The Rag Blog

I’m writing about the situation in Oaxaca. As I write, the capital city is under siege. At approximately 5 a.m. this morning the state police attacked the teachers’ occupation of the city center. Though reports are sketchy, it seems that three teachers have been killed, as well as a young girl. The teachers have taken three or four police hostage. A raging battle is underway to control the zocalo, the center of life in Oaxaca, and the heart of the teacher’s encampment. In the dawn raid the teachers were forced out, but the local paper, Noticias de Oaxaca, has reported that at 9:30 a.m. local time the teachers, armed with rocks and sticks, re-took the main square. Police are firing tear gas from helicopters right now. Thousands (tens of thousands) of people are involved in running battles in the streets. And there is the fear that upwards of 3,500 federal riot police — deployed to Oaxaca in the last two weeks by Vicente Fox — are about to enter the city.

I’ve just gotten off the phone with friends in the center. They described the scene on the streets this morning at about 7:30 a.m. Hundreds of people crying from the mix of tear gas, smoke bombs and some other pepper spray. The men forming groups to launch the assault to retake the zocalo. Mothers telling their boys to take care of themselves as they fall into line. From the rooftops of the single-story houses you can watch the helicopters flying overhead, shelling tear gas canisters into the crowds. There is a heavy fear, but also, I was told, you could hear the sound of people marching and singing.

As a brief background, you might want to read: http://www.narconews.com/Issue41/article1874.html

The teachers’ occupation of the city, known in Spanish as a ‘planton,’ began 23 days ago. More than 80,000 teachers from every municipality in the state had converged on the capital to press a list of demands for more resources for education. They have had two mass marches, the most recent bringing more than 120,000 people out, the largest demonstration in the city’s history. The planton has become an annual event since more than a decade, and I will never forget last year’s planton, which happened while I was still living there. For about 10 days the teachers occupied the entire center of town, sleeping on the streets under tarpaulins stretched overhead. They were extremely well organized and the city center was never more alive. The teachers and their families would cook large meals on open fires, play guitar and sing, rest on folded cardboard in the shade. They set up their radio station “Radio Planton” and played music on loud speakers. There were first aid tents, propaganda tents, mass meetings on every corner.

This year, many have remarked that the planton, and the teachers’ mobilization generally, has been different. The question is: If the teachers brought 80,000 to the city, who are the other 40,000? I’m not close enough to give a good answer, but what I understand is that the teachers have offered an opening which hundreds of small community groups and social justice centers from around the state have chosen to follow. The past two years under the new PRI governor Ulises Ruis has intensified the level of state repression. Scores of activists in small villages have been killed, hundreds arrested and still in jail as political prisoners. The spike in repression was so great that Amnesty International sent a delegation to Oaxaca in May of 2005 to investigate. It appears that when the teachers marched on the capital three weeks ago, they were joined by tens of thousands of others from the villages in what is becoming a broad movement to depose the governor. Ruis has refused to meet with the teachers, and has managed to pull in his party’s promisary notes to about half of the state’s municipal mayors, who signed a decree condemning the teachers’ action. But there is a palpable sense that the social movements are converging and that something new is underway.

During the past three weeks, the movement has shown a great level of strength and creativity — occupying the city’s airport, smashing the newly-installed parking meters throughout the city center, occupying the toll booths on the main road from Oaxaca to Mexico City — not to stop the cars, only to stop the collecting of tolls, and the very fact that they have occupied the zocalo has great significance as the new governor, after spending upwards of $100 million to ‘beautify’ the zocalo, decreed that it was now off-limits for any demonstrations.

Three nights ago, Ruis met with business leaders at a late-night gathering and promised to use the ‘mano dura’ or hard hand. There were reports that the first 1,500 federal riot police were camped in the nearby town of Tlacolula. This morning the governor appears to have proven himself a man of his word. Some reports have said that the tear gas in the city center is so thick you can’t see the hand in front of you.

I have not seen any reports in the US media, BBC etc. There is some information on indymedia’s Mexico site, some more on the online version of Noticias de Oaxaca — both in Spanish. (http://www.noticias-oax.com.mx/) I know that the police have shut down the teachers’ radio station, ‘Radio Planton,’ but as of noon, Oaxaca time, the students’ radio station ‘Radio Universitario’ was still broadcasting and “you can hear the broadcast from every window and door in town.” The students themselves have occupied the university, but the latest reports suggest that the police are heading there now.

I’m writing this in the hope that you can help spread the word, and alert others in the network of media to turn their attention to the struggle ongoing.

In solidarity, Charlie Loving

I’m the Decider
by Roddy McCorley

I’m the decider. I pick and I choose.
I pick among whats and I choose among whos.
And as I decide each particular day,
The things I decide on all turn out that way.

I decided on Freedom for all of Iraq.
And now that they have it, I’m not looking back.
I decided on tax cuts that just help the wealthy.
And Medicare changes that aren’t really healthy.

And parklands and wetlands, who needs all that stuff?
I decided that none would be more than enough!
I decided that schools all in all are the best
The less that they teach and more that they test.

I decided those wages you need to get by
Are much better spent on some CEO guy.
I decided your Wade, which was versing your Roe
Is terribly awful and just has to go.

I decided that levees are not really needed.
Now when hurricanes come they come unimpeded.
That old Constitution? Well, I have decided
It’s “just goddam paper.” It should be derided.

I’ve decided gay marriage is icky and weird.
Above all other things, it’s the one to be feared.
Yes, I’m the Decider. I know what is best.
Listen only to me and ignore all the rest.

Or I’ll tap your phones and your e-mail I’ll read.
Because I’m the Decider, like Jesus decreed!
Yes, I’m the Decider, so watch what you say
Or I may decide to whisk you away.

Cheney and Rummy and Condi all know
That I’m the Decider. They tell me it’s so.
Yes, I’m the Decider. The finest alive
And I’m nuking Iran. Now watch this drive!

h/t The Daily Kos

And there’s more:

Down by the Pentagon, where the crickle grass grows,
Where for years the insurgents have been in their “last throes”
Old Donald Rumsfeld relaxed and kicked back
And thought of the fine job he’d done in Iraq

But despite Rummy’s feelings of omnipotent might
Lots of people were dying, with no end in sight
So several old generals rose up in rage
And their mad diatribes made it to the front page

All of them wanted poor Rummy to quit
Since ’twas under his watch that Iraq went to shit
But just as old Rummy was about to resign
Bush came along and said “You’re doing just fine!”

He was tallish and oldish and grayish and chimpy
And his face looked cartoonish, like a Ren or a Stimpy
He rolled up his sleeves, slammed the floor with a “bang!”
And then bellowed out in his fake Texas twang:

“I’m the decider! I decide what is best!
And all my decisions, they come Jesus-blessed!
I don’t read the views of the MSM paparazzi
‘Cause I need Rummy’s help stopping Muslamonazis!

“To all you old generals whose anger won’t yield,
Why won’t you think of the troops on the field
They want Rummy to stay, they say that they need him
What’s wrong with you bastards, do y’all just hate freedom?”

And with that all the critics looked shamed and afraid
For providing bin al-Qaeda with comfort and aid
They wept and covered their faces with bags
And said, “We’re sorry for being such traitorous fags!”

h/t Sadly, No!

One of our group is on a mission to Colombia. She has asked, “Please hold me and the other team member, Audrey Miller, in the light/in prayer, send positive energy, or whatever works for you, as we travel to Colombia May 30-July 13.”

To read periodic postings of their activities, visit: Friends Peace Teams.

Richard Jehn

Summer Solstice/Litha

“Sweet summer breeze, whispering trees, Stars shining softly above…”

Litha, the Summer Solstice, fifth spoke on the Wheel of Life, reaches Austin on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. Lady Moon is in her fourth quarter in Taurus and Lord Sun enters Cancer at 7:26 a.m. The two Solstices and Equinoxes are major events (quarters) as measured by the 8-spoke Wheel. The other four spokes are designated as “cross-quarters” and considered to be lesser rituals, even though some observers of the rituals associated with the Wheel rank Halloween as a major festival. If you choose to invite friends and neighbors to share your observance of this festal occasion, the information offered here is likely to prove useful.

Colors associated with the Summer Solstice are white, red, and yellow. Wear these colors and encourage your guests to do likewise. Your meal should include red and yellow fruits and vegetables. Since this is a Fire Festival, if at all possible, hold your festivities outdoors and include a fire of some kind. Foods cooked over an open flame are most appropriate for this celebration, so consider grilling or barbequing some of your meal. While we think first of meat when the word “barbeque” is mentioned, veggies also grill quite nicely. Skewers of yellow squash, ripe bell peppers, and onion chunks can compliment the fajitas and shish kebab, rounding out the menu while showing the appropriate colors for this day and honoring the fruitfulness of our gardens. This festival is one where food may be shared, so divide the leftovers among your guests. Sharing fire, however, is taboo, as is sleeping away from home.

Fourth quarter moons are quiet times when we review our accomplishments and begin to consider what the next things are that need doing. Fourth quarters of the moon are also the best times to weed a garden and put an end to things rather than to perform rituals for prosperity or increase. You and your guests may choose to make or draw representations of things you wish to eliminate from your life and burn them in your fire. For example: if you desire to stop smoking tobacco, draw a cigarette and surround it with the “no” symbol of a red circle with a red diagonal line drawn through it; burning this piece of paper reinforces your resolve to quit and could make the process go more easily.

Include your pets in your festivities. This is a celebration not only of humans’ work but also animals’ work. Not all of us live on a farm with workhorses, goats, or chickens, but many of us keep cats to deter rats and dogs for security alarms as well as companionship. Let your animals join you and your friends and be sure to waft some of the smoke from your fire over them as well as the human attendees. Use a feather, preferably one you have found, not bought, to direct the smoke.

There is much garden-energy associated with this spoke of the Wheel. It is a time to bless your garden, whether vegetable, herb, or flower. Your guests may assist you in this project by walking barefoot clockwise around your garden, singing and strewing rose petals. As part of your blessing, remember the fairies and leave them items that can be used in their own celebrations: a tiny cup of herb tea placed on a pretty leaf on a pretty, flat rock in a secluded corner of your garden with a wind-chime hung above; sparkly crystals; a small cookie; a fragrant flower. By remembering and honoring fairy-energy, you are also generating good will with entities that can help your garden to grow better and more beautiful.

Kate Braun

French government is similar to that in the US in that it has three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. The executive, however, is divided between the president, who is elected to five-year terms, and a prime minister, who is appointed by the president. Quoting Wikipedia, “The President has a degree of direct executive power, but most executive power resides in his appointee, the Prime Minister. The President’s choice for Prime Minister must have the confidence of the National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament; also the Prime Minister is always from the majority party in that house.” Presidential elections occur in two stages. In the first, candidates from many different parties participate. The second round is a runoff between the two who receive the largest votes in the first round. In recent French history, control of the executive has alternated between the Rassemblement pour la Republique (which I will refer to as the Gaullists, although that shorthand characterization may be becoming less accurate over time) and the French Socialist Party.

Sharply contrasting with the US, almost all positions of leadership in French politics are held by lifelong professional politicians, specifically graduates from the elite Ecole National de Administration. The French would never think of electing a president who is some amateur not specifically trained to be a politician and with many years experience in various political offices.

The last presidential election in 2002 was a fiasco for the left. Because the left splintered into several different parties in the first round, the two principal right-wing candidates made the runoff. The incumbent, Jacques Chirac (Gaullist), won the first round, but with less than 20% of the vote. Second place went to Jean-Marie Le Pen of the extreme right Front National, with policies similar to US Republicans plus anti-semitism and a militant dislike of immigrants, i.e., fascism. He received just less than 17% in the first round. The Socialist Party candidate in 2002, Lionel Jospin, ran third; less than 1% behind Le Pen. Several parties to the left of the Socialists garnered significant support: Workers Struggle – 5.72%, The Greens – 5.25%, Revolutionary Communist League – 4.25%, Communist Party – 3.37%, Left Radical Party – 2.32%, among others.

The first-round results produced great shock and dismay on the left and massive street demonstrations against Le Pen. In the second round, Le Pen received only 1% more of the vote than he had in the first round and Chirac won with a massive landslide of over 82% of the vote. This occurred despite Chirac being widely considered a corrupt, vacillating, gladhanding politician with few if any principles. Chirac has muddled along through his tenure with approval ratings below George W. Bush at his worst, receiving his highest acclaim for standing up to the US in the rush to war in Iraq. It should be noted that the supposedly right-wing French Gaullists like Chirac support policies well to the left of US Democrats. In fact, almost the entire French political spectrum is to the left of the US political spectrum.

Opposition to US imperialism is consistent with the concept initiated in the 1960’s by General de Gaulle, an incredibly prescient man who initiated the concept of a multi-polar world power structure. This became the French response to the bi-polar conflict, the Cold War, which dominated world affairs during that era. Thus, he withdrew France from NATO and created an independent nuclear armed military. This independence has been a cornerstone of French foreign policy ever since. However, Chirac has on numerous occasions sought to suck up to the US on issues he regards of relatively minor relevance, such as overthrowing the democratically elected Aristide government in Haiti.

The next French presidential election is in May of 2007, less than a year away. How is it shaping up? The various left-of-the-Socialists parties still have ambitions, but it is reasonable to predict that there will be a phenomenon on the left in France similar to the abdication of the Green Party to the Democrats in the US in 2004, so that the left doesn’t get excluded from the runoff as in 2002. There also remains the fear that Le Pen has gained support because of the inflamed immigration issue and could make the runoff again, although he’ll probably never get more than 25% of the total vote. However, Jospin, the 2002 Socialist Party candidate, was considered tired and weak. That will very likely not be the case in 2007. There have also been splits on the extreme right, with Le Pen protogeés thinking it is time for their aging tradtional leader to step aside in favor of new blood. Hence, it is fair to assume that the next election will again end up in a run off between the Gaullists and the Socialists.

The Gaullists have a race on their hands for the nomination between the current prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, and the current Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy. De Villepin was badly discredited earlier this year by his proposal of the pro-capitalist economic “reforms” that led to massive street demonstrations, which forced him to back down. Sarkozy distinguished himself to the right by taking a very hard line against the rioters in the suburbs last November, going so far as to publicly call them scum, and is considered a highly combative conservative. For the left in the US, the basic issue is whether the next French president will continue to steer a course independent from the US in foreign affairs. Sarkozy is the most likely candidate to move closer to an alliance with the US and he is the most likely candidate for the Gaullists. My friends here describe him as “worse than Blair.” Sarkozy represents the Americanization of France, removing restraints on market capitalism and cutting existing socialist benefits.

By far the most popular Socialist Party candidate at this point is Ségolène Royal. The growth of her popularity has been described as “meteoric” over the past year. A recent poll conducted by the pro-Socialist Liberation newspaper gave her a huge lead over any other potential Socialist candidate when people sympathetic to the Socialist Party were asked who would be their best candidate. Her current office is roughly equivalent to a US governor and she is “married” to Francois Hollande, head of the Socialist Party, who is also considered a potential presidential candidate. Actually, they were never legally married, but they have been together about 30 years and have four children. This is not seen as a relevant political factor. She is regarded as elegant and articulate, a perfect incarnation of the “caviar socialists.” She has advocated controversial proposals within the Socialist Party that are considered to the right of traditional socialist positions. For example, she has criticized the extension of the 35-hour work week to small employers. She also proposed, as an alternative to prison, mandatory community service projects run by the military for delinquent youths and the reduction of state benefits for the families of recidivist delinquent adolescents. The latter made it into the Socialist Party platform. She is clearly trying to portray herself as tough on crime to counter the use of that issue by the right. She is, therefore, seen as somewhat Hillary-esque within the French context, although her positions on virtually everything are far to the left of Hillary’s.

The Socialist Party just came out with its platform for 2007 and it is more binding on candidates than are platforms of American political parties. It was characterized as moving both right on crime and left on economic issues; “one of the toughest law-and-order platforms ever put forward by a leftist party in France.” Its principal economic element was an increase in the minimum wage by more than 23%, from 1,218 euros to 1,500 euros (about $1,900) a month by 2012. Based on that 35-hour week, that works out to about $12.50 an hour. Other elements of the platform include the re-nationalization of the power giant Electricité de France, plans to build 120,000 housing units a year for the poor and establishing the right to lifelong free education to retrain workers.

At this point, no one knows who would win a race between the Socialist Royal and the Gaullist Sarkozy. The eleven months before the election is a political lifetime. But for leftists in the US and worldwide, a lot rides on the outcome. France has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and a veto there that is an important tool to help restrain US aggression. It also has prestige and influence beyond what its economic or military power might warrant. Although Spain and Italy have gone to the Socialists in their most recent elections and Blair continues to weaken in England, Germany lost its Social Democratic government. A Sarkozy victory in France is hardly out of the question and would be a disaster. The election will be decided on domestic issues and, perhaps, the gender of the candidates. A Sarkozy victory would also very likely be highly divisive within a French society which has a long history of popular militancy.

A wildcard is the Muslim vote, heretofore largely insignificant, although they make up almost 10% of the population, the largest Muslim population in any Western European country. Despite their numbers, out of 555 members of the French National Assembly, none are Muslims. There are reports of new voter registration efforts taking place among them. Sarkozy has few admirers there.

David Hamilton from Paris

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate March 13, 1969
Ratified by U.S. President November 24, 1969
U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow March 5, 1970
Proclaimed by U.S. President March 5, 1970
Entered into force March 5, 1970

Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
…………………..

Comment.

The “crisis” over Iran’s supposed attempts to acquire nuclear weapons technology is a fraud. In the first place, there is no evidence that Iran is doing it; only US-sponsored allegations and EU efforts to placate Bush while pushing him toward diplomacy. On the other hand, there is indisputable evidence that the US is very much in violation of Article VI above. The US has never taken a single step toward disarmament of its nuclear weapons arsenal, an arsenal that includes more than 5,000 nuclear bombs and the vehicles required for their transmission to designated targets. This is many times larger than the number of such weapons that would trigger a “nuclear winter” and cause the end of most life on Earth, including the human species. It isn’t very hard to see the real danger, except for the American media. Thus, any article about Iran’s potential violations that does not mention those of the US is pure propaganda.

In addition, it is virtually certain that the US aided Israel in acquiring nuclear weapons, in clear violation of the treaty’s Article I. Israel, India and Pakistan (and Cuba) have all refused to sign the treaty, but we hear not a word of complaint from the US government about their blatant violations and refusal to sign the treaty.

This is an obvious effort on the part of the Bush administration to develop a justification for war against Iran and foster anti-Muslim sentiment. Further proof of this motivation is their demand to bring the alleged Iranian violations before the UN Security Council, where it is preordained that either China or Russia will veto the US initiative. This will allow the US to again declare the UN ineffectual, thereby giving it a specious rationale for a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But Iran is a large, powerful and ancient country with a population that will rally to its defense. And the US has no army available to attack Iran on the ground and will have no military allies other than its sycophant and fellow treaty violator, Israel, for its aggression. Furthermore, an attack on Iran will doubtless trigger a Shiite uprising against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are surprised at the extent of the demonstrations inspired by the cartoons depicting Mohammed, try to imagine the worldwide Muslim response to a US-sponsored attack of Iran.

So what can the dolts who run this place be thinking? Do they really want “the clash of civilizations” between the Muslims and Christians? I, personally, have no dog in that fight and would like to excuse myself from the consequences. On the other hand, having Christian and Muslim fundamentalists killing each other off might not be such a bad idea if one could find a safe vantage point – perhaps Scott’s favorite, Costa Rica, wouldn’t be downwind.

My friend Dale would say that they want these wars because they raise oil prices through the roof. If you want to understand them, think about the Exxon/Mobil and the Halliburton bottom lines. Another possible explanation is that they really believe God is on their side and the resulting apocalypse might bring on “the Rapture,” thus sparing the Christians from having to deal further with those pesky non-believers. Myself, I’m dismayed. Are they stupid or crazy or apocalyptic or greedy imperialists or all of the above? Regardless, it’s another wonderful example of testosterone run amuck.

David Hamilton

We took a 24-hour excursion to the country home of Gilbert Shelton and his wife, Lora. It’s a little more than an hour southeast of Paris on a slow train from Gare de Lyon in an idyllic village so small it’s only on the most detailed local maps. There is no commercial activity in the village, just a cluster of ancient houses, including one very grand chateau and a little pre-gothic church. The one recently-built home had to be built so as to conform to the existing housing. The village is in a shallow valley covered by forests and wheat fields, with poppies blooming along the edges. The nearest small city is 10 kilometers away and out of sight over the ridge. The area was the scene of considerable fighting between the French and the Germans in both world wars. Rusting ordnance is regularly uncovered as fields are plowed.

Their house itself is 18th century. Although somewhat remodeled during the 11 years they have lived there, it retains its original character. It is surrounded by gardens of vegetables, flowers, herbs and fruit trees and is enclosed by a moss-encrusted rock wall. Gilbert has plans to grow a giant pumpkin there. We had the quintessential French lunch on the terrace, accompanied by the bottle of Chateauneuf de Pape we had brought as a gift.

Then it was off to another nearby cute-to-die-for village where they were holding an art competition at the principal local chateau to benefit some local cause. The chateau’s current owner explained to us how the extensive gardens had been originally designed by Le Notre, who had also designed the gardens at Versailles. Much of it had grown over since the original work had been done. The chateau itself had been partially destroyed in the Revolution, but had been rebuilt by the family of the present owner. He explained that the property had only been owned by his family since 1848, “at the beginning of the Second Empire.” The competition was quite informal, with children and adults, amateurs and professionals participating. Gilbert did a pen-and-ink drawing of a forest scene centered around a straight row of poplars lining a stream that runs through the property. The chateau is only open to the public this one day a year and many neighbors were frollicking on the lawns and among the rows of antique roses. Sally and I appeared to be the only non-locals.

Gilbert continues to publish his cartoons. His current cast of characters centers around a modernized Freak Brothers-like rock band called “Not Quite Dead.” He says that copies of his recent work may be available at Oat Willie’s. He’s not sure. Lora works in Paris as a publishing agent for English-language books being translated and published in French. They also have an apartment in Paris and Gilbert has a studio nearby that he is in the process of converting into an art gallery. He urges Austin artists who want a Paris show to get in touch. It will only cost them a few thousand euros. He’ll supply the wine and cheese.

They have now lived in Europe for more than 20 years and have no plans to return to the US, even temporarily. “There isn’t much back there for me,” says the surprisingly understated Gilbert. He adds that they are currently boycotting the US. When asked under what circumstances he might end this boycott, he said, “When I can fly with my nail clippers in my pocket.” Don’t count on that happening anytime soon.

David Hamilton

The save-the-world topic is a set of arguments that improves in quality after the first few salvos get us past our shorthand versions and inspire us to defend and extend our thinking. Here are some contributions from my perspective.

[1] I don’t mind being seen as unpatriotic. It’s true, and I look forward to the day when national patriotism seems as quaint as Texas patriotism does today. One of the main contributions we can make to American political discourse is to push the idea that America and Americans have no special rights, and that we should be willing to abide by the rules that we want others to follow (and perhaps even let them help decide on the rules). The irony is that this idea is fully compatible with American traditions about equality before the law, due process of law, and democracy, which remain powerful and useful political ideals in spite of the serious shortfalls in their application. The most pressing problem with the neocons is not so much that they are thieves (so are the European ruling classes), but that they are vigilantes. Even bourgeois law offers evolutionary potential, and keeps the peace in a coarse way.

[2] Americans are not all that different from others, even if our flaws are particularly obvious just now. Greed and generosity, ignorance and wisdom, and fear and hope are prominent in all societies, often mixed in the same individuals. Many conservatives I know are painstakingly honest, excellent parents, and generous with their time and money within the boundaries they draw. Their fear (of other races, lifestyles, or countries) is partly from provincial ignorance, but also often reflects a sober awareness of the dangers of the world. While I agree that we shouldn’t waste political energy trying to convert the neocons, we should use every opportunity to encourage our compatriots to expand the boundaries of their community and to show by example how one can live large and more lightly at the same time. This is why the hippy-ness and feminism of the 60’s has had more cultural impact than the leftism. But one thing leads to another, and once people get used to a large world successfully shared with diverse others, most of them lose interest in conquest.

[3] A critical factual issue where I differ from many who have spoken is the question of how limited the resources of the world are. The assumption by many on both the left and the right is that sharing resources fairly would leave everyone much poorer than middle-class Americans are right now. I see this as profoundly incorrect – instead (if we can manage to make it through the next decade or so without irretrievably poisoning ourselves), we are on the verge of science-driven productivity increases from computers, genetics, and nanotechnology that will dwarf those of the industrial revolution. Much of this progress will take the form, exemplified by electronics, of greater utility combined with much smaller cost and resource usage (including much less energy). While I do not deny the danger of some fatal stumbles from this increased power, anyone who wants to shape the future needs to realize that this is the way things are going – we all are going to be rich or dead, not mostly at subsistence while fighting about how big to make the ruling class.

[4] There is a vital political message here – we no longer need to steal from poor countries to live well. We can also afford to produce things cleanly, with no net environmental impact. In fact, we will all live a lot better if there are no poor countries, as few poor people as can be contrived, and fully sustainable production processes for all human needs. How well America’s children and grandchildren live will depend much more on how quickly we make this transition than on how much oil we can grab. I don’t pretend that this tech-optimism analysis will placate the truly greedy, as is shown by their pathological pursuit of wealth (and tax cuts) even after they have more money than they can effectively use. It also will not replace the need for a vanguard whose desire for a fair world comes from the gut rather than an intellectual analysis. But this analysis will encourage those who would like to see a fair world but who lose their nerve because they are afraid that the price of that world would be poverty for themselves or their children. We need to show them that their fear should be in the opposite direction.

[5] I’m not an unbridled optimist, and see the tunnel as well as the light at its end. In particular, I see three places where this future is at substantial risk. Unsurprisingly, Bush is spectacularly wrong at all three. Each risk is a sector that is worthy of as much political work as we can manage or inspire.

[a] The environment – even with the much greater capability for remediation that I expect to see soon, we are being wildly reckless on greenhouse emissions (runaway positive feedback is a distinct danger) and self-destructive on air pollution by poisonous substances. We may luck out and get through this with only moderate damage, but major disasters could disrupt things enough to get us stuck in authoritarian poverty.

[b] Feminism – one element in my optimism is the decrease in population growth that prosperity has been shown to cause in every modern culture that has experienced it. This in turn is largely a consequence of improved status of women in the culture (generally accompanied by less oppression of gays and lesbians). Any successful attempt to return women and children to being valued primarily as possessions could set off population growth that would absorb the wealth increase. While I doubt that feminism can be reversed in the current developed countries, Bush’s encouragement of religious fundamentalism and attacks on birth control in the underdeveloped world are clearly having tragic consequences, and could conceivably lead to eventual conquest of the low-birth-rate cultures by high-birth rate ones.

[c] Property – the shift (exemplified by computer software and entertainment items) of economic value toward tiny-cost-to-copy information and away from costly-to-replicate stuff is steadily undermining the already-shaky moral foundations of the concept of property. The US response has been to adopt and expand draconian “intellectual property” laws and to attempt (with some success) to force the rest of the world to follow them. This is the mechanism to ensure that the head start that the US and Europe have on the world will widen rather than narrow as other countries develop. Probably we can depend on Brazil, China, and India to lead a repudiation of patents at some opportune moment, but this will be easier for them to do if people in the developed countries cooperate in discrediting them.

Enough already. Now let’s hear from the Luddites.

Hunter Ellinger

The Last Spring

This is the last spring for these few remaining vacant lots

down south of the river.

The signs are already posted:

“AVAILABLE!” and “COMING SOON!!”

The college even wants to turn the old golf course,

home to deer and coyote still,

into more cookie-cutter condos.

Five years ago, the creek was home to herons and big turtles.

Fifty years ago, this was all farmland and open woods.

Next year, it will be clear-cut, under construction, civilized, gone.

The small rains we had last week

have decked the woods in color.

A big mesquite, on the only corner without a gas station,

is covered in yellow flowers.

Does it know that this is the last spring?

Is its bright display a desperate bid for attention,

a vegetative cry for help?

We’ve noticed a few improvements since we were last here. The most important is the public toilets. They have been around for a long time, but previously they cost about half a euro (65 cents) and often didn’t work. They are quite a contraption. They are rounded rectangles of concrete and corrigated metal with a sliding metal door. Inside, they have a porcelain trough emerging perpendicularly from the wall into which you are to place your very personal deposit. However, there is no flushing mechanism that requires action on the part of the user. You just open the door and leave, feeling somewhat guilty that you have neglected something crucial. This means that no one in their haste is supposed to jump in just as you leave. The door closes automatically behind you and then an impressive watery convusion takes place inside. A minute or so later “libre” replaces “occupé” on the external instruction panel and it’s ready for reuse. They are usually quite clean and even have toilet paper. There are about 450 scattered around Paris and they can be, if not a life saver, at least an anxiety saver. Now they are free and generally working, in defiance of those who claim capitalist incentives are required for efficiency.

These public toilets are a great leap forward compared to Paris of old where one was often required to rush into a cafe with outside seating, claiming if questioned to be a client “au terrase.” This strategy was particularly difficult to pass off on sceptical waiters late at night when the outside tables were already being stacked for removal.

Finding a public toilet wasn’t such a problem back in my army days – at least for men – when they had these quaint metal urinals, frequently photographed by admiring American tourists. These, however, were for stand up use only and now have all been removed, apparently victims of emerging French feminism. But back then, men felt quite free to pee just about anywhere. This practice seems to have become unfashionable. In a related radical change, dogs are now required to have a human attached who carries a plastic bag.

Another advance is the Sunday closing to motorized vehicles of the two-lane freeway that runs along the right bank of the Seine. It’s now for the exclusive use of bicyles, runners, roller bladers, walkers, skateboarders and the like on that day. This is part of the effort by gay Socialist mayor Delanoë to reduce car use in central Paris by half by 2012 and the part of the plan that has met the least resistance. This freeway is one of several modern innovations within the heart of Paris that seem to have been later regretted. Other examples include the 688-foot tall Monparnasse Tower, a gray slab office building that looks like it was transplanted directly from Houston. Finished in 1973, it is a blight on the otherwise six-story central Paris skyline. Nothing remotely similar has been built since and we have heard rumors that they are considering tearing it down. When taking broad view pictures of the Paris landscape, it is recommended to have a traveling companion stand so as to block it out.

Another example of architectural misadventure is Les Halles, the once quaint but antiquated wholesale food distribution center where those seeking to follow in Hemingway’s footsteps would eat onion soup at 3 a.m. In the late 60’s it was converted into an ultra-modern shopping center with its original function transfered to the edge of town. Fortunately, it is mostly underground. They are already discussing a redesign. But the grand champion of modern architectural atrocities is the Pompidou Center, the National Museum of Modern Art. Its obnoxiousness is a metaphor for most of the “art” collected inside. I keep hoping that Christo, the contemporary master of artistic absurdity, will decide to wrap the whole thing, including the entrances, permanently. I predict that in 100 years it will have followed most of what is displayed inside into the garbage can of taste, but I’m decidedly old-fashioned in these matters.

An architectural achievement more to my liking was the recent remodeling of part of the Samaritaine department store. The entire 19th century Haussmann facade was maintained by a fantastic supporting superstructure while the interior was gutted and modernized. We are told that in many Franch villages, the law requires that new construction blend in with the old.

Another new architectural wrinkle in central Paris is an innovative extension of the right to housing. The city government is handing out two-person backpacker tents to people living in the streets. Most are identical and they appear in little clusters under bridges, in alleys and in the rear vestibules of churches. In what I regard as a special improvement, there is one group on the backside of the Pompideau Center. I doubt that foreigners travelling cheap qualify for them. This reform may not last. They seem to get very funky after extended use. We hear that there are also free public showers.

Finally; there is the new Batobus, the city-operated boat transportation system on the Seine from the Eiffel Tower on the west to the Jardin de Plantes on the east with eight stops at important points along the way. Private tourist boats have long been a major attraction. With the Batobus, the “floating metro,” the city has horned in on the action. These are large, wide vessels with seating for a couple of hundred people, largely covered with clear plastic canopies. With a ticket stub from any of several major museums you can get a five-day pass for 10 euro, getting on and off as often as you like. They are great for a romantic ride through Paris, except that they shut down about 10 p.m., when it is just twilight here at this time of year. There is also a new all night bus system running on a circuit that covers all six Paris train stations, but we can’t stay up late enough to use it and we walk almost everywhere we go.

David and Sally Hamilton

The current debate over a corporation owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates managing six US ports is intrinsically absurd. The factors that make it absurd, however, are not discussed openly, because to do so would call into question popular myths. The basic absurdity is that we could ever make our ports or any other element of our crucial infrastructure secure from attack by some military means.

Just over a year ago, I took a short cruise on a paddle wheel steamer on the Mississippi River at New Orleans. We passed under I-10, by a big chemical plant and among several large ocean-going vessels. A single large pillar rising from a small island in the middle of the river supports the highway. Being a person with some insight into terrorist thinking, I wondered what was to stop a private boat loaded with high explosives from pulling up beside that pillar in the middle of the night and blowing it away. In one move, they could shut down a major interstate highway and close down ship traffic on our largest river. And while waiting for the timer to set off the explosives, they could proceed downstream to fire a few missiles into the chemical plant before torpedoing an oil tanker anchored in midstream. Such scenarios aren’t at all hard to dream up. I could reel off a hundred before my second cup of coffee, all entirely plausible given sufficient money, will and expertise. The notion that some governmental entity called “Homeland Security” could actually prevent such an attack is illusion. I call this the Law of Immutable Vulnerability. In any advanced industrial society, the extent and complexity of the infrastructure make its secure protection from a determined attacker quite impossible.

This is not to say that the “Homeland Security Department” is completely useless. Like the “Defense Department,” it is basically a device to channel public money into the pockets of the owners of corporations that sell the illusion of security. A vast new government bureaucracy was created to transfer government funds to corporations controlled by those who make major contributions to powerful politicians. In terns of economics, government is a system of transfer payments. In a government such as the current one in the USA, they take from all and spend selectively, concentrating money into the hands of the owners of capital. Providing security against terrorist attack is just the motivational cover story.

So, if “homeland security” is such a fraud, why hasn’t the US been attacked again since 9/11? There are several possible answers. First, the attackers sought to exacerbate already-strained relations between the US and the world’s Muslim community. They also sought to expel the US military from the Saudi Arabian holy land. They succeeded on both counts without risking further attacks on US territory. They probably also underestimated the US response, the invasion of Afghanistan, the success of which necessitated a period of reorganization. In the meantime, the invasion of Iraq provided them with a new fertile field of activity. Also, the erosion of civil liberties in the US, especially for Muslims, has probably made domestic US operations more difficult. Besides, there have been more terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 than previously. These potential attackers have the money, the will and the expertise and the US has provided plenty of motivation and new recruits. So, ultimately, it’s only a matter of time, no matter how much money is wasted trying to avoid it.

The only real way for the US to avoid being attacked is to not piss people off in the first place. For example, telling Israel that US support would no longer be available unless they achieved a just resolution to their conflict with the Palestinians would save us hundreds of billions and who knows how many lives. Otherwise, “the clash of cultures” is inevitable and the “homeland” will never be secure.

David Hamilton