Slashdot Mirror

U.S. Supreme Court in Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel Mezei in 1953 held that the US Government had the authority to incarcerate "excludable aliens" indefinitely without trial. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mariel.html discusses one long-running example. So you're wrong to claim that "never before in memory" has SCOTUS held that the government has such authority.

It wasn't until 2005 (at which point the persons discussed in that URL had been "indefinitely detained" for 25 years) that SCOTUS held contrariwise http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politics/13immig.html.

Your history is bad. America was colonised by puritans fleeing the lack of religious values in Europe (read: puritans were no longer in power) which is why it is not really ironic that they persecuted non-Christians and burned wiccan or suspected wicca at the steak.

No, your history is bad. I. America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century Says "Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe."
Notice the "loc.gov", that's a governmental website.

For more...
Calverts of Roman Catholic faith, who had fled religious persecution in England, founded Maryland in 1632." Or Religious Persecution in Ireland.

Quite simply early settlers of the New World fled religious persecution. On the other hand you were right about them wanting to persecute others in Europe. I have never denied that. I have actually accused European Christians of persecuting people. The NAZI Holocaust wasn't the first tyme Jews were persecuted, nor were they the only ones. Spain, which was not united until Queen Isabella united it, was quite efficient at persecuting people. Jews, Muslims, other Christians, and others were persecuted. Isabella told Jews and Muslims to convert, leave Iberia, or die. Of course because Jews and Muslims were educated Spain suffered a massive brain drain which set back their civilization back. At least they were given a choice, Agnostic Christians weren't. They were slaughters by the hundreds if not thousands. So called Catholics would burn down entire villages that were still inhabited and make sure no one could escape. Much like Muslims did in Saudi Arabia in 2002 when a girls' school got on fire.

Read up on the Magna Carta, it is the basis of constitutional law and English common law. It was the influence of many constitutional documents including the United States Constitution.

I have read about the Magna Carts, as well as actually read it myself. I have also read the writing of the USA's Founding Fathers. One of the writers of the Constitution of the USA was John Rutledge of South Carolina and he "proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany."

Falcon

here's an interesting talk from Brian Eno:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/eno1.html

Eno has done quite a lot of work using various fractal composition programs.

... some links I was looking at yesterday:

NAFTA Harms Mexican Farmers and Biodiversity
Family Farmers From Mid-Missouri & Mexico hold Fair Trade Picnic & Roundtable

The second link mentions how corporate farms have disproportionately benefited from NAFTA. 'Class Warfare', as being waged by global 'elites' against the middle class and the poor, is all about concentrating wealth in their own pockets - 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'.

Becoming a Maquilladora worker may very well represent an attempt to provide a better future for the farmer's kids.

It's not so much about providing a better future, as providing any future at all. My girlfriend has traveled extensively along the boarder, and was overwhelmed by the region's poverty - the impression I get is that it's a step backwards. NAFTA seriously upended the status quo, and people are still adjusting - like some site said, globalization & "free trade" are about turning millionaires into billionaires, and making everyone else poor.

I'm not feeling all that coherent this morning, so hopefully this makes some sense... I found the two links while searching yesterday; I also recommend Noam Chomsky's Class War talk (I found a torrent a while back).

heatlh care

We don't want the government to give us health care, we either want them to reign in the cost *or* provide universal *insurance* coverage. It isn't even about using tax dollars, it's more about revoking the corporate charters of HMO companies or doing something about rising costs. I for one *demand* mental health parity, but last time someone did that they died in a plane crash. Of course, not supporting mental health parity in the private insurace sectors affects those without mental health problems (Crime rate. drug/alcohol use, homelessness, domestic violence... all lead to more crime thus costing the tax payer a bundle. Let's ignore the fact that those who aren't covered under private insurance are eligible for public services anyways...).

retirement

Well, we don't want old people to starve do we? You might, but I guess your political views demand that sort of thing...

education

As far back as education goes in America, it's been controlled by the states (and their governements). Private schools are one thing, but the government isn't taking those schools over, and never have. And to be brutally honest, public schools serve two purposes in America: to Americanize and Industrialize the young. Of course we don't think about those students who are second generation Americans... (see link at bottom)

freedom means freedom to fail

Yeah, I can see that point. But is that okay with most Americans? Considering 94% are said to be Christians I doubt it. Then again, what passes for Christianity now a days in America is appaling. I'm not a Xian, but let's be consistent. If "under God" stays in the pledge, the 10 commandments stay in courts and "in god we trust" stays on the dollar bill then welfare stays.

You are free to fail, but shouldn't there be a freedom to not fail as well? Is it fair that society should stack the deck against the weakest among us?

Source: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pedro31.html

She's a particular hero of mine, and has been fighting Monsanto for years (as well as a number of other companies with similarly questionable practices). I happened to catch a lecture of hers on local access television, and was fascinated. Of course, I'm a nerdy geek, so strange things fascinate me. Here's some links to some interviews with her over the years.

• The Role of Patents in the Rise of Globalization
• An interview with Dr. Vandana Shiva
• Discussing Water Wars

Eh, just go to Google and look her up. You'll find loads of stuff, as she is a very busy woman.

She's a particular hero of mine, and has been fighting Monsanto for years (as well as a number of other companies with similarly questionable practices). I happened to catch a lecture of hers on local access television, and was fascinated. Of course, I'm a nerdy geek, so strange things fascinate me. Here's some links to some interviews with her over the years.

• The Role of Patents in the Rise of Globalization
• An interview with Dr. Vandana Shiva
• Discussing Water Wars

Eh, just go to Google and look her up. You'll find loads of stuff, as she is a very busy woman.

She's a particular hero of mine, and has been fighting Monsanto for years (as well as a number of other companies with similarly questionable practices). I happened to catch a lecture of hers on local access television, and was fascinated. Of course, I'm a nerdy geek, so strange things fascinate me. Here's some links to some interviews with her over the years.

• The Role of Patents in the Rise of Globalization
• An interview with Dr. Vandana Shiva
• Discussing Water Wars

Eh, just go to Google and look her up. You'll find loads of stuff, as she is a very busy woman.

Do you really want a system where 75% of all schools in the US shut down and where you have to constantly find a new school for your kids to go to?


No, I don't want that system. I support the public schools, I'm just pointing out their shortcomings. As I said, NCLB was supposed to fix this but has created overcrowding in "good" schools. This will of course lead to "good" schools becoming "bad" schools.

Matt Groening said it best... "school prepares you for life by teaching you to sit quietly at your desk doing exactly what you are told"

That is the problem too. David Tyack said "...urban education in the nineteenth century did more to industrialize humanity than to humanize industry". It's the idea of educational "institutions" that ruin our children's lives.

I believe most of the money that you are talking about ("all resources don't remotely add up to our tax dollars") goes to administration. You know, the people that don't belong there.

Really, the problem with public schools and our tax money is that the school don't have to be competitive in the marketplace. No matter what the results, voters choose who runs the school board. Failed leaders get re-elected based on their name recognition and advertising spending, successful leaders are ofter pushed out no matter what. On the otherhand if someone raises through the ranks and changes schools, and they aren't liked by the schoolboard then they also hit the streets.

A good example is El Paso's Yselta school district. It's one of the countries poorest schools and one man Anthony Trujullo raised test scores to some of the highest in the country. Parents were happy with the change but he was fired by the board 4 to 3. One of his supporters said it was politics, and they fired him based on no more than "a personal dislike by four members".

There is no 'market check', if you want to call it that and no competition for funds. Not that I'm for starving bad schools to death, but it makes you wonder. There is no incentive to actually make the schools better.

"No Child Left Behind" was supposed to fix this, but it has by and large failed. That isn't just my opinion. (See this NYT Article, reg required... basically there isn't room in "better" schools for those wishing to switch from "bad" schools, a provision of NCLB.)

Many times, the failures of the public school system in America is deeper than it looks. Take school violence for example. I had to do a report for school with 4 others. When I suggested that violence had nothing to do with video games or TV people looked at me with awe. For more into that subject, read Preventing Violence in Schools Through the Production of Docile Bodies by Pedro Noguera (PhD). Good read, I promise. It basically says the failure of the public schools in general is based in the founding years and how they were formed after mental asylums and prison...

We all have to be educated in these areas in order to exact change. Better public schools are our way to make this country better for all, it's the first line of defense (IMHO).

When public schools were being developed in north eastern cities during the latter part of the nineteenth century, their architecture, organization and operation was profoundly influenced by the prevailing conception of the asylum. As the primary public institution designed to serve the needs of the indigent, the insane, the sick or the criminally inclined, the asylum had a profound influence upon the design and management of public schools. While the client base of the early prisons, almshouses and mental hospitals differed, they shared a common preoccupation with the need to control those in held in custody. ...
While there is some evidence that schools were challenged in fulfilling their task of social control , in most cases it seems that they succeeded in producing "docile bodies"; students who were prepared to accept their roles as citizens and workers.

"...urban education in the nineteenth century did more to industrialize humanity than to humanize industry"

You've never actually been to the US Mexican border have you? The US has built large walls to keep Mexicans out.
Wired: Beyond the Wall
Operation Gatekeeper

[The following is a revision of a letter I have been distributing via email. I ought to have posted this earlier, but I lacked the courage. You can find the original on my website.]

Dear US Citizen,

I am writing to remind you to vote conscientiously tomorrow. I will also indulge in a little political activism by introducing some issues (watered stock, free trade, and others) for your consideration. As you read this message, keep in mind that I am not recommending that you vote for this or that candidate, but only that you think about what is at stake, make a choice, and vote.

I wish to bring to your attention a pattern of behavior by national governments that suggests that, in the world-wide political arena, the interests of citizens rank far below those of large corporations, and that the latter seek actively to diminish the influence of citizens on their governments' legislative activity. In some countries, citizens are even compelled by law to foot the bill for this nonsense. ;) It is worth noting that the worst consequences of this are not in the future: most US citizens feel so disenfranchised today that they either don't vote or vote for the lesser evil, and US taxpayers (citizens or not) bear the burden of unprecedented personal and national debt. If you don't vote, you will be capitulating, and the future of US politics will be that much closer to a foregone conclusion. As a citizen of the European Union and a resident of Switzerland, a very small sovereign state, I have learned that the rest of the world cannot afford apathy or carelessness on the part of registered voters in the US. You can think of this message as a plea for help.

[As you read this, please excuse the careless use of "Americans" where "US citizens" would have been correct.]

The first issue I want to discuss is the connection between corporations and public money. You may or may not be aware of the emergence of watered stock and pooling as a powerful weapons in the corporations' arsenal; for example, Microsoft and Cisco have managed to attain tax-free status by writing off stock options (and then earning some of that back when new stock is issued for the purpose of redeeming those options) and Citigroup recapitalizes and decapitalizes itself arbitrarily to achieve spectacular mergers (thus posing a great risk to the banking sector) -- right under the nose of the SEC. In a perfect world, this sort of abuse would have been reigned in already but, in our world, the possibility of relief seems remote. Let me make this plain: the watered stock write-off scheme amounts to a theft of public money and pooling needlessly endangers the stability of the economy. At the very least, insofar as stock represents a redeemable claim against a company's assets, it is a perversion of the modern economic perspective in which the stock market is allegedly as adequate a store of value as gold ever was.

Actually, said modern economic perspective was already quite perverse (in ways too numerous to mention) long before watered stock was even imagined. Such perversity is a natural consequence of the absence of an adequate standard of value, which was in turn an intended consequence of changes in policy that took place earlier in the century. Long ago, Alan Greenspan explained that the institution he heads today is a powerful instrument with which the government can confiscate part of the value of your money and, not incidentally, engage in deficit spending regularly. You might argue that calculated inflation is a small price to pay for being able to float a chronic debt and sustain a deficit as needed. You might argue that your national debt is presently unassailable because American households, which on average have a negative savings rate and face unabatable credit card debt, are financially overcommitted as it is. You might be wrong. Habitual deficit spending and the resulting chronic national indebtedness, along with the corporate welfare mechanisms that aggravate them, are to blame for your misery: the federal government uses inflation and national debt to mortgage your personal assets and your public resources, respectively, as effortlessly as a corporation uses watered stock to dilute the value of your share holdings. Think what you will of Greenspan's former support of the gold standard, but you have to admit that he was correct in predicting the practical consequences of failing to provide an adequate store of value, and in identifying the welfare state as the primary beneficiary:

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.

What he may not have realized then is that corporate welfare is just as likely a welfare scheme as any other.

It now behooves us to ask not only how this wave of abuse can be stemmed, but also how this sort of situation can arise even under the watchful eye of our elected officials. The answer is that, in the US, the Executive and the Agencies operate with considerable autonomy; many important decisions are often made away from public scrutiny, largely or altogether, and there is a vested interest on the part of large corporations to increase the autonomy, if not the stature, of these public servants. Consider the case of MAI, the Multilateral agreement on investment -- a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Those of you who have not heard of it should at least know that it was the culmination of attempts to transfer some important powers from the popularly elected legislative bodies to the executive officials of sovereign states and to give corporations the legal standing of sovereign states. Let me take a moment to explore the brilliance of these tactics.

• When decision making forums are sheltered from public scrutiny, executive officials can serve corporate interests with impunity.
• When corporations have the same legal standing as sovereign states, large multinational corporations have power over small sovereign states -- perhaps even those in which the company is incorporated.

Surely, you can give examples of an administration negotiating treaties that would be difficult to accept for a majority of citizens and impossible to ratify for most congresses; now, try to imagine a future in which the legislature is powerless to stop unfavorable or undesirable consequences of free trade arrangements that it did not have the opportunity to approve or reject. Surely, you can name instances of a corporation getting away with practices that a majority of citizens would condemn but which the courts are powerless to stop in the absence of adequate legislation or jurisdiction; now, try to imagine a future in which a corporation undertakes legal action against sovereign states for refusing to let it set up shop, or even for having laws and regulations that hinder it, such as strict environmental standards.

"That's not a problem," you say, "because Public Citizen told us about MAI in the nick of time." That's not the point; the point is that MAI is evidence of an alarming, long-standing pattern of behavior: as Noam Chomsky has said, our governments really are, and have been for a long time, trying to undermine democracy. Consider, as further evidence, the case of Australia's MIGA, an agency that predates MAI and obviates the "need" for it.

Now, the two leading candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, look at the issue very differently, saying that free trade creates jobs, without mentioning what kind and where. Actually, Bush has even said that it is the duty of the administration to "sell" free trade (on WTO's terms, of course) to US citizens! Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said that he wants the US to withdraw from the WTO and that we should re-examine the premise of so-called "free trade" agreements. I was going to give you a reference to Nader's website with that last statement, as WTO/NAFTA was one of the three key issues on his home page until just a few days ago, but now it is not even in the issue summaries. What could this mean? I think it means that he has pushed one of his favorite issues into the background because he needs enough votes to get federal funding for his next campaign. And this, in turn, suggests that American politicians think that the US electorate is politically comatose. You can help prove them wrong: a strong showing by Americans on election day would tell US politicians and corporations and the world that Americans are still in control of their political system. It would be a great sequel to the Battle of Seattle, with a lot less violence and just as much press coverage. Realistically, you probably cannot afford to act as resolutely as José Bové, but you can vote.

When I think about US politics, I think of the fable in which a master presents some options to his student, threatening to beat him with a cane if he chooses poorly; the essence of the problem is that the student cannot choose any of the options presented to him without risking bodily harm. (You should now take a moment to discover how the student can avoid the beating and what the moral of the story is.) You can and should vote for the presidential candidate who will most closely represent your interests, as you have more valid options than the mainstream media seem to suggest: you can vote for George W. Bush; you can vote for Al Gore; you can vote for Ralph Nader; you can vote for Harry Browne; and you can vote for some other candidate (yes, there are more) though his name may not appear on your ballot. If you cast a so-called "useful" vote, you are supporting a system in which you have a lot less influence than you otherwise might, and you might get beat with a cane. Of course, if you don't vote, you have no voice, nor will you ever, and when you and I finally get beat with a very stiff cane, no one will hear us scream. Please, vote.

Yours,

Alejandro Gómez de Argüello

Socioeconomic Hazards

The patenting of genetically engineered foods and widespread biotech food production threatens to eliminate farming as it has been practiced for 12,000 years. GE patents such as the Terminator Technology will render seeds infertile and force hundreds of millions of farmers who now save and share their seeds to purchase evermore expensive GE seeds and chemical inputs from a handful of global biotech/seed monopolies. If the trend is not stopped, the patenting of transgenic plants and food-producing animals will soon lead to universal "bioserfdom" in which farmers will lease their plants and animals from biotech conglomerates such as Monsanto and pay royalties on seeds and offspring. Family and indigenous farmers will be driven off the land and consumers' food choices will be dictated by a cartel of transnational corporations. Rural communities will be devastated. Hundreds of millions of farmers and agricultural workers worldwide will lose their livelihoods.

Monsanto is the last company I'd want producing plastic, oil, or any other product crucial to the US economy. Greenpeace crazies and eco terrorists are certainly right about one thing - dealing with Monsanto is dangerous for your long-term independence. Their clever mechanism for ensuring repeat buyers is to build infertility into the plants they sell. Farmers buy them because they are indeed very good crops for certain purposes, namely for surviving the popular but toxic herbicide RoundUp, which Monsanto also sells. Monsanto works vigorously to bankrupt competing seed sellers, so that only their perishable brand is available, thus locking farmers into their system for life. Prior to the development of these terminator genes, Monsanto would actually maraud around the countryside burning "illicitly stocked" seed.

http://www.mat.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book /upd/umar99/monsan/ecol1.htm#anc hor52768

A recent company tactic as been to push this "system" as a solution for hunger in third-world countries. Of course, what it would really entail would be a complete regional ownership by Monsanto of the food supply.

http://www.greenpeac e.org/~geneng/highlights/food/98_10_15.htm

Monsanto is also renowned for suing magazines and television stations when they are about to produce an article critical of the company. Most news providers can't fight them, so they buckle and the issues are never aired.


http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/fox.html

And much like certain proprietary software companies, Monsanto patents its creations. We all are familiar with the stupidity of patenting ideas, and genetic engineering, especially of plants, is quite simply that. One plant can turn into two plants with only a negligable investment of soil, water, and sun. This means they are not a zero-sum game, and hence the arguments against patenting software apply to them.

Monsanto is one of the least palatable companies out there. They are easily the Microsoft of genetic science. I think I'd rather stick to the Sheiks for my gallon of gas and pound of shrink-wrap, thank you very much.

-konstant