghdad is a worthless limp of architecture that will be delayed indefinitely. Do you see a trend here?

What I am saying is that Blackwater was a godsend to avoid the reporting of the crap going down in Iraq. Iraq is going to sh*t and the media does not want to add to the opposition to the war. It is all about ratings and scheduling.

CHUQ

The Hardship Of Going To Congress

I was watching the TV and an interview with Jim Webb. He and Morning Joe were talking about the hardships of being in Congress. The long hours, the lack of family time, etc, etc. Joe spent the time telling everyone his experiences as a Congressman from North Florida. He talked about the missing time with his family and other boo-hoo subjects.

I got to thinking--it must be horrible! He got a TV show and radio gig out of the deal. It is not like he had to go back to work as a wannabe lawyer, but rather a well paid media personality. So that bring s me to my point--if the life is so hard on these poor people why do they want to stay forever? The possibility of becoming a millionaire has nothing to do with it at all, I am sure. (sarcasm intended)

So to cry about the time lost from family is just pure steaming bovine fecal matter. Power, money and .......thinking.......that is about it--power and money! These people want to appear to have the same concerns as others, HA! They are motivated not by family ties or anything else normal, but rather by the big two. IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY AND POWER!

QUESTION: When a candidate loses the election and he/she still has ...say....$3 million in the bank from their fundraising..what becomes of the left over money?

Sudan And Darfur--What Is To Be Done?

That is the $64 question. The US is pushing for more sanctions against the country with the hope that the genocide will subside. Genocide? The US is one of the only countries that is calling it that; the rest of the world has shied away from using the term. Why do other countries balk at the use of the term? Easy, they would have to act! As it is now they can condemn and bitch and meet on the Darfur situation in Sudan, but they do not have to actually do anything.

But for all the chest thumping by the US, they are still cooperating with the government of Sudan on a couple of issues. Most notable is the WOT, which Sudan is feeding the US intel on foreign fighters entering Iraq. At a recent intel meeting in Sudan, the countries that are the most vocal about Darfur were there, UK, France and the US. The Sudanese intel chief, Ghosh, gets regular trips to the US to meet with the CIA and is housed in a ritzy hotel and catered to for all his wants and needs.

Sanctions are a cop out; they are used to look as if something is being done to stop the madness but in reality, the abortion goes on and on. So what of the people in Darfur? They will continue to suffer and die, while the rest of the world carries on, business as usual.

When will the world get its act together and demand that the people of Darfur be left to live in peace? Probably not in my lifetime! The world will continue to use band aids on the gunshot wound that is Darfur.


CHUQ

Going Green?

WHAT A CORNY STORY

Ethanol! Ethanol! Rah! Rah! Rah!

The cheer go up we can finally end our dependence on foreign oil. Now that is a one pound bag of manure, which they are selling to the people. Guess what!? They are buying this crap (pun intended). As long as we allow the oil companies to make obscene profits, you will NEVER be weaned from foreign oil. Why is that? Ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines, for it will pick up impurities like water. So, the only way to transport it is in trucks. Now guess what? Trucks use diesel and that is another pollutant. Ethanol IS NOT the answer, sports fans.

Let us talk about how environmentally friendly ethanol is, NOT! A Stanford study showed that ethanol is at least as polluting as gasoline and could be more so. The burning of ethanol produces more lung damaging ozone than the burning of gasoline. Another polluting factor of ethanol is that farmers will use a nitrogen based fertilizer which will enter into the water supply, killing marine life and such. This alone should make it unwise to push the use of corn as an alternative. But who cares, it is all about who makes the profits, not what it will do to the environment.

Now let us talk about corn prices. Ethanol refiners use huge amounts of corn and with that food prices will go up and up. Corn is used in food production from feed for the cattle that make out steaks to the syrup for our soft drinks. As the demand for ethanol rise, so will the price of our food. The more corn that is planted the less other crops are raised and this will also add to the price of food. Nothing about ethanol is a good.

Corn is not even the best source of ethanol. Sugar cane is and it produces 8 times more energy than it uses to make. Corn, however, the ratio is 1.3 to 1. This basically means that corn produces a little more energy than it consumes in the refining process. Not an efficient product.

The US is importing foreign oil so that ethanol can be produced and distributed. The only thing that is being accomplished by the production of ethanol is we are putting the grocery store in competition with the gas station for the use of the corn.

Ethanol is nothing new! It was used in Ford’s original Model T and it was considered in the 1970’s during the oil embargo. If ethanol is inefficient and costly why is it even being considered? That is the easiest question to answer—PROFITS! No one in the oil business wants to eliminate out dependence on foreign oil. Why would they shoot themselves in the ass? Answer—they will not cut off their supply of profit.

This is not an answer to dependency, it is however an answer to oil companies retaining their profit margin, for an additive will still need a supply of the original product and that translates into continued exploitation by the oil companies.

As a Communist, I call for the workers to take control of the industry and to start a program to find a viable alternative to oil. Hydrogen cell, solar, electric, etc are acceptable alternatives. Why? They are environmentally friendly; they are people friendly and will show the world that there is a better way to transport ourselves and a better way of governing ourselves. Ethanol is not an answer to this problem; it is only a continuation of the stranglehold of the oil companies.

Do not take my word for it! Do some research and you will find that I am correct. Do not hand the oil industry any more power than they have taken in the past. It is time for the people to become the power; we have waited long enough; time to act my friends.

PEOPLE POWER IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE!

JOIN US AND RECLAIM YOUR RIGHTS!

Professor CHUQ

06 Oct 07

Myanmar And Sanctions

The UN is waffling on the subject of sanctions; the US has passed a steeper sanctions package for Myanmar. None of this is gonna help the situation. Why? Good question. Myanmar has a buttload of natural gas and then there is the gemstones.

Rubies! 90% of the world's rubies come from Myanmar. The military junta depends on tis for their income. Rubies are a desired commodity around the world. The sanctions already in place have had NO effect on this money making enterprise. You see, the US cannot get rubies from Myanmar, but if they are cut and polished in another country it is ok. There is your sanctions bullsh*t.

Do you think Americans are gonna give up the luxury of owning a ruby because a couple hundred monks got whacked? Of course, they are not! I is far more important to have the status of a ruby than it is to prevent the killings or to promote democracy. Americans will draw a line on the democracy thing, if their status and vanity are threatened.

They were appalled by the concept of blood diamonds being used to finance genocide in Africa. But did they take the time to check their diamond purchase out. Hell NO! So would you think they would give a sh*t about a blood ruby? Please, you are not that naive. They will soon forget Myanmar as soon as it slips from the headlines. They may feel bad for the Burmese now, but in a couple of days they will not care at all.

CHUQ

Showing Up For Democracy

Recently, I listen to an interview with former White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Caro, I heard him say what I have been saying for years. "Democracy is about getting them (voters) to show up". He is saying about elections, that it is more important to get voters to the polls than it is to have a stable idea on policies.

In essence, tell them what they want to hear and they will show up and give you the election.

Geez, I have been saying this for twenty years and no one was listening, until now. There seems to be more and more people realizing that bullsh*t is just that bullsh*t. They seem to be wanting specifics, not idle promises. This is a good thing, IMO, but will it translate into a substantial win for a statesman and not a politician? Sadly, probably not! The election will be business as usual and we will get another politician as usual.

Once again the people will be the big losers in yet another farce they call a presidential campaign. The really sad part of this saga is that the American people make the same mistakes over and over and never learn from them. I use to think the American populace was ignorant, but now I know they are just f*cking STUPID!

CHUQ

New Ideas?

Recently I have read and seen a couple of "new" ideas that are being past around the internet. But are they new? Not really! They are just extensions of stuff from the past.

A German parliamentarian has tried to introduce a bill that marriages should be 7 yrs in length and then renewable. If both parties agree. A cute proposal but it is not new! About 20 years ago, in Maryland I believe there was a proposal that marriages should be renewed after one year or they could walk away without a costly court battle, as long as no children were involved. So the German is just taking an already offered proposal and tweeking it.

Now, there is this shrink who has written a book about letting your children drink wine or beer at meals and it will stop the need for binge drinking in life. To begin with I agree with him. About 25 yrs ago, I let my daughter have a small glass of wine with her meals and I had no problem with her being a lush when she got into college. I was not original, I saw it in Europe when I lived in Spain and saw very few drunks running around and thought it might be the reason was that they were allowed to drink at meals.

These ideas are not new, maybe if you are a youngster they are, but to me, I have seen it before. The shrink needs to give props to others, like Europeans for his "idea".

A New Devil's Island?

In case your memory is not as good as it should be, Devil's Island was a French penal colony off the Coast of Guyana, known as French Guiana, back in the day. It was used from 1854 to 1952. France sent prisoners that it did not want to deal with to the colony. Kinda like "outta sight, outta mind".

It was condemned by the world as cruel and unusual punishment. The international outcries assisted in the closing of the facility.

Now guess what? There is a new Devil's Island in the making. What are you talking about, Professor?

Ever hear of a small South Pacific Island nation known as Nauru? Probably not! anyway, it is a small nation in the Pacific whose main export and source of income was phosphates. Recently the 13,000 inhabitants had run out of phosphates and the future was not looking very bright for the country. Then Australia's conservative government of John Howard came to the rescue. Now that was very thoughtful of them, right Professor?

Not hardly! It seems that the little country in exchange for Australian aid has agreed to run a holding camp for refugees hoping to immigrate to Australia. There are 89 refugees being held on the Island, most from Sri Lanka, the camp is cruel and indefinite exile. They have no legal representation, for Nauru denies visas for lawyers and even an Australian human rights organization has not been allowed on the Island.

So the people on Nauru are being treated just as badly as those on the original Devil's Island and no one can get there to help, thanks to the government of Australia, who is paying the Nauru to act as their "Gitmo".

Am I mistaken or isn't Australia a democracy? Another poster child for democracy. Shame that we will not get all the info from the media. Stories like this need to be reported before it is too late to save these people from starvation and cruelty.


CHUQ

The Immigration Carousel

I have purposefully stay away from the immigration debate because, IMO, it is an emotional issue that does not lead to an honest exchange of ideas and plans, but rather name calling and arguments.

As I see it the biggest debate is that they are not paying taxes, well they are. If they buy anything they are paying taxes. Their rents that they pay are part of the economic income of the region and what of the money that is paid into fake SSN account and income tax accounts? Where does that money go once in Washington? True, not all are paying these taxes, but some are.

All opposition has tried to make it appear that it is not a racial thing. But it is! America has been a carousel of racism every since the influx of immigrants. Please, legal or nor, it is still a racial thing. From the beginning with the Chinese that worked on the railroads, to the Italians, Irish, Eastern European, SE Asian and now it is the Hispanics. If you go back and read newspaper clippings from the past, you will find that not much has changed, the same objections for the same reasons are always there. IT IS RACISM! All immigrants have come here to take jobs and not participate in the society. They will not learn the language. They take from Americans already here. All this is nothing new, it was racism then; it is racism now.

CHUQ

Daylight Savings Time--The Comedy

Under normal conditions, we would be approaching the end of DST, but Bush as had it extended for two weeks, I believe. his reasoning would be that It would give families more daylight so they could spend more quality time with the families. A noble sentiment......HA....HA...HA....please stop I cannot take anymore1

To begin with, that whole song and dance is about the biggest pile of steaming crap as you will ever be served. Second, this Prez could care less how much time you spend with your family and he could not give a crap about the quality of that time. So please, stop deluding yourself!

If there is more time during daylight hours, the chances are good that people will be driving more and if they are driving more they are using more gas and if they are using more gas they are spending more money for it. There is the formula that he, Bush, is using. It has nothing to do with the quality time one has with one's family, but more on how much more the oil companies can make off of the extension of DST.

So his decision was an economic one, not a social one. So please stop trying to put an honorable face on a pack of lies.

Media Big Mouths

In recent months the media has had its BS stories, a while back Dan Rather got into trouble for some memo he reported on. And then there was Don Imus who made a racial statement about a basketball team. Last week Bill O'Reilly made a racist statement about a restaurant and a concert. And just a day ago Rush Limbaugh has called some of the soldiers unpatriotic.

Where does this sh*t end? O'Reilly made the comment that Sylvia's, a Harlem restaurant, that it was no different from other NYC spots, even though it was an African-American business. Later he went to a Ania baker concern and said that even the Black people were dressed nice. To date he has not apologized and has defended his comments. he has even said that the people that have attacked him for his statements were not safe and that he would come for them. Al Sharpton has not weighed in on this because he says he has not heard the tape. This surprises me, Sharpton is usually on a story like this 2 seconds after it is said. So why is he giving O'Reilly a free ride?

And then there is Rush Limbaugh who has called soldiers that protest or speak out on the war in Iraq are somehow unpatriotic. This from a guy who sits on his ass and never goes anywhere that would be considered dangerous. He takes the word of some asshole who spends 3 hours in a market place with security all around, as the authority on the War. May I suggest that he spend a week live and fighting as a trooper and then make his bullsh*t statements.

If he or anyone has not lived through the crap these men live through, then I suggest that all shut the f*ck up! A survivor of war and his opinion have to be RESPECTED, if not then the very democracy that all say they are protecting, means absolutely NOTHING!

To these so called "media types" have nothing to say until they have experienced for themselves. If you listen and agree with these f*cking MORONS, then YOU ARE the UNPATRIOTIC one in the room.

Enough said!

CHUQ

29 Sep 07

Is The US Imperialistic?

According to a paper published by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) it is not. This paper called, "Democracy Club" this is why they say it, " If the United States can't impose its will on a small country like Iraq, it's probably not bent on world domination." A really good analysis but the Professor does not agree. The US is, especially under the leadership of the Bush Admin is imperialistic. The failure is their approach to imposing their will on the Iraqi people, not the fact that they cannot. They still found excuses to justify the invasion and occupation of another country, the problem is they did not heed the warnings given to them of the consequences. The US is STILL an imperialistic government under the Bush admin leadership.

This is also what the PPI paper purposes: "Some U.S. progressives are coalescing around an idea they hope will resolve this dilemma: a Concert of Democracies. As envisioned by the Princeton Project, led by John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Concert would combine non- Western nations like Japan, India, South Korea, and Australia with the trans-Atlantic partners in a global alliance of some 60 genuinely liberal democracies."

The "group" that they are considering to make up this "club" are the countries with the most to gain by controlling another country. These are the largest users of resources, the biggest polluters, etc. All this club will do is try to make it safer for the world's largest capitalist countries to control the resources of smaller more weak countries.

Sorry, but imperialism by any other name is still imperialism.

CHUQ
28 Sept 2007

More to Come

I have given my reader all the pertinent facts about parecon and hopefully it has made it clear just what it is and how it will work. Now I will move on to other analysis and explanations on politics, and such.

Parecon--Page 6 (the conclusion)

Implications for Strategy

Lastly, I want to point out that participatory economics has implications for strategy, for what we do and how we organize now.

The nature of any new social formation that emerges from major social conflicts, or an upheaval that takes on a revolutionary dimension, will be determined by the character of the main social forces at work in that process.

This means that a movement run by and for workers, that is characterized by the properties of internal self-management espoused by participatory economics, will be essential in the revolutionary process and the emergence of such a movement will prefigure and foreshadow that change.

The only way that we can ensure that a society that is self-managing emerges as the result of such a social process is if the main movements that are working for change have a self-managing character and practice, so that people have developed the egalitarian and democratic practices and habits required for society itself to be self-managed.

The way in which people organize themselves for change is important in shaping what the outcome will be down the road.

How do we ensure that social forces in a revolutionary process do not contain within themselves the seeds of a new techno-managerial class emerging, as has happened in the various “Communist” revolutions?

To avoid this outcome we need mass organizations that avoid corporate-style hierarchies, or hierarchies that concentrate the expertise, knowledge, and decision-making in a few.

How Does the Working Class Become Revolutionary?

The working class is not revolutionary now. If anyone thinks they are ready right now for a spontaneous revolution, they will need to provide us with an explanation of why the revolution hasn’t already happened. Social systems of oppression reproduce themselves over time by the social structures, like class position or structural racism, having an impact in the psyches and habits and expectations and behaviors of everyone. That is why a revolution that can overcome oppression, and not just replicate a new form of oppression, requires a more or less lengthy process of change in the working class itself, a change in people.

If the working class is to emancipate itself from class oppression, it must gain the self-confidence, leadership skills, self-organization, and cohesion that would enable it to take over the running of production. That is, it must change itself. And it does so through a process of struggle, of becoming mobilized and self-organized. This is because people learn about the structure of power that dominates them by fighting it, and they acquire more motivation to learn more and acquire skills to organize by making the commitment to fight.

The development of larger-scale movements also begins to give the people involved more power, and this then alters the perceptions of ordinary folks because now they see that there is perhaps the power to change things. And the degree of change that people begin to see as possible will be shaped by their perception of the willingness of others to fight, and to support each other.

But if we are to have a self-managing, emancipatory outcome to a revolution, the movements for social change that are the main social forces must be themselves self-managing in order to develop the right habits of thought and expectations and capabilities in the participants.

The Wobblies have an old slogan, that “We Are All Leaders.” As an ideal, as what we aim for, I think that is right. But the question is, How do we ensure that our practice comes to approximate to that ideal?

The existing society is divided by all kinds of inequalities, inequalities of access to education and knowledge and opportunities to develop skills. Inequalities along lines of class, education, gender and race will be reflected in these differences in people in these ways.

Some people have more knowledge about how things work, a more theoretical understanding, some have more formal education than others, some are more self-confident that others, some have had opportunities that have enabled them to develop skills like public speaking or articulating ideas. Others may have the latent ability to develop such skills but they've just not had the opportunity to develop them through practice.

Someone who has worked for years taking orders from bosses, from people with more education than them, may have developed a habit of deferring to people who more authoritative or more educated.

That there are these differences in the real, presently existing capabilities of people is a consequence of what I called the “structuralist” theory of society, that your position in the class structure or other structures of inequality like patriarchy and racism, will also affect what skills, preferences, habits you have or lack and how you tend to view your life prospects.

This tells us that any movement that organizes itself in a purely spontaneous way will spontaneously tend to replicate within itself these inequalities that have been shaped by the larger capitalist society. That’s because, if we do not have a program for overcoming the effects of the structures of inequality on people, they will simply be reproduced within mass organizations or movements.

This means a genuinely egalitarian movement cannot be created in a purely spontaneous fashion. We need to consciously be aware of differences in skill development and consciously work to bring out in people their latent abilities, to play a positive role in the movement. There are a variety of things that can be done in this direction. Things like encouraging people to speak, to participate in debates, study groups and activist schools to develop knowledge and the ability to theorize one’s experience, to develop speaking and writing abilities, and to develop critical thinking skills.

Through a conscious and collective practice of developing skills in people, we can ensure that people are better able to play an active role in the movement.

If organizations are not to be simply run by professional cadre or reduced to a hardcore of committed activists, we need to figure out ways that make it easier for the average working person to be involved in movements.

We also need to develop within organizations the equivalent to the participatory economics idea of balanced jobs. The idea is that we do not want to replicate a techno-managerial hierarchy. We want to consciously work to share knowledge and skills, to develop leadership skills and knowledge in the rank and file participants.

Parecon--Page 5

4. Consumption Shares Based on Work Effort or Sacrifice

There is one further question that any viable economy must have an answer to:

How is each person to gain access to their share of consumption? What is the principle governing distribution? How does a person become authorized to consume at a given level?

The most controversial part of Participatory Economics is the answer it gives to this question.

One traditional principle about consumption that some Marxists and anarchists have put forward is the communist principle,

From each according to ability, to each according to work.

The “from each according to ability” part has been interpreted by anarchists like Makhno 5 and Isaac Puente and the Spanish anarchists of the '30s to mean there is a requirement for able-bodied adults to work. This is basically the idea that we won’t allow there to be social parasites.

As to the “to each according to need” part, I think this does make sense in a lot of cases. If someone is injured in an accident, it’s an impulse of simple human solidarity to say they should be taken care of, irrespective of whatever they may have done to contribute to social production.

And Participatory Economics accepts this idea, and says that how far it is to have application is really up to particular communities to decide, and may differ in different areas of the world, depending on their particular political history or culture.

Nonetheless, what we do also say is that it isn’t feasible to run an entire, complex, industrial economy, with millions of people and tens of thousands of products, on the basis of the “to each according to need” principle, if this is interpreted as saying that the output of production is simply an open-access resource for people to take whatever they want.

For one thing, isn’t this just an encouragement to the most greedy and aggressive to consume more, and leaving less for those who are not as self-assertive of their “need” or who have more scruples? And is that the sort of result we want to encourage? And don’t we want to limit the amount of time we all have to spend working? And how can we do that if there is no limit to what people consume?

To avoid wanton waste, we need to be able to measure what economists call the social opportunity cost of the inputs and outputs of the production process. If I spend my work time making shoes, I can’t also spend that same time building houses or writing books or whatever. That follows from the laws of physics – I can’t be in two places at the same time. So, if my work time is committed to making shoes, there are a lot of other things that I could have done that I won’t be able to do. All those things that won’t get done are the “social opportunity cost” of me spending my time making shoes.

Or if we use a piece of land to grow pinto beans, we can’t also use that same land to grow canteloupes or to build houses on or use for a soccer stadium. So, if we commit a piece of land to growing of pinto beans, all the other things that we now can’t do with that land are the social opportunity cost of using that land to grow pinto beans.

To ensure that our economic activity isn’t wantonly wasteful, we need some way to measure how much we value the inputs and outputs to production. This is in fact the role that prices play in Participatory Economics; prices do not require the existence of money as cash or capital.

But in order to measure the value to us of the inputs and outputs to production, this requires a social communication process in which people register what their preferences are for the possible things we could produce using the various resources available to us for production. But if people do not have any limits on what they are permitted to demand for their consumption, we can’t have any meaningful way of measuring how much they prefer various productive outcomes.

Some people would respond to this by pointing to the community and workplace asssemblies, as the means of input for preferences. However, if decisions about allocation and consumption were made in a purely collective fashion by neighborhood or work assemblies, this leaves no room for individual or sub-cultural diversity in preferences for production to be reflected appropriately in what is produced.

Having decisions about what styles of shirts are to be produced made collectively by assemblies denies to each person the personal self-management of their own consumption decision about shirts. It violates the principle of self-management.

Participatory Economics thus proposes an alternative consumption principle, for those who are able to work:

To each according to their work effort or sacrifice.

The idea here is that your effort or sacrifice is really the only thing that is under the voluntary control of each person, and so it is thus the only equitable way to determine consumption shares.

Once jobs are “balanced,” as proposed by Participatory Economics, the level of sacrifice or effort required by jobs will tend to be similar, so size of consumption shares, based on work, would tend to be equalized, and consumption differences would be mainly determined by how much each person chose to work, and perhaps modified by considerations of need as determined by the particular community.

Parecon--Page 4

Now their is the part knon as balanced jobs. What is it?

3. Balanced Jobs

There is one more component of Participatory Economics that is also part of our proposal for how to avoid a techno-managerial ruling class from dominating in a post-capitalist system. This is the proposal of balanced jobs.

This is a program that we envision being carried out by the worker federations in industry and is a basic item to ensuring the empowerment of ordinary workers.

The idea is that jobs would be systematically re-designed throughout the economy. What we would look at would be things like the tasks that involve creativity, conceptualization, decision-making or personal empowerment in the economy, on the one hand, and tasks that involve rote work, the doing of manual labor or the not especially pleasant aspects of production.

And what we do is we re-design jobs so that they are balanced between skill and design work on the one hand, and the doing of the physical work, the less desirable or less empowered work. We also systematically change the educational system to democratize access to expertise and information and training, we integrate this with the system of production itself. The idea is to facilitate everyone having the opportunity to have their skills and talents developed, and yet everyone also must do their share of the grunt work, the sheer physical labor of production.

To take an example, right now people are hired in transit system hierarchies to do service planning typically only if they have college degrees. Meanwhile, there is a large group of people who are expected to do the stressful work of driving a bus day in and day out. Yet in fact a lot of bus drivers have an interest in transit and transit planning issues. Some fairly simple techniques are involved in service planning, including rules of thumb and use of some simple mathematical techniques. These things can be taught. So, with balanced jobs, you might have someone who would spend part of their time at work doing service planning or system design work, and part of their time cleaning or driving buses.

That’s basically the idea of balanced jobs.

Parecon--Page 3 (Cond) Yet Again

This is the last part of part of the planning stage of Parecon.

What is Participatory Planning?

Okay, so what’s the alternative? We say that the alternative is to have the entire population directly create the plan themselves. We say everyone should be able to be planners, and participate directly in the formation of the plan. We say the education system and the availability of information should be such as to facilitate this.

This leads to what we call participatory planning. Participatory Economics has a particular suggestion or proposal for how this could work. This doesn’t mean that all decisions are to be made in big meetings. Actually, on the participatory economics proposal, many inputs to the planning process are made directly by individuals, and do not require meetings. In particular, we make a distinction between collective consumption and private consumption.

Capitalism tends to underproduce collective goods and services, and tends to overproduce collective “bads” like pollution. Our solution to this is the neighborhood councils and federations of these, which deal with collective consumption proposals. But individuals are also allowed to make inputs about what they prefer for their personal consumption.

Workers also make proposals for what they are prepared to produce and for enhancements they want to the work environment.

Through a process of social communication and interaction, which enables people to become aware of the social and environmental consequences of their consumption and production proposals, a process of society-wide negotiation then ensues. There is a back and forth process and the plan itself ends up simply as the aggregation of the proposals from the base, from consumers and producers, once agreement is reached.

There is no construction of a plan by a separate planning body or hierarchy, though of course there would be research and development groups, which are just workplace groups, who could make proposals and give their evaluations of the options. There also need to be groups to aggregate the result of all the inputs from everyone and publish the results.

Participatory planning is the way that we ensure that production is responsive to both the human and environmental costs of production, and also the way that we avoid wanton waste, because it ensures that the system does respond to what people’s consumption and work preferences are.

UpDate

I realize that the Parecon post are pretty dry, but I want to give all available info on the theory. Please bare with me and I will move on to other subjects as soon as possible.


CHUQ

Parecon--Page 3 (cond) Again

This portion will cover the idea of central planning.

Central Planning is Techno-Managerialist

Okay, so we’re against the market. But we’re also against central planning. And by central planning I don’t mean just the crude, authoritarian form of central planning that existed under Stalinism in the Soviet Union.

There are also proposed economic programs that we would call “democratic central planning,” such as the proposal of Castoriadis in Workers Councils and the Economics of a Self-managed Society or other proposals that involved giving power to craft a plan to a body of elected representatives, with advice from expert planners. The problem is, we believe that such a system would also have a tendency to lead to the entrenchment of a techno-managerial ruling class.

That’s because, as long as there is a separate expert planner group who make the plan, apart from the workforce and the general populace, the relationship of the plan-making group to the workforce becomes a relation of order-giver to order-obeyer. We believe this relationship is implicitly authoritarian, and will tend to lead to the replication of internal hierarchy within the production groups themselves, because the central planners will find it more efficient and easier to deal just with one person at the head of a production facility, who can assure enforcement of the plan.

Further, being in a position to make the plan means the planning group would amass knowledge and expertise not available to others, which would make others dependent on them. The relative monopoly over “human capital,” expertise and knowledge, is the basis of a techno-managerial class.

Parecon---Page 3 (cond)

“Abolish the Market System!”

Mainstream neoclassical economics claims that the market, at least under some abstractly possible but never actually realized ideal, allocates scarce resources so as to best satisfy people’s desires. As I see it, this is mere propaganda; the market is actually a system for the allocation of resources by naked economic power. As structuralists, we point out that there are in fact a variety of economic structural features under capitalism that affect allocation – the most important is ownership of the means of production, but also there is relative monopolization of expertise and levers of decision-making power, concentrations of market power, and things like the success of working class cohesion in struggle against the bosses, which augments their bargaining power within the system.

So, a market is basically a system of allocation by bargaining power.

Participatory Economics on the other hand, is market abolitionist; we agree with that part of the “communist” tradition in radicalism. Here I will mention two reasons we’re against the market.

First, markets are in violation of the principle of self-management.

Suppose you drive your car to the local Shell station and buy some gas. Well, the only people who have any say over that transaction are you and the gas station owner; that’s the way markets work. Only the buyer and seller have a say.

But, the thing is, other people are impacted. By driving your car you get to stuff your exhaust into other people’s lungs. They are deprived of any say over that. Currently the capitalist system is destroying the planetary climate system through over-production of carbon dioxide. This affects people throughout the world but the present system gives them no voice over this. A market system is actually dictatorial since it allows the people who engage in the buying and selling of gasoline to dictate what people will breath without them having a say, and so on for many other effects that are external to the buyer and seller of the market transaction.

These “negative externalities” are a pervasive problem of markets.

Secondly, we also believe that if the market is combined with collective, public or state ownership of the means of production, markets will inevitably lead to the entrenchment of a techno-managerial ruling class. The working class will continue to be a subjugated and exploited class. This would be true even if workers started out in control of the various workplaces through workers councils or collectives.

For one thing, a labor market will give free reign for those who have amassed more “human capital,” more expertise in key information about technology or success in the market, to get firms to give them perks and privileges to get them to work for that firm.

Market competition will atomize workers and get in the way of them agreeing to certain common conditions out of self-defense and solidarity. Risks of losses in the market will tend to encourage workers to hand over tough questions to someone else, to let bosses decide.

As workers become increasingly dependent on people with expertise, and management knowledge, they will become increasingly under their control. If someone spends months, day in and day out, working on financial analysis and planning, and someone else just runs machines or sweeps the floor, how are the workers going to be able to question management decisions? How will they have the information and knowledge to be a real factor in the big decisions?

There is more to page 3--to be continued

Parecon--Page 3

Allocation:

2. Participatory Planning for Allocation

A second question that any viable economic program must have an answer for is:

How are our scarce resources, and especially our precious and limited human time, to be allocated to the production of goods and services? What is the method of allocation?

First of all, I’ll note that scarcity is in fact an inevitable part of the human condition. There are only 24 hours in the day, the laws of physics prevent each of us from being in two places at the same time. If we spend time building houses or making shoes, we cannot also spend that time doing something else.

No economic system will be viable if it is wantonly wasteful in its use of scarce resources, if it does the equivalent of having people dig holes and fill them in again. For one thing, one of things we would like to have from the emancipation of the working class from oppression is a reduction in the time spent in required work making things for each other. We can’t achieve that if we have a system that is wasteful of our work time.

When I say this, I am not saying that for Participatory Economics efficiency or avoidance of waste is the primary value. On the contrary, the primary values for Participatory Economics are putting an end to class oppression and other forms of oppression, ensuring that the working class does not end up under the thumb of a new techno-managerial ruling class as it has in all “Communist” revolutions, and generating an economic structure that supports human solidarity rather than a narrow competitive struggle for advantage over others, and which respects the diversity of human subcultures and individuals.

There is a sub-part that will be covered next. The Professor is open to all questions, please, feel free to jump in at anytime.

Parecon--Page 2

Participatory Economy consists of 4 basic categories. they are:

1--Worker and Consumer self-management

2--Participatory planning for allocation

3--Balanced jobs

4--Consumption shares

I will elaborate these catagories separately and will begin at the beginning, #1

1. Worker and Consumer Self-management

First, any economic program must answer the question,

How is the economy run? What is the economic governance structure?

The answer that Participatory Economics proposes is that the basic building blocks for economic decision-making be directly democratic worker councils, and federations of these, as the means to implement self-management in production, and directly democratic neighborhood councils, and federations of these, to implement self-management in regard to consumption.

If there is a hierarchy or class that controls your work in production, if you are subordinated to their aims, this violates the human need for self-management, to have one’s productive activity reflect one’s own plans and goals. Participatory Economics defines self-management in terms of the following principle:

Each person is to have a say over decisions that affect them, and each person is to have a degree of say in proportion to the degree they are affected by them.

There are many decisions about work that primarily affect the people in that workplace, the people doing the work, and this is why it is necessary to have vehicles of self-management over work. These are the worker councils, based on face-to-face workplace assemblies.

But there are also decisions that affect people primarily in areas of consumption, such as what kind of housing we want to live in. We therefore need to have vehicles of self-management in the sphere of consumption. The building blocks for self-management in the sphere of consumption are neighborhood councils – geographic bodies based on face-to-face assemblies of residents.

Participatory Economics, however, does not assume that all decisions are necessarily collective. The decision about how to arrange the furniture in my dwelling or what style of shirt I prefer is nobody else’s business but my own. I get to have control over those decisions.

More explanations to follow. Same bat channel!