@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 Sender: •••@••.••• (LARRY A BARTON) Subject: Re: cj#669> Giveaway programs The attached references clearly indicate the relevance of government in the (ongoing) development of new technologies that eventually gets into the hands of the private sector -at less than bargain prices- that in turns sells it back to the original "investors", i.e., taxpayers, who find themselves as consumers only and not owners. Are there any organized lobbying efforts that aim to affect the process (government giveaway)so as to ensure that "royalties" are set in place that feed back to the public coffers for the research and development expenditures that lead to the innovations? LAB ~--<snip>--~ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 Sender: Frank Scott <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#672> re: corporations, nations, warfare The Report from Iron Mountain was a hoax, and it apparently surprised its writer(s), who may not have realized how close to the truth they were. Sorry I can't give a source, but I think it may have been, most recently, a piece in The Nation that quoted at least one of the writers and gave background on the original publication. I never read it, but certainly have heard of it. Quite a few people from what could be called the right, or at least libertarian conservativism, have picked up on it in recent years. Just shows that most of us are upset about the same things, even if we attribute them to different forces and sources. But truth is stranger than fiction, though perhaps not as entertaining at times. fs @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 Sender: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#672> re: corporations, nations, warfare Report From Iron Mountain was written as a satire (?). The author has recently rereleased the publication with a disclaimer in the Intro. Still a mind opener. Joshua2 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 Sender: Nick Treanor <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: cj#670> MAI - yet another brick in the wall Further to your timely notice of the MAI problem, a citizens for democracy group in Boston is sponsoring a conference next Saturday, May 31, to get the word out about MAI and to study its possible effects. Here is a portion of that group's press release, sent out yesterday. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 From: •••@••.••• (David G Adams) Subject: For immediate release: Local alliances organize MAI teach-in ~--<snip>--~ Will International Business Over-ride Laws Passed by our Elected Governments? At a time when more responsibility is being shifted to state and local government to deal with social needs, new laws are being drafted at the international level which will restrict the power of state and local government to affect economic development, environmental or labor standards, and the retention of domestic industries. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, being prepared by O.E.C.D. (The European-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with the United States, is designed to make it easier for corporations and big investors to expand their operations into new locales by overriding many federal, state, and local requirements. MAI as it stands would jeopardize the Community Reinvestment Act, which prevents redlining by banks, as well as programs in cities like Baltimore which require a living wage be paid by any company with a city contract, minority hiring requirements, plant closing requirements, development funds for local business or these owned by women or minorities, requirements for job creation or retention when tax breaks or other subsidies are given, and human rights laws such as the Massachusetts Burma law which restricts the state from doing business with companies based in countries with gross violations of human rights, and more. The draft document more thoroughly eliminates national and local regulations. MAI could be, in short, a devastating assault on the right of local self determination. Although MAI could have come to Congress as early as this fall, it has not yet been released to the public. It has been drafted virtually in secret over the last two years and has had almost no coverage in the press. Multilateral agreements like NAFTA and GATT, which removed trade barriers and allowed the free importation of goods from low-wage countries with few environmental standards, have resulted in the loss of many good jobs in US and-- in the interest of remaining "competitive"--a race to the bottom of low wages and low environmental standards. MAI is the latest in that tradition and perhaps the most critical, because it goes beyond NAFTA and GATT in establishing--for the first time--the right of powerful, multinational corporations to sue and collect compensation from local communities that exercise various kinds of control on investment behavior. Local and national governments would have no right to sue corporations on behalf of their people. MAI proponents say the agreement will put the US in a stronger position to attract investment, build new facilities, and compete in the global marketplace. Opponents see it as an assault on community rule and the democratic process, an agreement that will reduce wages and lower environmental standards while giving much more power to large multinationals. It is clear that any agreement with such a massive impact on local authority deserves adequate time for presentation and debate. Our goal is to start a national debate. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From: •••@••.••• To: •••@••.••• Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 Subject: re: Tilting against the academic windmills Dear Richard, I am a recently retired professor of psychology and have lived in the windmill for a very long time. Your advice to Ms. Liao was right on the money, in my opinion. In her reply to you, she said two things which prompt my comments: >An academic, too often, sees "his part" of the tree as >something to be defended - his ego is identified with its preservation. The classic treatise on scientific revolutions concludes that paradigms shift primarily when older theorists die off. That is the ultimate expression of the "clinging to one's pet ideas" referred to by Ms. Liao. >Things often turn into their opposites (I forget the generic word for >this phenomenon). Thus regulatory agencies, instead of curbing corporate >power, become the vehicles for extending corporate power. Or a goverment, >set up to represent the people, ends up suppressing people. The term is "DoubleThink" or "DoubleSpeak" in which the Ministry of Plenty is in charge of rationing, the Ministry of Love operates the prisons and interrogation mechanisms, and the Ministry of Truth is in charge of revising history to justify the policy of the moment. Wouldn't that make a great book? Regards -- Chuck Hallenbeck N0MQP & Dash: Back Home Again In Thunder Country "A Mighty Shepherd Is My Dog" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Share: