------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Topic Date: Tue Mar 26 15:16:21 CST 1996 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: unavailable Corporations, legal people that affect our lives in many ways. Subjet of scorn and adulation, product of lawyers. This is the base to rant and rave about 'em. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: American Corporations Date: Tue Mar 26 15:19:41 CST 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: unavailable It's pretty apparent that American corporations strive for short-term profits, as they're legally bound to maximize shareholder profits. But that's pretty unique; in the rest of the world, corporations are structured differently. Care to take a shot as to what those differences are? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Thu Mar 28 12:02:58 CST 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: 2 DR> It's pretty apparent that American corporations strive for short-term DR> profits, as they're legally bound to maximize shareholder profits. But that DR> pretty unique; in the rest of the world, corporations are structured DR> differently. DR> DR> Care to take a shot as to what those differences are? Review: "When Corporations Rule the World," by David Korten Our Immoral World Order, or A World Full of Suckers By Charles J. Reid The concentration of wealth may be a fact of life, but it just doesn't seem right when 358 billionaires in the world can enjoy a combined net worth of $760 billion, which is more than the combined net worth of the poorest 2.5 billion of the world's people. And the wealthiest Americans are right in there with them. According to Forbes Magazine, in 1993 the four hundred richest Americans had a combined wealth of $328 billion -- more than the combined 1991 gross national products shared by one billion people living in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. The principle of economic justice suggests that societies founded on some sense of human morality enable all their members -- present and future -- to have access to those things that are essential for a healthy, secure, productive, and fulfilling life. A reasonable person would conclude that a system that perpetuates gross economic injustice is essentially immoral. The numbers speak for themselves. The facts are documented. By any measure, we live in an unacceptably immoral world. What makes it worse is that we have allowed organizations to operate irrespective of human will, responsibility, or accountability. People are caught up in systems they can no longer control. In his book, "When Corporations Rule the World" (Kumarian Press, 1995), David Korten explains why. He shows how, in this era of economic globalization, we have allowed our non-military economic institutions to do more harm to more people than any previous period in human history. Only now, in the 90s with all the talk of the disappearing "American Dream," are younger Americans beginning to feel what it's like. There are relationships between seemingly unrelated events. Korten explains how corporate downsizing, the Orange County bankruptcy, the fall of the Barings Bank, the Mexican bailout, Third-World misery, and the essential decline of American living standards are all linked to the legal status of corporations, the decline of nation-state power, the corruption of democracy, the values of the international financial system, and the removal of the interests of people in communities from being the central objective and beneficiary of economic institutions and activity. He explains how NAFTA, GATT, and the World Trade Organization pose a threat to much more than local American interests. He also shows how the IMF and World Bank policies have enabled a few hundred people to accumulate so much wealth that the global economic system is both out of control and an essential threat to the well being of the majority of the world's people. For anyone even remotely interested in how recent economic upheavals are connected, and what the future may look like, Korten's book is a must read. "When Corporations Rule the World" is a tour de force, a medley, of analyses that explain the interconnection of seemingly isolated events. The author provides a context for interpreting events. An easy interpretation for me is that we live in a world full of suckers -- suckers like the Indians who sold Manhattan Island for a box full of brass bobbles, shell-game suckers at a circus, or con-men marks. Expert economists reading Korten's book may have their assumptions challenged. Supply-siders, monetarists, and business magazine journalists probably all accept the hypotheses of Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" and of classical economists. The theory says economic activity is motivated by rational self-interest; competition promotes enhanced productivity and innovation; the law of supply and demand, along with the "invisible hand", will serve to promote the general welfare in society. Korten debunks all this. Indeed, Adam Smith lived in a different world. When he wrote, there were many small producers and owners of capital directly involved in the management of their enterprises. In those days, there might have been true competitions, free markets, and rational human choice. In our world, where the top 1000 American corporations account for 60 percent of the GNP (the balance goes to 11 million smaller businesses), managers do not own their companies. They have one mission: to increase their companies' profitability, irrespective of the human consequences, or even the wills of socially responsible, rational managers. Their strategy is to stop competition and control markets. Korten points out that monopolies dominate many key industries. Consolidation, buyouts, collusion and cooperation -- a.k.a. "competitive realignment," "business partnerships," and alliances -- have replaced direct competition. Plus, internal company transactions accounting for a sizable portion of goods and services exchanged don't take place in the marketplace. The absence of human control makes rational choice impossible. For the ideologues, Korten even points out that Corporations are feudalistic, authoritarian, centrally planned entities. This beings me to a trivia question: what is the 76th largest, centrally planned productive entity in the world? Cuba! The first 75 are all corporations. Managers, small investors, workers, and citizens in communities where corporate entities are located will be shocked to learn that key economic decisions are made by computer software manipulating mathematical equations. There are almost $12 trillion! of derivative contracts currently outstanding that were purchased on margin. They generate hundreds of millions of dollars of financial exposure, a lot of which is insured by taxpayers. They are controlled by computer programs. Clearly, too many people are victims of the delusion that the system works for them. As the citizens of Orange County recently discovered, and as we learned through the S&L crisis and the Mexican bailout, taxpayers are certainly the true suckers of the century. Meanwhile, the billionaires are laughing at the plebians all the way to the bank. Stakeholders in the production process require stability in the financial markets to make rational decisions. They need access to reliable sources of investment funds at stable exchange and interest rates. They need people to buy their products. But now with the globalization of the economy, risk creation has overrun financial markets for speculators and risk insurers, who thrive on the presence of instability. Korten writes that there is essentially no accountability. The insiders are greatly tempted to scam the system, and the real losers ended up being the small investors, who continually feed it money. Meanwhile more and more people around the world have less and less money to purchase the good and services to satisfy their basic human needs. For ordinary citizens and consumers around the world, the future seems bleak. The sucking sound of wealth moving from the work of billions to the pockets of billionaires continues. One goal would be to regain control of the economic system by placing the interests of people at the center of economic activity. Concluding his book, Korten outlines what has to be done. On the high road, he calls for economic justice, and the recognition of the sovereign right of the people in civil society to decide what uses of capital will best serve there interests. He also supports a localized economic system where responsibility and accountability are a major factor in economic activity. As for concrete policies, Korten calls for stronger anti-trust legislation, an end to tax deductions for advertising, a financial transactions tax, tight regulation of financial derivatives, and preferential treatment for community banks, among many other things. Perhaps the highest compliment Korten's book deserves is that it is clearly written and easy to understand. It is a magnificent, well- documented effort. The facts fit the argument. But the ultimate question is, Will it make a difference? Or, Will us suckers wise up? (Charles Reid is a free lance writer living in Santa Cruz, CA.) ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 For more info, e-mail accounts@nyxfer.blythe.org, or http://ursula.blythe.org/NY-Transfer/ ================================================================= -!- ! Origin: helix.uucp =FidoNet/Internet= Seattle 206.783.6368 (1:343/70) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Fri Mar 29 15:24:04 CST 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: 2 DR> It's pretty apparent that American corporations strive for short-term DR> profits, as they're legally bound to maximize shareholder profits. But that DR> pretty unique; in the rest of the world, corporations are structured DR> differently. Not necessaily. GM and a fair amount of other do pretty much live in the moment, but since the American economy is 'sorta' firming up, a few corps have started making long-term plans. Which brings me to the fundamental difference between American and foreign corps. We tend to play it fast and loose here, but Matsushita has business plans for the next 20 years ahead of time. Of course, part of that is because of the nature of Japanese law and the way the different keiretsu organize(anti-trust laws are almost nonexistant and corps have bribed enough people that it doesn't matter anyway). But that's another discussion. Ummm...that's the biggest difference I can think of. Another one might be more careful planning, even in the short term, on the part of foreign corps. Rarely do we hear about tons of layoffs in Europe or Asia, because they can gauge quite accurately how much demand will really increase(which, I might add, is better support for demand-side economics than anything else) and increase production accordingly. Because their return on the investment is so high, more often than not they'll just keep the few new workers on, even if it's not profitable - if not out of a sense of gratitude for making them a pile of money, then out of more stringent adherance to social customs of being nice to someone who's done something for you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: Daed Subject: this base Date: Fri Mar 29 15:28:44 CST 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: unavailable By the way, a big argument got started about this topic on another board; I'll download the archive and post it here. It also involves Noam Chomsky, who got brought in somehow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Briareos Hecatonchires Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Sun Mar 31 07:22:15 CST 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 4 DR> It's pretty apparent that American corporations strive for short-term DR> profits, as they're legally bound to maximize shareholder profits. But that DR> pretty unique; in the rest of the world, corporations are structured DR> differently. BH> Not necessaily. GM and a fair amount of other do pretty much live in BH> moment, but since the American economy is 'sorta' firming up, a few corps h BH> started making long-term plans. Long-term plans ... 5 years down the road? :) In general, American corporations don't look more than a couple years ahead. Their main purpose is to maximize shareholder returns in the short term. If they cannot or will not do this, they are in breach of heir feduciary responsibilities and will probably be removed from power. But how is it different in Europe? BH> of the nature of Japanese law and the way the different keiretsu BH> organize(anti-trust laws are almost nonexistant and corps have bribed enoug BH> people that it doesn't matter anyway). But that's another discussion. Tht's part of it, I think. BH> more careful planning, even in the short term, on the part of foreign corps BH> Rarely do we hear about tons of layoffs in Europe or Asia, because they can BH> gauge quite accurately how much demand will really increase(which, I might BH> add, is better support for demand-side economics than anything else) and BH> increase production accordingly. But that really doesn't address the question of why they do this. You're saying what they do, but not why. The main difference, I think, is in how the corporations and boards of directors are structured (according to law). Sort of short on time, I'll flesh out the details next time I scan the messages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Sun Mar 31 15:53:32 CST 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: 6 DR> Long-term plans ... 5 years down the road? :) Naughty naughty DR. We all know they don't work that way. DR> But how is it different in Europe? Hmmm...are the European banks structured any differently than ours? As far as I know, in Europe, corps try* not to "corner the market" on something, because the extreme left-wingers(i.e. socialists, communists, etc.) are a lot more present in the political environment. Getting a monopoly will give those groups lots of ammunition, which is contrary to corp interests. DR> Tht's part of it, I think. It's most of it in my opinion. If you've ever read _Rising Sun_ by Michael Chrichton, he details some of the way stuff works in Japan pretty well. When an industry has a large startup cost, pretty much the first corp to get their claws into it in Japan will own the market for a very long time. Each keiretsu(business group) is so large and encompasses so many companies that quashing any opposition is easy. BH> Rarely do we hear about tons of layoffs in Europe or Asia, because they can DR> But that really doesn't address the question of why they do this. You're DR> saying what they do, but not why. The main difference, I think, is in how t DR> corporations and boards of directors are structured (according to law). Part of it is probably out of a sense of a sense of traditional Confucian values. Confucius believed very stongly that when someone serves you, you are indebted to them and have a responsibility for their well-being. Another part of it may be that in a lot of Asian countries, the atmosphere is almost clubby; sometimes that's because of race(they care for "their kind"), sometimes it's because of religion, sometimes it's because of economic status, and sometimes, people just are* that way. When Corp X dumps on a lot of their workers, Corp X's reputation goes down the tubes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Briareos Hecatonchires Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Mon Apr 01 09:28:41 CST 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: 7 DR> But how is it different in Europe? BH> Hmmm...are the European banks structured any differently than ours? Not that I know of, except that they're more overt in how the government controls the banking system (national banks). BH> As far as I know, in Europe, corps try* not to "corner the market" on BH> something because the extreme left-wingers(i.e. socialists, communists, BH> etc.) are a l more present in the political environment. Getting a BH> monopoly will give the groups lots of ammunition, which is contrary to BH> corp interests. Actually, the Europeans have a whole different philosophy when it comes to regulating monopolies. They don't generally mind monopolies, so long as they're not in critical industries (food, medicine). They usually measure this via the steepness of the market's demand curve, or how demand-responsive the product is compared to its price. Monopolies aren't necessarily bad; the cost of the products can go down (economies of scale). The problem is, in America, unregulated monopolies can screw the public over if they're in the wrong industry ... or else just buy the regulators off. BH> well. When an industry has a large startup cost, pretty much the first cor BH> to get their claws into it in Japan will own the market for a very long tim BH> Each keiretsu(business group) is so large and encompasses so many companies BH> that quashing any opposition is easy. BH> Part of it is probably out of a sense of a sense of traditional Confuci BH> values. Confucius believed very stongly that when someone serves you, you BH> indebted to them and have a responsibility for their well-being. Perhaps, but it's a singular American philosophy that makes our corporations so different. Hell, an American manager who has a PhD in business management probably couldn't get a job in Europe as a janitor ... the businesses are structured so differently. How are they different? Well, first off, neither the government, banks or major competitors can own stock in a corporation (no other country in the world has the same restrictive laws). Secondly, in most other countries the Corporate Board of Directors of all large companies has to include representaives from labor, government, banks that loan money to the corporation, major competitors, suppliers, etc. While each country is different, the main point is that when a corporation gets to be a certain size, it becomes important not only to the stockholders but to the society in which it operates. When there are representatives of labor on the Board, there are fewer labor disputes (communication and compromise). When there are reps from banks and major competitors, there's better communication and less antagonism. And when the government is on the Board there's less need for environmental laws, penny-ante business regulations and labor laws. Not only do these groups have a seat on the Board, they can also buy stock to expand their position. European countries, even the most "socialist" ones, usually do less micro-managing of their businesses via lawmaking. The problems are usually dealt with before they happen. Also, there's a long-term perspeitive for the corporation; workers want to keep working, suppliers want to keep supplying, banks want to get their loans repaid. If a "corporate raider" comes along, he's laughed out of the office. In short, most members of the Board don't give a shit what the price of their stock is ... they just care if the company's going to be viable in 20 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Mon Apr 01 16:49:14 CST 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: 8 DR> Not that I know of, except that they're more overt in how the government DR> controls the banking system (national banks). So in effect, the gov't more or less could "create" money if it really needed to? It's totally unrelated to this topic, but I* think it's interesting. DR> regulating monopolies. They don't generally mind monopolies, so long as DR> they're not in critical industries (food, medicine). They usually measure t DR> via the steepness of the market's demand curve, or how demand-responsive th DR> product is compared to its price. Hmm...could part of that be because a monopoly there is usually in a long-established producted? For instance, Porsche makes really good cars; cars have been around for about 100 years or so, so if Porsche got itself a monopoly in Europe, they wouldn't care because to do that, they'd have to make better cars? Did I make any sense? If that's the case, then they might be in for a rude awakenening come the computer age. Everything about it is so fast and loose that it screws up "traditional industry". Look what happened in the 80's with industrial, computer-controlled robots. They took over a fair amount of the assembly-line jobs, leaving thousands out of work. I don't know how much Europe is mechanized(roboticized?), but when we start seeing intelligent functions capable of doing office work for the boss or service jobs(yes, I know people might prefer to deal with a human sales clerk; if the programs get cheap enough though, clerks might become a thing only for rich-clientele stores), things will get shaken up even more. Hmmm...this is becoming another discussion. Maybe a separate response under something like "21st centurt corps"? You kinda detailed all of the differences between American and European corps, and I explain about half of Japanese ones, so what's left? DR> screw the public over if they're in the wrong industry ... or else just buy What's a "wrong" industry? DR> screw the public over if they're in the wrong industry ... or else just buy DR> the regulators off. This reminds me of a quote from PJ O'Rourke: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are the legislators." DR> each country is different, the main point is that when a corporation gets t DR> be a certain size, it becomes important not only to the stockholders but to DR> the society in which it operates. And we don't* do this in America?! What kind of idiocy is that? Doesn't anyone realize what would happen if The Prudential Group went under? Microsoft? GE? The result would be economic collapse, and not just in America. DR> he's laughed out of the office. In short, most members of the Board don't g DR> a shit what the price of their stock is ... they just care if the company's DR> going to be viable in 20 years. Mr. Biafra would love it there; they're more concerned(barring roboticizing) about keeping people at their jobs than rakin' in the dough. That attitude is also the way things are done in Japan, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Briareos Hecatonchires Subject: Re: American Corporations Date: Sun Apr 07 22:08:17 CDT 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 9 DR> Not that I know of, except that they're more overt in how the government DR> controls the banking system (national banks). BH> So in effect, the gov't more or less could "create" money if it really BH> needed to? It's totally unrelated to this topic, but I* think it's BH> interesting. Not too many governments *don't* have control over their money supply. We in the United States just do it all indirectly, and ostensibly have some private bank control over the process. But basically it's all up to the Federal Reserve board, Alan Greenspan and Clinton's Treasury Department. DR> regulating monopolies. They don't generally mind monopolies, so long as DR> they're not in critical industries (food, medicine). They usually measure t DR> via the steepness of the market's demand curve, or how demand-responsive th DR> product is compared to its price. BH> Hmm...could part of that be because a monopoly there is usually in a BH> long-established producted? For instance, Porsche makes really good cars; BH> cars have been around for about 100 years or so, so if Porsche got itself a BH> monopoly in Europe, they wouldn't care because to do that, they'd have to BH> better cars? Did I make any sense? Sorry, no ... BH> might prefer to deal with a human sales clerk; if the programs get cheap BH> enough though, clerks might become a thing only for rich-clientele stores), BH> things will get shaken up even more. Unskilled workers will become less uesful as the technology improves. We can either let the productivity increases work for all the people, or work for the people who design the machines. BH> You kinda detailed all of the differences between American and European BH> corps, and I explain about half of Japanese ones, so what's left? The differences apply to both European and Japanese corporations ... they're more similar to each other than they are to American corps. We're in a class to ourselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TBOB To: All Subject: wealth Date: Wed Apr 10 07:54:43 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: unavailable the enlightened self interest of Hanry Ford in paying his workers five dollars a day so they could afford to buy his cars; this kind of thinking ought to be taking better care of world capitalism than it is. The children who are tied to work stations in China/India aren't going to buy much stuff, and buying stuff has had the rich nations on a roll for decades. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Tbob Subject: Re: wealth Date: Wed Apr 17 17:06:24 CDT 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 T> the enlightened self interest of Hanry Ford in paying his workers T> five dollars a day so they could afford to buy his cars; this kind T> of thinking ought to be taking better care of world capitalism T> than it is. The children who are tied to work stations in China/India T> aren't going to buy much stuff, and buying stuff has had the rich nations on T> a roll for decades. If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were an evil Keynsian/Marxist utopian socialist. I don't know why you're so concerned about people being able to buy the products they make. After all, the workers at MacDonald Douglas can't afford their own M-16s. Why should workers at McDonald's be paid well enough to buy their own burger? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: wealth Date: Wed Apr 17 17:19:31 CDT 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: 12 DR> I don't know why you're so concerned about people being able to buy the DR> products they make. After all, the workers at MacDonald Douglas can't affor DR> their own M-16s. Why should workers at McDonald's be paid well enough to bu DR> their own burger? Ahhh, but the workers at MacDonald Douglas *do* pay for their owm M-16s. Out of their taxes. But they aren't allowed to take them home. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TBOB To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: wealth Date: Wed Apr 17 19:05:41 CDT 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 12 DR> If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were an evil Keynsian/Marxist DR> utopian socialist. I'm not that smart -- just evil. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: A little History Date: Sun May 12 11:11:43 CDT 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: unavailable What follows are a series of highlights from a Chomsky interview =============================================== Are the interests of corporations at odds with full-blown democracy? Is it the aim of corporations to control and even undermine democracy? Noam Chomsky answers yes to both questions. He points out that early this century the public relations industry was established at the very time that corporations reached their current form. The PR industry was created, says Chomsky, in order to ``gain control of the public mind`` (borrowing one of the phrases that were actually used in corporate circles at the time). Industrialists realized that unrestrained democracy could pose a major threat to their private tyrannies; their attempt to control democracy could not be allowed to fail. Thus the necessity of a huge public relations industry and massive propaganda campaigns, to sell the corporate- industrialist version of ``Americanism.`` For many years the main purpose of the corporate-industrialist propaganda mill was simply to resist and contain human rights and the whole welfare state framework (i.e. the social contract), that had developed over the years. However, beginning in the 1980s, the corporate-industrial barons saw a golden opportunity: to actually begin to roll it back---to unravel the very social contract which had slowly come into being, as a result of a century and a half of popular struggle. =============================================== The U.S. has always been a bastion of protectionism. That`s one big reason why we`re such a rich and powerful country. Free-market policies are always a disaster for a country. Any country that is subjected to them gets smashed, economically. This is an important reason why the Third World looks like it does today; ``free markets`` have been imposed on them from without. =============================================== Thomas Jefferson saw state capitalism (the corporate-industrial state) coming, and he despised what he saw in store for us. He said if it wasn`t stopped it would surely lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one our forefathers defended themselves against. =============================================== Young girls newly coerced into the Lowell mills, in New England, continued to read contemporary literature and philosophy in the very little leisure time they still had. They fully recognized that the point of the system around them was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, and kicked around. They resisted this bitterly for quite some time. Ultimately they were defeated. =============================================== Originally corporations existed as a form of public service. People would come together to build a bridge, say. They would arrange to become incorporated, by the state, for that purpose. They built the bridge, and when it was finished, that was the end of that particular incorporation. But then there came the period of trusts and the beginning of major efforts, on the part of a few, to consolidate economic and political power over the rest of us. At first the courts would not tolerate these efforts. But by the early twentieth century a new socioeconomic system, designed by the powerful, had been eased into place. New Jersey was the first state to grant corporations virtually any legal right they needed. The result? All the capital in the country began to flow to New Jersey. Other states were quickly forced to follow New Jersey`s lead. Courts and lawyers ended up being complicitous in the formation of these privately based tyrannies that were, collectively, far more massive and compelling, in many ways, than state tyranny ever was. Both Adam Smith and Tom Jefferson would turn over in their graves if they could somehow know what finally happened. =============================================== The Republican plan today: to take government power and money from the federal level to the state and local level. Why? The real reason is so that large business interests can once again play one state off against the other, without having to worry about the financial clout of a federal government that is somehow above them. With the fed out of the picture, states whose governments give corporations the best tax breaks will be given business investments. States that are slow to catch on to the new political economic arrangement will be denied investment capital, and major industry, until they capitulate. =============================================== Indonesia has been a great favorite of Western capitalists ever since 1965 when a the systematic massacre of half a million people took place, to prepare the way for big time Western investment. Indonesia, a very rich country in terms of natural resources, could then be viewed as a huge, golden opportunity by investors. After labor organizing efforts had been beaten into oblivion, their leaders jailed, wages fell to half the level of China`s. The time for celebration among the world`s foreign investors had begun. Upshot: the World Court will soon decide whether a country favored by the West should be allowed, by other nations, to massacre indigenous people in preparation for foreign investment. On January 30, 1995 the _London Financial Times_ described this case as one of the most important court trials ever to take place. Why? Because it would establish the limits and the guidelines for the future commercial exploitation of conquered peoples. =============================================== A huge effort is made to make people ``as stupid and ignorant as it`s possible for a human being to be`` (to borrow a phrase from Adam Smith). A good part of our educational system seems to be designed with this precept in mind. It`s designed to instill obedience and passivity and to prevent ``excessive`` numbers of people from being independent and creative. ``Schooling,`` as it`s called, followed by healthy and continuing dosages of corporate propaganda (via corporately sponsored television narcosis and the ideologically-based distortions thereby implanted), serves to prepare people for their dedicated lifetime place on the great hyperconsumption/hyperproduction treadmill . . which squanders our resources and destroys our environment . . as it claims our very souls. =============================================== Let`s face facts: The Federal Reserve _fears_ excessive economic growth and excessive levels of employment. Therefore steps _must_ be taken to prevent too much economic growth and too much employment. (Too much of it simply isn`t good for that class of people who derive a substantial part of their immense incomes from the ownership and trading of bonds.) =============================================== The recent Mexican bailout by the U.S. is nothing more than part of a gigantic Ponzi scheme: You borrow money; you use what you`ve borrowed to borrow more money, and finally the whole thing collapses because there`s nothing of real economic worth behind your actions. Take Mexico: Their free market reform, the so-called ``privatization`` which Wall Street says is such a wonderful thing, simply means that the public assets of the country are being given away, for pennies on the dollar, to the rich cronies of the current President of the country. Result: between 1989 and 1993 the number of billionaires in `poor` Mexico rose from 1 to 24. Meanwhile, the number of Mexicans living below the poverty line increased proportionately, as wages fell by half, over the same period. The main purpose of NAFTA, then, was to destroy the Mexican economy---by opening up the country to imports vastly cheaper than what could be produced locally. The idea was to totally wipe out mid-level Mexican business enterprises so as to prepare a superabundance of dirt cheap labor for the multinationals. What was accomplished with bullets and bombs in Indonesia, was done with NAFTA in Mexico. The huge Mexican profits which resulted were then promptly invested in safe havens elsewhere in the world, not in Mexico for the benefit of Mexicans. As Mexican specialist and conservative Wall Street investment advisor Christopher Whalen (and countless others) have remarked, the Mexican bailout was mainly a means of bailing out Treasury Secretary Rubin and his friends at Goldman Sachs. It was simply one more clever scheme to get dumb American taxpayers to pay off their super-rich cousins who sit pretty, among the top one or two percent of income receivers. Mexico had a huge debt on which they were about to default. But the banks didn`t want to take the hit. So basically the debt was simply ``socialized,`` which is to say that through taxes it was spread out among us all. =============================================== Isn`t it interesting that the Poles have voted back into power all their old communist leaders, and yet the story has barely been mentioned in the mainstream U.S. press? About half the population of Poland said they were way better of when they lived under communism. No doubt the same thing is true in Russia. No wonder Boris Yeltsin is slipping off into a boozy stupor so frequently---he knows his days are numbered. =============================================== As industrialized nations go, the U.S. has an unusually violent labor history. As a result, American workers didn`t get the kind of rights that European workers had until the mid 1930s. (The Europeans had had such rights for 50 years.) No wonder the Europeans had such a very hard time comprehending the way American workers were treated in the 1920s and early 30s. And then, when American workers finally got some rights, the U.S. business community went into total hysteria. They were soon investing billions of dollars into a massive propaganda program, called ``economic education,`` in the ``battle for workers` minds.`` Workers in large plants were pressured into attend special lectures and films. For awhile the films were reaching 20 million people every week. But in spite of this Herculean effort, the U.S. was very much a kind of social democratic country by the end of WWII. Opinion polls showed that almost half the work force believed they`d do better if it was the government that owned the factories, rather than the corporations. Unions in the late 1940s were calling for the right of workers to intervene in management decision-making and thereby claim the right to help control their plants. In other words, they wanted to democratize the industrial system, as happened in places like Germany after the war. But this was an absolutely horrifying prospect for affluent business leaders, who certainly didn`t want to share their wealth, privilege and power with any more folks than absolutely necessary. For this reason the propaganda ploy of a ``communist menace`` was born. The Soviet Union was conveniently turned into a demonic enemy and the propaganda mills of the U.S. public relations industry dutifully kicked into high gear---to preserve the strangle-hold that our ownership class had on the rest of us. =============================================== While Norway preserved its fishing grounds with strict government regulations, Republicans in the U.S. announced their plan to remove all regulatory apparatus. Result: The great Georges Bank, off the coast of New England, once the richest fishing ground in the world, was soon exhausted. Today New Englanders must humbly import cod from Norway. Which is a little like Australians having eventually to import kangaroos from, say, Turkey. =============================================== In the 1950s, the U.S. government, working in collusion with several giant corporations, took it upon themselves to carry out the biggest social engineering project in history. There was, of course, no mandate from the American people---the massive social engineering project was simply _done_. Billions of dollars were poured into the task of destroying the country`s electrically powered transit system, to clear the way for the millions upon millions of cars, airplanes and diesel burning busses which corporate barons knew they could then manufacture and sell. As a result of this completely unmandated experiment, the country changed enormously. We ended up with thousands upon thousands of shopping malls in suburbia, as many automobiles as there were people, badly polluted air, and unending psychological wreckage in the inner cities, and a protective ozone layer dangerously thinned out by the CFCs from millions upon millions of junked automobile air conditioning systems. On top of this we ended up working one day out of every five just to pay for the maintenance of our automobiles, freeways, auto insurance companies, and parking lots---not to mention the hospital bills for the hundred thousand people a year who are injured and maimed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: All Subject: Chomsky Highlights Date: Wed May 29 19:20:33 CDT 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: unavailable That Chomsky highlights file was muy cool. Thanks for grabbing it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: Caller ID in California Date: Sat Jun 01 17:14:10 CDT 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: unavailable From the: PRIVACY Forum Digest Saturday, 1 June 1996 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 96 11:09 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: Caller-ID implementation delayed in California Today (June 1, 1996) was scheduled to be the activation day for Calling Number Identification (CNID) services for California telephone subscribers, on all intra and interstate calls. The June 1 date was the result of a six month extension granted to give the local telcos time to comply with California PUC (CPUC) subscriber notification and education requirements regarding availability of CNID blocking options. This date has now apparently been pushed back to July 1, at the request of the largest local telco in the state, Pacific Bell. The volume of written and called-in requests for free per-line ("complete") CNID blocking (which prevents numbers being sent on all calls *unless* an unblocking code is dialed) have completely overwhelmed all of the local telephone companies. The delay is to give the telcos time to catch up on processing of the requests. Anecdotal evidence indeed suggests that a vast number of persons have requested complete blocking. Request lines are busy for long periods, attempts to call the "is my line really blocked" test numbers frequently result in "all circuits busy" intercepts for long periods, and the representatives themselves speak openly about being completely swamped with callers who want blocking. Part of the reason for the outpouring of requests is undoubtedly the CPUC mandated advertisements and radio/television commercials, and multiple telco mailings, which have been widely disseminating the information that calls from unblocked lines, including those from unlisted/non-published numbers, will be passing number information. Presumably there are still many persons oblivious to these events, but the public awareness of the issues seems to be quite high for such a relatively technical matter. Pacific Telephone continues to predict that about 8% of their subscribers will elect to subscribe to CNID delivery services with a few months of availability, rising to between 8% and 15% within a relatively brief period. Whether these predictions will hold true in the face of apparently very large selection of complete blocking remains to be seen. No figures on numbers or percentages of subscribers electing complete blocking have been made available yet. A few reminders concerning CNID blocking for California subscribers. Whether or not you have chosen complete blocking, it is an *extremely* good idea to call the telco provided special test number (you should have received it in mailings by now) to verify your line(s) status. In a small sampling of lines I tested myself, I found about 15% to be set to the incorrect blocking mode, even though the correct mode had been ordered. If you find a line that is blocked or not blocked inappropriately, you should re-order the correct blocking as soon as possible. Even though CNID doesn't officially start in California until July, it is quite probable that some numbers are already going out (particularly on interstate calls) due to switch misconfigurations. Also, remember that on some calls your number will always be available, regardless of your blocking mode. These include 911 (naturally), calls to operators, and 800, 888, and 900 calls (these toll free and extra-charge calls use a different system for number identification, which is not subject to CNID blocking). In the case of 800 and 888 "toll-free" calls the issues of calling number privacy are somewhat complex. Since these are essentially "collect" calls, the parties receiving them need some way to track usage and particularly abuse of their numbers. Recent laws place restrictions on the release of number information obtained from 800/888 calls, but this is certainly an area undergoing study and a subject for future discussion. So CNID is arriving in California, though certainly in a form different than its original proponents might have anticipated, at least in terms of blocking choices availability. It should be interesting to see what transpires. --Lauren-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sat Jun 01 17:26:17 CDT 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: 17 MD> Anecdotal evidence indeed suggests that a vast number of persons have MD> requested complete blocking. Request lines are busy for long periods, MD> attempts to call the "is my line really blocked" test numbers frequently MD> result in "all circuits busy" intercepts for long periods, and the MD> representatives themselves speak openly about being completely swamped MD> with callers who want blocking. Apparetly, the California legislature had a different philosophy in mind when they allowed the Telcos to bring Caller ID to the state. It's not enough to allow people to lock caller ID without telling them they have the `right' to do so, which I'd wager most people here didn't know until it was too late. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 01:22:01 CDT 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: 17 MD> This date has now apparently been pushed back to July 1, at the request of MD> the largest local telco in the state, Pacific Bell. The volume of written MD> and called-in requests for free per-line ("complete") CNID blocking (which MD> prevents numbers being sent on all calls *unless* an unblocking code is MD> dialed) have completely overwhelmed all of the local telephone companies. MD> The delay is to give the telcos time to catch up on processing of the MD> requests. MD> MD> Anecdotal evidence indeed suggests that a vast number of persons have MD> requested complete blocking. Request lines are busy for long periods, MD> attempts to call the "is my line really blocked" test numbers frequently MD> result in "all circuits busy" intercepts for long periods, and the MD> representatives themselves speak openly about being completely swamped MD> with callers who want blocking. MD> That's California for you. Let's spend big bucks on a mandantory system to protect people, and then spend some more big bucks installing systems to allow people to circumvent it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 01:25:55 CDT 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 18 DR> Apparetly, the California legislature had a different philosophy in mind w DR> they allowed the Telcos to bring Caller ID to the state. It's not enough to DR> allow people to lock caller ID without telling them they have the `right' t DR> do so, which I'd wager most people here didn't know until it was too late. It is a bigger problem than that, too. The area where I live here did not have caller ID for a long time after other areas did. Therefore, when I called some people and BBSs and their equipment was unable to read my telephone number, I was accused of blocking it. In one case, I was blocked from a BBS and unable to post a note to the sysop to explain the problem and suggest tht he call me back. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CAPTAIN TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 05:20:06 CDT 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 20 F> did not have caller ID for a long time after other areas did. Therefore, wh F> I called some people and BBSs and their equipment was unable to read my F> telephone number, I was accused of blocking it. In one case, I was blocked F> from a BBS and unable to post a note to the sysop to explain the problem and F> suggest tht he call me back. Anybody, be it a bbs or a person, that absolutly MUST have the number that your calling from just isn't worth it. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 06:07:05 CDT 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: 21 CT> Anybody, be it a bbs or a person, that absolutly MUST have the number that CT> your calling from just isn't worth it. Well, my parrents had my BBS number BLOCKED, so when I call those NEED NUMBER BBS'S it wont even let me close. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 09:09:08 CDT 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 21 CT> Anybody, be it a bbs or a person, that absolutly MUST have the number that CT> your calling from just isn't worth it. CT> That is what I thought too, especially since I have posted this glitch where that particular sysop could see it and he did nothing about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 17:52:54 CDT 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 21 CT> Anybody, be it a bbs or a person, that absolutly MUST have the number that CT> your calling from just isn't worth it. Agreed. The first time I encountered a board with a blocked line, I prtested and didn't call back. Later I made an allownace for the Epistolary though, because the sysop had a valid reason - he had a case of Empire to deal with, and I can't really blame him. This Caller-ID thing is just going too far. It's technology that's useful for some things (tracking down crank calls, etc), but most people don't need it. It's a loss of privacy, and also a dehumanizing technology. People are further reduced to a name and number, not a voice on the other end of the line. It's data, nothing more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Starfox Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 17:54:05 CDT 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: 22 CT> Anybody, be it a bbs or a person, that absolutly MUST have the number that CT> your calling from just isn't worth it. S> S> Well, my parrents had my BBS number BLOCKED, so when I call those NEED NUMBE S> BBS'S it wont even let me close. If memory serves, *82 unblocks the block on a per-call basis - just as *67 blocks it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 19:28:34 CDT 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 24 DR> It's a loss of privacy, and also a dehumanizing technology. People are furt DR> reduced to a name and number, not a voice on the other end of the line. It' DR> data, nothing more. I.E. My friend wanted to get one of my G/F's friends numbers, so he had her call him so he could get it .. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Caller ID in California Date: Sun Jun 02 19:29:27 CDT 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 25 S> Well, my parrents had my BBS number BLOCKED, so when I call those NEED NUMBE S> BBS'S it wont even let me close. DR> DR> If memory serves, *82 unblocks the block on a per-call basis - just as *67 DR> blocks it. No, It's like .. BLOCKED, shows up as UNLISTED when ya do a *82 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: First your soul, then your car Date: Sun Jul 07 16:55:46 CDT 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: unavailable 07-04-96 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU Motorola Bans Employees From Smoking in Their Own Cars CHICAGO -- Depending on your professional and personal habits, a corporate policymaker can be viewed either as a caring patriarch or Big Brother, the Chicago Tribune reports. As more employees are being required to take drug or alcohol tests, join fitness programs or perform their jobs under electronic surveillance, some wonder whether they give up a piece of their private lives for the good of the company. This debate plays out most frequently, the Tribune said, when companies establish new policies regarding smoking. Some smokers say it is hard to feel part of the team when they are shunted off to a designated smoking area, out the back door, or even to the parking lot. But at some Motorola Inc. facilities in the Chicago area, the company soon will be digging a little deeper into smokers' private lives, prohibiting them from smoking in their cars. Beginning next month, Motorola security guards will write up any worker caught smoking anywhere at the company's cellular telephone plants in Libertyville and Harvard -- including their private vehicles. After four strikes, the employee will be out of a job. "Our plan is to enforce it just like we do with any other policy,'' a Motorola spokeswoman told the Tribune. "People who smoke and people who don't smoke have very strong feelings about the decision.'' Experts on smoking bans say they know of no company that has taken such an aggressive step--patrolling to see whether workers are sneaking smokes in their car. ``This is perhaps the most extreme example I've heard,'' said Fred Tsao, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. ACLU spokeswoman Valerie Phillips told the AP that the policy was "morally tainted." Gary Hawkins, a 51-year-old Motorola cellular repair worker and four-time-a-day smoker, couldn't agree more. "They're treating us like kindergartners, slapping our hands because we're smoking,'' Hawkins said. "Smoking is not illegal. They're going to look pretty silly putting on my termination notice, 'Smoking in own vehicle.' '' The company told the AP that the ban covers about 6,000 employees who have been offered smoking cessation programs. The goal is to promote health and reduce litter as well as "confrontations and parking lot incidents'' that a spokesman would not elaborate on. The ACLU is looking into whether it could sue Motorola for firing someone for off-duty activities, Phillips said. "We can respect the need for employees to have clean air in the workplace, but this policy clearly goes much further,'' she said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: First your soul, then your car Date: Sun Jul 07 17:32:38 CDT 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: 28 DR> establish new policies regarding smoking. Some smokers say it is hard to fe DR> part of the team when they are shunted off to a designated smoking area, ou DR> the back door, or even to the parking lot. DR> DR> DR> Beginning next month, Motorola security guards will write up any worker DR> caught smoking anywhere at the company's cellular telephone plants in DR> Libertyville and Harvard -- including their private vehicles. DR> DR> After four strikes, the employee will be out of a job. "Our plan is to This is ridiculous. Most people here know that cigarette smoke makes me very ill, and I would dearly love to find a workplace where nobody smoked. In fact, some people are so severely sensitive to it that they have seizures and other severe effects from justbeing near a smoker and the residual smoke on his clothes. I believe that there should be complete recognition of the laws about this, as well as common decency, but I think this is going too far. Enven though some people think that smoking is an unnecessary and destructive habit, it is not the place of the employer to force an employee to stop smoking. The role of the employer is to provide a safe, accessib;e workplace for all of us, so taking steps like arranging smoking and non-smoking work areas is reasonable, regardless of how put upomn the smokers feel. It is only a small token of how others of us have felt all of our lives as we were n\neing assured that we had to always move over for smokers, and we had no rights. As far as I am concerned, smokers should have the right to continue their habit if they desire, as long as they do not expose others to it, or ask others to pay the prices for their habits. When it comes to somebody's vehicle -- I have stopped the car and put several people out of my car who were determined to smoke in it. They should also be able to exercise similar rights over their own vehicles and homes and allow cigarette smoke in them if they want. My theory is that Motorola's real motivation in this is reducing the enormous costs of smoking. Cigarette smoke causes definable smoking related diseases that are paid for by the employer. It also causes a reduction in productivity and demonstrable increase in accidents. Sensitive people are winning Work Comp suits right and left because of being injured by working with smokers. Because of these reasons, I hope that the day will come soon that there will not be so many people wanting to smoke. However, in the meantime, it is a personal issue, and still legal, and employers have no right messing artound in it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: First your soul, then your car Date: Sun Jul 07 19:59:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: 28 DR> Beginning next month, Motorola security guards will write up any worker DR> caught smoking anywhere at the company's cellular telephone plants in DR> Libertyville and Harvard -- including their private vehicles. WOHA! Sounds like a manager somewhere had a recent smoking death in his family :) Heck, it's their choice, if they want to smoke... Sheesh! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Froggy Subject: Re: First your soul, then your car Date: Sun Jul 07 20:01:41 CDT 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: 29 F> meantime, it is a personal issue, and still legal, and employers have no rig F> messing artound in it. Exactly. It's like all these people are imposing their ideas on others. Sheesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: First your soul, then your car Date: Mon Jul 08 03:20:49 CDT 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: 28 DR> As more employees are being required to take drug or alcohol tests, join DR> fitness programs or perform their jobs under electronic surveillance, some DR> wonder whether they give up a piece of their private lives for the good of DR> the company. Fitness programs, eh? That's one I haven't heard yet, sounds like a shining example of Big Brother in the non-governmental form. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: First your soul, then Date: Mon Jul 08 10:44:28 CDT 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daedalus Rising <=- DR> As more employees are being required to take drug or alcohol tests, join DR> fitness programs or perform their jobs under electronic surveillance, som DR> wonder whether they give up a piece of their private lives for the good o DR> the company. BT> Fitness programs, eh? That's one I haven't heard yet, sounds like a BT> shining example of Big Brother in the non-governmental form. Corporations are organized in a top-down, totalitarianistic fashion. But beyond that, they glorify the corporation - not the individual workers. The workers and their lives are subservient to the needs of the corporation. In this case, escalating health care costs necessitate cost-cutting ... and non-smoking, fit individuals cost less to insure. ... Let no good deed go unpunished. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: First your soul, then Date: Mon Jul 08 21:34:57 CDT 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: 33 DR> Corporations are organized in a top-down, totalitarianistic fashion. But DR> beyond that, they glorify the corporation - not the individual workers. The DR> workers and their lives are subservient to the needs of the corporation. In DR> this case, escalating health care costs necessitate cost-cutting ... and DR> non-smoking, fit individuals cost less to insure. DR> Hmmm. Except for the tobacco corporations. They actively encourate their employees to smoke and encourage smoking. I have noticed a strangely high percentage of tobacco ingustry officials and ex-officials dying of lung cancer. Isn't odd that I have noticed that, other corporations have, but the tobacco industry hasn't? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: First your soul, then Date: Tue Jul 09 02:59:42 CDT 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 34 F> of lung cancer. Isn't odd that I have noticed that, other corporations have F> but the tobacco industry hasn't? Well, it's something along the line of "seeing what you want to". If something benefits you immediatly, but hurts you in the long time, your likely to ignore the long time complications. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Extreme Network Date: Mon Jul 22 04:12:48 CDT 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: unavailable PRIVACY Forum Digest Saturday, 20 July 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 14 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 18:35:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre Subject: Mountain Dew beeper promotion for children The 6/27/96 New York Times (advertising column, in the business section, by David Barboza) reports that Pepsico is rolling out a new promotion aimed at young drinkers of the heavily caffeinated soda Mountain Dew. If they send in 10 proofs of purchase and $30 plus shipping, they get a beeper and six months of free air time. The catch is that each beeper owner will be paged weekly and invited to call a toll free phone number that will describe a contest and advertise Mountain Dew. Advocates for children are reported as being very upset indeed; the marketers are reported at being very pleased at this "ultimate in one-on-one marketing". I particularly enjoyed one Mountain Dew marketer's attempt to reframe the issue this way: "We're not using the beepers as an intrusive device to advertise to consumers. We're allowing them to enter a world with a brand that fits their life style." The "world", by the way, is called the Mountain Dew Extreme Network. I have to say that this article supplied my full weekly requirement for mixed horror and fascination. It's brilliant. On one level it's just an extension of advertiser-supported media to a medium that had been overlooked. One could imagine a stock broker subsidizing investors' pagers and paging them weekly with a stock tip, for example. But it's young people that Mountain Dew is after, and the article makes no mention on restrictions on minors getting ahold of commonly used drug-dealing equipment without their parents' consent. It's also important to see just how rudimentary the Mountain Dew scheme is, compared to the fully elaborated model of one-to-one (not "one-on-one") marketing that one finds in the marketing literature. The next step might be to personalize interactions through the beepers based on demographic information and purchase histories. If the beepers could be tracked like cellular phones, and if Mountain Dew made it a condition of the offer that they be allowed access to the tracking data, then all sorts of excellent tailoring of marketing messages would be possible. Several companies, or one large company marketing many products to similar market segments, could team up to subsidize the pager together, programming their marketing messages based on models of consumer behavior and information on specific consumers. I can't say that I'd be impressed with a grown-up who would sign up for such a thing, but I can't say that I'd feel right about stopping them either. Children, however, are another matter. Phil Agre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Extreme Network Date: Mon Jul 22 07:16:26 CDT 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: 36 DR> aimed at young drinkers of the heavily caffeinated soda Mountain Dew. DR> If they send in 10 proofs of purchase and $30 plus shipping, they get DR> a beeper and six months of free air time. The catch is that each beeper DR> owner will be paged weekly and invited to call a toll free phone number DR> that will describe a contest and advertise Mountain Dew. Advocates for DR> children are reported as being very upset indeed; the marketers are I have been wondering about this too. Would we be upset if the tobacco companies did this? Encyclopedia Britannica? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: .com Date: Fri Jul 26 15:38:41 CDT 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: unavailable ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:28:57 -0400 From: "David H. Rothman" Reply-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast To: Multiple recipients of list TPR-NE Subject: Netscape favors .com sites. Speak up! Here's bad news for nonprofits, universities and government agencies with Web sites. The new Netscape "thinks" that a Web site is a .com--rather than an .org or .edu or .gov or the rest--if you don't type in anything to the contrary. Justifying this shortcut, a Netscape engineer says that .com sites are the very most popular. Love it. Nothing like software to promote the "Winner takes all" syndrome and help Hollywoodize the Net. For more, please see: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/0724browser.html > July 24, 1996 [Image] [Yes, you may be asked for registration information--in the spirit of a .commized Net] Below I'll reproduce the lead of the NY Times story on this issue. According to the Times, Donald Heath, the Internet Society's president and chief executive, isn't too happy about Netscape's action. Remember, it's http://www.isoc.org. A band goes by http://www.isoc.com. Want to complain? Alas, I lack a recent address for Marc Andreesen, but maybe others will have it. Hey, the guy is making his zillions off work done originally at an .edu-ish place. Please note that I don't see any nefarious conspiracies here. Do NOT flame Andreesen or anyone else. Just the same, the shortcut isn't the best news for public interest groups, universities and the others. It truly will help make the Net more TVish and Hollywoodish by diminishing the noncommercial. Educate these folks. Meanwhile I notice the following on the Netscape site, if you want to speak up immediately: "Additional information on Netscape Communications Corporation is available on the Internet at http://home.netscape.com, by sending email to info@netscape.com, or by calling 415/937-2555 (corporations) or 415/937-3777 (individuals)." David Rothman | rothman@clark.net http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/telhome.html http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/networld.html [May be reproduced without permission.] > > New Netscape Shortcut Favors > Commercial Sites, Some Worry > > By KATHERINE CAVANAUGH > > [A] new shortcut built into Netscape's Navigator > software is prompting concerns in some > quarters that the company is pandering to > commercial sites at the expense of Web pages > published by educational, nonprofit, government > and foreign content developers and by networks. > > At issue is a feature in Netscape's latest > browser, the Navigator 3.0 beta releases that > automatically appends a ".com" suffix -- denoting > a commercial site -- to a Web address, or URL, if > the user neglects to type in the full address. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: .com Date: Fri Jul 26 15:49:01 CDT 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 38 > automatically appends a ".com" suffix -- denoting > a commercial site -- to a Web address, or URL, if > the user neglects to type in the full address. So what's wrong with that? Why would you so conveniently "forget" to type in the full path name in the first place? It's not a big conspiracy - .com's ARE the most popular, but I still fail to see where it would even be used unless you were just some dumb tart that saw a commercial for mastercard and didn't bother to remmember the whole address... *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: .com Date: Mon Jul 29 04:38:51 CDT 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daedalus Rising <=- > automatically appends a ".com" suffix -- denoting > a commercial site -- to a Web address, or URL, if > the user neglects to type in the full address. BT> So what's wrong with that? Why would you so conveniently "forget" to BT> type in the full path name in the first place? It's not a big BT> conspiracy - .com's ARE the most popular, but I still fail to see where BT> it would even be used unless you were just some dumb tart that saw a BT> commercial for mastercard and didn't bother to remmember the whole BT> address... There's nothing wrong with it - on the face of it, anyways. But just think a bit about how it will play out: all the for-profit big boys will advertise their sites, "www.coolshit" and the non-profits as "www.neatshit.edu". Commercial sites are not only the most common site, they're also the best-advertised. With this small change, it would become completely common to give out web addresses without a suffix - the non-profits would stand out as the oddballs in more ways than one. It's not something that jumps out at you, or even a sign of the apocolypse. But it is just another example of how the Web is being commercialized, and how no one seems to bat an eye over it. ... Yield to temptation; It may not pass your way again. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Pac Moon's????? [1/5] Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:53 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 1 of 5... Ä Area: talkpolitic8 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From: Tilman@berlin.snafu.de (t Read: Yes Replied: No Subj: Power for sale ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ I found this article on my HD, I assume it comes from the moonie newsgroup. Tilman POWER FOR SALE FROM GREENPEACE TO THE REV. SUN MYUNG MOON, HOW PACS AND LOBBIES INFLUENCE AMERICA Chicago Tribune April 27, 1986 By Kenneth R. Clark, a Tribune media writer based in New York. To the average tourist Washington, D.C., is the capital of the free world, a city of vast green lawns, cherry blossoms, marble monuments, bedrock bureaucracy and unfettered oratory in the halls of Congress. Washington is Foggy Bottom, home of the Watergate scandal, the Smithsonian, the White House. What the tourist does not see is the marketplace, a convoluted exchange in which power, access to power and the illusions of power, all of which essentially are the same, may be bought, sold, bartered and bargained for by anyone who knows how to corral votes, twist arms, manipulate the system and do it all, neatly and safely, just inside the boundaries of law. For players of the power game, Washington, D.C., is spelled O-P-P-O-R-T- U-N-I-T-Y. The process of opportunity is neither difficult nor inexpensive. What is required is a substantial supply of money to be channeled through political action committees (PACs) and various tax-exempt foundations, barred in principle but not in fact, from participating in the political process. There also is a bewildering array of other conduits for this money, running under, over and around federal election laws that are less a shield against abuse than a ``Kick Me`` sign pinned to the backside of the electorate. Almost anyone capable of socializing, which is what Washingtonians probably do best, can play the game, because in Washington more deals are cut and more quids are pro-quoed at banquets and cocktail parties than on the floor of the House or Senate. Perhaps the system can be viewed best through the eyes of two observers foreign to American shores. One of them, Irina Dobrynin, wife of recently recalled Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, surveyed the marketplace of power and denounced it. The other, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose Unification church was perceived by many in the 1970s as a sinister cult given to luring the susceptible young away from their families, surveyed the marketplace and embraced it. Moon`s agenda had expanded beyond religion. His doctrine--that Jesus, betrayed by mankind, failed in his mission as Messiah and that a new Messiah, born in Korea, would appear to complete it and establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth--remained the same, but economics and politics now had been added to the equation. Since founding his church in South Korea in 1954, Moon had become a world-class businessman. Now he needed a credible foothold in the American political process. His view was very different from that of Mrs. Dobrynin, who left Sen. David L. Boren (D., Okla.) embarrassed and stuck for an answer before she went back to Russia. It had happened in 1984 at one of those countless Washington banquets; Boren had found himself in a ``pointed argument`` with her about political systems. ``Don`t tell me about democracy; your offices are all for sale,`` she told him, Boren says. ``Look how much it costs. An average person, just starting out, can`t run for Congress because it`s going to cost millions of dollars. Your offices are for sale to the highest bidder.`` ``It really stunned me,`` Boren says. ``I don`t think that`s exactly true, but there is an element of truth in it.`` Mrs. Dobrynin, accustomed to power concentrated in a Soviet Politburo that serves exclusive of the popular will, naturally saw political power in America solely as election to office, but it is much more complicated than that. In Washington one does not have to hold the office to use it. In fact, the greater power to influence public policy often lies outside the halls of Congress in the hands of those to whom the officeholders are in debt. Nettled by Mrs. Dobrynin`s Marxist cynicism Boren decided to do something about it. In cosponsorship with Arizona`s Barry Goldwater, he introduced in the Senate an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act that would further restrict the PACs, which routinely finance a large portion of a favored candidate`s election campaign in return for friendly legislation later on. Boren says campaign costs, fed by increasing infusions of PAC money, are out of control. Ellen Miller, director of the Center for Responsive Politics, agrees with him, citing election year figures that show just how severe the electoral inflation has become: -- Total campaign spending for national, state and local elections was $425 million in 1972. In 1984 it was $1.55 billion. -- Congressional campaign spending alone totaled $77 million in 1974, compared with $374 million in 1984. (Miller says that in 1984 Sen. Jesse Helms (R., N.C.) spent $16.5 million to win a narrow primary victory over his Democratic challenger, James B. Hunt, who spent $9.4 million.) PACs spent $8 million on national candidates in 1976; the ante was upped to $114 million in 1984. ``Candidates don`t have to go back to their grassroots any more to raise money,`` Boren says. ``They can sit in Washington and get it all from the PACs. I use the analogy of drug addiction. Every year more and more members are getting hooked on special interest money. It`s getting harder and harder to get them to kick the habit.`` Those who have made a life`s career of running PACs view Boren`s amendment as meddlesome at best. ``I don`t think there ought to be any limits at all on PACs or individuals,`` says Carter Renn of the conservative Congressional Club PAC. ``Participation in a political campaign is a first amendment right, like freedom of speech, and I don`t think the government should be able to limit that in any way. The more people who are involved in a political campaign, the better. We`ve got about 100,000 people around the country who are members of the Congressional Club, and they contribute because they support our work to elect conservative candidates. When you limit what we can do, you`re limiting those people`s ability to participate in the political process. I think it`s a little bit two-faced. The liberals are all the time wanting to encourage participation, but to limit what a person can contribute is doing the exact opposite of that.`` John T. ``Terry`` Dolan, leader of the 300,000-member National Conservative PAC (NCPAC), says lobbyists, not PACs, are the real abusers. Unlike PACs, which are restricted in how much they can receive from any single source or spend on any one candidate, registered lobbyists can spend as much as they like to influence legislation. They are required to reveal only the agency for which they lobby. They do not have to make public where they get their money or how they spend it. ``If Boren wants to do something about special interests, he should do something about the lobbies,`` Dolan says. ``That`s where the real power lies in this city. I think it`s appalling that literally billions of dollars a year are spent by special interest lobbies and we have no idea where it goes or what it`s spent for. The lobby laws are a joke.`` Neal Blair, who runs a lobby group, Save the Eagle, under conservative activist Howard Ruff, is equally critical of PACs. ``Unfortunately, most of the PACs are whore PACs--political prostitutes,`` Blair says. ``Take the business PACs. They really ought to be for free enterprise, and in elections they really ought to be supporting free enterprise candidates. But if there`s an antifree-enterprise candidate in an election and he holds a position on (the House) Ways and Means (Committee) or some regulatory oversight or appropriations committee, they`ll give him lots of money. They are just crass and Byzantine and Machiavellian about buying access to power.`` Boren, a former Oklahoma governor who is in his second term as senator, says he never has taken a penny of PAC money to finance his own campaigns. At present, any single PAC may give only $5,000 per campaign to any single candidate, making the total $10,000 if the candidate must finance both a primary and a general campaign within an election cycle. Individual citizen contributions are limited to $1,000 per campaign. Boren`s amendment would lower the PAC limit to $3,000 per campaign and raise the individual limit to $1,500. It also would restrict the amount of money any candidate can receive from all PACs, according to a formula based on the population of the candidate`s state. The amendment also would forbid the ``bundling`` of additional funds by PACs, which frequently persuade their individual members to donate more to the candidate in their own names (the contributions being forwarded by the PAC) after the PAC contribution limit has been reached. (Though PAC members still could contribute as individuals, the reasoning is that total funds would diminish if PACs did not organize the drive.) The amendment is slated for a spring vote. ``One evil about PACs is that by a ratio of 4 1/2 to 1, they give to incumbents,`` he says. ``When you`ve got $100-plus million coming into the campaign system and it`s going to incumbents by a ratio of 4 1/2 to 1, what are you doing about keeping the system open to new people who might come in here and do a better job than some of us? What stings me even more is that some of our own people are becoming cynical about the system. I want to come up with a good answer for them--and for Mrs. Dobrynin.`` PACs, some of which date to the 1940s, are nothing new to Washington, but in recent years they seem to have become surrounded by a strange metaphysical aura. As the sorcerer`s apprentice learned when he tried to halt the magically marching brooms with an ax, the more you hit them, the more they seem to proliferate. PACs went unregulated and largely unnoticed until 1971, when the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed. It demanded little more than disclosure by PACs and candidates alike of where they were getting their money and how they were spending it. Then, in response to the money laundering and six-figure slush-fund scandals of Watergate, Congress amended the act in 1974, creating public presidential campaign financing and setting current PAC receipt and expenditure limits. But Congress did something else in 1974 that was to have a profound effect on the system. For the first time in history corporations, even those holding government contracts, were allowed to form PACs. Direct contributions to candidates from corporations still are forbidden, but through their PACs, such donations now could be made. In the flurry of amendments intended to clean up the campaign scene, Congress lost on only one: its restriction on the amount of money any candidate could spend on a campaign. The Supreme Court, ruling in effect that freedom to spend is the same as freedom to speak, said no such restrictions could be imposed. That ruling, giving the rich an unchallengeable advantage, set up the conditions that allowed Mrs. Dobrynin to charge, with that ``measure of truth,`` that American political offices are for sale. The intent of Congress had been to restrict the PACs, but by allowing businessmen to form them, the lawmakers created what Jane Mensinger of Common Cause calls ``the great PAC era.`` ``In 1974 we had about 600 PACs, and there are some 4,000 PACs now,`` she says. ``PAC power is out of proportion to the number of people actually represented. It`s not just a collection of individuals getting together and making a contribution. It`s a narrow interest trying to gain access and influence through large campaign contributions and ignoring the interests that are important to most people.`` PACs, however, are not the only conduits of high finance in Washington. The aspiring candidate can always turn to ``soft money`` to meet his needs. Soft money came into being in 1979, when Congress passed legislation designed to rebuild state and local party organizations. Under the new law, national parties were able to collect and transfer unlimited amounts of money to their state and local affiliates, which then could spend that money on the election of national candidates. In an unanticipated end run around restrictions imposed on PACs, >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Pac Moon's????? [2/5] Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:54 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 2 of 5... party organizations chartered at the state levels and effectively protected from disclosure by a confusing tangle of often contradictory laws, suddenly could accept what PACs and their national parties could not: corporate checks, individual checks in any amount, money without limitation. They could also spend the money on so-called ``in kind`` services ranging from clerical work and help with the mail to the purchase of generic television spots intended to help a national candidate without ever mentioning his name. Soft money became what Miller calls ``the loophole of the `80s.`` This issue entered the media spotlight in the 1984 presidential campaign when Colorado Sen. Gary Hart brought it up to embarrass his opponent for the Democratic nomination, Minnesota`s Walter Mondale. Money was pouring into Mondale`s campaign from 130 groups organized at the local level by supporters hoping to become convention delegates. They claimed they were independent of the Mondale organization and thus exempt from campaign contribution limits. Hart took it to the Federal Election Commission, and in a negotiated settlement Mondale agreed to return $379,640 to contributors and to pay an $18,000 penalty. It was a rare action on the part of the FEC, generally regarded in Washington as a toothless watchdog. FEC chairman Joan D. Aikens says her agency does not have the power to levy fines. When a violation of election law is uncovered, the FEC may assess a ``civil penalty`` through a conciliation process in which the agency and the malefactor, in effect, bargain over the amount to be paid. As a result, such penalties generally fall into the unintimidating range of $250 to $1,000--a range Aikens admits ``may be too low.`` Only if the respondent refuses to pay, or if agreement on the amount to be paid cannot be reached, does the FEC go to federal court. The legal option is expensive, and because the FEC`s budget, trimmed by the Gramm-Rudman Act, now falls below $12 million a year, court is not the favorite recourse. Aikens says about 40 cases presently are being heard in the lower courts. Last year the FEC investigated 220 complaints; of those 88 were found to be legitimate and nearly all resulted in some sort of civil penalty. ``One of the problems is that a lot of violations of the law are based on intent, which is very hard to prove,`` Aikens says. ``If a violation is inadvertent or if a respondent says, `I didn`t know, and we corrected it as soon as we found out,` we don`t push. We`re not out to terrorize anyone. We could do a lot more if we had more money, but we don`t have it and we`re not apt to get it, so we`re trying to do as much as we can with the money we have.`` Sharon Snyder, assistant press officer at the FEC, is more succinct: ``We`re less than a 250-person agency and we can`t be everywhere at once. Our job is to provide access to information, but when it comes to investigation, we`re hamstrung and shoelaces-tied.`` For an outsider with a bizarre past and reputation, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon has come a long way. He is an outstanding example of how the American marketplace of power can be made to work for almost anyone with the will and the means to use it. Moon has stalked the perimeter of the marketplace of power from Nixon administration days, when he staged rallies on behalf of the fallen president and conducted pro-Vietnam-war rallies. Moon, who moved his ministry to the United States from Korea in 1972, was rich in followers and finances, but he had a problem. He was haunted by his reputation as a cult leader and equated with Jim Jones, of Guyana infamy, by parents of some of his young disciples and church defectors. He needed respect and credibility. He did not need the sort of power perceived by Mrs. Dobrynin. He needed access to power. As a foreign national Moon was forbidden to form a PAC to advance his own conservative anticommunist agenda. In any case, under the liberal Carter administration of the 1970s, the climate was not right. But there were other ways, and with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, his opportunity came. Moon embarked on a fervent courtship of the conservative cause, offering lavish gifts of cash to its leaders, who suddenly were in ascendancy. Even if there were no PACs, no soft money and no timidity on the part of the FEC, candidates and special interests still would have little trouble raising money for their campaigns and causes. Charitable foundations never were meant to do the job, but they do it nicely all the same. There are many species of foundation, but only two, granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service, are of concern in the marketplace of power. They are labeled, in IRS jargon, 501C3 and 501C4. The 501C3 is dedicated to religion, education or philanthropy, and its contributors may write off whatever they give on their income tax; 501C3s may not engage in political activities. The 501C4 is dedicated to just about anything anyone can think of to protect or promote from bowling to bird watching. It offers no tax break to donors, but it can finance lobbying activities. Between the two, almost anything is possible, especially if one of each is in the hands of the PAC men. ``They have become creatures of the PACs,`` says Nelson Rosenbaum of the Center for Responsive Government, yet another agency created to keep an eye on all the people using the election code as a doormat. ``The PACs have found a way to provide incentive for people to give additional money by providing a charitable tax deduction, so while PAC contributions are not deductible for individuals who give them, charitable contributions certainly are. If you can create a 501C3 and get tax-exempt status from the IRS with some malarky about serving the public benefit or educating the public, you can then offer a charitable deduction to the donor and use the money to support the same causes that you do through the political money. You can`t do it as directly, in that you cannot give money directly to candidates, but you can back a candidate by taking out advertisements and conducting so-called educational activities. It`s been discovered as a window of opportunity by some of the PACs. The educational loophole is the criterion.`` The foundations are even older than the PACs. They were created as part of the original income tax laws of 1913 and 1914. Even politicians in office have them. Gary Hart has one called Senate for a New Democracy. Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 1988, has one called American Horizon. Rosenbaum says many of the same politicians also have PACs so that they can ``gain chips`` with other politicians by feeding their campaigns but that the 501C3 is the organization of choice. ``There`s a lot of good stuff that comes along with being a C3,`` he says. ``It gets exemption from all kinds of property and sales taxes. It gets a special charitable rate from the Postal Service. It`s a nice little holding company operation to accept charitable donations and conduct so-called educational activity and pay the senator`s expenses when he flies around and gives speeches under the guise of educating the public. If he`s campaigning at the time, it`s just happenstance, right?`` It was through Dolan`s 501C4, called the Conservative Alliance, that Moon contributed two checks totaling $750,000. Dolan used the money to install a computer system for NCPAC and conduct a survey of American job erosion caused by the influx of goods from communist countries. The survey was to be used as ammunition in a lobbying effort aimed at getting selected trade restrictions through Congress. Like other PAC leaders, Dolan uses NCPAC not only to finance the elections of candidates sympathetic to his cause but also to defeat those who are not. Right now his target is ``the Ortega 33``--33 congressmen named after the man Dolan calls ``the bloody-handed communist ruler of Nicaragua`` (the president of Nicaragua is Daniel Ortega Saavedra) who consistently have opposed President Reagan`s efforts to supply weapons to the contra rebels fighting there. Given that PACs of every political persuasion have demonstrated their power in the past, none of the 33 is likely to take the effort lightly. PACs are restricted in what they legally may contribute directly to a favored candidate`s campaign, but there are no limits on what they can spend to attack a candidate or an incumbent with whom they disagree. Dolan legally can mount a direct mail or advertising campaign against the ``Ortega 33`` and spend whatever his PAC can afford in an effort to defeat them in the next election.Even in the posture of support, however, PACs have demonstrated an impressive ability to sway the voters. When former astronaut Jack Lousma, a conservative Republican, challenged Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) in 1984 and appeared to be headed for victory, 55 so-called ``Israeli PACs`` rallied to Levin`s cause. ``Israeli PACs`` are political action committees operated by American Jewish groups in support of legislation favorable to Israel. At the last minute, they poured money into Levin`s campaign and he won re-election by a narrow margin. Ed Zuckerman, publisher of the PACs and Lobbies newsletter, says foundations have become daily bread for those who play the power game in Washington. ``The PAC world has discovered the interesting confluence of PACs and election laws, and that is that they don`t meet,`` he says. ``They`ve literally figured out a way to play one law off against another. It`s soft money. It`s squishy money, and every PAC worth its salt will have a 501C3 to do its research and a 501C4 to do its lobbying.`` Zuckerman says that with the two foundations, a PAC operator easily can sidestep the law that restricts individual contributors to $1,000 and PACs to $5,000 per campaign. Through a 501C3 or a 501C4, he can receive unlimited amounts of cash and use it to defray rent and other overhead costs that otherwise would accrue to his PAC. The total amount of money raised from PAC contributors can be saved to finance Congressional campaigns. ``When you ask what`s to prevent Terry Dolan from using his 501C3 for his political purposes,`` says Ellen Miller of the Center for Responsive Politics, ``the answer is probably not a hell of a lot because the IRS does not police these organizations very closely.`` That assertion draws no fire from the Internal Revenue Service, which runs 25,000 to 30,000 random audits a year on tax-exempt foundations, seldom checking any of them more often than once every three to four years. A field agent, who asked not to be identified, admitted the area is murky. ``The C3s are allowed to lobby only if it`s an insubstantial part of their activity, whatever that means,`` he says. ``Those are the words. Congress has not deemed it proper to come out with hard and fast guidelines. The IRS takes the position that something can be educational even if it expresses a point of view. We have, for example, exempt organizations that are pro-life and pro-abortion. Telling people they have the right to vote and that they should exercise their franchise is educational. Telling people how to vote obviously is not, but I think it`s clear that if you go to a pro-choice seminar, you know what their political thoughts are.`` The agent says abusers of the law usually are caught only when an informer turns them in. They lose their tax-exempt status and may be subject to criminal prosecution if the abuse is sufficiently severe. ``If someone believes there is an organization that is violating the law by giving money to political action organizations or supporting political candidates, we`ll move,`` he says. ``The IRS welcomes letters. Sometimes, though, agents propose cases where they think there should be revocation of exempt status, but along the way there`s just not enough evidence. I`m like the person giving out parking tickets. If the meter is expired, I write the ticket. How far it goes from there is another matter. ``It`s not a very hot area for the IRS,`` he adds. ``When the IRS denies tax-exempt status for some prominent organization or fundamentalist church, it creates an awful lot of problems (including political pressure) for (the IRS). The IRS is not looking for trouble by denying non-profit exemption status, and therefore the record is not many denials.`` Moon, then, is free to give whatever he wants to any conservative group that will accept his bounty, in return for credibility and access to power, but beneficiaries of his largess need fear no adverse publicity. Foundations must open their books only to the IRS. The law requires no public disclosure of their money sources. Dolan`s name comes up frequently in any pursuit of PAC and foundation money because unlike >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Pac Moon's????? [3/5] Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:55 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 3 of 5... most of his colleagues in the special interest persuasion business, he openly acknowledges contributors. A pugnacious Irish-American maverick who heads one of the largest and most influential PACs in the conservative mainstream, Dolan not only admits receipt over the past two years of $750,000 from the Unification church, he takes a ``come-and-get-me`` attitude with anyone who dares challenge him on the point. Dolan has nothing but praise for Moon, the church or Moon`s second in command, Bo Hi Pak, a former South Korean Army colonel who serves as the church`s chief political strategist. ``The reason we took the money is because I`m absolutely convinced that these are good, honorable people who have a funny theology that I simply don`t agree with but who are generally well motivated and want to help this country,`` Dolan says. ``When I made that judgment, there was no question that I would take the money. In all their funding, there has never been a quid pro quo. All they`ve ever said is, `Spend the money the way you`re going to spend it.` I find that very refreshing.`` According to a biography prepared by the Unification church, Moon was born Jan. 6, 1920, in Pyung Buk-do, which now is part of North Korea. He claims his life was changed forever in 1936 when, in a vision, Jesus told him that he had been chosen to finish the work of the Messiah on Earth. The mission, however, had to wait. Moon was attending school in Japan and was imprisoned for denouncing that country`s 40-year occupation of his homeland. Freed at the end of World War II, Moon returned to North Korea but again was imprisoned, tortured and, at one point, left for dead in a snowbank by the Marxist regime in power. Eventually he was sent to a concentration camp where prisoners were forced to load raw fertilizer until its high lime content literally ate the flesh from their bones. Moon survived the nightmare, and when the Korean war ended he fled south for 600 miles on foot to found his church and set about his mission of finishing what he said Christ failed to finish 2,000 years ago. That Moon is the new Messiah is not a specific part of church doctrine.In ``The Divine Principle,`` in which he spells out his theology, the closest he comes to claiming the crown is his statement that the new Messiah was born on the Korean peninsula ``somewhere between 1917 and 1930,`` dates that conveniently bracket his birthday. His followers, however, have no doubts as to their leader`s identity. They fervently proclaim him Messiah, and he never has taken pains to deny the perception. In Moon`s theology, given, he says, by divine revelation, the root of all sin was planted in the Garden of Eden when Eve copulated with the serpent, then had illicit sex with Adam to assuage her guilt. ``Adam and Eve were growing in the relationship of brother and sister and after reaching perfection were to be blessed in marriage to form the first perfect family, fulfilling God`s purpose of creation,`` Moon writes in ``The Divine Principle.`` ``But Jesus said in John 8:44, `You are of your father the devil,` indicating that all the fallen men of history belong to Satan. In other words, the first human ancestors, having had an illicit relationship with the (fallen) angel, came to have Satan as their father and father of their descendants: a false father. . . . The fact that Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil means that she had an illicit love relationship with Satan, and the fact that Eve gave Adam the same fruit implies that she seduced Adam to fall in the same way.`` In Moon`s view the ``forbidden fruit`` of Genesis was sex. Accordingly, Unification church members united in marriage by Moon are forbidden to consummate their marriages for 40 days. The rather unorthodox theology and Moon`s practice of holding mass weddings at which he marries couples he has paired (he joined more than 2,000 of them in a single ceremony at Madison Square Garden in 1982) had left him well outside the American mainstream and bereft of the one thing he most desired, respect. But Moon, who rules a worldwide business empire in addition to his church, now can attain that respect in the marketplace by using the political devices available to all special interest proponents, be it the National Rifle Association or Greenpeace. Much of the Unification church`s money comes from worldwide businesses ranging from fisheries and seafood distributors in New England, California and Alaska to a luxury hotel, bank, casino and convention complex in Uruguay. American business holdings include art galleries, judo and karate studios, ginseng tea and coffee distributors, restaurants, delicatessens, a chain of jewelry stores, gift shops and health food stores. The church also operates industries and export businesses in Korea and Japan. Moon started moving on a grand scale in the U.S. from church leader to businessman and real estate owner in 1975, when for $1.5 million he bought a palatial country estate in Barrytown, N.Y., to serve as his residence and as a cultural center and training camp for church members. In 1976, for $1.2 million, he added the 2,000-room New Yorker hotel in Manhattan, where he established his national headquarters. In the same year the Unification church triggered bitter opposition in the 300-year-old fishing village of Gloucester, Mass., when he started buying up property, harbor acreage and fishing facilities. By 1980 his real estate holdings in Gloucester totaled an estimated $2 million and included a Tudor-style mansion purchased from the Catholic Church, a lobster company, a restaurant-marina and an extensive tuna fishing fleet. In 1980 he also acquired a $3-million fish processing plant in Kodiak, Alaska, and a $500,000 Beacon Hill mansion in Boston. Steve Hassan, a former member of the Unification church who served as Moon`s top American recruiter and fundraiser, says that at one point church members selling flowers on street corners brought in from $30 million to $50 million a year. Even at a low estimate of 30,000 church members in the peak years, the figure would seem credible since, if all were working, each would have to bring in little more than $100 a month to achieve such a goal. Hassan, who became disillusioned with Moon and the church, now practices psychology in Massachusetts and spends most spare time interviewing defecting Unification church members for the Chicago-based Cult Awareness Network. He says he has listed more than 240 organizations ranging from tax-exempt foundations and socio-political coalitions to business corporations radiating from the church. In Moon`s media holdings he counts the Washington Times, the New York City Tribune and 5 other newspapers, 10 magazines, 3 newsletters, 2 film production studios, 1 television production organization and 3 publishing houses, including the prestigious scientific book publisher, Paragon House, which boasts several Nobel laureates on its list of authors. Noah Ross, head of public relations for the Unification church, says the list of more than 240 organizations formed to carry out Moon`s agenda is an exaggeration. ``It would be very difficult for me to say exactly how many associations or foundations the church has,`` he says. ``It`s not that we`re trying to hide things. It`s just that they reflect different people`s creativity on projects involved with the Unification movement. I think there are 100 or so in this country.`` Dolan terms accusations by parents of church members and by disaffected former members that the Unification church has engaged in kidnaping and brainwashing as ``nonsense.`` He says no ``Moonie`` official ever has been arrested, indicted or convicted of such charges but that several deprogrammers have been for forcibly removing young people from church ranks. In January, 1976, eight people, headed by professional deprogrammer Ted Patrick, were arrested in Mount Pleasant, N.Y., for the unlawful imprisonment of a 19-year-old church member, and in August, 1977, six others in the Washington, D.C., area were indicted in a case involving forcible removal of a 23-year-old disciple. The church has faced neither kidnaping nor brainwashing charges in court. ``They are becoming acceptable and that`s really what they want,`` Dolan says of Moon and his followers. ``They`re as credible as the Rev. William Sloane Coffin., the Rev. Jesse Jackson or the Rev. Joseph Lowry. They`re as credible as Jerry Falwell.`` Other agencies have found equal comfort in the financial and/or service arms of the Unification church, though few of their leaders are as candid about it as Dolan. The Conservative Youth Foundation, which places interns in Congressional and institutional offices on Capitol Hill, recently accepted a $250,000 grant from Moon`s political arm, the Confederation of the Associations for the Unification of the Societies of the Americas. CAUSA is a 501C3 foundation registered in the District of Columbia for ``educational activities``; Bo Hi Pak is listed as head of its board of directors. Other such Unification foundations include the Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles, the church`s recruiting arm; the Professors World Peace Academy for scientists and academicians with a common interest in world crises; and Project Volunteer, which distributes food and medical supplies to the poor. The grant from CAUSA to the Conservative Youth Foundation was disclosed, after Dolan, who is on the CYF board, recommended that they do so. Reed Irvine, who heads the watchdog group Accuracy in Media and, more recently, Accuracy in Academia, which asks students in college classrooms to report left-leaning professors, denied persistent rumors of CAUSA funding, saying the story is perpetuated because he has Unification church members on his staff. ``We pay them,`` he says. ``They are not given to us. We don`t discriminate on religious grounds. Nobody picks up our costs. We were offered not a large amount but some money, and we turned it down. As I told a reporter for the Washington Post a couple of months ago when he said, `Why don`t you take their money; do you see anything wrong with it?` `The reason I don`t is that I don`t want to be bugged by people like you.` `` But the Unification church has a broader agenda than the mere funding of various conservative groups. Respectability by association is equally important, and to that end Moon regularly stages, through his International Conference of the Unity of Sciences, his World Media Association and CAUSA, elaborate international and domestic ``education`` conferences that attract some of the biggest names in academia, politics and journalism. Participants and speakers at such conferences have included White House communications chief Patrick Buchanan; AIM`s Reed Irvine; National Review publisher William Rusher; John Lombardi, dean of international programs at Indiana University; Claude A. Villee of the Harvard University medical school; Morton Kaplan, University of Chicago political scientist; and Princeton University Nobel laureate Eugene P. Wigner. ``We hold conferences on science and values,`` says church publicist Noah Ross. ``Religious thought should connect to science. We believe that through free discussion, people will come out with value-based conclusions.`` Certainly such conferences do not hurt their founder. There is no shortage of pictures showing Moon shaking hands and rubbing elbows with his guests and speakers, who receive generous stipends for their trouble. The most recent conference, last November in Scottsdale, Ariz., was chaired for members of legislatures in all 50 states by former Mormon educator and FBI official W. Cleo Skousen, a high-ranking member of the John Birch Society and head of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. Wesley McCune, who publishes the Washington newsletter Group Research, says invitations to the event went out under the letterhead of the Arizona State Legislature, though the legislature was not sponsoring the event, (McCune says the fact that the legislature was not the sponsoring agent was made clear shortly thereafter by CAUSA, which paid all expenses--estimated at $750,000 --for attendees.) Such activities buy a very high profile for Moon, his church and his political agenda, but nothing has put him on the national map with such a positive push toward respectability like the 13 months he served in a Danbury, Conn., prison following his conviction for tax fraud. The jailing of ``the Messiah,`` in 1984, came just as nervous religious leaders were worrying over several other perceived incursions by government into matters of the soul, and when they rallied to the cause, they rallied to Moon`s in the process. >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Pac Moon's????? [4/5] Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:56 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 4 of 5... Suddenly pastors who normally would avoid anyone permitting himself to be called Messiah were defending Moon from the pulpit, on television and at highly publicized rallies. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, charged the Justice Department with ``selective prosecution,`` noting that Vice President George Bush and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro did no prison time for their income tax irregularities, overlooking the fact that unlike them, Moon was indicted for tax fraud involving the falsification of records. (Bush and Ferraro were never indicted; their errors reportedly were chiefly in bookkeeping.) The Rev. Joseph Lowry, president of the liberal Southern Christian Leadership Conference, echoed Falwell`s sentiments, and the Rev. Tim LaHaye, a prominent fundamentalist church activist and author, publicly offered to go to prison in Moon`s place. Editorial support poured in from the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the National Catholic Register, the Atlanta Journal, the Jewish Times and, of all places, the Washington Post. ``It was quite a spectacle,`` says Ed Haiselmaier of the lobby Committee for a Free Congress, run by Paul Weyrich, one of the few conservative leaders who have expressed reservations about Moon`s courtship of the conservative cause. ``They wound up with people like Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowry, Jerry Falwell and the ACLU all on the same platform. You wouldn`t ordinarily find these people in the same room together.`` In a brilliant manipulation of a situation the average man would have considered a personal disaster, Moon and his organization ran the endorsements stemming from his imprisonment in major-market newspaper ads and used the occasion to launch a $10-million national mailing of text and videotapes extolling Moon and explaining Unificationism to 300,000 clergy all over the nation. Ross says 58 percent of the responses were favorable. ``Thirty percent were (extremely) hostile,`` he says. ``They said things like, `Thanks for the tapes; I`m recording over them.` One or two people sent the tapes back as ashes in the box. It was sort of saying, `Go to hell, from the Church of Redeeming Love.` `` LaHaye was a bit bewildered at first by Moon`s conquest of the moment. ``It was billed as a religious freedom rally,`` he says. ``We stood together demanding religious freedom for everyone. Right at that point, my keen interest was the seven fathers in Nebraska who had spent 90 days in jail for sending their children to a Christian school against a judge`s orders and the conflict of parental rights over judicial rights. We felt that was a gross invasion of family rights and an almost unheard of precedent in American history. Moon was incarcerated right about that time, and he was only one of about 11 intrusions into religious freedom that the rally was all about.`` Though 10 of those intrusions were virtually eclipsed by the Moon media blitz, LaHaye, who says he once took $100 in a direct cash donation from Bo Hi Pak but ``not another penny,`` remains a staunch admirer of the Korean church leader, even if, like Dolan, he never can accept the Unification doctrine. ``They are fiercely anticommunist, and I get the feeling from what little I know about them that they are almost more anticommunist and conservative in their philosophy than they are evangelistic about their religion,`` he says. ``Their religion, in fact, is really dying. Their membership in their prime, in `74 through `76, was about 30,000, and now the biggest they talk about is 8,000. I`ve heard figures as low as 3,000.`` Ross says American church membership is about 50,000. Because Moon married more than 5,000 American church couples between 1961 and 1982, at least 10,000 have passed through the ranks, all of which proves only that Unificationists are difficult to count. Dinesh D`Souza, editor of the Heritage Foundation`s conservative Policy Review, says, ``I wonder if they`re really interested in their theology anymore. I don`t see much evidence of it. If I were head of the Unification church and took their theology seriously, I wouldn`t be spending my money the way Moon is. They have a lot of money, and they could spend it trying to get more converts, but they`re not, so for the conservative movement it`s a real boon because here`s all this money that`s seemingly coming in with no strings attached, and that`s making the source respectable. I don`t view this development as particularly insidious.`` In years past some have found Moon and his organization very insidious. In 1978, spurred by ``Koreagate`` charges of influence peddling on Capitol Hill by the South Korean government, a House subcommittee chaired by then-Rep. Donald M. Fraser (D., Minn.) investigated the Unification church and reported ``reliable information`` tying Moon`s organization to the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. The panel further found, in part, that Moon had: -- Attempted to take over the Diplomat National Bank in Washington ``by disguising the source of funds used to purchase stock in the names of Unification church members.`` -- Used the church and ``other tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities.`` -- Set up, as a prime religious and political goal, ``establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers.`` -- Systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws, as well as local laws relating to charity fraud, and that these violations were related to the organization`s overall goals of gaining temporal power.`` -- Set up a business as ``an important defense contractor in (South) Korea . . . involved in the production of M-16 rifles, antiaircraft guns and other weapons.`` The subcommittee charged that in an attempted violation of U.S. government policy giving the South Korean government exclusive control of M-16 production, a Moon agent approached the American corporation in the coproduction agreement--``apparently on behalf of the Korean government``--in an effort to negotiate the right for Moon`s company to export the weapons. As serious as the subcommittee`s accusations seemed, no indictments followed, and no Unification church official ever was convicted of breaking the law. If Moon`s organization is not spending money now on recruiting, it is spending it, in torrents, on the Washington Times. The daily newspaper was begun in 1982 as a conservative counterpoint to what is perceived by many conservative leaders beyond the Unification church as the liberalism of the Washington Post. As one of them, who asked not to be identified, put it, ``You`d have to be a conservative to know, for us, how galling the Washington Post is. It is a bitter witch`s brew for us every day.`` The Times` daily circulation of 88,571 is minuscule compared to that of the rival Washington Post, which is 728,857. O.J. Watkins, director of Times advertising, says daily retail ad sales, as of December, were 140,000 column inches and that national ads totaled 25,000 inches. He had no current figure for classifieds. By contrast, the Post, in the same time frame, boasted a retail lineage of 1,784,230 column inches, national at 244,536 and classified at 994,862 inches. The Post is audited by Media Records. The Times is not, and figures given by Watkins are not verifiable. Watkins predicts that overall advertising lineage for the Times will be ``up 47 percent by the end of the fiscal year,`` but it never has been enough to keep the paper out of the red. The Unification church, through its media arm, News World Communications, has poured an estimated $200 million into its subsidy since it was founded. The Times, however, has beaten its giant competitor badly in recent months on a number of breaking stories, including that of the double-defecting KGB agent Vitaly Yurchenko. President Reagan, who makes it a point to call upon Times White House correspondent Jeremiah O`Leary at every White House press conference, has been quoted as saying it is the first newspaper he reads in the morning, and Times editors have been treated to unprecedented exclusive briefings by White House officials. Even Weyrich, of the Committee for a Free Congress, who has criticized colleagues who have taken money from Moon, likes the Times. ``I do not have any trouble whatsoever working with the Washington Times, because the Unification church connection is all above board and up front,`` he says. ``Everybody and their mother here knows that. It`s just like the Christian Science Monitor or the Deseret News out in Utah, which is Mormon. We just deal with them like any other newspaper, except in this case we work with them a little closer because we think alike. They`re more inclined to give us favorable coverage and do more in-depth stories on issues that are of interest to us.`` At about the same time that Boren was arguing at a banquet with Mrs. Dobrynin about offices for sale, another banquet was held in Washington, and a purchase of another sort was being made on behalf of Moon. The Times was helping celebrate the advent of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual summit meeting of conservative leaders from all over the U.S. Seated at a table purchased for the event by the Times was White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan. He may have expected editors and perhaps a correspondent or two as his dinner companions, but he found himself right next to Bo Hi Pak, chairman of the Times` parent company, News World Communications, and several other high-level Unification church officials. The blaze of strobe lights from photographers covering the event gave the world a cozy picture of Pak, Regan and, by implication, Moon and the President of the U.S., smiling in friendly accord. Moon, who was serving his sentence for tax fraud at Danbury, Conn., federal prison, was not present for the event. He had been convicted after the Justice Department proved that he and his chief accountant falsified records to avoid paying income tax on personal funds Moon claimed were tax exempt because they belonged to the church. But Moon`s presence at the banquet was unnecessary. He had learned about a kind of power other than what Mrs. Dobrynin had referred to: the illusion of power. He had used his Washington Times to purchase the respectability that comes with association at the highest levels. ``If people are going to go out and overtly associate themselves with Moon, I have no problem with that either,`` Weyrich says. ``This would be analogous to the Communists funding left-wing organizations. If they want to do that and call it the Communist Party USA, that`s fine, because everybody knows it. It`s all up front, and we`ll rely on the intelligence of the American people regarding whether or not they will support that, but there`s a big difference between that and the Communists covertly funding an organization, which they`ve been known to do. ``If you`re someone out in the hinterland who sees literature on a conservative organization and you want to join it, but nobody ever really tells you that this is funded by the Unification church, that I object to. We do not, and will not, accept any money from the Unification church, and we discourage other people from doing so. We do not permit people who do to participate in our coalition activities.`` Nothing less would have built the business empire that now surrounds the Unification church, and though Ross admitted the holdings are extensive, he said they are no greater than those held by other churches. He denied rumors of unlimited cash flowing through the church to finance Moon`s political agenda. ``Let`s first distinguish between the Unification church and the Unification movement,`` he said. ``The church itself does not engage in political activities. We`re a charitable and humanitarian organization. The Washington Times and other activities which are basically critical of Marxism are funded by the Unification movement. We`re not out to make any kind of a dictatorship. The Rev. Moon is not seeking any political position. What he`s out to do is inspire a culture by ethical and moral principles. We do not follow the conservative line, fully. We are very concerned with poor people. Our church is involved in Third World countries. We`re very concerned with social welfare. We are opposed to communism, but we are not in favor of unbridled capitalism >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Pac Moon's????? [5/5] Date: Wed Nov 13 11:31:57 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 5 of 5... either. The Rev. Moon says he`s criticized by both the left and the right, but he`s neither. He`s a centrist. We are not right- wingers by any stretch of the imagination.`` Ross said the Unification church`s quest for income is no different than that of any other church and that most of it comes from individual members, rather than from its worldwide network of businesses. ``Every church engages in what is called church-related activities to help fund and support church activities,`` he said. ``Other churches do this on a much broader scope than our church in every way. One church, well represented in New York and Chicago, makes a million bucks a year at Bingo, not to mention real estate and other financial holdings they have. The Rev. Moon does have a vision in two basic areas. One is in media because he feels that education and communication are going to be essential towards having ethical and moral institutions. That`s why he`s so concerned about the Washington Times and why he`s made such a big investment there. He`s also concerned about fishing because he says that will be a very major area of importance in terms of feeding the people of the world.`` Ross said most of the church`s cash flow comes in individual tithes from members, 15,000 of whom, he says, are ``dedicated missionaries`` who give considerably more than the 10 percent called for by most Christian denominations. As a result, he said, the scenario so familiar in the 1970s of youngsters with identification badges peddling flowers on street corners --``fund-raising`` in Unification parlance--largely has become a thing of the past. ``Our members are older now,`` he said. ``The average age in our church is 29. Our people tithe much more now because they are becoming more established and they do have jobs and they do make money and they do write checks, whereas before we were just basically fund-raising. We still do a certain amount of that and that covers most of the projects within our church. Some of the money comes from business, and the reason our church is involved in business is that fund-raising is no way to make friends and influence people.`` Former Unification church member Hassan said the move away from fund- raising was prompted less by a question of public relations than by the realization that there was a better way to make money. ``They are notorious for taking members and putting them on their books as working in their businesses and saying on the books that they`re being paid salaries, when, in fact, they`re not being paid salaries,`` he said. ``In reality, the businesses are making money, but on paper they`re losing money because of the overhead on paying members. The bookkeeper writes checks out to everyone and signs the checks over to the tax-exempt side. Members don`t get them. They exploit every possible advantage and consequently, every weakness in our system of checks and balances.`` If so, the IRS is unaware of the practice. Moon`s conviction involved a falsification of records showing his personal funds to be church funds, but the church never has been indicted for irregularities in the bookkeeping of its many business interests. Ross denied Hassan`s charge and said he now works against the church because he left it under duress. ``Usually, the people who say things like this are people who were forcibly deprogrammed,`` Ross said. ``He (Hassan) was, and he has deprogrammed others. Deprogrammers put people in what we call a faith-breaking situation by force, violence or intimidation, to make them feel that they were cheated, and if you feel cheated, you strike back. If, for example, you have a girlfriend and you break up, sometimes you`ll have hostile feelings about that person. Religion is the same way. His charges are absolutely false.`` Not all conservative leaders favor Moon and his courtship of their cause, but few of them are willing now to criticize him publicly. Blair`s boss, Howard Ruff, who heads the political action committee RuffPAC, has editorialized against Moon in his newsletter, but he refused to be interviewed on the subject. Former Interior Secretary James Watt, who once was offered the editorship of the Washington Times and who still is active in conservative politics, failed to return repeated phone calls. Whatever critics of his religion or his politics may think of his methods, Moon has achieved what he set out to achieve. Mose Durst, president of the Unification church in America, who currently is on a 32-city promotional tour on behalf of the church, proudly proclaimed the success to members in the February issue of Unification News, the church`s house organ. ``Everybody wants to have us at parties in Washington and New York,`` he said. ``We`re the in thing now.`` Mrs. Dobrynin was right about the American political system, but for all the wrong reasons. Many grumble that Moon is wrong, but if he is, it is for all the right reasons. Like millions of immigrants before him, drawn, in the words of poet Emma Lazarus, from ``huddled masses yearning to breathe free,`` Moon might call the system a manifestation of the great American dream. Given the current state of law and custom in the marketplace of power, who, pragmatically, can refute him? PHOTO: (color) (Money changing hands in front of the Capitol Building). Tribune photo by Sally Good; U.S. Capitol dome photo by Penelope Breese/Gamma-Liaison. PHOTOS: (color) Above: John T. ``Terry`` Dolan, leader of the 300,000-member National Conservative Political Action Committee; and Democratic Sen. David. L. Boren of Oklahoma, who has introduced legislation to restrict PACs. AP LaserphotoS. PHOTO: Eugene P. Wigner. PHOTO: Bo Hi Pak. PHOTO: (color) The Rev. Sun Myung Moon conducts a mass wedding ceremony of Unification church members in Madison Square Garden in 1982: Respect is replacing suspicion over unusual religious practices. Photo by Mario Suriani/Gamma-Liaison. PHOTO: Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin (right) and wife, Irina, at a Washington reception in 1983. AP Laserphoto. PHOTO: (color) The Rev. Sun Myung Moon is released from prison in July, 1985, after serving 13 months for tax fraud. Photo by Kirby McElhearn/Gamma-Liaison. ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: NAFTA surfaces.. Date: Tue Feb 25 16:18:08 CST 1997 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: unavailable ** headlines: 169.0 **/ ** Topic: US Corp To Use NAFTA To Block Canadian Legislation ** ** Written 11:49 AM Feb 20, 1997 by econet in cdp:headlines ** * Written 3:56 AM Feb 15, 1997 by ENVIRO@salata.com in alt.save.the.earth */ * ----- "NAFTA:Threat to Canadian Regulatory Sovereignty"-------- */ CANADIAN REGULATORY SOVEREIGNTY THREATENED BY NAFTA The Canadian government's proposal to ban a potentially dangerous gasoline additive faces a threatening suit by its manufacturer - a US-based corporation - under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The case, says Canadian opponents to NAFTA, illustrates the perils of subordinating national regulatory sovereignty to the trade agreement. By Robert Weissman In one of the most creative uses of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to date, the Richmond, Virginia-based Ethyl Corporation in September 1996 filed a notice of intent to sue the Canadian government over proposed legislation which would ban a potentially dangerous gasoline additive. The cause of the threatened suit is a Canadian bill, known as C-29, which would outlaw MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl), a fuel additive designed to boost octane in gasoline. The Canadian Parliament is considering the MMT ban because of fears that manganese may be neurotoxic and because of concerns that the additive will interfere with computerised pollution diagnostic systems installed in most North American cars beginning with the 1997 model year. MMT has been used in Canada since the late 1970s. The US Environmental Protection Agency refused to approve MMT until ordered to allow its use in a December 1995 court ruling. Ethyl, the world's leading manufacturer of highly toxic lead additive for gasoline until it recently stopped producing the substance, is the world's only maker of MMT. The corporation claims the proposed Canadian ban is discriminatory against foreign producers and constitutes an expropriation of its property in Canada, and that the global bad publicity stemming from the proposed Canadian ban has harmed its goodwill worldwide. Suing under seldom-used NAFTA provisions that allow an investor to sue a government directly for NAFTA violations that harm its interests, Ethyl is demanding $201 million from the Canadian government. Central to the Ethyl claim is the fact that C-29 proposes to outlaw MMT not through an explicit ban, but through a ban on the import and interprovincial trade in the fuel additive. While Ethyl cannot import MMT, says David Wilson, president of Ethyl Canada, 'the government is not proposing to ban MMT - it is proposing to prevent its importation and interprovincial trade.' The importance of this apparent distinction without a difference, he says, is that, 'theoretically, in order to continue operating as a business, Ethyl is being required to build manufacturing and blending facilities in each of the provinces and territories in Canada. This is a local content preference that violates Canada's NAFTA obligations.' In reality, however, the ban on interprovincial trade effectively precludes Ethyl or any other potential manufacturer from selling domestically manufactured MMT in Canada, and Bill C-29 constitutes a de facto ban of MMT. The alleged discriminatory action against Ethyl 'constitutes a substantial interference with Ethyl Corporation's control and enjoyment of its investment in Ethyl Canada [the Canadian subsidiary]', the company's notice of intent to sue states. 'This interference is a measure tantamount to the expropriation of Ethyl Canada,' another NAFTA violation, asserts the notice of intent to sue. As the other component of its damage claim, the company asserts in its notice of intent to sue that the government's proposed ban has damaged the company's accumulated goodwill. 'As the only manufacturer and distributor of MMT, Ethyl has had its national and international reputation damaged by the government's contention that MMT is harmful to the environment or human health,' says Chris Hicks, Ethyl's vice president for government relations. Both components of the alliance that has emerged to support Bill C-29 - public health and environmental groups, as well as the auto industry - immediately denounced the Ethyl threatened suit. The public health and environmental organisations dismiss Ethyl's contention that the danger of MMT has not been scientifically established. 'Manganese, like lead, is neurotoxic and at high doses has been found to cause disabling neurological impairments in speech and movement,' says Barbara McElgunn, health liaison officer with the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, a member of the Coalition for Bill C-29. 'There is scientific concern that the inhaled form of manganese is particularly neurotoxic.' Acknowledging that scientific evidence on the safety of MMT is inconclusive, the public interest supporters of Bill C-29 insist that the burden of proof should rest on Ethyl to show it is safe. 'Adequate studies on MMT's health effects at low doses over long time periods have not been conducted, despite the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline for the past 19 years,' says the Canadian environmental group Pollution Probe in a statement. 'It is time to stop the experiment!' The issue of who should bear the burden of proving a product's safety or hazards may ultimately be one of the most important issues raised by Ethyl's action. The Ethyl case could establish a precedent in determining whether the precautionary principle - the notion that a product should be proved safe before being introduced on the market - can survive the intrusive scrutiny applied to government regulations under NAFTA, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and other trade agreements. For Canadian opponents of NAFTA, the Ethyl announcement illustrates the perils of subordinating national regulatory sovereignty to the trade agreement. 'It is absolutely outrageous that the government has allowed an American corporation to advance its commercial interests in Canada through a trade agreement it signed,' says Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians. Prime Minister 'Jean Chretien said he would tear up the deal if it hurt his government's ability to protect the health of Canadians or the environment,' she says. 'Well, here's his chance.' - Third World Network Features -ends- About the writer: Robert Weissman is the editor of Multinational Monitor, in which this article first appeared ('Another NAFTA Nightmare', MM, October 1996). When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us cuttings. For more information, please contact: Third World Network 228, Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Email: twn@igc.apc.org; twnpen@twn.po.my Tel: (+604)2293511,2293612 & 2293713; Fax: (+604)2298106 & 2264505 1549/97 ** End of text from cdp:headlines ** *************************************************************************** This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking service. For more information, send a message to peacenet-info@igc.apc.org *************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: NAFTA surfaces.. Date: Tue Feb 25 16:21:28 CST 1997 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 46 BT> The Canadian government's proposal to ban a potentially dangerous BT> gasoline additive faces a threatening suit by its manufacturer - a BT> US-based corporation - under the North American Free Trade BT> Agreement. The case, says Canadian opponents to NAFTA, illustrates BT> the perils of subordinating national regulatory sovereignty to the BT> trade agreement. This one just about knocked me off my chair with laughter... The ironicism is incredible. Anybody remember a few years back when the US tried to ban the importation of asbestos _from Canada_ and it was revoked as being in violation of a trade agreement? Oh how soon we forget.. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: NAFTA surfaces.. Date: Thu Feb 27 15:26:43 CST 1997 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo : BT> Central to the Ethyl claim is the fact that C-29 proposes to BT> outlaw MMT not through an explicit ban, but through a ban on the BT> import and interprovincial trade in the fuel additive. This makes no sense, and that in itself is suspicious. If an additive is dangerous, then why are they not just banning it outright? ... The best defense against logic is stupidity. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: NAFTA surfaces.. Date: Thu Feb 27 16:31:00 CST 1997 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: 48 DR> BT> Central to the Ethyl claim is the fact that C-29 proposes to DR> BT> outlaw MMT not through an explicit ban, but through a ban on the DR> BT> import and interprovincial trade in the fuel additive. DR> DR> This makes no sense, and that in itself is suspicious. If an additive DR> is dangerous, then why are they not just banning it outright? DR> I am suspicious of the claim that it is dangerous. I have heard many claims that people became very sick when exposed to it, for one thing, in Milwaukee. But many of these people already had chemical sensitivities or Persian Gulf Syndrome. As far as I know, there is no accepted medical proof of its "danger." Just a lot of people who know it is from their own experiences.