After my exuberant post yesterday in which I explored
various successful outcomes of the election, I spent a difficult night worrying
that my optimism had somehow influenced the gods of elections to punish my
hubris. This morning, as I took my walk, I rehearsed various forms of Internet
self abnegation in the hope that I could make amends. “Oh,” I said to no one in particular, “I would
be content if we simply took the Senate barely by 50 votes.” Then, fearing that
that to was too daring, I acknowledged that I would be satisfied if we were
simply to defeat Trump.
It all put me in mind of a conversation I had around the
dinner table more than sixty-seven years ago. I was sitting in Adams House at
Harvard with several friends. All of us were scheduled to graduate in June and
we were worried about whether we would earn honors degrees. Bennie, who was a
bright mathematics student and a royal pain in the ass, said in his high voice “well,
I wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less than a summa.” We all groaned and
looked into our coffee cups. Someone else said, “I would be more than happy
with a magna.” Then Wally said, “Magna! If I could only just get a cum.” That
was Walter Gilbert, who went on to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry.
I believe the Irish do something similar when they are worried about the potato crop. It involves saying "wurra, wurra.”
Kinehora!
ReplyDeleteCompletely off-topic:
ReplyDeleteThere was a discussion in the comments several months back about philosophical dialogues (I'm having difficulty tracking it down), and I believe Prof. Wolff remarked that Spinoza wrote some exceptionally bad ones, which led someone to ask: What did Spinoza write in dialogue form?
Well, I stumbled across one the other day, in Curley's Spinoza Reader (pp. 64-66). It's placed in the "Preliminaries" section, under "From a Non-Geometric Draft of the Ethics" (IV), under "A Dialogue on God's Causality" (F). A footnote indicates it's the second dialogue taken from A Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being.
You can peruse the Short Treatise here: https://archive.org/details/shorttreatiseofg00spin/mode/2up
Despite an appeal that I start my own blog and cease commenting on Prof. Wolff’s blog, I would like to make a public service appeal to readers of this blog who would like to do something which could reduce human suffering in another part of the world - stop buying beef, particularly from Target, Walmart and Thomas Foods. The PBS News Hour had a segment tonight regarding the increased importation of beef from Nicaragua because of the reduction of domestic beef sales here in the U,S. due to the pandemic. In order to increase its beef production for sale to the U.S., Nicaraguan cattle ranchers, with the silent consent of President Ortega (the supposed Marxist champion of social causes) are forcibly confiscating the land belonging to indigenous peoples who are supposed to be protected under International law. Ranchers are driving the Nicaraguan indigenous people off their property, burning their homes, and killing and torturing them. The Trump administration has withdrawn a regulation which used to require that all meat products entering this country identify the country they were coming from, but such identification is no longer required. The PBS investigative reporter tracked down the largest U.S. purchasers of Nicaraguan beef to a company called Thomas Foods, and the largest purchasers from Thomas foods are Target and Walmart. The journalist met with a representative form Thomas Foods and was told if they learned that the accusations were true, they would cease participation in their agreement with the Nicaraguan ranchers. When the journalist provided Thomas Foods with documentary and video confirmation of the confiscation of the property of indigenous populations, the Thomas Goods executive claimed that they were no longer importing beef from Nicaragua, but refused to provide proof that this was the case.The claim was denied by a representative of the indigenous peoples. Target and Walmart refused the journalist’s request for an interview.
ReplyDeleteRepublican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota has introduced a bill to reinstate the requirement that imported meat products identify the country of origin. I urge the readers of this blog to write your senators and Congress people to support the bill. I will not buy any beef products until I can be assured that it has not come form Nicaragua, and I urge others to do the same.
I heard the segment to which MS refers (I was listening to the NewsHour on the radio so I got the audio only). I don't buy or eat much meat, actually I don't buy meat period in supermarkets, but for those who do I endorse what MS says. In addition to Target and Walmart, I think the segment mentioned Safeway as a customer of Thomas Foods. Of course the problem is that there currently is no country-of-origin requirement, as MS noted, so it's impossible to know for sure where meat is coming from. If I recall correctly, the story indicated that "product of USA" labeling shd, in this case, be treated w some caution and/or skepticism.
ReplyDeleteP.s.
ReplyDeleteThere are other reasons not to buy/eat meat that have nothing to do w Nicaragua, but that's another topic.
An interesting consequence of the pandemic is that I have sought out non-supermarket sources for food. In the Philadelphia area, that means turning to local farmer's markets. Since March, I have procured all of my food from these local markets. While limited on ingredients, it has provided me with the opportunity to experiment with new recipes while adapting and augmenting old familiar ones. One simple lesson learned: Leeks are a versatile friend. All meat is local -- which means it is limited -- but just affords new opportunities for making do with what you have available to you. I have found it both educational and liberating.
ReplyDelete-- Jim
This writer agrees with s. wallerstein:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/opinions/if-trump-loses-lockhart/index.html
So the extreme cynic may prove to be correct after all. I hope not, but if he is, he is.
And then there’s this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/purcell-election-supreme-court/index.html
Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night. (Bette Davis)
JIm,
ReplyDeleteMy younger son is the executive chef of a restaurant in Harrisburg that, when it is open, uses all locally sourced stuff. He buys nothing from commercial vendors. A short drive out to Lancaster County markets may expand your options.
Christopher --
ReplyDeleteYes -- the single meat vendor I purchase from sources from the Lancaster area. I preorder twice a week and pick up the pre-packed bag at their shop. Could not be more convenient.
-- Jim
I sympathize with calls to boycott Nicaraguan beef.
ReplyDeleteHowever, such calls are simplistic. The term used to describe what happens in Nicaragua is “land grab.” That term became a thing after 2008, but land grabs aren’t new. I am sure with a little thought Americans will recognize in them the conquest of the West (with a little thought, Marxists should be able to recognize an earlier phenomenon, associated to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution),
So, I say calls for boycott are simplistic because land grabs are neither new nor limited to Nicaragua. Land grab is not necessarily connected to agriculture and its effects are not limited to the damage it causes to indigenous populations.
Here is a useful fact-sheet
https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/land-grabbing.html
Here is a story similar to the one PBS reported:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-murders-of-indigenous-activists-in-the-amazon-continue-to-rise
As I am sure Danny will remind us, global trade has lifted millions of people out of poverty. David Palmeter has worked on that, I believe. He could also chip in.
What he won’t be so quick to admit is that god only knows how much of the agricultural and mineral output originated in poor countries has its origin in land grabs.
But I am sure he will argue that such boycotts may throw those people back into poverty.
PS,
Tell American cattle ranchers not to feed their cows with Brazilian soy. :-)
Donny
Anonymous/Donny,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don’t get your point. And again, perhaps I am a bit obtuse (masochistic ad hominemism). Are you saying that because “land grabs” have long pre-dated what the PBS report indicated is happening today in Nicaragua, and that it is not just happening in Nicaragua, but worldwide, and just boycotting Nicaraguan beef won’t change the past, nor will it have any effect on the land grabs occurring in other parts of the world, we should not boycott Nicaraguan beef? I find your exposition about the universality of “land grabs” informative, and depressing, but what good does that do the indigenous peoples of Nicaragua who are being forced off their lands by greedy Nicaraguan cattle ranches, whose homes are being burned and who are being tortured and killed? So, unless we can correct the past, or boycott all products generated from “land grabs” around the world, we should do nothing to try to help the Nicaraguan indigenous peoples because such calls for a boycott are “simplistic,” i.e., they don’t go far enough?
If that is not your point, aside from providing us with certainly important information, what is your point? And how will boycotting Nicaraguan beef throw the indigenous peoples back into poverty? And even assuming this is true (which I have no reason to believe, since you haven’t offered any explanation as to how this would happen- sure the greedy cattle ranchers may make less money, but who cares?), I would speculate that the indigenous people would prefer being poor, rather than homeless, tortured or dead – a Hobson’s choice to be sure (assuming your alleged correlation is correct), but a Hobson’s choice in which one option is clearly better than the alternative.l
'As I am sure Danny will remind us, global trade has lifted
ReplyDeletemillions of people out of poverty.'
Who me? Well, sure, in Vietnam, for example, a series of trade reforms in the 1980s and 1990s helped transform the country into an export powerhouse, sharply reducing poverty there. But the poor do not benefit from trade automatically, and I see that I'm wading into some sort of debate about the increased importation of beef from Nicaragua, and how Nicaraguan cattle ranchers, 'with the silent consent of President Ortega (the supposed Marxist champion of social causes)' are 'forcibly confiscating the land belonging to indigenous peoples who are supposed to be protected under International law'.
I don't incline to insist that the locution 'International Law' actually means anything, but I'm willing to tarry for a lecture about what it means. I could maybe emphasize that I don't think it means anything if you don't enforce it. And by 'you', I mean, 'you tell me'.
Anyways, I gather that Nicaraguan beef is thought to be used largely for highly processed products such as beefburgers and pet food. I am not sure whether it is therefore beef linked to deforestation and human rights abuses, but 'the situation in Nicaragua continues to deteriorate' is approximately the last I heard, 'the economy has contracted by nearly 10 percent over the past two years', last I heard, 'nearly 100,000 people have fled the country in the past 12 months', last I heard, 'foreign direct investment has fallen by approximately 50 percent', last I heard. Nicaragua’s economy, one of the smallest in Latin America.
'What he won’t be so quick to admit is that god only knows how much of the agricultural and mineral output originated in poor countries has its origin in land grabs.'
ReplyDeleteGod only knows how much of the agricultural and mineral output originated in poor countries has its origin in land grabs. What, haven't you ever read a Michener novel?
I'm not, though, quite clear on how or when the term “land grabbing” gained notoriety around the globe. I might, just off the cuff, blame Oxfam. Not that this isn't a serious issue, but is there a definition that fully captures the issue?
ReplyDeleteDanny,
ReplyDeleteThe PBS report made clear that the Nicaraguan beef which is being sold to Thomas Foods, Target and Walmart is in the form of steaks and hamburger meat, not processed meat for pets. It is being imported for human consumption. And the report documented via video that the land of the indigenous peoples is being decimated, homes torched and people killed, just to make more land available for cattle herding.
Obviously, my boycotting meat, even if joined by all of the people who read Prof. Wolff’s blog, will not, in and of itself, put an end to this atrocity. But talking to friends and relatives to encourage them to join a boycott would help, and who knows, it might just save some lives. The ghost of Cesar Chavez insists that we should try.
Dr. Wolff ends his post with a reference to a mythic Irish story about St. Patrick and soon enough we are talking about a boycott, an invention of Charles Stewart Parnell of the Irish Land League. It is my impression that successful boycotts have a focused target and a large group ready to back the withdrawal of commercial exchange with the target. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the Nicaraguan beef boycott. For example, even if the boycott were successful here, and Target stopped selling Nicaraguan beef, there are lots of other markets in other countries. I think it will take governmental action to influence Nicaraguan gov’t. to stop the land grab, the enclosures, or ....
ReplyDeleteChristopher,
ReplyDeleteThere will be no governmental action to stop the atrocities against the indigenous peoples. Ortega is turning a blind eye to the abuse of the indigenous population, and has been doing so for years. The most I can do to alleviate their situation is boycott beef, even if it is a futile effort, and encourage passage of Sen. Hoeven’s bill.
This may sound like a foolish and naive question, but why would a self-proclaimed Marxist, who has expressed a concern for improving the lot of the poor, allow a segment of his population to be exploited, robbed of their property, and even killed? Is the answer simply that power corrupts even a Marxist, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
MS, I’m sorry for not being more clear. I meant U.S. action, unilaterally or through the OAS or UN, sanctioning the Ortega government. As to your question, take Lord Acton at his word: Power corrupts, etc.
ReplyDeleteOrtega is a tyrant and a fraud, but what's happening in Nicaragua occurs all over Latin America. I just heard in CNN-Chile that over 300 peasant activists, mostly indigenous, have been murdered in Colombia in the past 4 years for opposing land grabs or projects which would destroy their mode of life. I'm fairly sure that other Central American countries such as Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are as bad as Nicaragua: there's the case of Berta Caceres, grassroots environmental activist in Honduras murdered for her opposition to big business. There's the case of Macarena Valdes, Mapuche environmental activist, murdered in Chile and her murder made to appear a suicide for the mainstream media. Brasil under Bolsonaro may be the worse offender and I don't even want to imagine what goes on in Paraguay and Peru, not to mention Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThe only Latin-American country where such stuff may not go on (I'm not sure) is Uruguay, which is generally a more decent society.
Ortega, because of his rank hypocrisy, draws media attention, but he's the rule, not the exception in Latin America and probably in most of the third world.
Thank you for that depressing information, Stephen.
ReplyDeleteThis might interest you. It's a series that the Guardian ran a couple of years ago about the murder of environmental activists.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/the-defenders
here's the only article I could find in English about Macarena Valdes (it comes from German media, notably), native-American environmental activist murdered in Chile because of her opposition to the construction of damn, her death made to appear suicide.
https://www.dw.com/en/activists-demand-answers-after-alleged-suicide-of-macarena-vald%C3%A9s/a-47322678
The above article about Macarena Valdes says that 200 environmental activists are murdered every year, many from Latin American indigenous communities.
I will print them out and read them.
ReplyDeleteOh the horror! This is going to sound very sophomoric, but stories like these make one wonder what hope is there for humanity, when so many individuals exist who are willing to exploit – even kill - their fellow humans so that their lives will be made wealthier, when the capitalist despot and the Marxist despot are indistinguishable. Should I feel guilty for being thankful that simply by chance I was not born in one of these countries of the lost and forsaken? I know, I sound like some sort of sheltered, spoiled adolescent, but it is enough to make one want to turn to religion and hope for a better hereafter, where a son of God died to redeem us all of our sins.
ReplyDelete"but it is enough to make one want to turn to religion and hope for a better hereafter, where a son of God died to redeem us all of our sins."
ReplyDeleteYea, why do you think Catholicism is so appealing in Latin America?
s. wallerstein
ReplyDeleteWould you add Costa Rica to Uruguay as a decent society? I've often heard that that's the case.
I left Costa Rica out on purpose.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've heard that it's relatively decent, but my ex partner, still very close, has made friends through Facebook with a woman from the U.S. who went to live in Costa Rica in the countryside, apparently convinced that it was a decent place to live and she reports lack of concern for the environment, corruption and exploitation. Undoubtedly, better than other Central American nations, but I'm not sure that I'd call it "decent".
I certainly wouldn’t visit Peru, despite its beautiful Mayan ruins, given how it treated Lori Berenson (daughter of statistics professor Mark Berenson), imprisoned for 20 years on trumped (appropriate word for falsity) up charges of collaborating with terrorists, while Fujimori basked in the publicity of her imprisonment, and was himself later convicted of corruption and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
ReplyDeleteI googled Costa Rica's gini coefficient and it's .51, which is very high and indicates incredible inequality.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Chile, which is very unequal, has a coefficient of .44, the U.S. of
.41, Mexico of .47, while Norway has .27 and Denmark has .29.
A quick glance indicates that the worst gini in the Americas is Haiti with almost .61.
@S. Wallerstein
ReplyDeleteI see that you did understand part of my comment, namely that the Nicaraguan massacre PBS reported is not an isolated event and it’s happening everywhere in Latin America.
But indigenous peoples and subsistence peasants and countries all over the so-called Global South and even in Europe are seeing their land expropriated, often but not always by violent means. One of the links I posted above points to that.
Because that expropriation takes different forms, it is admittedly notoriously difficult to define. Danny’s demand for a definition is disingenuous, as is typical of his/her/its/their ilk. That doesn't make it go away.
But land grabbing is a term used by FAO and employed by academics. Whether Oxfam coined it or not is irrelevant. It’s a useful and recognized.
http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1010775/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2277976013477185?journalCode=agsa
----------
A case from Brazil (where land grabbing is called “grilagem”) illustrates. It comes from this website, from Brazilian lawyer Rogério Reis Devisate
https://www.rogeriodevisate.com.br/grilagemdeterrasedasoberania
An illiterate old woman from a village in Brazil received a visitor who informed her that she had inherited a large plot of land. And the visitor, money and papers in hand, was eager to buy her land.
The lady, of course, was suspicious. The whole story sounded too good to be true. But the guy seemed to be acting in good faith, after all swindlers never come with money and legitimate-looking papers; she needed the money and had no use for the land.
In fact, I got the impression she even did get the money she was promised.
With the property transfer document in hand, the buyer registered the land in his own name in another jurisdiction and proceeded to resell it to a large planter. I don’t know how much he got, but I suppose it exceeded what he paid.
It turns out that the land was a property of the Brazilian State, which has a notoriously deficient land register. In those circumstances, peasants often are considered legal owners of the land by working on it. I am not a lawyer, but I believe in English this situation is referred to as squatters’ legal rights.
Without her knowledge, by signing the sale document she was implicitly saying she/her relatives had worked that land as legal squatters.
Once the second sale was registered there is realistically nothing the Brazilian Government can or is willing do to recover the land.
------
The area dedicated to agricultural and mining in poor countries has exploded as a consequence of increased demand due to globalization. This trade has increased incomes to a whole bunch of people, in poor and in rich countries. That is true.
However, how much of that increased area is due to land grabbing is anyone’s guess, as is the volume and value of the output produced. When people speak of the millions globalization lifted out of poverty, they never mention this.
-----
A separate but related thing is Larry Summers’ 1991 memo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo
As you can judge by the text included, humour is in the eye of the beholder.
I forgot to sign, but that last comment is by Donny
ReplyDelete