Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
5 Views
20:00:00 12/19/11
Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture
On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes.
The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state.
Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .")
We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost.
Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred."
Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand."
Portrait of the President as a Young Freak
As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence.
The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan.
And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans.
Words
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ...
Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: >
I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.
When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television.
Havel had been burned by language, too: >
The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps.
And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: >
The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable.
Control
In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: >
The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens.
Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure.
"Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel.
Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: >
The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'"
People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives.
Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'"
Ambition
Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: >
If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism.
It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record.
From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: >
Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.
Technocracy
It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies."
That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation."
Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: >
States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success.
Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: >
(It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation.
"The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic."
Responsibility
"I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." >
I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.
None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so.
Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: >
Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia.
Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered.
Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere.
"Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power.
At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.
4 Views
22:00:46 11/18/11
Police Mercenaries: Privatizing Liberty
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:46 11/18/11
As Mayor Bloomberg's forces swooped down on Occupy Wall Street, news reports described the " hundreds of police and private security guards " who had re-taken Zuccotti Park. Those private guards were used against public citizens who had been exercising their civil liberties in a public area.
That's not just wrong. It's unAmerican.
This incident holds an important lesson for anyone who loves our freedoms: When something public is made private, our liberties are privatized too. And privatized liberty isn't liberty at all.
Privatizing Liberty
Zuccotti Park. New Yorkers knew it as Liberty Plaza Park for nearly half a century. Like other sites in New York, the plaza was created through an agreement between the city and a private company, United States Steel, that wanted to erect a building that exceeded the city's height limits. So the city made them a deal: You can take up more than your share of the public skyline, but in return you have to give the city some open space at ground level.
This wasn't a gift. It was a fair exchange between two parties, a private corporation and the people of New York. The people gave up a chunk of their skyline and the owner agreed to provide an open - and, by agreement, fully public - space in return. New York City makes these deals fairly often. The plazas created by these agreements are called "privately owned public spaces," or "POPS," and the city has lots of them.
The Mayor may want to read that phrase again: It doesn't say "privately owned private spaces." Both the owner and the city are obligated to keep them for public use, in the public sphere, with all the laws and freedoms that apply to public space.
The park's current owner, Brookfield Properties, rebuilt the park with private donations after it was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. With Mayor Bloomberg's permission, they also overstepped tradition and the bounds of propriety by renaming the park - not for the thousands of innocent people who died that day, but for their own chairman.
The symbolism is perfect:They replaced a treasured word for freedom with the name of a rich guy who'd done nothing to create the park. With the Mayor's blessing, they literally privatized the word "liberty."
Like I said, perfect. Tragic, but perfect.
Private Dicks
Brookfield overstepped its bounds when its CEO sent the mayor a letter saying that the Occupation "violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues." Those aren't decisions a private company, even an owner, should make about a public space. They are judgments an elected official makes on behalf of a free citizenry.
This week Bloomberg and Brookfield have used the park's semi-private status as an excuse to invade a public space with a private security force. Whoever these guys were - besides rude and uncivil - they served as a kind of Blackwater militia, but targeting New Yorkers instead of Iraqis. (At least Brookfield says it fired the guard who called a citizen a " faggot .")
When it comes to privatization, it seems the Mayor has boundary issues. He has repeatedly used the park's private ownership status to claim, that the public has fewer rights there than it does in other public spaces. That's false. But then, that's the problem with "public/private partnerships." The "public" partner always gets rolled the public one.
But then, that's how these people are. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. The lesson of Zuccotti Park is: Never give them an inch.
Thin Blue Line, Thick Green Wallets
News reports made noted the presence of two different groups, New York City police officers and private security guards, but in some ways that's become a distinction without a difference. The NYPD is frequently rented by the same Wall Street banks that broke the law, crashed the economy and got away with it. As Pam Martens reported in Counterpunch, Rudy Giuliani created an operation called the "Paid Detail" unit that turns New York's Finest into a "rent-a-cop" service for anyone with the money to pay for it.
And who has more money in New York than the banks? As Martens reports, companies like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and the New York Stock Exchange have rented the Thin Blue Line with the cash from their Thick Green Wallets. Even after the Stock Exchange was found to have illegally taken over public streets and walkways and "created a public nuisance," nobody was fined or arrested.
But then, it must be hard for a cop to arrest anybody that he sometimes has to address as "boss." Maybe that's one of the reasons why a retired Philadelphia police officer, Capt. Ray Lewis, was willing to be handcuffed and arrested by fellow officers during the protest. Capt. Lewis called their rationale for arresting him a ' farce ' and promised to return.
(photo by permission of the photographer, Lauren Thorpe)
New York isn't the only city that rents out its police force. But the financial capital of the nation bears moral and civic responsibilities that Mayors Guiliani and Bloomberg have disrespected and violated. The photograph of Capt. Lewis is like an image of law enforcement's honor, handcuffed by the mercenary instincts of Gracie Mansion's two most recent occupants.
Checkbook Democracy
But then, why would Michael Bloomberg be expected to understand that privatization is undemocratic? He "privatized" the electoral process, one of our most sacred democratic institutions, by buying himself the mayoralty. And he spent unprecedented levels of campaign cash from his personal billions to do it. Then, when he didn't like the term limits that the people of New York had decreed for their mayor - well, he "privatized" that too.
But this isn't really about Michael Bloomberg. Despite his reputation for healthy self-regard, even the billionaire mayor is only a symptom of a much larger problem. Rich people have been buying elections for so long that it's become the newest form of self-indulgence, conveying even more status than a Citation jet or a private island. Public office is the newest must-have item for the excessively vain and excessive well-to-do, a kind of vanity press for the self-published authors of their own meritless political careers. Bloomberg is merely the today's most conspicuous, extravagant, and fiscally irresponsible member of an increasingly ordinary club.
You don't have to be a billionaire to run for office these days, of course. But if you're not you'll spend most of your time begging them for money. No wonder the 1% call all the shots in government. They own it.
I've always thought it would be a good idea if elected officials wore the insignia of the corporations that sponsor them, the way race car drivers do.
Sold American
Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The Bush and Obama Administrations have privatized law enforcement on Wall Street by asking banks to police themselves. And during the devastating San Diego fires, residents learned that AIG had created a private fire department that saved the homes of its clients while other nearby houses burned.
Privatized police. Privatized fire departments. Privatized prisons. Privatized armies of Halliburton and Blackwater soldiers. When for-profit companies perform government functions, they'll do it in a way that makes them money. That's not hard to understand, but our "leaders" keep doing it anyway.
Why? Because they've privatized their consciences, too.
3 Views
22:00:46 11/18/11
Police Mercenaries: Privatizing Liberty
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:46 11/18/11
As Mayor Bloomberg's forces swooped down on Occupy Wall Street, news reports described the " hundreds of police and private security guards " who had re-taken Zuccotti Park. Those private guards were used against public citizens who had been exercising their civil liberties in a public area.
That's not just wrong. It's unAmerican.
This incident holds an important lesson for anyone who loves our freedoms: When something public is made private, our liberties are privatized too. And privatized liberty isn't liberty at all.
Privatizing Liberty
Zuccotti Park. New Yorkers knew it as Liberty Plaza Park for nearly half a century. Like other sites in New York, the plaza was created through an agreement between the city and a private company, United States Steel, that wanted to erect a building that exceeded the city's height limits. So the city made them a deal: You can take up more than your share of the public skyline, but in return you have to give the city some open space at ground level.
This wasn't a gift. It was a fair exchange between two parties, a private corporation and the people of New York. The people gave up a chunk of their skyline and the owner agreed to provide an open - and, by agreement, fully public - space in return. New York City makes these deals fairly often. The plazas created by these agreements are called "privately owned public spaces," or "POPS," and the city has lots of them.
The Mayor may want to read that phrase again: It doesn't say "privately owned private spaces." Both the owner and the city are obligated to keep them for public use, in the public sphere, with all the laws and freedoms that apply to public space.
The park's current owner, Brookfield Properties, rebuilt the park with private donations after it was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. With Mayor Bloomberg's permission, they also overstepped tradition and the bounds of propriety by renaming the park - not for the thousands of innocent people who died that day, but for their own chairman.
The symbolism is perfect:They replaced a treasured word for freedom with the name of a rich guy who'd done nothing to create the park. With the Mayor's blessing, they literally privatized the word "liberty."
Like I said, perfect. Tragic, but perfect.
Private Dicks
Brookfield overstepped its bounds when its CEO sent the mayor a letter saying that the Occupation "violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues." Those aren't decisions a private company, even an owner, should make about a public space. They are judgments an elected official makes on behalf of a free citizenry.
This week Bloomberg and Brookfield have used the park's semi-private status as an excuse to invade a public space with a private security force. Whoever these guys were - besides rude and uncivil - they served as a kind of Blackwater militia, but targeting New Yorkers instead of Iraqis. (At least Brookfield says it fired the guard who called a citizen a " faggot .")
When it comes to privatization, it seems the Mayor has boundary issues. He has repeatedly used the park's private ownership status to claim, that the public has fewer rights there than it does in other public spaces. That's false. But then, that's the problem with "public/private partnerships." The "public" partner always gets rolled the public one.
But then, that's how these people are. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. The lesson of Zuccotti Park is: Never give them an inch.
Thin Blue Line, Thick Green Wallets
News reports made noted the presence of two different groups, New York City police officers and private security guards, but in some ways that's become a distinction without a difference. The NYPD is frequently rented by the same Wall Street banks that broke the law, crashed the economy and got away with it. As Pam Martens reported in Counterpunch, Rudy Giuliani created an operation called the "Paid Detail" unit that turns New York's Finest into a "rent-a-cop" service for anyone with the money to pay for it.
And who has more money in New York than the banks? As Martens reports, companies like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and the New York Stock Exchange have rented the Thin Blue Line with the cash from their Thick Green Wallets. Even after the Stock Exchange was found to have illegally taken over public streets and walkways and "created a public nuisance," nobody was fined or arrested.
But then, it must be hard for a cop to arrest anybody that he sometimes has to address as "boss." Maybe that's one of the reasons why a retired Philadelphia police officer, Capt. Ray Lewis, was willing to be handcuffed and arrested by fellow officers during the protest. Capt. Lewis called their rationale for arresting him a ' farce ' and promised to return.
(photo by permission of the photographer, Lauren Thorpe)
New York isn't the only city that rents out its police force. But the financial capital of the nation bears moral and civic responsibilities that Mayors Guiliani and Bloomberg have disrespected and violated. The photograph of Capt. Lewis is like an image of law enforcement's honor, handcuffed by the mercenary instincts of Gracie Mansion's two most recent occupants.
Checkbook Democracy
But then, why would Michael Bloomberg be expected to understand that privatization is undemocratic? He "privatized" the electoral process, one of our most sacred democratic institutions, by buying himself the mayoralty. And he spent unprecedented levels of campaign cash from his personal billions to do it. Then, when he didn't like the term limits that the people of New York had decreed for their mayor - well, he "privatized" that too.
But this isn't really about Michael Bloomberg. Despite his reputation for healthy self-regard, even the billionaire mayor is only a symptom of a much larger problem. Rich people have been buying elections for so long that it's become the newest form of self-indulgence, conveying even more status than a Citation jet or a private island. Public office is the newest must-have item for the excessively vain and excessive well-to-do, a kind of vanity press for the self-published authors of their own meritless political careers. Bloomberg is merely the today's most conspicuous, extravagant, and fiscally irresponsible member of an increasingly ordinary club.
You don't have to be a billionaire to run for office these days, of course. But if you're not you'll spend most of your time begging them for money. No wonder the 1% call all the shots in government. They own it.
I've always thought it would be a good idea if elected officials wore the insignia of the corporations that sponsor them, the way race car drivers do.
Sold American
Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The Bush and Obama Administrations have privatized law enforcement on Wall Street by asking banks to police themselves. And during the devastating San Diego fires, residents learned that AIG had created a private fire department that saved the homes of its clients while other nearby houses burned.
Privatized police. Privatized fire departments. Privatized prisons. Privatized armies of Halliburton and Blackwater soldiers. When for-profit companies perform government functions, they'll do it in a way that makes them money. That's not hard to understand, but our "leaders" keep doing it anyway.
Why? Because they've privatized their consciences, too.
4 Views
20:00:07 11/13/11
Never Mind Forgetting the Name, Does Perry Realize the Consequences of Closing Those Departments?
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:07 11/13/11
It's an easy joke to make fun of Perry's inability to remember which three departments he'd close as President. It's clear that his campaign will likely not recover as he is polling somewhere south of "Just about anyone else" of likely Republican voters. After eight years of an intellectually incurious Texan governor driving the country and the world economy over the brink, even Republicans are wary of giving his dimmer clone an opportunity to do it again.
But what I think is more frightening is that everyone in the media is so focused on those 53 seconds of stammering that they don't ever get to what the consequences of losing those departments would mean to the country. Considering that he's not the only Republican on that panel making that noise , shall we look at the consequences of shutting down the Commerce, Energy and Education departments ? >
The Department of Commerce contains the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which runs our system of intellectual property. Without it, America would have no way to ensure that inventors could fully profit from their inventions, giving them little incentive to spend the time and money needed for breakthroughs. The pace of American innovation would likely take a huge hit.
Commerce also includes the Census Bureau. The accurate count of Americans that the department provides each decade lets leaders and policymakers know how to allocate resources--housing, roads, utilities--around the country. And Commerce also encompasses the National Weather Service (NWS), which issues crucial warnings about severe weather like hurricanes and floods. When state and local officials make decisions about how and when to evacuate, they're generally going off NWS information.
The Department of Energy, created during the Carter administration, protects U.S. nuclear weapons from accidents or terrorist attacks that could release dangerous radioactive material, killing thousands. Without the oversight that the Energy Department presently provides, it would be difficult to maintain a nuclear weapons program at all. The Energy Department also plays a key role in funding and promoting the civilian use of nuclear power.
As for the Department of Education--likewise created under President Carter--its role is more limited, because the U.S. education system is highly decentralized. Indeed, Perry is hardly the first conservative to pledge to abolish it. The Education Department does have a role in shaping education policy, however, by handing out funds to states that adopt its preferred reforms, and it also enforces privacy and civil rights laws in schools.
As they say, beware the unintended consequences. Can you imagine Rick Perry's America, where there is no innovation, because intellectual property is not protected any more than our nuclear weapons program? Where entire swaths of the country could be wiped out by a category 5 hurricane because our emergency services doesn't have advance notice? Where radioactive disposal is unregulated?
Catastrophe is not too strong a word for Perry's vision for our country.
1 Views
20:00:07 11/13/11
Never Mind Forgetting the Name, Does Perry Realize the Consequences of Closing Those Departments?
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:07 11/13/11
It's an easy joke to make fun of Perry's inability to remember which three departments he'd close as President. It's clear that his campaign will likely not recover as he is polling somewhere south of "Just about anyone else" of likely Republican voters. After eight years of an intellectually incurious Texan governor driving the country and the world economy over the brink, even Republicans are wary of giving his dimmer clone an opportunity to do it again.
But what I think is more frightening is that everyone in the media is so focused on those 53 seconds of stammering that they don't ever get to what the consequences of losing those departments would mean to the country. Considering that he's not the only Republican on that panel making that noise , shall we look at the consequences of shutting down the Commerce, Energy and Education departments ? >
The Department of Commerce contains the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which runs our system of intellectual property. Without it, America would have no way to ensure that inventors could fully profit from their inventions, giving them little incentive to spend the time and money needed for breakthroughs. The pace of American innovation would likely take a huge hit.
Commerce also includes the Census Bureau. The accurate count of Americans that the department provides each decade lets leaders and policymakers know how to allocate resources--housing, roads, utilities--around the country. And Commerce also encompasses the National Weather Service (NWS), which issues crucial warnings about severe weather like hurricanes and floods. When state and local officials make decisions about how and when to evacuate, they're generally going off NWS information.
The Department of Energy, created during the Carter administration, protects U.S. nuclear weapons from accidents or terrorist attacks that could release dangerous radioactive material, killing thousands. Without the oversight that the Energy Department presently provides, it would be difficult to maintain a nuclear weapons program at all. The Energy Department also plays a key role in funding and promoting the civilian use of nuclear power.
As for the Department of Education--likewise created under President Carter--its role is more limited, because the U.S. education system is highly decentralized. Indeed, Perry is hardly the first conservative to pledge to abolish it. The Education Department does have a role in shaping education policy, however, by handing out funds to states that adopt its preferred reforms, and it also enforces privacy and civil rights laws in schools.
As they say, beware the unintended consequences. Can you imagine Rick Perry's America, where there is no innovation, because intellectual property is not protected any more than our nuclear weapons program? Where entire swaths of the country could be wiped out by a category 5 hurricane because our emergency services doesn't have advance notice? Where radioactive disposal is unregulated?
Catastrophe is not too strong a word for Perry's vision for our country.
6 Views
03:00:00 11/08/11
Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie
[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW]
Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future
I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain.
As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud.
1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms.
Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard.
2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not.
Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space.
Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to….
3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums.
When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible.
4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes?
This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave.
This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave.
When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line.
These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once.
Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well).
This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order.
Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings.
And finally:
5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way.
You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.
2 Views
03:00:00 11/08/11
Occupy's A**hole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 03:00:00 11/08/11
During Tuesday's Occupy Oakland General Strike, the so-called "Black Block" vandalized stores and buildings as peaceful Occupiers try desperately to stop them. [Caution: Strong Language-- NSFW]
Guest Editorial by Sara Robinson , Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future
I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain.
As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the a**hole problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud.
1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms.
Occupy may be a DIY movement — but it also stands for very specific ideas and principles. Central among these is: We are here to reassert the common good. And we have a LOT of work to do. Being open and accepting does not mean that we’re obligated to accept behavior that damages our ability to achieve our goals. It also means that we have a perfect right to insist that people sharing our spaces either act in ways that further those goals, or go somewhere else until they’re able to meet that standard.
2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not.
Or, as an earlier generation of change agents put it: You’re either on the bus, or off the bus. Are you here to change the way this country operates, and willing to sacrifice some of your almighty personal freedom to do that? Great. You’re with us, and you’re welcome here. Are you here on your own trip and expecting the rest of us to put up with you? In that case, you are emphatically NOT on our side, and you are not welcome in our space.
Anybody who feels the need to put their own personal crap ahead of the health and future of the movement is (at least for that moment) an a**hole, and does not belong in Occupied space. Period. This can be a very hard idea for people in an inclusive movement to accept — we really want to have all voices heard. But the principles Occupy stands for must always take precedence over any individual’s divine right to be an a**hole, or the a**holes will take over. Which brings me to….
3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums.
When some a drama king or queen starts holding the process hostage for their own reasons, congratulations! You’ve got a new a**hole! (See #2.) You must guard against this constantly, or consensus government becomes completely impossible.
4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic a**holes?
This is the problem Occupy’s leaders are very visibly struggling with now. I’ve been a part of a**hole-infested groups in the long-ago past that had very good luck with a whole-group restorative justice process. In this process, the full group (or some very large subset of it that’s been empowered to speak for the whole) confronts the troublemaker directly. The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave.
This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual we statements that reflect the observations of the group. We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave.
When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic a**holes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with I messages. I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave. Every statement needs to end with that demand — We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back. No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line.
These interventions can go on for a LONG time. You have to be committed to stay in the process, possibly for a few hours until the offender needs a restroom break or gets hungry. But eventually, if everybody stays put, the person will have no option but to accept that a very large group of people do not want him or her there. Even truly committed a**holes will get the message that they’ve crossed the line into unacceptable behavior when they’re faced with several dozen determined people confronting them all at once.
Given the time this takes, it’s tempting to cut corners by confronting several people all at once. Don’t do it. Confronting more than two people at a time creates a diffusion-of-responsibility effect: the troublemakers tell themselves that they just got caught up in a dragnet; the problem is those other people, not me. The one who talks the most will get most of the heat; the others will tend to slip by (though the experience may cause them to reconsider their behavior or leave as well).
This process also leaves open the hope that the person will really, truly get that their behavior is Not okay, and agree to change it. When this happens, be sure to negotiate specific changes, boundaries, rules, and consequences (if we see you using drugs here again, we will call the police. There will be no second warning), and then reach a consensus agreement that allows them to stay. On the other hand: if the person turns violent and gets out of control, then the question is settled, and their choice is made. You now have a legitimate reason to call the cops to haul them away. And the cops will likely respect you more for maintaining law and order.
Clearing out a huge number of these folks can be a massive time suck, at least for the few days it will take to weed out the worst ones and get good at it. It might make sense to create a large committee whose job it is to gather information, build cases against offenders, and conduct these meetings.
And finally:
5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way.
You will get sh-t for this. But…but…it looks a whole lot like a Maoist purge unit! No. There is nothing totalitarian about asking people who join your revolution to act in ways that support the goals of that revolution. And the Constitution guarantees your right of free association — which includes the right to exclude people who aren’t on the bus, and who are wasting the group’s limited time and energy rather than maximizing it. After all: you’re not sending these people to re-education camps, or doing anything else that damages them. You’re just getting them out of the park, and out of your hair. You’re eliminating distractions, which in turn effectively amplifies the voices and efforts of everyone else around you. And, in the process, you’re also modeling a new kind of justice that sanctions people’s behavior without sanctioning their being — while also carving out safe space in which the true potential of Occupy can flourish.
0 Views
01:13:21 11/07/11
Property taxes should be on the table
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 01:13:21 11/07/11
Oregon's property tax rates are constrained by measures enacted in 1990 and 1997 to $5 per $1,000 of valuation for education and $10.00 per $1,000 for all units of local government, including counties, cities and special districts. A task force formed by the governor's office to help counties prepare for the loss of federal timber payments recommended that the first recourse for is to exploit the full property tax capacity available. According to the 2009 task force report Coos County utilizes only 32% of its available tax revenue capacity. The gap between county rates and the combined local government maximum of $10.00 per $1,000 reflects each county’s unused “tax capacity.” Such tax capacity is likely to be constrained by the effects of compression among jurisdictions and by limitations that apply to individual properties. But examining the difference between current property tax rates, including local options taxes, and the average of all rates in effect for local governments within each county provides useful measures of unused tax capacity. Recently, Commissioner Bob Main has proudly proclaimed that raising property taxes in Coos County is not an option claiming that without jobs people would not be able to afford an increase. On the surface that sounds reasonable but the unemployed and those living on fixed incomes may already be paying the maximum amount allowed by law and therefore not actually see any increase on their tax bill. For example, a quick review of my tax bill shows that I am already paying the full $5 for education and actually paying in excess of $10 on all other local taxes and special levies and a quick poll of five other property owners in Coos County shows that they too are already taxed at the maximum rate. To check whether you are already being fully taxed simply divide the "General Government Total" on the right hand side of your tax bill by the "Total Assessed Value" to see how close you are to the $10 maximum. Private interests control 66% of the county property which has an assessed value of $7.34 billion which could generate $73.4 million in taxes but not everyone is taxed equally in Coos County and the county is only generating about $24 million according to the report. Main's argument that county citizens couldn't afford a property tax increase is probably specious and it is really the corporate interests like Bandon Dunes, Northwest Natural, Pacific Corp and Oregon Resources who would actually see any increase. Main also proudly announced that the county government has shrunk with less than half the number of employees a decade ago and yet most of us are paying the maximum tax while receiving reduced services thanks to the cut spending ideology that permeates the current commission. At Wednesday's Bay Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon the question was asked if the commission had actually investigated whether the public would prefer to pay a tax increase rather than turn over management of federal timber property to the Coquille Tribe? The short answer is "no", the public was not consulted and Main actually laughed at the idea before saying he had "thought about it" before offering an elaborate discourse about times gone by. Papa Main thinks he knows best... The options and recommendations presented in the Governor’s Task Force on Federal Forest Payments and County Services have been sitting, without benefit of public discussion or debate on Main's desk for almost three years while more jobs affecting public services, public health and public safety have been shaved away and yet most of us are paying more than our fair share for those services.
0 Views
01:12:50 11/07/11
Property taxes should be on the table
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 01:12:50 11/07/11
Oregon's property tax rates are constrained by measures enacted in 1990 and 1997 to $5 per $1,000 of valuation for education and $10.00 per $1,000 for all units of local government, including counties, cities and special districts. A task force formed by the governor's office to help counties prepare for the loss of federal timber payments recommended that the first recourse for is to exploit the full property tax capacity available. According to the 2009 task force report Coos County utilizes only 32% of its available tax revenue capacity. The gap between county rates and the combined local government maximum of $10.00 per $1,000 reflects each county’s unused “tax capacity.” Such tax capacity is likely to be constrained by the effects of compression among jurisdictions and by limitations that apply to individual properties. But examining the difference between current property tax rates, including local options taxes, and the average of all rates in effect for local governments within each county provides useful measures of unused tax capacity. Recently, Commissioner Bob Main has proudly proclaimed that raising property taxes in Coos County is not an option claiming that without jobs people would not be able to afford an increase. On the surface that sounds reasonable but the unemployed and those living on fixed incomes may already be paying the maximum amount allowed by law and therefore not actually see any increase on their tax bill. For example, a quick review of my tax bill shows that I am already paying the full $5 for education and actually paying in excess of $10 on all other local taxes and special levies and a quick poll of five other property owners in Coos County shows that they too are already taxed at the maximum rate. To check whether you are already being fully taxed simply divide the "General Government Total" on the right hand side of your tax bill by the "Total Assessed Value" to see how close you are to the $10 maximum. Private interests control 66% of the county property which has an assessed value of $7.34 billion which could generate $73.4 million in taxes but not everyone is taxed equally in Coos County and the county is only generating about $24 million according to the report. Main's argument that county citizens couldn't afford a property tax increase is probably specious and it is really the corporate interests like Bandon Dunes, Northwest Natural, Pacific Corp and Oregon Resources who would actually see any increase. Main also proudly announced that the county government has shrunk with less than half the number of employees a decade ago and yet most of us are paying the maximum tax while receiving reduced services thanks to the cut spending ideology that permeates the current commission. At Wednesday's Bay Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon the question was asked if the commission had actually investigated whether the public would prefer to pay a tax increase rather than turn over management of federal timber property to the Coquille Tribe? The short answer is "no", the public was not consulted and Main actually laughed at the idea before saying he had "thought about it" before offering an elaborate discourse about times gone by. Papa Main thinks he knows best... The options and recommendations presented in the Governor’s Task Force on Federal Forest Payments and County Services have been sitting, without benefit of public discussion or debate on Main's desk for almost three years while more jobs affecting public services, public health and public safety have been shaved away and yet most of us are paying more than our fair share for those services.
28 Views
16:00:00 10/19/11
James Madison
[LESS INFO] 28 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:00 10/19/11
(hhttp://www.amazon.com/James-Madison-Richard-Brookhiser/dp/0465019838/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8%qid=1317137015%sr=8-1?tag=catoinstitute-20)James Madison led one of the most influential and prolific lives in American history. Although sometimes overshadowed by his more celebrated contemporaries, Madison helped to shape our country as perhaps no other Founder did: collaborating on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights; assembling one of the nation's first political parties (the Republicans, who became today's Democrats); and taking to the battlefield during the War of 1812, becoming the last president to lead troops in combat. More than just a figure from history, Madison today inspires a continued desire for liberty and limited government. What might his legacy mean for Americans today? Please join us to hear historian Richard Brookhiser discuss his new book about the "Father of the Constitution," an accomplished, yet humble, statesman who nourished Americans' fledgling liberty and vigorously defended the laws that have preserved it to this day.
38 Views
03:41:17 09/21/11
Workers Defense Project Press Release On Working Conditions In Austin
[LESS INFO] 38 VIEWS | ADDED 03:41:17 09/21/11
In 2009, alongside the University of Texas, the Workers Defense Project released a report that informed the public of the prevalent dangers of the local construction industry. We already knew that Texas was by far the deadliest state in the country for construction workers: a worker dies every 2 and a half days on the job. In Austin, we found that over one in five workers has experienced wage theft—that is, not being paid for their work. And even of those workers who did make it home safely and were paid, still almost a quarter of respondents said that they had trouble just making ends meet for their families. This summer, Workers Defense Project, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and City of Austin’s Code Compliance Department formed a partnership. We formed this partnership because we were all interested in collaborating to directly address these pressing issues with enforcement and communication. The surveys were done in two waves, one in June, which focused on the City of Austin’s new rest break ordinance; and one week of surveys in July, which reported violations to the Dept of Labor as well as the City. As was expected, the survey data was disheartening, revealing continued and widespread violations of the law that endanger workers. But, the collaboration with these governmental agencies provides hope for the future and for progress. On the 65 construction sites we surveyed, we found over 139 alleged violations. These violations would have gone totally unreported if it were not for this collaboration. Violations included but were not limited to: --8 cases of dangerous and faulty scaffolding --20 employers not providing water --2 worksites with dangerous/improper ladders --4 cases of unprotected and unmarked fall hazards --7 cases of lack of personal safety equipment such as hardhats or dust-maks --11 cases of no overtime pay --3 cases of sub minimum wages, around $5.50 per hour and 59 cases of violations of Austin’s rest break ordinance Workers Defense Project looks forward to continuing its collaboration with the DoL WG HR, OSHA and the City to tackle these issues. We also know that responsible business and industry leaders also have a role to play. This data should be a wake up call to builders: problems are prevalent and may be happening on your construction sites without your knowledge. The majority of contractors who were reported for wage violations were also being reported for safety violations. The industry must push to maintain high standards of all their contractors. As one of the fastest growing cities in the country, we need to make sure that development meets the needs of our residents and communities, and the workers who make it all possible. Written by Greg Casar, Business Liaison at the Workers Defense Project Produced for Austin Indymedia by Jeff Zavala. A ZGraphix production. http://zgraphix.org My TIP JAR
11 Views
21:30:00 06/28/11
Panel 3: Containing the Spill: Meta-Reforms to Mitigate the Externalized Costs of AD Measures
[LESS INFO] 11 VIEWS | ADDED 21:30:00 06/28/11
If the Obama administration and Congress are truly concerned about U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and increasing export opportunities, then antidumping policy must be reformed. Imports of raw materials, intermediate goods and capital equipment — products consumed by U.S. producers — account for the majority of U.S. import value. Meanwhile, those kinds of manufacturing inputs are subject to 4 out of every 5 antidumping measures imposed. The case is clear that current U.S. antidumping policy undermines U.S. manufacturing competitiveness at home and abroad, and reform is imperative. In light of the Obama administration's efforts to facilitate export growth and help improve U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, three panels of experts will discuss various features of U.S. antidumping law that undermine those objectives and offer proposals for reform. 2:30pm—3:00pm Registration 3:00pm—3:15pm Opening Remarks: Antidumping and U.S. Competitiveness: Something Has Got to Give Dan Ikenson, Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute 3:15pm—4:15pm Panel 1: An Ounce of Prevention: Limiting the Scope for Collateral Damage in the Early Stages of an Antidumping InvestigationLax standards for initiating antidumping investigations conspire with an asymmetric injury analysis that ignores the consequences of duties on consuming industries and the economy at large to produce externalized costs. Panelists will discuss the imperative of adding rigor to case initiation standards; granting legal standing to firms in consuming industries; requiring the results of an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of any prospective antidumping measures to be considered; and more. Moderator: Lewis Leibowitz, Esq., Hogan Lovells and Chairman, National Association of Foreign Trade Zones Panelists: Erik Autor, Vice President, International Trade Counsel, National Retail Federation Dr. J. Michael Finger, Trade Economist and Author, Former Lead Economist and Chief of the World Bank's Trade Policy Research Group Gary Horlick, Esq., Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, Former International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and Former Head of Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 4:15pm—4:30pm Break 4:30pm—5:30pm Panel 2: Just Because It's Legal Doesn't Mean It's Right: Reining in Rough Justice at the Commerce DepartmentImport Administration at the Commerce Department employs calculation procedures and methods that unequivocally inflate dumping margins, hence the rates of duty imposed. Some of those procedures serve no legitimate analytical purpose. Others can be conducted in manners that are less likely to produce skewed results. Panelists will discuss some of the more egregious methodological quirks and offer some commonsense solutions. Moderator: Gary Horlick, Esq., Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, Former International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and Former Head of Import Administration, U.S. Department of CommercePanelists: Robert La Frankie, Esq., Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Former Senior Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Import Administration. U.S. Department of CommerceMatt Nicely, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP and Adjunct Professor, "The U.S. Trade Regime," American University, Washington College of LawDaniel Porter, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP 5:30pm—6:30pm Panel 3: Containing the Spill: Meta-Reforms to Mitigate the Externalized Costs of AD MeasuresRecognizing that antidumping measures saddle other domestic interests with higher costs, stymie commerce by virtue of the uncertainty created about final duty liability, and make it more difficult for downstream U.S. producers to compete at home and abroad, this panel of experts will discuss various reforms that could reduce some of the purely punitive aspects of the current system. Moderator: Daniel Ikenson, Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato InstitutePanelists: Peggy Clarke, Esq., Blank Rome LLP and Adjunct Professor, Trade Remedies Law, George Washington University Law SchoolLewis Leibowitz, Esq., Hogan Lovells and Chairman, National Association of Foreign Trade ZonesMarguerite Trossevin, Esq., Jochum Shore & Trossevin, PC and Former Deputy Chief Counsel, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 6:30pm Reception Related Cato publications on Antidumping policy: Economic Self-Flagellation: How U.S. Antidumping Policy Subverts the National Export Initiative (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13134) – May 2011 Protection Made to Order: Domestic Industry's Capture and Reconfiguration of U.S. Antidumping Policy (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12651) – December 2010 All Quiet on the Antidumping Front? Take a Closer Look (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10665) – September 2006 Abuse of Discretion: Time to Fix the Administration of the U.S. Antidumping Law (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5110) – October 2005 Shell Games and Fortune Tellers: The Sun Doesn't Set at the Antidumping Circus (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10670) – June 2005 Nonmarket Nonsense: U.S. Antidumping Policy toward China (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6802) – March 2005 Poster Child for Reform: The Antidumping Case on Bedroom Furniture from China (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10676) – June 2004 Zeroing In: Antidumping's Flawed Methodology under Fire (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10677) – April 2004 "Byrdening" Relations: U.S. Trade Policies Continue to Flout the Rules (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10683) – January 2004 Reforming the Antidumping Agreement: A Road Map for WTO Negotiations (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3636) – December 2002 Antidumping 101: The Devilish Details of "Unfair Trade" Law (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3637) – November 2002 Coming Home to Roost: Proliferating Antidumping Laws and the Growing Threat to U.S. Exports (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3643) – July 2001
13 Views
20:30:00 06/28/11
Panel 2: Just Because It's Legal Doesn't Mean It's Right: Reining in Rough Justice at the Commerce Department
[LESS INFO] 13 VIEWS | ADDED 20:30:00 06/28/11
If the Obama administration and Congress are truly concerned about U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and increasing export opportunities, then antidumping policy must be reformed. Imports of raw materials, intermediate goods and capital equipment — products consumed by U.S. producers — account for the majority of U.S. import value. Meanwhile, those kinds of manufacturing inputs are subject to 4 out of every 5 antidumping measures imposed. The case is clear that current U.S. antidumping policy undermines U.S. manufacturing competitiveness at home and abroad, and reform is imperative. In light of the Obama administration's efforts to facilitate export growth and help improve U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, three panels of experts will discuss various features of U.S. antidumping law that undermine those objectives and offer proposals for reform. 2:30pm—3:00pm Registration 3:00pm—3:15pm Opening Remarks: Antidumping and U.S. Competitiveness: Something Has Got to Give Dan Ikenson, Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute 3:15pm—4:15pm Panel 1: An Ounce of Prevention: Limiting the Scope for Collateral Damage in the Early Stages of an Antidumping InvestigationLax standards for initiating antidumping investigations conspire with an asymmetric injury analysis that ignores the consequences of duties on consuming industries and the economy at large to produce externalized costs. Panelists will discuss the imperative of adding rigor to case initiation standards; granting legal standing to firms in consuming industries; requiring the results of an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of any prospective antidumping measures to be considered; and more. Moderator: Lewis Leibowitz, Esq., Hogan Lovells and Chairman, National Association of Foreign Trade Zones Panelists: Erik Autor, Vice President, International Trade Counsel, National Retail Federation Dr. J. Michael Finger, Trade Economist and Author, Former Lead Economist and Chief of the World Bank's Trade Policy Research Group Gary Horlick, Esq., Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, Former International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and Former Head of Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 4:15pm—4:30pm Break 4:30pm—5:30pm Panel 2: Just Because It's Legal Doesn't Mean It's Right: Reining in Rough Justice at the Commerce DepartmentImport Administration at the Commerce Department employs calculation procedures and methods that unequivocally inflate dumping margins, hence the rates of duty imposed. Some of those procedures serve no legitimate analytical purpose. Others can be conducted in manners that are less likely to produce skewed results. Panelists will discuss some of the more egregious methodological quirks and offer some commonsense solutions. Moderator: Gary Horlick, Esq., Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, Former International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and Former Head of Import Administration, U.S. Department of CommercePanelists: Robert La Frankie, Esq., Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Former Senior Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Import Administration. U.S. Department of CommerceMatt Nicely, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP and Adjunct Professor, "The U.S. Trade Regime," American University, Washington College of LawDaniel Porter, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP 5:30pm—6:30pm Panel 3: Containing the Spill: Meta-Reforms to Mitigate the Externalized Costs of AD MeasuresRecognizing that antidumping measures saddle other domestic interests with higher costs, stymie commerce by virtue of the uncertainty created about final duty liability, and make it more difficult for downstream U.S. producers to compete at home and abroad, this panel of experts will discuss various reforms that could reduce some of the purely punitive aspects of the current system. Moderator: Daniel Ikenson, Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato InstitutePanelists: Peggy Clarke, Esq., Blank Rome LLP and Adjunct Professor, Trade Remedies Law, George Washington University Law SchoolLewis Leibowitz, Esq., Hogan Lovells and Chairman, National Association of Foreign Trade ZonesMarguerite Trossevin, Esq., Jochum Shore & Trossevin, PC and Former Deputy Chief Counsel, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 6:30pm Reception Related Cato publications on Antidumping policy: Economic Self-Flagellation: How U.S. Antidumping Policy Subverts the National Export Initiative (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13134) – May 2011 Protection Made to Order: Domestic Industry's Capture and Reconfiguration of U.S. Antidumping Policy (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12651) – December 2010 All Quiet on the Antidumping Front? Take a Closer Look (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10665) – September 2006 Abuse of Discretion: Time to Fix the Administration of the U.S. Antidumping Law (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5110) – October 2005 Shell Games and Fortune Tellers: The Sun Doesn't Set at the Antidumping Circus (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10670) – June 2005 Nonmarket Nonsense: U.S. Antidumping Policy toward China (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6802) – March 2005 Poster Child for Reform: The Antidumping Case on Bedroom Furniture from China (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10676) – June 2004 Zeroing In: Antidumping's Flawed Methodology under Fire (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10677) – April 2004 "Byrdening" Relations: U.S. Trade Policies Continue to Flout the Rules (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10683) – January 2004 Reforming the Antidumping Agreement: A Road Map for WTO Negotiations (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3636) – December 2002 Antidumping 101: The Devilish Details of "Unfair Trade" Law (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3637) – November 2002 Coming Home to Roost: Proliferating Antidumping Laws and the Growing Threat to U.S. Exports (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3643) – July 2001
14 Views
19:00:00 06/28/11
Panel 1: An Ounce of Prevention: Limiting the Scope for Collateral Damage in the Early Stages of an Antidumping Investigation
[LESS INFO] 14 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:00 06/28/11
If the Obama administration and Congress are truly concerned about U.S. manufacturing competitiveness and increasing export opportunities, then antidumping policy must be reformed. Imports of raw materials, intermediate goods and capital equipment — products consumed by U.S. producers — account for the majority of U.S. import value. Meanwhile, those kinds of manufacturing inputs are subject to 4 out of every 5 antidumping measures imposed. The case is clear that current U.S. antidumping policy undermines U.S. manufacturing competitiveness at home and abroad, and reform is imperative. In light of the Obama administration's efforts to facilitate export growth and help improve U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, three panels of experts will discuss various features of U.S. antidumping law that undermine those objectives and offer proposals for reform. 2:30pm—3:00pm Registration 3:00pm—3:15pm Opening Remarks: Antidumping and U.S. Competitiveness: Something Has Got to Give Dan Ikenson, Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute 3:15pm—4:15pm Panel 1: An Ounce of Prevention: Limiting the Scope for Collateral Damage in the Early Stages of an Antidumping InvestigationLax standards for initiating antidumping investigations conspire with an asymmetric injury analysis that ignores the consequences of duties on consuming industries and the economy at large to produce externalized costs. Panelists will discuss the imperative of adding rigor to case initiation standards; granting legal standing to firms in consuming industries; requiring the results of an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of any prospective antidumping measures to be considered; and more. Moderator: Lewis Leibowitz, Esq., Hogan Lovells and Chairman, National Association of Foreign Trade Zones Panelists: Erik Autor, Vice President, International Trade Counsel, National Retail Federation Dr. J. Michael Finger, Trade Economist and Author, Former Lead Economist and Chief of the World Bank's Trade Policy Research Group Gary Horlick, Esq., Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, Former International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and Former Head of Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 4:15pm—4:30pm Break 4:30pm—5:30pm Panel 2: Just Because It's Legal Doesn't Mean It's Right: Reining in Rough Justice at the Commerce DepartmentImport Administration at the Commerce Department employs calculation procedures and methods that unequivocally inflate dumping margins, hence the rates of duty imposed. Some of those procedures serve no legitimate analytical purpose. Others can be conducted in manners that are less likely to produce skewed results. Panelists will discuss some of the more egregious methodological quirks and offer some commonsense solutions. Moderator: Gary Horlick, Esq., Law Offices of Gary N. Horlick, Former International Trade Counsel, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and Former Head of Import Administration, U.S. Department of CommercePanelists: Robert La Frankie, Esq., Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Former Senior Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Import Administration. U.S. Department of CommerceMatt Nicely, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP and Adjunct Professor, "The U.S. Trade Regime," American University, Washington College of LawDaniel Porter, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP 5:30pm—6:30pm Panel 3: Containing the Spill: Meta-Reforms to Mitigate the Externalized Costs of AD MeasuresRecognizing that antidumping measures saddle other domestic interests with higher costs, stymie commerce by virtue of the uncertainty created about final duty liability, and make it more difficult for downstream U.S. producers to compete at home and abroad, this panel of experts will discuss various reforms that could reduce some of the purely punitive aspects of the current system. Moderator: Daniel Ikenson, Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato InstitutePanelists: Peggy Clarke, Esq., Blank Rome LLP and Adjunct Professor, Trade Remedies Law, George Washington University Law SchoolLewis Leibowitz, Esq., Hogan Lovells and Chairman, National Association of Foreign Trade ZonesMarguerite Trossevin, Esq., Jochum Shore & Trossevin, PC and Former Deputy Chief Counsel, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 6:30pm Reception Related Cato publications on Antidumping policy: Economic Self-Flagellation: How U.S. Antidumping Policy Subverts the National Export Initiative (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13134) – May 2011 Protection Made to Order: Domestic Industry's Capture and Reconfiguration of U.S. Antidumping Policy (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12651) – December 2010 All Quiet on the Antidumping Front? Take a Closer Look (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10665) – September 2006 Abuse of Discretion: Time to Fix the Administration of the U.S. Antidumping Law (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5110) – October 2005 Shell Games and Fortune Tellers: The Sun Doesn't Set at the Antidumping Circus (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10670) – June 2005 Nonmarket Nonsense: U.S. Antidumping Policy toward China (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6802) – March 2005 Poster Child for Reform: The Antidumping Case on Bedroom Furniture from China (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10676) – June 2004 Zeroing In: Antidumping's Flawed Methodology under Fire (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10677) – April 2004 "Byrdening" Relations: U.S. Trade Policies Continue to Flout the Rules (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10683) – January 2004 Reforming the Antidumping Agreement: A Road Map for WTO Negotiations (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3636) – December 2002 Antidumping 101: The Devilish Details of "Unfair Trade" Law (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3637) – November 2002 Coming Home to Roost: Proliferating Antidumping Laws and the Growing Threat to U.S. Exports (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3643) – July 2001
2 Views
22:00:19 06/17/11
Richard Epstein On Barack Obama His Former Chicago Law Colleague
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:19 06/17/11
Few legal scholars have blown as many minds and had the tangible impact that Richard Epstein has managed. His 1985 volume, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain is a case in point. Epstein made the hugely controversial argument that regulations and other government actions such as environmental regulations that substantially limit the use of or decrease the value of property should be thought of as a form of eminent domain and thus strictly limited by the Constitution. The immediate result was a firestorm of outrage followed by an acknowledgment that the guy was onto something. As Epstein told Reason in a 1995 interview, "I took some pride in the fact that [Sen.] Joe Biden (D-Del.) held a copy of Takings up to a hapless Clarence Thomas back in 1991 and said that anyone who believes what's in this book is certifiably unqualified to sit in on the Supreme Court. That's a compliment of sorts.... But I took even more pride in the fact that, during the Breyer hearings [in 199X], there were no such theatrics, even as the nominee was constantly questioned on whether he agreed with the Epstein position on deregulation as if that position could not be held by responsible people." Born in New York in 1943, Epstein splits faculty appointments at the University of Chicago and New York University; he's also a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a contributor to Reason. In books such as Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (1992) to Simple Rules for a Complex World (1995), and Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism (2003), Epstein pushes his ideas and preconceptions to their limits and takes his readers along for the ride. A die-hard libertarian who believes the state should be limited and individual freedom expanded, he is nonetheless the consummate intellectual who first and foremost demands he offer up ironclad proofs for his characteristically counterintuitive insights into law and social theory. Indeed, Epstein's enduring value may not be any particular legal or policy prescription he's offered over the years but rather his methodology. He believes in robust and unfettered argument and debate as a way of gaining knowledge. If you don't put your ideas out in the arena, you can't be doing your best work, he argues. "The problem when you keep to yourself is you don't get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you," he says. Reason's Nick Gillespie interviewed Epstein at NYU's law building in October. The conversation was wide-ranging and high-energy--another Epsteinian virtue. They talked about legal challenges to ObamaCare, the effects of stimulus spending and TARP bailouts, and a former University of Chicago adjunct faculty member by the name of Barack Obama, with whom Epstein regularly interacted in the 1990s and early 2000s. "He passed through Chicago without absorbing much of the internal culture," says Epstein of the president. "He's amazingly good at playing intellectual poker. But that's a disadvantage, because if you don't put your ideas out there to be shot down, you're never gonna figure out what kind of revision you want." Filmed and edited by Jim Epstein with help from Michael C. Moynihan and Josh Swain. Approximately 12.30 minutes. Go to Reason.tv for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.
2 Views
20:00:00 05/02/11
Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 05/02/11
(http://www.cato.org/store/books/rehabilitating-lochner-defending-individual-rights-against-progressive-reform)No Supreme Court decision concerning economic liberty has been more emblematic of the alleged errors of the "old," pre-New Deal Court than Lochner v. New York, decided in 1905. Upholding contractual freedom against a New York statute that limited the hours that bakers might work, the decision has been reviled by both liberals and conservatives as an egregious example of judicial malfeasance — cited today most often for the prescient dissent of the sainted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Yet the story of Lochner is not over. In a new book that examines the history and background of the case, David Bernstein argues that the decision has been widely misunderstood and unfairly maligned, that it was well grounded in precedent, and that subsequent battles over segregation laws, sex discrimination, civil liberties, and more owe much to the limited-government ideas of Lochner's proponents. Please join us for what is bound to be a lively discussion about this important new book.
