“In my next life I want to live my life backwards. You start out dead and get that out of the way. Then you wake up in an old people’s home feeling better every day. You get kicked out for being too healthy, go collect your pension, and then when you start work, you get a gold watch and a party on your first day. You work for 40 years until you’re young enough to enjoy your retirement. You party, drink alcohol, and are generally promiscuous, then you are ready for high school. You then go to primary school, you become a kid, you play. You have no responsibilities, you become a baby until you are born. And then you spend your last 9 months floating in luxurious spa-like conditions with central heating and room service on tap, larger quarters every day and then Voila! You finish off as an orgasm!”—
“I do not carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books. The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think.”—Albert Einstein (via ersal)
[C]apital is always about growth. You see the newspapers, and what are they saying, they say, ‘Oh, there’s a crisis, we have no growth.’ And people only stop talking about crisis when we get three percent growth minimum. Which means that this form of society we live in is actually given over to compound growth forever. Three percent compound growth forever. Now think of that for a moment. Three percent compound growth on all the resources that we consume. Three percent compound growth on all the money which we accumulate. When capital was about what was happening in Manchester and Birmingham, and that kind of thing in say 1820, three percent compound growth for a long time looked okay. I mean, there were all these areas of the world that hadn’t been conquered by capital yet, you know, Asia, China in particular, there were plenty of places to go.
So where does the three percent growth come from now? The whole world is saturated, saturated with consumer goods, saturated with that growth. And what has to happen is we have to start to think about the move towards about a zero growth economy. and as we think about that, we have to understand very clearly that that is a non-capitalist economy. That is a non-capitalist economy for a very simple reason that capital is about accumulation, it’s about growth.
“Whenever the need for some pretense of communication arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. […] This is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future.”—Audre Lorde (via andyouhavetogivethemhope)
“Economic problems pass, but their health effects — cruelly visible in hospitals and morgues — linger. Every “stupid death” is a rebuke to the systems that allow so many to go without care. Ten million people — many of them young and most of them poor — will die around the world this year from diseases for which safe, effective and affordable treatments exist.”—
“No one group possesses the theory or methodology that allows it to discover the absolute truth or worse yet, proclaim its theories and methodologies as the universal norm evaluating other groups’ experiences.”—patricia hill collins (via purgingmyguts)
"Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud.”
This is how the Chancellor began an email to the UC Davis community the day after non-violent student protesters were pepper-sprayed and arrested by the police.
Among the many reasons it is imperative that the Chancellor resign immediately, this sentence is indicative of the most important. Though it intends a posture of commiseration with student protesters, what it demonstrates is a damning incapacity to recognize their strength, their courage, or the legitimacy of the principles for which they stand. Friday is in fact a day that has made thousands of people on our campus proud, along with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people around the world. That pride does not stem from the shameful actions of the Chancellor or the UCPD. It stems from the heroism of the students they assaulted. Under a police attack verging on torture, these extraordinary people stood their ground, they asserted their political conviction, they stood in solidarity with their peers at Berkeley and across the country. They cared for one another, and in doing so they cared for the community of which they are a part. Not only did they do this: after being pepper-sprayed while they writhed on the ground in agony, they stood back up. They stood up and they told the riot cops to leave. In a remarkable act of collective integrity and collective will, they walked slowly toward the police as the cops retreated, calmly driving them off the quad and the campus with admirable determination. In an extraordinary gesture of rhetorical intelligence they stood before the police and chanted “you can go.”
I have never been more proud to be a member of our campus than I have been since Friday.
The Chancellor’s inability to share in this pride is indicative of two things which now compromise the legitimacy of her leadership irreversibly.
First, the Chancellor must resign because her actions on Friday have indeed become a mark of shame which tarnishes the international reputation of our university and will continue to do so. The Chancellor’s actions on Friday, and the script of backpedaling and obfuscation she has followed since, surely do not make anyone on our campus proud. More than 79,000 people have now signed a petition demanding the Chancellor’s immediate resignation. The Board of the UC Davis Faculty Association has demanded the Chancellor’s immediate resignation. The largest department in the Humanities, the Department of English, now carries a statement on the front page of its website demanding the Chancellor’s immediate resignation. The majority of faculty in the Physics department have signed a letter calling for the Chancellor’s prompt resignation. At a rally of thousands and thousands of students on Monday, deafening roars met any and all demands for the Chancellor’s immediate resignation. The student General Assembly has officially voted no-confidence in the Chancellor’s leadership, stating that “Her actions have stripped her of the legitimacy required to continue to rightfully wield the authority of that office.” Statements of international condemnation are multiplying rapidly, one scheduled keynote speaker at a UC Davis conference has already cancelled his appearance, and calls for an international boycott of UC Davis have begun to circulate, demanding the Chancellor’s resignation as a condition of association with our university.
In this context, the Chancellor’s decision to cling to her post is a stain upon the reputation of UC Davis. It is not “yesterday” (Friday 18) which is shameful; it was the decision of the Chancellor herself that was shameful. Her refusal to resign is just as much so. Her refusal to resign at this point is just as authoritarian as her actions on Friday and as her defense of the police following their attack on peaceful protesters. And this does not bode well for her actions in the future. The Chancellor continues to call for “dialogue” with the students. For their part, the mass of students continue to call for her immediate resignation. The fact is: the Chancellor does not listen to students. She has not in the past and she does not now. That is why she cannot understand that Friday is a day that does indeed make many on our campus proud. Friday can only be a source of pride for those of us who listen to the students, who hear their grievances, who see their determination, and who share those grievances and that determination. The Chancellor is not among us.
Second, by refusing to heed mass calls for her resignation, the Chancellor continues to make herself the focus of the student movement. And the student movement has better things to do. For example: disband the UCPD, end tuition increases, and continue to struggle in solidarity with the national occupation movement. Demanding and forcing the Chancellor’s resignation is necessary, but it is hardly sufficient. It is an important step toward securing new conditions of possibility for the student struggle on our campus—conditions under which administrators understand that there are consequences for forcibly dispersing student protests. But these are only conditions of possibility for the struggle against privatization in which we have been engaged for two years.
By insisting on “dialogue” and scheduling interminable forums with students, by appearing at student General Assemblies, the Chancellor only succeeds in insisting upon her own centrality. And the fact is, she is not particularly important. She is not an ally in the student struggle against tuition hikes. She in no way contributes to the “health and safety” of the university. Her presence on campus, or at student meetings, does not advance the struggle against privatization. By continuing to make the student struggle about her, despite demands for a fresh start in her absence, the Chancellor impedes that struggle. This is no surprise: the Chancellor has been doing so since ordering dozens of riot police to arrest 52 students and faculty at Mrak Hall in 2009.
These two reasons that the Chancellor must resign are connected. The Chancellor is no longer in a position to advocate for or represent our campus because she is a mark of shame upon our campus. The Chancellor is in no position to feign solidarity with the student movement since she has ordered police forces to suppress that movement since its inception. What it is crucial to recognize is that the Chancellor’s incapacity to stand in solidarity with the student movement is also an incapacity to represent our campus. The student movement at UC Davis is currently the single distinction of our campus for which it is most famous, with which it is now most indelibly associated. And rightly so: the collective political intelligence of that movement on our campus has inspired millions of people over the past four days. It has been more of an inspiration to me than anything I had previously encountered in my life.
The Chancellor should be ashamed of herself, as we are ashamed of her. And that is why she has to go. She cannot share in our pride.
Assistant Professor of English, Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association
In appointing LA Police Chief William Bratton to investigate UCPD police brutality and Berkeley law school’s Dean Christopher Edley to “to lead an examination of police policies in handling student protests at all 10 UC campuses” (LA Times), Mark Yudof travesties the independent thought and autonomy that students and faculty are now calling for. Bratton has made his career as an advocate of less physically violent police tactics that control and diminish public space in precisely neoliberal terms. The last thing the UC system needs right now is advice on how to make UCPD even more like a contemporary municipal police force. Similarly, Dean Christopher Edley is one of Yudof’s closest companions, best known for his end-run against the expansion of online classes in the face of faculty governance policies. A commission run by Edley is the opposite of an independent commission. Everyone who signed the petitions of outrage against the police violence at Davis and Berkeley ought to mobilize against this. (I hope the owners of the petitions can use any emails attached to the petition process to re-contact literally everybody.)
There is one thing that is good about Yudof’s move: it makes in the most public of circumstances the same move that he has made throughout his career as a privatizer of public goods. Yudof has done to the UC at every level and in detail the same thing he is doing now: passing off as reform what is actually vulgar cronyism on behalf of the 1%. Now this will be visible to everybody, even far outside the UC — if we make it so.
Hrdy’s gracefully written, expert account of human behavior focuses on the positive, and its most important contribution is to give cooperation its rightful place in child care. Through a lifetime of pathbreaking work, she has repeatedly undermined our complacent, solipsistic, masculine notions of what women were meant “by nature” to be. Here as elsewhere she urges caution and compassion toward women whose maternal role must be constantly rethought and readjusted to meet the demands of a changing world. Women have done this successfully for millions of years, and their success will not stop now. But neither Hrdy nor I nor anyone else can know whether the strong human tendency to help mothers care for children can produce the species-wide level of cooperation that we now need to survive.
“The drug war is not a failure; rather it works perfectly for its intended purposes. It generates billions of dollars for government agencies at all levels, employing millions of people. It created and supports whole industries such as drug testing, and has enhanced the drug rehabilitation industry. The drug war also protects other industries such as tobacco and alcohol, and even legal medical drug companies. It also protects the lumber and oil industries. The drug war even drives this Nation’s foreign policy. The drug war also funds gang violence at home and terrorists abroad, creating even more American jobs needed to combat these threats. The drug war also has the added benefit of conveniently side stepping Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties, allowing government to control even the most intimate facets of citizen’s lives, increasing government’s control. The drug war also guarantees a ready supply of drugs for children, guaranteeing an endless supply of new participants to support the prison industry, lawyers, law enforcement, etc. The drug war also provides government the opportunity to marginalize those considered undesirable, take away their ability to vote, find employment, get an education, take their children, seize their property, etc. Who in their right mind could possibly want to do away with this cash cow, and return to a time when there was no illegal drug use in this country?”—Mike Stroup - Literally my favorite quote against the Drug “War” and vividly paints the reality of things (via cwnl)
How Music Travels – The Evolution of Western Dance Music
To make it easier to trace the threads of music history, we’ve created an interactive map detailing the evolution of western dance music over the last 100 years. The map shows the time and place where each of the music styles were born and which blend of genres influenced the next.
Open Letter to UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi
18 November 2011
Linda P.B. Katehi,
I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.
You are not.
I write to you and to my colleagues for three reasons:
1) to express my outrage at the police brutality which occurred against students engaged in peaceful protest on the UC Davis campus today
2) to hold you accountable for this police brutality
3) to demand your immediate resignation
Today you ordered police onto our campus to clear student protesters from the quad. These were protesters who participated in a rally speaking out against tuition increases and police brutality on UC campuses on Tuesday—a rally that I organized, and which was endorsed by the Davis Faculty Association. These students attended that rally in response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons, hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty, and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and linked arms to protect them.
Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.
What happened next?
Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.
This is what happened. You are responsible for it.
You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get hurt. One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested. Associate Professor Geoffrey O’Brien was injured by baton blows. Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and they too were beaten and arrested by the police. In writing this letter, I stand together with those faculty and with the students they supported.
One week after this happened at UC Berkeley, you ordered police to clear tents from the quad at UC Davis. When students responded in the same way—linking arms and holding their ground—police also responded in the same way: with violent force. The fact is: the administration of UC campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress free speech and peaceful assembly. Many people know this. Many more people are learning it very quickly.
You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds.
On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.”
I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”
I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.
Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our “Principles of Community” and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing.
I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis. As such, I call upon you to resign immediately.
Nathan Brown Assistant Professor Department of English Program in Critical Theory University of California at Davis
As cities across America evict encampments of the Occupy Wall Street movement, similarities of timing, talking points and tactics among major metropolitan mayors and police chiefs have led critics to wonder: Is some sort of national coordination going on?
The White House says there’s no federal oversight. Speaking November 15 aboard Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said “The president’s position is that obviously every municipality has to make its own decisions about how to handle these issues.”
But a little-known but influential private membership based organization has placed itself at the center of advising and coordinating the crackdown on the encampments. The Police Executive Research Forum, an international non-governmental organization with ties to law enforcement and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has been coordinating conference calls with major metropolitan mayors and police chiefs to advise them on policing matters and discuss response to the Occupy movement. The group has distributed a recently published guide on policing political events.
Friday, AntiSec continued their private war with law enforcement by releasing a staggering amount of information on law enforcement agencies across the country. AntiSec claims the recent leaks and dumps are made in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement and motivated by a desire to retaliate against police for perceived acts of police brutality.
“what I saw in queer theory was this tremendous potential of de-centering what we understand as normal when it comes to sexuality, and applying that to the way that we’re dating as straight people, because I felt like that was the missing link. That all of this advice was hindering on the belief that all men act one way and all women act another way. These kind of stereotypes become that much more more exaggerated when it’s like: all black women act this way and all black men act this way, and all Asian men act this way and Asian women act this way—stereotypes that reproduce themselves over and over.”
[N]o pesky democratic voting. Voting has the power to over-turn the bankers plans and present arrangements. Democracy has the power to decide to default on the debt. So what the bankers need to do above all else is to elevate financial contracts ABOVE democracy.
If bankers can get us to believe that a contract signed by a politician to pay the bankers debts is above the will of a people to decide their own future then the bankers will have definitely won. Democracy will have ended and so will your children’s hope of a better future.
As long as the bankers can keep their debts in our future to be paid off by us, the tax payers, for as long as it takes, then today, here, the bankers can make money and live it up. Jam today for them, misery for the rest of us stretching away in to the future. Our future, not theirs.
Theirs, they are trying to make brightly lit and debt free. While yours, if they get their way, will be blighted before you ever see it. This is the risk we now run.
What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.
Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)
In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.
But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)
To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape.
CRP is adamantly opposed to the use of the term “Occupy” but supports the Liberation and Decolonization of Oakland. We have concerns about the current movement’s actual ability to benefit the communities that we serve in East and West Oakland, i.e. the real 99% that has been consistently negatively impacted by the financial and social inequalities systems long before the housing bubbles burst. For this movement to make real change, the struggle must address social and racial issues beyond the economic ones. CRP supports the movement for government reparations to the descendants of African slaves and the honoring of all treaties made with indigenous peoples.
We support the community takeover of the public’s visual space and we reject the notion that private property owners should be sole decision makers of what we look at. We believe that the current abatement standards are disjointed and incomplete and support a more holistic, community-based approach that involves local gardens producing healthy food, block parties connecting neighborhoods together, and creating lasting monuments that help define the area based on its history and its residents while creating a sense of positive self-identity.
In response to Denver Mayor Michael Hancock’s insistence that Occupy Denver choose leadership to deal with City and State officials, and drawing inspiration from the notion that corporations are people, Occupy Denver’s General Assembly has elected a leader: Shelby, a three year old Border Collie. “Shelby is closer to a person than any corporation: She can bleed, she can breed, and she can show emotion. Either Shelby is a person, or corporations aren’t people,” said a Shelby supporter at the time of her election.
Occupy Denver reserves the right to alter leadership status, but for now, Shelby exhibits heart, warmth, and an appreciation for the group over personal ambition that Occupy Denver members feel are sorely lacking in the leaders some of them have voted for on national, state, and local levels. Accordingly, Occupy Denver looks forward to communication with Mayor Hancock and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper sometime this week to introduce their leadership.
Newly-elected leader Shelby will be leading this Saturday’s Occupy Denver march against Corporate Personhood, and invites all other civic minded dogs (and their leash-holders) to join.
“In their book Snakes in Suits, Paul Babiak and Robert Hare point out that as the old corporate bureaucracies have been replaced by flexible, ever-changing structures, and as team players are deemed less valuable than competitive risk-takers, psychopathic traits are more likely to be selected and rewarded. Reading their work, it seems to me that if you have psychopathic tendencies and are born to a poor family, you’re likely to go to prison. If you have psychopathic tendencies and are born to a rich family, you’re likely to go to business school.”—The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen
CLICO Investment Bank (CIB) - Synopsis of Ernst & Young report
As Prepared by Counsel to the Commission
1. Ernst & Young Services Limited (EYSL) were appointed by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago on 11th March 2009. They produced their report on 24th June 2009.
2. In preparing their report, EYSL found a lack of transparency, and failings in what should have been the audit trail: -
· Financial record keeping was weak – appropriate information and documents concerning some major transactions were not available;
· Bank reconciliations were not properly prepared - the trial balance included “intransit” accounts and clearing accounts with significant balances and insufficient or inaccurate material to indicate how they should be allocated;
· senior management had directed certain transactions and therefore the source documentation for payments or journal entries was not always attached; in some instances the audit adjustments for y.e. 31st December 2007 had not been properly posted to the ledgers.
3. CIB was insolvent by $4.69bn. This was caused by inadequate cashflow causing liquidity difficulties, poor lending policies and large inter-company transactions. Some of these problems had existed from 2006.
4. CIB had been used as an internal financing house for the CL Financial Group and its directors. CIB had raised funds that were used for the CLF Group. In return what CIB was provided with generated insufficient revenue, was non cash generating or provided no return at all for CIB. These inter-company transfers and mingling of corporate funds was one of the principal reasons why CIB became insolvent which may have led to the need for intervention by the Central Bank. Investments in subsidiary companies were moved from CL Financial or CLICO to meet capital requirements or in CLICO’s case placed in fixed deposits to meet CLICO’s statutory fund requirement.
5. CLICO was a substantial creditor of CIB and so was vulnerable should CIB fail. In 1999 CLICO had sold over 19,000,000 shares in Republic Bank Ltd (RBL) to CIB in return for fixed deposits. The fixed deposit interest was adjusted for the appreciation or depreciation in the RBL shares. Additionally a management fee of 2% was charged to CLICO. This placed significant volatility on the earnings of CIB and resulted in a debt to CLICO of $145m at January 2009.
6. Investment Note Certificates (INCs) were created as a means to raise money through CIB. These funds were used by CL Financial to fund its expansion by acquisition of entities such as Lascelles de Mercado of Jamaica. INCs were supposed to be backed by securities earmarked for the investor. It seems that this did not happen. The total INC liability was $1.9bn, much of it in US $. CIB bore the risk, including the risk of foreign exchange movements and had inadequate resources to meet demands for repayment.
7. Loans were made to related parties, e.g. Stone Street Capital (owned by Andre Monteil, a former chairman of CIB) which were not adequately serviced by the borrowers. $64.9m was loaned to Lawrence Duprey. The loans to Duprey have not been serviced and at the date of the report had not been repaid.
8. Inter-company revenue accounted for more than 50% of CIB’s revenue. Most of that revenue was accrued not received. By contrast, of the $1.9bn liabilities due on INCs, almost 96% was due to unrelated third parties.
9. CIB paid fees of over $9m to consultants to assist in expansion into overseas territories that are fairly risky in nature.
10. At January 2009 CIB had a loan portfolio amounting to $2.1bn. However, a mere 20 loans accounted for 74% of that amount. This created a significant credit risk made more acute by the nature of the enterprises for which the loans were granted, in that they were in real estate developments that were incomplete and had not yet generated cashflow.
“The empirical facts of the world always already reflect a politics, and if there was nothing else besides the world as it already is, that would mean the end of politics itself. In order for politics to exist there must be some analysis of what is and a contention that something other than what already is could possibly be. To be apolitical is nothing more than to accept the facts of the world as they are without any contention. Without theory and a sense of the possibility for something other than what already is, the world would be (and often is) mistaken for an immutable obstacle course, and human understanding is reduced to a means for finding one’s way through to the end of life. Therefore, contrary to a common derision of philosophy as otherworldly and useless (i.e. the common lesson of Thales who was so involved in observing the stars that he fell into a well), both the world and politics depend on it.”—Richard Gilman-Opalsky
Port-au-Prince, 4 November 2011 – Two-and-a-half million dollars (US$2.5 million) to supply water to several marginal neighborhoods in the capital. Approved in 2006. But, five years later, the water isn’t running yet. Children are still in the streets bearing bottles and buckets.
The project is almost finished. “The end of October,” according to the funder. But not yet.
Why? And why five years? Haiti Grassroots Watch (HGW) and the students at the State University’s Faculty of Human Sciences investigated.
According to Walter Benjamin (who himself is drawing from Georges Sorel), there are two essentially different kinds of strikes. In the political strike, partisans withhold labor, with the hope that their action—which interestingly is an omission of action—will cause an employer to make certain concessions that the strikers have specified beforehand. Because it is assumed that participants are ready to resume work once certain demands have been met, the strike can be thought of as the means to a determinate end (usually some form of material gain).
By contrast, the general strike is what Benjamin describes as “pure means.” Such an action differs from the paradigm of political activity that seeks only immediately practicable goals—like wage increases, health benefits, and certain modifications to the workplace. The premise of the general strike is this: work will not resume once this or that concession is made; instead, people will show their “determination to resume only awholly transformed work” [my italics]. In a characteristically wonderful phrase, Benjamin writes that the general strike “not so much causes as consummates.”….