Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Courage Is The Primary Virtue
March 16th was the sixth anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. (Seems more recent doesn't it.)
At the conference on the idea of communism in London three days before, organiser Slavoj Zizek urged his audience:
Oh yes that terrible temptation to act, which plagues that audience, stalks it everywhere with its blandishments and meretricious seductions, from which they know not where to hide. But one must be strong, be firm, one mustn't play into their hands, you see. Like Rachel Corrie, the hysterics of Seattle and Genoa, the antiwar protesting puppets of Bush, the shoe hurling journalists of Iraq, Free Gaza, or the millions of French strikers today.
The charismatic theorist's urgent appeal will no doubt be scrupulously obeyed. In fact it was already being obeyed before it was even made. But now, intransigent refusal to act can be self-righteous too, its protagonists can congratulate themselves, how brave and strong we are to resist the temptation to which weaklings and dupes like Corrie succumb.
NAIMA SHAYER: [translated] On that last day, she didn’t want to leave our house. She’d get to the door and then rush back to hold and kiss us goodbye again. I asked her, “What’s wrong? Do you think you’re going to die today?” She did this a few times, as if she didn’t want to leave us.
That evening, my niece told me that Rachel Corrie had been killed by an Israeli bulldozer and had watched it on television. I didn’t believe her at first and thought she must have been lying.
All of us in the house were crying. She had stayed with us for over twenty days. I remember, whenever she was late, she’d call and apologize. If she got later than 7:00, she’d let us know. Once she got stuck at a checkpoint and called so we wouldn’t worry. She was just like one of us, a member of our family. She was so good to us.
ABU JAMEEL: [translated] Very few people live up to Rachel’s example. Honestly, even today, I remember her. I can see her: slender, fair, beautiful, wearing a kafia. She was graceful and so courageous, never afraid.
My house was near an Israeli watchtower near the wall. She’d be there with her megaphone, shouting, “Please, don’t fire. There are children here.” She had an open spirit, a pure spirit. She was a great person, irreplaceable. Rachel’s life should be recorded in history.
At the conference on the idea of communism in London three days before, organiser Slavoj Zizek urged his audience:
We must resist the temptation to act. We must refuse being told that children are dying of hunger in Africa or in the slums of India, for this is the philosophy of the present times. They don’t want us to think.
Oh yes that terrible temptation to act, which plagues that audience, stalks it everywhere with its blandishments and meretricious seductions, from which they know not where to hide. But one must be strong, be firm, one mustn't play into their hands, you see. Like Rachel Corrie, the hysterics of Seattle and Genoa, the antiwar protesting puppets of Bush, the shoe hurling journalists of Iraq, Free Gaza, or the millions of French strikers today.
The charismatic theorist's urgent appeal will no doubt be scrupulously obeyed. In fact it was already being obeyed before it was even made. But now, intransigent refusal to act can be self-righteous too, its protagonists can congratulate themselves, how brave and strong we are to resist the temptation to which weaklings and dupes like Corrie succumb.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
1. Photographs, names and video footage of people attending protests are routinely obtained by surveillance units and stored on an "intelligence system".
2. The commissioner alleges that firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have for many years covertly bought details of staff's trade union activities and their conduct at work, in breach of the Data Protection Act. Seized documents reveal files on invidivuals that included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward" and "trouble-stirrer".
2. The commissioner alleges that firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have for many years covertly bought details of staff's trade union activities and their conduct at work, in breach of the Data Protection Act. Seized documents reveal files on invidivuals that included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward" and "trouble-stirrer".
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Gowan: Consequences of the New Wall Street System
Much of the mainstream debate on the causes of the crisis takes the form of an ‘accidents’ theory, explaining the debâcle as the result of contingent actions by, say, Greenspan’s Federal Reserve, the banks, the regulators or the rating agencies. We have argued against this, proposing rather that a relatively coherent structure which we have called the New Wall Street System should be understood as having generated the crisis. But in addition to the argument above, we should note another striking feature of the last twenty years: the extraordinary harmony between Wall Street operators and Washington regulators. Typically in American history there have been phases of great tension, not only between Wall Street and Congress but also between Wall Street and the executive branch. This was true, for example, in much of the 1970s and early 1980s. Yet there has been a clear convergence over the last quarter of a century, the sign of a rather well-integrated project. [30]
An alternative explanation, much favoured in social-democratic circles, argues that both Wall Street and Washington were gripped by a false 'neo-liberal' or 'free-market' ideology, which led them astray. An ingenious right-wing twist on this suggests that the problematic ideology was 'laissez-faire'—that is, no regulation—while what is needed is 'free-market thinking', which implies some regulation. The consequence of either version is usually a rather rudderless discussion of 'how much' and 'what kind' of regulation would set matters straight. [31] The problem with this explanation is that, while the New Wall Street System was legitimated by free-market, laissez-faire or neo-liberal outlooks, these do not seem to have been operative ideologies for its practitioners, whether in Wall Street or in Washington. Philip Augar's detailed study of the Wall Street investment banks, The Greed Merchants, cited above, argues that they have actually operated in large part as a conscious cartel—the opposite of a free market. It is evident that neither Greenspan nor the bank chiefs believed in the serious version of this creed: neo-classical financial economics. Greenspan has not argued that financial markets are efficient or transparent; he has fully accepted that they can tend towards bubbles and blow-outs. He and his colleagues have been well aware of the risk of serious financial crisis, in which the American state would have to throw huge amounts of tax-payers' money into saving the system. They also grasped that all the various risk models used by the Wall Street banks were flawed, and were bound to be, since they presupposed a general context of financial market stability, within which one bank, in one market sector, might face a sudden threat; their solutions were in essence about diversification of risk across markets. The models therefore assumed away the systemic threat that Greenspan and others were well aware of: namely, a sudden negative turn across all markets. [32]
[30] There were tensions between Wall Street and New York state regulator Eliot Spitzer after the dot.com bubble burst, but this simply highlighted how strong was the consensus at a higher level.
[31] References to these kinds of debates can be found in Andrew Baker et al., Governing Financial Globalization, London 2005.
[32] See Greenspan, ‘We will never have a perfect model of risk’; Alan Beattie and James Politi, ‘Greenspan admits he made a mistake’, FT, 24 October 2008.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Gogol: Vous ne pensez pas qu'il y a une juste mesure entre le capitalisme débridé d'un Sarkozy et votre ligne radicale archaïque ?
Commençant son aventure il y a quatre siècles, le capitalisme, même débridé, est beaucoup plus ancien et archaîque que toutes les lignes radicales qu'on lui oppose. Cessons de considérer que le libéralisme, à la mode dans les années 1840, incarne la modernité et les réformes. C'est le communisme qui est une idée neuve en Europe.
Commençant son aventure il y a quatre siècles, le capitalisme, même débridé, est beaucoup plus ancien et archaîque que toutes les lignes radicales qu'on lui oppose. Cessons de considérer que le libéralisme, à la mode dans les années 1840, incarne la modernité et les réformes. C'est le communisme qui est une idée neuve en Europe.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
We noticed
President Bush: “I’m sorry it’s happening, of course. Obviously I don’t like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401Ks. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we’re in. And if we need to be in more, we will.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







