Sunday, July 30, 2006

Ennui




So many mysteries, so little time...

Was it the gentleman of eclectic past who once thought militarism might be undone?

Or perhaps the guitar strumming ghost from Wynacht's Point?

Or, even better, Professor Plum in the Study with the Rope?

Then again:




Macavity: The Mystery Cat

Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw -
For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime - Macavity's not there!

Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,
He's broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity.
His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,
And when you reach the scene of crime - Macavity's not there!
You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air -
But I tell you once and once again, Macavity's not there!

Mcavity's a ginger cat, he's very tall and thin;
You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in.
His brow is deeply lined with thought, his head is highly domed;
His coat is dusty from neglect, his whiskers are uncombed.
He sways his head from side to side, with movements like a snake;
And when you think he's half asleep, he's always wide awake.

Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,
For he's a fiend in feline shape, a monster of depravity.
You may meet him in a by-street, you may see him in the square -
But when a crime's discovered, then Macavity's not there!

He's outwardly respectable. (They say he cheats at cards.)
And his footprints are not found in any file of Scotland Yard's.
And when the larder's looted, or the jewel-case is rifled,
Or when the milk is missing, or another Peke's been stifled,
Or the greenhouse glass is broken, and the trellis past repair -
Ay, there's the wonder of the thing! Macavity's not there!

And when the Foreign Office find a Treaty's gone astray,
Or the Admiralty lose some plans and drawings by the way,
There may be a scrap of paper in the hall or on the stair -
But it's useless to investigate - Mcavity's not there!
And when the loss has been disclosed, the Secret Service say:
`It must have been Macavity!' - but he's a mile away.
You'll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs,
Or engaged in doing complicated long-division sums.

Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,
There never was a Cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
At whatever time the deed took place - MACAVITY WASN'T THERE!
And they say that all the Cats whose wicked deeds are widely known
(I might mention Mungojerrie, I might mention Griddlebone)
Are nothing more than agents for the Cat who all the time
Just controls their operations: the Napoleon of Crime!
-- T. S. Eliot

50 comments:

q said...

Moriarity, I believe?

I love your choices in poetry. I love to be surprised.

irlandesa said...

Yes, Moriarity!!

And welcome, Q, to our Parlour, where we, also, adore surprises.

q said...

Then I shall try to bring some surprises, returning the favour.

Spark said...

Hi there Darlings

Here's something I recently found on the Indymedia newswire:

Intergalactic Communique

Would appreciate the various good Parlour members' opinions: is this individual, as far as you are aware, a counter revolutionary Voz rustler, or should I take the time to send him/her an email?

Xx

V said...

Oh, all right, I guess if Spark can place Zapanews on here, so can V. I was going to refrain from this, seeing as Irlandesa is enjoying herself in the Garden swing under the spreading chestnut tree...

http://www.counterpunch.org/ross07312006.html

(My apologies as I do not know how to hot link the above article.)

Seems Mr. Ross is thoroughly unbowed by his recent stint as straw man.

a said...

Wow. Thanks V and thank you John Ross. Thank you so very much.

A.

a said...

Hi Spark,

The comunication is very real, sent from the lovely and soulful Lieutenant Colonel Moises.

A.

irlandesa said...

While one can only speculate, I am told by our ravishing Editrice at YO! that - when questioned on the recent renascence of Msr. Ross'intellectual and moral valor - she could only refer us to Jasmine and Peony.

They of the fluttering eyelashes and knowing grins.

Spark said...

Yo

Thanks for the info.

V: to work out how to use tags you might try looking at a basic website, one without lots of flash programming. Then click on 'View', and then 'Source', on your toolbar at the top of the creen. Then, with a little perseverance, you should be able to work it out from there by looking the the code and the way the http links are wrapped in 'tags'.

Anyway, I was going to show you how to do the tags here and now but having tried I realised it's a bit tricky to show as the computer just thinks I am trying to create tags/links and won't show them on the comment screen.

Here's the link that V referred to, for those who are interested:

Ross Counterpunch Article

News also that there is now a big protest camp in Mexico City, which I am sure you are all aware of?

Basta

Xx

V said...

Thank you, Spark. I'll figure it out from here with those good clues.

J3 said...

Q? B? V ?

We must all be flying quite high then :^)

QBV is the morse radio code for "what altitude are you flying at?" I believe.

Anyway that's my QSO for today.

B said...

...Yeah, gee thank's John Ross.

I imagine John, you have from reliable sources, that there would be the worst form of retailation. Any and all viable sources coming out with open criticism of the Red Alert... most definitly yes, (I am most assured from your profound instruction, Mr Ross) there would be exclusion... maybe to the North pole? Maybe even torture like pulling toenail's with plyer's and then a lovely term of life imprisonment (perhaps in one of the few public bathroom's on the territories, converted into a Gulag and kept in a top secret location?) Since there is such a deep and rumored chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between the autonomia's (after all they aren't their namesake) and the military command, this "retaliation" would be sternly issued (I assume from your 'pure' sources) from top military command, er, just Marcos himself issuing such order's: since he is a one man movement?

Okee dokee.

Were those poorly disguised intention's of another Straw Man, or merely nonentitly speak?
Voz WILL out (lol)

Anonymous said...

I'm not at all sure I understood the previous comment, but, in Subcomandante Marcos' last, very lengthy, statement (posted at EnlaceZapatista's website), he went into extensive detail concerning the reasons for the Red Alert.

He twice stated, quite clearly, that the reason for the Alert was the Atenco prisoners. One, as a demonstration of overt solidarity with them. And two, so that when people from "outside" came to see the communities, they would be turned away and "forced" to "look" at the Atenco prisoners.

He could not have been more precise about this. I have no desire to engage in polemics, so I would like to state quite categorically that I am NOT voicing any opinion on the subject.

As for fear of retaliation, I have seen enough of it (here, at the EnlaceZapatista website and in other places, both virtual and not)to more than understand why individuals might wish to remain silent.

Thank you.

V said...

Anon, Marcos is unlikely to be able to strongarm the Mexican government into releasing the Atenco prisoners, no matter how long he stays or how long the red alert is in place. It is my understanding that, under the current law, the Mexican government has the right to hold prisoners indefinitely while building a case against them.

It seems to me that Marcos would be far more effective in continuing on in his original plans and promises, leaving the Atenco situation to the lawyers. In the first place, as he continues along his campaign of listening, he could spread the news to regions where people do not even know the location of Atenco, thus building support. And his work of uniting various groups would continue.

I also think that eventually this archaic law about holding prisoners without real cause should be changed. It is not compatible with a democracy. But it will take a concerted and organized effort to do so. The desire for that change has to be there. Perhaps with pressure from outside as well as agitation from the inside, something could be done to solve the problem at its base.

Aren't there activist groups who work specifically on legal issues such as this in Mexico? I mean those which employ people who know the law and how to argue a legal case, not just perform street actions? Because as dear as street actions are to all our protagonists, they are not nearly as effective as a well-argued case by incisive minds.

B said...

To the 'thank you anonymous' it really was meant to be as silly as it sounded. It was addressed to the person who wrote the article. I believe Spark provided the link right HERE in comments.

As for polemics, I couldn't agree more. No more said. Just up above a lil way's is a link in Spark's post, that's from John Ross, called Ross Counterpunch...THAT'S what I was refering to. John wasn't silent at all as a matter of fact.

I would never refer to the Zapatista decision process in those tone's. Since you seemed a lil confused: it was sarcastic after Ross's article, not the process nor the Zapatista's. Perhap's a lil read of comments, here in this section, so there isn't more confusion.

B said...

Good Morning V...
The street protagonist has not incisive mind? lol Anyway...I remember someone V, posting that they were not that familiar with the situation of What Marcos and other's are trying to do for the Atenco prisoner's, including way's and mean's. I also thought there was a comment there about not being familiar with the situation or was it also the laws of Mexico? I believe the protagonist's are asking for support from the outside and even Moises has asked for the same in his recent communique, the support from around the world continues. Perhaps they need to send a letter or two to an attorney or group that insist's on supporting the underdog in a given situation. The problem there be, that group of attorney's has to be able to have license to practice in that particular state. If there be 'incisive' mind that has not rendered legal assist to the prisoners, perhaps they are afriad of rocking the boat. In all the lawyer's that have been employed have been roadblocked with illegal move's by the Court at almost every turn, this by the Court even against their own laws. Put simply, the lawyer's are following the letter of the law, the Court is not and that's what I see as the biggest reason the prisoner's remain prisoner's.

V said...

Good Morning B, glad to have your counterpoint, as always...

Most Americans are familiar with the law to which I am referring because it affects over 1000 US citizens each year. Mexico arrests and imprisons more US citizens than any other country. This makes sense just in terms of the close proximity of Mexico to the United States, but it is interesting that the same is not true of our neighbor to the north, Canada.

One can probably assume that a large number of those arrested from the US have probably abused Mexican hospitality in one obnoxious way or another. Nevertheless, I think the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is an essential basis for for comprehensive and fair justice system.

If Mexico hopes to compete in the world it will have to update the judicial system because the US will hesitate to invest in that country if its corporations risk having employees embroiled in long legal processes. I have read an article (I will have to look it up again if anyone wishes to read it) in which this very problem was discussed and some solutions (which included stop gap measures such as tethering) proposed.

Using this crack in a system which is already beginning to break down might be a better and more effective way to legally challenge the law which currently keeps the Atenco prisoners behind bars.

I have no doubt that those who engage in street actions are very often justified in voicing their anger. I would certainly not discourage people from having peaceful and well-focused demonstrations; in fact I would encourage it. However, it is the law itself which must change and it must be a permanent change if it is to have any real meaning. In other words, it must apply to all prisoners, not just those involved in the Atenco incident.

In addition, street activists are placing themselves at further risk of violence. They are going up against police and professional soldiers. If they fight, then they are conducting their fight in areas in which non-involved adults and children might and probably will get caught in the middle - we saw this at Atenco. One must learn a more effective way of fighting if one wishes to win one's cause.

My solution, if I may be so bold as to offer it, for those of us on this side of the border, would be to contact those Senators who are currently involved in cross-border issues such as this particular law and broach the subject with them. It would be in the interest if the United States to sponsor a proposal to Mexico itself to abolish this practice. Use that interest to further our own. For those on the other side of the border, in Mexico, there must be similar contacts which could be made - this is the area where my knowledge fails me.

As usual, everyone's ideas are most welcome on this subject.

B said...

Well I am at a loss for much time...but there is no specific law you mentioned that needs to change...and it appears trhough other sources that the Court is bending all sort's of judicial process in the Atenco cases, nit just one.

Historically, Mexico has been abused by the U.S. and has been systematically "EXPLOITED" through the ivasion of U.S. companies...correct me if I am wrong, Zapata Oil is a great example.

Atenco wasn't American citizens as far as I ahve read, that woukldn't apply.

There is no need to change the laws concerning the roadblocks faced by the attorny's for the Atenco prisoner's...THE COURT NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE LAW'S THEY HAVE FOR DUE PROCESS TO OCCUR.
There has been discussion about and interview of the lawyer's and what they are facing. This vague law you refer to doesn't really apply here. I will have to get the article fior you when I have more time. (in the eve)

B said...

appologies for the typo's...(s)

V said...

You have missed my point, B. I know no Americans were involved in the Atenco situation. My point is that this practice of holding prisoners without charging them should be abolished because the ability of the government to hold people is not compatible with a modern democracy. In the US we have a good chance of having some say in the matter because US corporations wish to practice business there and their own people could easily become embroiled in lengthy legal matters. They do, in fact. And it has proven to be very inconvenient to some very powerful people.

So that I see the US commercial interest as a huge ramrod which could be used to the advantage of those who would like to change the practice of holding people in this manner. No, it would probably not have any effect on those in the Atenco situation - they are now in the system already and will probably have to wait out the entire interminable process. In the meantime, they will probably not have access to decent food, health care or even toilet paper becuase many Mexican jails do not provide such things.

These are all fairly well-known facts about Mexico.

Reform could not possibly be an overnight process and I doubt very seriously that Marcos' presence in Mexico City would ever make a dent into the length of the stays these people will experience. The Mexican government IS acting within its rights to hold these people. It is in their Napoleonic Code (V learns quickly when necessary) from at least as early as the 1870’s.

And in the meantime, the communities are under a ridiculous and unnecessary “red alert” (why do they obey it?) and the Other Campaign is at a standstill. Marcos has broken his promises to his adherents. What a waste of time and money!

I know it is almost heresy to say this, but to ignore the power of the US business interests seems incredibly childish and wasteful. As in martial arts, one must learn to use the strength of one’s opponent against them, in order to achieve what one has set out to achieve. I think most of us here would enjoy seeing judicial reform in Mexico, just as we would enjoy seeing it in the US in certain circumstances. But we are not 2-year olds anymore who kick, scream and demand that the grown-ups follow our desires. It will take time and a lot of negotiation and a lot of genuine pull to get to the root of the problem. Since we do not have that pull as concerned individuals, it seems foolish at best to attempt to make significant changes without the assistance of those who do.

Atenco is only one example among many, many examples.

Here is a very brief discussion about the practice in question:

"An individual is guaranteed certain rights under the Mexican constitution, but those rights differ significantly from U.S. constitutional guarantees. The Mexican judicial system is based on Roman and Napoleonic law and presumes a person accused of a crime to be guilty until proven innocent. There is no trial by jury or writ of habeas corpus in the Anglo-American sense. Trial under the Mexican system is a prolonged process based largely on documents examined on a fixed date in court by prosecution and defense counsel. Sentencing usually takes 6 to 10 months. Bail can be granted after sentencing if the sentence is less than 5 years. Pre-trial bail exists but is never granted when the possible sentence upon conviction is greater than 5 years."

In general I see the problem in all of the discussions here and elsewhere as being one of not knowing where to begin. Hurling blame everywhere and getting nowhere. One has to make a decision and a choice. What exactly is it that everyone wants? What can we agree on?

Then how do we go about getting it done?

irlandesa said...

Can I presume that there's no awareness here of the role played for decades by Human Rights organizations in Mexico on these very issues - and particularly regarding events related to the communities, the EZ and innumerable other, similar, local issues? Including Atenco, including today.

Miguel Pro [and I suppose to the more casual student, most well-known as where Digna Ochoa was once employed], of course, nationally, and Fraybar, in San Cris, being the most notable, although there are many, many others. The incredible battery of lawyers who work, either through these organizations or on their own, day and night in Mexico with individuals and groups, as well, often, with international organizations and bodies [from Lawyers for Human Rights and HLP in the States to the UNHRC and the OAS] addressing specific abuses of power as well as more general patterns of abuse.

While street actions [witness the current massive disruptions in DF by AMLO supporters and recent similar activities in Oaxaca] are an undeniable part of the Mexican culture of engagement, the real work of securing the release of "political prisoners" goes on, behind the scenes, every day, often unheralded.

Sometimes, often, this culture of engagement is played like a set piece, with the ritual massing of supporters, "takeovers" of facilities and the taking of hostages, negotiations, the mutual exchange of hostages by both sides [Oaxaca, Atenco], and some purported resolution of conflict of generally limited duration.

The tack the OC is taking in this regard doesn't fit this pattern, nor do I have any sense as to what the pattern is. I have no understanding as to what tactics they are actually calling for in order to secure the release of the Atenco imprisoned [other than the small, regular marches at the site of the jail, fundraising efforts by groups in solidarity and encouraging public awareness of this specific incident].

Nonetheless, the legal maneuvers continue [as the OC well knows], and, in this instance at least [unlike in 1995], I cannot see public pressure and mass street engagements [especially given the current numbers] having any real effect on securing the release of these prisoners.

I'm left to assume, then, that the Red Alert and current halt of the OC's journey has to do with some broader theoretical and/or strategic purpose.

Or not, of course :)

V said...

Thank you for answering, Irlandesa. I was hoping you would bring something to the discussion, but did not presume to disturb.

I am aware of the work of certain human rights groups and this was exactly the kind of specific information I was hoping would come to light. What I am most interested in knowing is how extensively these lawyers work to actually change the system, rather than to work within the law as it is written. Perhaps only a Mexican lawyer could answer this question.

I also see street activism as part and parcel of not only the Mexican culture of engagement, but also that of the US. It is an important and legitimate part and if the demonstration is well-focused and well organized, it can be effective, perhaps not in changing a law, or even a situation directly, but in expressing dissatisfaction with a situation, as we see today in DF and among the women of Oaxaca.

I don't have a problem with organized street actions. I do see a problem with a riot, because it is dangerous and leads to more of the same legal issues we see in the Atenco situation as well as serious violations, injuries and death. Individuals involved in such street scenes cannot win against heavily armed police and/or military and the offenses from both sides and the emotionalism that ensues only further muddies the legal waters.

If Mexico had a justice system in which it was illegal to hold prisoners without charges, this theater of the classic "Mexican standoff" would not have occurred. It would be interesting to be able to affect a true change, which I think needs to occur, in the basic ways in which justice is administered. How this might be possible is what is of interest to me in this discussion. I think the possibility and mechanism of change itself may be somewhere at the basis of how we all decide what is the most important issue to be dealt with at this time and how we find a point of unity.

We have recently seen that it can take some time to resolve these issues even when the law is clearly in favor of the accused, when we examine what has taken place in relation to the issue of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It is indeed a long, hard process and those who take pleasure in abuse and are in a position to abuse, will do so with no compunction. We must always be on our guard.

B said...

Regarding comments made here...

V:

"I do see a problem with a riot, because it is dangerous and leads to more of the same legal issues we see in the Atenco situation, as well as serious violations, injuries and deaths..."

Putting aside the legal issues for the momment, this started with violence committed against people, who had not started a riot, but where thousands of riot police were called to systematically beat, rape and with or without intent to kill, did just the same. The legal quagmire came after they were arbitrarily imprisoned. There is the issue of their own legal justification for having riot police do this on innocent citizens, who were not breaking the law. I am gathering from this and other leaning's in past post's from you V, on the subject of Atenco, that there was a riot that started all this, that waranted somehow the use of such force by riot police? You forget this started with people simply showing up to work early in the morning, to sell their flowers from their small stalls.

"Street activist's are placing themselves at risk of further violence. They are going up against the police and professional soldiers. If they fight, they are conducting their fight in which non-involved adults and children might and probably will get caught in the middle. We saw this in Atenco."

Why or how can being in the street protesting fairly peacfully, be warrant for police use of excessive violence? How do they justify going door to door of people that weren't even in the street and dragging them out beating them and worse...? It must be the violent weapon of choice of street activists all over the Wolrd, like the second or third chorus of "WE SHALL OVERCOME" or a poster carried in a cartoonish likeness of any one president or official that warrants such use of force, afterall, the song and poster are so violent unto themselves. If I just act like the doormouse, say nothing and keep my head down, take instruction, I won't get beaten and arrested for being in the street? Maybe we should just let the incisive one's, make sure justice prevails, because if we let our voice be heard...well, we would just deserve anything they dish out? At the rate that the "incisive" lawmakers are passing laws to prevent protest in many countries TODAY, it won't be long before all right's to voice are quelled. Who benefit's the most, from laws preventing voice's from being heard? Hmmm?
Sorry I haven't figured out how to post a link in here as many time's as I have read the instruction at my site, but here is a little on the legal quagmire of Atenco...and not some illusory example of how it's being handled or should be handled: just a few word's on it from THE lawyer.

http://narconews.com/Issue42/
article1986.html

"If Mexico hopes to compete in the World it will have to update it;s judicial system, because the U.S. will hesitate to invest in that country, if it's corporation's risk having employee's embroiled in long legal process's..."

Half the problem with the judicial system is that it caters to the power brokers that be. Sleeping with them are the U.S. corporations. The U.S. corporation's only care if they can have an easier way to make profit while they exploit everyone in Mexico. They do it in many countries (the U.S.) and pay dearly to make sure the laws are in their favor, and not in favor of that of the average citizen. They care NOT for reform of laws to be 'just and fair' for everyone. It is not a matter of those from Atenco are already in prison, so we must possibly create a climate that is friendly to U.S. corporations, if Mexico wants to "compete" in the World. That kind of answer to the multitude of problems they face, is precisely why we have seen for so long their leadership "stick-em-up!" the coffer's and corporations run with the money. Giving corporation's legal standing or wiggle room, will not create case law for laws regarding human rights violations. Even the sacrificial CEO "lamb" and case law won't be enough for reform. It has to be tough and from the very top of the power structure all the way down and laws passed that include the upholding of human rights...who would argue against this, crooks? They, U.S. corpoartions, have too much wiggle room now reagding skirting the law and law's that cater to them only, why would you want them to have more?

Querida Irl... Thank you for allowing voices to be heard here.

TripleJ said...

I was not aware that the Napoleonic code presumes guilt rather than innocence. It is in use in France and having spent the first 25 years of my life there, I can vouch presumption of innocence is the way it is there too.

As for Roman law, I admit it's a wee bit (not much) before my time.

a said...

As I understand it, there is currently a set of constitutional reforms before the Mexican Congress, proposed by Fox in 2004, which include provisions prohibiting the use of torture, abuse of pretrial detentions, and establishing the presumption of innocence for those not already convicted of a criminal offense.

Yes, sent to Congress where they currently languish. (For some background, see Human Rights Watch 2006 report "Lost in Transition.")

Those observing or participating in Mexican politics during the Fox presidency know there had been years of national and international criticism surrounding Mexican human rights prior to Fox making these proposals for rights reform. Although I do not think Fox made his proposals cynically, he was certainly under substantial pressure to make them.

The tide of criticism leading to Fox’s proposals represented years of work among those groups and individuals mentioned by irlandesa (many of whom were spurred into action by the Zapatista movement), complemented by international investigations/reportage from other groups such as the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Specifically, the UNCHR conducted an investigation via a Special Rapporteur following the Acteal massacre in 1997, from which followed other substantive investigations, including a UNCHR report regarding arbitrary detentions. (If anyone is interested, I can post the links to that report, as well as to the HRW report referenced above.)

Thus, the EZLN, the people of Chiapas, and those murdered in Acteal as a result of internecine conflict brought about by the low-intensity warfare against the Zapatistas, have a connection to the proposed constitutional reforms. If rights reforms are indeed established in Mexico as a result of Fox’s proposals, it would be a grievous mistake to not recognize the consequent links from the Zapatista struggle, the tragedy of Acteal, and the national and worldwide outrage and action that followed.

Also, as V and others (such has Amnesty International) suggest, it is in the best interest of international investors to conduct business with states where rule of law is firmly established, and there may have been (and be) pressure from those sectors as well. The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone from which not only may basic human rights be built, but business may be dealt (ironically enough - or not ironically, depending on your perspective :)

Anyway, this all begs the question: why is Marcos and the Other Campaign not pushing for passage of these reforms - presumably still in political play - given the arbitrary detentions, torture, presumptions of guilt leveled against the Atenco presos? Is it hubris, confusion, disdain, or merely inflexibility that ignores this obvious opening? I agree with irl’s comment on how the current approach of the OC leads one to suppose that the “Red Alert and current halt of the OC's journey has to do with some broader theoretical and/or strategic purpose.” One of the more obvious broad theoretical and/or strategic intentions is to develop a revolutionary vanguard movement along traditional Marxist lines. I think recent words and actions of Marcos show that may be the goal. But I wonder, rather than foquismo, why not forum?

Or perhaps I’ve missed something. Perhaps others can shed further light on the subject.

A.

V said...

TriplJ, I was wondering the same thing about France upon reading the excerpt I included in my last comment. I have not had time to do any search on the question. There may have been the same type of reforms in France since that time as those A mentioned are currently on the table in Congress in Mexico.

A, thank you for saying in a much more concise way that which I was struggling to express. I have very little to add, except that it should not be assumed that Marcos is actually a wise or especially sophisticated politician just because he has kept himself in the public eye for some years while hiding in the jungle.

Two years on the docket is not really a long time for a bill to be considered, especially when it involves such fundamental changes as we are discussing here. It could take far longer, but it would certainly be helpful if the spotlight were on these issues and goals at this time and continuously so until they are achieved, by all prominent voices in Mexico, including that of Marcos.

V said...

Mr. Ross is on a roll...

http://www.counterpunch.org/ross08012006.html

Hmmm... FeCal. I must say, that IS rather inventive.

B said...

I was more curious about how corporate law has to do directly with human right's law's in Mexico's given it's history there? Outside, of course of the obvious fallout U.S. corporations have caused there, how they will with their "history" and a long one in Mexico, will be the cornerstone of human right's laws being upheld? Given the fact they have outsourced so many live's, move into other places exploit then move on to still other's, when their profit margin drop's slightly.

Given the human right's commission's refered to here, were in fact the result of human right's abuses, and not directly from corporation's.

TripleJ said...

Napoleon was a megalomaniac who sidetracked a perfectly fine French revolution to achieve his personal ambitions and fullfill his ego (Who does that remind me of I wonder? :^)

But he was no dill, the Napoleonic code always presumed innocence right from the start, anything less is unworkable.

V said...

TripleJ, you have piqued my interest, so I promise I will do some research on the subject.

V said...

Earlier in this thread I suggested using the interest of US business to help secure human rights in Mexico (and, it would logically follow, in any other lands in which the US is involved.) I knew this idea might be somewhat controversial and was surprised when only B reacted with strong suspicion of business interests.

My thought is that it is far easier to control business interests when the law is consistently and fairly applied and so it behooves us to be closely involved with such interests politically. And that this is a better alternative to having to deal with governments with well-established traditions of bribery, influence peddling, corruption and obviously, uneven application of the law.

However, listening to the protestations of B, I am reminded of the story of the origins of the Hindu goddess Kali who was created in order to conquer a demon, but then, after the demon was destroyed, ended up being a deity which also needed to be placated continuously, lest she destroy the very people she had been sent to protect.

What do others in the Parlour think about the general suspicion of business interests?

irlandesa said...

Perhaps, dear V, the reason for the thunderous silence in response to your remark: "...I suggested using the interest of US business to help secure human rights in Mexico..." was the perception that you were either seeking to amuse and/or be coyly provocative.

Might I suggest that you elaborate your thesis at the Lac, and, with a tubful of chronic at hand, it could be mulled at leisure.

B said...

lol Irl...good idea (s)

I thought the same on the coyness/amusement, but chanced that's what he was driving at.

I enjoyed your old friend's comments on John Ross' uh, um, er, well...his thingy.

TripleJ said...

V, how about the US business beginning by putting their own house..I mean country, in order before meddling in Mexico. It seems to me the worse human rights violations are happening on US territory right now.

Let's bring all the people detained in the Guantanamo Bay naval base back to the US and let them have their day in court. If they are guilty, hang them, shoot them, guillotine them, gas them or lock them up, whatever the law says, but give them a fair chance to defend themselves. And remember, any doubt must lead to an acquittal, that's what presumption of innocence means.

V said...

I'm not allowed to be provocative? Here, in the Parlour, of all forums?

Let's see... I'll put Irlandesa down as "thinks V should drown theories and possibly self in tubful of chronic.”

But I was half serious. Business interests must be held to the law and the law is the basis of real progress on human rights. TripleJ mentioned Guantanamo Bay and I did so myself earlier in the thread. I would like to point out that there probably are business interests already at work at Gitmo - what else could be the motive for holding so many prisoners illegally and for so long?

The likely culprit is the private prison corporation which now calls itself GEO, formerly Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. It is running the prison facilities at Gitmo, at least, according to their web site, the migrant operations center. I would be most interested to learn who is sitting on that board of directors and who has invested in this corporation. I am quite sure the needle of that compass would point straight toward members of our current administration.

http://www.thegeogroupinc.com/northamerica.asp?fid=84

And this is why activists must interest themselves in business. Intimately. Because businesses bent on making money rely on those bent on having power. And that means having corruptible governments.

This is not to say that all businesses are inherently evil. Corrections corporations are not manufacturers and produce very little of real use or real wealth. I still firmly believe that most businesses are interested in running a business and in running it with some degree of legality. They are motivated by profit and the best way to secure their profits is to make sure that contracts and laws are honored. When they behave in this manner, the general population has at least some chance of benefiting from their presence.

On the other hand, to reject all business as incompatible with democracy is neither realistic nor mature politically. All citizens engage in business in some way. Would it not be better to acknowledge this fact and open our minds to what business can be when it is at its best? I think it is a fit subject for discussion.

B said...

That corporation's have virtually no oversight in their action's, is NOT "political immaturity."

a said...

V,

I would not call it more concise; I would call it better informed.

Best,
A.

B said...

V,

Could you elaborate on the goddess Kali and the corpoartion? I didn't quite understand the connection between Kali, my comment's on the street protagonist and why coporations are so hell bent on exploitation with no accountabilty?

Please indulge me...

B said...

Bravo Irl, nods at V...

(from comments I made to both Irl and especially V, at the Lac...)

Corporation's redressing their past misdeed's, is a drop in the bucket.

Irl is quite correct in that they map out the entire planet and all the resources the Master's can manipulate getting their greedy hands on to reap the their annually increasing profits at the exploitation of millions around the world. They care NOT of future generation's having enough resources and merely clear their throat with guttoral sounds at anyone standing in the way, and worse. By way of deception they clothe themselves in the likeable almost lovebale front's of "environmental" and catch all phrases like "Donation's."
As Irl eloquently pointed out in her paper "...they have absorbed governments and institutions, given them task's and made them feel useful."

I am certain your fine feathered Emeritus, as consciously eco as he is, must be as conscious about the mega millionaire's he sit's next to too, right? While one of these mega millionaire's may have decided to resign as Director of Gap, Inc. I sincerely doubt it was out of humarian reason's and for the people of Palestine, since Gap, Inc. has given million's to fatten the coffers of the Zionist state sponsored genocide (which is only one company that sponsor's the genocide.)
Nor do these humanitarian's and environmentalist's give one iota for the Charcol People of Brazil giving their children an education so future generation's can get out of the exploited hole they are in, since these same Master's smooze the world's major auto manufacturer's who so desparately need those exploited live's and felled tree's to pigment their product. Logging practice's indeed...there's always more green to fell somewhere else, while they take the money and run.

It's not a matter of reconciling one man's suposed sincerity. There is no negaitve perception based on misunderstnding of what CI does nor mistrust merely because of it's membership. Action's speak louder than all the unobtrusive words they could ever cloak themselve's in.

V said...

"All creation is the sport of my mad Mother Kali…"

Who is Kali?
Kali is the fearful and ferocious form of the mother goddess Durga. She assumed the form of a powerful goddess and became popular with the composition of the Devi Mahatmya, a text of the 5th - 6th century AD. Here she is depicted as having born from the brow of Goddess Durga during one of her battles with the evil forces. As the legend goes, in the battle, Kali was so much involved in the killing spree that she got carried away and began destroying everything in sight. To stop her, Lord Shiva threw himself under her feet. Shocked at this sight, Kali stuck out her tongue in astonishment, and put an end to her homicidal rampage. Hence the common image of Kali shows her in her mêlée mood, standing with one foot on Shiva's chest, with her enormous tongue stuck out.

The Fearful Symmetry
Kali is represented with perhaps the fiercest features amongst all the world's deities. She has four arms, with a sword in one hand and the head of a demon in another. The other two hands bless her worshippers, and say, "fear not"! She has two dead heads for her earrings, a string of skulls as necklace, and a girdle made of human hands as her clothing. Her tongue protrudes from her mouth, her eyes are red, and her face and breasts are sullied with blood. She stands with one foot on the thigh, and another on the chest of her husband, Shiva.

Awesome Symbols!
Kali's fierce form is strewed with awesome symbols. Her black complexion symbolizes her all-embracing and transcendental nature. Says the Mahanirvana Tantra: "Just as all colors disappear in black, so all names and forms disappear in her". Her nudity is primeval, fundamental, and transparent like Nature — the earth, sea, and sky. Kali is free from the illusory covering, for she is beyond the all maya or "false consciousness." Kali's garland of fifty human heads that stands for the fifty letters in the Sanskrit alphabet, symbolizes infinite knowledge.

Her girdle of severed human hands signifies work and liberation from the cycle of karma. Her white teeth show her inner purity, and her red lolling tongue indicates her omnivorous nature — "her indiscriminate enjoyment of all the world's 'flavors'." Her sword is the destroyer of false consciousness and the eight bonds that bind us.

Her three eyes represent past, present, and future, — the three modes of time — an attribute that lies in the very name Kali ('Kala' in Sanskrit means time). The eminent translator of Tantrik texts, Sir John Woodroffe in Garland of Letters, writes, "Kali is so called because She devours Kala (Time) and then resumes Her own dark formlessness."

Kali's proximity to cremation grounds where the five elements or "Pancha Mahabhuta" come together, and all worldly attachments are absolved, again point to the cycle of birth and death. The reclined Shiva lying prostrate under the feet of Kali suggests that without the power of Kali (Shakti), Shiva is inert.

From: http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051202a.htm

B said...

Lovely as ever V...

Instead of a google search description, I would be delighted if you would indulge me in your own words...

Could you please ellaborate on the correlation "...However listening to the protestations of B, I am reminded of the origins of the Hindu goddess Kali..." between my comments here on the street protagonist, the corporation or what I actually commented here at this post, in relation to Kali?

Please...

V said...

Yes, my dear, no problem...

What I meant was that in the creation of a force to combat one kind of evil, one risks having created a force which is then unstoppable.

When I suggested (provocatively) that those who wish for a more honed and defined justice system "ride" business interests, I admit readily that one must then be on guard against the thirst and power of the business interests.

I am acknowledging your concerns and illustrating it with an ancient tale.

Is this more clear?

B said...

Si, V...

It would have been more clear though without any business interest's as I have commented on what I think of them...and it muddies the water to think of human rights and corporate interest's in the same vein. That's putting it as lightly as I can, given the subject. I don't usually think of thirst for power by those upholding human right's v. those upholding corporate interest's. The two are like oil and water in my mind.

Anonymous said...

I would think that,if "business interests" and the "force to combat evil" met in a dark alley- in the real world - the only one who would be doing any "riding" would be the business interests. And it wouldn't be missionary position.

V said...

Anon, I know it is an outrage for people to think of business in relation to human rights. That is why I tossed it into the conversation. Because we have all been thinking in one direction and it seems obvious that we need to change our thinking in at least some ways.

When one is completely dismissive of an entire aspect of the world, it affects one's thinking. Since everyone engages in business (you and I both buy groceries, for instance - that is very much a business transaction) we need to start thinking of even business in different ways. If there are evils somewhere along the way, we need to think about why such an essential part of our daily lives has become evil.

B said...

V...
It goes deeper than just thinking about how these evil's have become an essential part of our live's. A very surface idea, and many have been doing it for year's is to not shop, buy from or do business with places that have lousy business practice's. You said groceries...I have been shopping at, eating from food Co-op's for more than 31 yr's. I do shop at another 'food store' but they are as close as one can be to selling fair trade product's and you won't find a granule of Domincan sugar in the house. I mail order my coffee from Chiapas, to support cooperative's I am familiar with. I don't buy anything from companies that use thier monies to donate to any war chest (and if they have, they are hiding from even my prying eye's.)
There is much, much more that can be done than "contemplating" the subject and much more that should be done to undermine business that exploits people around the world than just selective shopping. There are many a group in many a place, who are watchdog's strategize, analyze, share & discuss: corporate personhood, corporate misconduct, etc, etc. The best being voz...oh, yes outing them vocally for their practices and connections to other's evil practices..

The biggest stumbling block I see and anyone can put their two cent's in here if they want...is that many governments around the world are suposed to regulate corporations, according to their laws, the U.S. is one with this law on it's books...but they deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. When it come's to legislation, corporate entities have the deepest pocket's and I don't care if it 'hair-lip's the world' by me saying this...but lobbyist's, and whole governments (depending on the particular system) are bought an sold everyday.

Corporations run amuck all over the world. To combat this and bring them under control will require a worldwide effort to undermine their practices. Some people in some countries choose to undermine corporations (and governments that cater to them) by starting up
co-op's and many a program to provide what is in "demand" at the local level...in a safer, cleaner, more fair environment and at a fair wage with no ceiling. More sound practices for the people and thier planet.
I say hit them where it hurts them the most: their profit's. Expose them for what they are, and get loud!

It is hard work to coordinate this around the world and put a stop to their practices, as they are like the Hydra and create a new venture (grow a new head) off the profit's of one business into another, faster than a NY minute, even with many people exposing thier practices and in one form or another to put them out of business.

And I again, do not care if "it hair-lip's the world" by saying I do not in the least feel sorry for the corporation that loses profit's or even goes out of business, for evil practices.

a said...

An effective (perhaps the most effective) way to stop rapacious corporations in the US and elsewhere is to repeal those laws that give them equal advantage or greater advantage to individuals. For example, US corporations have the same rights as citizens, the logic being that they are comprised of citizens and should be thus enabled. However, obviously, the power wielded by the corporate world bears no relation to that of the individual - hence the need for the repeal.

Here are some people working toward that end: http://reclaimdemocracy.org (I don’t have any personal knowledge of this group).

A.

V said...

How did you get to be so smart about these things A? This is exactly the direction my thoughts were going. I never thought boycotts had enough of an impact, but have not explored the issue long enough to have yet found any useful information.

Are you a professor somewhere? You are very much in touch.

Much appreciated!

B said...

Yes, A...the dreaded "corporate personhood" and a big reason ehy they get away with so much in the US. There are abolish corporate personhood meeting's and groups in my area and as well as around the US too. It is an old law if I recall, and was implemented at the begining of the industrialised revolution or very shortly after.

B said...

Interesting A...that group is in Bozeman, Montana.

There are many, apparently. I belong to one in my area "abolish corporate personhood" is the name. Same principles same aim, (lol) same name.